Promise of an early resolution for the £3.6 million 50s born women to get compensation for their delayed pensions appear to have been dashed with no movement from the Parliamentary Ombudsman to solve the problem.
Despite a court agreement in May to revise the final report on compensation for the women to correct what Waspi calls the Ombudsman’s “legally flawed” decision to award minimum compensation for the women who have lost up to £50,000 by the six year delay they faced when the pension age was raised from 60 to 66, nothing has happened. Waspi has raised £147,500 from the public for a judicial review of the decision which never happened.
The Waspi statement in May was very confident the organisation could hold Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s feet to the fire and get great concessions for the women. At a Labour Party Conference meeting last year, Angela Madden, chair of Waspi, said she would expect women to get £10,000 a year compensation. See my blog here.
What a contrast with the downbeat statement a few days ago.
“”WASPI are disappointed and frustrated by the length of time that the Ombudsman is taking to rewrite his Second Report on the injustices cause by DWP maladministration. The Court Order requiring that reconsideration was sealed on 12 May 2023. It is unclear precisely what has been done since then.
” We can confirm that neither we nor, as far as we are aware, any of the sample complainants have been contacted to comment on a draft, or on anything new that the Ombudsman has gathered from the DWP. That opportunity to comment is guaranteed by the Court Order, which suggests that finalisation of the report is still some way off.”
In desperation Waspi have got their lawyers, Bindman’s, to write to the Ombudsman. But as their statement says:
“We have not had the courtesy of a reply. We also have asked for a meeting with William Wragg MP, the Chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), to whom the Ombudsman reports. That meeting has yet to take place.”
Failure to reply is quite common from the Ombudsman’s Office. BackTo60, who have repeatedly told the Ombudsman that he should have to consider whether the failure to compensate the women is in breach of international agreements signed by the UK government which ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),.
This argument is particular powerful following the report by Dr Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner and judge, which found it was in breach of CEDAW and was clearly discriminatory against the 50swomen.
Now while it might be convenient for the government and the Ombudsman to pretend this report doesn’t exist, the findings are being taken seriously by the committee implementing the convention in Geneva who have to do a report to the UN on Britain’s compliance with it. Given the Ombudsman’s public pride of his role on the international scene with other Ombudsmen his reputation could easily be sullied if he is found to have ignored an international convention.
But perhaps he doesn’t care. The other major development while Waspi was awaiting his report is that he is to step down from the job next March. He announced this in his annual report published on July 20 which he said was his valedictory report.
This means when Parliament comes back in September the emphasis will switch to finding a successor, drawing up a short list and having the new Ombudsman’s appointment scrutinised and approved by Parliament via the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
What should worry Waspi, which chose to go down this route, is there must be a temptation to delay his findings so his successor has to sort it out. Also even if he does come out with his findings before he leaves, it will be up to his successor to persuade the government to implement them. Given by then Parliament will be engulfed with preparations to fight the next general election, the government might be tempted to push it into the long grass or make vague promises in the hope of garnering votes.
The annual report provides some interesting facts and figures on the operation of the Ombudsman’s Office. A table reveals who uses it showing more women than men complain to the Ombudsman and the main age groups are between 35 and 74 and 84 per cent are white.
The report also reveals disabled people are heavily reliant on it. When one looks at the breakdown of the board however, there is not a single person with experience of a disability on it, which means the disabled have no voice at the top of the organisation. The board has one gay member and three people from ethnic minorities.
The organisation fares well in the employment of women both among its staff and the board as 59 per cent of staff and 58 per cent of the board are women. Disabled people form 13 per cent of the staff just above gay people and just below people from ethnic minorities.
The report also shows that some £588,000 of taxpayers money was spent on management consultancy last year compared with just £22,000 the previous year. This does seem an extraordinary amount of money from a budget which the government has limited.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my forensic reporting.
Make a one-time donation
Make a monthly donation
Make a yearly donation
Choose an amount
Or enter a custom amount
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
Your contribution is appreciated.
DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearlyPlease donate to Westminster Confidential
£10.00
Westminster Confidential 
It’s time we realised that financial compensation is unlikely. The chancellor has admitted they are unlikely to be able to find the £22 billion to further compensate the victims of the tainted blood scandal . £22 billion is much less than the amount needed to satisfy waspi and a delayed pension is hardly comparable with the loss of a love one through NHS negligence
LikeLike
Getting rid of Nom Dom tax status would bring in an estimated £36 billion. Cutting out tax ‘avoidance’ several billion more. Many billions were wasted on useless PPE and false furlough claims. There’s money for wars, migrants, foreign aid, HS2…..
There’s plenty of money – the 1950’s women and the blood scandal aren’t an either/or. Both can, and should, be compensated.
LikeLike
Are you an ignoramous?270.000 feb 23 was the number of 50s women whod died waiting for thier money theyd paid in all thier working lives Robbed of 6 years pensions by dwp amd politicians just stole our money ? Many lost thiet homes.thoer b7sinesses more lost yjorr l8ves as did my Sister year between us both 50s women sje raosed 3 choldren worled paid in all her life we were told at 16 in Cateers shpwn ni crty9ficaye told you will grt your Pension at 60 wr kept iur side of the contract .tjey should be prosecuted and jailed
LikeLike
Simple case of when it gets tough take the money and run. Do your job
LikeLike
Re the Ombudsman ….. If it looks like an idiot, squawks like one, smells like one ,…… It’s definitely one ! Appalling !
LikeLike
No offence but you are fighting a losing battle. DWP will never pay compensation as it’s a hugh and costly mistake to swallow.
However I admire your persistence.
Best wishes Indira
LikeLike
It’s money WE have paid in…! it’s our money we want returning its simple!
LikeLike
It’s a bit late for them to crawl back under the stone where they came from !
LikeLike
The cloak and dagger policy continues. First the cloak of deceit, delay and cover up – then the dagger in the hearts of victims. Having once been down the tortuous route of using the Ombudsman on a health related matter, his first response was to exonerate the NHS Trust concerned. It was only two years nine months later, and then only after attending a group visit (about 30 people) by PHSO The Facts pressure group at his offices in Millbank Tower, did the Ombudsman eventually review my case and found the Trust at fault. What happened next was even more astonishing. He refused to tell the Trust of his revised findings and I had to get my MP to do it instead. It is worth noting that, after the meeting with PHSO The Facts, he cut communications citing our ‘serious and unfounded allegations’. Yes the allegations were serious but to this day, despite attempts to elicit what he considered ‘unfounded’ he has refused to elaborate. So much for open and transparent communication.
PHSO is not fit for purpose and the parliamentary scrutiny by the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee woeful. The arrogance of this Ombudsman is there for all to see. Overall he fails the public. The reality is the legislation governing his powers is deliberately weak and he is unable to force any of the bodies in jurisdiction that he increasingly rarely investigates to comply with his recommendations. All he can legally do is lay a report before parliament.
Why any potential successor would want such a ‘non- job’ is beyond me – unless of course it is just for the money. Public enquiry required
LikeLike
Cloak and dagger – what a great analogy to describe the Ombudsman. Another would be bait and switch. PHSO deliberately bait unwitting complainants with their drip-feed of PR saying the Ombudsman wants to help more people complain. Then once you are in the system it will switch until you feel as though you are the one under investigation. And don’t try to point out their manipulating ways or they will threaten you with their behaviour policy. The Ombudsman is not fit for purpose but positively dangerous to your health.
LikeLike
While the 1950s women clamour for attention , a thought must be spared for the Ombudsman who naturally will be concerned that the Venice Principles are water tight.
For any who need to be reminded of the particular Venice Principle:-
3. ‘The Ombudsman Institution shall be given an appropriately high rank,
also reflected in the remuneration of the Ombudsman and in the retirement
compensation.’
I’m sure we all wish the Ombudsman the retirement he deserves.
Sailing up the Grand Canal into a golden sunset seems more attractive than being stuck in a creek without a paddle.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I wonder if I could apply for this non-job? I’d just like the money? The pay of a High Court judge would just do me nicely. Apparently it doesn’t matter about the outcomes being……you can choose your own words.
I could swan around other countries telling people how important I am…when I’m not paid to do that; and should be at home handing out justice.
Maybe I wouldn’t apply, I guess anyone with a moral conscience couldn’t do the job really.
LikeLike
Not only is the Ombudsman quitting in March next year but the Deputy Ombudsman and CEO Amanda Amroliwala has already quit. She spoke extensively about the Women’s Pensions issue and the expected deadlines for production of the reports at last year’s “scrutiny” by PACAC. Perhaps she saw the writing on the wall and decided to abandon ship before the impending shipwreck of the new decision and report. Rob Behrens contract expires in March so he cannot follow suit until then.
Regarding the “limited budget”, the budget for the PHSO has increased by 50% over the last three years, from about £27 million to about £40 million, so the Ombudsman is not short of cash to spend on consultants. The number of staff has increased by 40% over the same period, from 394 to 549. This is the largest budget and highest staff levels on record, while the number of investigations carried out by the PHSO over the last three years has been the lowest in over 10 years.
LikeLike
Nicholas, Thanks for this. The figures you quoted make the case for the Ombudsman worse – more money, more staff but fewer investigations.
LikeLike
Politicians at its best
all the same . Always promising something Always moving the goal post.
And the ombudsman should be
Sacked or stoned how can he sleep at night .
Stepping down .
He should be stripped and sent through the town why we all shout SHAME
This has the government written all over it.
LikeLike
Hello to you all
My sincere thanks to you all for all your persistence it’s very much appreciated.
Best wishes
<
div>Lynne Andrew
Sent from my iPhone
<
div dir=”ltr”>
<
blockquote type=”cite”>
LikeLike
The sad truth here is that it’s all because we are “only” women. This could never have happened to men and if it had it would have been fixed years ago. I wish we had progressed further but it’s tantamount to abuse and gaslighting. Stay strong.
LikeLike
The change in pension age was to combat an historical discrimination against men, who had to wait 5 years longer to receive their pension. To claim that failure to secure compensation is because “we are only women” is a nonsense. If anyone should be compensated, it is the men who reached 60 over decades and decades but couldn’t draw a pension. Equality works both ways, ladies.
LikeLike
Ronald you forget until 2018 men who decided to retire at 60 on a private pension would get all their national insurance contributions paid by the state until they were 65 so they could get a bigger state pension This was never offered to women – even when their retirement age was transitioning to 66.
LikeLike
What David said but, also, it was a parliament of men (bar 11 female) MPs who fixed the pension ages based on the average age gap of married couples at that time. Married men got the Married Man’s Premium In addition to his State Pension when his wife retired so it suited them for their wives to « retire » about the same time as them. I’d like you to appreciate that women who retired at 60 rarely took up golf and stamp collecting to fill the hours, rather took on child care and elderly care. This still goes on except now we are also continuing to have to work as well, and it is fact that our work-related pensions are not equitable with men’s , many having been excluded from pension schemes for many years.
LikeLike
Why would anyone ever trust a Tory is beyond me e.g. Boris Johnson and the rest of chances pretending to be ministers
LikeLike
Quite correct a bunch of underworked chancers think Tory and Remember poll tax fiasco black Wednesday miners strike credit Liz truss I could go on all day it is also so sad for britain
LikeLike
Why is Liz Truss still working as an MP she should do the decent thing and resign or was she just the fall guy for an already planned hike in interest rates..
LikeLike