The 18 year old research report that derailed work and pension secretary Pat Mc Fadden and forced him to review his decision to pay nothing in compensation to 3.6 million 50s born women is a comprehensive and damning document. No wonder he didn’t go into details in his Parliamentary statement this week on what the Labour government then did not do to inform the women and the first cohort of men who faced a rise in the pension age.
The key finding by researchers on the exercise of sending 16 million letters with automatic pension forecasts was that it was a “ systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of provision.”
The research is very thorough. It took over a year to do it. It involved covering 16 million letters. Researchers interviewed 11,690 people. It involved both the women in the target 50-59 age group and men aged 59-64. ( 2007 was the year it was revealed that both men and women faced the pension age going up to 66). But it also involved men and women aged 20-49 to see if they were aware of the pension changes.
The first fact discovered was that out of the 16 million letters sent out, staggeringly 11 million went unread.
The report said The APF ( automatic pension forecast) was least effective among those who most needed it:
- Those with no pension knowledge: 16% readership
- Those without pension provision: 25% readership
- Younger people: 20-24% readership
- Lower socioeconomic groups: 30% readership
This represents a systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of intervention.
All the letters did was reinforce people better off people’s decision to take early action to safeguard themselves.
It said This suggests the APF largely reached people who would have acted anyway, providing little marginal benefit.
There was also a Self-Selection Bias.
Those who read the APF were systematically different:
- 64% already had basic/good pension knowledge
- 33% already had pension provision
- Higher income and socioeconomic status
The APF appears to have reinforced existing advantages rather than closing gaps.
It concluded:” “This research provides rigorous evidence that mass information provision, while well-intentioned, has minimal impact on pension knowledge or retirement planning behaviour. The APF initiative reached 16 million people but meaningfully engaged only about 5 million, with measurable behavioural impact likely affecting fewer than 1-2 million.
It lays down three fundamental truths.
- Information Is Not Enough Knowledge deficits are not the primary barrier to retirement planning. The research shows that those with the greatest information needs were least likely to engage with information provided.
- Existing Advantages Compound The APF was most effective among those who already had pension knowledge, existing provision, higher incomes, and greater financial capability—reinforcing rather than reducing pension inequality.
- Behaviour Change Requires Architecture, Not Just Information The minimal difference between APF and control groups demonstrates that passive information provision cannot drive behaviour change for complex, long-term decisions like retirement plan.
The report did tell ministers what they should do and why it was needed – that included specifically targeting the groups who did not respond in the future and running a systematic campaign to raise awareness of the change. As the Parliamentary Ombudsman found the result was maladministration.
DWP in ministerial flux
The ministry at the time was in flux. The year 2007 saw Peter Hain replaced by John Hutton – now both peers – as work and pension secretaries. The minister responsible for pensions changed as well from Mike O’Brien ( long left Parliament and working as a lawyer) and Dame Rosie Winterton.
There was zilch coverage in the media about its findings – the Iraq War was raging at the time – and it is not clear whether the report was kept for internal use anyway.
What will the impact be? First Pat McFadden says the review would not necessarily lead to the government paying out compensation. Secondly it could affect the judicial review brought by WASPI on the failure to act on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report and pay out compensation, as he said he had informed the high court about his decision to review the issue.
This could torpedo the hearing due on December 9 because judges may not want to hear the case if the minister says he is reviewing the situation.
As I have stated many times this would not have happened as CedawinLaw , the other main group campaigning for restitution for women, has said if they had applied instead for mediation and a court ruling to enforce it. But sadly WASPI has always refused to work with other groups wanting to create an impression in the media that they are the only people concerned about the issue.
Also the issue of past discrimination against these women as well as maladministration could have been included in the case. But Waspi do not seem to be bothered about this.
Not so transparent McFadden
There is one other issue to raise. Pat McFadden made a big issue of being transparent in his statement. But in fact he made it difficult for journalists to access this report. Normally when a minister makes a statement – and it will the case in the Budget – all the papers are available in the Vote Office to lobby journalists. In this case this paper was only available in the House of Commons library which can only be accessed by MPs. I would like to thank the anonymous MP who got me a copy.
Since then the library have allowed the report to be available to the public. The link is here.
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 yearlyYou can also donate via PayPal using the link below.
Westminster Confidential 
Never got any letters .Worked in a Jobcentre and there wernt any leaflets.My husband passed away in 2004 so expected to inherit his pension but without any consultation or notification that was changed in 2016 and as I only paid a married woman’s stamp so was entitled to a lot less.This was so well publicised I only found out talking at an event to a colleague. Was born in Dec 1953 so got hit with waspi and had to wait another 6 years 3 months.
LikeLike
Cedawinlaw is a minority group that represents only a tiny percentage of women affected by pension loss, and has shunned anyone who questions their strategy. ‘Waspi’ has become the generic name for this issue, like it or not: those running the official Waspi campaign are not perfect, like any grassroots campaign, but have made significant achievements, unlike the former BT60/Cedaw grouping. This should be acknowledged: the other point is that there is nothing to be gained by referring to the past discrimination we all know was experienced by Waspi era women – the court case finished that line of argument, and no political party will ever provide ‘full restitution’: the only realistic outcome is via compensation. Frankly, it is really astounding that the government has been forced by Waspi (and its own backbenchers worried about losing their seats) into reconsidering their previous, infamous rejection of any pay out.
LikeLike
You are misinformed. CedarinLaw wanted all groups to join together including ones in Wales and other parts of the country but WASPI didn’t want anybody but themselves to be involved. You should also be aware that WASPI is a private company not a grass roots movement and seems to withhold information from their paying members – they hadn’t released the report to their members which I have just published for example – although I am sure they would have got a copy.
There is also a double edged sword to the government announcement – As ministers have decided to review the situation they will be able to argue before a judge that you can’t have a judicial review on something we have decided to review ourselves. For the DWP this is quite a clever move. By the way don’t try and pretend to be another commentator to criticise me – your real email address comes up with your comment on the site.
LikeLike
Erm: David, I didn’t try to pretend to be someone else – after you didn’t publish my original comment, (although you published a later one from someone else).
Not sure what report you mean, and I am not a member, but a full statement was sent to anyone who gave to the Waspi JR crowdfunder, and links made fully available on social media.
The other point I would make is that the BT60/Cedaw group have a history of excluding not just others, and indeed withholding information,but actively blocking anyone who even mildly questions any statement they make. The FB page is not publicly available, and there is no accountability, just as there was not over all the extensive crowdfunding. As for Waspi being a company, that I would say is a good thing as at least they are regulated and obliged to publish accounts, and have named officers.
All campaign groups start as grassroots movements, led by well meaning people who are not practised in organising sustained lobbying or political activities: inevitably there will be mistakes made.
We are at a point now where whatever the historic injustice of women’s pension loss, political and legal realities, as well as embedded misogyny and racism, mean that the only chance of any real outcome for women affected – including me – is through some sort of compensation. Politics is the art of the possible, and strategy must be tailored accordingly. Frankly, I was astonished at the current government u turn, having despaired at Labour’s wretched betrayal of 50s women, so I think it is only fair to acknowledge that Waspi have at least, through the threat of JR, brought about this real chance of some positive outcome. Nothing is going to return six years of lost pension, but for those of us struggling to pay our energy bills, any pay out is better than nothing.
Yes, it is true that the government will probably try to use the JR as a reason to once again chuck the whole issue in the long grass, but this government’s grasp of strategy is pretty chaotic, being dictated by people with no political instinct and it seems likely that Labour MPs worried – as mine is – by narrow margin majorities in their seats will not tolerate another betrayal. The way forward is for 50s women to unite and resolve to make sure the political pressure continues.
LikeLike
11 million letters would not have gone “unread”. They are lying. None of my schoolfriends (or people of my age I see at the bus-stop) received one of these letters.
LikeLike
Probably a lot of the unread letters were among those aged 20 to 49 who were part of the exercise. It certainly said it was read by more of the women in 50-59 group. What is interesting is that one or two people have contacted me with a copy if these letters pointing out it did not say or even refer to pension going up from 60 to 65. Another fact is that it looks like 1.9 million of the 50-59 group never got a letter – that’s half the number affected. What a mess
LikeLike
Thank you David for once again bringing this latest episode to our attention. I agree totally with your comments regarding CedawinLaw and WASPI – your experience and knowledge of this whole sorry saga is invaluable.
LikeLike
Why oh why did the Parliamentary Ombudsman not receive -or indeed deliberately kept it secret- that this critical piece of information was actually in existence and accessible by all Parliamentary MPs?
LikeLike
Why oh why did the Parliamentary Ombudsman not receive -or indeed deliberately kept it secret- that this critical piece of information was actually in existence and accessible by all Parliamentary MPs?
Also WASPI deviated its leadership team many times (see Companies House records). They added a ‘private member club’ fee for its members placing another pressure on women already struggling financially. This membership fee allegedly for a court case.
Back260 Crowdfunded the ONLY Court Case. after Lady Hale gave permission on ALL grounds to be heard up to the highest UK Court…ie to the Supreme Court. Itcwas only after Lady Hale retired, when her replacement, misogynist Lord Reed, threw out the case as ‘out of time’ was this derailed. The American Leadbetter Ruling – thank you Professor Scutt – showed that each time a person was treated unequally, that ‘out of time’ clock restarted…3.8m women were denied their State pension by 5+ years meant the clock restarted every week/month delayed. So Reed was wrong.
New WASPI wanted to hold court and rule and prepared to accept crumbs…were they Trojan horses for Govermment to get womens’ hopes lowered?
LikeLike
I was born in 1958 , I never received any letter from DWP to say pension age was going up to 65 then 66 !!!
LikeLike
Pingback: Government decision on 50swomen promised by the end of February next year | Westminster Confidential
Hmmm….where was this infamous document all this time? Did the DWP not realise how, with all the publicity, this was a key piece of evidence since publication. To suffocate it, then make it MP-only until embarassment shamed them into open access. Stinks….or as in Hamlet said “there is something rotten in the state….”
LikeLike