Delegation at No 10. (L to R) Ioan Bellin (Senior Communications and Research Officer for Delyth Jewell MS Senedd Wales);Vivienne Porritt OBE – WomenEd;Janice Chapman (CEDAWinLAW Volunteer):Michaela Hawkins (CEDAWinLAW Volunteer) and Ian Byrne, MP.
A delegation including Liverpool Mp Ian Byrne and former Australian judge Jocelynne Scutt yesterday increased pressure on Sir Keir Starmer, to start mediation talks on behalf of all 50swomen to end the stalemate in paying out compensation and restitution to those who waited six years to get their pensions.
As well as a letter, a petition signed by 36,000 50s women called on the government to get Liz Kendall, the new works and pension secretary, to open talks to sort out this long standing issue which was neglected by both the Tories and Labour during the general election campaign.
The petition is handed in
Both Tory ministers and Labour shadow ministers kept insisting they needed more time to study the former Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report by the now knighted Sir Rob Behrens ,which found partial maladministration over communications to the 3.8 million women who faced a six year delay until they reached 66 to get a pension. He recommended up to £2,900 each to cover maladministration.
CEDAWinLAW decided this was not enough since it did not cover the past discrimination against women – who had many hurdles to prevent them qualifying for a full pension and have insisted that since the UK signed the UN Convention on Eliminating all forms of Discrimination against Women in 1986 such paltry compensation breaks international law.
Later Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian judge whose report found discrimination against the women. made a strong speech saying it was time for a new government to open talks and settle this dispute. She did praise Rachel Reeves, the new Chancellor, for planning to implement one key CEDAW recommendation, promising to implement part of the Equality Act that would gain equal pay for women with men. She pointed out that future generations would at least earn higher pensions as a result – ending the gap in the private sector between men and women.
I also gave a short speech backing the women’s case and calling for action from the government.
Will the government listen? Probably not before the summer recess. But what this shows is that these women are not giving up and there are more MPs who want this settled. It is not going away nor should it until the women have proper compensation.
Today’s scoop in the Financial Times by the paper’s Whitehall Editor, Lucy Fisher, has finally revealed why it has taken nearly three months for the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s board not to be able to appoint a permanent successor to Rob Behrens, the outgoing Ombudsman, who has just retired.
It appeared Nick Hardwick, was the Parliamentary Ombudsman Board’s choice. Hardwick is a former chair of the Parole Board who resigned after judges overturned a board decision to give parole to John Worboys, a notorious convicted rapist who attacked 12 women while working as a taxi driver. The proposal to release Worboys on parole was a cause celebre for the tabloids at the time. Rishi Sunak, who has to approve the appointment, appeared to have blocked it by sitting on a decision for nearly three months.
William Wragg MP
William Wragg, the chair of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, (PACAC)blew the whistle in Parliament on Monday night when he said, without naming Nick Hardwick, that his appointment had “seemingly been declined by Number 10.”
He also criticised the government for ” somewhat irregular behaviour ” during the appointment process. This is not surprising as William Wragg was on the panel who approved Nick Hardwick’s appointment.
This week PACAC released papers that appeared to give all the details of the recruitment process and a letter from Sir Alex Allan, Boris Johnson’s former independent adviser on ministerial interests, who resigned his job after Johnson refused to sack Priti Patel, then home secretary, after he found she had been bullying and swearing at her senior civil servants. He is now a senior non executive member of the Parliamentary Ombudsman board.
The papers do show that Rishi Sunak took a great interest in the appointment. In an earlier letter to William Wragg approving a salary of between £171,500 and £189,900 for the new Ombudsman plus a choice of a civil service or judicial pension, he wrote: “I would be grateful if the House could continue to work closely with the Government as the campaign to appoint the new PHSO progresses.”
The recruitment process does appear to have attracted a wide range of people. It shows that initially 52 people applied for the job. There were 31 male applicants, 20 female, and one who preferred not to say. Some 30 were white British, 5 Indian, 4 white non British,2 African, 2 Other mixed,1 Asian and White,1 Black African and White,1 Caribbean,1 Irish,1 Pakistani and 1 Ukrainian. Three preferred not to say.
Some 44 were heterosexual and two were gay and six preferred not to say or didn’t answer. Four people were disabled.
This was whittled down to 12 people – 7 males, 4 females and a person who preferred not to disclose a sex. Ten of the last 12 were White British and 1 white non British and one who preferred not to say. Nine of the people were heterosexual and one was gay and others preferred not to say.
The panel who interviewed them was chaired by Philippa Helme, a 63 year old independent panelist and a former principal clerk at the table office in the House of Commons. The other members are Shona Dunn (Second Permanent Secretary, Department of Health and Social Care) to cover the Ombudsman’s NHS role; Colleen Harris(independent panellist and appointed by the King to the King Charles III Charitable Foundation; Peter Tyndall (formerly President of the International Ombudsman Institute) and William Wragg MP.
Philippa Helme -pic credit: Houses of Parliament
All went smoothly and on January 8 Nick Hardwick, aged 66, who is now Professor of Criminal Justice at Royal Holloway College was chosen. Then the problems began when the appointment arrived on Rishi Sunak’s desk. There was silence. What is missing from public disclosure is a desperate letter written by Sir Alex Allan on January 29 which revealed that the whole process was in jeopardy and they might have to appoint an ” interim Ombudsman ” or else the PHSO could not function ( see my blog here ) . It was then that Rebecca Hilsenrath, a recently appointed chief executive at PHSO, came into the frame. The moment the PHSO and the committee knew I had seen the letter on the PACAC website and was going to publish, it mysteriously disappeared from public view. I was told it had been ” prematurely published.”. Now I know this wasn’t true because the letter has not resurfaced in the documents released this week.
As time went on and by March there was no endorsement from Rishi Sunak, things got more and more desperate. So Sir Alex Allan and William Wragg hatched a plan to appoint Rebecca Hilsenrath as an ” acting Ombudsman” so the office could continue to function near normally. This involved getting King Charles III to present a motion to Parliament proposing her appointment so MPs could approve it on the nod. This happened on Monday.
Rebecca Hilsenrath
Now there is glowing description of Rebecca Hilsenrath’s qualities and experience in the papers released this week.
But once again there are some remarkable omissions about her career which have been swept under the carpet. When she was chief executive of the Equality and Human rights Commission, she carried out a campaign to sack black and disabled employees who happened to be strong trade unionists – a remarkable feat for a body that should champion diversity.
Her country cottage in north Wales
Also she was exposed in Times newspaper for a gross breach of the lockdown rules at the height of the pandemic when she drove from north London to north Wales to spend Christmas with her family of five children. She tried to say her holiday cottage was her main home – staying there for months. She was unmasked by a diligent local councillor who noted that unlike Michael Fabricant MP and Andy Street, the West Midlands Tory mayor, who never set foot in their nearby country cottages, was flagrantly breaching the lockdown.
This caused her trouble at the EHRC but she was thrown a lifeline when she got a job at the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office then run by Rob Behrens. She has now achieved a remarkable promotion courtesy of Rishi Sunak’s apparent blocking of Nick Hardwick for the top job.
All in all this is a sorry tale but to my mind the main point is that Rishi Sunak has usurped his powers to try and control a Parliamentary body that should be totally independent of government. If Nick Hardwick is not appointed after what looks like a fair process I shall not trust the new Ombudsman to be really independent but just a creature of a failing and interfering Prime Minister who is deservedly unpopular with the electorate today.
Rather late in the day the Department for Work and Pensions has requested personal documents from the six ” test case” complainants representing 3.5 million 50s born pensioners seeking compensation for maladministration.
This is the latest twist in the long running saga of the 50swomen fight for compensation which has taken seven years without a penny being paid out.
Having been contacted by some of the six women who are puzzled why the DWP should want such information and are not getting any adequate explanation from the DWP or the Ombudsman’s office. The request has come from the Parliamentary Ombudsman who is seeking their permission to hand over files that contain the personal information. The six are not supposed to confer with each other.
Rob Behrens Parliamentary Ombudsman
They have good reason to be puzzled. For the confidential submission to the Ombudsman from the DWP says the ministry has already decided to give them nothing. A section of their long submission addresses the problem that if it decided they should have some money why they don’t qualify for any financial redress. It goes through each case and tries to demolish the grounds under the partial maladministration found by the Ombudsman for the women to get anything. The documents it is seeking only apply to the partial maladministration found by the Ombudsman covering some 28 months Rob Behrens decided the ministry should have informed the women. So the Ombudsman will not pass to the DWP the full documentation from those who wanted the maladministration to cover the whole period after the 1995 Pensions Act was passed.
The confidential submission from the DWP does not accept that any of the six complainants are entitled to compensation. It rejects blanket payments to all saying ” we struggle to see how a uniform approach to the level of compensation has any validity when the individual situation of the complainants are all very different.”
It goes on to demolish claims of ill health, lack of money and financial loss are anything to do with the time the complainant received notice of the delay in their pension, blaming other factors for their distress.
It blames three of the complainants for not taking enough action to sort out their finances. It accuses two of them who said they would have kept working if they had known about the delay earlier, of failing to find jobs once they knew.
“It is very difficult to conclude that these complainants missed an opportunity to improve their financial situation because they did not take the action they claim they would have taken.”
It also rejects claims of ill health were caused by the delay in finding out that the pension age was going to rise.
“Four complainants described physical symptoms they attributed to their financial position. Several of the complainants were in difficult financial positions regardless of their not knowing about the increase to State Pension age.”
The final conclusion is: ”it is clear that the complainants simply needed to undertake more research in preparation for their retirement, especially considering that four of the sample group took early retirement and have not provided any evidence that they had conducted any research or retirement planning prior to making their decisions(Retirement years: 2010, 2006, 2005 & 2009). If they had requested a forecast and planned, they would have had plenty of time to react instead of retiring.”
Table in DWP submission suggests Ombudsman was asking for very little compensation anyway
The report also includes a table which seems to suggest – before the Ombudsman made his provisional decision to make no awards for compensation but to leave it to Parliament- that the levels of compensation would be low- a maximum if £450 and in some cases nothing.
Ombudsman’s provisional compensation recommendations according to the DWP.
As for personal details the DWP submission already contains an annexe with a lot of personal details of the six complainants which makes it all the more confusing why it should want more. I am not publishing the details to protect their privacy.
It strikes me that people need to question more why this extra information is needed when the department has so much already.
It must be coincidence that this request has come at the same time as Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, is facing litigation from CEDAWinLAW, a campaigning group for women, calling for mediation with the DWP to end this long saga.
It is time the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the DWP were more open about their agenda rather than hiding behind obfuscation and secrecy. I seem to be the only person probing what is going on.
Lawyers for CEDAWinLAW, the group fighting for equality for all women, have now drawn up papers to take Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, to the high court over his failure to agree to any mediation to sort out the seven year running sore over settling the 50swomen pensions issue.
CEDAWinLAW in a statement today said: ” CEDAWinLaw is best pleased to announce that its legal team is about to file an application to the court to commence legal proceedings on our behalf representing all #50swomen against the secretary of state for work and pensions.”
“Without waiving privilege CEDAWinLAW is pleased to say that leading counsel advises that there are grounds to seek permission to launch a full Judicial Review based on an unreasonable refusal to mediate and they are to be pursued on behalf of ALL 1950’s Women.”
The decision follows work by lawyers Edwin Coe and human rights KC John Cooper to draw up a case after their crowdfunder raised enough cash to prepare a legal strategy. The crowdfunder is now raising funds to fight the case in the courts.
The legal challenge will be on behalf of all 3.5 million remaining 50s born women who faced a six year delay before they got their pension with many of them saying they never realised the change was coming.
Mel Stride himself at first tried to ignore any call for mediation by not replying to a request from mediation lawyers Garden Court Chambers which was prepared to act as a mediator. But the request itself triggered a legal process and in the end he replied refusing any mediation.
It has since become known that the DWP in a confidential submission to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Rob Behrens, has said it has done nothing wrong re maladministration and said to pay any of the women compensation could amount to the ministry facing “a major fraud.” See my blog on thishere.
The case for the women has been strongly articulated by former Australian judge Jocelynne Scutt in her judge’s report on the inequalities they faced.
She said: “The 50s women have the right not to be discriminated against on the ground of age and/or sex. Those rights are enforceable. However those rights have been breached by the failures and actions of the Department of Works and Pensions in the way they failed to notify, and in the way they went ahead to apply the legislation albeit they had failed to notify and therefore the 50s women had no notice of the need to reorganise their retirement plans or their paid work arrangements. “
She has recently recorded a fresh video:
Jocelynne Scutt
John Cooper, KC , who will arguing the court case, said:
“ This is an important challenge for so many #50sWomen in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them, and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of a first class legal team.”.
CEDAWinLAW have notified party leaders, party deputies and committee chairs plus Sir George Howarth’s ADR group about the legal action with the mobilised #50sWomen’s voting bloc also in mind ahead of next year’s General Election.
Ian Byrne MP has agreed to apply for a Back Bench Debate on Mediation and Kim Johnson MP plans to table an Early Day Motion on Mediation.
The petition to Parliament has been updated. See here.
In another development the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Rob Behrens has extended the consultation on his proposals to handle the maladministration report by making no recommendation for compensation but leaving it to Parliament to decide. It will now finish on January 19 rather than by Christmas.
Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman Pic Credit: PHSO website
Ombudsman capitulates to DWP intransigence NOT to pay a penny and leaves it to MPs to decide
In what must be the most extraordinary provisional decision by any Parliamentary Ombudsman Rob Behrens has decided NOT to make any recommendations for compensation for maladministration he found affecting 3.5 million 50s born women who had to wait an extra six years for their pensions.
Some details of his confidential letter sent out to Waspi, MPs, the test case complainants and 500 other pensioners have leaked out and show basically the Ombudsman has , in my words.” kopped out ” of his job to compensate people wronged by public bodies. This is after spending six years – with various breaks – investigating the issue.
The letter reveals that the Department for Work and Pensions has put enormous pressure on the Ombudsman not to award anything by telling him before he has completed his final report they have no intention of paying it.
These are the key paragraphs:
The official Ombudsman website says the aim is to publish this as a final report in March.
So what are the repercussions if this goes ahead? It obviously means it would go to Parliament which would have to have a debate and a vote on various levels of compensation. But the Parliamentary agenda is largely in the hands of the government and government whips. The government still has a large majority and Rishi Sunak, the PM, has shown little, if any, interest in this issue. All the government has to do is put down a motion saying the DWP doesn’t want to pay any of the women and whip Tory MPs to vote for it.
There might be a small rebellion by Tories but not enough to defeat it. It is by no means certain that Labour would support it, despite the former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell promising £58 billion to settle this issue. Labour seeing itself in power later next year would not necessarily be keen on paying a multi billion package to the women when faced with a tight spending constraints.
The other extraordinary result of such a provisional decision is that this is a bitter blow to Waspi, who went down the Parliamentary Ombudsman route. The have raised huge sums of money from these women – all it turns out for nothing. They are still running a crowd funder – supposedly for a judicial review into the Ombudsman’s decision. They capitulated at the court door- going for the Ombudsman to rewrite his findings. Well he has now, and recommends they get nothing. Should they continue to raise money now it could be seen as fleecing their supporters as they now have nowhere to go.
The only bright light in this terrible situation is that CEDAWinLAW has now raised all the £15,000 it needs for lawyers to go ahead to work out a strategy to bring a Group Class action against the DWP. Since it looks like the only thing that could make the DWP listen is a court decision, this is the only avenue left.
But there is something worse in the Ombudsman’s provisional decision. Should it go to a vote in Parliament and Parliament votes to give them nothing, that is the end of the matter. Parliament is supreme and even the courts have to bow to Parliament. In other words, the Ombudsman’s decision, however he likes to dress it up, condemns 3.5 million mainly poor pensioners to go to their graves without a penny in compensation. Some friend of the oppressed indeed.
A confidential copy of the provisional findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report revealing what compensation the 3.5 million remaining 50swomen will get for their delayed pensions will be sent out to selected parties at the end of next week.
This long, long awaited move was announced by Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive of the Ombudsman’s Office, to Mps on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday.
Ms Hilsenrath told MPs that this long drawn out investigation had been ” challenging” and the Ombudsman had needed expert legal advice on how to proceed with the report. She said the investigation which began in 2018 had twice been paused because of litigation. These included the judicial reviews brought by ” Backto60″ – now CEDAWinLAW and Waspi . Backto60 had fought the DWP over indirect discrimination in the process and Waspi had wanted the finding of maladministration widened to cover other circumstances which had affected women’s claims.
It was also revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions had contributed to the delay by asking for more time to consider the issues.
Altogether it will have taken seven years before the public release of the report expected in the New Year of the Ombudsman’s findings during which over 250,000 women have died.
John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said these delays and extensions had mean it would mean ” justice delayed becoming justice denied” and pressed the Ombudsman not to grant any more extensions to the DWP or other parties.
The schedule announced by Ms Hilsenrath will give the six ” test case” complainants until Christmas to respond. The provisional findings are also being sent to the DWP and Waspi but not to CEDAWinLaw.
” We will then take into account their views before issuing a final report in the New Year.”, she said.
The announcement yesterday came as the £15,000 crowd funder launched by CEDAWinLAW has already raised over 70 per cent of the cash so lawyers could draw up a strategy to bring a group class action against Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, for direct discrimination in the way they handled the raising of the women’s state pension from 60 to 65.
The lawyers handling the case are human rights lawyer John Cooper, KC and David Greene.
John Cooper KC
John Cooper said: “This is an important challenge for so many women in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of a first class legal team”
David Greene is regarded as an expert in bringing Class Actions for groups and cited as one of the best litigators in the City. He is a past President of the Law Society which represents solicitors.
Initially the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said the “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”
Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman
Yesterday Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, changed his position warning that further litigation would delay proceedings for the publication of the report.
Jovelynne Scutt, the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner, who has compiled a report saying the DWP is in breach of international law, says the legal case should have no bearing on the Ombudsman’s report which is mainly about maladministration.
Yesterday Ms Hilsenrath also admitted that the office’s handling of the complaint would be reviewed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to see what “lessons can be learned” over the long process it has taken. By then Rob Behrens, the current Ombudsman, will have retired and a new one would be in place.
Top human rights lawyer and a past president of the Law Society to draw up legal case strategy for 3.5 million women
John Cooper KC Pic credit: 25 Bedford Row Chambers
CEDAWinLaw, the successor body to BackTo60, announced today that it has started preparations to take the Department for Work and Pensions to court again.
The move will re-ignite the row over the long drawn out dispute over the failure by government to compensate or recognise the plight of 3.5 million women who had to wait an extra six years for their pension. At present progress on the dispute is stymied by the long time the Parliamentary Ombudsman is taking to decide how much compensation the women are entitled to and the scope of their complaints.
David Greene. Pic credit: Law Society Gazette
Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, and Laura Trott, the pensions minister have also blocked any discussion of mediation between CEDAWinLAW and the government hiding behind Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s protracted delay in reaching any decision on the issue. This particular claim by ministers is vigorously contested by Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge, who says both processes are separate and mediation is possible while the Ombudsman considers his report
In a statement today CEDAWinLAW said: “CEDAWinLAW has instructed John Cooper KC ‘Top Silk’ out of 25bedfordrow.com via David Greene, Senior Partner, edwincoe.com to represent all 1950’s Women in a Group Class Action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions out of The Judge’s Report which sets out in depth the way in which those affected have enforceable rights which have been breached.
We plan to initially raise £15,000 to determine a case strategy with Counsel to be published, in due course.”
John Cooper is one of the leading human rights lawyers, having been the lead prosecutor in the People’s Iran Tribunal in The Hague; a leading KC in the Manchester Arena bombings inquiry, numerous high profile murder trials and fraud cases and is described as the preferred KC for cases which challenge the Establishment.
He said today: “This is an important challenge for so many women in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of a first class legal team”
David Greene is regarded as an expert in bringing Class Actions for groups and cited as one of the best litigators in the City. He is a past President of the Law Society which represents solicitors.
Mel Stride, work and pensions secretary
The announcement today was made inevitable by Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, refusing any mediation talks. These had been offered by Garden Court Chambers and ministers initially decided to ignore the request only to find themselves under pressure by Garden Court Chambers to have to respond. as it is a recognised legal process. Once he had refused he opened himself up to potential legal action. The offer for mediation still stands.
The decision today is also a victory for CEDAWinLAW, whose predecessor BackTo60, were refused a hearing of their judicial review by the Supreme Court after initially winning a case to bring it in the lower courts.
Jocelynne Scutt
By doggedly pursuing the issue despite this setback they got Jocelynne Scutt, former anti discrimination commissioner in Tasmania and an Australian judge, to hold a people’s tribunal, assisted by Garden Court Chambers. Her findings produced in a report found that 50swomen had been the subject of direct discrimination contrary to international law under the UN Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women and Girls, ratified by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.
Despite attempts to pretend this was of no significance notably by Andrew Gwynne, MP who supports WASPI and is now a Labour shadow minister for social care, as just ” a personal view”, lawyers from three firms, Garden Court Chambers ( for mediation) ,25 Bedford Row, and Edwin Coe (for the class action) have decided that it presents an arguable case.
CEDAWinLAW is seeking to raise £15,000 to cover the development of a legal case strategy . Their website if you want to donate is here.
A decision to go back to the courts will present fresh problems for the DWP which thought it had seen the end of legal action after the judicial review was blocked by the Supreme Court. It could also present problems for the Ombudsman’s Office as Robert Behrens used the previous legal action to pause his investigation.
I have asked both to comment. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”
“
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow meto continue my exclusive reporting.
Featuring latest developments in the long running battle to put right the injustice to 3.5m 50sborn women who faced delayed pensions
Australian former anti discrimination commissioner and judge Dr Jocelynne Scutt
The CEDAWinLaw organisation, which backs full implementation of the UN Convention for ending all discrimination against women and girls, has put up links to the interviews this week on Salford City Radio’s Ian Rothwell show. These reveal the latest move towards getting mediation for the 50s women who faced a six year extra wait to get their pensions.
Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary has refused any mediation so tougher action is being considered and legal advice has been sought. The link to the website is here.
Worth watching developments over the next coming weeks. Doesn’t look like anyone is going away. Meanwhile the number of 50swomen who have died without getting any compensation has reached over 300,000.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my detailed investigations.
This week I paid a lightening visit to the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool and found a remarkably changed and brutally focused party.
Out had gone any commitment to state ownership, hugely expensive pledges to spend, spend, spend and in had come a sharp focus on bread and butter issues like cutting hospital waiting lists and building lots of homes for generation homeless..
There was also a brutal message from Sir Keir Starmer that the party would be raising very little on new taxes- beyond taxing non doms and VAT on private school fees. Everything was going to depend on growing the economy from its present feeble state to pay for new public spending. If that fails the whole Labour project will collapse once they are in government – a big hostage to fortune.
What was also noticeable was the huge presence of corporate firms and large charities and ngos – never have I seen such numbers in the exhibition hall and its overflow corridor.
The main reason why Labour is being cautious is the state of the British economy post Brexit. Although Brexit was never mentioned by the Labour leadership, the chaos and incompetence of the present Tory government ( now also emerging in the Covid inquiry) has virtually torched the British economy, now bedevilled with a cost of living crisis and high inflation. And they can’t blame the EU. But it is worse than that – the chopping and changing in government policy -illustrated by scrapping HS2 at Manchester during their conference last week and delays in the net zero programme – has even bewildered their business allies who don’t know where they are and how they should plan.
That is why they see a Labour government as a better bet than the Tories. It is ironic that after all the attacks on Jeremy Corbyn turning Labour into a cult – it is now the Tories that are turning into one – with their obsession with opposing trans rights, boat people, cancel culture and recreating the UK in the image of the 1950s. No wonder much of business ran off to Liverpool.
David Blunkett; Official House of Lords portrait
I did attend two very interesting fringe meetings during my short stay. Both illustrated the new order at Labour. One organised by the TUC was on the subject of tackling Britain’s skill shortages among the workforce. It was addressed by Steve Rotherham, the Labour Metro Mayor of Liverpool; Bridget Phillipson, Labour’s shadow education secretary; Labour peer David Blunkett; and chaired by Kevin Rowan from the TUC. What was impressive was that the TUC and David Blunkett had drawn up a very detailed plan to tackle the crippling skills shortage – often overlooked by politicians – and Bridget Phillipson, was keen to implement it. It included scrapping the very low wage of £5.28 a n hour for apprentices and replacing it with the minimum wage and radically changing the funding programme to tackle skills shortages and prevent employers exploiting it for cheap labour. If Labour are serious in doing this, it will be fundamental to economic recovery.
An even bigger eyeopener was a fringe meeting organised by Labour’s environment campaign, Chaired by a Westminster Labour councillor , the campaign had both the head of forests, from Global Witness and a Aviva, the private insurance company on the panel. It turned out that both Global Witness and Aviva had been working together to ensure UK legislation that would stop British firms contributing to global deforestation by de investing in companies that did this. Even this it appeared had been opposed by the Tories.
One extraordinary meeting I did not get into was on the controversial future of rail to be addressed by Labour’s shadow transport secretary, Louise Haigh. Organised by Lodestone Communications, whose clients include US whiskies, the Countess of Chester Hospital ( not best to advertise this at the moment) and IT firms, it was private but important enough for the general secretaries of ASLEF and the RMT to attend. I was told it shouldn’t have been advertised in Labour’s conference programme and been placed there by mistake. Very intriguing.
Women born in the 1950s who have faced a six year delay in their pension would have been pleased by a motion which was passed by Labour’s women’s conference. It commits the next Labour government to fully implement in law the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and ensure equal pay for women is fully implemented. We shall see if Sir Keir Starmer makes this a manifesto commitment.
Davina Lloyd interviews Dr Jocelynne Scutt, author of the groundbreaking Judge’s report on the plight of 1950s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions
Meanwhile Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, stalls WASPI on any date they will get his delayed findings
It is well worth watching the above video interview with Dr Jocelynne Scutt which explains clearly and concisely the current impasse over resolving the dispute between 3.5 million 1950s born women and the government over the six year delay in getting their pensions.
She provides both a clear explanation of why an Alternative Dispute Resolution is the only way to solve the impasse and why the Ombudsman’s current draft report – now being rewritten – only provides a partial solution to the problem by concentrating solely on the delay caused by maladministration and not on the direct discrimination against the women themselves under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The latter is crucial because Mrs Thatcher signed up and ratified this convention in 1986 and the UK is responsible to the UN in Geneva to follow its provisions.
As Dr Scutt argues ” the law is the law”.
Laura Trott MP Pensions Minister Pic credit: Official Portrait, House of Commons
Her explanation comes as the pension minister, Laura Trott, has muddied the waters saying that the offer of mediation by the internationally respected law firm Garden Court Chambers, cannot be taken up at the moment by Mel Stride, the works and pension secretary, because the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still working on his report.
Laura Trott is wrong. Mediation can go ahead while the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still investigating as it is an entirely separate from whatever the Ombudsman recommends. Indeed it might save Rob Behrens a lot of work as he is obviously struggling to put together a fresh report and would probably love to drop this hot potato.
The reason why Laura Trott is offering these lame excuses and why there is silence from Mel Stride, I suspect, is that Garden Court has started a legal process by writing now twice to the Secretary of State and offering to act as impartial mediators to end this dispute. Their reputation as impartial mediators is second to none.
“No reply” Mel Stride, secretary of State for Work and Pensions
He is trying to avoid replying because if he says yes – it will automatically go ahead. But if he says no, his lawyers at the Department for Work and Pensions have probably warned him he risks the whole matter going back to the courts. If that happens what sensible judge is not going to think the Secretary of State is being obstructive. To borrow Cabinet colleague Michael Gove’s words on another matter, he will be portrayed as “a blocker not a builder.”
The dilemma both the government and Parliamentary Ombudsman are facing is what is the position of the UK under CEDAW. If Dr Scutt’s cogent judgement is correct,, they just can’t ignore the implications of direct discrimination for this particular group of people. It is the ” elephant in the room.”
I am grateful to the Waspi Pembrokeshire branch for tweeting about the recent meeting between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Waspi which ended in a stalemate despite them sending in two lawyers to help argue their case. The Ombudsman could give no publication date when this so called ” urgent” issue could be resolved and talked of completely rewriting the second part of its report because of the issues ” Waspi and others ” had raised.
Rebecca Hilsenrath,chief exec of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office
I suspect the “others” refers to Dr Scutt’s judgement as I know CEDAWinLaw has sent her judgement to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, and I can’t see how the Ombudsman can produce a report without referring to it. Mrs Hilsenrath has also agreed to meet CEDAWinLAW on a date yet to be agreed.
Again I advise everybody to watch the interview for a clear understanding of the present position taken by CEDAWinLAW as everyone awaits events.
Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my investigations.
Westminster Confidential 