Category Archives: pensions

Social Security watchdog warns ministers of flaws in the scheme to scrap pensioner winter fuel allowances

Posted on by
Department for Work and Pensions

In a polite but tough message to Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, the Government’s official advisory body on social security, has exposed flaws in the government’s implementation of its rushed policy to abolish winter fuel allowances for 9.3 million pensioners and encourage the poorest to claim pension credit.

It also undermines the government’s case that it couldn’t consult them in advance because of the short timetable Sir Keir Starmer and chancellor Rachel Reeves imposed on introducing the change.

Dr Stephen Brien, chair of the Social Security Advisory Committee, says in a letter to Liz Kendall, ” I trust you will agree, there are considerable benefits in draft legislation being presented to us for statutory scrutiny before being laid, and that ‘urgency’ should be used only in exceptional circumstances. This Committee has a strong track record of supporting successive Secretaries of State respond at pace to emerging crises and risks. We have often arranged additional meetings to enable scrutiny to take place at short notice, in an attempt to avoid the need for invoking the urgency procedure. ”

In other words; ” we could have accommodated you, if only you had asked.”

The letter goes on to point out problems implementing the plans to increase the uptake in Pension Credit and outline flaws in the changes.

It reveals that although the ministry is committed to recruiting an extra 450 staff to cope with the demand for new pension credit claims not one of them can start handling a single claim for two months because they need training.

As the committee points out:” we remain concerned about the capacity of the Department to process Pension Credit claims in a timely way, ensuring that not only are people able to establish entitlement to Winter Fuel Payments, but also that they can be paid this Winter – at the point at which they are needed most.”

In other words ” given your timetable some of the poorest could wait to winter 2025 to get a penny”.

And it questions the headline figure of £1.3 million savings pointing out it could vary because of the extra costs of paying out more pension credit. The government only provides one example – assuming a 5 per cent extra take up from the 880,000 who could get it.

The letter says: This figure is ” representing a little over 100,000 additional households. We have not been presented with any rationale for such a central case estimate (corresponding to a closing by just 14% of eligible non-recipients).”

The committee would expect the government to provide a range of estimates – and points out that if they don’t provide one, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility will do it for them in the Budget.

It adds; ” this is no substitute for the Department’s timely analysis in support of its own proposals disconnected from the Budget process.”

5000 pensioners could be worse off by switching to pension credit

When it comes to flaws the most glaring one affects a small minority of 5,000 of the 10.8 million pensioners who are affected who claim child tax credits. If they claim pension credit to get the fuel allowance , it reveals, THEY COULD BE WORSE OFF because they lose the child tax credit. And the Department has not even told them.

The letter says: ” In the absence of any tailored communications for this group during the current take-up campaign, the Committee is concerned about the potential for confusion about what this group should do. In particular, there is a potential risk that some people may take steps to move onto Pension Credit in the belief that this would be beneficial, but ultimately be financially disadvantaged.”

It calls for an urgent change to the regulations to allow any pensioner who inadvertently does this to revert back to the existing system.

Then there those on housing benefit – a means tested benefit which does not qualify by itself for pension credit.

The committee says: “The Committee understands that take-up of pensioner Housing Benefit is higher than for Pension Credit and that around 120,000 pensioners on HB only might qualify for Pension Credit if they claimed it.”

It urgently recommends that these people are passported straight onto pension credit for this year only while their claims for pension credit are checked.

Finally there are the disabled. “The Department estimates that around 71% (1.6 million) of people with a disability will lose entitlement to the allowance.” Again the committee calls for the government to target those people who claim means tested benefits because they are disabled to make them aware of pension credit.

It goes on to criticise the government for not having an impact assessment of its own proposals – Sir Keir Starmer thought it wasn’t necessary – and warn the government that the Public Sector Equality Duty could be breached.

“Having identified any disparities in impact across protected groups, we would like to have a greater understanding of how this evidence has influenced, and been reflected in, the regulations. For example, what anticipatory actions have been taken; and what types of disparity are considered a necessary consequence of the policy intent?”

In fact according to the Office for National statistics the cuts are aimed almost exclusively at white British people – only five per cent of those affected are from ethnic minorities.

This again shows how rushed regulations can be full of holes and unintended consequences and that neither Sir Keir Starmer nor Rachel Reeves took enough care over drafting them. Perhaps they genuinely don’t care, as pensioners can’t play a role in their growth plans and the sooner they die off the better. I wonder whether either of them have any grandparents.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Millions of pensioners on or just above the poverty line will lose winter fuel allowance – Age UK research

Posted on by

The government’s refusal to publish a proper impact study of exactly who will be the worst off from the abolition of the winter fuel allowance for 10.8 million pensioners was one of the worst acts of this new Labour government.

Not only was it bad government not to provide the facts on such a big change for so many people but it looks like a deliberate act to conceal the damage ministers knew it would have on vulnerable people. But people are not fools and already where they have a chance to vote in local elections they are showing disdain for what Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves have done. In a very short time voters have gone from voting for anyone who is not Conservative in the general election to anyone who is not Labour in local elections.

So it is good news today that a major charity, Age UK, has attempted to fill the gap and provide what the government refuses to do.

And it is not surprising that once again women, especially those living alone, the disabled, and the very elderly are most at risk. Elderly women are becoming the favourite target of both Tory and Labour administrations- first they raised the pension age without properly informing women – so 3.6 million 50s born women expecting a pension at 60 had to wait another six years to get one. Then they fiddled figures so people on the old pension would not properly inherit their husband’s pensions. And to add insult to injury the Department for Work and Pensions made huge errors in pension payments to women and is taking ages to pay out what they have lost.

The figures from Age UK research show pensioners living below or just above the poverty line, some 82%, or four in every five, will lose the Winter Fuel Allowance as a result of the Government’s decision, including 80% in this group who are aged over 80 and 78% who are disabled.

It is not surprising that there is such a divide in the UK. A report by IPPR North earlier this year found that life expectancy is falling in poorer areas compared to the wealthier part of the country. A man in the poorest part of Blackpool can expect on average to be dead a year after gaining their pension at 66 while a woman living in Belgravia in Kensington can expect to live to 94.

  The Age UK Report say10.7m UK pensioners will lose their WFP of whom almost one in four (23%) live in poverty or just above the poverty line. Age UK take poverty to mean living 50 per cent below the median income and just above poverty to be 60 per cent of the same figure. Full details of their research methodology can be seen here.

Women as usual to take the highest proportion of the cut

Some 1.4 million are women; 1.1 million are disabled ,800,000 are over 80 and one million live alone.- all factors that could affect their health and well being if they cannot keep warm this winter.

Caroline Abrahams CBE, Charity Director at Age UK said: 

“I think most members of the public will be horrified that this is the outcome of the Government’s decision, because it means that millions of pensioners are being exposed to the risk of failing to be able to stay adequately warm this winter, even though they are living on a low income. There will be widespread agreement, I’m sure, that Ministers must act in the Budget to protect them – and the best way for them to do so by far is to retain WFP as a universal entitlement this winter, before giving their policy options careful consideration as part of the Spending Review next Spring.

“However, if the Government is dead set on pressing ahead, the very least they should do is to greatly expand the numbers of pensioners who will receive a WFP beyond the small group they have so far said will retain it. They could achieve this in part by automatically giving the Payment to pensioners on other benefits, such as Housing Benefit, Council Tax Support, Personal Independence Allowance, Attendance Allowance and Carers Allowance. Even this would not be enough though because many pensioners on low incomes or in vulnerable circumstances would still miss out on a WFP when they can ill afford to do so. This means the Government would need to go further; for example, looking to give extra help to the older people who for various reasons receive only a small proportion of the full State Pension, for whom the WFP is an absolute lifeline.”

Age UK continues to urge the public to show solidarity and sign its petition to Save the Winter Fuel Payment for struggling pensioners.  The petition has now received more than 553,000 signatures showing the strength of public feeling behind the rushed decision to means test the Winter Fuel Payment.

Certainly there is enormous interest in this issue. My own blog has had over 190,000 hits for raising it and some of the comments from distressed people hit by this have been heart breaking. Time for the government to reverse part of this ban. We are not all as rich as Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves not to need it.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

My interview on the 50swomen pensions scandal and the scrapping of the pensioner’s winter fuel allowance

Posted on by

If pensioners die from winter cold should their gravestones be engraved with the words ” Frozen to Death by Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer ” for eternity?

This is the recording of my interview last night with Ian Rothwell of Salford City Radio on the failure of the government to agree yet to any compensation for the women born in the 1950s who had to wait six more years to get their pension and the government’s sudden cruel decision to abolish the winter fuel allowance with little notice for 10.8 million people.

A reminder the original story on my blog has now got over 190.000 hits reflecting the strong feeling people have about Labour’s decision to do this leaving many of the poorest pensioners, many over 80, between £200 and £300 worse off this winter by setting such a low income level to qualify for the money.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Winter Fuel Allowance: Equality statement reveals the scale of Rachel Reeves nasty blow to poor and disabled women pensioners

Posted on by
05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

UPDATE: Statistics released today (Tuesday) show claims for Winter Fuel Allowance jumped by 214,000 last year. More and more people over 80 are claiming the £300 higher allowance which had reached 3.3 million for the first time. The new figures mean the government will save even more money by abolishing it for all those not claiming pension credit, particularly from the very elderly. Figures released also show that those state pensioners living in EU countries who will continue to get the allowance amounted to 34,300. Over three quarters of them, some 26,000, live in the Republic of Ireland while those in Northern Ireland will get nothing. Qualifying for the allowance last year was this week which raises whether those claiming pension credit after this week will get the money for this winter.

Chancellor’s decision fuels racism when it is revealed her cuts are aimed at 95 per cent of white British born people

At last no doubt embarrassed by the Equality and Human Rights Commission which said the new Labour government was in breach of the Public Sector Equality Duty, the Treasury and the Department of Work and Pensions have had to release a breakdown of who is affected by the abolition of the winter fuel allowance.

Both departments used the mechanism of a Freedom of Information request made in August and chose a Friday afternoon to slip it out after Parliament had gone into recess to avoid too much publicity.

The clue is in what the announcement is called – an Equality statement – not an impact statement which was demanded by the House of Lords. In fact there has been no impact statement prepared at all even when Age UK said that about two million pensioners who will lose the annual £200 or £300 payment are just above the cut off point.

The document itself makes a claim that more men than women are affected by the change. But this is based on percentages not the actual figures. As it says: “This means that 85% (5.2m) of women receiving a Winter Fuel Payment (WFP) will lose out, compared to 91% (4.8m) of men. The reason for this is that women live longer than men and are more affected by the loss of the payment. The gender breakdown is 54% (6.1m) of those who received a WFP in GB in 2022/23 Female, and 46% (5.2m)
Male.

The figures reveal that the older you are, the bigger the loss you make, partly because the payment for over 80s is £300 rather than £200 per household.

The statement says: ” Although a smaller proportion of those aged 80+ will lose out than those under 80, due to the higher rate of WFP from that age, older pensioners who are affected will be proportionally worse off financially as a consequence of the policy.”

This is still 2.7 million people in top of the 7.9 million aged 66 to 79 who lose out.

Then there is the effect on the disabled – those claiming attendance allowance and disability living allowance. Here 1.6 million lose out and they must be the most vulnerable to the cold.

So if you are woman, more elderly and disabled you are worse off. If you are all three it is catastrophic.

The government has made a lot of noise about the 880,000 people not claiming pensions credit who could qualify by applying and getting the winter fuel allowance. But the paper says despite all the noise ministers are only expecting another 100,000 to claim leaving 780,000 still going without it.

The figures for existing claimants for pension credit are interesting. The most successful claimants are men not women – despite men being in a minority. The least successful are couples and there is a nasty reason for this. Under the Tories rules were changed so that both people had to be aged 66 to get it. So if you had a man who was 66 married to a woman who was 62 you would be excluded from claiming it until the man was 70 and the woman 66. No wonder the take up is lower. And Labour haven’t changed the rules.

Finally there is an ethnic breakdown. In the UK among the general population 84 per cent of the people are white British and 16 per cent are from ethnic minorities. Among the pensioner population, 95 per cent are white British and only five per cent are from ethnic minorities. So Labour in this case has targeted anybody who was born here far more heavily than people who were not.

This may well explain why I am getting a backlash from readers of this blog who complain that the government is doing more for people who have just arrived here than the population who have worked here since they were 15. They think it is unfair.

Cheerleader for Nigel Farage?

So we have the extraordinary situation that Rachel Reeves is inadvertently becoming the cheerleader for Nigel Farage by providing him with a platform to say that British born people are being unfairly penalised.

Her policy among that generation may well drive them to support Reform because they have a grievance that only Labour has created and cannot be blamed on the Tories. This unfortunate situation aids racism and has more purchase with people than tales of a £22 billion black hole.

Then there are international repercussion. The last government was already in trouble with the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination against women and girls (CEDAW) in Geneva. Although we ratified it nearly 40 years ago when Lady Thatcher signed us up, we have not implemented in law many of the provisions. This is a new policy – even though it was done administratively – and the government has not tested the impact on women which is against the convention.

More close to home there could be a case for indirect discrimination against women because although the policy appears to be fair to all pensioners, women are again bearing the brunt of it.

Of course as I argued in a previous blog both Rachel Reeves and Sir Keir Starmer know that many pensioners will die before the 2029 general election so they won’t be here to vote. By implementing this cruel policy for those just above the cut off point they know many more will join them as they freeze in their homes this winter.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

House of Lords slams scrapping of winter fuel allowance for 10.8 million pensioners in advance of Commons debate this week

Posted on by

Lord Hunt of Wirral, chair of the Lords secondary legislation committee and a former energy minister under Lady Thatcher’s government Pic credit: Official Portrait House of Lords

UPDATE: Government got policy through the House of Commons by 348-228 on September 10. Tories, Lib Dems, Greens, Scot Nats, DUP, Alliance and Reform voted against. Some 53 Labour MPs abstained, one Labour MP voted against.

SECOND UPDATE: A Conservative motion regretting the means testing of the winter fuel allowance and the lack of transparency by Labour was passed by 164 votes to 132 in the House of Lords on Wednesday evening. An attempt by a former Tory pensions minister,Baroness Altmann to annul the cut was heavily defeated.

Infected blood victims may also face further delay for compensation say peers

Peers have slammed the government’s planned means testing of this year’s £200 and a £300 winter fuel allowance for the over 80s which will leave 10.8 million out of 12.3 million pensioners with no money before Christmas.

The Lords secondary legislation committee – which scrutinises laws introduced by government by issuing new regulations which have to be approved by Parliament -is severely critical of the changes, the lack of information, the by passing of proper scrutiny by a government appointed advisory committee and lack of evidence of any research by the Department for Work and Pensions of the effect of the changes.

The committee represents a wide range of peers in the House from Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrat and crossbench peers Including former Labour minister, Tom Watson.

Peers see no need for the urgency to get the change into law by September 16. “We are unconvinced by the reasons given for the urgency attached to laying these Regulations and are particularly concerned that this both precludes appropriate scrutiny and creates issues with the practicalities of bringing in the change at short notice,” the report says.

baroness Altmann

The criticism comes as Baroness Ros Altmann, a former Tory pensions minister, has said she will move a fatal motion in the Lords next week , a drastic power rarely used, to block the government implementing it.

The report points out that winter fuel allowances will continue to be paid this year for people who quit the UK to live in an EU country before 2021. It is likely to be abolished after this year for people who moved to Switzerland, Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

The government are trying to mitigate its effect on the poorest pensioners by encouraging the 880,000 who are entitled to pension credit, to claim. To do this they have to fill in a 243 question form and if they have over £10,000 savings -including money hidden in their homes – get a reduced form of pension credit. So far there has been a five per cent increase in uptake according to the DWP.

The Lords are scathing about this situation.”We are concerned that the Regulations may cause potential inequalities between low income pensioners claiming benefits and low income pensioners not claiming benefits, and it is not clear whether DWP has assessed this risk,” says the report.

The campaign to attract more pension credit claimants is causing admin problems for the DWP with the result that other people due to get pension credit are facing a nine week delay in getting the money, the report reveals. So the government are penalising the poorest as a result of the campaign.

The report also reveals that those on Universal Credit or who live abroad may need to make a claim
for the Winter Fuel Payment. The deadline for making a claim for 2024–25 is 31 March 2025, and claims can be made by post from 16 September 2024 or by phone from 10 October 2024.”

The report also highlights that all pensioners will be hit by the rise in energy prices and many more will start paying tax because of the freezing of personal tax allowances which will go on until 2028.

Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are both breaking traditional consultation and witholding information of the effect of the policy change from MPs and peers.

The report says: “All benefits regulations are required by law to be considered by the independent Social Security Advisory Committee (SSAC). This is generally done in advance of the legislation being laid. In this case, the Minister has opted for the urgency provision that allows SSAC consideration to be
retrospective. Since this might be perceived as bypassing SSAC scrutiny, we asked the DWP what, if any, effect an adverse report from that Committee would have after the Regulations have already come into effect. DWP responded that, in line with their legal duty, ministers would lay the report before Parliament, and should the report contain recommendations, lay a statement before Parliament alongside the report. It remains unclear what the practical impact of any statement might be on Regulations which
will have already come into effect.“

Compensation for Infected Blood victims

Peers in the same report have slammed the government regulations permitting compensation payment to infected blood victims, promised with great fanfare by ministers.

The committee’s report said: ” We found the Explanatory Memorandum (EM) to the Regulations overly
complex and technical, while lacking basic information about the policy such as how those infected can apply and from when, how long claims will take to be processed, when successful applicants can expect payments to be made, and the basis on which each claim will be assessed.”

The peers castigate the civil servants for not producing a report in simple, plain English and cast doubt on whether promises by the new government to start payment by Christmas will be fulfilled.

They also accuse the Cabinet Office of witholding information about the process.

“We are concerned that the Cabinet Office is withholding information on the impact and cost of
the Regulations until after the time for Parliamentary scrutiny has passed, which is unacceptable and circumvents proper scrutiny of the Regulations. We have not been given a reason why the costs could
not be published ahead of the budget. The House may wish to pursue the issue of costs further.”

The lesson from both the issues raised in this report is that this new government is not in control of Whitehall and allowing civil servants to evade proper scrutiny on the measures they are introducing. Either ministers are being inept in not following proper procedures or this is a deliberate decision not to provide MPs and peers with information allowing them to scrutinise the new government’s decisions.

Sir Keir Starmer says he is expecting to be the most unpopular Prime Minister of modern times. He is certainly knows how to go about it.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

How Starmer and Reeves pension savings are deliberately driving the elderly to an early grave

Posted on by

1950s born women to face a quadruple whammy to their hopes over compensation, heating allowances, fuel bills and new taxes

Sir Keir Starmer in the Cabinet Room Pic credit: Gov Uk

In just 50 days of a new Labour government pensioners rather than the better off have been singled out to pay the price to balance the books of running the country.

They are the people who are often not in the best of health, have worked most of their life and most don’t go around rioting and throwing fireworks or bricks at the police.

So for Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves they are a soft target to save money, particularly if your object is to grow the economy.

Rachel Reeves, Chancellor of the Exchequer poses for a photograph following her appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street

To them the elderly are a burden. That is because they would find it difficult to have enough energy to start new businesses, expensive to look after since they are more likely to use the NHS, and the cost of pensions is the real big ticket item for the Department for Work and Pensions costing £125 billion a year – far outstripping any payments to other people. The total DWP annual pay out to people is £258.4 billion – so pensions are almost half the bill. Rachel Reeves will know all about this as her partner, Neil Joicey was finance director at the DWP.

If ministers are prepared to ignore that pensioners feel they have contributed to their pension and it is theirs by right, it would be rather convenient for the Treasury if they died sooner than later. Life expectancy is already stagnant and the new Starmer and Reeves measures could see it fall. Also pensioners were the last group who chose to vote Conservative rather than Labour at the general election, so it would be politically convenient with a five year government guaranteed by its large majority if many had died by 2029. The dead can’t vote.

Darren Jones Pic credit: ITN News

The justification for means testing the fuel allowance – worth up to £300 per pensioner household – put by Darren Jones, the new Chief secretary to Treasury, was that it was a blanket benefit costing £1.4 billion claimed by the rich and poor. True a 90 year wealthy woman living in Kensington might not miss it, but an average 66 year old man living in Blackpool and about to die a year after getting his pension, will.

But his argument could also be used to abolish the universal state pension- and for all I know is being discussed in the Treasury – since it goes to billionaires -as well as the poorest.

The cut off point to lose the fuel allowance is £218.25 a week for single pensioners and under £332.95 for couples. Some 880,000 earning less than this could apply for pension credit but the forms are daunting for this. I checked to qualify you have to answer up to 243 questions. Read it here.

Some of the questions are bizarre. Why would you have to tell the DWP for example, if you share your home, with another person, whether he or she has ever been in prison or held in custody at a police station? Why do you have to tell them whether they have ever had four weeks holiday outside the UK? If you have over £10,000 in savings you have to fill in an additional 31 questions on another form. You have to disclose all the money send original bank and building society savings books and reveal how much cash you hide at home. You are expected to fill in the form yourself, if you can’t expect a visit from a DWP civil servant demanding why you can’t. No wonder a lot of people are put off and Ed Miliband’s cheery suggestion you apply, appears to mean he hasn’t a clue how detailed the forms are.

The other outrageous thing is that any government proposing a change should do an impact assessment on what this will mean. This was ignored by Rachel Reeves- so keen was she to announce the cuts.

On top of this we now know, after the announcement from the regulator, Ofgem, that energy prices are going up 10 per cent from October adding an average £149 to people’s bills just as the £300 fuel allowance is being abolished. At the same time Labour pointedly did not agree to raising pensioners tax allowances so with the triple lock in place, to avoid the poorest pensioners with little or no extra pension in place starting to pay tax again.

Michael Shanks MP and junior energy minister

As for the 1950s born women the chance of any compensation – even the paltry sums of between £1000 and £2900 recommended by the Parliamentary Ombudsman — is getting dimmer by the day. A rather frank answer to a constituent from Michael Shanks, the new Labour MP for Rutherglen and junior energy minister, has revealed the Treasury has taken over deciding whether they get a penny.

He wrote:” My understanding is it is being looked at seriously by Treasury and DWP Ministers now they are in post and fresh discussions are taking place about what happens next.

He went on: “You may be disappointed we didn’t simply commit to compensation for all, but as we have discussed before, I think it is more complex than that and I’m not convinced a one size fits all approach is right, or a good use of public money. The PHSO has recommended £1-3,000 per person, costing up to £10bn. However, this would give compensation to women who did know about the change – around 43% of WASPI women according to the PHSO. We need to ensure that any compensation is fair, so that at such a difficult time for the country financially we are not paying out thousands of pounds of compensation to women who were well aware of the changes, and that we are not insulting those badly affected with a mere £1-3,000.”

I have looked at the PHSO report and couldn’t find a reference to this 43 per cent who knew. If this is true it means that over 1.5 million will get nothing even if the government decides some compensation is due.

Meanwhile the campaign by CEDAWinLAW goes on. Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian judge, who headed an independent tribunal into the fate of 50s women who lost their pensions for six years, was handing in a letter following a petition signed by 37,000 at Number Ten Downing Street today to drive home to Sir Keir the strength of feeling over the discriminatory issue and the need for mediation with ministers. WASPI, which represent 186,000 of the 3.5 million affected say they will have a meeting with minsters next month.

Here’s a newly edited video of the visit by Jocelynne Scutt explaining the latest moves by CEDAWinLAW.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

The Solicitors Regulation Authority isn’t ” fit for purpose” to protect the public and whistleblowers

Posted on by
Solicitors Regulation Authority logo

There appears to be growing evidence that the Solicitors Regulation Authority,(SRA), the body that regulates and upholds professional standards for lawyers, is inconsistent in its judgements, over sympathetic to lawyers, particularly from large firms, and is not regarded by the public and whistleblowers as protecting their interests.

I took up the treatment of two whistleblowers who separately complained to the SRA about lawyers acting for the Sellafield nuclear waste site and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) recently. . Both complaints were rejected by the SRA who said the lawyer had behaved correctly. Yet they raised serious questions about the use of Non Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) to crush people complaining to regulators and use Subject Access Requests and Freedom of Information requests to obtain information from public authorities.

alison McDermott

One, Alison McDermott, who lost a consultancy contract after exposing bullying at the nuclear plant, even asked her former MP, Philip Davies, to complain about her complaint to the SRA being used against her by lawyers in a costs hearing. The chief executive of the SRA, Paul Philip, rejected this and cited the NDA’s view that she had acted “‘vexatiously, abusively, disruptively or otherwise unreasonably’ in the way that
her employment proceedings were conducted.” In fact both organisations lost most of their £40,000 claim against her.

She had previously complained about Deshpal Paneseer KC, a barrister from Old Square Chambers, representing the nuclear site, for the language he used against her saying she was a fundamental liar but got nowhere with this.

The costs claim included trying to get retrospectively the costs of a freedom of information request that Sellafield had granted. In fact there is no provision under the FOI Act for retrospective claims – the public authority has to decide within 20 working days of the application whether to grant it or not.

The second whistleblower – who I have not named – complained to the SRA about Emma Mills, a solicitor with DLA Piper, a proposed NDA ( this one known as a COT3) which demanded he withdraw all FOIs and Subject Access Requests and a complaint to a regulatory authority or face a £14,000 costs hearing despite withdrawing his case at an employment tribunal.

He wrote : “I am a Whistleblower acting in the public interest, and I regard the behaviour of Emma Mills and the Respondent as menaces and harassment, pushing me to accede unwillingly into signing a COT 3 contract which is not in my best interest, and under the threat of pursuing me for costs if I do not sign the COT3 contract.”

Again the SRA rejected this and again it is not lawful under the FOI Act as there is no provision in the Act for an organisation to ban a person using FOI. This was confirmed by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

Inconsistences in judgements

The inconsistency is shown by a recent decision by the SRA over a similar case reported on Linked In by Loopline Media. The full article is here. A law firm Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe (UK) LLP had been employed by a German firm Payone, a Digital payments service firm, based in Frankfurt with employees in the UK. The report found the law firm had tried to impose a settlement with a whistleblower to withdraw a complaint to the Pensions Regulator that it was breaking UK law by failing to provide a proper pension for employees. The SRA found the law firm had could have negatively impacted the reputation of the legal profession. Orrick’s conduct was found to fall short of the SRA’s ethical standards, prompting regulatory interception by way of a letter of advice. 

However the firm have been treated with kid gloves. No disciplinary action is being taken and a full report is not being published. The Pensions Regulator is investigating the firm.

Damning conclusion on the Legal Lens blog

The state of the SRA is thoroughly criticised in a post, also on Linked in, by John Barwell, a data privacy expert. In a damning blog, he points out multiple failures by the SRA. questioning whether a body funded by solicitors can really police solicitors. His damning conclusion is :

“The Solicitors Regulation Authority was established to protect the public and ensure that the legal profession operates with integrity. However, its track record shows that it is a regulator in name only, failing to achieve these goals. The mishandling of cases involving prominent law firms is not just an isolated failure—it is symptomatic of a regulator that has lost its way. Without significant reform, the SRA risks becoming an even more useless entity, incapable of holding the legal profession accountable. It is time for the SRA to step up, enforce its regulations consistently, and restore public confidence in its ability to regulate the legal profession effectively. Until then, it will remain a toothless watchdog, incapable of fulfilling its vital role in the justice system.”

I would add more thing – there is a question mark over its choice of solicitors to do its work – especially if you are a whistleblower in the NHS. The law firm which holds the contract is Capsticks, which also holds a major contract with the NHS to represent trusts. It is fiercely proactive in pursuing whistleblowers trying to expose patient safety concerns in the NHS and earns a substantial income – funded by the taxpayer – to represent trusts in these cases. If Capsticks is seen as bringing the profession into disrepute – a complainant may report them to the SRA only to find that Capsticks handles their cases. I know of one barrister who did spot what he thought was bad behaviour but he told me it was not worth going to the SRA about Capsticks since the SRA was their client.

I asked the SRA for a comment on my two cases last week but they have not released it yet. I will put it up when it arrives.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Pressure for action on 50swomen pensions pay out delivered to Number Ten

Posted on by
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.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Who offers 50s women best deal to get your lost pension money back when you vote on Thursday

Posted on by
Table compiled by CEDAWinLAW

The Green Party emerge at last moment as offering one of the better deals

The need to pay 3.5 million 50swomen compensation or restitution for their delayed pensions has hardly been a keenly debated issue in this election campaign. In fact it has hardly been mentioned by the main parties.

This table above gives an idea where the parties stand on the issue and does not make good reading.

It is quite clear that whoever becomes PM on Friday – more likely Sir Keir Starmer rather than Rishi Sunak – has no liking for an early decision to pay out the money. After the Parliamentary Ombudsman ‘s report on giving guidance to compensate people up to £2900 for partial maladministration – both the Labour and Tory Party still insist they have to study his findings.

The only word from the Tories is that they will make an ” appropriate decision ” at the time. This could be anything from a low offer or complete rejection- as Department for Work and Pensions civil servants argued in a submission to the Ombudsman’s inquiry.

Labour have done a complete U turn since the 2019 general election when the the shadow chancellor John McDonnell promised £58 billion compensation. Now his successor Rachel Reeves recognises there has been an injustice but has set aside no money to pay them. There is no mention in the Labour manifesto – instead it looks like Rachel Reeves is to prioritise getting equal pay for women in work instead by implementing a clause in the Equality Act. This would meet the UK’s commitment under the UN Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) but ignore discrimination caused by the delay in paying out pensions to 50s women.

So voting Conservative or Labour on this issue could mean the 3.5 million women could get nothing in the next Parliament.

The Lib Dems are far too vague about their support – just saying that 50swomen should be” treated fairly and properly compensated ” – but they don’t put a price on their compensation so you have no idea what they are going to support.

Others like the Scottish National Party who were strongly critical of the last government taking no action – do put a price on their compensation – saying it should be what the Ombudsman recommended and in line with what WASPI is demanding.

Quite a number of parties make it clear they support mediation – or Alternative Dispute Resolution. These include the Scottish Party, Alba, and the Alliance Party, Sinn Fein, the SDLP and DUP – virtually all Northern Ireland parties.

Mel Stride refused any mediation

The problem with this is that Mel Stride, the outgoing work and pensions secretary, will not enter talks so no progress can be made on this front – and unfortunately CEDAWinLAW had to abandon their judicial review against him to make him. It is not known if Labour forms the next government whether it will entertain agreeing to mediation.

Plaid Cymru has been very vocal about supporting 50s women and said it would want Parliament to pay higher compensation than the Parliamentary Ombudsman recommended going up to £9950. The party has also pressed the Welsh Assembly to hold an inquiry into how 50swomen have been treated.

George Galloway’s Workers Party is backing full restitution for the 3.5 million women and Gina Miller’s True and Fair Party is supporting mediation and CEDAWinLAW. Nigel Farage’s Reform Party does not give it a mention.

Green Party has strengthened its support for 50swomen

The Green Party are the only party to strengthen its stance on 50swomen during the election campaign. The issue is not mentioned in the manifesto but it has now decided to work with CEDAWinLAW. First Adrian Ramsay, the co-leader of the party, disclosed his mum was affected and backed Waspi’s campaign to get compensation for 50swomen. Then the Green Party Women group announced it would join the ADR group demanding mediation and tweeted “GPW have joined the #ADR group in support of mediation for #50sWomen. These women need JUSTICE. No procrastination. No kicking it down the road. We join@CarolineLucas, our own Co Chair @tinalouiseUK & some of our other PPC’s who have pledged to support. #CEDAWinLAW .”

Amanda Stones from the Green Party Women’s Committee said “As the special interest group in the Green Party that advocates for Women and Girls, and campaigns against sex discrimination we are very determined to try and get this historical discrimination rectified. Many of our members are 50sWomen including some on our own committee. We are extremely pleased to have joined the ADR group and we will be calling on any newly elected Green MP to demand justice for these women from whoever forms the next government. This ongoing discrimination must end.”

Another Green Parliamentary candidate Nataly Anderson, standing in Woking, announced on X she was backing CEDAWinLAW.

So who do you vote for? I am not telling you how you should vote but it seems obvious that a vote for the two biggest parties is unlikely to further your cause. So it will depend on the constituency. A vote for the Greens would help your cause in places like Brighton Pavilion ( Caroline Lucas’s old seat) Bristol Central, Waveney in Norfolk and North Herefordshire where the party stands a chance of winning and means you would have a voice for your cause to put pressure on the government.

In Northern Ireland any of the parties could further your cause, though Sinn Fein never take their seats in the UK Parliament. In Scotland a vote for the SNP or Alba would keep the issue alive while Plaid Cymru in Wales are taking a much stronger line than Labour.

Given there are 3.5 million women who have the vote the decision they take could influence the result of the election. The tricky decision in most of England would be balancing whether you wanted to get rid of the Conservatives at all costs which means voting for either Labour or the Liberal Democrats but that would depend on how strongly you feel on other issues.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Dishonorable gongs: Do the former Parliamentary Ombudsman and Permanent Secretary at the DWP deserve their knighthoods?

Posted on by

Now Sir Rob Behrens

Sir Peter Schofield

The King’s Birthday Honours List contains many eminent people from artist Tracey Emin to the not so well known Lord Etherton KC, a retired judge, who compiled a meticulous ground breaking report in 2023 into the disgraceful and inhumane treatment of gay people in the military prior to the lifting of the ban in 2000.

But there are two people who simultaneously received knighthoods which are open to question. They are Robert Behrens, the retiring Parliamentary Ombudsman and Peter Schofield, the current permanent secretary at the Department for Work and Pensions.

Both were at opposite ends over the huge controversy over whether 3.6 million people born in the 1950s should get restitution for maladministration and discrimination over the six year delay in getting their pensions.

Robert Behrens was responsible for compiling a report on whether there was maladministration ( his remit did not have to consider discrimination) over the ministry’s handling of the delay. It was the Ombudsman’s biggest report and he took years to do it, awarded only partial maladministration, and funked giving an award because of ministry opposition, leaving MPs to have to decide whether they get any money.

Peter Schofield was in charge of the department, which was not only totally opposed to giving them a penny, but under his leadership put in a submission to the Ombudsman exonerating his ministry, saying it not made even one mistake, should not be questioned by MPs about it, and further the 3.6 million seeking any money were likely to be fraudsters putting in false claims.

Let down 3.6 million women

Both of them let down 3.6 million law abiding women safe in the knowledge that sooner or later most of them would be dead. But for the government of the day, this was manna from heaven, saving them billions of pounds owed to the women, on top of inevitable pay outs to contaminated blood victims and sub postmasters. I suspect the fact that they were elderly women, who wouldn’t blockade the roads or disrupt public life like Extinction Rebellion and unlikely to be sprightly enough to climb on the roof of Rishi Sunak’s house in protest, was also a factor in their calculations.

No wonder a grateful Establishment would reward those who saved them a lot of money. Of course there is no mention of this in the citations given for the awards, which would add insult to injury. Instead it is tactfully avoided and the awards are for other matters.

For Rob Behrens, and this was emphasised in a tweet on X from his office, the award is more for his role as Health Service Commissioner. He has been outspoken about the toxic culture inside the NHS when patients complain, and in a report called Broken Trust was critical of clinical failings and the way some trusts acted in handling complaints. He followed this up with a letter to the Department for Health jointly with Henrietta Hughes, the Patient Safety Commissioner demanding a fundamental change in NHS culture from a combative to a restorative approach in handling complaints and ensuring there was a patient’s voice on the trust’s executive.

The Ombudsman’s press office reaction to his handling of the 50s women’s case was: “We have set out our findings following a robust, thorough and detailed investigation regarding how changes to the State Pension Age were communicated. It is now for Parliament to take forward and intervene to hold the Department for Work and Pensions to account and provide woman affected with the quickest route to remedy.” I’ll leave you to judge whether that is an adequate explanation.

34 years spent by the DWP producing inaccurate accounts

Now the award to Peter Schofield has to be taken against the background of the ministry’s 34 years of failure to produce accurate accounts because it cannot produce accurate figures on benefits. It is the worst performance across Whitehall and is regularly criticised by the National Audit Office who audit their accounts. According to the citation his award is for the speedy delivery of benefits, especially during the pandemic and for a culture encouraging innovation. I have asked the department to spell out what this means but have had no reply to date.

I notice the delivery of pensions is not cited as a reason to give him a knighthood. This is hardly surprising since the ministry is in the middle of having to pay out millions of pounds to existing pensioners, mainly women again, who have been shortchanged because of the ministry’s mistakes in calculating them. It also has a history of not wanting to implement decisions from the Ombudsman in anything but the most rudimentary way such as over the guaranteed minimum pension .

So do both of them deserve a knighthood? I think the handling of the 50swomen pensions fiasco should have been a factor in NOT awarding one because of the huge number of people who have so far ,been left with nothing. To be fair, Rob Behrens, has been outspoken as Health Services Commissioner, but I have noticed when handling complaints himself, he has been more cautious in his findings.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00