Category Archives: pensions

The great stonewall: How Mel Stride and Rishi Sunak have stymied 50swomen compensation

Posted on by
Rishi Sunak

After years of waiting for compensation for maladministration and discrimination some 3.5 million 50s born women have been left in limbo yet again even for the paltry sums of up to £2900 compensation recommended as a guideline by Rob Behrens, the former Parliamentary Ombudsman.

The explanation given by both Mel Stride and Rishi Sunak any time they are asked by MPs is that the Ombudsman’s report is so complicated that they will be spending an age to study it. They keep citing that it took Rob Behrens five years to write, deliberately ignoring that the Ombudsman unnecessarily paused his work for nearly two years while the Department for Work and Pensions was facing a judicial review over discrimination from Backto60 – now CEDAWinLAW.

DWP

In fact their excuse – which was never strong to start with – is rapidly wearing thin. The truth is that civil servants have had months to study the likely outcome of the Ombudsman’s report since it is not much different from the draft report he circulated – and was leaked on this blog – over 18 months ago..

And the Ombudsman knew that civil servants at the DWP then did not believe they had put a foot wrong and rejected any suggestion that there was any maladministration at all. Indeed their draft reply – also leaked on this blog – had the temerity to suggest that these women were a load of fraudsters who would put in fake claims so they certaInly should NOT get any compensation.

What is becoming clear to exasperated MPs whether on the Commons Work and Pensions Committee or the Public Administration and Constitution Affairs Committee is that the government have no intention of naming a date when they will reply. And the government know they do not have to implement the Ombudsman’s paltry findings because the law allows them to ignore or reject any recommendation from the Ombudsman.

As Jackie Doyle Price tweeted as the new Tory chair of PACAC : “We are extremely disappointed that the Government is unable to tell us when it is planning to respond to @PHSOmbudsman‘s report into the communication of state pension age changes to #50swomen.”

Indeed are the government going give them any money at all – just issue an apology. That is what Ben Wilkinson, the Telegraph’s head of money said in an article recently and it is echoed by the private pensions industry which was always opposed to the women getting any compensation. And there are signs that some Tories such as Samuel Kasumu, Boris Johnson’s former special adviser, think the same – though their MPs are wary of alienating 50swomen in case they lose even more votes at the next General Election.

Sir Keir Starmer Pic Credit: Chris McAndrew / UK Parliament

Labour are not much better – the party leadership abstained on a Scottish National Party motion- calling for compensation suggesting Sir Keir Starmer is not keen either. Many Labour backbenchers take a different view and have raised the issue of how unfairly the women have been treated.

What is also missing is a more rounded debate. It is centred – no doubt by Higginson Strategy, lobbyists for WASPI, solely on the demands of WASPI which seems content to accept the Ombudsman’s recommended findings.

The debate pushed by CEDAWinLAW for an alternative solution – mediation with Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary , has been ignored by too many MPs. This too involves a compromise but Mel Stride is not playing. CEDAWinLAW’s lawyers judged it was unlawful of him not to agree to this. And it is pity through not having enough funds to go through the case and the threats of adverse costs by both the DWP and, at one stage, Waspi, that this could not go to court. Waspi. didn’t support any mediation either. Mel Stride has still to reply again to a letter from CEDAWinLAW’s lawyers.

CEDAWinLAW has asked the UN CEDAW committee in Geneva to open an inquiry into the government’s handling of this. If they do the Government will face international criticism and the UK’s reputation for fairness and treatment of women in society will be further damaged.

In the end the government know that by remaining silent they can delay this as long as they like. But ministers should be careful. Although a number of the women are now dead, there is still a sizeable number who could take their revenge on the government through the ballot box. And time is also running out for the government when they have to call a general election.

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

Exclusive: New mediation demanded for 50s women as judicial review is postponed

Posted on by

CEDAWinLAW takes the fight to the UN in Geneva

Former judgeJocelynne Scutt (middle) with Professor Natasha Despoja, a CEDAW committee member ((left) and Dr Elgun Safarov ( deputy chairman ( Right)

CEDAWinLAW, the successor organisation to Backto60, has decided to postpone its legal action on behalf of all 1950s women to force Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, to go to mediation over the long standing fight over the six year delay in paying out women’s pensions.

A statement from the organisation emphasises that this is a postponement not a total withdrawal of the case since preliminary work by their lawyers has found that Mell Stride did act unlawfully by not agreeing to mediation. Effectively it leaves a Sword of Damocles hanging over Mr Stride and Liz Kendall, his potential Labour successor as work and pensions secretary, should the party win the next general election.

The statement reads:

CEDAWinLAW has decided to postpone its action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions. Whilst its case is clear that the Secretary of State refused unlawfully, reasonable invitations to mediate made by Garden Court, it has decided to wait upon further developments before proceeding with its judicial review which it will now withdraw. Funds generously donated have been used in launching the judicial review and taking advice. Those funds fell short in timing of providing funds for a full-blown fight in front to the court. Our counsel said of the fight; “This is an important challenge for so many 1950’s 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 our legal team.”. Whilst in the short term we have not achieved our goal for 1950s women’s pension rights, we have brought further notice to their plight and increased the political pressure which continues to build. We shall succeed for all those women

The decision will be disappointing for the women as an early court hearing on mediation was seen as better bet than the compensation likely to be awarded by the Parliamentary Ombudsman which is in the region of £1000 to £2900. The Department of Work and Pensions opposes compensation to any of the women either via the Ombudsman’s guidelines or through mediation.

CEDAWinLAW was able to raise money easily for the first stage to allow lawyers to prepare a case but lack of further wider publicity meant there was not enough money to continue to a full hearing.

WASPI did not help either. It expressed interest in becoming a party to the case and their lawyers demanded access to the all the papers. They also threatened CEDAWinLAW with costs unless they handed them. When they got access to the papers they decided not to proceed and instead their board sided with the Department of Work and Pensions case against CEDAWinLAW . The WASPI board quote the DWP’s contention that Australian judge Jocelynne Scutt’s report which found discrimination against all 3.8 million had no standing. Unfortunately for them this is not the view of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, whose deputy chairman, Dr Elgun Safarov, gave evidence to the people’s tribunal run by Jocelynne Scutt, who regard the findings as very important.

This continual divide between the organisations which includes banning WASPI women seeing any of my articles on their sites has been a gift to the DWP who don’t want to see the women get a penny.

However other developments mean that is not the end of the story. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , has already received from Jocelynne Scutt a paper to on discrimination in women’s pensions in the UK. This can form the basis for an inquiry which would put the UK in the dock.

CEDAW are already not pleased that after 40 years membership of CEDAW, the UK has not passed all the legislation to comply with the convention, and has written to the UK about this. The UK at the moment is trying to ignore this but cannot stop the body setting up an inquiry.

Mel Stride

Other developments will happen when Parliament returns on April 15. Mel Stride has already met a senior politician and, fresh from his universal roasting by MPs from all parties on the Ombudsman’s report, is beginning to think he will have to offer something.

The SNP is also active. Patricia Gibson, the SNP’s Attorney General spokesman and MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, is planning to put up a backbench motion calling on Mel Stride to agree to WASPI’s demand for compensation and wants to press it to a vote. But given the different political rivalries in the Commons, there could be a danger it could be lost.

CEDAWinLAW is also drawing up a strategy to continue to press for mediation. More news on this is likely to be announced soon.

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 overlong and continuing battle for 50swomen to get their delayed pensions: My interview with Marie Greenhalgh on South Manchester’s Radio Wythenshawe FM

Posted on by

This week I gave a long interview with radio presenter Marie Greenhalgh who is also a 1950s born woman. It is as much a chat as an interview.. For those who missed it and would like to have heard it here it is – courtesy of the community radio station. I was absolutely delighted to be given such a chance to explain in detail this sorry story which has never been properly covered by mainstream media and TV. After the chat there is some music and reaction to my interview and chat.
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

Mel Stride roasted over his ” no undue delay” posture on compensating the 3.5 million 50swomen who had waited a decade to get justice

Posted on by
Mel Stride

Not one MP in Parliament came to the rescue of Mel Stride, the work and pension secretary, when he made his initial statement on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report which concluded that there was maladministration over the delay in communicating the six year delay to women in the 1950s and either Parliament or the DWP should compensate them.

Essentially it was a holding statement with the minister emphasising that it was a complex 100 page report which he had to consider very carefully.

“The ombudsman has noted in his report the challenges and the complexities of this issue. In laying the report before Parliament, the ombudsman has brought matters to the attention of the House and we will provide a further update to the House once we have considered the report’s findings.”

He also tried to drag in the judicial review, then pursued by Back to 60, for the reason for the delay in the Ombudsman’s report, citing that the two courts the High Court and the Court of Appeal had presented as fact that the DWP had not acted unlawfully ( no one said they had) over maladministration. The trouble is he got it wrong, the hearings which I attended, were about discrimination in the past not maladministration. As Marcia Will Stewart, the lawyer from Bimberg Peirce, said in 2019 “Our judicial review had nothing to do with maladministration investigation, whatever others may say”. And as she was bringing the case I prefer her analysis to Mel Stride’s.

Liz Kendall

Indeed Mr Stride’s only other friend in Parliament was Liz Kendall, Labour’s Opposition spokesman, who said:

“This is a serious report that requires serious consideration. The ombudsman has rightly said it is for the Government to respond but that Parliament should also consider its findings.

“Members on this side of the House will look carefully at the report too and continue to listen respectfully to those involved, as we have done from the start.” ( in other words we don’t want to lose your vote in case you think we are siding with Tories).

Tories were not Stride’s best friends

But it was the Tories who, while polite, were not his best friends. None of them defended the government’s delay and all pressed for a decision. It started with Caroline Noakes, who chairs the Women and Equalities select committee, who said:

““I recognise this is an interim update but I would gently press (Mr Stride) that Waspi women have been waiting five years for the ombudsman, they won’t want to wait for a select committee inquiry into this report in order to see action from the Government.”

Soon it became clear that many other Tories, mindful of holding on to their seats, did not want unnecessary delays. Tory MPs representing Stroud, Scunthorpe, North Norfolk, Eastbourne, Waveney, Weston super Mare, Amber Valley and the Isle of Wight were among many who made it abundantly clear they would not brook this being pushed into the long grass.

Bob Seely

Bob Seely, the MP for the Isle of Wight, while praising the government for keeping the triple lock, had every reason to be concerned – he has the largest number of 50swomen in his present constituency and foul wind combined with their lack of support ( even if the Island now gets two seats) could sweep him away.

But the government faced its greatest attack from the Scottish National Party who members slammed ministers. Patricia Gibson, their official spokesman and MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, hit out at ” timid Labour” and ministers.

“We in the SNP stand shoulder to shoulder with these women, who have been abandoned and betrayed by the UK Government and the future Labour Government. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what it will take to compensate these women? Do we need another TV drama to embarrass and shame the Government into doing the right thing? “

Other SNP MPs cited deaths of the women in their constituencies and the anger among the women. Ian Blackford, the former Westminster SNP leader said: “Can we imagine what would happen in this place if it was announced that private sector pensions were being put back by six years? Rightly, there would be outrage, and there should be outrage about what happened to the WASPI women.”

Joanna Cherry picked up on Mel Stride and Labour muddying the waters over raising the judicial review

“The WASPI campaign has asked me to emphasise its annoyance about how often Government Ministers, when talking about these issues, attempt to muddy the waters by referring back to the unsuccessful litigation to reverse the increase to the state pension age, or to claim direct discrimination. That was not litigation by the official WASPI campaign, and I am sure that its members were annoyed to hear a senior Labour Front Bencher doing the same thing on the radio last night.”

Labour backbenchers took a much stronger line than their front bench demanding a timetable for the implementation of compensation starting with Marsha de Cordova, representing Battersea.

“The Secretary of State has said that he wants to continue to look in detail at the findings of the report, but surely he should be able to make an unambiguous commitment to compensation for these women.”

Imran Hussain, representing Bradford East said: “Will he at least accept that every time a Minister stands up and says “undue delay” or “due process” they really mean that they have no intention of addressing the problem, and are saving face and kicking the can down the road?

Other criticism came from Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, told him:” we have no confidence in the Department for Work and Pensions to resolve its basic failure of decades ago..”

It will not have been a pleasant experience for Mel Stride who was probably glad Parliament closed for the day after this statement. He would be extremely stupid not to take note but MPs will have to keep up the pressure to get any compensation out of this government. Only the fear of being swept out of power will make them do anything, but whether it be enough money will be another matter.

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

50s women are back to Square One after the Parliamentary Ombudsman “cops out” of awarding them a penny

Posted on by
Rob Behrens departing Parliamentary Commissioner

Today’s report from Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, is one of the most underwhelming publications ever to come from a public figure asked to redress a major injustice.

After toiling over his report for some seven years all he can produce is a mouse of a publication which leaves some 3.5 million women born in the 1950s having to fight their corner all over again to get compensation for waiting six more years to get their pension.

We should have known it was likely to be lacklustre after his first preliminary report conceded only “partial maladministration ” for the way the Department for Work and Pensions failed to communicate with the women about the long wait they would have to get their pensions. This immediately lowered the amount of compensation he might award at the end – ruling out the highest level. And WASPI under Angela Madden, were totally stupid not to challenge this at the time, particularly as evidence emerged during the judicial review brought by the ” Back to 60 ” campaign that the DWP’s own civil servants had urged the then secretary of state, Peter now Lord Lilley, to run a campaign to tell the women as long ago as 1997. They knew the women hadn’t realised the implications.

Spurious objections from the DWP

Now today’s report completely ducks the issue, make no recommendation for an award and caves into spurious objections from the DWP that it is either too costly to find the people affected or too costly to pay out. Given the DWP know the details of every pensioner bank account as they have to pay them every month, this is plain ridiculous. At least he spared them the other claim from the DWP that some of the 50s women were fraudsters if they put in a claim. No doubt this civil servant who wrote this relished prosecuting and jailing these elderly women like the managers who led the Post Office pursued the sub postmasters.

There is some guidance in his report which appears to suggest he might have thought giving them a range of compensation from £1000 each to £2900 but there is no detailed mechanism of how this could be done.

And as for asking Parliament to decide, the big question is how? For start there is no agreement on the level of compensation. Is it the £1000 – £2900 hinted by the Ombudsman ? Is it the £10,000 promised by Angela Madden and the All Party Parliamentary Group on this issue? Should it be the £58 billion that the former Labour chancellor, John McDonnell, promised during Labour’s last election campaign?Or should it be full restitution of all the money promised by CEDAWinLAW, which could end up with some getting over £40,000. There is plenty of space for everyone to disagree and delay.

What is the mechanism that will force the DWP to give into demands from Parliament? The answer is that there is none. Angela Madden today was spectacularly naive in thinking that is is wonderful that Parliament will decide.

Parliament controlled by Government whips

For a start the Parliamentary agenda is almost totally controlled by Government whips. And do people really think the government, which opposes paying anything, is going to make Government time available to debate something they don’t want to hear? Also Labour may be reluctant to use one of its Opposition days to debate the issue because it would force them to declare their hand and then be subject to barrage of attacks from the Tories claiming everybody’s taxes were to go up to pay these women? Only the Scottish National Party could risk calling a debate as the bill falls on Westminster not Holyrood.

A backbencher could put up a motion but I gather this would not be binding on the DWP who would safely ignore it.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman, who retires this week, could have given a clear uncompromising lead on what could have been done but flunked it. Frankly if I read the Jerusalem Post correctly he has give more uncompromising support to the Israeli government’s bombing of Gaza than he has defending the rights of cheated pensioners in this country.

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

MPs call again for reform of the antiquated Parliamentary Ombudsman – but ignore the plight of 50swomen

Posted on by
William Wragg MP: official Portrait

Also ” Ombudsman friend “of Rob Behrens facing a corruption hearing in Australia

MPs today publish their official annual scrutiny of the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman but what it doesn’t say is more important than what it says.

The committee call again – this time for a manifesto commitment from all political parties – to reform the 57 year old Ombudsman legislation – to give the Ombudsman and Health Service Commissioner more clout and powers to ensure his or her recommendations are implemented This follows the blank refusal of this government to take any action to do so. Michael Gove when he was in the Cabinet Office ruled out even a draft bill.

In a desperate plea the chairman, Tory William Wragg, who is also quitting at the election, says:

“As we have done annually for many years now to no avail, we are once again calling on the Government to bring forward what is now very long-overdue legislative reform of the PHSO, so that it can provide the level of service the public requires from it.

“Given the necessity of PHSO reform, we urge all political parties to include a commitment to reforming the legislation relating to the PHSO in their election manifestos ahead of the next General Election.”

Whether the Tories will commit to this must be unlikely since it suits the present government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, and to some extent the NHS, to have a weak Ombudsman who can be safely ignored if they don’t like what he says.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office has welcomed the committee’s statement:

“We are pleased to see the Committee’s support for reform of our outdated legislative framework and their call for Government to reconsider its position and consult with stakeholders ahead of the General Election. We agree with their sentiment that reform has been ‘neglected’, is ‘long overdue’, and that ‘further delay is no longer tenable’. 

The rest of the report seems a mixture of praise and criticism over the Ombudsman’s performance. He is praised for dealing with a backlog of complaints that followed the Covid 19 pandemic but criticised for the way he didn’t handle well complaints affecting the elderly and the disabled.

Rob Behrens, retiring Parliamentary Ombudsman

But there were two huge elephants in the room missing in the report. Retiring Ombudsman Robert Behrens when he faced MPs had to spend a good part of the session facing criticism from MPs of the huge and unprecedented delay in publishing his report on the plight of 50swomen – some of them WASPI supporters – and recommending compensation for maladminstration in the six year delay in getting their state pension. Indeed his report is taking longer than the actual delay in getting their pensions.

Yet from today’s report you would think this never happened. There is not one word in the report acknowledging this. All there is a footnote referring to the WASPI evidence while the evidence from CEDAWinLAW does not even merit that.

Yet any reader of this blog knows the present draft recommends NO compensation for the women leaving it up to MPs in Parliament to debate whether women should get a penny.

This is more outrageous given that over 500 people know what it says and practically every sitting MP knows the outcome but most are happy to participate in a conspiracy of silence hoping it will go away. WASPI is playing the same game and one is beginning to wonder whether they want to get any money at all.

The other missing information is who is going to be new Ombudsman. The committee inadvertently published the letter sent to the Cabinet Office from Sir Alex Allen, once adviser to David Cameron and Boris Johnson until he resigned, and now a member of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Board – see my blog here– asking for a speedy decision from Rishi Sunak to replace Rob Behrens. Now it is nearly a month since I wrote about this and nothing has happened. The Cabinet Office appears not to have replied.

Yet they have only until March 27 – when Parliament goes into Easter recess – to fix up a meeting to approve the appointment of a successor. Even if the board appoints an acting ombudsman under the 1967 legislation it would still need Parliamentary approval by the committee, I am told.

Rob Behrens also had strong links with the various international organisations – a couple of which have been hit by scandals.

A war crime and a corruption scandal

Josef Ziegele, the European Ombudsman Institute ‘s general secretary, was behind the alleged deportation of two Ukrainian refugee children from Austria to Russia which could be a war crime according to the Kyiv Independent which led to other Ombudsmen, including Rob Behrens resigning from it last April.

The president of the International Ombudsman Institute, Chris Field, who is the Western Australia state Parliamentary ombudsman, is apparently a good friend of Rob Behrens. But at the moment Field is at the centre of corruption hearings in Western Australia over his huge annual travel expenses of $266,000 Australian dollars (£136,840) and for subsidising his organisation through money allocated from Australian taxpayers.

At a visit to Ukraine in 2022 Mr Field heaped praise on Mr Behrens saying “I am deeply grateful to my good friend and colleague Rob Behrens CBE, IOI Vice President Europe, who joined me on this visit. He is a person of utter integrity, searching intellect and profoundly good values. He came to Ukraine. He lives his values” .

He also put a submission to the PACAC saying: ” He is counted as a wise mentor and friend by me and so many of his colleagues around the world. Ombudsman Behrens has not just transformed the office of the PHSO into one of the world’s leading Ombudsman offices, he has made a contribution to the IOI and the institution of the Ombudsman globally of inestimable value. It is of some note that I was accompanied by only one Ombudsman on my visit to Ukraine in December in 2022, namely Ombudsman Behrens. He distinguished his office and his country during this visit.”

The annual report of his Ombudsman’s report for West Australia revealed Field had visited Taiwan, China, Ukraine, Britain, the US, Slovenia, Thailand, Austria, Morocco, France, Russia, Poland and Hungary.  Just prior to his visit to Ukraine, the IOI president met with the Australian Ambassador to Poland Lloyd Brodrick, and the Australian Ambassador to Ukraine Bruce Edwards in Poland. 

Chris Field, Western Australia Ombudsman

During the first tranche of the corruption hearings against him ( they resume mid March) it was revealed that he decided to end rules disclosing gifts he had received on foreign trips by raising the disclosure limit from around £25 to £125. It was revealed that he planned to give the OECD in Paris from Australian taxpayers funds , over $213,000 (about £107,000) for a project concerning, ‘the role of Ombudsman institutions in building a culture of open government for stronger and more resilient communities.’ The first invoice from OECD of half the cash was blocked by the Ombudsman’s chief finance officer.

He also ordered his office to pay for a private limousine to take him from the Paris Hilton to the OECD headquarters because he said taxis were difficult to find in Paris.

It was said he was only in the office for two days out of ten because of all these world trips and he designated other people to take operational decisions.

Behrens stands with Israel

MPs in today’s report praise the Ombudsman for seeking co-operation with international organisations. It also discloses that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is working closely to co-operate with Israel’s Ombudsman.

So closely that Matanyahu Englman, Israel’s Ombudsman requested both Chris Field and Rob Behrens to issue a statement by the International Ombudsman Institute giving unqualified support to Israel to fight HAMAS.

Chris Field obliged saying: “There can be no false moral equivalences in the lawful and correct response of Israel to those who came to slaughter the Jewish people,” in a letter to Israel’s State Comptroller and Ombudsman Matanyahu Englman. “No international body should be allowed to falter in their resolve to eradicate a body that actually pays their members to kill Jews. There can be no peace in the Middle East while terrorism and undemocratic representation of the peoples of Gaza seek to eliminate the Jewish people.”

See the Jerusalem Post article here for the full story.

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

Why does the DWP want the personal documents of the six complainants over 50swomen pensions when it has decided to refuse to pay them?

Posted on by

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.

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

Exclusive: Legal papers lodged at the High Court to start proceedings against Mel Stride over 50swomen pensions

Posted on by
Royal Courts of Justice

UPDATE: Papers have now been served on Mel Stride, Secretary of State for work and pensions, and the DWP for acting unreasonably in refusing to agree to mediation over the issue of the six year delay to 1950s women’s pensions. The ministry will now have 21 days to file a response and then the case will have to go to court.

The Government’s attitude in not recognising there is a problem chimes well with their handling of the Post Office postmaster’s scandal and in delaying compensation for people hit by the contaminated blood scandal. Their attitude to my mind suggests there is a Whitehall playbook to avoid paying people any compensation for as long as possible, probably drawn up by Government lawyers, in the hope that many people will be dead before the inevitable pay out is made.

Since the publication of this blog the DWP has confirmed it is now involved in litigation with CEDAWinLAW but does not wish to comment about it.

But interestingly Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, has pulled back from his threat to pause his investigation ( see below). He now says he will review the position only if the courts give permission to CEDAWinLAW to bring a judicial review. This means the confidential consultation will continue until January 19 and the report is still scheduled to be published on March 23.

The legal battle against Mel Stride, the work and pension secretary, over his refusal to consider mediation in the long running dispute over50s women pensions has begun.

Papers were lodged at the High Court yesterday by lawyers representing the campaigning group .CEDAWinLAW on behalf of 3.5 million people who faced a six year delay to receiving their pension.

In a statement the organisation said:

“CEDAWinLAW earlier instructed Professor John Cooper KC, ‘One of the Top 10 influential lawyers in the UK’, 25bedfordrow.com and David Greene, Senior Partner, edwincoe.com to represent ALL 1950’s Women in a judicial review against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions in relation to the DWP’s refusal to mediate following from the Judge’s Report which sets out in depth the way in which those affected have enforceable rights which have been breached.

We are delighted to announce today that our legal team has issued at the court an Application for a Judicial Review in the matter which, in turn, is now being served on the Respondent.

Included as part of the lodged Application & Bundles, an expert witness statement authored by The Hon Dr Jocelynne Scutt AO, the former Australian judge, who produced a report on the discrimination faced by 50s women.

Please kindly donate to meet our legal team costs and @crowdjustice platform fees. The link is :https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/group-class-action/ “

Mel Stride, Work and Pensions Secretary

The lodging of the papers will mean the Department for Work and Pensions will have to lodge a response to the new judicial review breaking their silence over the matter and their refusal to contemplate any mediation over the matter.

What the position of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Robert Behrens, to this new development is not entirely clear. He is handling a separate case involving maladministration and is currently consulting in confidence over 500 people and the six complainants on his final report until January 19. His plan was to publish it on March 23 just a few days before his retirement. His main findings and the Department’s response to him were published on this blog here and here.

During a hearing with the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in November Mr Behrens in a reply to Ronnie Cowan, the Scottish National Party MP for Inverclyde, said:

“It is not in our hands, Mr Cowan, to be able to be definitive about what the end date is going to be. If there is further litigation, then that will delay the process even further. That is out of our
hands.”

It now is and his reaction and the DWP’s reaction to this new development is awaited.

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

Exclusive: Mel Stride now facing legal battle over refusal to agree to mediation over 50s women compensation for lost pensions

Posted on by
Mel Stride work and pensions secretary

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 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 this here.

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 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 ’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.

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

Exclusive: DWP paper says paying any maladministration compensation to 3.5 million 50s women is ” a major fraud risk”

Posted on by

Entire DWP submission to Ombudsman on women’s right to pension compensation leaked to this blog

All 3.5 million 50s born women including the six “test case” complainants should get no compensation because there has been no maladministration and no evidence of financial loss, the DWP has told Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Even if there were maladministration the submission says his report does not show “there was injustice as a consequence of that maladministration.”

Their 118 paragraph submission rejects his entire draft report and his modest proposal of £1000 compensation for the six test cases, which the department says is, anyway, too high.

The coruscating response to the Ombudsman in a document marked ” official sensitive” is highly critical of his findings, the campaign to get compensation by WASPI, and makes the extraordinary suggestion that many of the claims by women could turn out to be fraudulent.

The attitude of the officials to the claim explains the real reason why Mel Stride, the Work and Pensions Secretary, is against mediation as he is obviously being advised that the ministry has no case to answer and why the Ombudsman, who must be embarrassed by the language in the submission, has turned to Parliament as a last resort.

The findings must be a major blow to Angela Madden, the organiser for WASPI, who only last year claimed at the Labour Party Conference that the women would get £10,000 to £20,000 compensation from the ministry.

Much of the submission is devoted to the Ombudsman’s proposal that all the women who have similar circumstances must get similar compensation and fund set up to deal with the wider question of compensation for financial loss. This means that the department would have to examine each case in detail which , according to the paper , would mean employing 5,500 extra staff, and take away people from other work like paying people’s pensions on their retirement and awarding pension credit.

The submission says: “DWP would not have information on all 1950s-born women and we would have to source their information – for example, through HMRC. We would also need bank details in order to make an automated payment and these would be obtained through outreach and/or some way for citizens to provide their details. Such a scenario would take significant setting-up and would have wide ranging impacts on DWP’s other critical business, with likely costs of the digital aspects.” It says this would take 18 months to set up.

It is the fraud claim over financial losses that is most extraordinary.

The submission says: “We are concerned that the Ombudsman’s proposed recommendations would generate a major fraud risk and be hugely and disproportionately burdensome to implement.”

“… we expect that the existence of a scheme would result in many claimants endeavouring to provide such evidence. The Department would then have to try out many extensive and expensive investigations to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to prove financial loss. We expect that claimants will be
encouraged to make claims for financial loss and that template letters will be circulated to support such claims. The cost of living crisis may also drive increased volumes of claims.

“This seems to be an entirely unnecessary expense for the taxpayer given that the Ombudsman has found no sufficient evidence on the 6 sample cases, we found no sufficient evidence on the 10,000 cases, and we cannot see how sufficient evidence could be available.”

The submission does not even accept that that there was anything wrong with the ministry’s communication to 50swomen. The Ombudsman makes another modest proposal that officials report to him and the chairs of the work and pensions and public administration select committtees, Stephen Timms and William Wragg on what they have done six months after his report is published.

“”You have recommended that within 6 months of your final report we explain to you and the chairs of the WPSC and PACAC what we have done since these events happened or what we plan to do.

….”we do not agree to report to you and the chairs of the 2 committees within 6 months of your final report being published. Also, your findings relate to historic events. We are not clear on the benefit of
considering these events with the advantage of hindsight.”

I am not surprised this confidential submission was labelled ” sensitive”. It shows up the arrogant way officials behave towards 3.5 million elderly women, their disdain for remarkably modest proposals from the Ombudsman, dislike of organisations like Waspi for organising ” template letters” and a level of complacency they have in their administration of this vexed and prolonged process of raising the pension age. Their official attitude is little better than Boris Johnson’s quip during the Covid pandemic “let the elderly die”.

I have not bothered to either inform or contact the Ombudsman’s Office or the DWP on this leaked report as the Ombudsman is bound by law from commenting during an investigation and the DWP never comment on leaked documents.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can continue exposing what is really going on in government.

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