Category Archives: politics

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

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

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

Labour to grant Orgreave inquiry and new Hillsborough law in manifesto pledges

Posted on by
Orgreave rally being held in Sheffield tomorrow by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign

Campaigners who have fought for years for justice following the infamous ” Battle of Orgreave” during the miners strike and the Hillsborough tragedy have convinced Labour to introduce a new law and hold a long demanded inquiry.

The decision, in the small print of the manifesto, to hold an inquiry into the 1984 “Battle of Orgreave ” where 6000 police fought striking miners picketing a coke plant, has been demanded for years by the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign and is now in Labour’s manifesto for the next Parliament.

The decision comes at a key moment when a new documentary on Orgreave will be screened at the Sheffield DocFest on Sunday. The director, Daniel Gordon of Strike: An Uncivil War, has wanted to make the film for a decade after seeing links between South Yorkshire Police handling of the strike and the treatment of families of the 97 Liverpool football fans who died when an overcrowded stand collapsed at Hillsborough in 1989. He gives an interview here to the BBC.

Any such inquiry is likely to be forensic into the police methods used against the miners. My own book on the miner’s strike, Marching to the Fault Line, written jointly with author and playwright Francis Beckett, points a finger at Peter Wright, then chief constable of South Yorkshire Police, who died in 2011, who after Orgreave, wrote a memo released to us under freedom of information, called for Arthur Scargill, to be prosecuted for conspiracy. The memo reached ministers but was blocked by the Director of Public Prosecutions for lack of evidence. Other very limited circulated memos, show that Thatcher, and Cabinet ministers Leon Brittan, Norman Tebbit and Peter Walker had drawn up a strategy in advance for this big confrontation with the pickets with Ian MacGregor , head of the Coal Board and Bob Haslam, chair of British Steel.

Labour’s decision to call for an inquiry has one extraordinary and unlikely precedent. Some nine years ago Theresa May, met with the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign, to set up such an inquiry.

As my blog reported then: “Theresa May agreed to meet an extraordinary delegation of Labour MPs, lawyers, ex miners through the Orgreave Truth and Justice Campaign ( see their website here) at the end of July and has agreed to accept  a detailed legal submission from Mike Mansfield and three other distinguished barristers arguing for the case to set up an independent inquiry.”

This never happened because Theresa May’s successor as home secretary, Amber Rudd, blocked the inquiry.

Bishop James Jones – who chaired the Hillsborough Independent Panel Pic Credit: BBC

The other significant promise by Labour which could have wide ranging ramifications, is a long demanded implementation of the Hillsborough Law, sought after the independent panel inquiry by Right Revd James Jones, the former Bishop of Liverpool, which forensically examined the tragedy.

This would introduce a duty of candour for all public officials – similar to the professional duty for doctors in the NHS – and say they had to co-operate and assist any public inquiry investigation. It would also provide that taxpayers money will be available for the victims or the bereaved needing legal representation at any inquiry. Effectively this would provide a level playing field between the authorities – who are already funded by the taxpayer – and those who were affected by any future scandal. This has a widespread application – and would affect future inquiries into NHS failings and would have been extremely helpful to those at the Grenfell, Contaminated Blood, and Sub Postmasters inquiries.. Also it would make it very difficult for officials to try and conceal the truth as it would be against the law.

Given that Labour are under fire for producing a cautious and lacklustre manifesto in other areas I am surprised the party has not highlighted these changes. There are also plans to reform the House of Lords, strengthen the independence of the Prime Minister’s adviser on ministerial interests, curb MPs having second jobs and set up an independent Ethics and Integrity Commission. Why have we not heard more of this from Sir Keir Starmer?

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 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

How Rishi Sunak caused chaos at the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s office by blocking a smooth transition to Rob Behren’s successor

Posted on by
Nick Hardwick pic credit: Wikipedia

Today’s scoop in the Financial Times by the paper’s Whitehall Editor, Lucy Fisher, has finally revealed why it has taken nearly three months for the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s board not to be able to appoint a permanent successor to Rob Behrens, the outgoing Ombudsman, who has just retired.

It appeared Nick Hardwick, was the Parliamentary Ombudsman Board’s choice. Hardwick is a former chair of the Parole Board who resigned after judges overturned a board decision to give parole to John Worboys, a notorious convicted rapist who attacked 12 women while working as a taxi driver. The proposal to release Worboys on parole was a cause celebre for the tabloids at the time. Rishi Sunak, who has to approve the appointment, appeared to have blocked it by sitting on a decision for nearly three months.

William Wragg MP

William Wragg, the chair of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, (PACAC)blew the whistle in Parliament on Monday night when he said, without naming Nick Hardwick, that his appointment had “seemingly been declined by Number 10.”

He also criticised the government for ” somewhat irregular behaviour ” during the appointment process. This is not surprising as William Wragg was on the panel who approved Nick Hardwick’s appointment.

This week PACAC released papers that appeared to give all the details of the recruitment process and a letter from Sir Alex Allan, Boris Johnson’s former independent adviser on ministerial interests, who resigned his job after Johnson refused to sack Priti Patel, then home secretary, after he found she had been bullying and swearing at her senior civil servants. He is now a senior non executive member of the Parliamentary Ombudsman board.

The papers do show that Rishi Sunak took a great interest in the appointment. In an earlier letter to William Wragg approving a salary of between £171,500 and £189,900 for the new Ombudsman plus a choice of a civil service or judicial pension, he wrote: “I would be grateful if the House could continue to work closely with the Government as the campaign to appoint the new PHSO progresses.”

The recruitment process does appear to have attracted a wide range of people. It shows that initially 52 people applied for the job. There were 31 male applicants, 20 female, and one who preferred not to say. Some 30 were white British, 5 Indian, 4 white non British,2 African, 2 Other mixed,1 Asian and White,1 Black African and White,1 Caribbean,1 Irish,1 Pakistani and 1 Ukrainian. Three preferred not to say.

Some 44 were heterosexual and two were gay and six preferred not to say or didn’t answer. Four people were disabled.

This was whittled down to 12 people – 7 males, 4 females and a person who preferred not to disclose a sex. Ten of the last 12 were White British and 1 white non British and one who preferred not to say. Nine of the people were heterosexual and one was gay and others preferred not to say.

The panel who interviewed them was chaired by Philippa Helme, a 63 year old independent panelist and a former principal clerk at the table office in the House of Commons. The other members are Shona Dunn (Second Permanent Secretary, Department of Health and Social Care) to cover the Ombudsman’s NHS role; Colleen Harris(independent panellist and appointed by the King to the King Charles III Charitable Foundation; Peter Tyndall (formerly President of the International Ombudsman Institute) and William Wragg MP.

Philippa Helme -pic credit: Houses of Parliament

All went smoothly and on January 8 Nick Hardwick, aged 66, who is now Professor of Criminal Justice at Royal Holloway College was chosen. Then the problems began when the appointment arrived on Rishi Sunak’s desk. There was silence. What is missing from public disclosure is a desperate letter written by Sir Alex Allan on January 29 which revealed that the whole process was in jeopardy and they might have to appoint an ” interim Ombudsman ” or else the PHSO could not function ( see my blog here ) . It was then that Rebecca Hilsenrath, a recently appointed chief executive at PHSO, came into the frame. The moment the PHSO and the committee knew I had seen the letter on the PACAC website and was going to publish, it mysteriously disappeared from public view. I was told it had been ” prematurely published.”. Now I know this wasn’t true because the letter has not resurfaced in the documents released this week.

As time went on and by March there was no endorsement from Rishi Sunak, things got more and more desperate. So Sir Alex Allan and William Wragg hatched a plan to appoint Rebecca Hilsenrath as an ” acting Ombudsman” so the office could continue to function near normally. This involved getting King Charles III to present a motion to Parliament proposing her appointment so MPs could approve it on the nod. This happened on Monday.

Rebecca Hilsenrath

Now there is glowing description of Rebecca Hilsenrath’s qualities and experience in the papers released this week.

But once again there are some remarkable omissions about her career which have been swept under the carpet. When she was chief executive of the Equality and Human rights Commission, she carried out a campaign to sack black and disabled employees who happened to be strong trade unionists – a remarkable feat for a body that should champion diversity.

Her country cottage in north Wales

Also she was exposed in Times newspaper for a gross breach of the lockdown rules at the height of the pandemic when she drove from north London to north Wales to spend Christmas with her family of five children. She tried to say her holiday cottage was her main home – staying there for months. She was unmasked by a diligent local councillor who noted that unlike Michael Fabricant MP and Andy Street, the West Midlands Tory mayor, who never set foot in their nearby country cottages, was flagrantly breaching the lockdown.

This caused her trouble at the EHRC but she was thrown a lifeline when she got a job at the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office then run by Rob Behrens. She has now achieved a remarkable promotion courtesy of Rishi Sunak’s apparent blocking of Nick Hardwick for the top job.

All in all this is a sorry tale but to my mind the main point is that Rishi Sunak has usurped his powers to try and control a Parliamentary body that should be totally independent of government. If Nick Hardwick is not appointed after what looks like a fair process I shall not trust the new Ombudsman to be really independent but just a creature of a failing and interfering Prime Minister who is deservedly unpopular with the electorate today.

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