Category Archives: politics

Dumped: The 50swomen who will get nothing after after a botched and divisive WASPI campaign

Posted on by

The new Labour government took until nearly Christmas to announce that it was not going to give the 3.5 million remaining 50s women a penny in compensation for their six year wait for a pension.

The result I am sad to say could have been predicted as both Labour and the Conservatives were determined from the start to avoid a pay out by delaying tactics and a refusal to discuss mediation.

It was left to MPs to continue the fight whose parties were either not in a position to pay out the money because they were not in government or didn’t have the power to pay out state pensions in the first place.

This is both a scandal and a tragedy for the women. They have been let down by ministers, the judiciary, civil servants,the Parliamentary Ombudsman, MPs, and even some of their own advocates, especially by bad decision making by WASPI, who took a route to secure compensation that was bound to fail.

Liz Kendall

Ministers have continually procrastinated over the pay out- either by claiming the Ombudsman’s report was so complex they had to study it in detail – the Tories under Mel Stride, then works and pensions secretary or Labour – under Liz Kendall, his Labour successor, that she needed more time..

The judiciary also played their part in delaying any decision and ignoring whether there had been discrimination against the women despite Margaret Thatcher signing up to the UN convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women in 1986. Only one judge, the Hon Justice Lang, a woman judge born in the 1950s, got the significance of the challenge facing this group of women by accepting all the issues raised by barristers Michael Mansfield and Catherine Rayner that it was age and sexual discrimination as well as maladministration. She understood the simple fact that although the decision was taken in 1995 to raise the women’s pension age to be equal with men, it was only now that the effects were being discovered.

The rest of the judiciary in the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected this and the Supreme Court took the insulting decision that the case was out of time – having spent years already going through the court system.

Civil Servants in the Department for Work and Pensions were equally hostile – they didn’t believe in the women’s case, didn’t want to pay them and one senior civil servant went as far to accuse the women of committing fraud by wanting to claim.

The then Parliamentary Ombudsman.Sir Robert Behrens, produced a mouse of a report, reneged on his duty to make recommendations on the maladministration issue, leaving it to MPs knowing that ministers and civil servants were hostile to any payment.

Most MPs facing a prolonged lobbying campaign from WASPI, organised by Higginson Strategy, came behind the Ombudsman’s weak report and ignored the discrimination issue and later a proposal for mediation.

Making matters worse

To make matters worse the campaign for restitution was divided and split into various groups wanting different things and disagreeing over personalities. There was no united front. WASPI tried to control the agenda by focusing on maladministration. This was a false move as anybody would have known that the Parliamentary Ombudsman in the UK, unlike other countries, can be ignored by government and it cannot enforce its recommendations. So when the weakened report for partial maladministration came out, ministers knew they need not abide by it.

Why I supported Backto60 and CEDAWinLaw, is because they were prepared to put their money where their mouth was, did go to court and employed international experts to make their case, like Dr Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge, to produce a well argued report showing that the case involved discrimination. What is appalling is that issue has been ignored by the national media who have airbrushed any mention of such a solution.

Later CEDAWinLAW moved to get mediation between the groups and the government – and invited everyone to joint them. WASPI looked at it and refused – I can only assume they don’t want any mediation to solve the issue.

Instead they are still flogging the dead horse of the Ombudsman’s Report – which the Government has already rejected- to MPs on the All Party group examining the issue and to the Commons works and pensions committee which is investigating the issue.

The result is I am afraid the women will still get nothing. Only by making a move for mediation will they get anywhere. And they will have to raise the money to force it through the courts as ministers don’t want to know. I know there is already an organisation prepared to act as mediators. What we need is the resolution of people to act or live forever without getting one penny out of the DWP.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Ministry slammed by auditors for not getting correct Parliamentary approval for paying out Post Office victims

Posted on by

Parliament’s watchdog, the National Audit Office, has qualified last year’s annual accounts of the Department for Business and Trade, for failing to providing accurate estimates of the money needed to compensate the Post Office victims of the Horizon scandal and overspending its budget by over £200m.

The disclosure is the latest blunder in the handling of the scandal where hundreds of postmasters were wrongly accused of fiddling their books and some spent time in prison for crimes they did not commit Instead there was a cover up by the Post Office when the computer system was at fault.

Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office, who audited the ministry’s accounts, says the omission to provide Parliament with the correct figures and the £208m proposed overspend on the scheme amounted to a breach of the ministry’s spending limits and has been classified as irregular spending.

Kemi Badenoch. Pic credit: Gov uk

The decision to pay out compensation to the postmasters and quash their convictions happened when Kemi Badenoch, now the Tory Party leader, was business secretary. She was the sole shareholder of the Post Office under the present constitutional arrangement for running the business.

Last year the government set up compensation schemes for the postmasters – one to compensate them for the money they lost through the computer misrepresenting their accounts and another to compensate those who had been wrongly convicted.

What the accounts revealed is that the ministry did not hold enough data to properly estimate how much compensation it would have to pay out and put forward to MPs estimates to approve its spending that were not accurate – hence the overspend.

Under the first scheme the Horizon Shortfall Scheme (HSS), which is intended to support
those who accounts were falsified by the computer system , Individuals who qualify can choose to either accept a fixed sum of £75,000 or opt for full assessment by an independent advisory panel.

The Post Office is inviting current and former postmasters to apply if they wish to but haven’t yet done so, as there will be a closing date for the scheme. It has advised the ministry that it anticipates a response rate of approximately 25-30% and that the majority of new claimants will accept the fixed sum offer.
However, the auditors say due to the limited amount of available data on which to base this estimate,
the eventual outcome could vary significantly.

Under the Horizon Conviction Redress Scheme (HCRS) intended to compensate individuals who had their convictions overturned. Because this scheme is in its early stages, there is limited data upon which to base an estimate of future settlement values.

But the ministry just assumed that the proportion of applicants who choose to accept the fixed sum offer
(rather than submit a full claim for detailed assessment) will be similar to the take-up rate for those who had their convictions overturned by the court and are being compensated through the Overturned Conviction (OC) scheme;
It also assumed that the average settlement value for those choosing not to accept the HCRS fixed sum award will be significantly lower than its equivalent estimate for OC claimants.

Neither of these propositions could prove to be accurate because the period for claiming compensation is not over. And by estimating an extra £208 million to be spent on the second scheme led to the ministry breaching its obligation to tell Parliament how much it intends to spend.

The Department for Business and Trade said:”This issue took place as a direct result of the decision to rightfully offer further redress to Horizon scandal victims, at a time when the high volume and complexity of claims meant there was significant uncertainty on the cost estimates.

“We have acknowledged this to the NAO and remained determined to ensure that all affected postmasters receive the financial address they deserve to right these historic wrongs’

A further £1.8 billion has been provided since these accounts were reported.


Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Jocelynne Scutt leads charge for CEDAWinLAW at APPG on 50s women pensions

Posted on by
Jocelynne Scutt

The All Party Parliamentary Group on 50swomen pensions finally heard from CEDAWinLaw about what they want to see the Government do about responding to compensation for the 50s women deprived of their pensions for six years.

Until this month the only organisation allowed to approach the group were WASPI and their lobbyists Higginson Strategy. The meeting was in private. An attempt to allow me to attend was banned by the chair, Rebecca Long-Bailey, the Independent MP for Salford, on the grounds that none of the other meetings had been open to journalists.

However I was not to be put off by that and have now managed to piece together who was there, what they said and how they were received.

The two main speakers were Joanne Welch, who organises CEDAWinLAW and Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian judge, author of a report on the discriminatory nature of the treatment of the 3.6 million women and chair of the people’s tribunal, that examined the issue.

Their arguments will be familiar to my readers – seeking mediation with the government to decide the level of compensation rather than accepting the guidelines by the former Parliamentary Ombudsman, Robert Behrens, for limited compensation for partial maladministration. They were also given a strong briefing from Jocelynne Scutt on the direct and indirect discrimination against the women. She also welcomed Sir Keir Starmer’s commitment to using civil procedures such as mediation to end disputes – though the government is silent about doing this for 50s women.

What was clear to the group was this was the first time they had been told what CEDAWinLAW stood for – including a suggestion that the money could be paid in a lump sum and tax free over five years on top of their pension.

Of course the government does not want to get into such talks and would rather keep postponing making any payments.

Sir Julian Lewis MP

Here the strongest condemnation of this government’s approach came from Sir Julian Lewis, the Conservative MP for New Forest East.

He said at the meeting that the treatment of 50swomen was rather similar to all other cases where the government owes large sums of money in compensation – likening the delay in reaching a settlement to those seeking compensation in the contaminated blood and sub postmasters cases.

” The government wants to spin it out as long as possible hoping that people will get disheartened and give up or will have died by the time they can get any compensation.”

He said last night: ” The delay is equivalent to asking these poor old ladies to wait to end the both the First and Second World Wars for payment. The six year delay on payment of their pension is equivalent to the time the UK spent fighting each of the two world wars.”

Rebecca Long-Bailey MP: Official Portrait. Pic Credit: Chris McAndrew UK Parliament

So who did turn up to hear the case? Present in person as well as Sir Julian Lewis were Labour peer Lord Bryn Davies of Brixton; Ian Byrne, Independent MP for Liverpool, West Derby, who joined Dr Scutt when she presented a letter and petition to Downing Street earlier this year; Ruth Jones, Labour MP for Newport and Islwyn and Adrian Ramsey Green Party MP for Waveney. Five other MPs sent their personal assistants to the meeting. They were Chris Bloore, Labour MP for Redditch; Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Labour MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill; Mary Kelly Foy, Labour MP for the City of Durham; Kate Osborne, Labour MP for Jarrow and Gateshead East and Aspana Begum, Independent MP for Poplar and Limehouse.

The delegation did feel they had a fair hearing and Rebecca Long-Bailey praised them for giving such a clear description of their aims and promised to take their views on board. We shall see.

For those wanting more detail Jocelynne Scutt was initerviewed on Salford City Radio by Ian Rothwell this week and outlined a similar case there. This is the local radio station whose MP is Rebecca Long-Bailey, where I also have appeared on a number of occasions.

The interview is below.

Joanne Welsh has a five minute call for mediation on YouTube which you can hear below

We now await development but don’t hold your breath for an early resolution.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Trump re-election leads to Americans to flee their country for Europe and the UK

Posted on by
Donald Trump; Pic Credit: The Trump Organisation website

Donald Trump plans the biggest deportation of illegals ever seen in American history – accusing them of being criminals, mentally unstable, drug dealers and even eating people’s pets.

But like every political policy there are always unintended consequences. And one of them has been building up since 2020 ever since the notorious storming of the Capitol in Washington and the endless legal battles claiming the last US election had been stolen from him.

Well qualified US citizens – not the people Trump is targeting to leave the country at all – are deciding to get out of the USA and one country – Norway – is even taking advantage of Trump’s victory to encourage them to leave as soon as possible.

Facts and figures about the Americans leaving for Europe emerged this weekend on the website Dispatches Europe – see the article here – and the Dutch based website is offering tips on what they need to do to settle there.

And while the UK mainstream media – and both Tory and Labour governments- has been agonising over our illegal immigration and asylum problem – the boat people – the number of US citizens in the UK has jumped from 137,000 in 2013 to over 166,000 by 2021. This is the latest known figure and the highest in Europe. It could be higher by now.

While US techies who become digital nomads – are well known to be keen to travel to exotic places where they can work and surf ( both on the sea and on line), this seems a new phenomena.

Dispatches Europe says the biggest jump between 2021 and 2022 has been US citizens turning up in Portugal – not an obvious choice – with numbers jumping for 28,700 to 41,200 – an increase of 30 per cent.

The second highest jump is Germany – an increase of 19 per cent – from 12,400 to 15,300. Spain has seen a 9 per cent rise from 35,400 to 38,900. While Ireland has seen a 11 per cent rise from 11,700 to 13,200. Over a longer period the Netherlands saw an increase from 15,500 to 24,000 between 2013 and 2022.

Last year the Economist noticed the trend quoting that many Americans “are fleers rather than seekers.“

Norway has gone further to cash in on Trump’s victory

One country has gone further. Another article in Dispatches Europe ( see here) features EmigrateMe, a site to reach out to disillusioned Americans, particularly but not necessarily with Norwegian descent, to come and work near Oslo.

It offers ” free healthcare and schools, reasonably priced housing, culture and a “high tolerance for religious beliefs and sexual orientation, stunning nature, clean air and fresh water.” What is not to like?

Obviously the figures are not huge compared to the huge population of the US. But once Trump gets into office – will a growing trickle grow into a big flood. And what will Labour under Sir Keir Starmer and Tories under Kemi Badenoch do faced with a new US invasion?

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00