Category Archives: Whitehall

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

Posted on by

Now Sir Rob Behrens

Sir Peter Schofield

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

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

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

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

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

Let down 3.6 million women

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

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

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

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

34 years spent by the DWP producing inaccurate accounts

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

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

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

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Whitehall whistleblowers: Cabinet Office monitors nothing, knows nothing and does nothing

Posted on by
Cabinet Office – 70 Whitehall Pic credit: Wikipedia Commons

The day after Parliament went into recess a damning Public Accounts Committee report exposes why Whitehall like the National Health Service has such an appalling record in dealing with whistleblowers.

The Cabinet Office, the ministry at the apex of power and responsible for co-ordinating all government policy should be interested in improving public service is turning a blind eye to any concerns that are raised by whistleblowers when things go wrong.

The Cabinet Office is supposed to collect data on whistleblowing across Whitehall but the report reveals it is making remarkably slow progress in doing so.

The report says: “There are some key metrics missing, such as data on “ongoing cases” and the length of time an investigation takes, making it difficult to understand whether cases are taking too long and why that might be the case. “

“The current data collection also does not ask for data on the treatment of whistleblowers which would help indicate whether whistleblowers are being treated fairly. Furthermore, some of the existing data collected lacks detail, for example the data shows that less than 5% of investigated concerns lead to changes in policies or procedures which suggests a lack of action is taken in response to concerns.”

40 per cent of Whitehall whistleblowing cases are about fraud

It goes on: “there is a lack of data analysis and sharing of insights regarding whistleblowing across of the civil service. The Cabinet Office does not utilise its central position to analyse the cross-government data it collects. It appears that 40 per cent of the whistleblowing cases involve fraud “but there is no further detail beyond this categorisation so the Cabinet Office do not understand why this is the case.”

“A ‘speak up’ environment is not yet embedded throughout departments to encourage people to comfortably raise concerns. There are still negative perceptions of whistleblowing which can create barriers to achieving the right environment for speaking up. The annual Civil Service People Survey in 2022 had a median organisational score of only 52% of people agreeing they ‘think it is safe to challenge the way things are done in my organisation’. So nearly half think it is not safe.

The report says the Cabinet Office and other departments do not seek feedback from whistleblowers and so are missing vital insights into the effectiveness of the process.

“We have seen no clear indications that any departments routinely seek feedback directly from whistleblowers. Some feedback can be given to departments through their Nominated Officers (senior members of staff who are nominated to receive and consider concerns), but it is not collected in a formal or systematic way for it to be informative and there are limitations with anonymous whistleblower.”

The report calls for a radical shake up across Whitehall with a serious approach from the Cabinet Office to monitor what is going on.

Ray of Hope

There is one ray of hope from one organisation that worked with the National Audit Office and obviously takes whistleblowing seriously – that is the Maritime and Coastguard Agency which is principally concerned with safety at sea and environmental protection. It is a Department for Transport agency. In evidence to MPs it has developed a strong whistleblowing policy and takes cases from both staff and members of the public including ships crew.

A fishing vessel Pic Credit: HM Coastguard UK

The external cases were mainly categorised under danger to the environment or health and safety related issues. These cases included safety of vessels in UK ports, failure to meet the obligations under the Maritime Labor Convention (noise and rest hour disturbance), untrained ship crew and fraudulent issue of seafarer competence certification.

Unlike health trusts the anonymity of whistleblowers is protected throughout the investigation and their names kept from the board of the agency.

The evidence says: “A recent example of protecting the identify of a whistleblower was following a report of health and safety concerns in relation to coastguard rescue equipment in one location. In order to protect the identify of the whistleblower the health and safety investigation manager reviewed equipment at more than one location. Similarly where there have been reports of potential travel and expense claim and government procurement card irregularities, spot checks across several employee claims have been undertaken to avoid identifying the whistleblower.”

As a result last financial year there were 34 whistleblowing investigations – 27 from staff and seven from members of the public.

“The internal cases during 2023-24 covered breaches of the civil service code, conflict of interest, recruitment irregularities, possible fraud, Health & Safety, Safeguarding of employees, Security breach, misuse of official position/ influence by improper pressure, GDPR breach and offer of a bribe. Of the 27 cases, four were not classed as Whistleblowing but “Speak Up” and were referred to MCA HR.

“The external cases during 2023-24  were health and safety issues on passenger vessels, potential security/ GDPR breach by an MCA contractor’s employee, security/environmental issue referred to the Joint Maritime Security Centre, a referral to the National Crime Agency and a modern day slavery report transferred to the appropriate authorities via Gov.Uk”

This appears to be exception rather than the norm. But it shows that if whistleblowing was taken seriously in Whitehall and the NHS far more serious safety issues could be investigated and fraud stopped. This lack of interest in whistleblowing – and the negative attitude towards doctors who report patient safety issues in the NHS – is a nasty blot on our public services. It does nothing to protect the public either.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

The mad waste of public money by UK’s leading nuclear giants to pursue costs against a whistleblower at your expense

Posted on by
Sellafield

One aspect of the second recent cost hearing against whistleblower and human resources consultant Alison McDermott by Sellafield and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority which was not covered is the cost to the public and us the taxpayer.

During the hearing Deshpal Panesar, KC Sellafield’s lawyer from Old Square Chambers, rather pompously told the hearing that the fact Sellafield was claiming £20,000 off Alison was ” to protect the public purse”. He and the Nuclear Commissioning Authority which was also claiming £20,000 made a huge point that her “unreasonable behaviour” by pursing them at a tribunal meant she should pay a penalty.

What is now emerging from Freedom of Information requests is that the cost to bring this action far outweighs the money they will receive even if they are 100 per cent successful.

Both nuclear giants have already spent a huge sum – nearly £700,000 of taxpayer’s money – fighting Alison, whose consultancy was terminated, after her report revealed bullying and fear among staff at the nuclear site in Sellafield.

Alison McDermott

Now it is known from FOI that both organisations have spent £59,000 between them on preparing the case for the second hearing on top of money they had already spent for the first costs hearing. This doesn’t include the cost of hearing itself which is about another £20,000 considering Sellafield’s lawyers Deshpal Paneser. KC charges £5500 a day for the hearing and Emma Mills, from DLA Piper, who charges £3000 a day . The NDA employed another barrister, Rachel Levene and solicitors Pinsent Mason. Plus there were paralegals at the hearing.

Now one would think that after a High Court judge had ruled that the first costs decision was ” unsafe” and said his view should be taken into account by judge Stuart Robertson, who has heard the second hearing, there would be pause for thought. Both nuclear organisations are also lucky they will not face an appeal. So any sane organisation would decide to leave it there.

Instead we have the economic madness, which no commercial company conducting a risk assessment would follow, of throwing more money at bringing a second case when there is not the slightest chance of getting their money back. Indeed even if they were 100 per cent successful they stand to lose £40,000 and that is by no means certain they will get that. It is only that it is our money from the taxpayer they can throw it around like confetti.

So why are they doing it? The decision must have been endorsed by Euan Hutton, the new chief executive.

Despite previously serving as a Mental Health Champion alongside Ms. McDermott to foster a kinder and more supportive work environment, Mr. Hutton is now relentlessly pursuing costs against her.

In various YouTube videos, Mr. Hutton espouses the importance of treating people with kindness, yet his actions towards Ms. McDermott are anything but.  He actually says that “kindness is putting in the time to think about how different people act differently, that’s what kindness is all about”  [second video from 20 seconds onwards].    By hounding her for costs related to her whistleblowing for the second time, he has subjected her to immense stress and anguish, betraying the values he once claimed to champion.

See https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1938802916244720

Euan Hutton’s video.

Now Sellafield receives £6.7 million daily from taxpayers. Mr. Hutton’s decision to waste these funds on a vindictive legal battle against a whistleblower is an egregious misuse of public money. It is a slap in the face to taxpayers who trust Sellafield to use their contributions responsibly.

The Guardian has reported that the National Audit Office will investigate Sellafield’s substantial expenditure.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/15/spending-watchdog-launches-investigation-into-sellafieldI intend to make the National Audit Office aware of this blog post, as it highlights the unethical and hypocritical behaviour of Mr. Hutton. I think the public would strongly disapprove of their money being used to persecute a brave individual who spoke out against wrongdoing.

Mr. Hutton should be held accountable for his actions, which have caused harm to Ms. McDermott and undermined Sellafield’s commitment to employee wellbeing and to a culture of openness.

But perhaps this is the real reason for using public money in this way is to silence anybody else who might be thinking of exposing the dark secrets inside Sellafield. She is not the only whistleblower.

I approached Sellafield and the NDA about this waste of money but both said

“These issues are still subject to legal proceedings. We cannot comment further at this stage.”

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.


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.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by
Rob Behrens departing Parliamentary Commissioner

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

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

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

Spurious objections from the DWP

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

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

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

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

Parliament controlled by Government whips

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

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

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

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

William Wragg acts as Parliamentary Ombudsman Office faces life without a boss

Posted on by
William Wragg

William Wragg, the Tory chair of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, has belatedly intervened in the growing crisis over the failure of the Prime Minister to appoint a new Parliamentary Ombudsman to replace Rob Behrens who quits on March 31.

In a letter published on the committee’s website Mr Wragg asks Sir Alex Allan, the senior non executive director on the Parliamentary and Heath Services Ombudsman board, what measures will be taken to keep the office going and what is going to happen to people who, via their MP, want to lodge a complaint to the Ombudsman. He also raises whether reports can be published and complaints investigated. Particularly at risk is the long awaited report on the partial maladministration for 50swomen who faced a six year delay getting their pension.

The letter discloses that recruitment for a new Ombudsman began last October and a panel chose the winning candidate at the beginning of January. Since then the Cabinet Office and Rishi Sunak, who has to approve the appointment, have not responded. The silence from Whitehall and Downing Street means no motion can be put to Parliament appointing a new Ombudsman, who then appears before the PACAC for a pre appointment hearing. PACAC has only a couple of weeks to set up the hearing.

Sir Alex Allan

The publication of the letter by the committee is in fact a response to a letter written to Mr Wragg from Sir Alex warning of dire consequences for the corporate body if no one was appointed and suggesting that Rebecca Hilsenrath, the current chief executive is appointed as an Interim Ombudsman. The letter was briefly on the committee’s website but withdrawn the moment I published a blog about it.

Part of it read:


I am aware that, due to the preferred candidate’s notice period, there will be a need to appoint an
interim Ombudsman and that the view remains that this should be Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief
Executive Officer at PHSO. We have yet to receive confirmation of this, despite the urgency, which
is making it difficult for the organisation to properly plan for leadership change.
As a corporation sole, the organisation cannot operate without an Ombudsman in post. Any delay to
the appointment puts the organisation at considerable risk. In particular because key casework
decisions could not be taken it puts at risk all of the work to reduce the queue and improve service
to complainants. Clarity of the timeline for both the permanent and interim Ombudsman appointments is therefore pressing,

However the antiquated legislation suggests that the PHSO board cannot appoint its own acting ombudsman. It has to be appointed from outside the board.

The legislation specifically refers to an “Acting Ombudsman” and, as such, cannot be appointed by the PHSO Board of Directors.

Section 3A of the 1967 Act deals with the appointment of an Acting Commissioner who serves at the pleasure of His Majesty.

The Acting Commissioner can only serve for a maximum of 12 months or until a new Commissioner is appointed (whichever is sooner).

The full text of William Wragg’s letter is here.

Please donate to West minster Confidential

£10.00

Why the next government must tackle Whitehall reform to get the best bang for its buck

Posted on by
Francis Maude pic credit: Gov.uk

Last week I attended a meeting of the industry forum, a progressive think tank that discusses crucial business and economic issues often addressed by Labour politicians and MPs under Chatham House rules. This one was different for two reasons. It was “on the record” and it was addressed by a former Tory minister, Francis Maude, one of the founders of Policy Exchange, a Conservative think tank and traditionally to the right of the party.

But before anyone on the left start to think this is another example of Sir Keir Starmer’s lurch to the right, this was an unusual and useful meeting of minds.

Lord Maude has recently conducted a thorough and detailed independent review of the governance and accountability of the civil service for the government – not the most sexiest of subjects. But its important findings have been spurned by the present Tory government.

To my mind there is a lot to be learned from this review for both Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Green Party. It is quite clear from the latest interviews with Labour’s shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, that she believes that if Labour win the next election it is going very difficult for them to spend more cash on the day to day running of public services. Labour needs to make sure it doesn’t waste a penny of taxpayer’s money and Lord Maude’s proposed reforms could help them achieve this.

What Lord Maude frankly exposes is that Whitehall is directionless. Yes there are theoretical controls – the PM is technically responsible for running the civil service. But there is no system of delegating this power to either civil servants or ministers.

Centre of Whitehall is unwieldly

The result in his words: ” The centre is now unwieldy, with confusion about where responsibilities lie and a lack of clear lines of accountability. Other jurisdictions with similar systems provide signposts to improved arrangements.”

Why this is important is that it means there is a lack of overall control on how large areas of government spending are made and how effective the policies implemented by governments are in practice. One only has to read my articles in Byline Times to see legions of exposures by the National Audit Office of waste, inefficiency and bad decision making which could have saved the taxpayer billions.

Lord Maude’s proposals include merging the Cabinet and the Prime Minster’s office into one powerful body – so a future PM will have much greater control over the direction of the government – and a new Office of Budget and Management to bring together cross Whitehall projects which tend to fall into a void because of Whitehall’s silo mentality.

The head of the civil service should also be a full time job so he or she can concentrate on bringing about all these reforms and so should the First Civil Service Commissioner who should be in charge of a wider programme and be able to hold the head of the civil service to account and make an annual report to Parliament.

Every minister should get a letter telling him or her clearly what their powers are and what they should expect from civil servants.

Not a lot of this is radical stuff. Australia, Canada, Ireland and New Zealand already have similar systems because they are more modern democracies than the UK.

Labour are about to start talking to the civil service under the usual courtesy given to opposition parties before a general election. This would be an ideal situation to raise this. I would also suggest that the Shadow Cabinet should have a session with Gareth Davies, the head of the National Audit Office, to draw on the independent body’s wealth of experience of what went wrong in the past and how they could avoid such pitfalls in the future. Voters will depend on Labour getting it right.

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive:Rishi Sunak delays appointment of new Parliamentary Ombudsman and throws the organisation into crisis

Posted on by
Sir Alex Allan, board member of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Pic credit: BBC

Email from Sir Alex Allan revealing problem removed from Parliamentary website after I made a press inquiry

Parliament and the Health Service will not have a new permanent Ombudsman from April because the Prime Minister has delayed approving a new replacement who anyway cannot start work at the office because he or she has to give notice to leave their present job.

Details of the crisis at the office are revealed in an email sent on January 29 from Sir Alex Allan, a senior non executive member of the board of the Ombudsman’s office, to William Wragg, Tory chair of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC).

Sir Alex is a former high flying civil servant who chaired the Joint Intelligence Committee, and was the Prime Minister’s independent adviser on ministerial standards until 2020 when he resigned after Boris Johnson refused to accept his report on Priti Patel, the former home secretary, concluding that her behaviour was bullying.

The email pleads with William Wragg to contact Downing Street to resolve the problem as a matter of urgency.

His email warns:

“As a corporation sole, the organisation cannot operate without an Ombudsman in post. Any delay to the appointment puts the organisation at considerable risk. In particular because key casework decisions could not be taken it puts at risk all of the work to reduce the queue and improve service to complainants. Clarity of the timeline for both the permanent and interim Ombudsman
appointments is therefore pressing.”

A pre-appointment hearing - part of the normal appointment process - had been pencilled in by PACAC to quiz the new Ombudsman but that has been pit back and there is no date for a future hearing. The page announcing the future hearing on the website is now blank.

He goes on: “”I am pleased that the Panel, led by Philippa Helme, has identified a preferred candidate but I am concerned about the apparent delays since then. We have yet to receive confirmation that the preferred candidate has been agreed by the Prime Minister. “

Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive at the PHSO

Sir Alex says the board’s preferred solution is to appoint an interim Ombudsman and suggests Rebecca Hilsenrath, the current chief executive who moved there from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, would be the ideal candidate.

But Whitehall has not even approved this. He writes: “We have yet to receive confirmation of this, despite the urgency, which is making it difficult for the organisation to properly plan for leadership change.”

The crisis facing the Ombudsman’s Office raises a whole of questions which I tried to put to them.

This includes questions like whether Rebecca Hilsenrath, if appointed as an interim, will be able to announce case decisions affecting complaints about hospitals and the NHS, or will they have to wait until they have a permanent appointment?

From Sir Alex’s letter it is also clear if neither people are approved by Downing Street and the Cabinet Office, the office would cease to function altogether until this was sorted out.

The impasse could also affect the timing of the publication of the final report by the outgoing Ombudsman, Rob Behrens, on maladministration in 50s women’s delayed pensions. WASPI have been waiting years for its publication and have seen the draft report which has already been leaked on this website. See the blog here.

A PHSO spokesperson said:

“The process to appoint a new Ombudsman is ongoing. We are in discussions about interim arrangements should they be needed. Our important service for the public continues.”

A spokesperson for PACAC said the committee could not comment but the original pre appointment hearing had been scheduled for last month but because they had not had confirmation from the Cabinet Office that the government had approved the appointment no date was fixed. The email should not have published on their website which is why it was taken down. This suggests that Rishi Sunak has been delaying a decision to approve the appointment for weeks.

For those interested the text of the email is published below:

From the Senior Non-Executive, Sir Alex Allan KCB
Sent by Email Only: pacac@parliament.uk
29 January 2024
Dear Mr Wragg,
I am writing to convey my concerns about the slippage in the timetable to appoint a new
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and to ask for your support, as Chair of the
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, in raising these concerns with No 10.
I am pleased that the Panel, led by Philippa Helme, has identified a preferred candidate but I am
concerned about the apparent delays since then. We have yet to receive confirmation that the
preferred candidate has been agreed by the Prime Minister. That meant that the planned preappointment scrutiny hearing had to be cancelled and has not been refixed.
I am aware that, due to the preferred candidate’s notice period, there will be a need to appoint an
interim Ombudsman and that the view remains that this should be Rebecca Hilsenrath, Chief
Executive Officer at PHSO. We have yet to receive confirmation of this, despite the urgency, which
is making it difficult for the organisation to properly plan for leadership change.
As a corporation sole, the organisation cannot operate without an Ombudsman in post. Any delay to
the appointment puts the organisation at considerable risk. In particular because key casework
decisions could not be taken it puts at risk all of the work to reduce the queue and improve service
to complainants. Clarity of the timeline for both the permanent and interim Ombudsman appointments is therefore pressing,

I have written to Baroness Neville-Rolfe to convey these concerns and I would be grateful if you
would consider raising them with the Prime Minister’s office.
Yours sincerely,
Sir Alex Allan
Senior Non-Executive Director

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Official – Work till you drop: Women in their 50s expect to have to stay in work long after retirement age

Posted on by

The Office for National Statistics – the independent official body which produces official figures for work and inflation in the UK – has come up with some alarming predictions for women born in the 1950s 1960s and 1970s.

They show that post the Covid pandemic there has been a big drop among women expecting to have enough money to retire and enjoy a life of leisure on their pensions. As a result a significant proportion of women now aged 50 to 65 are planning to stay in work – either with reduced hours or full time when they reach the retirement age of 66.

An organisation called Rest Less, which acts a community and an advocate for the over 50s, has analysed these figures and estimates that nearly one in two women pensioners now expect to have to continue working after retirement age.  Either they will work their existing hours (13%) or work with reduced hours (31%).

Huge inequalities between men and women’s pensions

The main reasons for this is pensioner poverty among women and huge inequalities between men and women when it comes to their pension pots. Not only are women less likely to get full state pensions – often they have missed years – than men but there is a big discrepancy in private pensions. The ONS figures show while 78 per cent of men will fund their retirement with a private pension, only 68 per cent of women have one. And the inequality goes on and on. Some 47 per cent of men will fund their retirement through savings, compared to 40 per cent of women. And only seven per cent of men will rely on funds from their partner, while 18 per cent of women will rely on their partner to help fund their retirement.

These figures were compiled 10 months ago in September last year. I hear that the ONS does not plan to update them since the survey was a ” one off” following Covid. Curiously a lot of publicity was given to people dropping out of the workforce when they got to 50 – I can only think that the majority must have been men or women married to men with a very good private pension.

Stuart Lewis, Chief Executive of Rest Less, commented: “Years of gender based earnings disparity has resulted in a large pension savings gap between men and women, leaving many women in their 50s and 60s in real financial precarity.  Nearly half of women aged 50-65 said they plan to continue working in some capacity after reaching state pension age – a number that is likely to have risen even further given the subsequent cost of living crisis.

…..“‘In the last recession of 2009, women could retire at 60 and receive the state pension; today it is 66.  Many women aged 50-65 are stuck between a rock and a hard place – they struggle to find work due to age discrimination or a lack of flexible work opportunities but they are too young to claim their state pension putting them in a vulnerable financial position as they approach retirement. Whilst the state pension age for men and women may now be equal, this data shows that the retirement fortunes of men and women remain anything but equal.”

One person who is caught in this trap is Back to 60 campaigner Michaela Hawkins known as Mac to her friends

Michaela Hawkins

“.I was forced to stay in work longer than I wanted to or hoped for. 
“My husband is 10yrs older than myself so was relying on retiring at 60 so we could enjoy some quality time together. When SPA was raised this devastated our plans.  It would have meant if I retired before receiving my SP we would have had to survive below the breadline. 
“Austerity along with the pandemic put untold pressure on both myself and husband. I was transferred to work in care home from Day services during Covid. As my husband was in high vulnerable category during this time you can imagine the stress this put on both ourselves. 
“Another reason why I felt stressed also is because as a woman gets older her body is not the same. The physical aspects of working in care sector takes its toll.  When you come home from work you feel exhausted. But if you’re caring for loved one or helping out your children with childcare which I done both you have got no time for any sort of quality life.” 

now tax allowance frozen

“Now the Tax allowance that’s been frozen.  Now I’m retired I’ve been hit with a tax bill for over £1300  on top of cost of living crisis this is going to push many 50s women over the top. “

UPDATE : Since then there has been another demand for £1300.

Mac writes:

“I then received a letter saying I owe them a further £1,300. If this wasn’t payed then they would get in touch with debt collectors.

It took me 2 1/2 hrs to get through to tax office to query this.
It couldn’t be done online.
Although I disputed the amount I owe they were insistent that I did owe that amount.
I was then put through to debt management. Who I got to say was accommodating. But the problem is when older people receive letter from HMRC saying they will bring in debt collectors or as people our age call them bailiffs they become confused and frightened. 
Then to be put on hold for that length of time is again frustrating to say the least. 
When you think how HMRC is quick to chase up pensioners who in good faith think they payed their fair taxes and are chased up and then you got those who knows how to play the system get away with it. It makes me so angry.”

Certainly Backto60, which campaigns for full restitution for all the 1950s women who lost up to six years of their pension, is inundated with stories of women living on the poverty line, unable to heat their homes properly or use their ovens to cook because they can’t afford the fuel bills.

Instead the government concentrates on getting everybody back to work rather than seeking to compensate people who have already worked for decades and now should be able to put their feet up if that’s what they want to do without fear of paying the bills.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my reporting.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00