Cedar in Law delegation at Number 10 Downing Street. From Left to Right: Sharon Wheeler, Joycelene Scutt, No 10 doorman and David Hencke
Cedaw in Law returned to Downing Street yesterday to deliver letters to Sir Keir Starmer asking him to intervene in the latest battle to secure justice for 50swomen.
The delegation is repeating their case for mediation and recompense for the discrimination and maladministration over the big rise in the women’s pensions age for 50swomen. One of the letters which would have gone to DWP lawyers also reiterated that all women’s groups should be consulted under the review promised by Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, not just a private arrangement between WASPI and the ministry. WASPI pulled out of their judicial review case to challenge the DWP over maladministration last week accepting a £180,000 payment in full and final settlement from the DWP.
Tonight Joanne Welch, the organiser for CedawinLaw, Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge who chaired a tribunal into the issue, and myself, a patron of Cedaw in Law and a lobby journalist, will appear on Salford City Radio, in the constituency of Rebecca Long Bailey, the Labour chair of the All party group on State Pension Inequality for Women.
The link to hear it is here and it is on Ian Rothwell’s show between 6 and 7 pm.
UPDATE: Following publication of this post one issue has been raised by John Halford, Waspi’s lawyer from Bindman’s. He says it is not true that originally you needed permission for both parties or would have to pay £300 to attend the case management hearing. I have checked this back and staff at the administrative court did advise people to do this and told people If no agreement then you need to complete N244 Application form at a cost of £300 to register.This was overruled by the judge on December 2who made it an open hearing. I passed this back to Mr Halford only to find he had blocked me sending a reply. What extraordinary behaviour from a lawyer.
A long awaited decision on the six year battle for redress for the 3.6 million remaining 50s women has been promised by the Department for Work and Pensions by the end of February next year – as part of a deal agreed between the ministry and Waspi Ltd.
Royal Courts of Justice
Under the deal Waspi has dropped its judicial review claim due to be heard next week and accepted an offer by the DWP to pay the Waspi company £180,000 towards its legal costs in bringing the claim.
Most of the manoeuvring to obtain this arrangement has been behind the scenes in meetings between lawyers on both sides. As a result there will be no public hearing in the courts of the arguments where both sides would have put their case under the watchful eye of the Parliamentary Ombudsman who was an interested party. Waspi had been challenging Pat McFadden, the DWP secretary of state, over his decision not to award any compensation following the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s findings of partial maladministration over the communications informing the women.
05/07/2024. London, United Kingdom.Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, Pat McFadden, poses for a photograph following his appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
Then rather dramatically Mr McFadden on November 11 change his mind after the discovery of an earlier document which had been overlooked for 18 years revealing that attempts to inform the women had failed. Waspi’s lawyers Bindmans are said to have found it -presumably in the exchange of documents before the hearing. See my coverage of the document on this sitehere.
Before the hearing was dropped Waspi and DWP had the DWP arranged a case management hearing on December 3 with the most extraordinary terms allowing either side to block who would be allowed to attend or have to pay over £300 to obtain the right to attend.
This amounted to secret justice and it is no wonder on the day before the hearing the judge, Mr Justice Swift put out a national statement giving his directions for the case which made it clear it was a public hearing that anybody could attend and there were arrangements for people to hear it remotely.
This scotched the plan for a semi secret hearing so that evening it is clear that lawyers from both sides must have met and agreed to abandon the hearing the next day and Waspi Ltd agreed to pull out alongside the DWP from the two day judicial review.
It is my speculation that it will mean that some arrangement has been agreed under ” a nod and a wink” that the ministry will offer some form of compensation to some of the women. Certainly a seasoned lawyer like John Halford at Bindman’s ,would not have agreed to this without some hint or his client ,Waspi, would have been left in a very precarious position.
Waspi has not been alone in making representations to the government. Enter Edward Romain, a former whistleblower who has set up Blind Justice, a community interest company, to take up injustice cases and has joined joined forces with Cedaw in Law, to fight the case for the women on both discrimination and maladministration. I covered his case against Glyndebourne in an earlier article here. The case is now settled but it also discloses some strange behaviour by lawyers.His website is blindjustice.org.uk .
The day before the planned case review he delivered a recorded letter to Sir Keir Starmer and copied to Pat McFadden staking CedawinLaw’s claim to participate in any mediation process.
He followed this up with a powerful letter to Mr Oliver Towle, a senior lawyer at the Litigation Directorate for the DWP with a copy to the Treasury solicitor.
The letter asks the lawyer to confirm that following the court order that CEDAWinLAW and all other materially affected groups will be included in the consultations from the outset and clarifications of the intended structure and timeline for stakeholder engagement. The letter states
CEDAWinLAW represents the interests of 3.5 million women affected by State Pension Age changes.
The organization has made formal legal submissions and engaged with public authorities over four years.
It has pursued mediation and presented evidence to Parliament, highlighting ongoing advocacy efforts.
It also cites legal precedents quoting past cases covering natural justice, legitimate expectations, Wednesbury unreasonableness ( ie irrational responses), civil procedure rules and international law.
It concludes:”We respectfully submit that any reconsideration that does not include CEDAWinLAW would be procedurally flawed and open to future challenge. We remain available to assist constructively and can provide additional documentation or legal submissions if required. We look forward to your confirmation and to contributing meaningfully to the reconsideration process.”
One curious fact, actions by WASPI and CedawinLaw appear to have come to attention of the Chinese government over the last five months.Altogether I have received over 76,000 hits from China from Beijing and 40 other cities across China data scraping my blogs on the pensions issue.
China has one of the lowest retirement ages in the world. Women can retire at 50, men at 60. I wondering whether the Government is thinking of raising it and is looking at the opposition to it in the UK. President Putin tried to raise the pension age for women some time ago but had such opposition from the Babuskas that he backed down -probably the only reversal he made as President.
The full letter to the government lawyer can be read here.
Pat McFadden, poses for a photograph following his appointment to Cabinet by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer in 10 Downing Street. Picture by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street
The 18 year old research report that derailed work and pension secretary Pat Mc Fadden and forced him to review his decision to pay nothing in compensation to 3.6 million 50s born women is a comprehensive and damning document. No wonder he didn’t go into details in his Parliamentary statement this week on what the Labour government then did not do to inform the women and the first cohort of men who faced a rise in the pension age.
The key finding by researchers on the exercise of sending 16 million letters with automatic pension forecasts was that it was a “ systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of provision.”
The research is very thorough. It took over a year to do it. It involved covering 16 million letters. Researchers interviewed 11,690 people. It involved both the women in the target 50-59 age group and men aged 59-64. ( 2007 was the year it was revealed that both men and women faced the pension age going up to 66). But it also involved men and women aged 20-49 to see if they were aware of the pension changes.
The first fact discovered was that out of the 16 million letters sent out, staggeringly 11 million went unread.
The report said The APF ( automatic pension forecast) was least effective among those who most needed it:
Those with no pension knowledge: 16% readership
Those without pension provision: 25% readership
Younger people: 20-24% readership
Lower socioeconomic groups: 30% readership
This represents a systematic failure to reach the target populations most in need of intervention.
All the letters did was reinforce people better off people’s decision to take early action to safeguard themselves.
It said This suggests the APF largely reached people who would have acted anyway, providing little marginal benefit.
There was also a Self-Selection Bias.
Those who read the APF were systematically different:
64% already had basic/good pension knowledge
33% already had pension provision
Higher income and socioeconomic status
The APF appears to have reinforced existing advantages rather than closing gaps.
It concluded:” “This research provides rigorous evidence that mass information provision, while well-intentioned, has minimal impact on pension knowledge or retirement planning behaviour. The APF initiative reached 16 million people but meaningfully engaged only about 5 million, with measurable behavioural impact likely affecting fewer than 1-2 million.
It lays down three fundamental truths.
Information Is Not Enough Knowledge deficits are not the primary barrier to retirement planning. The research shows that those with the greatest information needs were least likely to engage with information provided.
Existing Advantages Compound The APF was most effective among those who already had pension knowledge, existing provision, higher incomes, and greater financial capability—reinforcing rather than reducing pension inequality.
Behaviour Change Requires Architecture, Not Just Information The minimal difference between APF and control groups demonstrates that passive information provision cannot drive behaviour change for complex, long-term decisions like retirement plan.
The report did tell ministers what they should do and why it was needed – that included specifically targeting the groups who did not respond in the future and running a systematic campaign to raise awareness of the change. As the Parliamentary Ombudsman found the result was maladministration.
DWP in ministerial flux
The ministry at the time was in flux. The year 2007 saw Peter Hain replaced by John Hutton – now both peers – as work and pension secretaries. The minister responsible for pensions changed as well from Mike O’Brien ( long left Parliament and working as a lawyer) and Dame Rosie Winterton.
There was zilch coverage in the media about its findings – the Iraq War was raging at the time – and it is not clear whether the report was kept for internal use anyway.
What will the impact be? First Pat McFadden says the review would not necessarily lead to the government paying out compensation. Secondly it could affect the judicial review brought by WASPI on the failure to act on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report and pay out compensation, as he said he had informed the high court about his decision to review the issue.
This could torpedo the hearing due on December 9 because judges may not want to hear the case if the minister says he is reviewing the situation.
As I have stated many times this would not have happened as CedawinLaw , the other main group campaigning for restitution for women, has said if they had applied instead for mediation and a court ruling to enforce it. But sadly WASPI has always refused to work with other groups wanting to create an impression in the media that they are the only people concerned about the issue.
Also the issue of past discrimination against these women as well as maladministration could have been included in the case. But Waspi do not seem to be bothered about this.
Not so transparent McFadden
There is one other issue to raise. Pat McFadden made a big issue of being transparent in his statement. But in fact he made it difficult for journalists to access this report. Normally when a minister makes a statement – and it will the case in the Budget – all the papers are available in the Vote Office to lobby journalists. In this case this paper was only available in the House of Commons library which can only be accessed by MPs. I would like to thank the anonymous MP who got me a copy.
Since then the library have allowed the report to be available to the public. The link is here.
There was an unusual procedure in the courts in the long battle between the Department of Work and Pensions and WASPI last week.
The issue was whether WASPI’s legal costs would be capped in their application for a judicial review over the government’s decision not to award compensation for partial maladministration for 50s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions. It led to some pretty strong exchanges between Bindman’s solicitors and DWP lawyers, the latter were vehemently opposed to the cost cap, arguing it was not a public interest issue.
Instead of a hearing last Monday to decide the issue – it was suddenly ” vacated” by the parties concerned and a very senior judge in charge of the administrative court decided to grant the cost capping for WASPI in advance when they bring a case to the courts for permission to have a judicial review. CEDAWinLAW applied to be a friend of the court and submitted documents on the substantive issue on discrimination and maladministration.
CEDAWinLAW said: “As friends to the court, CEDAWinLAW’s Amicus Curaie Intervention and Cost Capping Order applications matter to 3.5million 1950s Women whom we uniquely represent: Thus followed, the submission of our legal documents out of relevant expertise and strong interest in the outcome of Case No AC-2025-LON-000811.
Our purpose is to assist the court by offering impartial information, legal arguments and broader public interest perspectives that are not fully represented by the parties in the case.”
They have had no reply from the court. They have put in a complaint and also written to the judge.
What is extraordinary is the CV of this senior judge. Mr Justice Swift who took the decision shows he is no friend of campaigners and has taken a consistently pro government stance over the years.
A large part of his career was spent as the First Treasury Counsel – known as the Treasury Devil – from 2007 to 2014. The current one is James Eadie who played a prominent and a successful role in defending the government in the judicial review against Backto60 , who fought the Department for Work and Pensions. to claim compensation for 3.5 million 50swomen lost pensions on the grounds of discrimination and maladministration. Their case was never looked at by the Supreme Court who claimed it was ” out of time”.
The whole point of the post is to defend the government from NOT paying out people who sought compensation or redress from government departments, hence him taking the prime role for the DWP. The Treasury is never keen to spend too much money.
More recently he took two the Government’s side on two high profile cases – the deportation of refugees to Rwanda – and the fate of Julian Assange, who is now a freeman. As Wikipedia said:
On 10 June 2022, Mr Justice Swift ruled in favour of the UK Government that the deportation flights of unsuccessful asylum seekers in the UK to Rwanda should be allowed to proceed, as there was material public interest in doing so.[5] He added in his ruling that the risk posed to refugees was “in the realms of speculation”.[6]
On 8 June 2023, Swift ruled in favour of the UK Government, and rejected the appeal of political prisoner Julian Assange‘s legal team, which had filed two appeals before the court against the then Home Secretary Priti Patel‘s decision to extradite Wikileaks founder being indicted by the United States under the Espionage Act. He was later released.
So while WASPI did have a friend at the head of the administrative court it is by no means certain that they will get an easy ride when it comes to getting permission for a judicial review which will require a public hearing. If he had refused the organisation would have been set back as the department could try to get all its costs against them if it won.
In the end the ruling means that the case is being regraded in the “public interest” much as the case for a judicial review the Backto60 case was regarded as a public interest case.
What is staring everyone in the face is why not go for mediation rather than have a long drawn out judicial review which could take years if there are appeals and still needs judicial permission to go ahead.
WASPI set its face against this and not only refused but actively opposed CEDAWinLAW’s attempt to do this through the courts, siding with the DWP’s opposition to this.
Looking at the present situation Angela Madden, who runs the WASPI campaign, appears to be accepting, unlike her bold claims of getting £10,000 for everybody at the Labour Party Conference a few years ago, a token payment so the government acknowledge the maladministration found in the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report. She in her last message suggested she was not looking for compensation for lost pensions but for the government to accept it needed to pay the women after the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report.
Yet her members have already raised over £227,000 for a legal case and the organisation wants another £43,000 for what they admit will be a complex hearing. At this rate the legal costs may exceed the award.
In the meantime CEDAWinLAW is applying for observer status in the proceedings.
Last week Salford City Radio’s Ian Rothwell devoted a whole programme to the CedawinLaw case for mediation to solve the impasse of compensation for the 50swomen who faced a six year delay in getting their pension. Three speakers discussed the issues. Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge and anti discrimination commissioner for Tasmania, gave an update description of the present legal position and how you do not have to court to start a mediation process. Janice Chapman ,a 1950s woman, gives a heart rending account of how women have already been discriminated against before they got their pension and then had to wait six more years before they could get it and how alternatives to work longer are often not possible. I give an interview questioning the wisdom of Waspi’s legal case for partial maladministration and how the All Party Group on State Pension Equality is moving towards insisting that all groups campaign together rather than the division between Waspi and all the other groups which has bedeviled the issue for years.
From right to left Jocelynne Scutt, former Australian judge; Ian Byrne, Labour MP for Liverpool,West Derby and myself a journalist and a patron of CEDAWinLAW.
Waspi threaten further legal action and another judicial review
The present impasse over whether 50swomen should receive any compensation at all after ministers refused to pay must cease.
WASPI who relied on the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s weak findings of partial maladministration to get somewhere between £1000 and £3000 compensation for the 3.5 million women who suffered up to a six year delay in their pensions have been totally defeated and are having to restart from scratch.
CEDAWinLAW, formerly BackTo60, are now pressing to avoid further legal action and go straight to mediation with the government – hence the letter to the PM Sir Keir Starmer, the chancellor, Rachel Reeves and the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall.
The government is now facing a two pronged attack over the issue from two groups with different approaches but both are aiming to provide some compensation for the 50swomen.
The approach by CEDAWinLAW is much broader than WASPI which is only concerned with getting some recompense for the partial maladministration Sir Robert Behrens, the former Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, made in his long drawn out findings even though he conceded that the women were not directly financially affected by their lack of knowledge.
CEDAWinLAW are putting forward a case that the women were both subject to discrimination by being the only group affected by the delay and by the fact that unlike men they did not have the opportunities to build up the numbers of years to get a full pensions by historic discriminatory measures such as being barred from making contributions.
CEDAW is also relying on two key points. The UK under Margaret Thatcher signed up to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women in 1986. This body is monitoring the UK’s progress in meeting the terms of the convention – and the issue of discrimination against 50s women is on their agenda in Geneva and will also be raised next month at a women’s conference on discrimination in New York.
Secondly the UK is moving domestically to accept that mediation is a better way of solving issues across the board rather than clogging up the courts with long running disputes. All this explained succinctly by Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge and a women’s campaigner, in the video below
Now WASPI are planning to do the opposite and engage in a long war of attrition again in the courts against the DWP for throwing out any hope of compensation. Now having covered the long running judicial review by Backto60 from the initial hearing to the Court of Appeal ( the Supreme Court wouldn’t even hear it) this is committing their supporters to years of waiting and a huge financial burden running well into six figures to maintain the fight.
John Halford, head of public law and human rights, Bindmans. Pic credit: Bindmans website
The scale of the issue can be shown by the pre action letter sent to by John Halford of Bindman’s to the DWP. Not only is he is asking the ministry to cancel the decision they made not to compensate the women but he gets involved in a long convoluted argument into why the women should be paid and into the minutie of the detail of various surveys the ministry undertook to make his case.. Given the courts preference to look at precedents he will not be able to escape the DWP making references to the previous judicial review and using it to their advantage to quash such an action. The full text of his letter is reproduced below.
Now buried in this is a U turn by WASPI. The letter states it would like to explore an alternative disputes resolution to solve the problem. This is extraordinary about turn because only last year CEDAWinLAW put forward the same idea and invited WASPI to be an interested party. John Halford sent for all the papers and flatly rejected the approach. Not only that but presumably on the orders of Angela Madden, who runs the WASPI company, decided to side with the DWP against CEDAWinLAW if it came to court. Again the DWP could use it against them if they get a good lawyer.
In many ways this is a very sad tale as no agreement is possible between any of the groups fighting to get justice for the 3.5 million 50swomen. which in the short term will suit the DWP who can play off one group against another. There is also no real leadership from the All Party Parliamentary Group on State Pension Equality for Women led by Rebecca Long Bayley, MP for Salford, who describes herself as a wife, mother and proud Socialist, to bang heads together and go for the government over this.
In the meantime the cohort is starting to die out which will be very convenient for all those MPs and ministers whose inaction just prolongs any justice.
But in the long term this issue, the axing of the winter fuel allowance and what I hear is going to be the biggest assault on disabled people’s benefits in a generation will lose Labour its core support and pave the way for Nigel Farage to be our next Prime Minister.
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.
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.
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.
Former judgeJocelynne Scutt (middle) with Professor Natasha Despoja, a CEDAW committee member ((left) and Dr Elgun Safarov ( deputy chairman ( Right)
CEDAWinLAW, the successor organisation to Backto60, has decided to postpone its legal action on behalf of all 1950s women to force Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, to go to mediation over the long standing fight over the six year delay in paying out women’s pensions.
A statement from the organisation emphasises that this is a postponement not a total withdrawal of the case since preliminary work by their lawyers has found that Mell Stride did act unlawfully by not agreeing to mediation. Effectively it leaves a Sword of Damocles hanging over Mr Stride and Liz Kendall, his potential Labour successor as work and pensions secretary, should the party win the next general election.
The statement reads:
CEDAWinLAW has decided to postpone its action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions. Whilst its case is clear that the Secretary of State refused unlawfully, reasonable invitations to mediate made by Garden Court, it has decided to wait upon further developments before proceeding with its judicial review which it will now withdraw. Funds generously donated have been used in launching the judicial review and taking advice. Those funds fell short in timing of providing funds for a full-blown fight in front to the court. Our counsel said of the fight; “This is an important challenge for so many 1950’s Women in this country. The weight of the evidence indicates a grave injustice to them, and we will robustly represent their interests as we move forward with the assistance of our legal team.”. Whilst in the short term we have not achieved our goal for 1950s women’s pension rights, we have brought further notice to their plight and increased the political pressure which continues to build. We shall succeed for all those women
The decision will be disappointing for the women as an early court hearing on mediation was seen as better bet than the compensation likely to be awarded by the Parliamentary Ombudsman which is in the region of £1000 to £2900. The Department of Work and Pensions opposes compensation to any of the women either via the Ombudsman’s guidelines or through mediation.
CEDAWinLAW was able to raise money easily for the first stage to allow lawyers to prepare a case but lack of further wider publicity meant there was not enough money to continue to a full hearing.
WASPI did not help either. It expressed interest in becoming a party to the case and their lawyers demanded access to the all the papers. They also threatened CEDAWinLAW with costs unless they handed them. When they got access to the papers they decided not to proceed and instead their board sided with the Department of Work and Pensions case against CEDAWinLAW . The WASPI board quote the DWP’s contention that Australian judge Jocelynne Scutt’s report which found discrimination against all 3.8 million had no standing. Unfortunately for them this is not the view of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, whose deputy chairman, Dr Elgun Safarov, gave evidence to the people’s tribunal run by Jocelynne Scutt, who regard the findings as very important.
This continual divide between the organisations which includes banning WASPI women seeing any of my articles on their sites has been a gift to the DWP who don’t want to see the women get a penny.
However other developments mean that is not the end of the story. The UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women , has already received from Jocelynne Scutt a paper to on discrimination in women’s pensions in the UK. This can form the basis for an inquiry which would put the UK in the dock.
CEDAW are already not pleased that after 40 years membership of CEDAW, the UK has not passed all the legislation to comply with the convention, and has written to the UK about this. The UK at the moment is trying to ignore this but cannot stop the body setting up an inquiry.
Mel Stride
Other developments will happen when Parliament returns on April 15. Mel Stride has already met a senior politician and, fresh from his universal roasting by MPs from all parties on the Ombudsman’s report, is beginning to think he will have to offer something.
The SNP is also active. Patricia Gibson, the SNP’s Attorney General spokesman and MP for North Ayrshire and Arran, is planning to put up a backbench motion calling on Mel Stride to agree to WASPI’s demand for compensation and wants to press it to a vote. But given the different political rivalries in the Commons, there could be a danger it could be lost.
CEDAWinLAW is also drawing up a strategy to continue to press for mediation. More news on this is likely to be announced soon.
Westminster Confidential 