Tag Archives: CEDAWinLAW

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

Posted on by

CEDAWinLAW takes the fight to the UN in Geneva

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

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

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

The statement reads:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mel Stride

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by

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

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by

Rather late in the day the Department for Work and Pensions has requested personal documents from the six ” test case” complainants representing 3.5 million 50s born pensioners seeking compensation for maladministration.

This is the latest twist in the long running saga of the 50swomen fight for compensation which has taken seven years without a penny being paid out.

Having been contacted by some of the six women who are puzzled why the DWP should want such information and are not getting any adequate explanation from the DWP or the Ombudsman’s office. The request has come from the Parliamentary Ombudsman who is seeking their permission to hand over files that contain the personal information. The six are not supposed to confer with each other.

Rob Behrens Parliamentary Ombudsman

They have good reason to be puzzled. For the confidential submission to the Ombudsman from the DWP says the ministry has already decided to give them nothing. A section of their long submission addresses the problem that if it decided they should have some money why they don’t qualify for any financial redress. It goes through each case and tries to demolish the grounds under the partial maladministration found by the Ombudsman for the women to get anything. The documents it is seeking only apply to the partial maladministration found by the Ombudsman covering some 28 months Rob Behrens decided the ministry should have informed the women. So the Ombudsman will not pass to the DWP the full documentation from those who wanted the maladministration to cover the whole period after the 1995 Pensions Act was passed.

The confidential submission from the DWP does not accept that any of the six complainants are entitled to compensation. It rejects blanket payments to all saying ” we struggle to see how a uniform approach to the level of compensation has any validity when the individual situation of the complainants are all very different.”

It goes on to demolish claims of ill health, lack of money and financial loss are anything to do with the time the complainant received notice of the delay in their pension, blaming other factors for their distress.

It blames three of the complainants for not taking enough action to sort out their finances. It accuses two of them who said they would have kept working if they had known about the delay earlier, of failing to find jobs once they knew.

“It is very difficult to conclude that these complainants missed an opportunity to improve their financial situation because they did not take the action they claim they would have taken.”

It also rejects claims of ill health were caused by the delay in finding out that the pension age was going to rise.

“Four complainants described physical symptoms they attributed to their financial position. Several of the complainants were in difficult financial positions regardless of their not knowing about the increase to State Pension age.”

The final conclusion is: ”it is clear that the complainants simply needed to undertake more research in preparation for their retirement, especially considering that four of the sample group took early retirement and have not provided any evidence that they had conducted any research or retirement planning prior to making their decisions(Retirement years: 2010, 2006, 2005 & 2009). If they had requested a forecast and
planned, they would have had plenty of time to react instead of retiring.”

Table in DWP submission suggests Ombudsman was asking for very little compensation anyway

The report also includes a table which seems to suggest – before the Ombudsman made his provisional decision to make no awards for compensation but to leave it to Parliament- that the levels of compensation would be low- a maximum if £450 and in some cases nothing.

Ombudsman’s provisional compensation recommendations according to the DWP.

As for personal details the DWP submission already contains an annexe with a lot of personal details of the six complainants which makes it all the more confusing why it should want more. I am not publishing the details to protect their privacy.

It strikes me that people need to question more why this extra information is needed when the department has so much already.

It must be coincidence that this request has come at the same time as Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, is facing litigation from CEDAWinLAW, a campaigning group for women, calling for mediation with the DWP to end this long saga.

It is time the Parliamentary Ombudsman and the DWP were more open about their agenda rather than hiding behind obfuscation and secrecy. I seem to be the only person probing what is going on.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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

Posted on by
Royal Courts of Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

In a statement the organisation said:

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

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

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

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

Mel Stride, Work and Pensions Secretary

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

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

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive: Parliamentary Ombudsman dodges recommending any maladministration compensation for 3.5 million 50s women

Posted on by
Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman Pic Credit: PHSO website

Ombudsman capitulates to DWP intransigence NOT to pay a penny and leaves it to MPs to decide

In what must be the most extraordinary provisional decision by any Parliamentary Ombudsman Rob Behrens has decided NOT to make any recommendations for compensation for maladministration he found affecting 3.5 million 50s born women who had to wait an extra six years for their pensions.

Some details of his confidential letter sent out to Waspi, MPs, the test case complainants and 500 other pensioners have leaked out and show basically the Ombudsman has , in my words.” kopped out ” of his job to compensate people wronged by public bodies. This is after spending six years – with various breaks – investigating the issue.

The letter reveals that the Department for Work and Pensions has put enormous pressure on the Ombudsman not to award anything by telling him before he has completed his final report they have no intention of paying it.

These are the key paragraphs:

The official Ombudsman website says the aim is to publish this as a final report in March.

So what are the repercussions if this goes ahead? It obviously means it would go to Parliament which would have to have a debate and a vote on various levels of compensation. But the Parliamentary agenda is largely in the hands of the government and government whips. The government still has a large majority and Rishi Sunak, the PM, has shown little, if any, interest in this issue. All the government has to do is put down a motion saying the DWP doesn’t want to pay any of the women and whip Tory MPs to vote for it.

There might be a small rebellion by Tories but not enough to defeat it. It is by no means certain that Labour would support it, despite the former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell promising £58 billion to settle this issue. Labour seeing itself in power later next year would not necessarily be keen on paying a multi billion package to the women when faced with a tight spending constraints.

The other extraordinary result of such a provisional decision is that this is a bitter blow to Waspi, who went down the Parliamentary Ombudsman route. The have raised huge sums of money from these women – all it turns out for nothing. They are still running a crowd funder – supposedly for a judicial review into the Ombudsman’s decision. They capitulated at the court door- going for the Ombudsman to rewrite his findings. Well he has now, and recommends they get nothing. Should they continue to raise money now it could be seen as fleecing their supporters as they now have nowhere to go.

The only bright light in this terrible situation is that CEDAWinLAW has now raised all the £15,000 it needs for lawyers to go ahead to work out a strategy to bring a Group Class action against the DWP. Since it looks like the only thing that could make the DWP listen is a court decision, this is the only avenue left.

But there is something worse in the Ombudsman’s provisional decision. Should it go to a vote in Parliament and Parliament votes to give them nothing, that is the end of the matter. Parliament is supreme and even the courts have to bow to Parliament. In other words, the Ombudsman’s decision, however he likes to dress it up, condemns 3.5 million mainly poor pensioners to go to their graves without a penny in compensation. Some friend of the oppressed indeed.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Exclusive: 50swomen prepare to take the DWP to court again over failure to compensate them for lost pensions

Posted on by

Top human rights lawyer and a past president of the Law Society to draw up legal case strategy for 3.5 million women

John Cooper KC Pic credit: 25 Bedford Row Chambers

CEDAWinLaw, the successor body to BackTo60, announced today that it has started preparations to take the Department for Work and Pensions to court again.

The move will re-ignite the row over the long drawn out dispute over the failure by government to compensate or recognise the plight of 3.5 million women who had to wait an extra six years for their pension. At present progress on the dispute is stymied by the long time the Parliamentary Ombudsman is taking to decide how much compensation the women are entitled to and the scope of their complaints.

David Greene. Pic credit: Law Society Gazette

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary, and Laura Trott, the pensions minister have also blocked any discussion of mediation between CEDAWinLAW and the government hiding behind Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s protracted delay in reaching any decision on the issue. This particular claim by ministers is vigorously contested by Jocelynne Scutt, the Australian judge, who says both processes are separate and mediation is possible while the Ombudsman considers his report

In a statement today CEDAWinLAW said: “CEDAWinLAW has instructed John Cooper KC ‘Top Silk’ out of 25bedfordrow.com via David Greene, Senior Partner, edwincoe.com to represent all 1950’s Women in a Group Class Action against the Secretary of State for Work & Pensions out of The Judge’s Report which sets out in depth the way in which those affected have enforceable rights which have been breached.

We plan to initially raise £15,000 to determine a case strategy with Counsel to be published, in due course.”

John Cooper is one of the leading human rights lawyers, having been the lead prosecutor in the People’s Iran Tribunal in The Hague; a leading KC in the Manchester Arena bombings inquiry, numerous high profile murder trials and fraud cases and is described as the preferred KC for cases which challenge the Establishment.

He said today: “This is an important challenge for so many 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 a first class legal team”

David Greene is regarded as an expert in bringing Class Actions for groups and cited as one of the best litigators in the City. He is a past President of the Law Society which represents solicitors.

Mel Stride, work and pensions secretary

The announcement today was made inevitable by Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, refusing any mediation talks. These had been offered by Garden Court Chambers and ministers initially decided to ignore the request only to find themselves under pressure by Garden Court Chambers to have to respond. as it is a recognised legal process. Once he had refused he opened himself up to potential legal action. The offer for mediation still stands.

The decision today is also a victory for CEDAWinLAW, whose predecessor BackTo60, were refused a hearing of their judicial review by the Supreme Court after initially winning a case to bring it in the lower courts.

Jocelynne Scutt

By doggedly pursuing the issue despite this setback they got Jocelynne Scutt, former anti discrimination commissioner in Tasmania and an Australian judge, to hold a people’s tribunal, assisted by Garden Court Chambers. Her findings produced in a report found that 50swomen had been the subject of direct discrimination contrary to international law under the UN Convention of the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination Against Women and Girls, ratified by Margaret Thatcher in 1986.

Despite attempts to pretend this was of no significance notably by Andrew Gwynne, MP who supports WASPI and is now a Labour shadow minister for social care, as just ” a personal view”, lawyers from three firms, Garden Court Chambers ( for mediation) ,25 Bedford Row, and Edwin Coe (for the class action) have decided that it presents an arguable case.

CEDAWinLAW is seeking to raise £15,000 to cover the development of a legal case strategy . Their website if you want to donate is here.

A decision to go back to the courts will present fresh problems for the DWP which thought it had seen the end of legal action after the judicial review was blocked by the Supreme Court. It could also present problems for the Ombudsman’s Office as Robert Behrens used the previous legal action to pause his investigation.

I have asked both to comment. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”

“

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Ian Rothwell’s radio show: Interviews with Dr Jocelynne Scutt, myself and Kris Gibson

Posted on by

Featuring latest developments in the long running battle to put right the injustice to 3.5m 50sborn women who faced delayed pensions

Australian former anti discrimination commissioner and judge Dr Jocelynne Scutt

The CEDAWinLaw organisation, which backs full implementation of the UN Convention for ending all discrimination against women and girls, has put up links to the interviews this week on Salford City Radio’s Ian Rothwell show. These reveal the latest move towards getting mediation for the 50s women who faced a six year extra wait to get their pensions.

Mel Stride, the work and pensions secretary has refused any mediation so tougher action is being considered and legal advice has been sought. The link to the website is here.

Worth watching developments over the next coming weeks. Doesn’t look like anyone is going away. Meanwhile the number of 50swomen who have died without getting any compensation has reached over 300,000.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to allow me to continue my detailed investigations.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Dr Jocelynne Scutt on why mediation is the only legal way forward to solve the 13 year old pensions dispute for 1950s women

Posted on by
Davina Lloyd interviews Dr Jocelynne Scutt, author of the groundbreaking Judge’s report on the plight of 1950s women who faced a six year delay in getting their pensions

Meanwhile Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, stalls WASPI on any date they will get his delayed findings

It is well worth watching the above video interview with Dr Jocelynne Scutt which explains clearly and concisely the current impasse over resolving the dispute between 3.5 million 1950s born women and the government over the six year delay in getting their pensions.

She provides both a clear explanation of why an Alternative Dispute Resolution is the only way to solve the impasse and why the Ombudsman’s current draft report – now being rewritten – only provides a partial solution to the problem by concentrating solely on the delay caused by maladministration and not on the direct discrimination against the women themselves under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). The latter is crucial because Mrs Thatcher signed up and ratified this convention in 1986 and the UK is responsible to the UN in Geneva to follow its provisions.

As Dr Scutt argues ” the law is the law”.

Laura Trott MP Pensions Minister Pic credit: Official Portrait, House of Commons

Her explanation comes as the pension minister, Laura Trott, has muddied the waters saying that the offer of mediation by the internationally respected law firm Garden Court Chambers, cannot be taken up at the moment by Mel Stride, the works and pension secretary, because the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still working on his report.

Laura Trott is wrong. Mediation can go ahead while the Parliamentary Ombudsman is still investigating as it is an entirely separate from whatever the Ombudsman recommends. Indeed it might save Rob Behrens a lot of work as he is obviously struggling to put together a fresh report and would probably love to drop this hot potato.

The reason why Laura Trott is offering these lame excuses and why there is silence from Mel Stride, I suspect, is that Garden Court has started a legal process by writing now twice to the Secretary of State and offering to act as impartial mediators to end this dispute. Their reputation as impartial mediators is second to none.

“No reply” Mel Stride, secretary of State for Work and Pensions

He is trying to avoid replying because if he says yes – it will automatically go ahead. But if he says no, his lawyers at the Department for Work and Pensions have probably warned him he risks the whole matter going back to the courts. If that happens what sensible judge is not going to think the Secretary of State is being obstructive. To borrow Cabinet colleague Michael Gove’s words on another matter, he will be portrayed as “a blocker not a builder.”

The dilemma both the government and Parliamentary Ombudsman are facing is what is the position of the UK under CEDAW. If Dr Scutt’s cogent judgement is correct,, they just can’t ignore the implications of direct discrimination for this particular group of people. It is the ” elephant in the room.”

I am grateful to the Waspi Pembrokeshire branch for tweeting about the recent meeting between the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Waspi which ended in a stalemate despite them sending in two lawyers to help argue their case. The Ombudsman could give no publication date when this so called ” urgent” issue could be resolved and talked of completely rewriting the second part of its report because of the issues ” Waspi and others ” had raised.

Rebecca Hilsenrath,chief exec of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office

I suspect the “others” refers to Dr Scutt’s judgement as I know CEDAWinLaw has sent her judgement to the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s chief executive, Rebecca Hilsenrath, and I can’t see how the Ombudsman can produce a report without referring to it. Mrs Hilsenrath has also agreed to meet CEDAWinLAW on a date yet to be agreed.

Again I advise everybody to watch the interview for a clear understanding of the present position taken by CEDAWinLAW as everyone awaits events.

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00
£5.00
£15.00
£100.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

Updated Direct Discrimination: Former Judge Jocelynne Scutt’s report published on the 50swomen pension delay

Posted on by

Former judge Jocelynne Scutt today published her full report on the plight of 1950s women who have waited up to six years to get their delayed pension. As expected it provides copious arguments why the women have been cheated, why the 50swomen were the first group targeted and contains some heart rending cases. You can download the report here. It is a large file as the report runs to 155 pages including appendices.

Here is the entire speech by Jocelynne Scutt to MPs in Parliament this week. This explains the logic of her argument.

The full speech from Jocelynne Scutt to MPs

Some 3.8 million women suffered direct discrimination by the Tory government’s decision in 1995 to raise the pension age, of women to 65 and then 66, MPs and peers will be told at a briefing in Parliament today.

This is the main finding of a big report by Jocelynne Scutt, a former Australian judge who served on the Fiji bench and was Tasmania’s first Anti Discrimination Commissioner. She now teaches law at the University of Buckingham and is a member of both the Australian Labor Party and the British Labour Party and is a Labour councillor in Cambridge.

Her report followed a hearing by the CEDAWinLAW People’s Tribunal last July which specifically looked into the plight of 50sborn women where some of the women and Dr Elgun Safarov, vice chair of the UN Convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women and girls (CEDAW) from Geneva, gave evidence. The UN committee is currently challenging the UK government to explain its failure to write the convention into UK law some 36 years after Margaret Thatcher ratified it.

The ruling in the report to be published in due course is much tougher than the case put forward by two members of BackTo60 in the court hearings following the judicial review. Then lawyers argued that the women had suffered indirect discrimination as their opportunities to pay contributions into the National Insurance fund, among other issues, to qualify for a full pension were not equal with men.

Jocelynne Scutt argues that this was not indirect discrimination but direct discrimination of a specific group of women who had been singled out to wait for their pension while everyone else was unaffected. It has also to be taken into account that 9.8 million men over 60 who decided not to claim unemployment benefit were given free auto-credits which ensured that nearly all got a full pension for life. It was going to be offered to women until 2018 but that idea was swiftly scrapped.

Every one of these women – many who have worked since the age of 15 as well as bringing up a family- was promised by the government when they started work that they could retire at 60 and planned to do so. And given the Department for Work and Pensions told the courts that it was not obliged under the 1995 Act to tell them personally this had changed – this only came in when men were affected by a rise in their retirement age.

Jocelynne Scutt has already delivered the report to Rishi Sunak at Downing Street. She argues that 50s women were treated unfavourably from the start. The 1995 decision did not affect any women born in the 1940s, targeted the 1950s women while those born in 1960s and 1970s onwards had much longer to adjust. The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report agrees there was partial maladministration in that 50s women were not properly informed. In fact hardly anyone was properly informed until it all changed with men and women facing a rise in their pension age to 66.

Full restitution must be honoured – Jocelynne Scutt

Jocelynne Scutt says “Government and Parliament have a responsibility to face up to and acknowledge the grave wrong done. There is no room for obfuscation or quibbling. Historical discrimination requires relief. There is a moral imperative to right this wrong. The law is on the side of the 1950s-born women. 1950sborn women alone are the group targeted. This is a debt of law and honour. Full restitution is the only proper legal, ethical and moral outcome. Full restitution must be honoured.“

The briefing is in the House of Commons at 2.0pm today.

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

My evidence to the CEDAW in LAW Tribunal this month on the egregious plight of 50s women and their lost pensions

Posted on by

Giving evidence to CEDAW in LAW tribunal

Earlier this month I gave evidence to a tribunal set up by CEDAW in LAW presided over by Australian judge Jocelynne Scutt on the situation affecting 3.8 million women who have had to wait an extra six years to get their pension.

My evidence tries to explain how this situation came about going back to 1988 when the government decided to end Treasury contributions (except when the fund was in the red) to the National Insurance Fund starving it of money to pay out pensions. Given pensions are paid out of current contributions the fund would have built up a very healthy surplus – enough for both higher pensions for everybody later and avoided the current raising of the pension age. Given the UK has one of the lowest state pensions in Europe this would have been a very good improvement.

My evidence also showed how successive governments failed to properly tell the women affected how they would lose their pensions for five and later six years under the 1995, 2008 and 2011 Pensions Acts.

And it reveals how men were treated differently after Margaret Thatcher in 1983 decided to pay the national insurance contributions for men from 60 to 65 to keep them from claiming unemployment benefits. This lasted until 2018 and was available for 9.8 million men. Women born in the 1950s were promised this from 2010 but it was never implemented.

Failure to remedy

Also I strongly criticise the failure to remedy this in both the courts and through the Parliamentary Ombudsman. The Supreme Court would not hear the case and Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, has given half hearted support to maladministration claims for part of the period. On top of that the All Party Parliamentary Group on state pension inequality has been ineffective, relying on the Ombudsman to present the women’s case rather than directly intervening as MPs to pressurise the government.

The tribunal also heard from a number of women who described the devastating effect this wait had on their lives and from Elgun Safarov, the vice chairperson of the United Nations Convention of the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women Committee.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential to continue my work and investigations.

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

£5.00
£10.00
£20.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00
£3.00
£9.00
£60.00

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00