Tag Archives: Parliamentary Ombudsman

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

Posted on by
Nick Hardwick pic credit: Wikipedia

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

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

William Wragg MP

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Philippa Helme -pic credit: Houses of Parliament

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

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

Rebecca Hilsenrath

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

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

Her country cottage in north Wales

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

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

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

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

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

Or enter a custom amount

£

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly


Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00


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.

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

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.

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 West minster Confidential

£10.00

MPs call again for reform of the antiquated Parliamentary Ombudsman – but ignore the plight of 50swomen

Posted on by
William Wragg MP: official Portrait

Also ” Ombudsman friend “of Rob Behrens facing a corruption hearing in Australia

MPs today publish their official annual scrutiny of the work of the Parliamentary Ombudsman but what it doesn’t say is more important than what it says.

The committee call again – this time for a manifesto commitment from all political parties – to reform the 57 year old Ombudsman legislation – to give the Ombudsman and Health Service Commissioner more clout and powers to ensure his or her recommendations are implemented This follows the blank refusal of this government to take any action to do so. Michael Gove when he was in the Cabinet Office ruled out even a draft bill.

In a desperate plea the chairman, Tory William Wragg, who is also quitting at the election, says:

“As we have done annually for many years now to no avail, we are once again calling on the Government to bring forward what is now very long-overdue legislative reform of the PHSO, so that it can provide the level of service the public requires from it.

“Given the necessity of PHSO reform, we urge all political parties to include a commitment to reforming the legislation relating to the PHSO in their election manifestos ahead of the next General Election.”

Whether the Tories will commit to this must be unlikely since it suits the present government, particularly the Department for Work and Pensions, and to some extent the NHS, to have a weak Ombudsman who can be safely ignored if they don’t like what he says.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office has welcomed the committee’s statement:

“We are pleased to see the Committee’s support for reform of our outdated legislative framework and their call for Government to reconsider its position and consult with stakeholders ahead of the General Election. We agree with their sentiment that reform has been ‘neglected’, is ‘long overdue’, and that ‘further delay is no longer tenable’. 

The rest of the report seems a mixture of praise and criticism over the Ombudsman’s performance. He is praised for dealing with a backlog of complaints that followed the Covid 19 pandemic but criticised for the way he didn’t handle well complaints affecting the elderly and the disabled.

Rob Behrens, retiring Parliamentary Ombudsman

But there were two huge elephants in the room missing in the report. Retiring Ombudsman Robert Behrens when he faced MPs had to spend a good part of the session facing criticism from MPs of the huge and unprecedented delay in publishing his report on the plight of 50swomen – some of them WASPI supporters – and recommending compensation for maladminstration in the six year delay in getting their state pension. Indeed his report is taking longer than the actual delay in getting their pensions.

Yet from today’s report you would think this never happened. There is not one word in the report acknowledging this. All there is a footnote referring to the WASPI evidence while the evidence from CEDAWinLAW does not even merit that.

Yet any reader of this blog knows the present draft recommends NO compensation for the women leaving it up to MPs in Parliament to debate whether women should get a penny.

This is more outrageous given that over 500 people know what it says and practically every sitting MP knows the outcome but most are happy to participate in a conspiracy of silence hoping it will go away. WASPI is playing the same game and one is beginning to wonder whether they want to get any money at all.

The other missing information is who is going to be new Ombudsman. The committee inadvertently published the letter sent to the Cabinet Office from Sir Alex Allen, once adviser to David Cameron and Boris Johnson until he resigned, and now a member of the Parliamentary Ombudsman Board – see my blog here– asking for a speedy decision from Rishi Sunak to replace Rob Behrens. Now it is nearly a month since I wrote about this and nothing has happened. The Cabinet Office appears not to have replied.

Yet they have only until March 27 – when Parliament goes into Easter recess – to fix up a meeting to approve the appointment of a successor. Even if the board appoints an acting ombudsman under the 1967 legislation it would still need Parliamentary approval by the committee, I am told.

Rob Behrens also had strong links with the various international organisations – a couple of which have been hit by scandals.

A war crime and a corruption scandal

Josef Ziegele, the European Ombudsman Institute ‘s general secretary, was behind the alleged deportation of two Ukrainian refugee children from Austria to Russia which could be a war crime according to the Kyiv Independent which led to other Ombudsmen, including Rob Behrens resigning from it last April.

The president of the International Ombudsman Institute, Chris Field, who is the Western Australia state Parliamentary ombudsman, is apparently a good friend of Rob Behrens. But at the moment Field is at the centre of corruption hearings in Western Australia over his huge annual travel expenses of $266,000 Australian dollars (£136,840) and for subsidising his organisation through money allocated from Australian taxpayers.

At a visit to Ukraine in 2022 Mr Field heaped praise on Mr Behrens saying “I am deeply grateful to my good friend and colleague Rob Behrens CBE, IOI Vice President Europe, who joined me on this visit. He is a person of utter integrity, searching intellect and profoundly good values. He came to Ukraine. He lives his values” .

He also put a submission to the PACAC saying: ” He is counted as a wise mentor and friend by me and so many of his colleagues around the world. Ombudsman Behrens has not just transformed the office of the PHSO into one of the world’s leading Ombudsman offices, he has made a contribution to the IOI and the institution of the Ombudsman globally of inestimable value. It is of some note that I was accompanied by only one Ombudsman on my visit to Ukraine in December in 2022, namely Ombudsman Behrens. He distinguished his office and his country during this visit.”

The annual report of his Ombudsman’s report for West Australia revealed Field had visited Taiwan, China, Ukraine, Britain, the US, Slovenia, Thailand, Austria, Morocco, France, Russia, Poland and Hungary.  Just prior to his visit to Ukraine, the IOI president met with the Australian Ambassador to Poland Lloyd Brodrick, and the Australian Ambassador to Ukraine Bruce Edwards in Poland. 

Chris Field, Western Australia Ombudsman

During the first tranche of the corruption hearings against him ( they resume mid March) it was revealed that he decided to end rules disclosing gifts he had received on foreign trips by raising the disclosure limit from around £25 to £125. It was revealed that he planned to give the OECD in Paris from Australian taxpayers funds , over $213,000 (about £107,000) for a project concerning, ‘the role of Ombudsman institutions in building a culture of open government for stronger and more resilient communities.’ The first invoice from OECD of half the cash was blocked by the Ombudsman’s chief finance officer.

He also ordered his office to pay for a private limousine to take him from the Paris Hilton to the OECD headquarters because he said taxis were difficult to find in Paris.

It was said he was only in the office for two days out of ten because of all these world trips and he designated other people to take operational decisions.

Behrens stands with Israel

MPs in today’s report praise the Ombudsman for seeking co-operation with international organisations. It also discloses that the Parliamentary Ombudsman is working closely to co-operate with Israel’s Ombudsman.

So closely that Matanyahu Englman, Israel’s Ombudsman requested both Chris Field and Rob Behrens to issue a statement by the International Ombudsman Institute giving unqualified support to Israel to fight HAMAS.

Chris Field obliged saying: “There can be no false moral equivalences in the lawful and correct response of Israel to those who came to slaughter the Jewish people,” in a letter to Israel’s State Comptroller and Ombudsman Matanyahu Englman. “No international body should be allowed to falter in their resolve to eradicate a body that actually pays their members to kill Jews. There can be no peace in the Middle East while terrorism and undemocratic representation of the peoples of Gaza seek to eliminate the Jewish people.”

See the Jerusalem Post article here for the full story.

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: 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

Parliamentary Ombudsman to send out confidential draft findings on 50s women pensions next week

Posted on by
A younger picture of Rebecca Hilsenrath

A confidential copy of the provisional findings of the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s report revealing what compensation the 3.5 million remaining 50swomen will get for their delayed pensions will be sent out to selected parties at the end of next week.

This long, long awaited move was announced by Rebecca Hilsenrath, chief executive of the Ombudsman’s Office, to Mps on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee yesterday.

Ms Hilsenrath told MPs that this long drawn out investigation had been ” challenging” and the Ombudsman had needed expert legal advice on how to proceed with the report. She said the investigation which began in 2018 had twice been paused because of litigation. These included the judicial reviews brought by ” Backto60″ – now CEDAWinLAW and Waspi . Backto60 had fought the DWP over indirect discrimination in the process and Waspi had wanted the finding of maladministration widened to cover other circumstances which had affected women’s claims.

It was also revealed that the Department for Work and Pensions had contributed to the delay by asking for more time to consider the issues.

Altogether it will have taken seven years before the public release of the report expected in the New Year of the Ombudsman’s findings during which over 250,000 women have died.

John McDonnell, the former shadow chancellor, said these delays and extensions had mean it would mean ” justice delayed becoming justice denied” and pressed the Ombudsman not to grant any more extensions to the DWP or other parties.

The schedule announced by Ms Hilsenrath will give the six ” test case” complainants until Christmas to respond. The provisional findings are also being sent to the DWP and Waspi but not to CEDAWinLaw.

” We will then take into account their views before issuing a final report in the New Year.”, she said.

The announcement yesterday came as the £15,000 crowd funder launched by CEDAWinLAW has already raised over 70 per cent of the cash so lawyers could draw up a strategy to bring a group class action against Mel Stride, the works and pensions secretary, for direct discrimination in the way they handled the raising of the women’s state pension from 60 to 65.

The lawyers handling the case are human rights lawyer John Cooper, KC and David Greene.

John Cooper KC

John Cooper said: “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.

Initially the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s Office said the “as far as we are aware no legal proceedings have been issued so no implications for our investigation.”

Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Ombudsman

Yesterday Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, changed his position warning that further litigation would delay proceedings for the publication of the report.

Jovelynne Scutt, the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner, who has compiled a report saying the DWP is in breach of international law, says the legal case should have no bearing on the Ombudsman’s report which is mainly about maladministration.

Yesterday Ms Hilsenrath also admitted that the office’s handling of the complaint would be reviewed by the Parliamentary Ombudsman to see what “lessons can be learned” over the long process it has taken. By then Rob Behrens, the current Ombudsman, will have retired and a new one would be in place.

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 donatge to wsestminster Confidential

£10.00

50s women: Waspi getting nowhere with the Parliamentary Ombudsman who announces he plans to quit

Posted on by
Rob Behrens, Parliamentary Commissioner to stand down in March.

Promise of an early resolution for the £3.6 million 50s born women to get compensation for their delayed pensions appear to have been dashed with no movement from the Parliamentary Ombudsman to solve the problem.

Despite a court agreement in May to revise the final report on compensation for the women to correct what Waspi calls the Ombudsman’s “legally flawed” decision to award minimum compensation for the women who have lost up to £50,000 by the six year delay they faced when the pension age was raised from 60 to 66, nothing has happened. Waspi has raised £147,500 from the public for a judicial review of the decision which never happened.

Angela Madden, chair of Waspi

The Waspi statement in May was very confident the organisation could hold Robert Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s feet to the fire and get great concessions for the women. At a Labour Party Conference meeting last year, Angela Madden, chair of Waspi, said she would expect women to get £10,000 a year compensation. See my blog here.

What a contrast with the downbeat statement a few days ago.

“”WASPI are disappointed and frustrated by the length of time that the Ombudsman is taking to rewrite his Second Report on the injustices cause by DWP maladministration. The Court Order requiring that reconsideration was sealed on 12 May 2023. It is unclear precisely what has been done since then.

” We can confirm that neither we nor, as far as we are aware, any of the sample complainants have been contacted to comment on a draft, or on anything new that the Ombudsman has gathered from the DWP. That opportunity to comment is guaranteed by the Court Order, which suggests that finalisation of the report is still some way off.”

In desperation Waspi have got their lawyers, Bindman’s, to write to the Ombudsman. But as their statement says:

 “We have not had the courtesy of a reply. We also have asked for a meeting with William Wragg MP, the Chair of the  Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), to whom the Ombudsman reports. That meeting has yet to take place.”

Failure to reply is quite common from the Ombudsman’s Office. BackTo60, who have repeatedly told the Ombudsman that he should have to consider whether the failure to compensate the women is in breach of international agreements signed by the UK government which ratified the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW),.

Dr Jocelynne Scutt

This argument is particular powerful following the report by Dr Jocelynne Scutt, the former Australian anti discrimination commissioner and judge, which found it was in breach of CEDAW and was clearly discriminatory against the 50swomen.

Now while it might be convenient for the government and the Ombudsman to pretend this report doesn’t exist, the findings are being taken seriously by the committee implementing the convention in Geneva who have to do a report to the UN on Britain’s compliance with it. Given the Ombudsman’s public pride of his role on the international scene with other Ombudsmen his reputation could easily be sullied if he is found to have ignored an international convention.

But perhaps he doesn’t care. The other major development while Waspi was awaiting his report is that he is to step down from the job next March. He announced this in his annual report published on July 20 which he said was his valedictory report.

This means when Parliament comes back in September the emphasis will switch to finding a successor, drawing up a short list and having the new Ombudsman’s appointment scrutinised and approved by Parliament via the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

What should worry Waspi, which chose to go down this route, is there must be a temptation to delay his findings so his successor has to sort it out. Also even if he does come out with his findings before he leaves, it will be up to his successor to persuade the government to implement them. Given by then Parliament will be engulfed with preparations to fight the next general election, the government might be tempted to push it into the long grass or make vague promises in the hope of garnering votes.

The annual report provides some interesting facts and figures on the operation of the Ombudsman’s Office. A table reveals who uses it showing more women than men complain to the Ombudsman and the main age groups are between 35 and 74 and 84 per cent are white.

The report also reveals disabled people are heavily reliant on it. When one looks at the breakdown of the board however, there is not a single person with experience of a disability on it, which means the disabled have no voice at the top of the organisation. The board has one gay member and three people from ethnic minorities.

The organisation fares well in the employment of women both among its staff and the board as 59 per cent of staff and 58 per cent of the board are women. Disabled people form 13 per cent of the staff just above gay people and just below people from ethnic minorities.

The report also shows that some £588,000 of taxpayers money was spent on management consultancy last year compared with just £22,000 the previous year. This does seem an extraordinary amount of money from a budget which the government has limited.

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
£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

50s women pensions: Will rival attempts to speed up compensation for the 3.6 million work?

Posted on by
Royal Courts of Justice

While I have been away there have been significant developments in the long battle to get justice for the 50swomen who lost tens of thousands of pounds through maladministration, discrimination and lack of communication over the six year rise in their pension age.

Like everything in this long tortured tale the developments have not been straight forward.

Basically two separate initiatives have been launched. WASPI after first going along the route of seeking justice for 50swomen through Rob Behrens the Parliamentary Ombudsman, suddenly turned on him threatening him with a judicial review and launching a crowdfunder to fight him which raised nearly £150,000.

Alternative Disputes Resolution

Backto60, as the only organisation that campaigns for full restitution for the women, launched a plan to call for an Alternative Disputes Resolution, to negotiate a settlement with Mel Stride, the secretary of state for works and pensions, to end this long running dispute which has angered so many women who feel cheated by the DWP. This is backed by 54 MPs, petitions that have attracted 87,000 signatures and a Parliamentary motion.

Both the initiatives I suspect followed the leaking of the Ombudsman’s first and second stage reports on the issue on this blog. Without them becoming public the 3.6 million women affected would not have known the full and frankly paltry proposals by the Ombudsman to solve this dispute. And I have not forgotten senior people from Waspi pressing me to remove the posts so the reports would remain part of a private discussion between them, the Ombudsman and selected MPs rather than allowing the 3.6 million victims the opportunity to read them. And the second one is still not published.

The reason that I suspect WASPI turned is that it was becoming clear that the compensation would be meagre and limited – the DWP could decide ( as they have following other Ombudsman’s reports) that only the six complainants would automatically get compensation of £1000 and some 600 will have to fight for it .It looked a far cry from the promise by Waspi’s chief spokesman, Angela Madden at last year’s Labour conference of between £10,000 and £20,000 for everybody. That is still a lot less for many people owed up to £50,000.

Angela Madden WASPI

Now developments have moved fast on this proposal. It is clear that WASPI, the Ombudsman and teams of lawyers from Bindman’s and Blackstone Chambers have come to a compromise which ended up in the high court last week. Reading the order from Judge Kirsty Brimelow it is clear that parts of the Ombudsman’s second stage report are quashed. These deal with the latter part of the report which rejected any financial compensation for women whose well being and life choices were affected by the delay and did not acknowledge the impact of the DWP pausing sending out letters to women.

The section was admitted by the Ombudsman to have been legally flawed by not taking everything into account.

Crowdfunder page

Since then WASPI have issued on their Crowdfunder page a series of ten conditions which ,it says, the Ombudsman should fulfill.

“WASPI will not be passively waiting for its outcome. At each stage we will be pressing the Ombudsman not only to complete his investigation in a way that is as rapid as possible but also thorough and fair. We will also be raising concerns about this with MPs, particularly those who sit on the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) which oversees the Ombudsman’s work. And we will turn to our lawyers for their expert input when responding to the Ombudsman’s draft reports and if we have concerns his investigation may be derailed again.”

The Ombudsman has been more cautious. He has agreed that he will show Waspi and the complainants his proposed changes and accept comments before finally presenting his report to Parliament.

A spokesperson committed them to looking at the report again adding” We don’t currently have a timeline, but we want to resolve the investigation as swiftly as possible, so any mechanism for remedy can be implemented for those affected.”

Now while this is happening Back to 60 pursued a different tack. The key issue for them has been the People’s Tribunal which looked into the plight of the 50swomen under the UN Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) Tribunal held last year and the judgement given by Judge Jocelynne Scutt which ruled that the women had suffered both maladministration and discrimination.

Jocelynne Scutt

Some critics have tried to say the tribunal and the report are irrelevant because they have no standing. Given that the deputy chair of CEDAW in Geneva gave evidence to it and the judge was one of Australia’s first discrimination commissioners, such criticism seems rather ridiculous. to put it mildly.

The judge took a strong view that Parliament had a moral duty to this. “Government and Parliament have a responsibility to face up to and acknowledge the grave wrong done. There is no room for obfuscation or quibbling. Historic discrimination requires relief. There is a moral imperative to right this wrong. The law is on the side of 1950s women.”

Sir George Howarth

Sir George Howarth, Labour MP for Knowsley, who chairs the Alternative Disputes Resolution project has already written to Mel Stride, asking to come to a meeting. The organisers have also invited Waspi who have not replied.

What is missing is what the DWP will do. It has registered as an interested party to the proceedings over the ombudsman’s report but did not send lawyers to the hearing last week.

Any question to ministers on these developments is met with the answer that it is ” neutral” and would not comment because of the legal proceedings.

This is not surprising , the DWP can’t commit to implementing the Ombudsman’s findings if it doesn’t know what they are. The proper procedure will be after the final report is published.

Will these initiatives work?

The stumbling block for Waspi is that the Ombudsman cannot compel the DWP to accept his findings – even if he does everything Waspi wants. This is one reason why legislation needs updating to strengthen his power which the government is reluctant to do.

The disputes procedure cannot get off the ground without the DWP agreeing to come either.

We could be left with a stalemate with the DWP playing one side against the other and sadly it will still mean women will not get the compensation they badly need. Difficult and confusing times lie ahead.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential

£10.00

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. Please donate to continue my work

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly

How the Tories keep our Parliamentary Ombudsman powerless – while telling the rest of the world they back the highest standards

Posted on by
Rob Behrens Parliamentary Ombudsman

A high powered peer review of the Parliamentary Ombudsman has exposed the hypocrisy and double standards of the present UK government towards people having the right to redress from bad and unfair public and NHS treatment.

The report released from an international panel of Ombudsmen , an academic and a UK housing ombudsman concludes with a polite but damning assessment of the failure of the government to keep its word to strengthen the Ombudsman’s powers. Members of the panel included both the Greek and Israeli Ombudsmen and a respected academic, Professor Robert Thomas, Professor of Public Law, University of Manchester.

The UK is a member of the Council of Europe Venice Commission which lays down what are known as the ” Venice Principles” – an international standard to guarantee the independence of the Ombudsman and the human rights of people to have direct access to the Ombudsman to make complaints about their treatment by public services.

The UK then co-sponsored a UN resolution incorporating these standards for the entire world – telling every country that Britain was in the lead on this issue.

But then under successive Tory governments of Boris Johnson, Elizabeth Truss and Rishi Sunak nothing has not only been done but ministers have taken active steps to thwart reform.

The most obvious example is Michael Gove, who used his power in the Cabinet Office, to block any bill-even a draft bill- coming before Parliament to the despair of the Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (Pacac) which under a Tory MP wanted this to happen.

The situation is remarkably similar to the government’s attitude towards the UN Convention on the elimination of all discrimination against women and girls (CEDAW) which Margaret Thatcher ratified in 1986 and had still not been properly implemented 40 years on . This is now the subject of a review from the convention in Geneva which criticises the UK for not implementing it properly and is demanding answers.

The conclusions of the peer review couldn’t be clearer:

Professor Rob Thomas Pic credit: Administrative Justice Council

“The ‘Venice Principles’ lay down a set of international standards and principles on the protection and promotion of Ombudsman institutions. These have been accepted by the UK, as a member of the Venice Commission of the Council of Europe in 2019. They were also adopted by the UN in a motion co-sponsored by the UK Government in 2020.

” In several respects, PHSO’s legal framework complies with the ‘Venice Principles’, but not in other respects. PHSO’s statutory framework is now out of date and widely seen as being unnecessarily restrictive. PHSO is also out of line with other UK Ombudsman offices, which possess powers that PHSO does not.
“This means that citizens in some parts of the UK do not have the same rights as others. We are aware that reform of the Ombudsman is a long standing and unresolved issue, although it has become an increasingly urgent matter which makes the work of PHSO more difficult. PHSO is doing everything it can reasonably do to make the argument for reform. What is required is action from the UK Government and Parliament. Any reform must maintain PHSO’s direct reporting line into Parliament to preserve its absolute independence from Government.”

Andreas Pottakis, Greek Ombudsman and President the International Ombudsman Institute -Europe

The report backs this up with a traffic light (red, amber, green) system of points where it measures the consistency and performance of the Ombudsman with the Venice principles.. Nearly all the red and amber points are caused by the failure of the government to legislate to strengthen the Ombudsman.

The government does not meet the principle that “Any individual or legal person, including NGOs, shall have the right to free, unhindered and free of charge access to the Ombudsman, and to file a complaint.” Instead a complaint has to be filtered by an MP or in the case of the NHS there has to be a “safe space” for administrators to look at the complaint before the Ombudsman can act.

There is no legal provision to protect whistleblowers who contact him. He, unlike his Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Ombudsmen cannot initiate investigations. It is not clear whether he has full powers to force people to respond to him and certainly his recommendations don’t have to be followed by the government if he finds maladministration. There is not proper protection for his position by law and even the recruitment of a successor is limited, so not all people can apply.

Venice Principles give Ombudsman right to recommend changes to the law

The Venice Principles give him the right ” to have the power to present, in public, recommendations to Parliament or the Executive, including to amend legislation or to adopt new legislation” and this is definitely not allowed in England – otherwise he could go further on the case of the 50swomen who lost their pensions for up to six years.

Now you might think the Ombudsman would make a great deal out of this report to press the government to expand his powers or show up ministers for failing to keep their obligations to an international agreement they signed.

But the heading on his website is “World’s first official international ombudsman review finds UK service is robust and good value “. Yes the report does make good points about improvements in the running of the Ombudsman’s |Office but its fundamental objection is given muted coverage – buried down in the copy.

Further down the press release Rob Behrens, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, says: “The peer review rightly says that the UK is out-of-step with other modern Ombudsman services in terms of our statutory framework. Without powers of own initiative, I am hamstrung from investigating many systemic issues that no one is looking at. Legislative reform of the UK Ombudsman service would mean fewer barriers to justice and more opportunities to prevent injustice happening in the future.”

I think a more gutsy Ombudsman would fight his corner better -particularly as this government is on the back foot when it comes to defending decent public services and upholding standards in public life.

A more cynical explanation is that the government don’t want the public to have greater rights to complain as they are fearful of more bad administration and scandals coming to light But they want the rest of the world to think Britain is a beacon of good government in this area -knowing this is a lie.

Please donate to Westminster Confidential so I can probe reports like this and 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

Andreas I. Pottakis