I have now had the opportunity to read the whole report on this complex and serious issue.
The Ombudsman’s report is clear about the initial time frame of the complaint.
“We find that between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet. Accurate information about changes to State Pension age was publicly available in leaflets, through DWP’s pensions education campaigns, through DWP’s agencies and on its website. That reflected those applicable standards.”
It is clear, however, that the same is not true of the next time period. In Paragraph 3 it makes clear that “DWP’s decision making following research reported in 2004 failed to give due weight to relevant considerations. The research recommended information should be ‘appropriately targeted’. DWP explored options for targeting information but having considered the options, what it ended up doing was what it had already done. DWP failed to take adequate account of the need for targeted and individually tailored information or of how likely it was doing the same thing would achieve different results. Despite having identified there was more it could do, it failed to provide the public with as full information as possible. DWP failed to make a reasonable decision about next steps in August 2005 and failed to use feedback to improve service design and delivery. It therefore failed at this point to ‘get it right’ and ‘seek continuous improvement’. That was maladministration.”
This is a clear and unequivocal determination.
The period concerned covers the tenure of four Secretaries of State at DWP in the last Labour government: Alan Johnson (Sept 2004-May 2005), David Blunkett (May 2005-Nov 2005), John Hutton (Nov 2005-June 2007) and Peter Hain (June 2007-Jan 2008), though it should be noted that the report does not lay the blame at the door of any political office holders.
The report is especially critical of one particular time period. Paragraph 4 states that “Following research reported in 2006, DWP failed again to ‘get it right’ and ‘seek continuous improvement’. It did not act promptly enough on its November 2006 proposal to write directly to affected women to tell them about changes to State Pension age. And it failed to give due weight to how much time had already been lost since the 1995 Pensions Act. That was also maladministration”.
Paragraph 5 is even more explicit that “We consider that, if DWP had made a reasonable decision in August 2005 and then acted promptly, it would have written to affected women to tell them about changes to their State Pension age by, at the latest, December 2006. This is 28 months earlier than DWP actually wrote to them. It follows that these women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes than they got. The opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost.”
I think this last point lies at the very heart of the issue. It is amplified in the following and clearly explained paragraphs:
- Paragraph 49: “In this case, DWP itself decided the public should be informed about changes in State Pension age. Once DWP knew information was not reaching the people who needed it and there was more it could do, it should have done more to ensure the public had as full information as possible.”
- Paragraph 54: “The Courts have recently confirmed that DWP had no legal duty to communicate changes to State Pension age. We have considered whether ‘the duty’ referred to in the DWP Policy Statement was no more than any potential legal duty, and whether the Court’s decisions limit any requirements arising out of good administration. We do not consider that is the case. We say this bearing in mind that the requirements of good administration are not the same as requirements in law. What is required for good administration is therefore not limited by what is required by law.”
I think this last point is important in emphasising the duty of care required in public administration.
The impact of the process failures is clear in Paragraph 99: “DWP research in 2003/2004 looked specifically at public awareness of State Pension age equalisation and was reported in October 2004. 62% of working age women knew State Pension age was going to rise. This increased to 73% amongst all respondents aged 45 to 54 (women born in the 1950s would have been aged 45 to 54 in 2004). But only 43% of all women affected by the changes knew their State Pension age was 65, or between 60 and 65 years.”
The consequences are set out in Paragraphs 165 and 173:
- Paragraph 165. “We know that it took 16 months for letters to be issued once DWP decided in December 2007 to send them. If DWP had made a reasonable decision about direct mail in August 2005, and over a year of planning and implementation time had not been lost between November 2006 and December 2007, it is likely letters about the effects of the 1995 Pensions Act would have been issued within 16 months of August 2005 (that is, from December 2006). That is 28 months earlier than when DWP actually started to issue them (April 2009). Had DWP issued letters from December 2006, there would have been no need to pause direct mailing pending the 2011 Pensions Act”.
- Paragraph 173. “It follows that affected women should have had at least 28 months’ more individual notice of the changes. For women who were not aware of the changes, the opportunity that additional notice would have given them to adjust their retirement plans was lost. The next stage of our investigation will consider the impact that injustice had.”
In conclusion, the Report states that “We are asking Parliament to intervene and identify a way to provide appropriate remedy. We think this will be the quickest way to put things right.”
The next step will be for the Government to respond to the PHSO report. My own view is that unless there is new information of which we are currently unaware, there is strong case for compensation. It is immaterial that the problem was created under the previous Labour government. There is, after all, no government money, only taxpayers’ money. Indeed, there are some similarities with the Post Office scandal where over 83% of the prosecutions occurred under the last Labour government while any compensation issues have to be addressed by the current Conservative government. Where public administration is at fault, it follows that this is where any remedy should come from.
I will be watching developments closely and there is likely to be a lively debate about scale and timescale of any proposed compensation, but I think it is impossible to read the report without a clear view that natural justice needs to be done and be seen to be done.