Ros Altmann - Pensionstheft Campaign

Pensionstheft Campaign

The campaign which "propelled her into the media spotlight" began in July 2002 when Allied Steel and Wire, part of the former UK nationalised steel industry with plant in Sheerness and Cardiff went into receivership. Although their pension scheme was “fully funded” according to the prescribed UK government Minimum Funding Requirement formula, this level of funding was only sufficient to pay those already retired. The existing workforce, many of whom had very long service, would receive only their Guaranteed Minimum Pension, on average, about 40% of what they had expected. The BBC Panorama program asked Altmann to go to Cardiff to explain to the workers what had happened to their pensions. Altmann was the obvious choice. “She has vast experience in the field, having managed institutional investment portfolios for 15 years, including pension funds, insurance funds and unit trusts.” Believing that once the facts were established, the government would recognise its mistake and provide rapid compensation, Altmann set up the Pensionstheft Action Group encouraging members to lobby their MPs for compensation and write to local newspapers. She used her political and press contacts to ensure PAG appeared regularly in news bulletins and newspapers with the banner “Stripped of our pensions”.

In 2004, threatened by a back bench rebellion, the government set up the Pension Protection Fund to help schemes which failed in future. It also offered limited retrospective compensation via the Financial Assistance Scheme to those within three years of retirement, but the majority got nothing. The pensioners had expected much more and Altmann took four representative complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Ann Abraham. In March 2006, Abraham, published a report "Trusting in the pension promise" which found official information "inaccurate, incomplete, unclear and inconsistent". She recommended the government consider offering compensation for lost pensions and the suffering and distress caused. It was immediately rejected by Tony Blair.

In accordance with Parliamentary procedure when the Ombudsman’s recommendations are rejected, the Public Administration Select Committee examined the evidence. In July 2006 they published a report broadly agreeing with her conclusions. It was also rejected and Altmann took their case to solicitors Bindman & Partners. With Altmann's help, John Halford of Bindman's and barristers, Dinah Rose QC and Tom Hickman from Blackstone Chambers, all working on a no win no fee basis, prepared a Judicial Review. In February 2007 a High Court judge, Mr Justice Bean, found for the pensioners. He ruled that rejection of the Ombudsman's report was unlawful and irrational, and described the reasons for the omissions in the DWP leaflets as “minute textual analysis” of a kind that: “can in my view only give comfort to those who consider that it is unwise to believe anything one reads in a government publication. It is particularly ironic when applied to a leaflet whose back cover boasts that it has been awarded a Crystal Mark for clarity by the Plain English Campaign. PEC 3, especially page 15, gives the clear impression that following the enactment of the new law scheme members can be reassured that their pensions are safe whatever happens. I have no doubt that this is what it was designed to do. I agree with the Ombudsman that it was inaccurate and misleading.” The government appealed, and the case was heard by three Appeal Court judges in late July 2007.

Meanwhile, in the March 2007 budget the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced additional compensation for the Financial Assistance Scheme and a review to be carried out by Andrew Young to find the most efficient method of using existing scheme funds and any other appropriate finance. This reported in December 2007 after a delay but it eventually provided a level of compensation most commentators and pensioners thought was fair.

In February 2008, much later than expected, the Appeal Court delivered its verdict: the government was once again found guilty of misleading the pensioners and the constitutional position of the ombudsman was clarified. The government can reject the PO findings but must provide “cogent reasons” for doing so to Parliament, a simple difference of opinion would not suffice. The government announced it was considering appealing directly to the House of Lords, but in March 2008 it decided to accept the Appeal Court verdict. The campaign had taken over 5 years of continuous effort for which Altmann received no payment.