After 10+ years of political campaigning, we at last got an independent investigation...
Our campaign
​
Q. Why should the government restore our lost pensions?
A. We received bad advice and information from government on our pension choices when AEA Technology was privatised, and as a result we are receiving 50% of the pensions we paid for and were promised.
"Scheme members have been passed from pillar to post"
"Nobody in government has taken responsibility"
Public Accounts Committee
Independent investigations
After a decade of government stone-walling, the National Audit Office announced in 2022 that it would investigate our case and produce a factual report.
​
In March 2023, we at last had an independent, unbiased report on our case.
​​
In March 2023 the Public Accounts Committee considered the NAO report and other submissions. They questioned the Government Actuary and senior figures from the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) and the Department of Work and Pensions.
The PAC report contains very significant conclusions and recommendations, including:
“Civil servants who transferred their pensions to AEA Technology were badly informed by the government at the time, with some losing considerable sums."
"Scheme members have been passed from pillar to post"
"Nobody in government has taken responsibility"
"There has been no independent review, because the relevant ombusman services have said they cannot investigate""
​​
The government’s dismissive response to PAC was published in a Treasury minute in August 2023. Criticisms of their response included:
"I do not see how the actions you propose amount to a remedy to the issues we raised"
Dame Meg Hillier, chair, PAC
"I would be grateful if the Government could reconsider and you could work with colleagues in HM Treasury and other parts of Government to find a solution to this case."
Sir Stephen Timms, chair, Work and Pensions Committee
The next pensions minister examined the AEAT case and in January 2024, indicated a change of position, telling the Work and Pensions Committee
"We accept the [PAC] Committee’s recommendations”
​​​In March the WPC published their report on Defined Benefit Pensions Schemes. A section on the AEAT scheme said:
"The Government should report back to us by the summer recess on how it intends to ensure an adequate means of redress for AEAT pension scheme members."
Events were overtaken by the election of a new government in July'24. After a further year's delay the current pensions minister stated:
“There are no plans to offer specific redress to AEAT members”
He has given no valid reason, merely repeating discredited lies and evasions from the past. It's not clear why he takes the opposite view to that of his fellow DWP minister Sir Stephen Timms, as chair of the Work and Pension Committee! ​​​​​​​
Parliamentary campaign milestones
The government's excuse
In the 2016 debate, Sir Oliver Letwin pressed the pensions minister to explain why we had not been told that we would be giving up a Crown guarantee if we transferred our pensions
​
The minister offered the following incredible excuse:
"The GAD Note was already 8 pages long and could not cover everything"
​​
That is the only answer to this vital question we have ever received!!​
Parliamentary debates
Westminster Hall debates:
• 2015 Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown MP, answered by pensions minister Steve Webb.
• 2016 Sir Oliver Letwin MP, answered by pensions minister Richard Harrington.
In both debates the pensions ministers made misleading statements, failed to answer the questions raised and ran the clock down.
​
Private members bills, with the specific aim of allowing the PHSO to investigate our case:
• 2019 Ed Vaizey MP.
• 2021 David Johnston MP
The government refused to grant these bills a second reading.
“The GAD Note specifically refers to the risk that the AEAT pension scheme could fail”
Wrong. This was one of many false claims in DWP’s 2013 so-called ‘factsheet’. DWP later withdrew the factsheet, saying it was for internal use only.
The truth is that the Note advised us not to consider the security of the new AEAT pension scheme in our decisions!
​
Why is GAD untouchable?
-
Parliamentary Ombudsman: GAD is specifically excluded from their remit.
-
Pensions Ombudsman: Statute of limitations prevents them investigating.
-
Financial Ombudsman: While it's clear that the Ombudsman would have sanctioned any Financial Advisor who behaved as GAD did (for example, their action on the endowment mortgage mis-selling of the 1980s/90s) the Financial Ombudsman cannot investigate the public sector, including GAD. A pity, because the Limitations Act is not applied to their decisions!
-
National Audit Office: The NAO is not permitted to investigate 'actuarial decisions' – and that includes the pensions transfer sum which GAD determined at AEAT privatisation.
-
Institute for Actuaries: Refused to investigate conduct of the Government Actuary.