Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 9
9
Rejected
AEAT pension scheme members received unsatisfactory and inconsistent responses to their long-standing complaints.
Conclusion
From 2012 onwards, scheme members raised a series of complaints with multiple government organisations and were dissatisfied with the responses they received. In July 2013, DWP produced a factsheet summarising the complaints government had received and a response to each on behalf of the government. In February 2014, it then sent scheme members a further letter explaining that it was not responsible for the case.16
Government Response Summary
The government rejects the conclusion, stating that complaints were already considered by relevant government bodies. They indicate that changing an ombudsman's remit is a policy matter, and existing 2013 Fair Deal policy prevents similar circumstances from reoccurring.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
2.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation. 2.2 Complaints on this matter have been considered by relevant government bodies, including the Pensions Ombudsman (and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman), and decisions on these complaints including whether they are able to investigate them have been taken according to the remits given to them by Parliament and other broader statutory constraints. As referenced in paragraph 6.5 of HM Treasury guidance, Parliamentary scrutiny of public spending, the department cannot respond further on this matter as changing the remit of an ombudsman would be a policy matter. 2.3 As set out in the Committee’s report, the government’s 2013 Fair Deal policy means that the specific circumstances of this case would not happen again, as in cases of privatisation the pensions would now be expected to remain in public sector schemes.