Ms Alison O'Connell - Director - Pension Policy Institute

Reasons for her admission to our Hall of Shame

Her abject failure to adhere to the aims and objectives of the Institute for which she has been appointed Director. Her Institute regularly refers to the need to have discussion with interested parties in both their aims and objectives and various reports. Ms O´Connell first came to our attention on 14th September when comments she allegedly made on the BBC Money Box programme came to our notice. When discussing a "new format" for UK State pensions she referred to her Institute´s proposals as being " on the basis of residence in the UK rather than the National Insurance they had paid at work".

We emailed her asking for clarification that she had considered the implications of such proposals for ExPats. She considered our email to be rude and too personal. We have recently learnt that it is possible she may have been referring to "the length of residency one had spent within the U.K". If so this is a totally different statement to the one above. The former statement implies one must be resident in the UK, at that time, to qualify for a pension under her proposals. She has since refused to answer any of our other four emails. The FULL, unabridged, email texts are available for all to see. Make up your own minds as to her guilt or not.

Evidence offered in support of her inclusion

Please click on the links to read the item

Conclusions and recommendations

By her constant refusal to enter dialogue with ourselves, despite her own regulations stating to the contrary, Ms O' Connell has showed herself to be too full of her own self importance. She has sadly failed to differentiate between correspondence addressed to herself, as an individual, and correspondence addressed to her as the Director of the Pension Policy Institute. They are two totally different types of communication requiring differing responses. This is a totally unacceptable and immature way for any Head of an Organisation to act and we feel that her Governors should demand an urgent meeting with her to identify why she failed to adhere to their own regulations and good practice and has, as a direct consequence of her actions, brought the Institute into disrepute. We, in particular, sought to identify what consideration had been given to E.U. regulations and ExPats in any reports produced by her Institute. Recall her email she states "...However, as you will see when you give more than a brief read to the full report we are working on, we have fully considered the issue of freedom of movement..."

We have frequently requested from her access to these very reports where she alleges consideration for ExPats and "the freedom of movement" can be found. She has denied us access or direction on every occasion. We have looked at various reports, on the PPI web side, but cannot find a singular reference to " issue of freedom of movement" or the implications for ExPats. In the absence of any co-operation from Ms´Connell and having had access to possibly limited reports, we have been forced to conclude that the Pension Policy Institute have produced reports, documents and recommendations without any consideration whatsoever for the pertaining E. U. Regulations, on pension provision, or for the plight of ExPats.

We trust that those who sponsor this Institute, and their work, will take note of this totally unacceptable and inexcusable omission and that they demand that better "homework" be undertaken, by Ms O´Connell and this body, prior to any further sponsorship being offered. Incomplete publications are worthless and serve only to confuse. We also feel
Ms O'Connell should now consider doing the honorable thing and resign, owing to her complete lack of adherence and distain shown towards her Institute objectives. If she does not agree with the principles of her Institute then she should resign. She should not be allowed to kick against them and refuse dialogue with bona fide parties which is contrary to what the Institute both allows and encourages. The subject of pension provision demands a better, higher standard of research and a more co-operative approach than Ms O'Connell seems able or willing to provide.