Hope that 'pensions scandal' can be brought to light during Westminster debate

Patricia Kennedy (left), from Coylton, is calling on the UK Government to “put pressure” on the companies concerned to make good on the indexation of former employees’ pensions for their pension contributions- prior to 1997
Patricia Kennedy (left), from Coylton, is calling on the UK Government to “put pressure” on the companies concerned to make good on the indexation of former employees’ pensions for their pension contributions- prior to 1997 -Credit:Submitted/Ayrshire Post /


An Ayrshire woman waging a campaign against tech giants Hewlett Packard over what she claims is a pensions ‘scandal’ hopes that a Westminster Parliamentary debate can shine a light on the issue.

Patricia Kennedy, from Coylton, has fought a long-standing battle with former employer Hewlett Packard Enterprise in bid to force the company to bump up discretionary pension contributions.

She claims the issue could potentially affect up to 1,500 people across the Ayrshire region alone.

And last month she wrote to the chair of the company, Patricia Russo, in Texas, and issued an appeal for a company re-think before the Annual Shareholders' Virtual meeting.

Now the issue of UK pensions is set to be discussed at Westminster on Thursday, May 2, with Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, Alistair Carmichael, lending his voice.

Although the context of the debate is the current pensions issue surrounding BP, campaigners hope that the issue with HPE also comes to the fore.

Patricia is a member of the HPPA (Hewlett Packard Pension Association (UK) who say they have faced ‘significant hardship’ over the last two decades due to changes in their pension plans.

In Scotland, David Carson is spearheading the campaign for pension ‘justice.’

The group claim they possess massively-reduced pensions from their pre-1997 contributions, because current legislation only index-links contributions from 1997.

And they want the tech giants to ‘make good’ on their contributions to the scheme.

The group also has the backing of some UK parliamentarians, who last month raised an Early Day Motion, calling on HP - and others - to make good on the pension contributions, which are discretionary.

In her letter to HPE top brass, Patricia who gave 12 years’ of service to the company, said HPE’s refusal to pay annual discretionary increases is causing “significant hardship” for more than 5300 HPE people in the UK and this number is increasing each year.

She said: “HPE leadership may not be aware that there is likely to be a debate in the UK Parliament in Westminster on the pre-1997 pension situation. It will feature the demands of BP pensioners who receive five per cent per annum of discretionary increase on pre-1997 service.

“UK HPE pensioners are enlisting the support of a number of MPs for this debate which is very likely to include HPE and other companies.

“In the UK, we are still reeling from the Post Office scandal and the general population is sensitised to the mistreatment of loyal employees. There is increasing public pressure on government to take action to stop long standing injustice for employees.”

Last month Central Ayrshire SNP MP, Philippa Whitford, lent her support to an Early Day Motion, asking the House to note that more than 500,000 former employees of 3M and other businesses including American Express, Hewlett-Packard, Chevron and Wood Group face “massively-reduced pensions” from their pre-1997 contributions.

They also called on the Government to “put pressure” on the companies concerned to make good the indexation of former employees’ pensions for their pension contributions- prior to 1997.

Now it is hoped this latest Westminster debate will ramp up the pressure.

An HPE spokesperson previously said they were “committed” to satisfying all of its responsibilities to both current and former employees and they would continue to “act in good faith” and to give this matter “due and appropriate consideration.”

But Patricia added: “Because of the deadlock in the UK, HPE is not seen to be acting in good faith or giving the matter due and appropriate consideration. As a dual national shareholder who is also UK pensioner, it is my opinion that the continuation of such deadlock cannot be good for business.”

Read next: