My assessment of the Government's Response: findings
Jump to
- I have explained in paragraph 14 above that the Government accepted some but not all of my findings of maladministration and of injustice resulting from such maladministration.
- Five of my findings of maladministration were accepted in full, with four being accepted in part. One was rejected. The Government accepted that injustice had occurred – or, depending on the circumstances of individuals, was capable of having occurred – in relation only to the minority of the findings of maladministration which I had made.
- It will be clear to any reader of the evidence which I have given to the Select Committee that I was deeply disappointed that the Government chose to reject many of the findings that I had made, when I was acting independently on behalf of Parliament and after a detailed and exhaustive investigation.
- I was also entirely unpersuaded by the basis for those rejections which was set out within the Government’s published response to my report. In particular, that response:
- was based on an extremely limited and unevidenced view of the nature of the regulatory regime relevant to the events covered in my report and of the responsibilities of the regulatory bodies whose acts and omissions I had investigated;
- failed to address the whole basis on which I had found maladministration to have occurred when rejecting such determinations of maladministration; and
- contained commentary, the status of which is unclear, which appeared to limit and/or re-interpret the findings I had made – thus calling into question whether the acceptance of such findings had full effect.
- The lawfulness of the Government’s response is of course a matter for the courts. During April 2009, I was served as an interested party with papers related to an application for permission to seek judicial review of the Government’s response to my report. That application has been made by those acting on behalf of the lead complainants during my investigation and on behalf of others affected by the events at Equitable Life.
- I have told the court and the parties to the complaints that it is not my present intention to take an active part in the proceedings, although I reserve the right to take part in the event that I consider it appropriate to do so in the light of submissions made on behalf of the Claimants and/or the Defendant.
- I have reviewed very carefully the Government’s oral and published response to my report, the evidence given by Ministers to the Select Committee concerning that response, and the papers giving further information about its basis which are contained within the court papers. I have also seen the exchanges in the House that have occurred on this subject.
- Nothing that I have seen when reviewing any of these sources persuades me that my findings of maladministration and injustice were mistaken or that the Government have provided a sufficient basis for rejecting many of those findings. Nor am I persuaded that their response has properly and fully addressed the basis on which I made the findings that have been rejected.
- Within the scheme governing the operation of my office as Parliament has established it, whether the response of the Government to my report is adequate or whether instead it constitutes an inappropriate attempt to act as judge and jury in its own cause is now a matter for Parliament to consider and debate.
