Compliance with my recommendations?
Jump to
- I have no power to compel a body within jurisdiction to provide an appropriate remedy for any injustice I have found resulted from maladministration on its part.
- However, seeking the provision of such a remedy and the taking of action on the part of such a body to prevent future problems of the same nature has been an integral part of the role of my office since it was created. In general, I do this through the making of recommendations for redress and for remedial action, acting in line with the Principles for Remedy that my office has published.
- Where, as here, I have made such recommendations, it is my practice after the conclusion of the relevant investigation and the production of my report to monitor the provision by such bodies of the remedies which I have recommended. Ensuring compliance with my recommendations enables me on Parliament’s behalf to ensure that the Ombudsman scheme delivers effective administrative justice.
- It will be clear from all of the above that the nature of the Government’s response to my report calls into question whether on this occasion I can report to Parliament that my recommendations have been complied with.
Compliance with my first recommendation
- With respect to my first recommendation – that an apology should be made to those who had sustained injustice due to maladministration – I consider that the Government have complied with this recommendation.
- While I recognise that the exact scope of the maladministration which occurred has been disputed by the Government, the apology made by Treasury Ministers in the House to those affected by maladministration is a positive step.
- Indeed, I welcome the fact that, for the first time, the Government have accepted that maladministration occurred in the prudential regulation of the Society during the period covered in my report – and that this maladministration led to injustice to the Society’s policyholders.
- I also welcome the fact that the Government have accepted that at least some people have been adversely affected by such regulatory failure and that action on the part of Government, including the possible provision of financial redress, is warranted.
- The apology which has been given reflected that acceptance. I therefore find that the provision of an apology in such circumstances constitutes substantial compliance with my first recommendation.
Compliance with my second recommendation
- I cannot say the same in relation to my second recommendation. Whatever the outcome of the work that Sir John Chadwick will undertake, it is clear that the injustice I have found to have resulted from maladministration will not be remedied.
- Not all of my findings of maladministration have been accepted by the Government. Many of my findings of injustice, based on an assessment of what the consequences were of the maladministration I had found to have occurred, have similarly been rejected.
- This greatly limits the scope of the injustice which it is accepted by Government has occurred. Furthermore, as explained above the link between my findings and the remedy to be provided has been broken by the nature of the Government’s alternative proposals on redress.
- Most importantly, it is clear from Sir John’s terms of reference that only some people – those deemed to have suffered ‘disproportionate impact’ – will be eligible for any future ex gratia payments. Other eligibility questions – such as whether the cases of those who are not UK citizens will be considered – remain unresolved.
- Furthermore, even those who are determined to be eligible for such a payment appear unlikely to receive the full amount of their claim, given the work to be done to apportion blame among a range of parties and to assign only a proportion of the ‘liability’ to the maladministration accepted by the Government.
- In such circumstances, I am unable to conclude that the Government’s proposals comply with the recommendation for the establishment of a compensation scheme which I made in my report.
