HL Deb 31 October 2002 vol 640 cc290-1

3.33 p.m.

Lord Higgins

asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether they will give an assurance that the report of the Penrose Committee on Equitable Life will be published.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, it is the Government's intention to make public as much as possible of the results of the inquiry. Ideally, this will be the full report. However, much of the information being considered by the inquiry is subject to legal and commercial confidentiality restrictions, and such restrictions may also apply to information included in the report of the inquiry. It is possible that such restrictions may prevent the report from being published in full.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and declare an interest in Equitable Life. Is it not clear that the Treasury, in its regulatory role, totally failed to prevent the Equitable Life disaster? The Treasury then set up the Penrose inquiry with restricted terms of reference. Lord Penrose will eventually reply to the Treasury, and the Treasury will then decide what it is appropriate to publish. The Minister's Answer suggests that the inquiry has been set up in a way that will prevent its findings being published in full. Meanwhile, other inquiries—for example those by the Treasury Select Committee and the ombudsman—have been put on hold while people suffer. Does the Minister agree with the ombudsman's statement that the root cause of the problem is the failure of the authorities to establish at the outset a single inquiry with terms of reference covering all aspects of the Equitable Life affair?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, that is an awful lot of questions when the noble Lord is supposed to ask only two. He began with an anticipation of what the result of the inquiry will be—which I entirely reject.It is normal practice for inquiries of this sort to be commissioned by the Treasury and addressed to Ministers of the Treasury. I have made it clear that we shall publish as much as we can of the findings of the inquiry which is being conducted entirely independently by a senior member of the Scottish judiciary. There will be no influence to it. In the end, it is up to Parliament what action it sees fit to take as a result. The ombudsman's inquiry has not been put on hold as a result.

Lord Newby

My Lords, is the Minister aware that in a letter to my colleague in another place, Dr Cable, earlier this month, the ombudsman, Sir Michael Buckley, said that he could not proceed with the investigation of Equitable Life cases because of the partly overlapping mandate of the Baird report and the Penrose report? Will not that mean very severe delays in the possible payment of compensation? Yet, a week later, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated in a letter that she understood that there was no suggestion that the work of the ombudsman was being delayed due to the Penrose inquiry. Clearly, the Treasury is not speaking to the ombudsman. Will the Minister please suggest to the Treasury that Ministers there speak to the ombudsman and get this matter sorted out? It is delaying possible payment of compensation.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I should make it clear that the ombudsman's inquiry is not a matter for the Treasury. The ombudsman will report to the Public Administration Committee in the House of Commons. The Treasury has no responsibility for the ombudsman's inquiry. It would be impertinent for the Treasury to intervene. My understanding is that the ombudsman's inquiry is almost, if not already, at drafting stage. There is the possibility of some delay because the present ombudsman, Michael Buckley, is retiring today and his successor, Ann Abraham, will want to assure herself that the inquiry is fit for publication.

Lord Higgins

My Lords, will the Minister please check on the information that he has given to the House? The press release by the ombudsman a few days ago made it absolutely clear that he has put his inquiry on hold because of the Penrose committee report. At the same time, he complained that the report will he inadequate because of its restrictive terms of reference. I think that the Minister will find that the statement that he has made to the House is not correct.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, of course I will check. If there is any possibility of what I have said being incorrect, the House will be due an apology. It is in fact the ombudsman's report which is more restrictive, because it is concerned only with the period from 1st January 1999 to 8th December 2000; whereas the Penrose inquiry goes right back over time to when problems first arose in Equitable Life. I think that the issue is at the very least more complicated than noble Lords opposite appear to think.