4 Conclusion
44. The Ombudsman made three further general recommendations:
- that ex gratia schemes should
be devised in a way that ensures that all the relevant
issues are considered before the scheme is announced or advertised;
- that changes to the eligibility criteria after
a scheme has been announced should be publicised and explained
to those who might be affected;
- that where a scheme has been subject to a large
number of complaints or criticisms from Courts or Parliament,
it should be reviewed.[45]
45. These might seem self evident: this case has
shown they are not. Despite two Judicial Reviews and the Ombudsman's
investigation it apparently took our inquiry to bring the officials
concerned together and reveal that the MoD had been mistaken.
On 1 December, the Minister told us:
… this new information came to light on Monday,
lunchtime-ish, as my officials were preparing papers to come in
to brief me for this session, and it was having the whole team
at a session and discussing what they were going to advise me
and tell me that this apparent discrepancy was fully exposed.[46]
The Minister told the House that this failure should
be the subject of a separate investigation, and that he had asked
the Permanent Secretary to identify a retired senior official
or other comparable official to lead it.[47]
46. We have already written to the Minister requesting
that the investigation should deal with the following questions:
- What precisely was the information
discovered in the course of preparation for the hearing on 1 December
which made the MoD change its stance?
- Why is it only now becoming apparent to the MoD
that the introduction of the blood link criterion led to inconsistencies
in the scheme, when this was clear to ABCIFER and the Ombudsman
years ago?
- Why was the MoD convinced that the scheme for
civilian internees would affect that for former PoWs?
- Before November 2005, were Ministers ever given
information which would have enabled them to identify the fact
that the criteria for eligibility before March 2001 were not consistent
with those applied thereafter?
- What is the documentary evidence for the contention
that the initial criteria for eligibility were simply receipt
of compensation under the earlier scheme, or that a former internee
was descended from someone who had received such compensation?
These questions must be fully addressed.
47. Mr
Touhig made it clear to us, and to the House, that mistakes had
been made because the scheme had been drawn up in haste. Understandably,
he does not wish to repeat those errors. But the reasons for haste
remain: those who were interned are elderly, and their numbers
are rapidly diminishing. It is a source of regret, and shame,
that the MoD received the Ombudsman's report a year ago, on 18
January 2005, and did nothing until our hearing meant that it
had to address the report properly. It has been forced into conducting
the review the Ombudsman recommended; the MoD should now accept
the recommendation to reconsider the position of Professor Hayward
and others in a similar position, and should do so with the urgency
and generosity of the scheme's original intention.
45 'A Debt of Honour', paras 223-2226 Back
46
Q 39 Back
47
HC Deb, 12 December 2005, col. 1119-1120 Back
|
