Conclusions and recommendations
1. In
our view, the Ombudsman acted appropriately in investigating this
case. The entire basis of the 1967 Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administration Act is that it is possible for a measure to
be legal, and yet to be maladministered. The fact that legality
has been established through Judicial Review may be irrelevant
to maladministration. There may even be circumstances where the
Ombudsman feels it is appropriate to conduct an investigation
while Judicial Review proceedings are taking place, so that she
can subsequently report without delay. We would, in principle,
support this. (Paragraph 20)
2. We are disturbed
that the MoD refused to conduct a review of the administration
of the scheme, even though the Ombudsman provided evidence of
inconsistent decision making and that the Department sought to
avoid such a review on the grounds that it had not had the opportunity
to identify and comment on such cases, when it was custodian of
the files which contained them. (Paragraph 25)
3. Subsequent events
have shown the Ombudsman was right to recommend a review. The
MoD should have accepted that recommendation at the outset. (Paragraph
29)
4. There is ample
evidence to support the Ombudsman's finding of maladministration.
If it had always been intended to make a payment only to those
civilians with close links to the United Kingdom at the time of
internment, regardless of their subsequent history, there appears
to be no clear indication of it in any contemporary papers, and
no Minister was asked to decide the matter until long after the
first payment had been made (Paragraph 37)
5. In evidence, Mr
Iremonger suggested that extending the criteria for civilian internees
would necessarily mean extending it for former PoWs and "hundreds
of millions of pounds is at stake". We do not see why there
would be automatic correlation between the criteria for former
PoWs and for former civilian internees. If the MoD contends that
is so, we expect it to explain the case far more fully than it
has either in its response to the Ombudsman or to us. (Paragraph
38)
6. 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. (Paragraph
47)
| 
