Proceeding contribution from Liam Byrne (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 21 October 2009. It occurred during Opposition day on Equitable Life.
Equitable Life
I agree with much of what my hon. Friend says, but if a parliamentary ombudsman finds an injustice and proposes a remedy that is, let us say for the sake of argument, wrong and the Government propose a different remedy, that automatically breaks the link between the injustice identified and the remedy on offer. What is the right way to approach that question, when a legitimate debate may be had about the range of remedies that may address the injustice that the ombudsman has rightly identified? I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that it would always be unsafe, in any area of public life, to receive arguments and proposals as if they were written on tablets of stone. No matter who produces those conclusions, there must always be a way of testing them in case the remedies proposed are incorrect.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 497 c943
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Compensation Insurance companies Equitable Life Assurance Society Maladministration Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration Regulation Government responses Equitable Life Ex-gratia Payment Scheme Review Ex gratia payments
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:21:27 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586906
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586906
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_586906