Correspondence: 22/06/2004 - Colin Slater to Vanni Treves
V Treves Esq
Chairman
Equitable Life
City Place House
55 Basinghall Street
London
EC2V 5DR
|
|
22nd June 2004
Dear Mr Treves
Paul Braithwaite has referred to me your letter of 11th June 2004. Apart from our General Secretary, EMAG's committee members are unpaid volunteers who have devoted hundreds of hours each year to the interests of EMAG's membership. Committee members are elected by a democratic vote of our Annual General Meeting. Under our Constitution, the Chairman is elected by our committee. For this reason it is not surprising that changes in the composition of our leadership are gradual rather than dramatic.
Turning to your specific questions: -
The position of Deputy Chairman is not required under our Constitution. The committee has no current plans to appoint a Deputy.
2 & 3. I am not willing to supply details of the inner workings of EMAG's committee for the same reasons that you would refuse equivalent information in respect of Equitable Life's Board. Disassociation by individuals from the views of the Chairman would be no more appropriate from members of EMAG's committee than they would be from members of your Board.
However, over the years I have conducted correspondence with yourself and other directors, and none of it contains the sort of phraseology included in Alex Henney's letters, to which you took exception. I believe my election as Chairman means that in future relations between us will be conducted on a polite and professional basis.
4 & 5. Since 2001, I have met you and most of the other members of the Equitable Board. For the avoidance of doubt, EMAG committee members are willing to meet all or any Equitable Life Directors, particularly the non-executives (yourself included), because EMAG perceives its role as congruent with theirs.
EMAG's declared policy of openness with its members means that we greatly prefer meetings with the Society to be on a non-confidential basis. However, we have signed and honoured confidentiality agreements in the past, where they seemed to be appropriate and would consider doing so again in the future. We are not aware of any occasion when confidentiality or a trust has been breached by EMAG.
Equitable Life Directors' concern about dealing with EMAG committee members is by no means a one way street. The platform of your regime was to be open with policyholders. It has therefore been a disappointment that the directors refused to divulge the pivotal financial review of June 2001. Instead policyholders had to wait three years for Lord Penrose's Report to reveal (for example):
That major contributory factors to the 16% cut of July 2001 were your predecessors' long history of declaring excessive bonuses and their 'practices of dubious actuarial merit', which disguised what was going on.
That the underlying funds of with profit annuitants were cut in July 2001 in very much the same way as other policyholders.
Be that as it may, at the present time both the Equitable Life Board and the EMAG committee supports the Parliamentary Ombudsman as a route to compensation for members.
In view of its status as successors to the various Equitable Life Boards that got us into this unhappy mess, the current Board is not best suited to represent the interests of all the aggrieved policyholders, present and past, in seeking Government compensation. As the only substantial policyholders' group with a legally drafted constitution, an elected committee and money subscription, EMAG is well placed to make good this deficiency. In these circumstances it must make sense for us both to set aside our past differences and try to co-operate for the benefit of policyholders.
Stewart Simpson (Mr P in the PO's report) has recently been co-opted to the EMAG committee. Charles Thomson has expressed interest in his experience with the PO, in which EMAG and its solicitors Bindman & Partners have been closely involved. EMAG is focussed on the accountability of the UK Government, (NOT the regulators) and the Board may have extensive legal advice that it has not made public. I suggest these are two areas of common interest that could form the basis of a constructive meeting.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
Colin Slater FCA - Chairman
|
