Penrose Inquiry

Within the items listed below we feature comment that we consider well-informed. We don't necessarily endorse the views expressed nor do we seek to give financial advice.

Documents:

• 24 April '03 - Sir Gordon Downey's submission to the Penrose Inquiry
• 31 October '02 - Notes on Meeting between EMAG and the Penrose Inquiry
• 30 August 2002 - Update to Penrose Inquiry

Correspondence:

• 20 December '02 - Email from Hugh Burns, Secretary to the Penrose Inquiry
• 22nd November '02 - Alex Henney's letter to Glenda Jackson MP - Regarding the Penrose Inquiry and the failure of the Parliamentary Ombudsman
• 31 October '02 - Letter from the Secretary of the Equitable Life Inquiry - Re meeting with Lord Penrose about the role of the Inquiry
• 15 September 2002 - to Mr Thomson, Equitable, Penrose - why wait?
• 6 September 2002 - Reply to letter to Vanni Treves on 29/08/02
• 29 August 2002 to Vanni Treves - Re the Penrose Inquiry

News:

• 21 Dec '02 - Update following Vanni Treves Interview

  In the light of the Channel 4 Vanni Treves interview EMAG wrote to the Penrose Inquiry about concern that Treves and the Parliamentary Ombudsman were both implying a remit to the Inquiry beyond the Treasury's parameters.

  The letter included: "....it would be timely and appropriate for the Inquiry to immediately re-state the limit of the remit i.e. "...not his role to make determinations of liabilities between the parties"

  AND

  "....careful not to assume the proper function of the courts. Any decision to award compensation in the absence of a determination of liability would be a matter of public policy for the Government."

  Hugh Burns, civil servant secretary to the Inquiry, replied immediately (20th Dec) but declined EMAG's suggestion. Click here for his reply