Financial ombudsman rebuked by MPs over handling of ex-chief's ‘dismissal'
The peer and chairwoman had been asked by MPs to explain why Ms Thomas had stepped down from her role as chief executive of the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) and whether any severance package was agreed.
She declined to do so, saying only that the move had been a 'mutual agreement' and citing her 'duties to safeguard the wellbeing of our employees' and 'protect the interests' of the ombudsman service.
In a letter to the committee on February 19, Baroness Manzoor claimed that 'as a member of the House of Lords, I cannot be required either to attend before the committee, or or to answer its questions,' the report says.
In Monday's report, MPs said that 'although this argument was strictly true' because Commons committees have no power to compel the Lords, 'it was unnecessary and disrespectful'.
Following Baroness Manzoor's letter, the committee ordered the FOS to submit details of any severance deal or financial package and any confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement negotiated between the service and Ms Thomas.
Although the FOS complied with the order, the committee has not published the details, claiming its decision not to do so reflects 'our awareness of the need to balance transparency against fairness to individuals.'
In its report, the committee sums up the reason for Ms Thomas' dismissal as a 'collapse in confidence' driven by 'fundamental disagreements' over strategy and operations between the board and the former chief executive.
'This collapse in confidence covered a broad range of issues and was not driven by a single event or topic,' it says.
'The mutual collapse in confidence led the FOS Board to dismiss Abby Thomas.'
Treasury Committee chairwoman Dame Meg Hillier said the service's failure to block Commons scrutiny should send a 'clear message' to others seeking to frustrate the process.
'I'm afraid that the handling of this situation by the senior leadership of the Financial Ombudsman Service has been deeply disappointing,' she said.
'The attempt to frustrate a House of Commons Committee from scrutinising the actions of a publicly accountable organisation ultimately proved unsuccessful.
'I hope this sends a clear message to any organisation considering similar action in future that Members of the House of Commons will have answers to the questions they ask on behalf of the British public, whether senior officials attempt to block them or not.'
Baroness Manzoor said: 'I highly value the Treasury Select Committee and the important role it plays in holding the financial sector to account.
'I am committed to providing open and transparent evidence to the committee, but there are rare instances when that can be difficult – particularly when it relates to employment matters.
'I have always treated the committee with the utmost seriousness and respect, and I know the Financial Ombudsman Service will continue to work closely with them in the future.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
30 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Plan to strip citizenship from ‘extremists' during appeals clears Commons
The Deprivation of Citizenship Orders (Effect during Appeal) Bill was passed at third reading by MPs, and will now go to the House of Lords for further scrutiny. Under the legislation, alleged extremists who lose their British citizenship but win an appeal against the decision will not have it reinstated before the Home Office has exhausted all avenues for appeal. During the Bill's committee stage, Labour MP Bell Ribeiro-Addy said black, Asian and ethnic minority communities will be 'alarmed' by the proposals. Home Office minister Dan Jarvis said the legislation has 'nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour'. Speaking in the Commons on Monday, Conservative former minister Kit Malthouse said: 'My trouble with this legislation is that it puts a question mark over certain citizens. 'When it's used with increasing frequency, it does put a question mark over people's status as a citizen of the United Kingdom, and that, I think, is something that ought to be of concern.' Intervening, Mr Jarvis said: 'He's making his points in a very considered way, but he is levelling quite serious charges against the Government. 'Can I say to him, in absolute good faith, that our intentions here have nothing to do with somebody's place of birth, but everything to do with their behaviour.' Mr Malthouse said: 'I'm not concerned about it necessarily falling into his hands as a power, but we just don't know who is going to be in his place in the future, and we're never quite sure how these powers might develop.' He continued: 'What I'm trying to do with my amendment is to explain to him that this is an area of law where I would urge him to tread carefully, where I would urge him to think about the compromises that he's creating against our basic freedoms that we need to maintain.' The MP for North West Hampshire had tabled an amendment which would allow a person to retain their citizenship during an appeals process if they face 'a real and substantial threat of serious harm' as a result of the order. It would also have required a judge to suspend the removal of citizenship if the person's ability to mount an effective defence at a subsequent appeal was impacted, or the duration of the appeal process was excessive because of an act or omission by a public authority. Ms Ribeiro-Addy spoke in support of the amendment, she said: 'Certain communities are often wary of legislation that touches on citizenship, because it almost always – whether it is the stated intention or not – disproportionately impacts them. 'And to put this clearly to the minister, I'm talking about people of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, those who have parents who may have been born elsewhere, or grandparents, for that matter, they will be particularly alarmed by this legislation. 'Those of us who have entitlement to citizenship from other countries for no other reason than where our parents may have been born, or where our grandparents may have been born, or simply because of our ethnic origin, we know that we are at higher risk of having our British citizenship revoked. 'And when such legislation is passed, it creates two tiers of citizenship. It creates second-class citizens.' The MP for Clapham and Brixton Hill added: 'I would like to ask why the minister has not seen it fit to conduct an equality impact assessment on this Bill? I know it's an incredibly narrow scope, but these potential implications are vastly potentially impact-limited to specific communities.' At the conclusion of the committee stage, Mr Jarvis said: 'The power to deprive a person of British citizenship does not target ethnic minorities or people of particular faiths, it is used sparingly where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where it is conducive to the public good. 'Deprivation on conducive grounds is used against those who pose a serious threat to the UK, or whose conduct involves high harm. It is solely a person's behaviour which determines if they should be deprived of British citizenship, not their ethnicity or faith.' 'The impact on equalities has been assessed at all stages of this legislation,' he added. The Bill was passed on the nod.
ITV News
39 minutes ago
- ITV News
Will Trump's threats be enough to pull Putin to the table for peace talks?
So President Trump is sick of all Vladimir Putin's talk, in fact so much so it's even a topic for him and the First Lady. After a day in the office he tells her he had a nice chat with Vladimir but then when she puts the TV on, she says 'Oh really, he's bombed a nursing home', which upsets the President. How's that for a glimpse of geo-politics Chez Trump? As a result of too many chats followed by too many strikes President Trump, who just a few weeks ago suspended military aid to the Ukrainians, not for the first time, has decided he's going to arm them. Quite how many Patriots is, in true Trump style not entirely clear, but they will get some. In further Trump style, with America First, Nato members will pay for them. If that's not enough to get Russia to the table, and in reality it's probably not, he's proposing further tariffs and other financial penalties in 50 days. The target of extra tariffs would be on countries doing business with Russia, but it's doubtful it will be all those countries, some of which are allies of the US - and also doubtful how firmly they will be enforced if they even come into play at all. On a balmy Saturday in May, in Kyiv, I listened to the British, French and German leaders demand Russia sign up to an unconditional ceasefire with huge financial penalties if said ceasefire didn't materialise by Monday. It was a proposal apparently backed by Donald Trump. A few hours later President Putin offered unconditional talks -but ignored the ceasefire demand and the talks have been pretty pointless. Ukraine is now under aerial bombardment as never before and the number of civilian deaths and injures in June is at a record high. There's nothing to say there won't be a similar move this time. It is going to take more than the threat of more financial sanctions to really shift this war. There is of course, relief in Kyiv that President Trump seems to have mellowed in his position towards Ukraine, however there is no sense of security in that. After he humiliated President Zelenskyy's in the Oval Office, nothing is for certain anymore, and there's no belief that even when he's playing nice, the US leader can be relied on. Within a few hours of the President's threats, the missiles were hitting civilians again. In one of their last calls Putin warned he would escalate over the next 60 days. That's one presidential promise the Ukrainians can be sure of.
Daily Mirror
44 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Drivers will get taxpayer-funded grants to buy electric cars under £650m scheme
Labour has announced a big push to boost the sale of electric cars with a new £650million grant scheme - the industry has been calling for incentives for private buyers to take the plunge Drivers will be able to get up to £3,750 off an electric car under a new government scheme. The Department for Transport announced £650million worth of grants to encourage motorists to switch to electric. The automotive industry has been calling for incentives for private buyers to take the plunge ever since the Tories scrapped a plug-in grant worth up to £1,500 in 2022. Labour has a manifesto commitment to phase out the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2030. However, the high price tag for electric cars - plus a lack of public charging points - has seen sales go backwards. That was despite manufacturers pumping £4.5billion last year into discounts on incentives as they tried to meet government targets. The market has picked-up, with one in four new cars sold last month electric. Drivers can already benefit from generous tax breaks but only if an electric car is bought on a company scheme. The new Electric Car Grant will apply to new vehicles with a price tag of £37,000 or less. The threshold will exclude expensive models, including Elon Musk's Tesla. According to website Autotrader, the average price of a new electric car from a volume manufacturer is £35,865, with 44% of the 153 EV models less than £37,000. That still means most models won't qualify. The grant money will go not direct to buyers direct but manufacturers. To qualify, car makers will need to show they have reached the 'highest manufacturing sustainability standards'. It is unclear at this stage which manufacturers will be included but it is believed it will exclude cars assembled in China. Those car firms deemed to have the greenest manufacturing will be able to apply for the maximum £3,750 per vehicle grant, but those in band two will get a much lower amount of up to £1,500. Funding available until the 2028/29 financial year. Buyers won't need to fill in any additional paperwork to receive the grant as all administration is handled between the manufacturers, dealerships, and the government. Whether the money will be enough to persuade a rush of new buyers, only time will tell. And it comes as another incentive for going electric - lower road tax - was scaled back. From this April, electric owners will pay £10 for the first year, but then £195 per year after that. Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander said: 'This EV grant will not only allow people to keep more of their hard-earned money - it'll help our automotive sector seize one of the biggest opportunities of the 21st century. And with over 82,000 public charge points now available across the UK, we've built the infrastructure families need to make the switch with confidence. This is our Plan for Change in action. We're backing British drivers, British jobs and British growth.' Mike Hawes, chief executive at trade body the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, said, 'Today's announcement of the return of government support for the purchase of electric vehicles is a clear signal to consumers that now is the time to switch. 'Rapid deployment and availability of this grant over the next few years will help provide the momentum that is essential to take the EV market from just one in four today, to four in five by the end of the decade. This announcement is a welcome response to consistent calls from the industry for more support, which will be in addition to the substantive subsidies already provided by manufacturers.' The price difference between an electric and a petrol or diesel car is still around 22%, although that is down from 36% a year ago. Ian Plummer, commercial director at AutoTrader, said: 'We saw tax rises in April that have made it more expensive for people to drive electric vehicles, so any incentives to help people buy one are welcome. 'Although more consumers than ever are looking to make the switch, many are still put off by the high upfront cost. 'There are now more EV models available than ever, varying in size and cost, so consumer choice is there. And as charging gets easier and with potential incentives for those without driveways, this should help reduce any lifestyle barriers people might have, providing even more peace of mind to make the switch.'
