Question
Like many MPs across the House, I have a number of constituents who have been affected by this issue. I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response, but there is an issue that concerns me more than anything. When the procurement process happens, it seems that officials come to us and assure us that a series of decision points have been gone through, and that the options before us are the best ones available—as a former Minister, I recognise that. However, when these things go wrong, nobody is individually accountable. What would the Minister say to our constituents, who are alarmed at the fact that nobody is apparently responsible for such a dire outcome?
Answer
Of course, the contract and the procurement were done under the last Government. In relation to accountability, the immediate priority for me and the Cabinet Office is getting this crisis resolved and making sure that all constituents get the pensions they should have. There will of course be lessons learned, and I will look into that personally, but the priority at the minute is getting people their pensions.20% point-scoring 20% vibes
Verdict: AMBER (30/100)
The reply only partly addresses the question about accountability. It attributes the problem to the previous government, says the immediate priority is pensions, and promises lessons learned and a personal look into the matter. It does not explain why no individual is held accountable or respond to the claim that proper decision points were followed, and the promised review has no named person, mechanism or timeline. A member of the public would likely need to ask again for specifics.
How we got there
| Question item | Coverage | Specificity | Rationale |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the Minister's response to constituents who are alarmed that no individual is apparently held accountable for the dire outcome of this procurement, given that officials have said the decision points were properly followed? | Partially Addressed | Hedged | The reply engages with accountability only indirectly: it blames the previous government, says the immediate priority is pensions, and promises lessons learned and a personal look into the matter, but it never addresses why no individual is held accountable or the officials' claim that decision points were properly followed. The personal commitment to 'look into that' is a real but vague undertaking with no mechanism, named individual, or timeline. |