Conclusion 1

It is not immediately clear that Mr Bailey’s concerns about the distinction between “responsibility” and “culpability” in Dame Elizabeth’s draft report would have “compelled” him to make his “free-standing” objection. However we accept that it is likely that his strong concerns over the “responsibility” vs “culpability” point may have led him to make his “free-standing” objection to the inclusion of named responsible individuals, and that in the absence of his concerns about the distinction between “responsibility” and “culpability” he might not have put forward his “free- standing” objection. We cannot of course be certain about this and if we were satisfied that there was strong and clear evidence that Mr Bailey had misled the Committee on this point, it would be a serious matter. But the evidence does not support that particular conclusion, and we do not believe that Mr Bailey misled the Committee. We note that the revisions made by Dame Elizabeth to the draft report, clarifying that an identification of responsibility was not an attribution of culpability, met the essence of Mr Bailey’s request, and we believe that it is in the wider interest to regard this issue as closed.