DOCSLIB.ORG

Public Services Ombudsmen. This Consultation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 196 PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMEN A Consultation Paper ii THE LAW COMMISSION – HOW WE CONSULT About the Law Commission The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Rt Hon Lord Justice Munby (Chairman), Professor Elizabeth Cooke, Mr David Hertzell, Professor David Ormerod1 and Miss Frances Patterson QC. The Chief Executive is: Mr Mark Ormerod CB. Topic of this consultation This consultation paper deals with the public services ombudsmen. Impact assessment An impact assessment is included in Appendix A. Scope of this consultation The purpose of this consultation is to generate responses to our provisional proposals. Duration of the consultation We invite responses from 2 September 2010 to 3 December 2010. How to respond By email to: [email protected] By post to: Public Law Team, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London, SW1H 9LJ Tel: 020-3334-0262 / Fax: 020-3334-0201 If you send your comments by post, it would be helpful if, wherever possible, you could send them to us electronically as well (for example, on CD or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. After the consultation In the light of the responses we receive, we will decide our final recommendations and we will present them to Parliament. It will be for Parliament to decide whether to approve any changes to the law. Code of Practice We are a signatory to the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation and carry out our consultations in accordance with the Code criteria (set out on the next page). Freedom of information We will treat all responses as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act and we may attribute comments and include a list of all respondents' names in any final report we publish. If you wish to submit a confidential response, you should contact us before sending the response. PLEASE NOTE – We will disregard automatic confidentiality statements generated by an IT system. Availability of this consultation paper You can view/download it free of charge on our website at: http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp196.pdf. 1 Professor Jeremy Horder was a Law Commissioner at the time this paper was drafted and approved. He was succeeded by Professor David Ormerod on 1 September 2010 iii CODE OF PRACTICE ON CONSULTATION THE SEVEN CONSULTATION CRITERIA Criterion 1: When to consult Formal consultation should take place at a stage when there is scope to influence the policy outcome. Criterion 2: Duration of consultation exercise Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible Criterion 3: Clarity and scope of impact Consultation documents should be clear about the consultation process, what is being proposed, the scope to influence and the expected costs and benefits of the proposals. Criterion 4: Accessibility of consultation exercises Consultation exercises should be designed to be accessible to, and clearly targeted at, those people the exercise is intended to reach. Criterion 5: The burden of consultation Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees’ buy-in to the process is to be obtained. Criterion 6: Responsiveness of consultation exercises Consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation. Criterion 7: Capacity to consult Officials running consultations should seek guidance in how to run an effective consultation exercise and share what they have learned from the experience. CONSULTATION CO-ORDINATOR The Law Commission’s Consultation Co-ordinator is Phil Hodgson. You are invited to send comments to the Consultation Co-ordinator about the extent to which the criteria have been observed and any ways of improving the consultation process. Contact: Phil Hodgson, Consultation Co-ordinator, Law Commission, Steel House, 11 Tothill Street, London SW1H 9LJ – Email: [email protected] Full details of the Government’s Code of Practice on Consultation are available on the BIS website at http://www.bis.gov.uk/policies/better-regulation/consultation-guidance. iv THE LAW COMMISSION PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMEN CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 Origins of this consultation paper 1.2 1 Scope of this consultation paper 1.5 2 This consultation paper 1.30 5 PART 2: THE PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMEN 2.1 7 Introduction 2.1 7 The public services ombudsmen 2.2 7 Overview of the ombudsman process: three common features 2.20 10 Conclusions 2.44 15 PART 3: APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMEN 3.1 17 Introduction 3.1 17 Statutory provisions for the appointment of the public services 3.2 17 ombudsmen Pre-appointment hearings 3.8 18 Conclusions and provisional proposals 3.27 22 PART 4: OPENING AN OMBUDSMAN INVESTIGATION 4.1 24 Introduction 4.1 24 Relationship with other institutions for administrative justice 4.6 24 Formal requirements 4.86 36 PART 5: OMBUDSMEN INVESTIGATIONS 5.1 40 Introduction 5.1 40 Closed nature of ombudsmen investigations 5.4 40 Reference on a point of law 5.36 44 PART 6: REPORTING 6.1 53 Introduction 6.1 53 The current statutory position 6.3 53 Early practice 6.35 60 Recent practice and associated case law 6.51 64 Conclusions and provisional proposals 6.71 68 v Paragraph Page PART 7: RELATIONSHIP WITH ELECTED BODIES 7.1 74 Introduction 7.1 74 Current position 7.3 74 Recent developments 7.19 76 Conclusions and provisional proposals 7.30 78 PART 8: SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC POINTS FOR 8.1 80 CONSULTATION APPENDIX A: IMPACT ASSESSMENT A.1 84 vi PART 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 This Part sets out the origins of this consultation paper, delineates what we see as its proper scope and explains the structure we have adopted for it. ORIGINS OF THIS CONSULTATION PAPER 1.2 The starting point for this consultation paper was our project on administrative redress. The Ninth Programme on Law Reform in 2005 made provision for a scoping paper on the subject of remedies in judicial review and administrative law. We published that scoping report in 2006 and suggested that we address the following general question:1 When and how should the individual be able to obtain redress against a public body that has acted wrongfully? 1.3 We published our consultation paper in July 2008 entitled Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen.2 This was followed by a report in May 2010.3 The consultation paper considered three primary aspects of administrative redress: judicial review, private law actions against public bodies, and ombudsmen. The first two aspects of the project, which together could be seen as court-based actions for state liability, were discontinued in our report of May 2010.4 In relation to ombudsmen the original consultation paper made four provisional proposals: (1) the creation of a specific power to stay an application for judicial review, so that suitable matters are handled by ombudsmen rather than the courts; (2) that access to the ombudsmen could be improved by modifying the “statutory bar” – the rule that recourse may not be had to the ombudsmen if the complaint has or could be pursued in a court of law; (3) a power for the ombudsmen to refer a question on a point of law to the courts; and (4) the removal of the MP filter in relation to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, to allow a complainant direct access to the ombudsman without having to submit the complaint to a Member of Parliament. 1.4 Our provisional proposals met with generally favourable consultation responses. However, certain consultees thought that our initial proposals needed to be developed further. During consultation other issues came to light that we felt were 1 Remedies against public bodies: A scoping report (10 October 2006) para 5.1. 2 Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen (2008) Law Commission Consultation Paper No 187 (hereafter CP 187). 3 Administrative Redress: Public Bodies and the Citizen (2010) Law Commission No 322. 4 Above, for the reasoning behind this discontinuance. 1 worth investigation. In our report of May 2010, we stated our intention undertake further work on the public services ombudsmen and publish the present consultation paper. SCOPE OF THIS CONSULTATION PAPER 1.5 The general scope of this consultation paper concerns what we have termed the public services ombudsmen. We consider them individually and set out their basic features in Part 2. Before that, however, we think it is worth considering what we mean by an ombudsman. The term ombudsman has come to be applied to a large number of bodies. These range from those bodies that an observer would naturally consider to be ombudsmen, to others where the application of the term may be less appropriate. 1.6 We do not think it is appropriate here to launch into an academic discussion of the various different definitions that have been suggested for an ombudsman, nor are we going to suggest one ourselves. However, we do suggest that there are certain key features to ombudsmen which taken together help differentiate them from other mechanisms for dispute resolution 1.7 First, whether as a result of a complaint or of its own motion, the ombudsman process is investigatory. This, to us, is probably the key to understanding ombudsmen. There is much that follows from this. Ombudsmen need sufficient powers to make the investigatory process effective. As we discuss in more detail later in this consultation paper, their investigatory process allows for different practices relating to disclosure to be put in place than those available to the courts.
Recommended publications
  • Maladministration and Its Remedies

    Maladministration and Its Remedies

    THE HAMLYN LECTURES Twenty-fifth Series MALADMINISTRATION AND ITS REMEDIES K. C. Wheare STEVENS MALADMINISTRATION AND ITS REMEDIES by K. C. WHEARE Fellow of All Souls College, Oxford Maladministration may be defined as administrative action (or inaction) based on or influenced by improper considerations or conduct. In this book, published contemporaneously with the 25th series of lectures under the auspices of the Hamlyn Trust, Sir Kenneth Wheare discusses the existing remedies for maladministration in Britain, and assesses their effec- tiveness in comparison with those available in other countries, particularly in Europe. The book begins with a comprehensive survey of maladministration as it may occur in the actions of the officials of both central and local government With the tendency towards giant departments in central government, and with the introduction in 1974 of enlarged local government units, the author sees a real danger, not only that public administration may be still further removed from those it is intended to serve, but also that more administration is likely to mean correspondingly more maladministration. The discussion opens up the vast question of how a civil service should be recruited and organised in the first place. The author goes on to consider, in separate chapters, the institutions intended at present to remedy mal- administration. He discusses the work of the Courts of Law, including Tribunals, and compares them with their counterparts in France and elsewhere. He takes a fresh look at the doctrine of Ministerial Respon- sibility and considers the effectiveness of Parliamentary Select Committees and Public and Ministerial Inquiries, making particular reference to the 1954 Crichel Down affair and to the yehicle and General Insurance Inquiry of 1972.
  • The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefighter Or Fire-Watcher?

    The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefighter Or Fire-Watcher?

    12 The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefi ghter or fi re-watcher? Contents 1. In search of a role 2. The PCA’s offi ce 3. From maladministration to good administration 4. Firefi ghting or fi re-watching? (a) The small claims court (b) Ombudsmen and courts (c) Fire-watching: Inspection and audit 5. Inquisitorial procedure (a) Screening (b) Investigation (c) Report 6. The ‘Big Inquiry’ (a) Grouping complaints: The Child Support Agency (b) Political cases 7. Occupational pensions: Challenging the ombudsman 8. Control by courts? 9. Conclusion: An ombudsman unfettered? 1. In search of a role In Chapter 10, we considered complaints-handling by the administration, set- tling for a ‘bottom-up’ approach. Th is led us to focus on proportionate dispute resolution (PDR) and machinery, such as internal review, by which complaints can be settled before they ripen into disputes. In so doing, we diverged from the ‘top-down’ tradition of administrative law where tribunals are seen as court substitutes. We returned to the classic approach in Chapter 11, looking at the recent reorganisation of the tribunal service and its place in the administrative justice system. We saw how the oral and adversarial tradition of British justice was refl ected in tribunal procedure and considered the importance attached to impartiality and independence, values now protected by ECHR Art. 6(1). We, 529 The Parliamentary Ombudsman: Firefi ghter or fi re-watcher? however, argued that recent reshaping of the tribunal system left unanswered key questions about oral and adversarial proceedings and whether they are always the most appropriate vehicle for resolving disputes with the administra- tion.
  • Improving Administrative Redress in Jersey

    Improving Administrative Redress in Jersey

    JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER IMPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS IN JERSEY JERSEY LAW COMMISSION CONSULTATION PAPER No. 1/2016/CP APRIL 2016 The Jersey Law Commission is an independent body appointed by the States Assembly to identify and examine aspects of Jersey law with a view to their development and reform. This includes in particular: the elimination of anomalies; the repeal of obsolete and unnecessary enactments; the reductions of the number of separate enactments; and generally the simplification and modernisation of the law. Members of the Law Commission serve on a part-time basis and are unremunerated. The current Law Commissioners are: Mr Clive Chaplin (chairman) Advocate Barbara Corbett Advocate Alan Binnington Ms Claire de Than Mr Malcolm Le Boutillier Professor Andrew Le Sueur (the Topic Commissioner and author of this report) Mr Jonathan Walker Published by the Jersey Law Commission in April 2016 This publication is available free of charge on the Jersey Law Commission website. Jersey Law Commission Law House 1 Seale Street St Helier Jersey JE2 3QG www.jerseylawcommission.org [email protected] Improving Administrative Redress Consultation Paper | CP 2016/1 page 2 CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 1.1. How to respond to this consultation ...................................................................................... 7 1.2. Administrative decision-making ..........................................................................................
  • Work of the Ombudsman

    Work of the Ombudsman

    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee WORK OF THE OMBUDSMAN Written Evidence List of written evidence 1. M B Wright (PHSO 1) 2. Alan Vaughan (PHSO 2) 3. C N Rock (PHSO 3) 4. Alison Pope (PHSO 4) 5. Helga Warzecha (PHSO 5) 6. Brenda Prentice (PHSO 6) 7. Alan Reid (PHSO 7) 8. Which? (PHSO 8) 9. Dee Speers (PHSO 9) 10. James Titcombe (PHSO 10) 11. Action Against Medical Accidents (AvMA) (PHSO 11) 12. Anonymous (PHSO 12) 13. Uncaged Campaigns (PHSO 13) 14. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO 14) 15. Patrick Cockrell (PHSO 15) 16. W Morris (PHSO 16) 17. D R Tweedie (PHSO 17) Written evidence submitted by M.B.Wright (PHSO 1) 1) Although we understand the PASC cannot look at individual cases, we have a long outstanding and legitimate grievance against the PHSO case which highlights very serious failings by various senior members of that organisation, and they have resisted all attempts to get them to explain and/or justify their unsustainable position. Given the role they nominally perform, their reluctance – indeed their determination –not to even try to substantiate their indefensible position is very worrying – and suspicious. 2) We have submitted full detailed information of this travesty – with photocopies of all salient documents – to the PHSO, yet they negligently and unprofessionally overlooked the undisputed facts and merely nodded through the unsustainable status quo, presumably believing they would never hear of it again. When we quite properly questioned their flawed decision – sending copies of various letters and emails confirming our position and drawing attention to the errors in their findings – they simply clammed up and refused to explain themselves.
  • A History of the University of Manchester Since 1951

    A History of the University of Manchester Since 1951

    Pullan2004jkt 10/2/03 2:43 PM Page 1 University ofManchester A history ofthe HIS IS THE SECOND VOLUME of a history of the University of Manchester since 1951. It spans seventeen critical years in T which public funding was contracting, student grants were diminishing, instructions from the government and the University Grants Commission were multiplying, and universities feared for their reputation in the public eye. It provides a frank account of the University’s struggle against these difficulties and its efforts to prove the value of university education to society and the economy. This volume describes and analyses not only academic developments and changes in the structure and finances of the University, but the opinions and social and political lives of the staff and their students as well. It also examines the controversies of the 1970s and 1980s over such issues as feminism, free speech, ethical investment, academic freedom and the quest for efficient management. The author draws on official records, staff and student newspapers, and personal interviews with people who experienced the University in very 1973–90 different ways. With its wide range of academic interests and large student population, the University of Manchester was the biggest unitary university in the country, and its history illustrates the problems faced by almost all British universities. The book will appeal to past and present staff of the University and its alumni, and to anyone interested in the debates surrounding higher with MicheleAbendstern Brian Pullan education in the late twentieth century. A history of the University of Manchester 1951–73 by Brian Pullan with Michele Abendstern is also available from Manchester University Press.
  • Review of the Machinery of Government: Terms of Reference and Membership

    Review of the Machinery of Government: Terms of Reference and Membership

    REVIEW OF THE MACHINERY OF GOVERNMENT: TERMS OF REFERENCE AND MEMBERSHIP _______________ Lodged au Greffe on 19th January 1999 by the Policy and Resources Committee ______________________________ STATES OF JERSEY STATES GREFFE 175 1999 P.13 Price code: C PROPOSITION THE STATES are asked to decide whether they are of opinion - to refer to their Act dated 1st September 1998, in which they approved in principle the appointment of a body to undertake a review of all aspects of the machinery of government in Jersey and - (a) to approve the terms of reference of the review as follows - to consider whether the present machinery of government in Jersey is appropriate to the task of determining, co-ordinating, effecting and monitoring all States policies and the delivery of all public services; including - · the composition, operation and effectiveness of the States Assembly; · the composition, operation and effectiveness of the Committees of the States; · the role and respective responsibilities of the States, the Committees and the Departments in achieving an efficient and effective strategic and business planning and resource allocation process; and · the role of the Bailiff; but excluding - · the constitutional relationship between the Bailiwick and the United Kingdom; and · the constitutional relationship between the Bailiwick and the European Union; and to make recommendations to the Committee on how the present machinery of government could be improved; (b)(i) to agree that the membership of the Review Body should comprise five local residents and four persons resident outside the Island, with an independent chairman; and (ii) to appoint the following as chairman and members of the Review Body - Non - Local Sir Cecil Clothier - Chairman Sir Kenneth Percy Bloomfield Professor Vernon Bernard Bogdnanor Professor Michael Gilbert Clarke Local Mr.
  • Obituary: Sir Edmund Compton | the Independent

    Obituary: Sir Edmund Compton | the Independent

    6/3/2019 Obituary: Sir Edmund Compton | The Independent SUBSCRIBE / REGISTER LOGIN News > People Obituary: Sir Edmund Compton Tam Dalyell | Monday 14 March 1994 01:02 | Click to follow Like The Independent Edmund Gerald Compton, civil servant: born 30 July 1906; Assistant Secretary, HM Treasury 1942-47, Under- Secretary 1947-49, Third Secretary 1949-58; CB 1948, KCB 1965, GCB 1971; KBE 1955; Comptroller and Auditor General, Exchequer and Audit Department 1958-66; Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration 1967- 71; Chairman, English Local Government Boundary Commission 1971-78; Chairman, BBC Programmes Complaints Commission 1972-81; married 1934 Betty Tresyllian Williams (died 1987; one son, four daughters); died London 11 March 1994. EDMUND COMPTON was the first and trail-blazing government ombudsman. Much depended on the behaviour of the first incumbent of the office, properly titled the 'Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration'. He was appointed by the Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in 1967 and charged with protecting the rights of individual citizens against central government maladministration. Wilson regarded Compton as the ideal choice for the post: and, in the following four years, Compton built solid foundations for what has become a respected institution. With his quizzical twinkling eyes and riveting smile Edmund Compton was one of the most charming and cultivated of mandarins. He was the possessor of a razor-sharp mind and his colleagues in the Treasury, in the Comptroller and Auditor General's department, and in the office of Parliamentary Commissioner speak with awe of his capacity for work and for detail. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/obituary-sir-edmund-compton-1429002.html 1/5 6/3/2019 Obituary: Sir Edmund Compton | The Independent what Edmund Compton advises and learn from him.
  • Designing a Public Services Ombudsman for Jersey

    Designing a Public Services Ombudsman for Jersey

    JERSEY LAW COMMISSION TOPIC REPORT DESIGNING A PUBLIC SERVICES OMBUDSMAN FOR JERSEY Topic Report No.1/2018/TR November 2018 2 The Jersey Law Commission is an independent body appointed by the States Assembly to identiFy and examine aspects oF Jersey law with a view to their development and reForm. This includes in particular: the elimination oF anomalies; the repeal oF obsolete and unnecessary enactments; the reductions oF the number oF separate enactments; and generally, the simpliFication and modernisation oF the law. Members oF the Law Commission serve on a part-time basis and are unremunerated. The current Law Commissioners are: Mr Clive Chaplin (chairman) Advocate Barbara Corbett ProFessor Claire de Than Mr Malcolm Le Boutillier ProFessor Andrew Le Sueur (the Topic Commissioner anD author of this report. His term of office enDeD 7 October 2018) Mr Jonathan Walker Published by the Jersey Law Commission in November 2018. This publication is available to download Free oF charge on the Jersey Law Commission website. Jersey Law Commission Address For correspondence: Jersey Law Commission Care oF: Corbett Le Quesne 1a West’s Centre St Helier Jersey JE2 4ST www.jerseylawcommission.org [email protected] Jersey Law Commission: Designing a Public Services Ombudsman For Jersey 3 SUMMARY What coulD anD shoulD a public services OmbuDsman scheme For Jersey look like? Those are the overarching questions addressed in this report oF the Jersey Law Commission. To help policy makers (oFFicials and Ministers), we identiFy options (the ‘could’ question). To do this, we examine international benchmarks For good design oF ombudsman organisations, other design principles, the design and operation oF 13 Ombudsman schemes in small jurisdictions, developments in Ombudsman organisations across the United Kingdom, knowledge oF Jersey (gained From a series oF research interviews and the lived experience oF the Law Commissioners) and academic research.
  • Ucin1070571375.Pdf (2.43

    Ucin1070571375.Pdf (2.43

    UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI DATE: November 10, 2003 I, Craig T. Cobane II , hereby submit this as part of the requirements for the degree of: Doctorate of Philosophy in: Political Science It is entitled: Terrorism and Democracy The Balance Between Freedom and Order: The British Experience Approved by: Richard Harknett James Stever Thomas Moore Terrorism and Democracy The Balance Between Freedom and Order: The British Experience A dissertation submitted to the Division of Research and Advanced Studies of the University of Cincinnati in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTORATE OF PHILOSOPHY (Ph.D.) in the Department of Political Science of the College of Arts and Sciences 2003 by Craig T. Cobane II B.S., University of Wisconsin-Green Bay 1990 M.A., University of Cincinnati 1992 Committee Chair: Richard J. Harknett, Ph.D. Abstract The British Government has been engaged for more than thirty years in a struggle with terrorism related to Northern Ireland. During what is euphemistically called the Troubles, the British government has implemented a series of special emergency laws to address the violence. Drawing upon the political context and debate surrounding the implementation and development of the emergency legislation this research examines the overall effect of British anti-terrorism legislation on both respect for civil liberties and the government’s ability to fight campaigns of violence. Drawing heavily upon primary sources, high profile cases of miscarriages of justice and accusation of an official ‘shoot to kill’ policy this project explores three distinct areas related to a government’s balancing of the exigencies of individual liberty and societal order.
  • BRITISH COUNTERINSURGENCY in CYPRUS, ADEN, and NORTHERN IRELAND Brian Drohan a Dissertation Submitted to the Facu

    BRITISH COUNTERINSURGENCY in CYPRUS, ADEN, and NORTHERN IRELAND Brian Drohan a Dissertation Submitted to the Facu

    RIGHTS AT WAR: BRITISH COUNTERINSURGENCY IN CYPRUS, ADEN, AND NORTHERN IRELAND Brian Drohan A dissertation submitted to the faculty at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of History in the Graduate School. Chapel Hill 2016 Approved by: Susan D. Pennybacker Wayne E. Lee Klaus Larres Cemil Aydin Michael C. Morgan © 2016 Brian Drohan ALL RIGHTS RESERVED ii ABSTRACT Brian Drohan: Rights at War: British Counterinsurgency in Cyprus, Aden, and Northern Ireland (Under the direction of Susan D. Pennybacker) This study analyzes the role of human rights activism during three post-1945 British counterinsurgency campaigns in Cyprus (1955-1959), Aden (1963-1967), and the Northern Ireland “Troubles” (emphasizing 1969-1976). Based on material gathered from 15 archives in four countries as well as oral history records and personal papers, this study demonstrates that human rights activism shaped British operational decisions during each of these conflicts. Activists mobilized ideas of human rights to restrain counterinsurgency violence by defining certain British actions as illegal or morally unjustifiable. Although British forces often prevented activists from restraining state violence, activists forced government officials and military commanders to develop new ways of covering up human rights abuses. Focusing the analytical lens on activists and the officials with whom they interacted places rights activists on the counterinsurgency “battlefield”
  • Government by Inquiry

    Government by Inquiry

    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Government By Inquiry Written Evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 9 December 2004 HC 51-II Published on 4 January 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £11.00 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the reports of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, of the Health Service Commissioners for England, Scotland and Wales and of the Parliamentary Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, which are laid before this House, and matters in connection therewith and to consider matters relating to the quality and standards of administration provided by civil service departments, and other matters relating to the civil service; and the committee shall consist of eleven members. Current membership Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr Kevin Brennan MP (Labour, Cardiff West) Annette Brooke MP (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and Poole North) Mrs Anne Campbell MP (Labour, Cambridge) Sir Sydney Chapman MP (Conservative, Chipping Barnet) Mr David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Mr Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgwater) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Hon Michael Trend, CBE MP (Conservative, Windsor) Mr Brian White MP (Labour, Milton Keynes North East) Powers The committee is one of the select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 146. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House.
  • The Historical Journal, 53, 3 (2010), Pp

    The Historical Journal, 53, 3 (2010), Pp

    RADAR Research Archive and Digital Asset Repository O'Hara, G The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Foreign Office and the Sachsenhausen case, 1964–1968 O'Hara, G (2010) The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Foreign Office and the Sachsenhausen case, 1964–1968. Historical journal, 53 (3). pp. 771-781. Doi: 10.1017/S0018246X10000294 This version is available: https://radar.brookes.ac.uk/radar/items/9cb69837-199c-f4ac-8df8-6d2a9a8d86fd/1/ Available on RADAR: October 2012 Copyright © and Moral Rights are retained by the author(s) and/ or other copyright owners. A copy can be downloaded for personal non-commercial research or study, without prior permission or charge. This item cannot be reproduced or quoted extensively from without first obtaining permission in writing from the copyright holder(s). The content must not be changed in any way or sold commercially in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders. This document is the published version of the journal article with permission from Cambridge University Press. WWW.BROOKES.AC.UK/GO/RADAR The Historical Journal, 53, 3 (2010), pp. 771–781 f Cambridge University Press 2010 doi:10.1017/S0018246X10000294 COMMUNICATION THE PARLIAMENTARY COMMISSIONER FOR ADMINISTRATION, THE FOREIGN OFFICE, AND THE SACHSENHAUSEN CASE, 1964 –1968 GLEN O’HARA Oxford Brookes University ABSTRACT. This communication follows the evolution, reception, and implications of the parliamentary commissioner’s critical 1968 report on Foreign Office ‘maladministration’ regarding compensation for British concentration camp inmates. It explores officials’ and ministers’ attitude to the investigative techni- ques associated with this new office, as well as their hostile reaction to the publicity and parliamentary controversy to which his work gave rise.