DOCSLIB.ORG

Government by Inquiry

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

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. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at: www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/public_administration_select_co mmittee.cfm Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Philip Aylett (Clerk), Clive Porro (Second Clerk), Lucinda Maer (Committee Specialist), Jackie Recardo (Committee Assistant), Jenny Pickard (Committee Secretary) and Phil Jones (Senior Office Clerk). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Public Administration Select Committee, Committee Office, First Floor, 7 Millbank, House of Commons, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 3284; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] Public Administration Select Committee: Evidence 1 List of written evidence Mrs S Grapes (GBI 01) Ev 1 The Reverend A Pyke (GBI 02) Ev 1 PIELLE Consulting Group (GBI 04) Ev 1 Law Reform Commission of Ireland (GBI 05) Ev 7 Robert Francis Q.C (GBI 06) Ev 8 Ann Abraham, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (GBI 07) Ev 20 Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution (CEDR) (GBI 08) Ev 22 Dr Iain S MacDonald CB (GBI 11) Ev 26 David Hinchliffe MP, Chair of the Health Committee (GBI 12) Ev 28 Sir Cecil Clothier (GBI 14) Ev 28 Roger Masterman, University of Durham (GBI 15) Ev 28 Lee Hughes CBE, Head of Judicial Competitions (Courts) Division (GBI 16) Ev 34 Professor Jeffrey Jowell QC (GBI 17) Ev 39 Graham Mather, President, European Policy Forum (GBI 20) Ev 39 National Foot and Mouth Group (GBI 23) Ev 42 Iain McLean, Professor of Politics, Oxford University (GBI 26) Ev 44 2 Public Administration Select Committee: Evidence An Issues and Questions Paper INTRODUCTION PASC—the Public Administration Select Committee—is looking into the use of investigatory inquiries by Government. This paper sets out some of the issues on which the Committee wishes to hear views. It contains a list of questions which is not exhaustive, but which outlines the main areas for discussion. The Committee is publishing this paper to encourage debate and provide a basis for evidence in the inquiry. Definitions The term “independent public inquiry” is a loose one. It is applied equally to investigations surrounding accidents in transport or other industries and to commissions of independent expert advisers producing proposals for public policy reform. It is also applied to everyday inquiries such as those held under planning legislation or company law. This inquiry is concerned with none of these. Rather it will be considering those inquiries set up by ministers to investigate particular, controversial events giving rise to public concern. They are often termed judicial inquires in so far as they are often chaired by a leading judge (Hutton, Phillips, McPherson, Saville, Bingham, Scarman to name a few). But this is not invariably the case (e.g. Sir Ian Kennedy’s chairmanship of the Bristol Inquiry, Dr Iain Anderson’s Inquiry into Lessons to be Learnt from Foot and Mouth and now Sir Michael Bichard’s Inquiry into the Soham murders). The investigatory process may statutory or conducted by means of ad hoc procedures. Development of the independent public inquiry From the middle of the 19th century until 1921, the usual method of investigating events giving rise to public disquiet about the alleged misconduct of ministers or other public servants was by means of a Select Parliamentary Committee or Commission of Inquiry. It was therefore one such Select Committee which was appointed to investigate the allegations surrounding what became known as the Marconi Scandal of 1912 concerning widespread rumours that the Government had corruptly favoured the Marconi Company in the construction of a chain of state owned wireless telegraph stations throughout the British Empire and that certain prominent members of the Government had improperly benefited from the transaction. At the end of the investigation the Committee, and then the House, divided on strictly party lines. As a result when allegations were made by a Member of Parliament against officials in the Ministry of Munitions in 1921 Parliament decided to enact instead an investigatory mechanism to deal with this and any other matters which might arise in future. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 however still requires a resolution of both Houses to establish an inquiry tribunal. A number of significant events have since been investigated under the Act, such as the unauthorised disclosure of information relating to the Budget by the Colonial Secretary in 1936 and the employment of the Soviet spy William John Vassall in the Admiralty in 1962. Public Administration Select Committee: Evidence 3 Some twenty one tribunals of inquiry were established between 1921 and 1978 followed by a hiatus lasting until the mid-1990s since when four more inquiries have been called (Shipman, Bloody Sunday, Child Abuse in North Wales and Dunblane). Powers and Legal Basis The powers for statutory inquiries are mainly derived from the 1921 Act. This provides for the tribunal to have all the powers, rights and privileges that are vested in the High Court. It can enforce the attendance of witnesses whom it may examine under oath, and it may compel the production of documents. Failure to comply can lead to the Chairman certifying the offence to the High Court where the witness may be punished in the same way as if he had committed contempt of court. The Act however contains no provisions concerning the procedure to be followed by a tribunal. Legislation concerning certain parts of the public service such as the NHS, or the police also makes provision for tribunals of inquiry in given circumstances. Section 84 of the National Health Service Act 1977, for example, gives an inquiry powers to compel persons to give evidence or to produce papers; and to take evidence on oath or affirmation. However a number of the most high profile inquiries in recent years have been non- statutory, where the power to summon witnesses and evidence has been based on the determination of the chairman and the willingness of the Government in particular to cooperate. The earliest example is probably the Denning inquiry into the Profumo affair in the early 1960s. The Hutton, Phillips and Scott inquiries are three more recent instances of such non-statutory investigations, which have been increasingly favoured by ministers. A relatively rare variant of ad hoc inquiries is the Committee of Privy Counsellors, one of which has just been established under the chairmanship of Lord Butler of Brockwell. Prior to that Mrs Thatcher set up a Committee led by Lord Franks to review the actions of the Government in the period leading up to the invasions of the Falkland Islands. Another was established in 1955 to examine security procedures in the public services as a result of the defection of Burgess and MacLean. This sort of committee is particularly appropriate where much of the evidence is likely to be highly sensitive, related to security or intelligence matters and can be made available on “privy counsellor terms”. The concept of the Privy Counsellors’ committee is partly reflected in the system of parliamentary oversight of the security services. Although not necessarily Privy Counsellors, members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are senior Parliamentarians. The Committee is set up by statute and reports to the Prime Minister. Their access to information however is subject to possible restrictions. The Salmon Royal Commission The Royal Commission chaired by Lord Salmon (Cmnd 3121) reported in November 1966. It examined the tribunal model established under the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 and whether it should be replaced by other inquiry forms when cases concerning alleged instances of
Recommended publications
  • Public Services Ombudsmen. This Consultation

    Public Services Ombudsmen. This Consultation

    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).
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Textbook on Administrative Law This Page Intentionally Left Blank Textbook on Administrative Law

    Textbook on Administrative Law This Page Intentionally Left Blank Textbook on Administrative Law

    Textbook on Administrative Law This page intentionally left blank Textbook on Administrative Law Seventh Edition Peter Leyland Professor of Public Law, London Metropolitan University Gordon Anthony Professor of Public Law, Queen’s University, Belfast 1 3 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP, United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Peter Leyland and Gordon Anthony 2013 The moral rights of the authors have been asserted Fourth edition 2002 Fifth edition 2005 Sixth edition 2009 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Public sector information reproduced under Open Government Licence v1.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ open-government-licence.htm) Crown Copyright material reproduced with the permission of the Controller, HMSO (under the terms of the Click Use licence) British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data Data available Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Library of Congress Control Number: 2012944037 ISBN 978–0–19–960166–0 Printed in Great Britain by Ashford Colour Press Ltd, Gosport, Hampshire Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only.
  • The Tomlinson Report and After: Reshaping London’S Health Services, 1992- 1997

    The Tomlinson Report and After: Reshaping London’S Health Services, 1992- 1997

    The Tomlinson Report and After: Reshaping London’s Health Services, 1992- 1997 Edited by Martin Gorsky and Virginia Preston Centre for History in Public Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine ICBH Witness Seminar Programme The Tomlinson Report and After: Reshaping London’s Health Services, 1992-1997 Seminar held Tuesday 13 November 2012, 1.30-6pm Room 1.18 (Moot Hall), Somerset House East Wing, King’s College London Published by the Institute of Contemporary British History and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2013. We are grateful to the Wellcome Trust for a grant made to the Centre for History in Public Health at LSHTM, which provided financial support for this meeting. ISBN: 978 0 902657 96 8 © Institute of Contemporary British History and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 2013. Images by Anne Koerber/LSHTM. All rights reserved. Not to be reproduced without permission. Contact [email protected] for more information. ii Contents Contributors 1 Timeline of Key Events 4 Seminar Transcript: Part One 6 Introductory paper by Geoffrey Rivett 8 Part Two 36 Part Three 56 Part Four 70 iii Contributors Chair: Nicholas Timmins - Senior Fellow Institute for Government and the King‘s Fund. Visiting professor King‘s College, London. Public Policy Editor, Financial Times, 1996-2012. Witnesses: Virginia Beardshaw - Secretary King‘s Fund London Commission (1990); founder Fellow, King‘s Fund Institute (1983), NHS, Director of Modernisation for London (1997-2001). Professor Sir Michael Bond – Member, Tomlinson Enquiry (1991-92); Professor of Psychological Medicine, University of Glasgow, 1973-98, now Emeritus Professor.
  • Improving Administrative Redress in Jersey

    Improving Administrative Redress in Jersey

    JERSEY LAW COMMISSION TOPIC REPORT IMPROVING ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS IN JERSEY TOPIC REPORT No. 1/2017/TR 18 October 2017 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 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 on 18 OctoBer 2017. This puBlication is availaBle to download 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 – Topic Report 2017 | page 2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS 10 SUMMARY OF REPORT 15 CHAPTER 1 ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE REDRESS PROJECT 16 About this report 16 Administrative decisions 16 The changing face of administrative decision-making in Jersey 18 Administrative redress 18 Other reform initiatives linked to administrative redress 20 Pervasive issues across the system 21 What was excluded from this project 23 How much will
  • Parliament's Watchdogs: at the Crossroads

    Parliament's Watchdogs: at the Crossroads

    Parliament’s Watchdogs: At The Crossroads edited by Oonagh Gay & Barry K Winetrobe UK Study of Parliament Group ISBN: 978-1-903903-49-0 Published by The Constitution Unit Department of Political Science UCL (University College London) 29-30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU Tel: 020 7679 4977 Fax: 020 7679 4978 Email: [email protected] Web: www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/ © The Constitution Unit, UCL 2008 This report is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by way of trade or otherwise, be lent, hired out or otherwise circulated without the publisher’s prior consent in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser. First published December 2008 2 Table of Contents Foreword……………………………………………………………………… 5 Dr Tony Wright MP Note on Contributors……………………………………………………….. 7 Preface………………………………………………………………………… 9 Oonagh Gay & Barry K Winetrobe Chapter 1: Introduction - Watchdogs in Need of Support…………… 11 Oonagh Gay & Barry K Winetrobe Chapter 2: The UK Perspective: Ad Hocery at the Centre……........... 17 Oonagh Gay Chapter 3: Scotland’s Parliamentary Commissioners: An Unplanned Experiment……………………………………………………….. 33 Barry K Winetrobe Chapter 4: ‘Parliamentary Officers’ in Wales: Evolving Roles........... 47 Alys Thomas Chapter 5: An Overview of Northern Ireland's Constitutional Watchdogs……………………………………………………………………. 59 Ruth Barry & Zoe Robinson Chapter 6: Commonwealth Experience I – Federal Accountability and Beyond in Canada……………………………………………………… 71 Elise Hurtubise-Loranger Chapter 7: Commonwealth Experience II – Officers of Parliament in Australia and New Zealand: Building a Working Model……………... 81 Robert Buchanan Chapter 8: The Parliamentary Ombudsman: a Classical Watchdog……………………………………………………………………..

  • Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Annual Report 2011

    Moving forward Annual Report 2011-12 Moving forward Annual Report 2011-12 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 14(4) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 10 July 2012 HC 251 London: The Stationery Office £16.00 © Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (2012). The text of this document (this excludes, where present, the Royal Arms and all departmental and agency logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman copyright and the document title specified. Where third party material has been identified, permission from the respective copyright holder must be sought. Any enquiries regarding this publication should be sent to us at [email protected]. This publication is available for download at www.official-documents.gov.uk and is also available from our website at www.ombudsman.org.uk. ISBN: 9780102979015 Printed in the UK for The Stationery Office Limited on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office ID 2499447 07/12 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum The images used in this report are not representative of any person or particular individual and are used purely for illustrative purposes only. Contents Foreword by Dame Julie Mellor, DBE 2 Our role, vision