DOCSLIB.ORG

Work of the Ombudsman

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
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. 3) We believe this is because they realised they had been caught out. They could hardly admit they had nodded it through without the inconvenience of bothering to read the file, yet they could not claim that they had read it either, for how could they conceivably have arrived at such an absurd conclusion, given the undisputed facts? 4) So, what to do? They did nothing! Nothing! No explanation! No retraction! No nothing! Knowing full well the monstrous injustice they were condoning, they all sat back and did nothing, ignoring our many pleas for justice, in the forlorn hope that we would eventually give up, and they would get away with it. 5) Notwithstanding Oral Evidence 29th November 2011 (Q45 to Q62 and particularly Q49) the PASC itself is also guilty of treating us with contempt. In that evidence the PASC clearly pours scorn on the PHSO’s stock get-out of recommending a judicial review – a wholly impractical course for individuals to take – yet this is the very same advice given to us by the PASC itself (PASC letter to me dated 14th June 2012). We are entitled to ask whether the PASC is any better than the PHSO! 6) It is impossible to fully describe the utter frustration and disappointment we feel for all the incompetent and unprofessional people involved in this scandal – at the very highest level at both the Parliamentary Ombudsman and Public Administration Select Committee. On the indisputable evidence of this case – and there is no reason to believe it is untypical - negligence is rife throughout both pitiful outfits. Is it right that we should be denied justice simply because we cannot afford to take it further? This was the gamble the useless Parliamentary Ombudsman made when caught out. Is this justice? No, it is not! Is the PASC just a waste of time, like the PHSO? November 2012 Written evidence submitted by Alan Vaughan (PHSO 2) I wish to bring to the committees notice my views of the failings of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman fails to serve and protect the General Public for the following reasons. 1. Refuses to undertake full investigations into complaints made by the General Public. 2. Refuses to undertake full investigations into complaints when requested to do so by an M.P. (Dr Julian Lewis) on behalf of one of his constituents. 3. Fails to get independent opinion on cases and only uses Doctors and other people with health service background therefore only having biased views on which to make her decisions. 4. Suggests that members of the public seek satisfaction to their complaint by seeking a Judicial Review this would only be available to people with very deep pockets. So therefore antagonistic. Observation. It appears that the Ombudsman's office is only interested in pushing around a few letters and not fully investigating legitimate complaints. Employing one or two consultants who are no doubt handsomely rewarded for what I would suggest are biased opinions as they neither fully investigate the complaint. December 2012 Written evidence submitted by C N Rock (PHSO 3) The main points I am making 1. Ombudsman is failing to deal with NHS complaints to satisfaction of complainant—too presumptuous of PHSO aims and purposes. 2. Patient or Complainant is left battered and reeling from inappropriate language and terms used by PHSO, especially in case rejections - especially where known facts are denied by PHSO without first gathering all relevant information. 3. NHS Complaints Procedures have in most cases already failed, even before case is made to Ombudsman. Even this is not followed-up. 4. I cannot understand why PHSO or NHS could not gain by finding out why my son died without receiving NHS best efforts for treatment – and to allow PHSO to be able to recommend appropriate action and changes to services. 5. An injustice was served by PHSO consideration not to investigate evidence or question anybody involved in the bad treatment and death of my adult son, but this simply was not appreciated under their terms. No amount of explanation would make up for that. There was a failure of management which needed addressing. 6. In seemed patently obvious to me that the Ombudsman’s advisors—and who, I understand, may not even be in Practice—were out of touch with procedures, NICE guidelines, and available interventions. About me 7. My son died as a result of what to me was clear incompetence and negligence by NHS, and problems for which I tried to get attention, without success. 8. Trying to get reasonable answers on my son’s death has consumed my life for four years without real satisfactory outcome. The Ombudsman saw nothing amiss in services. 9. The event left his sister, myself and my wife permanently traumatised. No support was offered except by charitable organisations. Any approach to question the NHS was traumatic in itself. We have been scarred mentally, and have been unable to work normally, with loss of income and future outlook. Factual information I would like the committee to be aware of My Case: 10. My son took his own life after I had been trying to get attention for him for five years. He was ignored by the GP; was left-out by Mental Health services; was harassed by careless NHS behaviour, then ostracised because he was not able to understand his illness. 11. Neither the Trust involved or the GP were competent at investigating themselves—the GP was actually deceitful. 12. After the very unsatisfactory NHS responses, I approached the PHSO then under Ann Abraham, who rejected the case with inappropriate language; then on Appeal, responded with more unsound reasoning; and without interview or requesting further evidence of my claims. 13. I had to deal with 5 or 6 PHSO correspondent name changes over 9 months of waiting (this after 6 months NHS investigation delay). The final response made no sense and cut off seeing evidence. NHS Complaints - Reasons given in defence: 14. The GP felt bound by Confidentiality not to communicate my son’s problems (my concerns expressed abundantly to GP) to Mental Health services for advice or peer specialist consultation. 15. The Psychiatrist felt bound by other rules to get my son Sectioned before any intervention such as Family Work could be offered or used to engage him in understanding his illness (even though the Trust had an established service available for this). NHS Problems: 16. Patient Confidentiality was interpreted as “Can’t help”. 17. GP and Mental Health operatives both interpreted Patient Confidentiality to their own advantage, not the patient’s. They were oblivious to NICE Guidelines for dealing with family in cases such as this. 18. There is no Complaint Investigation Procedures for GPs (GP could not provide their own). I was refused being given any evidence that an investigation was actually carried out. 19. GP could not be trusted to investigate herself honestly. There were 5 years of neglect to investigate: GP only covered one month of action, in less than half an A4 page. GP lied, and misled subsequent interested parties including the Coroner. No evidence of contributory effects of prescribed drug use was submitted. 20. PCT(Contracting) would not get involved in GP Complaints (their stated policy). 21. No common complaint system for NHS. Fragmentation of NHS services – i.e. disjointed case research and disconnected responses in own interest – not patients. No sense of urgency for complaints (I made a complaint before my son died— pointless). Recommendations that I would like the committee to consider including in its report PHSO needs to be asked to: 22. Take an empathetic and broader view of cases to achieve what is being sought by complainant—not as interpreted by Ombudsman in order to reduce the PHSO’s workload (“no worthwhile outcome for whom”, exactly). What is the PHSO really for? Why are so many people (98%?) rejected (dissatisfied). Where do PHSO Customer Satisfaction statistics come from? (I was never consulted.) 23.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 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).
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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 ..........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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.
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • 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……………………………………………………………………..
    [Show full text]
  • 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
    [Show full text]
  • PHSO Resource Accounts 2006-07
    Resource Accounts 2006-07 HC 839 Resource Accounts 2006-07 Session 2006-07 Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 and Section 14(4) of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed on 18 July 2007 London: The Stationery Office HC 839 £13.50 © Crown Copyright 2007 The text in this document (excluding any Royal Arms and departmental logos) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium providing that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as Crown copyright and the title of the document specified. Any queries relating to the copyright in this document should be addressed to The Licensing Division, HMSO, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich, NR3 1BQ. Fax: 01603 723000 or e-mail: [email protected]. Celebrating 40 years in 2007 Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Resource Accounts 2006-07 Contents Page Annual Report 1 Remuneration Report 11 Statement of Accounting Officer’s responsibilities 17 Statement on Internal Control 18 Certificate and Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General 23 Resource Accounts 26 Notes to the resource accounts 31 iii Celebrating 40 years in 2007 Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman Resource Accounts 2006-07 Annual Report to the Accounts for the year ended 31 March 2007 Introduction The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (PCA), otherwise known as the Parliamentary Ombudsman, is an independent office-holder appointed by the Crown under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 to investigate complaints about government departments, their agencies and some other public bodies in the UK.
    [Show full text]
  • A Debt of Honour
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee A Debt of Honour First Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 12 January 2006 HC 735 Published on 19 January 2006 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.50 The Public Administration Select Committee The Public Administration Select Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy 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. Current membership Dr Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield Southgate) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Julia Goldsworthy MP (Liberal Democrats, Falmouth and Camborne) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgewater) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Julie Morgan MP (Labour, Cardiff North) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Grant Shapps MP (Conservative, Welwyn Hatfield) Jenny Willott MP (Liberal Democrats, Cardiff Central) 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.
    [Show full text]
  • Tax Credits: Putting Things Right
    House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Tax Credits: putting things right Second Report of Session 2005–06 HC 577 House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee Tax Credits: putting things right Second Report of Session 2005–06 Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 12 January 2006 HC 577 Published on 29 January 2006 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 expenditure, administration, and policy 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. Current membership Dr Tony Wright MP (Labour, Cannock Chase) (Chairman) Mr David Burrowes MP (Conservative, Enfield Southgate) Paul Flynn MP (Labour, Newport West) Julia Goldsworthy MP (Liberal Democrats, Falmouth and Camborne) Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger MP (Conservative, Bridgewater) David Heyes MP (Labour, Ashton under Lyne) Kelvin Hopkins MP (Labour, Luton North) Julie Morgan MP (Labour, Cardiff North) Mr Gordon Prentice MP (Labour, Pendle) Grant Shapps MP (Conservative, Welwyn Hatfield) Jenny Willott MP (Liberal Democrats, Cardiff Central) 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.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ombudsman- the Developing Role in the UK
    The Ombudsman- the developing role in the UK Standard Note: SN/PC/04832 Last updated: 20 November 2012 Author: Oonagh Gay Parliament and Constitution Centre This Note is designed to provide background on the work of the Ombudsman, and examines recent developments in the role. It summarises the changes since devolution, and provides a commentary on current relationships with Parliament, the executive and the judiciary. See also Standard Note 3079 Parliamentary Ombudsman: Right of Appeal and Standard Note 5181The Parliamentary Ombudsman and the MP Filter. These issues are not dealt with in this Note, to avoid duplication. This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated; and it should not be relied upon as legal or professional advice or as a substitute for it. A suitably qualified professional should be consulted if specific advice or information is required. This information is provided subject to our general terms and conditions which are available online or may be provided on request in hard copy. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing with Members and their staff, but not with the general public. Contents 1 Introduction and background 3 1.1 Judicial review 4 2 Devolution and ombudsmen 5 2.1 Scotland 5 2.2 Northern Ireland 6 2.3 Wales 6 3 Reform proposals for UK Parliamentary Ombudsman 7 3.1 Time line of reform proposals 9 3.2 Future directions for reform 12 Relationship with the executive 12 Relationship with the wider public sector 14 Relationship with Parliament 15 Relationship with courts and tribunals 16 2 1 Introduction and background The post of parliamentary ombudsman was established in 1967 in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act as a new type of public official who could investigate complaints of citizens about maladministration by government officials.
    [Show full text]