s175 of the PIHA

Dear Sir or Madam,

Under s175 of the Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 ('PIHA')
the Local Commissioners are required to provide a statement of
reasons if they do not produce a report for every investigation
they complete.

It is now nearly two years after the PIHA was passed.. and as yet
the LGO's do not appear to have produced any statement of reasons.

In a letter dated 17 August 2009: The CLAE state: '...The
Ombudsman's power to issue a statement of reasons on a complaint
was brought in by the Local Government and Public Involvement in
Health Act 2007, which came into force on 1 April 2008. However,
the Ombudsmen decided not to exercise that power from that date,
and this new provision has yet to be implemented. So no statements
of reasons have yet been produced; the information you request is
not held.

Please provide copies of any guidance provided to the Commission
for Local Administration in England (CLAE) and/or Local
Commissioners by the Secretary of State and their Department that
the CLAE and/or Local Commissioners can ignore legislation for
which the Secretary of State and their Department are responsible,
and/or reasons from the CLAE and/or Local Commissioners as to why
they have ignored changes in their role.

Please further provide details as to when all statements of reasons
since the PIHA was enacted shall be made available.

Please further identify what the number of complaints is where the
Ombudsman has failed to complete an investigation by Council in
England between 01 April 2008 and 31 March 2009....

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.

I am writing to request an internal review of Department for
Communities and Local Government's handling of my FOI request 's175
of the PIHA'.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/s1...

The reason for the request for internal review is that under the
Grant arrangements between CLG and the CLAE it states:

'DETR's Permanent Secretary, as Principal Accounting Officer, is
responsible for the effective organisation and management of DETR
and must ensure that procedures are designed to achieve
organisational objectives whilst ensuring a high standard of
financial management; that financial systems and procedures promote
the efficient and economical conduct of business and safeguard
financial propriety and regularity throughout the Department; and
that financial considerations are fully taken into account in
decisions on policy proposals. The Director General for the Local
and Regional Government Group, as Additional Accounting Officer for
Class III, Vote 4 (Local government, England), shares these
responsibilities in so far as they relate to expenditure on and
receipts to that Vote.

Because DETR pays grant to the CLA out of monies Voted on Class
III, Vote 4, the Additional Accounting Officer must be satisfied
that the financial and other management controls applied by DETR
are appropriate and sufficient to safeguard public funds and, more
generally, that those being applied by the CLA conform with the
requirements both of propriety and of good financial management.
The Additional Accounting Officer must also ensure that the
conditions attached to the grant, as agreed in this Memorandum,
conform with the terms of the Vote, and must monitor compliance
with those conditions by the CLA.'

The accounting officer must have identified issues and guidance to
the CLA.. as the CLA appears to have disregarded the majority of
its statutory duties.. and has failed to identify this
parliament... as has the CLG and their minister.

It further states in the CLA Management Arrangements that: 'The
four Commissioners have agreed to be bound by the Commission’s
‘Code of Conduct for Commission Members’ which is based on current
Government guidance to members of NDPBs.'

As a consequence of the issues it is anticipated that there must
have been "whistle blowing" to CLG by the Commisioner's.. about
failures in the CLA management arrangements.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Juliet Tomlin,

A recent ESRC research report identifies that there has been no
review of the work of either the CLAE or the Ombudsmen since about
1989 and that their accountability arrangements are in urgent need
of review. It is also identifiable that a number of Local
Commissioners have been 'moonlighting' one took paid employment at
the University of London. CLG through another FOI have identified
that they were unaware of this.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS

Dear Anthea Nicholson,

The issues are about the publication scheme - are you identifying
that despite the CLAE being in a state of identifiable disarray
that the CLG accounting officer has not identified and produced a
record ?

This should have been identified in the CLG response to CLG Select
Committee in 2005 that CLG failed to meet, and also in the CLAE's
failure to produce a 2006 triennial review. The breaches are
obvious and well documented.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Hardwicke CARRUTHERS