PACAC scrutiny of PHSO

Mae'r ymateb i'r cais hwn yn hwyr iawn. Yn ôl y gyfraith, ym mhob amgylchiad, dylai House of Commons Administration Committee fod wedi ymateb erbyn hyn. (manylion). Gallwch gwyno drwy yn gofyn am adolygiad mewnol.

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

this inquiry relates to the annual PACAC scrutiny inquiry sessions on PHSO and oversight of PHSO by PACAC generally.

1) how does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity, such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year, please provide access to any literature that states the type of question that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

2) does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during the scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason, please provide access to literature that either allows or defines limits, restricts or denies such access?

3) I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please provide access to any literature on this?

4) What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for failures to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to account?

5) Can you provide the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at individual cases?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

this inquiry relates to the annual PACAC scrutiny inquiry sessions on PHSO and oversight of PHSO by PACAC generally.

1) how does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity, such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year, please provide access to any literature that states the type of question that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

2) does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during the scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason, please provide access to literature that either allows or defines limits, restricts or denies such access?

3) I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please provide access to any literature on this?

4) What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for failures to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to account?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 06 February 2019,
received by us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 06 March 2019.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>
Sent: 06 February 2019 18:57
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - PACAC scrutiny of PHSO

 

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

this inquiry relates to the annual PACAC scrutiny inquiry sessions on PHSO
and oversight of PHSO by PACAC generally.

1) how does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including
the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity,
such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year,
please provide access to any literature that states the type of question
that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

2) does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during the
scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason, please
provide access to literature that either allows or defines limits,
restricts or denies such access?

3) I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC
inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been
demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a
mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please provide
access to any literature on this?

4) What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for failures
to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to account?

5) Can you provide the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at
individual cases?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

this inquiry relates to the annual PACAC scrutiny inquiry sessions on PHSO
and oversight of PHSO by PACAC generally.

1) how does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including
the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity,
such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year,
please provide access to any literature that states the type of question
that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

2) does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during the
scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason, please
provide access to literature that either allows or defines limits,
restricts or denies such access?

3) I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC
inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been
demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a
mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please provide
access to any literature on this?

4) What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for failures
to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to account?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[3][FOI #550708 email]

Is [4][House of Commons Administration Committee request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons Administration Committee? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[7]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

Freedom of Information Request F19-066

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You have asked
the House of Commons a series of questions regarding the Public
Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC). Please find
our responses to each of your questions below.

 

 1. How does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including
the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity,
such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year,
please provide access to any literature that states the type of
question that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

 

Recorded information detailing how PACAC make these decisions, or any
literature stipulating the type of questions to be asked and whether
legislation governs this is not held by the House of Commons.

 

However, it may interest you to know that, under normal circumstances,
committee staff will prepare briefings and suggested questions for the
Committee based on the evidence submitted to the Committee and their own
analysis and research. Members may also do their own research and/or
prepare their own questions based on the evidence. Prior to the public
meeting Committee members decide an allocation of areas of questioning
between themselves. During the hearing Members may, and do, ask additional
questions to those suggested by the staff or agreed beforehand.

 

 2. Does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during
the scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason,
please provide access to literature that either allows or defines
limits, restricts or denies such access?

&

 3. I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC
inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been
demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a
mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please
provide access to any literature on this?

 

This information is held by the House of Commons.

 

The powers and procedures of Select Committees are set out in Erskine May
(24^th Edition) alongside Standing Orders which are published on the
parliamentary website here:
[1]https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm...
As the information you request is reasonably accessible to you otherwise
than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) request is refused.
In refusing your request the House is applying the exemption set out in
section 21(1) and (2)(a) FOIA. This exemption applies even though the
information may be accessible only on payment.  This is an absolute
exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

 

Only Members of the House appointed to the Committee (or another Member
specifically invited by the Committee to contribute to a meeting) may ask
question during an oral evidence session or take part in the Committee’s
deliberations on what question to ask. The public is usually invited to
contribute evidence to inquiries, and this can often explicitly or
implicitly suggest lines of questioning that the Committee may decide to
take up. However, these suggestions are not binding upon the Committee.

 

Any records of the Committee’s deliberations on how to make use of
evidence would be subject to parliamentary privilege and therefore the
information you have requested is exempt from disclosure under section
34(1) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA). Section 34 exempts
information from disclosure so far as it is required to avoid any
infringement of the privileges of the House, which includes the privilege
of the Committee to decide whether, when or how to disclose material it
holds.  This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does
not apply.

 

 4. What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for
failures to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to
account?

 

Some information is held by the House of Commons.  Members of the public
may provide feedback or comments to any Committee of the House of
Commons.  However, there is no formal system to make a complaint about how
a Committee chooses to conduct its business.

 

It may be of interest to you to know that the PHSO considers feedback on
its decisions from members of the public. Whilst there is no automatic
right to review, the PHSO may reconsider their decisions in certain
situations. Full details can be found here:
[2]https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/fe....

 

 5. Can you provide the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at
individual cases?

 

This information is held by the House of Commons. The formal decision that
PACAC will not consider individual cases was made in its meeting on 13
September 2017. The formal minutes, confirming this decision, are publicly
available here:
[3]https://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm....

 

As the information you request is reasonably accessible to you otherwise
than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) the House is
exempting repeated disclosure of this information under s.21(1) and (2)(a)
FOIA. This is an absolute exemption and the public interest test does not
apply.

 

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [4][House of Commons Administration Committee request email].  Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[5]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[6]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [7]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>
Sent: 06 February 2019 18:57
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Freedom of Information request - PACAC scrutiny of PHSO

 

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

this inquiry relates to the annual PACAC scrutiny inquiry sessions on PHSO
and oversight of PHSO by PACAC generally.

1) how does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including
the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity,
such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year,
please provide access to any literature that states the type of question
that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

2) does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during the
scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason, please
provide access to literature that either allows or defines limits,
restricts or denies such access?

3) I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC
inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been
demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a
mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please provide
access to any literature on this?

4) What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for failures
to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to account?

5) Can you provide the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at
individual cases?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

this inquiry relates to the annual PACAC scrutiny inquiry sessions on PHSO
and oversight of PHSO by PACAC generally.

1) how does PACAC decide on which questions to ask PHSO staff including
the ombudsman himself, or anyone contributing in an official capacity,
such as fellow ombudsmen who did the value for money report this year,
please provide access to any literature that states the type of question
that must be asked and whether legislation governs this?

2) does PACAC allow the public to contribute to questions asked during the
scrutiny and associated sessions and if not, what is the reason, please
provide access to literature that either allows or defines limits,
restricts or denies such access?

3) I am aware that the public can make submissions to the annual PACAC
inquiry, but these don't inform PACACs questions to PHSO as has been
demonstrated by years' worth of PASC and PACAC inquiries, is there a
mechanism for this to happen, or a rule preventing this, please provide
access to any literature on this?

4) What systems exist for the public to hold PACAC to account for failures
to adequately scrutinise PHSO and hold the ombudsman to account?

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[8][FOI #550708 email]

Is [9][House of Commons Administration Committee request email] the wrong address for Freedom of
Information requests to House of Commons Administration Committee? If so,
please contact us using this form:
[10]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/change_re...

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[11]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[12]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

Well, well, well.

"under normal circumstances, committee staff will prepare briefings and suggested questions for the Committee based on the evidence submitted to the Committee and their own
analysis and research."

So PACAC clerks are basically given power over what questions PACAC committee ask. We can take it as read that it's highly unlikely members are going to bother to read through public submissions and generate questions based on those. That has been made clear by actual events each year at the inquiries.

As for the exemptions, what a stitch up. Clearly as @phsothefacts has stated for some time, it's all #corruptbydesign. They are being deliberately evasive, removing all power from the public to challenge their sham inquiries.

Well at least we have it confirmed where we stand now.

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

Hah! And the link they gave for the powers of the select committee comes up "Page not Found"!!

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

And the decision that PACAC would not consider individual cases was made FOUR MONTHS after Rob Behrens took over as ombudsman. Funny that...

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

"Any records of the Committee’s deliberations on how to make use of evidence would be subject to parliamentary privilege and therefore the information you have requested is exempt from disclosure "

Of course it is. Because it wouldn't do to have evidence that they decided to completely ignore and disregard public submissions on PHSO's failings now would it.

Never mind that the public are the ones suffering the injustices. The victims of PHSO refusing to investigate, distorting scope of investigations, ignoring complainant evidence and being biased towards the public bodies. What on earth could the public possibly have to contribute to the process. I mean it's not as if we elected the MPs who conduct this sham or anything is it. It's not as if we pay their wages is it. It's not as if PHSO failing to investigate or uphold complaints means that the NHS and other public bodies continue causing harm because nobody is holding them to account is it. And then we ask why NHS scandals keep surfacing (and most of those are brought to light by the public or whistleblowers too).

What a dirty and corrupt system.

Gadawodd Fiona Watts anodiad ()

Dear Della,

this response to your FOI makes uncomfortable reading and it suggests that there is nobody who seems to regulate the whims and behaviour of nameless, non-elected staff?

It does not give me confidence that the second in command for managing concerns and complaints about PACAC was the former Interim Director at the PHSO Panel in February 2013.

That's the same panel of managers who acknowledged, I quote; "unremedied injustices" against me since 2004!

#CorruptByDesign

Gadawodd M Boyce anodiad ()

All of this comes as no surprise. PACAC only published a much shortened version of my submission last December. I spoke to the Second Clerk to the Committee several times last year and he stated that the Committee would never look into the issue of the legality or otherwise of the PHSO review process.

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear FOI Commons,

thank you for your response. I wish to make a further request regarding point 5 - the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at individual cases. The link you provided in response is from 2017 and simply says that it was 'resolved that PACAC would not consider individual cases'. However in December 2012 Bernard Jenkin chair of PASC - now PACAC confirmed to the Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor that;

‘You are statutorily forbidden from discussing individual cases and I thought it would be helpful if we reminded ourselves of that. It is also the policy of this Committee not to prosecute or investigate individual cases...’

I would like to see this policy, the one which was in existence in 2012 which determines that it is not the policy of the committee to prosecute or investigate individual cases.

thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

Della, might I also suggest you send a further question, or make the point that, as PACAC do not investigate individual cases, you take it as read that they do investigate a group of cases all reporting the same thing. And actually, they have just shown themselves right up. Because 30 odd public submissions to the inquiry this year is a group submission and they are therefore DUTY BOUND to investigate by default!!

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 05 March 2019, received
by us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 03 April 2019.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

Joe Ryan | IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

Tel: 0207 219 4264 | Text Relay: 18001 219 4264 | Sixth Floor, 14 Tothill
St, London SW1H 9NB

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>
Sent: 05 March 2019 16:01
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Re: F19-066 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,

thank you for your response. I wish to make a further request regarding
point 5 - the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at
individual cases. The link you provided in response is from 2017 and
simply says that it was 'resolved that PACAC would not consider individual
cases'. However in December 2012 Bernard Jenkin chair of PASC - now PACAC
confirmed to the Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor that;

‘You are statutorily forbidden from discussing individual cases and I
thought it would be helpful if we reminded ourselves of that. It is also
the policy of this Committee not to prosecute or investigate individual
cases...’

I would like to see this policy, the one which was in existence in 2012
which determines that it is not the policy of the committee to prosecute
or investigate individual cases.

thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F19-119

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You have asked
us a question regarding a specific policy of the Public Administration
Select Committee (‘PASC’). We have sought to answer your query below.

 

I would like to see this policy, the one which was in existence in 2012
which determines that it is not the policy of the committee to prosecute
or investigate individual cases

 

This information is held by the House of Commons and is already publicly
available in the PACAC’s formal minutes of a meeting which took place on
15 July 2010. The minutes of this meeting are available to view here:
[1]https://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm....
As the information you request is reasonably accessible to you otherwise
than under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOIA), your request is
refused. In refusing your request the House is applying the exemption set
out in section 21 (1) and (2) (a) of the FOIA.  This is an absolute
exemption and the public interest test does not apply.

 

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [2][House of Commons Administration Committee request email].  Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[3]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

Sixth Floor, 14 Tothill St, London SW1H 9NB

 

[4]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [5]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>
Sent: 05 March 2019 16:01
To: FOI Commons <[6][email address]>
Subject: Re: F19-066 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,

thank you for your response. I wish to make a further request regarding
point 5 - the statement which confirms that PACAC cannot look at
individual cases. The link you provided in response is from 2017 and
simply says that it was 'resolved that PACAC would not consider individual
cases'. However in December 2012 Bernard Jenkin chair of PASC - now PACAC
confirmed to the Ombudsman Dame Julie Mellor that;

‘You are statutorily forbidden from discussing individual cases and I
thought it would be helpful if we reminded ourselves of that. It is also
the policy of this Committee not to prosecute or investigate individual
cases...’

I would like to see this policy, the one which was in existence in 2012
which determines that it is not the policy of the committee to prosecute
or investigate individual cases.

thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

UK Parliament Disclaimer: this e-mail is confidential to the intended
recipient. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and
delete it from your system. Any unauthorised use, disclosure, or copying
is not permitted. This e-mail has been checked for viruses, but no
liability is accepted for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by
this e-mail. This e-mail address is not secure, is not encrypted and
should not be used for sensitive data.

References

Visible links
1. https://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm...
2. mailto:[House of Commons Administration Committee request email]
3. http://www.ico.gov.uk/
5. http://www.parliament.uk/site-informatio...
6. mailto:[email address]

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear FOI Commons,

thank you for the link which refers to the PACAC committee reviewing individual cases. There was but one brief mention and it was this;

Resolved, That the Committee shall not consider individual cases.

This can hardly be termed a 'policy' merely a statement.

1. Can you confirm that prior to 15th July 2010 the (then PASC )committee did consider individual cases?

2. Is there any discussion on this issue available in the public domain or available by FOI request?

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

Thank you for your request for information dated 25 March 2019, received
by us on the same date, which is copied below.

 

We will endeavour to respond to your request promptly but in any case
within 20 working days i.e. on or before 24 April 2019.

 

If you have any queries about your request, please use the request number
quoted in the subject line of this email.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

Sixth Floor, 14 Tothill St, London SW1H 9NB

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[Cais Rhyddid Gwybodaeth e-bost #550708 ]>
Sent: 25 March 2019 14:45
To: FOI Commons <[cyfeiriad ebost]>
Subject: Re: F19-119 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,

thank you for the link which refers to the PACAC committee reviewing
individual cases. There was but one brief mention and it was this;

Resolved, That the Committee shall not consider individual cases.

This can hardly be termed a 'policy' merely a statement.

1. Can you confirm that prior to 15th July 2010 the (then PASC )committee
did consider individual cases?

2. Is there any discussion on this issue available in the public domain or
available by FOI request?

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

What a surprise, providing links to brief comments when you asked for policy. Typical behaviour by Government departments and public bodies. They don't want to publicly admit to not having had a policy and just deciding things on a whim, or acting arbitrarily. So they don't directly answer or answer with something else!

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear FOI Commons,

A response to this request is long overdue. In order to assist you in understanding my purpose let me share with you the following statement from the Denning Law Journal:
"For many years this Committee has served as a form of appeal/review from the PCA' s decisions as to whether or not to investigate a complaint. If an M. P. or complainant is unhappy with the outcome, they are usually referred to the Select Committee. The Committee will investigate the complaint and can call the PCA to account for his decision. "

The document is not clearly dated by has references as late as 1994. So it would appear that from 1967 to at least 1994 the select committee served as a form of appeal/review for dissatisfied complainants or MPs. PACAC, which is the current select committee, no longer examines individual cases so cannot act as a form of appeal.

The simple question is when was the policy changed? Was there any discussion around changing the policy? And can I see under FOIA all documentation which answers these questions?

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

 

Freedom of Information Request F19-153

 

Thank you for your request for information as copied below. You have asked
us two questions regarding the Public Administration and Constitutional
Affairs Committee (‘PACAC’, the ‘Committee’) and whether it has dealt with
individual cases, which we have sought to answer below.

 

 1. Can you confirm that prior to 15th July 2010 the (then PASC )
committee did consider individual cases?

 

This information is not held by the House of Commons as PACAC does not
hold a record of any information which would confirm this.

 

Further, please note that while we endeavour to be as helpful as possible,
the Freedom of Information Act provides the requester with an access right
to recorded information held by the House of Commons. It does not extend,
for example, to requests for views, explanations or comments about a
particular matter. Your request can be in the form of a question, but the
House of Commons does not have to answer your question if this would mean
creating new information, providing analysis or giving an opinion or
confirmation that is not already recorded. Further information can be
found at: [1]http://www.parliament.uk/site-informatio....

 

 2. Is there any discussion on this issue available in the public domain
or available by FOI request?

 

In order to establish whether this information is held for certain, the
Committee staff would be required to manually sift through large amount of
recent, as well as historical information, some of which is stored in the
Parliamentary Archives in hard copy. Even then, it is not certain whether
a record of any such discussion is held. Undertaking this search will
exceed the time and cost limit set in the current legislation.

 

We estimate that the cost of complying with your request would exceed the
appropriate limit which, for the House of Commons, is £600. This
represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3½ working days in
determining whether the House holds the information, and locating,
retrieving and extracting the information. Under section 12 of the Freedom
of Information Act 2000 (FOIA) the House is not obliged to comply with
your request and we will not be processing your request further.

 

If you were to make a new request for a narrower category of information,
it may be that we could comply with that request within the appropriate
limit, although I cannot guarantee that this will be the case. For
example, you could refine your request to ask for information that may
have been discussed in a specific time period, such as year or month.

 

Further, records of any unpublished discussions on this matter conducted
by the Committee are privileged and are likely to be exempt from
disclosure. This is required to avoid any infringement of the privileges
of the House. Those privileges include the right of any committee of the
House to decide whether, when and how to publish information relating to
its proceedings. Records of the Committee’s deliberations or discussion,
other than those published in its formal minutes are likely to be exempt
from disclosure under section 34 FOIA.

 

Lastly, apart from any responses to Freedom of Information requests which
we already provided you with, the House holds no record of any other FOI
request that might relate to the issue of whether PACAC has considered
individual cases.

 

It may however interest you to know that the old post of Parliamentary
Commissioner for Administration, to which you are referring to in your
recent email, was created in 1967 to investigate cases of
maladministration in specified public services. The House of Commons had a
select Committee some decades ago to monitor the performance and the
exercise of the office generally, however the Committee’s role was not
designed to discuss individual cases. Further, the position of Health
Service Commissioner was created in 1993. Today, the two posts are held by
the same person, who is usually referred to as the Parliamentary and
Health Service Ombudsman (‘PHSO’).

PACAC’s role is to scrutinise the PHSO's annual report and other reports
that the Ombudsman chooses to lay before Parliament. Where these reports
highlight failures in the quality and standards of Civil Service
administration, PACAC may use them to hold the government to account. The
Committee cannot review the PHSO's adjudications on individual cases. This
includes the PHSO’s decisions on whether or not to accept a case. As the
office of the PHSO is independent, adjudications cannot be overruled by a
government minister or any parliamentary committee. Further information on
this can be found in section 2.3 (page 8) here:
[2]https://researchbriefings.files.parliame....

 

You may, if dissatisfied with the handling of your request, complain to
the House of Commons. Alternatively, if you are dissatisfied with the
outcome of your request you may ask the House of Commons to conduct an
internal review of any decision regarding your request.  Complaints or
requests for internal review should be addressed to: Information Rights
and Information Security Service, Research & Information Team, House of
Commons, London SW1A 0AA or [3][House of Commons Administration Committee request email].  Please ensure
that you specify the full reasons for your complaint or internal review
along with any arguments or points that you wish to make.

 

If you remain dissatisfied, you may appeal to the Information Commissioner
at Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire SK9 5AF,
[4]www.ico.gov.uk.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

IRIS Officer
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

Sixth Floor, 14 Tothill St, London SW1H 9NB

 

[5]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [6]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>

Sent: 25 March 2019 14:45
To: FOI Commons <[7][email address]>
Subject: Re: F19-119 Response

 

Dear FOI Commons,

thank you for the link which refers to the PACAC committee reviewing
individual cases. There was but one brief mention and it was this;

Resolved, That the Committee shall not consider individual cases.

This can hardly be termed a 'policy' merely a statement.

1. Can you confirm that prior to 15th July 2010 the (then PASC )committee
did consider individual cases?

2. Is there any discussion on this issue available in the public domain or
available by FOI request?

Yours sincerely,

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear FOI Commons,

You haven't really answered my question and clearly have no intention of doing so. From the extract I included in my last correspondence on this issue it can be seen that at some point the select committee were able to act on behalf of complainants in holding the Ombudsman to account. This position changed at some point after 1994. I simply want to know at what point in time the policy change was made. You suggest that I can narrow my request to include a specific time when it is obvious that I do not know the specific time as that is the nature of my request. Just because I am an optimist at heart let us go for the internal review on the basis that this request has been ignored beyond reasonable time limits and insufficient S16 help offered.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Gadawodd A.E. anodiad ()

Hear, hear! What a cheek they have with all these games they play to avoid answering. These people are elected by the people and have to answer to the people!

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

 

Internal Review Request F19-153

 

Thank you for your further email, copied below, requesting an Internal
Review of our response to your original Freedom of Information request.

 

We will carry out this review and endeavour to provide a response within
20 working days. If you have any queries about the review, please contact
me with the reference in the subject line.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>
Sent: 17 May 2019 23:07
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - PACAC
scrutiny of PHSO

 

Dear FOI Commons,

You haven't really answered my question and clearly have no intention of
doing so. From the extract I included in my last correspondence on this
issue it can be seen that at some point the select committee were able to
act on behalf of complainants in holding the Ombudsman to account. This
position changed at some point after 1994. I simply want to know at what
point in time the policy change was made. You suggest that I can narrow my
request to include a specific time when it is obvious that I do not know
the specific time as that is the nature of my request. Just because I am
an optimist at heart let us go for the internal review on the basis that
this request has been ignored beyond reasonable time limits and
insufficient S16 help offered.

Yours sincerely,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons Administration Committee's handling of my FOI request 'PACAC scrutiny of PHSO'.

I asked for an internal review of this request on 20th May due to lack of S16 assistance. I am still waiting for a response to that request.

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

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

FOI Commons, House of Commons Administration Committee

1 Atodiad

Dear Ms Reynolds,

 

 

Thank you very much for your further email, copied below.

 

We would like to reassure you that we are working on a response to your
request for an Internal Review and are treating this as a priority.  We
would also like to apologise for the fact that we have not been able to
provide a response within the 20 working days previously stated.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

         
Information Rights Manager
Information Rights and Information Security (IRIS) Service | House of
Commons

 

[1]cid:image002.jpg@01D02B64.34D76640

Click [2]here for information about FOI in the House of Commons,

or to see what we publish.

 

 

 

 

From: phsothefacts Pressure Group
<[FOI #550708 email]>
Sent: 17 June 2019 12:22
To: FOI Commons <[email address]>
Subject: Internal review of Freedom of Information request - PACAC
scrutiny of PHSO

 

Dear House of Commons Administration Committee,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of House of Commons
Administration Committee's handling of my FOI request 'PACAC scrutiny of
PHSO'.

I asked for an internal review of this request on 20th May due to lack of
S16 assistance. I am still waiting for a response to that request.

A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is available on
the Internet at this address:
[3]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Yours faithfully,

Della Reynolds

phsothefacts Pressure Group

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Please use this email address for all replies to this request:
[4][FOI #550708 email]

Disclaimer: This message and any reply that you make will be published on
the internet. Our privacy and copyright policies:
[5]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/offi...

For more detailed guidance on safely disclosing information, read the
latest advice from the ICO:
[6]https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/help/ico-...

Please note that in some cases publication of requests and responses will
be delayed.

If you find this service useful as an FOI officer, please ask your web
manager to link to us from your organisation's FOI page.

dangos adrannau a ddyfynnir

Looking for an EU Authority?

You can request documents directly from EU Institutions at our sister site AskTheEU.org . Find out more .

AskTheEU.org