PHSO Stakeholders

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

1. Could you please give me the names of all PHSO stakeholders from January 2010 - to date of reply.

2. Could you tell me the names of those who appointed them? And who recommended them?

3. Could you please state whether there are any constraints on the behaviour of stakeholders both while on 'business' on PHSO premises, or with regard to personal relationships with PHSO employees.

Are any ethical constraints on the agreement of behaviour on file?

For example..

Is it stated that stakeholders can/ or cannot have access to complainants files for instance?

Can they use PHSO equipment...ie phones for private business?

Are they able to have close personal relationships with PHSO employees?

4. Or are they allowed to do - and behave as they like - with no constraints ...there being no signed agreement as to what they can/and cannot do, with regards to the PHSO's business?

Let me be specific. I am NOT asking to read the ethical policy that applies to PHSO employees as I have already read it.

5. Since stakeholders seem to be carrying out their private business on other government premises, what is the position of them doing this on PHSO premises? Does the PHSO buildings and contents insurance cover any private business carried out by stakeholders on its premises?

...... Are taxpayers paying insurance for private companies to carry out their own business on government premises?

Yours faithfully,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

By email
Ms Janet [first name redacted] Oakley

6 February 2014

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-182028)

Further to your email of 11 January 2014, I am writing in response to your information request. I will address each of your queries in turn.

‘1. Could you please give me the names of all PHSO stakeholders from January 2010 - to date of reply. 2. Could you tell me the names of those who appointed them? And who recommended them?’

Section 2 of the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 lists those bodies subject to investigation by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. Schedule 2 of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 lists Parliamentary bodies that are subject to investigation.

Both sets of legislation are available online at: www.legislation.gov.uk Although the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 has not been updated online to include the new NHS structure, PHSO can look at any complaint about NHS-funded care in England.

Beyond this list of authorities which fall within PHSO’s remit, there is no formal record of stakeholders and they are neither appointed nor recommended. Instead, the term is usually used to refer more generally to a person or organisation with an interest or concern in the work of PHSO. For example, members of the public are stakeholders, as well as Parliament.

‘3. Could you please state whether there are any constraints on the behaviour of stakeholders both while on 'business' on PHSO premises, or with regard to personal relationships with PHSO employees. Are any ethical constraints on the agreement of behaviour on file? For example.. Is it stated that stakeholders can/or cannot have access to complainants files for instance? Can they use PHSO equipment...ie phones for private business? Are they able to have close personal relationships with PHSO employees?’

Stakeholders may visit PHSO occasionally for meetings. However, stakeholders would not have access to complainants’ files during such meetings. The only way information would be shared would be for the purposes of carrying out an investigation, for example, with the body complained about to help us resolve the complaint. This would be done in line with the Ombudsman’s legislation and complainants are made aware that this will happen before it does.

It is unclear what you mean by stakeholders carrying out business on PHSO premises or conducting relationships with PHSO employees. If a PHSO employee had a conflict of interest, they would be expected to declare this as part of the conflicts of interest policy and any appropriate action would be taken as a result of this. PHSO equipment is for the use of PHSO to assist it in carrying out its statutory functions.

‘4. Or are they allowed to do - and behave as they like - with no constraints ...there being no signed agreement as to what they can/and cannot do, with regards to the PHSO's business? Let me be specific. I am NOT asking to read the ethical policy that applies to PHSO employees as I have already read it. 5. Since stakeholders seem to be carrying out their private business on other government premises, what is the position of them doing this on PHSO premises? Does the PHSO buildings and contents insurance cover any private business carried out by stakeholders on its premises? ...... Are taxpayers paying insurance for private companies to carry out their own business on government premises?’

Again, it is unclear as to what exactly you are referring to. We are not aware of the situation you describe, and have no written or insurance policies in place relevant to it. If you could provide us with more detailed information, we might be able to help you further.

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'PHSO Stakeholders'.

The PHSO must know who it's stakeholders are.

Otherwise what is the point of having any?

What is the point if the term?

Private companies advertise their stakeholder status with organisations, so if private companies know that they are stakeholders is it possible that:

1. The term stakeholder means precisely nothing....as it means every citizen with a slight interest, as stated?

2. The PHSO has no stakeholders.

3. Or the PHSO has no idea who these stakeholders might be?

4. That the PHSO has stakeholders but will not name them?

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,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

By email
Ms Janet [first name redacted] Oakley

10 March 2014

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

Your information request (FDN-184265)

Further to your email of 10 February 2014, I am writing in response to your information request.

Rather than processing your request for internal review, I will here attempt to provide you with some additional clarification. It is open to you to request an internal review if you find this unsatisfactory.

In your email, you wrote:

‘The PHSO must know who it's stakeholders are. Otherwise what is the point of having any? What is the point if the term?

Private companies advertise their stakeholder status with organisations, so if private companies know that they are stakeholders is it possible that:

1. The term stakeholder means precisely nothing....as it means every citizen with a slight interest, as stated?

2. The PHSO has no stakeholders.

3. Or the PHSO has no idea who these stakeholders might be?

4. That the PHSO has stakeholders but will not name them?’

As you are aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 entitles a right to recorded information. It does not provide a right to receive an opinion except where that opinion is already recorded. In our previous response, we directed you to the list of bodies within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction, as detailed in the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 and the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, and advised that there is no formal record of stakeholders and they are neither appointed nor recommended. Instead, we explained that the term is usually used to refer more generally to a person or organisation with an interest or concern in the work of PHSO and gave the example of members of the public being stakeholders, as well as Parliament.

This is still the case and we hold no further recorded information which would help us to answer your question. However, it might be helpful to explain that stakeholders would likely comprise the following types of organisation:

• Parliament;
• the NHS;
• other bodies within jurisdiction;
• regulators;
• professional and representative bodies;
• the wider Ombudsman and complaint handling community;
• voluntary, advice and advocacy bodies; and
• relevant academic and research bodies.

I hope that this information is helpful. If you are unhappy with my handling of your information request, you can ask for a review by email to: [email address]

If you still have concerns after that, you can ask the Information Commissioner’s Office to look into your case. Their contact details are available on their website at: www.ico.org.uk

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information/Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

It is helpful.... but my understanding is that external organisations (stakeholders) to the PHSO can have access to PHSO files without the permission of the complainant.

Is this technically correct?

Because surely complainants have a right to know if unnamed stakeholders can read their files?

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

External organisations are not given access to PHSO files. This would be a breach of the Data Protection Act.

However, the Ombudsman's own legislation (the Health Service Commissioners Act 1993 and the Parliamentary Health Service Commissioner Act 1967) allows her to share specific information during the course of an investigation where it is necessary to do so for the purposes of that investigation. An example of this might be where a clinician is no longer working for a health trust, but needs to see copies of records relating to an incident complained about, so that they can respond properly to the complaint.

Information on what happens to the information given to PHSO by complainants is available on our website at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/about-us/being-open...

You can also view information about our Information Promise at: www.ombudsman.org.uk/reports-and-consult...

Yours sincerely

Freedom of Information / Data Protection Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
W: www.ombudsman.org.uk

Please email the FOI/DP team at: [email address]

show quoted sections

Dear foiofficer,

That is reassuring. Thank you,

If only other organisations were so circumspect.

But I am still surprised that the PHSO has no 'stakeholders', otherwise some sort of register would have to be kept to designate stakeholders from non-stakeholders, especially should they be private companies.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Dear Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

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

I am writing to request an internal review of Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman's handling of my FOI request 'PHSO Stakeholders'.

:::

Since the relationship between the PHSO and it's stakeholders was being developed since 2010, has the PHSO still no idea who it's stakeholders are - since Tim Miller was specifically stating that there were 'many of them' and that his role was to 'develop stakeholder relationships '?

Surely, in such a highly paid position, he would gave been able to list at least one or two?
:::

......New Head of Public Affairs starts at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

09 June 2010

Tim Miller has been appointed as the new Head of Public Affairs at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

Tim takes responsibility for developing the PHSO’s stakeholder relationships, monitoring public policy and providing strategic advice on the wider political landscape.

Commenting on his new role, Tim said:

“I am looking forward to working with PHSO’s many stakeholders to ensure we continue to help shape improvements to public administration and inform public policy. My team also has an important role to play in sharing learning from the complaints we deal with, so that will be another focus of my work.”

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,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Dear foiofficer,

For your information ...

The shifting landscape of the NHS in England continued to offer significant capacity challenges for the Communications Division in monitoring activity and engaging stakeholders.

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Dear foiofficer,

My understanding from the PHSO's internal files is now that there is a 'register of stakeholders' and 'stakeholder events'.

As it would be rather difficult to draw up a list without names and hold events without issuing invitations, could you please confirm that the PHSO still has no idea who it's stakeholders are - as these files do not exist, or no longer exist.

Yours sincerely,

Jt Oakley

foiofficer, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Thank you for your e-mail to the Parliamentary and Health Service
Ombudsman. This return e-mail shows that we have received your
correspondence.

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

o The stakeholder database project had [] not delivered all its outcomes.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

According to the internal files, there are 4,000 stakeholders on a database.....

....And also according to internal files, the PHSO has 'shareholders events'.

[name removed] left an annotation ()

What about the public who as taxpayers fund the PHSO? Surely they have to be recognised as stakeholders also?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

They are.

But the PHSO is not telling us which 'public'.

Presumably you could write and ask to be a stakeholder.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

Complaintsphso, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

Dear Ms [first name redacted] Oakley

We are writing in response to your email of 28 March 2014. We are sorry that you are dissatisfied with our handling of your information request 'PHSO Stakeholders'.

Under our internal complaints procedure, your complaint has been passed to the Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office, Mr Steve Brown.

Mr Steve Brown will consider your concerns and will send you a full reply once his review is complete. This review of your complaint is the only review that we will undertake.

We aim to reply to such complaints within 40 working days.

Yours sincerely

Review Team
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

show quoted sections

Brown Steve, Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

4 Attachments

 

 

Steve Brown

Head of Risk, Assurance and Programme Management Office

Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman

E: [email address]

W: [1]www.ombudsman.org.uk

 

Follow us on

[2]fb  [3]twitter  [4]linkedin

 

show quoted sections

All email communications with PHSO pass through the Government Secure
Intranet, and may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for
legal purposes.
The MessageLabs Anti Virus Service is the first managed service to achieve
the CSIA Claims Tested Mark (CCTM Certificate Number 2006/04/0007), the UK
Government quality mark initiative for information security products and
services. For more information about this please visit www.cctmark.gov.uk

References

Visible links
1. http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
2. http://www.facebook.com/phsombudsman
3. http://www.twitter.com/PHSOmbudsman
4. http://www.linkedin.com/company/parliame...

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

According to internal files, the PHSO has a list of them.

Why so circumspect I do not know. But it's probably to protect the names of stakeholders under DPA if, indeed, they existed.

Personally, as long as my tax is not paying for the 'stakeholder events' mentioned in the files, I'm not worried.

But if the PHSO is spending on stakeholder events, then there is justification in asking where the money went. And who it was spent on.

Since the PHSO has denied that has any stakeholders and has no meetings then the request has been answered satisfactorily.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

9. PHSO Stakeholder Engagement & Stakeholder Data Strategies PHSO Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 2011-15
9.1 Claire Forbes introduced the Stakeholder Engagement Strategy which set out PHSO’s approach to building and developing relationships with organisations with which PHSO wished to have an ongoing professional relationship.
9.2 EB noted the priorities detailed in the Strategy for 2011-12 but set these aside pending the outcome of the current business planning process.
9.3 Claire Forbes explained the Strategy’s approach and highlighted the importance of bringing knowledge together to develop a framework for communicating effectively. EB noted the existing and future workstreams.

9.4 The risks associated with this Strategy would be reviewed as part of the discussion on the Strategic Risk review on 14 March.
9.5 EB approved the Stakeholder Engagement Strategy 2011-15.
PHSO Stakeholder Data Strategy 2011-15
9.6 EB reviewed the Strategy which detailed a policy on how PHSO would collect, store and manage stakeholder data. The proposal was to procure a database solution which would allow for all stakeholder contact data to be stored in one location. The Communications Division would have responsibility for delivering this Strategy.
9.7 EB approved the Stakeholder Data Strategy 2011-15.

http://www.ombudsman.org.uk/__data/asset...

Della left an annotation ()

As there are no stakeholders what are they going to store on their new database? Perhaps we should ask Steve brown if the response was appropriate?

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

It appears that the PHSO officers carry stakeholder information in mind - as there is no list of names and addresses.

And that stakeholders will know when to attend stakeholder events - simply by a process of invitation via thought transference from PHSO officers.

You have to admit it - it is remarkably cost-saving.

Jt Oakley left an annotation ()

And yet..

In my request for a list of companies that the PHSO paid over £50,000 is:

Stakeholder database : Silver Bear : 9/11/2011- 9/11/2014

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/c...

So the PHSO is paying Silver Bear over £50,000 of public money.... but can it name a single stakeholder in an FoI request.

CA Purkis left an annotation ()

Stranger and stranger....

D. Speers left an annotation ()

Hmmmmmmmmm!

Fiona Watts left an annotation ()

One simple point made by the PHSO on 11 March 2015. Apparently they do acknowledge The Data Protection Act?!!

Eureka! Just wish the staff at the PHSO had been trained on this UK law!

E. Colville left an annotation ()

PHSO responses to this request appear to be inconsistent with information given to Lord Lester in 2003.

See: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

"Lord Lester of Herne Hill asked Her Majesty's Government: Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 9 October (WA 83), whether they will make the list of departmental contacts available to the media and to the public. [HL4807]"

"Lord Bassam of Brighton: The list is intended to be primarily of use to the ombudsman and her staff. There are no plans for it to be published formally, although it will be made available on request. A copy has been sent to the noble Lord."

Debate of 9th October -
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

"Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the Government response to the Select Committee indicates, the Cabinet Office is currently compiling a list of departmental contacts tasked with ensuring that the ombudsman receives prompt responses to requests for information. This list will be of use primarily to the ombudsman and her staff, but I shall send a copy to the noble Lord when it is ready."

In addition, it is Interesting to note the Government's answer to Lord Lester's question on "direct access" to the Ombudsman:

"Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 9 October (WA 82), what further work is needed before they are able to decide whether the public should be given direct access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. [HL4806]
§
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As the Government's response to the Public Administration Select Committee's report on ombudsman issues (HC 448) makes clear, we are working to explore what more can be done under existing statutory arrangements to promote joint working between ombudsmen and ensure that ombudsmen arrangements are fit for purpose. We share the commitment of the ombudsman to delivering an accessible, flexible and comprehensive ombudsman service. We recognise there are constraints on joint working which must be addressed as part of this work. The issue of direct access to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration is being considered as part of this work."

Lord Lester had consistently been asking this question (and many other relevant questions about the PHSO) since 1999. He even introduced a Bill in 1999 to try to amend the legislation to allow direct access See:

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
HL Deb 24 November 1999 vol 607 c455
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords...

"I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 so as to enable the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration to investigate complaints received directly from members of the public. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time."

The debate on the failed Bill of January 2000 is here:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

Lord Falcnor for the Government argued:

" My Lords, I respond to this interesting debate in what the noble Lord, Lord Lester, may unfortunately regard as an unhelpful way. The following points emerge from the debate. ....

In October 1998, the ombudsmen themselves--not all of them, but perhaps one could say collectively "an omnibus" of ombudsmen--suggested that there should be a review of their procedures. They raised specifically the issue of the MP's filter and issues about how their procedures could be improved. In response, and as part of the "modernising government" agenda, the Government set up a review of the procedures for ombudsmen. That review is considering the MP's filter and what improvements in procedure can take place, as well as the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon, about whether there should be a commission or collegiate approach to the activities of ombudsmen to get round the wearisome issues of jurisdiction.....

The Government cannot support the Bill introduced by the noble Lord this evening. In the light of the points that I have made, I earnestly suggest to the noble Lord that he considers whether or not the appropriate course would be to withdraw his Bill and await the results of the review to which I referred. At that time the matter could be considered in the light of a whole series of representations."

Lord Lester's response was to say:

"I hope that the Minister will forgive me for saying that in a sense the Government are self-interested in the matter. I say that because the whole purpose of the ombudsman is to act as a watchdog for the citizen against the misuse of power in a non-legal sense by Ministers, government departments and public authorities.

If the Minister were in opposition, I am sure that he would realise the force of what I am saying. Of course it is convenient for Ministers to have a rusty machine that takes a long time and does not deal very effectively with citizens' complaints. However, I know that this Government do not take refuge in that kind of argument based on administrative convenience.

I do not think it constitutionally inappropriate for this Chamber to act as the subordinate hand-maiden to the other Chamber. It is very hard for Members of the other place to get time for Private Members' Bills. If the Government block reforms by inaction, it is impossible for any reform to take place in the other place. We have an opportunity in this House simply to pass a modest measure and then give Members of another place the opportunity to consider the matter and vote upon it. If they lack confidence in allowing the citizen to have direct access and if they insist upon being the exclusive conduit, they will take the consequences with their constituents in due course. That is their entitlement. However, if they feel that the time has come to act in partnership with the citizens of this country by using the ombudsman in a better way, that again is a decision for them to take. "

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa...

Lord Lester didn't give up. See:
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/writt...

On 24 November 2004 he introduced a second Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords...

It also failed.

And so here we are in 2015 no further forward, apart from the 2014 Robert Gordon report on reform of the ombudsman landscape with its principal recommendation to the Cabinet Office on legislative reform of what is essentially resuscitation of Lord Lester's failed Bills of 1999 and 2004.

Looking for an EU Authority?

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

AskTheEU.org