84. This annex sets out information about cases in the past which have been the subject of a section 10(3) report – denoting that injustice in consequence of maladministration had been identified but that no remedy had or would be provided for that injustice.
85. It also deals with some cases which, although not laid before Parliament pursuant to section 10(3), raised similar issues. Such cases were published using the power from time to time to lay before Parliament special reports which relate to the Ombudsman's functions, which is set out in section 10(4) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967.
86. When Parliament debated what became the 1967 Act, it was envisaged that the power provided for in section 10(3) would be used in three circumstances:
(i) where the department or body whose actions had been found to constitute maladministration had 'declined to set the matter right'; or
(ii) where such a department or body was 'unable to do so', perhaps because the law expressly prevented the appropriate remedy from being provided; or
(iii) where the Ombudsman was not 'satisfied' that a proposed remedy provided proper redress for the injustice sustained.
87. In the words of the Notes on Clauses on the Bill, where such a report is laid before Parliament:
The subsequent action will not be for the Commissioner; it will be for Parliament, using whatever machinery – for example, a Select Committee of the House of Commons – is devised by Parliament for the purpose… the matter will become one between the department (and, if need be, its Minister or the Government as a whole) and the House.
88. My predecessors and I have laid four section 10(3) reports before Parliament. In a further two cases, the department or body whose actions had been investigated also disputed the outcome of the investigation conducted by my Office.
89. The table below provides information about these cases. This shows that there is no precedent for the Government's response to this report.
90. In some cases, Government initially rejected findings but remedied the injustice; in others it accepted findings but did not at first provide an appropriate remedy.
91. In no case did Government both reject findings of maladministration and refuse to consider righting the injustice that had been sustained in consequence of that maladministration. Nor has an injustice remained unremedied in any earlier case.
| Date |
Case |
Action taken |
Nature of dispute
|
Outcome |
20/12/1967 |
Sachsenhausen |
Laid before Parliament as a section 10(4) report. |
In his initial response to the report, the then Foreign Secretary said in the House: 'I reject completely the Parliamentary Commissioner's allegation' which underlay one finding of maladministration. He also said that he saw 'no reason why the judgement of the Commissioner is necessarily better' than that of Ministers. |
Government eventually accepted that, having established his Office to undertake independent investigations, it would be unacceptable for them to reject the Ombudsman's findings.
Compensation was paid to the complainants.
The then Foreign Secretary later said 'The Parliamentary Commissioner's view is that our judgment was wrong. I am willing to accept that.' |
25/7/1978 |
Rochester Way, Bexley |
First section 10(3) report. |
The then Department of Transport accepted the findings of maladministration but refused to accept the Ombudsman's recommendation that financial redress should be paid to individuals who had been denied an opportunity to make claims for compensation in time due to the inadequate publicity given to the compensation scheme by the Department.
The then Permanent Secretary said that he did not believe it would be appropriate to override by administrative action the expressed will of Parliament, which had established the scheme and its time limits. |
Government eventually accepted the case for compensation, following a Select Committee inquiry, and introduced amendments to the Land Compensation Act 1973 to enable it to provide such compensation and to remove the time limits for applications set out in that Act.
Compensation was paid to the complainants and others in a similar position to them.
|
19/12/1989 |
Barlow Clowes |
Laid before Parliament as a section 10(4) report. |
On the same day as the Ombudsman's report was laid before Parliament, the Government published its 'observations' on the Ombudsman's report, which had found injustice in consequence of maladministration by the Department of Trade and Industry.
The Government said that it did 'not accept the PCA's assertions either that the actions fell short of the standards appropriate to the regulator in the overall context of the case or that the actions he criticises had the effect he describes'. |
The Government said that it had concluded that 'it is prepared to offer a substantial payment, without admission of fault or liability, to investors in the Barlow Clowes businesses'.
This decision had been taken 'in the light of all the circumstances of this particular case and out of respect for the Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner'.
Compensation was paid to the complainants and others in a similar position to them. |
8/02/1995 |
Channel Tunnel Rail Link |
Second section 10(3) report. |
The Government's initial response to the report refused to accept that maladministration had occurred or that compensation was due. |
Following a Select Committee inquiry, on 1 November 1995 the Government agreed to reconsider its position.
On 18 March 1997, the Government set out proposals for compensation, which was then paid to complainants. |
12/07/2005 |
Debt of Honour |
Third section 10(3) report. |
The Government did not accept all the recommendations made in the report. The Committee is aware of developments since the report was published. |
The Government eventually accepted one of the two recommendations it had not originally accepted and work continues to fulfil the second. |
14/03/2006 |
|
Fourth section 10(3) report. |
Government published its full response on 6 June 2006. |
Still to be determined. |
Press Office contacts
