WIREDGOV

In his Annual Report for 2001-02 published today, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, Sir Michael Buckley, who is retiring later this year, said that he had received 2139 complaints about maladministration by government departments and other public bodies. This was an increase of 24% over last year and the highest intake ever. A total of 1988 cases were concluded during the year: of these, 781 complaints were resolved informally and 195 statutory investigations were completed. The Ombudsman also received 34 complaints that information had been wrongly withheld under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, and 7846 general enquiries from members of the public

Pattern of complaints

Complaints against the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) accounted for the largest number of complaints against a single department. Of the 693 complaints received, 472 were against the Benefits Agency (BA) and 187 against the Child Support Agency (CSA). Several complaints related to claims for disability or
incapacity-related benefits. They covered such things as arranging for a sign language interpreter for a medical examination, inadequate medical examinations and poor quality reports, the conduct of an examining medical practitioner, and misdirection about entitlement to invalid care allowance. CSA cases often involved delay in making child support maintenance assessments, and failures to take enforcement action and collect maintenance.

206 complaints were received against the Inland Revenue, slightly fewer than the previous year. 35 complaints related to the Revenue's treatment of widowers who had sought a payment equivalent to the Widow's Bereavement Allowance. The Ombudsman accepted a
representative case for investigation but suspended action once it became clear that relevant issues were to be considered by the courts.

42 complaints were received against HM Customs and Excise, an increase on the previous year. Some of that increase related to complaints from travellers about Customs' action against suspected tobacco smugglers. A particular cause for complaint was the seizure of private vehicles along with the goods when travellers fell foul of the guidelines for bringing tobacco into the UK for their personal use. The Ombudsman became concerned that travellers should have clear information about their entitlements and their right to ask Customs to review their decisions. He also considers that Customs should take humanitarian considerations into account when a vehicle is seized. Following one investigation, Customs mounted a publicity campaign to explain the penalties faced by smugglers and revised their practice in respect of travellers who did not have the means to complete their journey home.

Equitable Life

Sir Michael said that there were particular difficulties relating to complaints he had received about the prudential regulation of the Equitable Life Assurance Society. Commenting on the criticism he had faced in Parliament and the media for deferring a decision on whether to investigate some of those complaints until the Penrose Inquiry, set up by the Government, had reported, Sir Michael said, "I do not agree with the critics. It seems to me plainly inefficient, and potentially unfair, to have two simultaneous but separate investigations covering much the same ground and taking evidence from much the same sources." The Ombudsman added that he had drawn the attention of the Select Committee on Public Administration to what he saw as the root cause of the problem the failure of the authorities to establish at the outset a single inquiry with terms of reference covering all aspects of the Equitable Life affair.

Railtrack
The Ombudsman received 19 complaints about the manner in which the Secretary of State for Transport caused Railtrack plc to be placed in administrative receivership. Given the Department's announcement that it was speeding up the process of bringing Railtrack out of administration, and the preparations by a group of Railtrack shareholders to take proceedings in the High Court, Sir Michael had decided not to initiate an investigation for the time being.

Individual Learning Accounts
The Ombudsman reported that he had received complaints about the alleged failure by the Department for Education and Skills to design and operate proper controls to safeguard the Individual Learning Accounts scheme against fraud and abuse. The complaints came mostly from learning providers who said that they had based their business plans on expectations of income from the scheme for some years ahead, and who were looking for compensation for the scheme's early closure in November 2001. A sample of cases is now under investigation and should be completed later in 2002.

Freedom of Information
The Ombudsman said that his office would retain responsibility for policing the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information until the Freedom of Information Act 2000 came fully into effect in 2005. Sir Michael voiced his concern that in November 2001, for the first time, the Government rejected his recommendation that information should be released under the Code. His report to Parliament "Declarations made under the Ministerial Code of Conduct" (HC353) set out the facts of the case. Sir Michael said, "I hope that the Government will in future accept my recommendations, as they and their predecessors have in the past. I am seriously concerned at the hardening of attitudes in departments. If this is not reversed, it will raise serious doubts as to whether it is appropriate for the Ombudsman to continue to investigate complaints under the Code." The Select Committee on Public Administration has said that it will take evidence on that and another high profile Code case on 11 July.

That second case relates to the release of information to a journalist about a telephone call that was alleged to have taken place between the then Home Office Minister, Mr Mike O'Brien MP, and Mr Peter Mandelson MP. Sir Michael said that he had become increasingly concerned at the difficulties being placed in his way in conducting some of his investigations. In particular, it had become apparent that in some cases departments were resisting the release of information not because they had a strong case under the Code for doing so, but because to release the information could cause them embarrassment or political inconvenience.

Notes to editors

1. The Parliamentary Ombudsman, Annual Report 2001-02, HC 897

2. Press copies of the reports are available from the press office, tel: 020 7217 4077. From 4 July they will also be on the website www.ombudsman.org.uk

3. Case studies illustrating some of the topics covered in the report can be obtained from the press office.

4. The Ombudsman investigates complaints from members of the public, referred by MPs, against government departments and other public bodies. More details are given on his website.

Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP