As we await the formation of the new Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (a committee which was set up specifically to monitor the Ombudsman) a whistleblower recounts her experience of trying to submit evidence to the committee on more than one occasion.
With a new Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) forming, now is the perfect time to raise critical questions about its effectiveness in fulfilling its mandate. PACAC is entrusted with overseeing public administration and constitutional issues, focusing on ensuring fairness, transparency, and accountability in the provision of public services. It has the authority to conduct inquiries into specific areas of concern, gather evidence from citizens and institutions, and make recommendations for change. Importantly, PACAC is supposed to hold government bodies and officials accountable for failures to meet standards of good governance.
When whistleblowers come forward with evidence, particularly in the context of official inquiries, they expect their concerns to be considered thoroughly and impartially—and published. Failing to do so not only undermines PACAC’s mandate but also risks eroding public trust in the entire democratic process. This situation becomes even more problematic when PACAC doesn’t justify its decisions to apparently ignore critical evidence.
As a whistleblower I submitted written evidence to PACAC for at least three separate inquiries. Twice I submitted evidence on the PHSO’s handling of complaints about the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) and I also submitted evidence to the Cabinet Office’s handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests (2021–2022) in relation to the disclosure of the identity of officials who had written internal emails about my case. The evidence presented raised alarm bells about serious systemic issues and potential malfeasance, yet it was not published. Why? The public deserves to know.
The PHSO: Ignored Failed Risk Assessments?
My whistleblower’s evidence to PACAC regarded the PHSO highlighted major alleged failures, including ignored risk assessments.
As a British/Irish whistleblower I had reported a Geneva school, implicating high-profile British citizens and a Geneva state official on the school board. In 2018, my then-MP, Philip Hammond, referred my complaints to the PHSO after the FCDO refused consular assistance. The PHSO’s investigation dragged on for years, involving at least six different caseworkers. A PHSO caseworker disclosed to me that the FCDO had failed to adjust risk assessments. Then, in 2020, there was an apparent abrupt reversal of the decision to take forward my complaints about the FCDO to a full investigation, without any clear explanation. This, coupled with the FCDO’s claims that no vulnerability assessments had been conducted and concerns about data obstruction, suggested that the PHSO may have structured the complaint in a way that made it easier to dismiss. Two subsequent complaints related to the case were opened by the PHSO, but never concluded. This raises serious concerns about the PHSO’s impartiality and whether it can truly hold government departments accountable – or whether it is toothless.
The Cabinet Office and FOIA Requests
Regarding the Cabinet Office, my evidence revealed troubling practices related to FOIA compliance. After providing an email exchange from June 2019, involving the Cabinet Office and the FCDO, I requested disclosure of the identity of the official(s) involved and the data they referred to. However, the Cabinet Office refused to release this information, applying FOIA exemptions, even though the official seemed to have misused data. Moreover, the Cabinet Office failed to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office regarding the required internal review. This case, still unresolved in the tribunals, was part of a failed bid to restrict access to the FOI outside of the UK . The refusal to release crucial information not only obstructed accountability but also denied me access to critical data essential for my defence, highlighting how public bodies protect officials from scrutiny.
References:
: Journalists FOI bids stayed as court reconsiders freedom of information rights of people outside UK
: Victory for free speech and openness after tribunal confirms no territorial restrictions to FOIA
Why Wasn’t This Evidence Published by PACAC?
PACAC’s apparent refusal to publish this important evidence without explanation raises serious doubts about its commitment to transparency and accountability. If the evidence implicates certain officials or departments in wrongdoing, failing to publish it not only shields those individuals from accountability but also undermines PACAC’s credibility. PACAC is mandated to hold public bodies accountable and to investigate concerns thoroughly. When it withholds evidence without explanation, it risks being seen as complicit in protecting those it is supposed to scrutinize. If PACAC is unable to publish certain evidence due to legal or security concerns, it should at least provide a clear justification. In the absence of transparency, public trust in both PACAC and the institutions it oversees begins to crumble.
The Consequences of Ignoring Evidence.
I submitted evidence to two critical inquiries, expecting PACAC to fulfil its responsibility by considering and publishing my concerns. By failing to do so, PACAC is not only disregarding my right to be heard but also allowing systemic failures within key government bodies to continue unchecked. Public trust in government oversight depends on transparency and accountability. PACAC’s role is to ensure that public bodies like the PHSO and the Cabinet Office are held to account. However, when evidence is withheld, the committee itself becomes part of the problem.
PACAC and ‘Scrutiny’ of the Ombudsman
PACAC’s reports following its annual scrutiny of the PHSO have highlighted issues in how complaints are handled. The committee has pointed out the PHSO’s failure to resolve cases of injustice due to a controversial “severity of injustice” policy, which limits the cases that are fully investigated. Despite consistently calling for reforms and greater transparency from the Ombudsman, PACAC’s recommendations seem to have fallen on deaf ears, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the committee’s role.
PACAC and Scrutiny of the Cabinet Office
PACAC’s scrutiny of the Cabinet Office’s Freedom of Information (FOI) handling, particularly through its Clearing House, also raised red flags. The Clearing House coordinated FOI requests across departments, but PACAC uncovered serious transparency issues in how it operated. One of the major concerns was the Clearing House’s lack of clear guidelines on its role, limited public disclosures about how it processes FOI requests, and possible political interference in FOI decisions. Despite PACAC’s calls for transparency, the Cabinet Office rejected an independent audit by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), opting for an internal review instead, which has faced delays and lacks public credibility. PACAC’s findings suggested a lack of accountability within the Cabinet Office when it comes to FOI compliance. The committee also found evidence of departments treating FOI requests differently depending on the identity of the requestor, contradicting the applicant-blind principle of FOI law. Such practices undermine the government’s transparency and raise further questions about the effectiveness of PACAC’s oversight.
Conclusion: What’s the Point of PACAC?
PACAC is supposed to provide citizens with a pathway to challenge government failures and hold public officials accountable. But what is the point of PACAC if it fails to publish crucial evidence or provide explanations for why it hasn’t? If whistleblowers cannot trust PACAC to investigate their claims and publish the evidence, then the committee’s mandate is called into question. Moreover, if the government ignores PACAC’s recommendations—such as with the recent Ombudsman appointment—then what is the point of PACAC or its inquiries?
PACAC has discretion over whether to publish evidence submitted to the committee. This discretion allows it to censor those submissions considered to be ‘unsuitable’ and as explained above, no reason needs to be given. A member of PHSOtheFACTS has compiled the following table showing the total number of submissions in comparison with the number of published submissions. This demonstrates that in some years nearly half of the submissions go unpublished and therefore unrecorded.
Simon Hoare MP has been elected as the new chair of PACAC and promises a fresh start with a brand new committee. Will this new broom sweep clean? Here is his bid for selection.
It would be fantastic to have your support to Chair PACAC. In this very much changed Parliament I believe the Committee needs both an experienced voice AND a fresh pair of eyes. I bring the experience of Chairing the NI Select Committee for four years – building consensus and fostering cross party working. I would do the same as PACAC Chair. I would appoint a Labour colleague as Deputy Chair. All of the PACAC Committee will be new members. I would bring the fresh pair of eyes so that we don’t fall into the trap of ‘we used to do it like this’. That will not deliver progress.
phsothetruestory 
I’ve found something that PACAC does.
UIN 12170, tabled on 31 October 2024
Sarah Green (Liberal Democrat) asked the following:
‘To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, if he will make an assessment of the adequacy of guidance provided to people on (a) the process and (b) timelines in relation to the admissibility of any complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.’
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-10-31/12170
LikeLike
Good question from Sarah Green MP. I expect the Cabinet Office will brush it off by saying the Ombudsman is independent of government.
LikeLike
So much stuff under the carpet that only infants can walk on it without bashing their heads on the ceiling.
Answer:
‘The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman publishes guidance on what it can and cannot investigate, timescales and what those making complaints can expect. The Ombudsman is independent of Government, so it is for the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee to consider whether the guidance is adequate.’
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-10-31/12170
LikeLike
In this ongoing case, the whistleblower has encountered further significant challenges with data requests to the House of Commons. Despite detailed submissions to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC), the whistleblower was informed that no relevant personal data was located. This response contradicts documented communications acknowledging evidence contributions, raising serious concerns about the mishandling and potential suppression of information. The apparent lack of diligence in locating these records suggests an ongoing effort to alter narratives surrounding the case. The urgency of the situation, coupled with the alleged malicious prosecution the whistleblower faces, seems to necessitate PACAC’s oversight to ensure that these issues are addressed comprehensively. Immediate access to the data, in accordance with SAR and FOI legislation, is crucial to uphold the integrity of the process.
LikeLike
What’s the point of PACAC?
Would the Trustpilot reviews of the PHSO be even worse without it!!!
https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.ombudsman.org.uk
I have seen some PACAC members ask excellent questions, but nothing PACAC does seems to improve the PHSO – the complaints just keep stacking up.
Baked-in ineffectiveness dressed up as scrutiny!
LikeLike
In October 2017, I was invited to take part in KPMG led day seminar for M. Sc students at the NHS Leadership Academy. Presentations concerned vulnerable adult safeguarding and financial abuse, KPMG evidently had unlimited supplies of Monopoly money. Thanks again for alerting me to this opportunity. All NHS managers, the students were from the universities of Birmingham and Manchester. Could this be why I was advised – warned might be a better word – repeated phone calls, – not to reveal the names of any trusts involved in the case on which I was reporting ? Or my own address? Or the name of my MP – who had obtained records not released to me, including the findings of a Best Interests meeting.
NHS safeguarding failures documented in my parents’ NHS records were shocking – especially in my mother’s mental health records. Their entire histories had been ‘ misrepresented’ by a third party, with serious consequences for my mother’s cardiac care – two valves damaged by rheumatic fever aged 7. Medication prescribed after verbal reports from a third party slowed down heart action. *
Only one of my formal complaints succeeded – A mental health letter naming my mother at the top, and addressed to a GP referred to the treatment of a different person, name, dob and address given, and only 11 years older than me. Referred, successfully, to the ICO, no effect whatsoever on all the rest. The DHSC, NHS England, NHS Digital, and the NDG all stated that they did not have any infoirmation regarding responsibility for the safety of NHS records released to third parties. ( FOI requests, 2021, 2022. Tried simple requests, and also, safety when release of data is by a doctor ‘ working outside his NHS employment’ – PHSO term , internal case file. Result – ‘ By law, we can’t investigate this. NHS agreed.
In December 2017 the PACAC accepted my submission on the same subject. Parliamentary privilege , of course, changed nothing,
LikeLike
PACAC is a paper tiger. It has no power to hold anyone accountable. It goes through the motions of scrutinising the PHSO but it is merely performative. The House of Commons Standing Order 146 clearly states that the role of PACAC is to examine the reports produced by the PHSO and laid before the House and matters in connection therewith. That’s it. And yet both PACAC and the PHSO claim that PACAC holds the PHSO to account. This is the worst form of gaslighting of the public by Parliament.
To illustrate the impotence of PACAC it is only necessary to look at the report it published on 31 March 2023 in which it stated that the decision by the PHSO to no longer consider less serious health complaints was not appropriate. 2 months later, on 30 May 2023, the PHSO ignored PACAC and made the decision, which PACAC had judged to be inappropriate, permanent.
LikeLike
David Czarnetzki says:
Your whistleblower is to be congratulated for firstly submitted the evidence to PACAC and then for exposing the fact the committee refused to publish it.
Readers might like to refer back to my blog on this site dated 10th June 2024 “Reputation Management – the PHSO way”. In it I describe how, in his final year of office, the Ombudsman contacted various organisations, including other Ombudsmen, for supportive comments to be submitted as evidence to PACAC.
The full list of the organisations touted, including those who submitted evidence, is outlined in the blog. This goes some way to explaining why for the year 2022-23 there was a substantial increase in the percentage of submissions published as opposed to a steady decline in publications over the previous four years.
Simon Hoare and the new PACAC Committee have a lot of work to do. A predominant issue is:
Will a new Ombudsman be appointed before the annual scrutiny or will the scrutiny come first with Rebecca Hilsenrath, as Acting Ombudsman, being subject to the committees questions?
We wait to see and can only hope that the complaints system regarding the NHS and Government Departments gets the overhaul it needs as recommended by previous PACAC committees over several years. These recommendations were ignored by the outgoing Conservative Government. Labour Government take note!
LikeLike