When the new PACAC committee is finally formed they will have to get their skates on to recruit a new Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

Rebecca Hilsenrath’s appointment as interim Ombudsman comes to an end after 12 months, bringing us to the start of April 2025. We learn from William Wragg, the previous chair of PACAC that the process to replace (Sir) Rob Behrens took several months, starting in the summer with a list of 52 applicants. Following a rigorous interview process a name was put forward to the PM in January 2024, three months before Behrens left office. Will the new committee be able to deliver a suitable recommendation to the PM by January 2025? Or perhaps they already know who the next Ombudsman will be?

Shadow Paymaster General, John Glen seems to be the only person concerned about this issue. On 31st July he put the following question to the Cabinet Office.

Difficult to see how the appointment process remains in progress, given that the selection panel was disbanded but good to see that integrity and merit are high on the agenda.

On 30th September John Glen asked a further question regarding the role of the PM.

We have previously noted that PM Sunak sat on the recommendation to appoint Nick Hardwick for over three months resulting in the need for an interim appointment and questioned whether he had overstepped his powers. It would appear from the response of Georgia Gould that he does have decision-making power in this respect, even though the Ombudsman is independent of Government. Doesn’t this power present a conflict of interest?

To use Tinder terminology – a PM could continue to ‘swipe left’ until he finds someone amenable and the King would be none the wiser.

William Wragg was concerned enough to describe the events as ‘irregular’ and call upon the Minister for Constitution to rule on the matter.

…it is somewhat irregular that after a recruitment process lasting several months in which proper procedures have been followed, it seems that No. 10 is not prepared to recognise the recommended name from the recruitment panel. Could my hon. Friend explain?

Unfortunately, he was outed as a sex pest shortly after and stood down as chair of PACAC before receiving a response.

It would appear that the Treasury Solicitor is not aware of any decision-making powers in this regard.

On May 16th a pre-action protocol letter submitted by ex-government lawyer Mark Benney sought to judicially review the decision of the PM to appoint Rebecca Hilsenrath as interim Ombudsman.

On 21st June he was informed by the Treasury Solicitor that the PM has no such power.

In June the PM did not have the relevant decision-making power but by September he had. Why did William Wragg call the events ‘irregular’ if the PM had the right to decide whether to pass the recommendation on all along? Are our minds deceiving us?

Actually, as Winston well knew, it was only four years since Oceania had been at war with Eastasia and in alliance with Eurasia. But that was merely a piece of furtive knowledge which he happened to possess because his memory was not satisfactorily under control. Officially the change of partners had never happened. Oceania was at war with Eurasia: therefore Oceania had always been at war with Eurasia.  (George Orwell 1984)

So it was not mere oversight which prevented the appointment of Nick Hardwick, but a deliberate decision on the part of the PM not to pass on the recommendation to the King. Why would the PM risk the accusation of bias in the appointment process and jeopardise the oft-quoted ‘independence’ of the Ombudsman? What was the problem with Nick Hardwick?

Both Hardwick and Hilsenrath had been forced to resign from senior roles. In Hilsenrath’s case, she had personally breached lockdown rules but her resignation from the EHRC did not prevent her from stepping straight into a senior role at PHSO. Hardwick had previously been chair of the Parole Board and was forced to resign in 2018 over the decision to release John Worboys.

Although he was not personally involved in that decision his resignation letter makes it clear that he would not pass the buck.

“You told me that you thought my position was untenable,” he wrote. “I had no role in the decision of the panel in the case and believe I am capable of leading the Parole Board through the changes, many of which I have advocated, that will now be necessary.

“I am sorry for the mistakes that were made in this case but I have always made it clear that I will support the members and staff of the board in the very difficult individual decisions they make and I will accept accountability for the work of the board.

“I will not pass the buck to those who work under me. In these circumstances I inform you of my decision to resign with immediate effect.”

His actions demonstrate a high degree of integrity, as commented upon by the Parole Board’s Chief Executive, Martin Jones.

The Parole Board’s chief executive, Martin Jones, said: “Nick Hardwick and I have always been clear that we will support our members when they face criticism in making these important decisions. I am deeply sorry that Nick Hardwick has decided to resign, he is a man of real integrity, and I have been proud to work with him.”

Perhaps Hardwick has the wrong type of integrity to be the new Ombudsman and hold the government to account. And perhaps Hilsenrath, with her denial of wrongdoing, calling it merely a ‘technical failure to comply’ has just the right type.

Now where did Sunak leave that shoehorn?