mbers of the public do not have the
right to complain directly to the PCA; they must channel any such complaint
through a Member of Parliament Complainants do not have to provide precise
details of any maladministration; they simply have to indicate the difficulties
they have experienced as a result of dealing with an agency of central
government. It is the function of the PCA to discover whether the problem arose as a result of
maladministration. There is a 12 month time limit for raising complaints, but
the PCA has discretion to ignore this.
The powers of the PCA to investigate
complaints are similar to those of a High Court judge; thus, they may require
the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents, and wilful
obstruction of the investigation is treated as contempt of court.
On conclusion of an investigation,
the PCA submits reports to the MP who raised the complaint and to the principal
of the government office which was subject to the investigation. The ombudsman
has no enforcement powers but, if his recommendations are ignored and existing
practices involving maladministration are not altered, he may submit a further
report to both Houses of Parliament in order to highlight the continued bad
practice. The assumption is that, on the submission of such a report, MPs will
exert pressure on the appropriate minister of State to ensure that any
necessary changes in procedure are made.
Annual reports are laid before
Parliament and a Parliamentary Select Committee exists to oversee the operation
of the PCA. The operation of the PCA is subject to judicial review however, the
Parliamentary Commissioner for Public Standards, established after the Nolan
Inquiry into ‘cash for questions’ in Parliament, is not subject to judicial
review Barlow Clowes The first of these concerned the Barlow Clowes group of
companies. In 1988, Peter Clowes and three others were arrested and charged
with offences in connection with the Prevention of Fraud Act 1958 and theft.
The prosecution alleged that there had been an investment fraud of over £115
million. The main allegation was that members of the public were induced to
deposit their moneys in the belief that they would be invested in gilt-edged
securities, but that only £1.9 million was in fact so invested. The rest was
misappropriated by the defendants. Clowes alone faced charges of theft
totalling some £62 million. The PCA received hundreds of complaints from investors
who had lost their money in relation to the Barlow Clowes affair, all alleging maladministration
on the part of the Department of Trade and Industry which had responsibility
for licensing such investment companies. The PCA made five findings of
maladministration against the DTI and recommended that compensation should be
paid to those who had suffered as a result of it. Surprisingly, the Government
initially denied any responsibility for providing compensation. Subsequently,
after the PCA had expressed his regret at the Government’s initial stance, the
latter agreed to pay the recommended compensation payments, amounting to £150
million, but with the rider that it still accepted no legal liability
0 comments:
Post a Comment