If The Home Secretary Didn't Know There Were Deportation Targets The She Shouldn't Be The Home Secretary And If She Did Know There Deportation Targets But Misled Parliament And The Public Then She Still Shouldn't Be The Home Secretary (47)

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read about our campaign for a public inquiry

into the Ombudsman Services Broken Solution to ADR.

To: The Leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretary /  The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and the CEO and Chief Ombudsman at Ombudsman Services:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up (47)

 

47) If The Home Secretary Didn't Know There Were Deportation Targets Then She Shouldn't Be The Home Secretary And If She Did Know There Were Deportation Targets But Misled Parliament And The Public Then She Still Shouldn't Be The Home Secretary.

 

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark, Mr Javid and Mr Shand Smith,

 

The Independent's headline is:

Amber Rudd summoned back to parliament for questioning as calls grow for resignation

The Independent tells us that,

"Amber Rudd admits deportation targets are used by Home Office after denying It.

Rudd is due to give a statement in the House of Commons on Monday in which she is expected to again apologise for giving inaccurate information                

Amber Rudd summoned back to parliament for questioning as calls grow for resignation

She is due to give a statement in the House of Commons on Monday, in which she is likely to apologise again for claims she made about the government’s use of deportation targets.

Yvette Cooper, the chair of an influential parliamentary committee, said she had also asked the beleaguered home secretary to answer MPs’ questions amid “serious concern” over the accuracy of her previous statements."

 

The Ombudsman Services Property Ombudsman also appeared to make inaccurate statements but apart from the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign no one else expressed any concern about them, whatsoever.

 

For example:

 

We wrote to the then Chair of Ombudsman Services, Professor Dame Janet Finch to ask her about the following;

 

Q. 89: I asked the Independent Assessor to comment on the professional integrity of the RICS Firm given the Property Ombudsman's statement that, "I did not look at the photographs " and "Your view seems to be that external photographs taken without express permission are somehow inadmissible because they amount to evidence gathered in a suspect way."

 

(But the RICS Firm had previously stated they would NOT come to our home again!)

 

I pointed out to the Independent Assessor that I knew what I thought, but then I'm not the Ombudsman. I know that a teacher standing outside a pupil's home photographing it would be in serious trouble but that similar standards (of behaviour) do not seem to apply to certain surveyors.

 

The Ombudsman had the evidence (knew how it had been gathered. Knew that it was misleading and chose "not to seek them out" as she put it) but seems to have seen nothing wrong with this.

 

The Independent Assessor's response was, "The Terms of Reference, which can be downloaded from the website, provide that the procedure for the conduct of an investigation will be such as the Ombudsman considers appropriate subject, in brief, to the duty to proceed fairly, to make reasoned decisions, not to disclose details of a complaint except in certain circumstances, and to have regard to any the rule to law, contract, code of conduct."

 

That is not what the Terms of Reference say and 7.3 is quite specific on the matter. It states - "Information passed to the Ombudsman will be disclosed to the other party unless reasons are given setting out circumstances justifying reasons for non-disclosure." 

 

Why was it that not only did I not get the other sides information, I didn't get an explanation from the Ombudsman setting out her reasons for non-disclosure either.

None of the information contained in the Firm's two messages of 02 and 12 November was ever disclosed to me. I didn't receive a justification for their non-disclosure either. It's a crazy Catch 22 situation. By never knowing what is being said about me how am I ever going to know that I should have been given a reason for their non-disclosure?

The Ombudsman had written to me on the 24th August: "I would reiterate that the question of whether the Firm has acted in a matter consistent with the standards of conduct required is a matter for the professional body concerned, which in this case would be RICS."

 Yet the Terms of Reference 10(b) state that the duty of the Ombudsman is: "To report to the RICS Regulatory Body any cases which involve serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by RICS Member Firms." 

There are two issues here:

 

Firstly, it is a matter for the Ombudsman - it is a duty (of which she and the Independent Assessor both seem to be totally unaware) - to report breaches to the RICS Regulatory Board. Otherwise, how are they ever going to know if the Ombudsman doesn't tell them? It would be a remarkable turn of events should the Member Firm report itself to RICS.

Secondly, if the Ombudsman didn't consider the Firm's actions to be serious enough to report to the RICS Regulatory Board surely she should have said why. They are, after all, part of her duties and responsibilities as set out in the Terms of Reference.

 

It is not, "a matter for the professional body" - it is a matter for her as Ombudsman - a duty. Opting out is not an option.

 We asked Professor Dame Janet Finch if this was not a case of institutional bias on the part of the Ombudsman. Either the Ombudsman doesn't know her duties as an Ombudsman and therefore shouldn't be an Ombudsman or knows her duties but is misleading a complainant in which case she still shouldn't be an Ombudsman.

Professor Dame Janet Finch didn't reply but instead passed our complaint to the CEO and Chair he in turn passed our complaint about the Ombudsman back to the Ombudsman who said she'd already answered our complaint.

Q. Mr Shand Smith, when our MP, Oliver Colvile, wrote to you about this matter your response was that we'd misinterpreted the Terms of Reference. How had we misinterpreted them - you didn't say.

This was what DJS Research referred to as, "the further representation process" and was just one of the 100 questions we sought to raise about the company's Broken Solution.

 

In the Ombudsman Services Annual Property Report for 2016 we read the following: "Key Themes: Often poor record keeping alongside a lack of holistic thinking - not following the trail. and incorrect assumptions drives survey reports not to accurately reflect the condition of the property on the date of the survey."

The above example appears to combine the following:

1. A lack of understanding of the company's Terms of Reference on the part of the Property Ombudsman and Independent Assessor.

2. A failure to disclose evidence.

3. A failure to look at the evidence (to seek it out).

4. A failure to give reasons for not disclosing the evidence.

5. A failure to follow the trail ie the Member Firm had stated that in hindsight they should have put things in writing after each visit. Why didn't they send us a copy of the photographs they'd taken - some apparently within side the garden boundary?

6. Why did the Member Firm come to our home unannounced after stating in writing they saw no further purpose in doing so?

7. If there was no further purpose in coming to our home why did they then come to our home and photograph it?

8. How did they know we were, "upgrading to slate" when there NO slates on the roof.

9. Why did the Member Firm include our roofers van in one of their shots?

10. Why didn't the Ombudsman seek out a reason from her Member Firm as to why it had not replied to our emails regarding this matter?

These were just some of the issues surrounding one part of our complaint.

Q. Mr Shand Smith, isn't the above an example of; poor record keeping, a lack of holistic thinking, not following the trail and incorrect assumptions on the part of your Property Ombudsman and doesn't it explain why nearly 90% of property complainants are dissatisfied with your broken solution?

Ms Rudd is facing continued calls to resign over her handling of the Windrush scandal.

• Read more

Amber Rudd insists she was not aware of deportation targets

Ms Cooper said she had asked Ms Rudd to reappear in front of the Home Affairs Select Committee to explain why she had appeared to be unaware of her department’s numerical targets for deportations.

Q. Mr Shand Smith, wasn't the Independent Assessor and Ombudsman's interpretation of your company's Terms of Reference, misleading?

Q. Mr Shand Smith, over the past decade how many RICS surveyors were reported to the RICS Regulatory Board for serious or persistent breaches of the RICS Rules of Conduct by the Ombudsman Services Lead Property Ombudsman?

Q. Mr Shand Smith, why wasn't data on this matter included in your report to the OFT monitors and in your Annual Property report to consumers?

Ms Rudd has initially told the committee the Home Office did not use targets for deportations, only for this to later be proved untrue. She then claimed she had been unaware of the targets, but this too prompted questions when a leaked memo revealed details of the policy had been sent to her office.

Q. Mr Shand Smith, if the Ombudsman was unaware of her duties as an Ombudsman as set out in the company's Terms of Reference  would this help to explain why your solution is so completely broken?

Ms Cooper told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “We have obviously been given inaccurate information in parliament twice now.

“This is a serious concern, and I am calling Amber Rudd to come back and give further evidence to the committee.

“I think we will also want to hear from the permanent secretary as well, because this raises some questions about the way the Home Office is operating.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, shouldn't Parliament be asking Ombudsman Services to fully explain just exactly how it solutions became broken, who broke them and why?

As she fought to cling on to her job, Ms Rudd used a series of tweets to respond to the leaked memo – around nine hours after it was originally published.

She wrote: “I will be making a statement in the House of Commons on Monday in response to legitimate questions that have arisen on targets and illegal migration.

“I wasn’t aware of specific removal targets. I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t. I didn’t see the leaked document, although it was copied to my office as many documents are.

“As home secretary I will work to ensure that our immigration policy is fair and humane.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mt Javid, clearly an ADR scheme that is broken cannot be fair and humane. Why hasn't this Government done anything about it and why hasn't it compensated The Broken Scheme's thousands of victims?

Labour reiterated its calls for Ms Rudd to quit over the issue.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, aren't the issues confronting the Home Secretary and Ombudsman Srvices:Property Chief Ombudsman similar? Why has no-one from the company been held to account by Parliament for its, "broken solution" - a "broken solution" that has impacted on the lives of thousands of individuals who in desperation turned to it seeking fair and just ADR?

The Full English Cover-Up at Ombudsman Services:Property would appear to be a well-oiled and slick operation. An unbroken solution due to a well orchestrated political cover-up. 

 No need yet for Michael Gove's services to truth and reconciliation.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.

The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com and www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.

Please comment - fund our office - and join the campaign.

The RICS'Broken Solution To Regulation And Its Appointed Company's Broken Solution To ADR. (46)

To: The leader of the House of Commons / The Business Secretary and The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government:

Ombudsman Services Part 4: The Full English Cover-Up. (46)

46) The RICS' Broken Solution To Regulation And Its Appointed Company's Broken Solution To ADR.

Dear Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid,

The Guardian's investigative journalists now tell us that:

Amber Rudd was sent migrant removal targets, leak reveals

Exclusive: Secret memo undermines home secretary’s claim she was unaware of targets. 

 

Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, when approving the Ombudsman Services:Property ADR scheme on behalf of the British taxpayer, the Government set out a series of criteria - targets - that those administering the scheme were expected to meet.
The Government's Criterion 14 states: "The scheme's effectiveness must be monitored on a regular basis;
- Performance indicators on the scheme's operation to be agreed with the OFT.
- Scheme operator to provide information on Customer Satisfaction Surveys and performance indicators to the OFT at specified intervals."
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, since DJS Research ceased producing their highly critical Customer Satisfaction Reports for Ombudsman Services in 2011 there have been NO such surveys since. Why has the Government permitted this to happen?

Nick Hopkins and Heather Stewart

Fri 27 Apr 2018 22.20 BST First published on Fri 27 Apr 2018 14.39 BST

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share via Email

Shares

11,287

11k

"The memo referred to promises made to Amber Rudd to increase the number of enforced returns of migrants by 10%. Photograph: Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images "

"Amber Rudd’s insistence that she knew nothing of Home Office targets for immigration removals risks unravelling following the leak of a secret internal document prepared for her and other senior ministers."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, OFT/Government targets to monitor this property scheme's effectiveness in the shape of Customer Satisfaction Surveys - are simply no longer carried out by the company's Chair, Board and CEO. Why was this permitted to happen?
"The six-page memo, passed to the Guardian, says the department has set “a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18” and boasts that “we have exceeded our target of assisted returns”.
 

In 2011, the CEO and Chief Ombudsman boasted that, "This year we successfully managed a significant increase in property complaints." Yet DJS Research provided statistical evidence that suggested otherwise. Their final Customer satisfaction report revealed that 64% of property complainants now believed their customer journey to have been; unsatisfactory of very unsatisfactory. This was up on the previous year. As were ALL the indicators they measured.
65% of 260, "successfully managed" cases resulted in 166 individuals - human beings with names not numbers - stating that they were either dissatisfied or vey dissatisfied with the CEO and Chief Ombudsman's successful management of their property complaint.

 Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, how could Government possibly be satisfied with such a dismal performance?

"It adds that progress has been made on a “path towards the 10% increased performance on enforced returns, which we promised the home secretary earlier this year”.

Q&A

What are enforced departures?

"There are three layers of state-enforced or enforceable departures of immigrants from the UK: deportations, administrative removals and voluntary departures."
Deportations apply to people and their children whose removal is deemed 'conducive to the public good' by the home secretary. They can also be recommended by a court. 
Administrative removals refer to cases involving the enforced removal of non-citizens who have either entered the country illegally, outstayed a visa, or violated the conditions of their leave to remain.
Voluntary departures are people against whom enforced removal has been initiated; the term 'voluntary' simply describes how they leave. There are three sub-categories: 
a) Those who depart via assisted voluntary return schemes.
b) Those who make their own travel arrangements and tell the authorities.
c) Those who leave without notifying the government.

Was this helpful?

Thank you for your feedback.

DJS Research's departure from Ombudsman Services was we presume, "enforced." Since 2011 there have been NO Customer Satisfaction Surveys produced specifically for OS:Property.

 Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, how was this helpful for property complainants? We would thank you for your feedback.

The 2010-11 Annual Report states:
"The complexity of property complaints has continued to be a challenge and something that OS:P has addressed by developing expertise across the business and introducing a new approach to reports. We have worked with the enquiry team to improve their knowledge so that they understand the complexity of property complaints."
Would you have a member of the cabin staff fly the airplane on the strength that they a) knew it was an airplane and b) that south was in that direction? Hopefully not.
Yet a 166 dissatisfied complainants is considered by the Chair, Board and CEO to be the, "successful management" of property complaints.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, prior to 2010-11, property complainants had their complex complaints investigated by those who inexplicably didn't understand their complexity. How could this possibly have met ANY of the Government's targets?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, where is the natural justice this country is so proud of and don't the victims of this "solution" deserve a public inquiry into the mishandling of their complex and costly complaints?

There were no reports for 2012 and 2013.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, was this not a deliberate attempt by the company to cover-up a trend of ever-growing complainant dissatisfaction with all the areas that DJS Research had once measured?
 

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, in permitting this appalling state of affairs not only to continue but to worsen significantly, hasn't Government colluded and contributed to this, "broken solution" and isn't it engaged in a Full English Cover-Up of what went so disastrously wrong for the consumer?

"The document was prepared by Hugh Ind, the director general of the Home Office’s Immigration Enforcement agency, in June last year and copied to Rudd and Brandon Lewis, the then immigration minister, as well as several senior civil servants and special advisers."

Guardian Today: the headlines, the analysis, the debate - sent direct to you

"Read more

More than eight hours after the Guardian approached the Home Office with details of the leaked memo, and as speculation swirled in Westminster about her future, Rudd finally responded in a series of defiant late-night tweets.
The home secretary insisted she had not seen the leaked memo, “although it was copied to my office, as many documents are”. 

 In this she is not alone. Not looking at things that might come back to bite you is apparently standard operating practice at Ombudsman Services. We had to obtain information through a Data Protection Act request. When we did we discovered that the Lead Property Ombudsman didn't actually look at the evidence.

We were told by the Ombudsman; "I did not view the three photographs attached to the 12th November email. Prints of the photographs were sent in later but they were not within the paper file (we sometimes keep a paper document file alongside the computer record). I did not seek them out...so in answer to your second question I did not look at the photographs of November."

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, how on earth can you successfully manage a complex property complaint when you don't seek out the evidence?

This, apparently, is how Ombudsman Services conduct investigations of consumers' complaints whilst satisfying the Government monitors of this Government approved scheme.
The Guardian article continues with, She repeated her claim that she “wasn’t aware of specific removal targets”, adding: “I accept I should have been and I’m sorry that I wasn’t.”
She promised to make a fresh statement to MPs on Monday about the affair, and concluded: “As home secretary I will work to ensure that our immigration policy is fair and humane.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, by 2017 the dissatisfaction rate with what the CEO and Chief Ombudsman has called a superb model of ADR has risen to almost 90% and 1049 complainants were instead fobbed off with a, "broken solution." Hasn't the Government's policy to property complainants been unfair and inhumane?

"The leak will raise questions about Rudd’s public position on what she knew about the setting of targets for the enforced removal of migrants."
The issue has become particularly toxic because of coverage of the Windrush generation – many of whom have been made destitute, homeless and denied benefits and healthcare because of the Home Office’s “hostile environment” policy towards those it deems to be lacking appropriate documentation to be in the UK.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, have any victims of this company's broken solution to private ADR been made destitute, homeless or suffered severe illnesses as a consequence of the executives' inability to understand the complexity of what they were investigating?

Play Video

3:10

Windrush citizens: 'It's like having your world torn apart' – video

"Rudd told the home affairs select committee this week that the Home Office did not have targets for removals. She had to backtrack when it emerged there were localised targets, but she said she was unaware of them. The leak undermines her narrative.
Forced back into parliament on Thursday, she admitted there were operational targets but said she would be abandoning the policy."
Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, what happened to the Government targets - criteria - used when monitoring the success of  this private ADR scheme?

Amber Rudd's 10 days of contrition for Windrush scandal

Read more

"On Thursday, the home secretary told reporters she had “not approved, seen or cleared any targets for removals”, and suggested any targets that did exist were regional rather than national.
“We were gobsmacked by what she said, and that she stuck to her guns,” a Home Office source told the Guardian. “It is inconceivable that Amber Rudd did not know about the targets.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, won't consumers also be gobsmacked when they learn that Government set targets for the Ombudsman Services ADR scheme, monitored those targets and yet permitted nearly 90% of complainants to come away with a, "broken solution?"

Advertisement

Sources said there were regular meeting between ministers and senior officials at which specific national targets were discussed, including details of how Home Office departments would achieve the 10% increase in the number of people being removed from the UK every year – a goal set by Rudd personally.
The revelations are likely to reignite the row that has already led to calls for Rudd to resign over her handling of the Windrush scandal, and it comes amid widespread criticism of the hostile environment engineered by the Home Office to accelerate the country’s deportation programme.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, the 90% dissatisfaction rate at Ombudsman Services suggests that a similar hostile environment was sanctioned and had enacted at the company - otherwise things would have been different. Is this not also scandalous?

The leaked memo, dated 21 June 2017, was a “summary of performance” prepared by Immigration Enforcement, which is responsible for tracking down and deporting immigration offenders.
It states that 12,503 enforced returns were achieved in 2016-17, which was regarded as a “success given the particularly damaging impact” from the number of late claims for asylum.
The memo adds: “IE has set a target of achieving 12,800 enforced returns in 2017-18, aided by the redistribution of resources towards this area. This will move us along the path towards the 10% increased performance on enforced returns, which we promised the home secretary earlier this year.”
The summary then moves on to “assisted returns”, cases where, for instance, someone has left the country voluntarily on a flight paid for by the British government.
“Typically these will be our most vulnerable returnees,” the memo says. “We have exceeded our target of assisted returns. We set an internal target of 1,250 of these returns for 2016-17 … we delivered 1,581.”
At the bottom of the memo is a list of all those who received copies of the findings. The home secretary, permanent secretary, second permanent secretary and special advisers are the first to be named.
Sources told the Guardian the briefing was one of several to have been circulated in the Home Office in recent months outlining the target culture.
They said ministers had supported the extra effort being put into two specific programmes to help the department meet its targets: Operation Perceptor and Operation Gopik. The former involves arresting and deporting people on the same day, the latter targets EU nationals who have three criminal convictions.
“These programmes are being run by civil servants, but the policies are being driven by politicians,” the Home Office source said. “The pressure comes from the top, and Amber Rudd is at the top. She is the one cracking the whip.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, the monitoring of the Ombudsman Services ADR scheme is conducted by civil servants. Have these civil servants been, "politically influenced" and "engaged" by the RICS and does this explain the near 90% consumer dissatisfaction rate with the company's broken solution?

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, which Minister cracks the whip when it comes to oversight for this Government approved and monitored scheme?

Operation Perceptor is understood to be increasingly important. It targets people who are easier to arrest and deport, because most “same day” removals are of individuals with no family ties to the UK.

“The main risk is that these people may not know their rights and won’t be able to challenge what is happening,” the source said.
DJS research once reported on the numbers of complainants who sought to challenge the Property Ombudsman's decision but were unsuccessful. This ceased after DJS  Research were replaced.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, why have Government monitors and the company it approved stopped providing this information to the public and was it an attempt to cover-up the overwhelming complainant dissatisfaction with the inept investigation of their complaints?

The memo underlines the importance of the hostile environment, which the Home Office has rebranded the “compliant environment”.
It says: “We move closer to the creation of a truly compliant environment with every passing year and have begun to pick up some, as yet anecdotal, evidence suggesting new powers and interventions are influencing behaviours both in terms of encouraging upstream compliance and encouraging voluntary departures.”
The briefing outlines measures being taken to identify the NHS trusts in England and Wales where people in the country illegally might try to receive treatment.
“Over the past 12 months we have undertaken an intense programme of activity with the top 20 ‘highest risk’ trusts to improve their ability to identify chargeable patients. Our Local Partnership managers visited trusts to support frontline NHS staff to establish robust immigration status checking systems.

Advertisement

“They agreed memorandum of understandings with 16 of these trusts … [to] prevent upfront access to healthcare to which illegal immigrants are not entitled.”
Labour renewed its call for Rudd to resign following the emergence of the leaked memo.
The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, said: “Amber Rudd is hanging by a thread to shield the prime minister from her responsibilities as the initial architect of this cruel and callous approach to migration, which resulted in the Windrush scandal.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid. isn't a near 90% dissatisfaction rate with this company's broken solution not also scandalous and shouldn't those responsible for breaking the solution resign?

“She failed to read crucial documents which meant she wasn’t aware of the removal targets that have led to people’s lives being ruined. Another apology is not enough, she should take responsibility for chaos in the Home Office and resign.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, no-one seems to know how many people's lives have been ruined by this company's broken solution and no one at the company has yet apologised for this appalling state of affairs. Why hasn't anyone admitted responsibility for their incompetence and resigned?

Senior members of the home affairs select committee were discussing how best to hold Rudd to account in parliament next week. They also hope to interrogate the prime minister on what she knew about the targets culture.

Q. Mrs Leadsom, Mr Clark and Mr Javid, who in Parliament in the House of Lords and the House of Commons is holding those responsible for this broken solution to account?

The SNP’s Stewart McDonald pointed to the ministerial code, which says “ministers who knowingly mislead parliament will be expected to offer their resignation”.

Downing Street refused to be drawn on the leak for several hours. But after Rudd’s statement, a spokesman finally said: “The prime minister has full confidence in the home secretary and the hugely important work that she is carrying out at the Home Office.”

Q. Mrs Leadsom, as leader of the House of Commons, does the Prime Minister have full confidence in the Government monitors and Minister responsible for this Government approved ADR scheme?

Friends also rallied to her defence, with the digital minister, Margot James, saying she “must remain home secretary”.
With no secure majority and contentious Brexit legislation coming to parliament, the prime minister may be reluctant to dispatch a powerful pro-remain voice to the backbenches.
 

To the Ombudsmans61percent Campaign it seems indefensible that no one at Parliament has so far sought to comment on this ADR scheme and its hopelessly broken solution.
 

Yours sincerely,
Steve Gilbert - Workstock Number - 510458.
The Ombudsmans61percent Campaign is at: www.blogger.com - ombudsmans61percent campaign and at www.facebook.com Ombudsmans Sixtyone-percent.
Please comment. Please join our campaign for a public inquiry into Ombudsman Services and its broken solution.