Search results

Monday 1 October sees the implementation of the majority of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (the Act). Parts of the Act came into operation in April 2007, namely the creation of a new criminal offence of wilful neglect or ill treatment, the provision of Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) in England, and the Code of Practice governing the Act.The months leading up to October have been an exceptionally busy time for the Public Guardianship Office (PGO). The new legislation creates a new Office of the Public Guardian (OPG), which will replace the existing PGO. But there is more to this change than a simple re‐arrangement of words, as shown in this article.

This paper aims to examine the investigation process employed by the Office of the Public Guardian (OPG). This process is used whenever an allegation of abuse is received against either an attorney acting under a registered lasting or enduring power of attorney or against a deputy appointed by the court of protection to make decisions on behalf of someone who lacks the capacity to make those decisions themselves.

Case studies are used to demonstrate both how the investigation process works in practice and how one works in partnership with other organisations to help safeguard vulnerable adults.

The OPG works in partnership with a range of other relevant organisations to protect vulnerable adults from financial abuse. It details the types of activities, the OPG investigating officer may undertake to examine allegations of abuse and the targets set to help ensure any allegations are investigated promptly and effectively.

The duties bestowed upon the public guardian under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, together with a general growing awareness of financial abuse, have had a significant impact upon the work of the investigations team. The case studies included exemplify the kinds of outcomes in cases of abuse and also demonstrate how Attorneys are subject to the same investigative scrutiny as court appointed deputies.

Three decades ago, the National Audit Office (NAO) in the UK acquired the powers to evaluate the extent that the British Administration was managed with economy, efficiency and effectiveness. The NAO has since adopted a dual mission: to help Parliament hold government to account and to improve public service. This study aims to investigate value-for-money (VFM) auditors’ internalisation of a dual organisational identity: “obstructive” actions as representatives of a Supreme Audit Institution (SAI) and “enabling good practice”, induced by a will stated in the mission that the NAO authorities have adopted.

The organisational identity held and promoted by VFM auditors working at the NAO was explored in this research project. The authors specifically examined the understanding of those who claim to be serving both Parliament and organisations audited in their quest for performance improvement. The authors prompted the auditors to explain how they manage to reconcile these seemingly incompatible roles, namely, that of guardians and watchdogs who must publicly report gaps noted and that of assistants in government’s learning process. To this end, the authors conducted a field study at the NAO in September 2012 during which 21 auditors were interviewed individually and as part of two discussion groups.

The findings indicate that the auditors interviewed do not perceive a dichotomy in NAO’s double mission, which they believe to be congruent with their audience’s expectations. They draw meaning and usefulness from their role of monitoring the Administration if they believe they have contributed to improve public affairs management. In their view, the singular role of guardian no longer suffices. The authors conclude that VFM auditors’ recently acquired identity of “moderniser” reflects a self-efficacy expectation that prevents them from recognising the apparent paradox within their dual identity and that lets them fantasise about their real influence on the Administration.

Admittedly, the limited number of auditors interviewed and who took part in discussion groups is not conducive to generalisation of the conclusions to all auditors in the NAO or to other SAIs. However, although modest in number, the auditor respondents have accumulated many years of VFM audit practice and have contributed to the production of many reports. The respondents could therefore rightfully speak of their work as VFM auditors and as representatives of an institution such as the NAO.

This study contributes to the debates about the place and role of SAIs in the control environment of Administrations. By soliciting testimonials from the actors working within the NAO, the authors could thus question certain a priori assumptions held by stakeholders in the political and administrative world for whom auditors are mere “watchdogs” of Administrations, and nothing more.

The dual mission that the NAO has adopted (similar to many other SAIs) has been formally and publicly stated. It was therefore worth investigating how experienced auditors such as those interviewed had internalised this mission. The authors argue that this dual mission, perhaps inspired by the managerialist culture that has shaped changes to the British Administration (and many other occidental Administrations) since the early 1980s and that is seemingly encouraged by Government, twists the legislator’s intentions, which are to consider SAIs’ auditors as guardians and watchdogs of Administrations, not as agents of change and improvement.

Abuse and misuse of Substitute Decision-Making (SDMg) authority impacts the lives of children and adults with decision-making disabilities. The concerns raised in this paper amplify previous attention addressed by advocacy agencies and law reformists such as the Law Commission of Ontario. I analyse problems associated with Plenary Guardianship from both the lived experience of the non-guardian perspective and from the authority bestowed to the Guardian pursuant to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1990 of Western Australia legitimating the unintended capacity to abuse one’s substitute decision-making authority. Substitute decision-making arrangements enable decisions to be made on behalf of a person with a decision-making disability; usually made when such arrangements are necessary and subject to safeguards. Detrimentally, the substitute decision-maker (SDM) can assert broader powers beyond sensible measures that include thwarting investigations undertaken by family members; removing family members from the life of the person for whom an order is made; inappropriately applying a paternalistic or ‘best interest’ approach to decision-making where other approaches are required; failing to consider the individual’s wishes or making decisions contrary to those wishes; having insufficient contact with the individual; and, sharing insufficient or incorrect information. Moreover, they may subject the individual for whom an SDM order is made to experimental medical treatment in tandem with imposing or condoning severe and harmful restrictive-practices. Consequently, the second issue addressed in this paper concerns normalising both chemical and physical restrictive-practices that are both morally abhorrent and clinically highly questionable. Furthermore, often undertaken by service providers and their contracted psychiatrists and treating teams, endorsed under authority of a collaborating Guardian or SDM.

The text of a lecture given by Alan Rusbridger, Editor of The Guardian, to mark the opening of the new facilities for the Department of Journalism at the University of Central Lancashire, Preston. The theme of the lecture is public trust in what journalists write. Argues that, despite the public’s lack of trust in newspapers, they do in fact uncover many truths that business, industry and Government are attempting to conceal. Examples are provided from the energy industry, science and the environment, transport, Home Office and food safety. Describes the important role The Guardian’s Readers’ Editor has had in increasing public trust in the newspaper.

The paper takes up the challenge offered in the call for papers for this special issue to explore the notion of public relations as “ethical guardian”. The approach taken is to review some influential academic perspectives as well as practitioner perspectives that emerged throughout the 20th century. It is argued that the ethics and social responsibility have long been an intrinsic part of public relations self‐identity. The paper identifies a number of problems for the public relations occupation that arise from its historical legacy and considers the implications for professional status.

This chapter reviews the economic turn in criminology to contextualise the prominence of market rationalities in penal privatisation and outsourcing in England and Wales. It illuminates how fiscal crisis and austerity have provided opportunities for transferring state penal assets and powers to private interests on an unprecedented scale. A series of scandals relating to fraud and mismanagement by private companies have revealed regulatory gaps and wilful oversight on the part of legislators. These factors virtually guarantee that state regulators will continue to be disadvantaged in asserting the public interest.

The chapter brings together the literatures on prison privatisation with theoretical critiques of neoliberal influences on state disaggregation. It applies those insights to recent trends and controversies surrounding the privatisation of prison and probation services in England and Wales.

The race to privatise more prisons and resettlement provisions in England and Wales is placing additional strains on an already inadequate regulatory system, which virtually guarantees that future scandals and crises relating to private sector custodianship will recur.

This chapter explores the under-appreciated criminogenic and governmental challenges to the regulatory environment which are brought about by outsourcing.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was uncovered in January 2017 detailing the sharing of patient data from NHS Digital to the Home Office. It signified a deepening of the hostile environment’s presence in the NHS, and was comprehensively rejected by medical professionals. In November 2018, following extensive action calling for its removal, the MoU was withdrawn. This chapter explores how three factors: the lack of legal basis, wide reaching effects, and ethical conflicts of the MoU led to the success of this action, and aims to apply these lessons to other areas of hostile environment policy. It will be established that ethics proved the most influential factor in inciting the opposition, however, all factors may have been integral to the overall success. It shall be demonstrated that, although the success of this action promises much with regards to charging policy, it may be of limited applicability to other areas of the hostile environment.