Councillors in Norfolk will be provided with regular detailed analysis of the county council’s special educational needs services following a critical Ombudsman report.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman was asked to investigate, for a second time, the support Norfolk County Council provided to a boy.

The Ombudsman had previously issued a report in October 2018, after it found the council had not ensured the boy had a suitable education for eight months.

In the most recent case, the mother said the council again failed to provide her son with a suitable education after his school placement broke down, meaning he was without proper education for nearly four months. During that time, the mother had to pay for a personal tutor.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“I am concerned Norfolk council has again failed this boy and not provided him with an education appropriate for his needs, despite being made aware the school he was attending was no longer suitable.

“When we published our last report about the family’s situation, the council made steps to improve its services, but it is clear more could be done to learn from its mistakes.

“I hope that by increasing the level of scrutiny from councillors, a way can be found to ensure other children and their families do not fall through the cracks as has happened in this case.”

The investigation report was issued to both the council and the family before the Covid-19 lockdown and the Ombudsman understands the council has started to implement some of its recommendations to put things right.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to reimburse the mother for the cost of paying for her son’s education for nearly four months.

It will also pay her £1,400 for the seven months the son was without a suitable education and a further £250 for the distress and time and trouble she was put to.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council will review its decision-making process to make sure it is able to respond quickly and flexibly to the changing needs of children with special education needs and disabilities.

It will also review how it communicates internally to ensure information is shared between teams and departments about children who may be out of education, and where education is being provided but is not suitable, or is at risk of breaking down.

The council should also provide its People and Select Committee with regular updates on its performance for two financial years. This should include:

• the number of children out of education;
•  the average time for arranging alternative educational provision for children who are out of education;
• the average time taken to produce final Education Health and Care (EHC) plans and plan reviews compared with statutory timescales and;
• the number of upheld complaints about EHC plans and education provision from both the council and Ombudsman’s complaints processes.

A emissão ou revalidação de atestados médicos de incapacidade multiuso tem conhecido atrasos muito significativos. Esta conclusão esteve na base de uma recomendação dirigida em fevereiro último pela Provedora de Justiça ao Governo, com propostas que se encontram ainda em análise.

A eclosão da pandemia agravou em muito esta situação. Os médicos de saúde pública, que em geral compunham as juntas médicas para emissão destes atestados, foram chamados a desempenhar tarefas mais urgentes e a suspensão do funcionamento das juntas médicas foi acompanhada de medidas de salvaguarda que se verificou não darem resposta às necessidades.

Em face do número e do teor das queixas que continua a receber, e dado o cenário de imprevisibilidade quanto ao curso próximo da pandemia, a Provedora de Justiça decidiu dirigir-se novamente à Ministra da Saúde, formulando nova recomendação assente em duas medidas de urgência, extraordinárias e transitórias, sobre a prorrogação da validade de atestados em processo de renovação e sobre os doentes oncológicos agora diagnosticados. 

O texto desta segunda recomendação pode ser lido aqui.

REPUBLIC OF ALBANIA PEOPLE’S ADVOCATE
 
ACTIVITY REPORT OF THE JUSTICE APPOINTMENTS COUNCIL DURING 2019
 
1. Introduction 
 
The People's Advocate has followed with special attention and dedication the implementation of the Justice Reform in general and the activity of the Justice Appointments Council in particular. This is because the role of the People's Advocate in this case is two-fold: not only as a constitutional body envisaged for the protection and guaranteeing human rights and freedoms, but also as an institution to which the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and the Justice Reform legislation has conferred a special role and powers in this process.
The People's Advocate, as a national human rights institution, is a guarantor of the highest standards of the Rule of Law in Albania. The long-standing role of the People's Advocate in monitoring any human rights-related process has been further emphasized in light of the new constitutional changes which vested on our institution an additional specific mandate that relates precisely to the need to monitor the work of the Justice Appointments Council. That being said, it is worth noting that the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and Law no. 115/2016 “On the governance institutions of the justice system” have entrusted the People's Advocate with special observation and monitoring powers, not simply in formal terms, but with the goal to vest this institution with the necessary legitimacy (given also its proactive powers) to ensure that the highest standards are respected, in upholding the rights of applicants and the public at large.
So, Article 149/d, paragraph 3 of the Constitution stipulates that "... The People’s Advocate shall participate as an observer in the selection by lot and in the meetings and operations of the Justice Appointment Council." Similarly, Article 233 of Law no. 115/2016 "On governance bodies of the justice system" states that "Meetings of the Justice Appointments Council are held in-camera. The ’People's Advocate participates in the meetings and activities of the Council..." So, these above articles clearly sanction the lawmaker's will to ensure the presence of the People's Advocate also in the meetings were the formal and legal requirements are verified and evaluated for the candidates running for members to the Constitutional Court and the High Justice Inspector. 
From the above provisions, it turns out that the lawmaker decided that the JAC must conduct the selection procedures for candidates behind closed doors, without the presence of other subjects or interested parties (including the media or civil society organizations engaged in the justice field), but it guarantees the transparency through the participation of the People's Advocate in the meetings and activities of this body.1 
Being that the JAC activity is directly relevant to the establishment and smooth operation of the Constitutional Court and the election of the High Justice Inspector, based on the legal obligations set out in the above-cited legal acts, it is the task of the People's Advocate to prepare this report.

In order to clarify the position of our institution and the essence of powers conferred by the above legal framework, let us make a brief analysis. In contemporary literature, the notion observation or observer status is defined as the ability to pay attention to things and to notice more about them than most people. Usually, having an observer status at an administrative body with powers in the field of Justice (at JAC, in this case), the observation process involves several purposes. It is particularly conducted to generate empirical evidence for a broader analysis of the justice delivery system in a given country, to support efforts to reform the justice system and to communicate concerns about a matter or process.
The principles of observation include impartiality and active informed monitoring, and the constructive work with the body subject to observation (JAC), but not only. "Observation" means primarily being present at the meetings of the body being observed, by closely watching and following its administrative activity. So, it essentially entails getting acquainted with all the output of this activity, i.e. any acts produced by the body during and outside meetings. The institution entrusted with the observing duty should display the highest levels of professionalism, discretion and knowledge. This institution, namely the People’s Advocate, should always be impartial and seen as impartial, especially by not imparting public comments on ongoing proceedings. Often, the monitoring notion overlaps with observation. Monitoring mainly refers to processes extended in time, which may in fact include many instances of observing the administrative activity of the body being observed.
Precisely for these reasons, reporting on the observed activity of the JAC is an important mechanism not only to present findings effectively (as indicators of the People’s Advocate’s successful performance of this constitutional and legal duty), but also to make key recommendations for moving forward the justice reform on the constitutional and legal tracks. This role can also serve as a valuable tool for dialogue among stakeholders and interested parties in this Reform.
The spirit conveyed by the Constitution in its provisions related to the justice reform defines and assigns atypical powers to the People's Advocate2, directly relevant to this very important reform for the country and the consolidation of the rule of law, by combining and complementing these powers in the reforming processes to the mandate and key duties of the People's Advocate as set out in Law on. 8454 of 4.02.1999 “On the People's Advocate”, as amended.
The People’s Advocate must not be seen as insignificant to the implementation of this reform which entails per se two primary goals: combat corporatism and guarantee full transparency in decisionmaking, in order to ensure the expected and indispensable trust in the justice system in the country. It considers the restoration of confidence in the domestic justice system as vital to all Albanian society, therefore, the People’s Advocate has given its contribution by monitoring many processes carried out under the Justice Reform.
                                                       
To understand the nature and purpose of the legal provisions governing the activity of the JAC and the constitutional role of the People’s Advocate in its active and proactive observation of this activity across all its functional spectrum, we referred in this report also to the Venice Commission opinions which provide valuable guidelines for this purpose, given that the JAC as a public body must operate subject to the check and balance system.
 
Reading of this report requires a clear and correct understanding of the People’s Advocate’s role in observing the JAC activities, pointing out that this role construes a novelty and extra safeguard to the transparency inter alia of the activity of one of the newly established bodies to govern the justice system.
We take the opportunity to strongly emphasize that the current selection procedure for members to the Constitutional Court and the High Justice Inspector as provided for in the Constitution and the Law 115/2016 "On the governance institutions of the justice system” constitutes a very important step in ensuring an objective and merit-based selection. This procedure represents a significant step forward in regulating the selection of members to the Constitutional Court and the High Justice Inspector. The various aspects dealt with in this report should be read in the light of possible improvements in the implementation of these procedures in accordance with legal requirements.

© NEIWA


Adoptée en octobre 2019, la directive européenne garantit un niveau élevé de protection des lanceurs d’alerte. Les Etats membres de l’Union européenne ont jusque fin 2021 pour transposer les règles dans leur législation nationale.

Le réseau NEIWA, pour Network of European Integrity and Whistleblowing Authorities, regroupe une vingtaine d’institutions publiques européennes chargées de veiller à l’intégrité et à la bonne gouvernance. Le Médiateur fédéral en est membre. Le réseau accorde une attention particulière à la mise en œuvre de la directive.

10 recommandations

A l’issue de sa récente dernière réunion, le réseau NEIWA a appelé les parlements et gouvernements européens à transposer la directive de manière ambitieuse. Pour ce faire, il leur adresse 10 recommandations et notamment :
- d’octroyer les moyens nécessaires aux institutions publiques chargées de traiter les signalements et de protéger les lanceurs d’alerte ;
- d’harmoniser au maximum les systèmes de signalements existants ; 
- de prévoir des sanctions pour l’autorité ou l’employeur qui décourage les signalements ou prend des mesures de représailles ;
- de prévoir des mesures d’accompagnement et de soutien aux lanceurs d’alerte.

Lisez les 10 recommandations du réseau NEIWA. (en anglais)

La adjunta Especial de Igualdad y Violencia de Género, Beatriz Barrera, participó en un encuentro por videoconferencia con el resto de coordinadores de la Red de Defensorías de la Mujer de la Federación Iberoamericana del Ombudsman (FIO) a la cual pertenece, con el fin de reorganizar los objetivos de la Organización.

Durante la reunión, los coordinadores se centraron en la exposición de...