Under s5(1) the Ombudsman may, on a reference being made to him, investigate actions (including a failure to act) taken on or behalf of a specified public authority which are in the exercise of administrative functions.

During the debate over the Bill, the Leader of the House of Commons Richard Crossman made it clear that it did not extend to policy, which was a matter for Parliament or discretionary decisions.

It would be a wonderful exercise - bias, neglect, inattention, delay, incompetence, inaptitude, perversity, turpitude, arbitrariness and so on.

[1] In his 1993 Annual Report as Ombudsman, Sir William Reid sought to expand upon the Crossman catalogue to emphasise that 'maladministration' should not be interpreted restrictively.

Crossman did not want to give the word a legalistic overtone that could exclude 'the sense of outrage aroused by unfair or incompetent administration, even where the complainant has suffered no actual loss'.

[1] Under s5(2) the Ombudsman must not investigate where the person aggrieved has or has had a right of appeal, reference or review to a tribunal or a remedy by way of legal proceedings.

Under s10(2), where an investigation is conducted, the Ombudsman must send a report to the Member of Parliament, the principal officer of the department or authority and any other person alleged to have taken or authorised the action complained of.

Under s11(3), a Minister may give notice that, in his opinion, the disclosure of information would be prejudicial to the safety of the state or otherwise contrary to the public interest.