independence. For his acceptance of the post, he was shunned by his former colleagues in government departments. Pugh was dauntless in his criticism of maladministration within both Government departments and the National Health Service. He also brought with him an attitude that the Office should be more than a mere tool for members of parliament. To Pugh, the Office was the servant of the public. In this spirit, Pugh modified the filter system that required members of the public to take their complaints to the Ombudsman through their MPs. In March 1978, Pugh permitted complaints to be made directly to the Office. If the complaint was investigable, it would be sent to the relevant MP who would be asked if a full investigation was wanted. Pugh achieved greater publicity for his role and functions through public appearances, posters and the use of the colloquial term Ombudsman, a word more readily understood by the public. He was rewarded with a record number of referrals: 1,259 in 1978 from 461 MPs. After investigating a particularly serious instance of maladministration by the Department of Health and Social Security, Pugh was scathing in his criticism. It was discovered that the Department had denied Lieutenant-Colonel Terence Otway the full amount of his disability war pension for 23 years despite knowing what the full amount should be. Pugh blasted this deceit and branded it deplorable. Twenty-five officers were found to have been treated similarly and the Director of Public Prosecutions considered whether charges should be brought against the officials concerned. Such was the public outcry, the Secretary of State for Social Services David Ennals was forced to apologise and new rules were established that forbade civil servants from denying a claimant their entitlement when owed money by a government department. Jack Ashley MP referred a complaint to Pugh concerning the policy about whooping cough vaccination. It was complained that the Government had not made available to parents all the information that they should have had before agreeing to have their children vaccinated. Pugh found that responsibility for the policy rested with the Government and that it had not fully recognised its responsibility to provide information to both doctors and the public. With respect to the latter, Pugh found maladministration. However, the report was not enthusiastically endorsed by Ashley nor the complainants, who thought that Pugh ought to have condemned the departments concerned more roundly. Pugh maintained