not act with the urgency that was required. The Select Committee reinforced the conclusions of Clothier, summing up the affair as a sorry saga. Mr Preece, having already had his conviction quashed, received £77,000 in compensation. The Home Office identified a further 129 cases that required re-examination, 16 of which were sent to the Court of Appeal for re-consideration. Health investigations Clothier found that a greater number of people were becoming aware with the existence of the Office and its functions as a Health Service Ombudsman. However, such awareness was also accompanied by misconception about what the Ombudsman did. New publicity material was issued by the Office and the Local Government Ombudsman in 1981 which sought to explain the differences between the Parliamentary and Health Service functions exercised by the Office and the jurisdiction over local authorities exercised by the Local Government Ombudsman. Film presentations of the functions of the Office were also produced for use in schools and libraries. Clothier found it problematic that some half of all complaints he received related wholly or partly to actions arising from the exercise of clinical judgment, a matter on which he was not empowered to investigate. Clothier commented that it was a source of some embarrassment when I have to send rejection letters to complainants explaining this particular jurisdictional exclusion. Many find it very difficult indeed to understand or accept it. There was continued opposition from the medical profession to the extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to encompass matters of clinical judgment. Throughout Clothier's tenure as Ombudsman, the question continued to be wrestled over by the Select Committee and the Joint Consultants' Committee without significant inroads being made into the medical profession's opposition. All the while, the number of complaints received by the Ombudsman increased: from 562 in 1979–80 to 895 in 1983–84. Clothier dealt with notable cases during his time as Health Service Ombudsman. When a health authority found that a bogus doctor had operated on a number of patients it decided not to inform them that their operations had been performed by the 'doctor'. A complaint was made by the Patients' Association, however Clothier did not investigate on the grounds that there was no evidence that the Association was asked to complain on by any aggrieved individuals. Clothier also handled a case in which a local councillor had received an anonymous leaflet supporting fluoridation of water. It transpired, after