Examination of witness (Questions 280 - 286)
TUESDAY 3 FEBRUARY 1998
MR M BUCKLEY
280. The problem was happening in Australia. It was not
happening in a small way either; it was happening fairly regularly.
In Australia they were using these and putting all sorts of things
on the records.
(Mr Buckley) Indeed it can happen, or it can be
done in another way which is simply when you take the file round
to your colleagues you say here is this file on Mr Snooks and
you had better know the following about him.
Dr Clark
281. Is anybody actually addressing the structural questions?
These different commissioners or registrars or whatever you call
them tend to have access from different sources. For example,
you have the MP referral and some people do not and the Information
Commissioner will not. Also they have different powers and different
structures. As far as I can see, there is no particular reason
for any one structure being absolutely critical to any of these
jobs. There is reason to have a full and frank discussion as to
which types of structure are best. For example, do we need an
MP reference for all or none? Do we need to have powers of obtaining
the information, which you do not presently have but the Information
Commissioner will have? Within your informal discussions it seems
to me it would be very useful if these issues were addressed.
If people say it is absolutely critical that my structure is completely
different from yours, for various reasons, then that would be
a problem in setting up the college. I do not think these structures
do need to be different but somebody does need to be addressing
this.
(Mr Buckley) In the spirit of openness, I have
indeed had some discussion with my colleagues, the public sector
ombudsmen, on just this issue. It is only government which can
take this forward. The British and Irish Ombudsmen's Association
wrote to the Secretary of the Cabinet a few weeks back saying
that it would be very convenient if we had some central point
interlocutor where we could discuss some of the issues, in particular
in the context of private sector ombudsmen who have a somewhat
different range of problems. Again we have the same point of a
fragmented approach within Whitehall, all sorts of differences
between the various bits of legislation for no very obvious reason
and I do think the time has come for a good hard look at the system.
After all it all goes back to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act
1967, self-evidently now over 30 years old, which was done on
an experimental basis and in a fairly limited way. It has coloured
a lot of the subsequent legislation, not always, in my view, with
the best of results. The time has come when many of the ideas
within government about better delivery of service and so on need
to be accompanied by some consideration of what is the best way
of dealing with the complaints when, as is bound to happen, with
the best will in the world, things go wrong.
282. One of the problems is, because these commissioners
cross all these departments, that there does not seem to be any
way of bringing these issues together and to say this is the way
forward. How is that to be achieved?
(Mr Buckley) This will have to be achieved from
within government. The natural people as we see it in the British
and Irish Ombudsmen's Association are the Cabinet Office. It is
for the Government to decide how it is going to organise itself
but to get the dialogue going we have written to the Cabinet Office.
If someone is going to take this seriously it is going to require
legislation. It is only the Government which can prepare proposals
or draft legislation.
Chairman
283. There are perhaps two ways of looking at the issue
of the relationship between your remarks now and the Information
Commissioner which is in the Government's mind. The first way
is to say that the Information Commissioner is the latest model
and having learnt a lot over the past 31 years he is going to
have a power of compulsion which you do not have and so forth.
The other way to look at it is that this would be an opportunity
as well to consider updating and making comprehensive and seamless
the powers of all the other ombudspersons. That is basically what
you are saying really.
(Mr Buckley) Indeed; yes. One can never say that
one extra step makes a huge difference. We have progressed over
the years. My personal view is that we have now reached a stage
when the whole setup is just so complicated that it is time for
someone to sit down and see whether we cannot make this simpler
and more user-friendly for the benefit of the ordinary citizen.
284. Do you not think that freedom of information per
se, because of the nature of the information which people
will have - maybe the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster does
believe this - overrides all of the others because it makes the
process of redress, making a complaint, getting the information
you need in order to see whether you want to make a complaint
so much easier that it actually simplifies the work of all of
the other ombudsmen?
(Mr Buckley) In practice it will come in a different
way. Most people do not ask for information out of the blue or
as part of an academic inquiry. They think, for example, that
they have been given the wrong benefit or no benefit at all which
they should have been. They complain, not because they do not
have access to the departmental files, but because they are not
getting the right money. In some ways freedom of information legislation
may help them pursue it, provided we do not find ourselves in
a situation in which they have to come to me because of the benefits
aspect, to the Data Protection Registrar because they may say
they cannot find out what is on their personal file in the Benefits
Agency and to the Freedom of Information Commissioner because
they want to know what the departmental guidance is about the
handling of cases such as theirs. Somehow or other we have to
make sure that the originating complaint can be taken through
to a conclusion without going through an elaborate maze.
285. Obviously as we have the Lord Chancellor coming
in a couple of weeks' time, this is a point we can put to him
as long as I understand the point correctly. What you are suggesting
is that there might be a clause in the Bill or some other device
in the Bill in which there will be a presumption of onward reference
to the appropriate other commissioner, ombudsman, means of redress.
(Mr Buckley) There are two issues. One is to make
sure that under the Bill we do not find ourselves, whether it
is the Freedom of Information Commissioner, Data Protection Registrar,
myself or any other public sector ombudsman, having to play pass
the parcel between ourselves. We should be able one way or another
to resolve the complaint expeditiously and efficiently. That is
essential. Exactly how that is done is something which would be
for discussion. There is a longer term issue, which is the one
Dr Clark was touching on, as to whether we do not need to have
a thorough spring clean and review of the whole system.
Miss Johnson
286. Do you not think that now is the moment? Mrs France
has already sketched out what she sees as some difficulties, that
the data protection legislation is going ahead as a Freedom of
Information Bill. Is it not perhaps the time when we come to the
Freedom of Information Bill actually to tidy up this area so that
at least we are taking two thirds of the thing together, even
though one third of it has gone ahead, as it were, to try to bring
the whole thing into some coherent, sensible and seamless arrangement
of the kind you have been talking about?
(Mr Buckley) Now is a good moment to do it, partly
because of freedom of information legislation, partly because
of some of the ideas which the Government put in the consultative
arena for more cross-delivery of services. In principle that sounds
fine. What we do not want is, for the sake of argument, a local
authority paying out central government benefits and then no-one
knowing how to resolve a problem if it occurs. There are several
things pointing in the same direction for spring clean and review.
The only point I would make is that clearly one would not want
that to hold up getting on with the freedom of information legislation.
I would not suggest that for one moment.
Chairman: This might be a good moment to close this
morning's proceedings. We have had a lot of very helpful pointers
for the final stages of our inquiry. We have had a lot of ideas
about one-stop shop ombudsmen and colleges of cardinals. I am
not sure what the Pope and College of Cardinals would think of
being referred to as a one-stop shop. One can certainly see that
it might provide a very useful direction before the draft Bill
is published in a couple of months' time. I am very grateful both
to you and the Data Protection Registrar who preceded you this
morning because this has been one of the most useful sessions
of evidence that we have had. I am sorry for the delays. Thank
you very much.
| 
