MEMORANDUM BY THE PALIAMENTARY OMBUDSMAN
INTRODUCTION
1. My Annual Report for 1999-2000 provides
a detailed account of the workings of my Office and the result
achieved during the year. It explains how I continued to build
on the changes in the emphasis of my work and in my Office's working
methods and management to which I had referred in my Annual Reports
for 1997-98 and 1998-99. The purpose of this memorandum is to
bring that account up to date by describing what has been happening
in 2000-01. Summaries of all cases completed during that period
will be included in my next volume of Selected Cases, to be published
in January; so too will be the full texts of 14 of those cases.
My Annual Report for 1999-2000 includes examples from 313 cases
I reported on during that year.
CURRENT WORKLOAD
AND PERFORMANCE
2. My workload in the current year as Parliamentary
Ombudsman is numerically similar to that received in the equivalent
period last year: by the end of November 2000 my Office had received
1,104 complaints, compared with 1,125 in the same period in 1999.
The complaints are distributed across departments and their agencies,
and other non-departmental public bodies in broadly the same way
as last year, with the exception of a quite significant increase
in complaints against the Inland Revenue, caused only in part
by the transfer to them of the National Insurance Contributions
Office. The proportion of cases going to a formal investigation
is running at 19.4 per cent, which is 2.6 per cent less than the
figure for the whole of last year; but we are resolving 16.3 per
cent of cases quickly through informal enquiries, which is almost
double last year's figure. Despite the fact that many of the more
straightforward complaints have been dealt with informally, the
time to complete full investigations is being maintained at around
46 weeks. This situation has been achieved by the near total elimination
of the queuing and backlogs which have been such a problem for
my Office in the recent past. Not all our difficulties have yet
been resolved. There remain a few cases over 12 months old that
we are finding hard to complete. As at the end of November there
were 35 cases over 12 months old. While I expect that figure to
fall substantially before the end of the financial year, we and
the departments concerned still have work to do.
3. My Office is currently resolving matters,
or issuing a statement of complaint to the department concerned
, within six weeks in 61 per cent of the complaints received.
The Office target is 60 per cent. There is also a target of resolving
matters (or issuing a statement of complaint) in all but a handful
of cases within 13 weeks. Forty-four complaints did not reach
that stage within 13 weeks; but many of them were resolved shortly
after 13 weeks without the need for a full investigation, which
would have resulted in a much longer throughput time.
4. Last year I reported that in cases not
excluded from my remit by law, I was continuing to lower the "evidential
hurdle" and expected to start investigating a higher proportion
of complaints. As from 1 April the screening and investigation
directorates in my Office have been amalgamated; and we no longer
make a rigid distinction, except for those complaints which are
clearly not within my jurisdiction, between those which are accepted
for further investigation and those which are not. My Office now
makes such further enquiries as are necessary for soundly-based
and just resolution of the complaints referred to it; and its
product range extends from informal resolution right through to
the most painstaking investigation, taking account of the wishes
of the complainant, the response of the department concerned,
and the facts of the case as they emerge. A much higher number
of complaints are now the subject of an appropriate level of investigation.
In the first seven months of this year my Office completed 128
full investigations, discontinued investigation of 43 cases in
which a suitable resolution had been achieved in the course of
investigation, and resolved a further 153 complaints informally.
The resolution of those 324 complaints represents an increase
of 30 per cent over the number of investigations completed and
informal resolutions achieved in the corresponding period last
year. In addition my Office has made enquiries into a further
70 complaints before deciding that nothing could be achieved for
the complainants.
5. I have to say with regret that—certainly
under present legislation—I do not regard the target of
a maximum of 6 months for a full investigation recommended by
the Select Committee in their Annual Report for 1997-98 (Session
1998-99, HC136 paragraph 9) as a realistic aspiration. Indeed,
even an average of six months is probably unattainable. That is
particularly so since the expansion of our product range. What
would previously have been quick investigations, which helped
to keep down average throughput times, are generally now either
dealt informally, or the investigation is discontinued when a
satisfactory resolution has been achieved. A much more accurate
view of my Office's performance on throughput time would be to
include in the calculation all cases in which my Office initiates
enquiries about complaints, rather than just those which go to
full investigations and not surprisingly tend to be more complex
and time-consuming cases. Such a calculation for the first seven
months of this year would show that my Office resolved 394 complaints
(223 informally after enquiries, 43 investigations discontinued,
and 128 full investigations) in an average throughput time 22
weeks.
HOW DEPARTMENTS
FARED
6. In part, the difficulties in bringing
some old cases to a conclusion are due to the fact, referred to
in paragraph 1.10 of my Annual Report, that departments can be
slow, either to respond to enquiries during the screening or investigation
of a complaint or, more particularly, to respond favourably to
my recommendations for redress in draft reports from my Office
which conclude that maladministration had led to a still unremedied
injustice. I do not receive large numbers of complaints against
the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF) but those
I do receive can raise difficult issues. The consequences of maladministration
can be far-reaching, affecting not just the individual complainant
but many others too. That may help to explain why replies from
MAFF to statements of complaint and my recommendations for redress
are sometimes much slower than I would wish. This is an area where
improvement is needed if the injustice complained of is not to
be compounded by unwarranted delay in providing a remedy. What
is hard to accept, or to understand in terms of management priorities,
are the cases which do not appear to raise particularly difficult
issues, but which take an inordinate time to resolve. Some MAFF
cases have also fallen into this category. Departments and agencies
have no excuse, in my view, for prolonged delays before they agree
to provide appropriate redress once I have established that maladministration
has led to an unremedied injustice.
7. Because the Department of Social Security
(DSS), and its main agencies (the Benefits Agency and the Child
Support Agency), feature in so many complaints referred to me,
the conclusion of some of their main cases, not surprisingly,
takes a long time. They have continued to play a part in helping
me achieve faster case throughput times but there have been some
cases to which they have not reacted within a timescale acceptable
to me. In particular, in one case the Benefits Agency took six
months from receiving my draft results report to agree to what
in my view was an appropriate level of redress. I have been in
touch with DSS about these problems and about possible ways of
overcoming them, for example by allowing my staff direct access
to agencies' local offices on factual matters. Currently I have
a case still outstanding with the Legal Services Commission; it
was in September 1999 when my draft results report first issued
and I cannot yet be sure of a satisfactory outcome. Such lengthy
post-investigation delays are unfair to the complainants concerned.
8. I reported last year that the Immigration
and Nationality Directorate (IND) of the Home Office had run into
serious difficulties following a reorganisation. In 1999-2000
I continued to receive a significant number of complaints against
IND, but I was pleased to be able to report that IND were very
ready to co-operate with my Office and to admit fault when appropriate.
They also consulted my Office on the formulation of a scheme of
redress for justified complaints. I welcome this.
9. The UK Passport Agency was another part
of the Home Office which, during the summer of 1999, ran into
severe difficulties caused largely by a backlog of passport applications.
In spite of those difficulties only a small number of complaints
came my way. That was in part because the difficulties were only
short-lived; but I was pleased to note that another factor was
that the Agency were able to resolve most of the complaints themselves
by quickly establishing mechanisms for handling them and offering
compensation when appropriate.
OTHER MATTERS
10. The number of complaints brought under
the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information was 23
in the first half of this year, compared to 30 in the whole of
last year. The backlog of earlier cases was cleared; and the average
throughput time for investigations was maintained at 23 weeks,
a respectable figure but one which I still hope to reduce further.
11. Finally, in paragraph 1.7 of my Annual
Report I referred to the review of public sector ombudsmen. I
welcomed the review team's recommendations, and eagerly await
the outcome of the government's consultation exercise. Early decisions
on, and implementation of, the recommendations would greatly assist
my strategic planning, and enable me to continue to improve the
service I can provide to Members and the public.
M S Buckley
Parliamentary Ombudsman
6 December 2000
|
