Memorandum by the Parliamentary Commissioner
for Administration and the Health Service Commissioner for England
Scotland and Wales (PSR 20)
NATIONAL HEALTH
SERVICE
As far as the National Health Service is concerned,
little needs to be added to what I said in my response to the
Department of Health's listening document on reforming the Service's
complaints procedure.[6]
PARLIAMENTARY
Most of the principles outlined in Annex A in
relation to the handling and resolution of complaints apply equally
to the Parliamentary side of my office. In particular, departmental
complaints procedures should be reasonably speedy, and should
be thorough, but not elaborate. Most large departments within
my jurisdiction have prescribed complaints handling procedures,
but their effectiveness varies from department to department.
All too often the process is slow and does not address complaints
in full, leading to further correspondence and often to a reference
to me. Some small departments and other bodies within jurisdiction
have no formal procedures and handle complaints on an ad hoc basis.
In my Annual Report for 2001-01, I drew attention
to the fact that while internal complaints examiners, such as
the Inland Revenue Adjudicator and the Child Support Agency's
Independent Case Examiner, make a valuable contribution to the
effective handling of complaints, they are constitutionally part
of the organisation complained against, and are bound by its rules
and codes of practice. Necessarily, there are cases which I can
investigate, but which an internal examiner, wholly or in part,
cannot. And there are others where the internal examiner is constrained
in what redress can be secured from the body complained about.
In my view, it is in everyone's interest that cases like that
(and cases which, because of their size and complexity, are likely
to reach my office eventually) get to me sooner rather than later.
My office does not require a complainant to exhaust every stage
of the internal review process; it is generally prepared to accept
a complaint for investigation if the complaint has already been
put to the body concerned and the body has had a reasonable opportunity
to resolve it.
Some internal examiners are taking on responsibility
for complaints against more than one body; and there have been
proposals for new examiners. It is therefore important that complaints
should be given sufficient information to make an informed choice
of which route is best for them. Average case throughout times
in my office have fallen dramatically in the last year or two;
that makes for a particularly unfortunate problem if consideration
of a case by an internal examiner takes a long time so as to make
it difficult for my staff to carry out the full investigation
which may be required.
REDRESS
As far as redress is concerned, departments
should have a reasonably generous and practical attitude to redress
when they have made a mistake. Revised Treasury guidance issued
in 1996 improved the chances of an individual securing adequate
redress for the effects of maladministration; and there have been
significant achievements by my office, not only in individual
cases, but also in influencing the policies of departments. Nevertheless
there are still aspects and areas of departments' approaches to
financial redress which raise concerns:
— some departments who might be expected
to do so do not have in place written guidance;
— some decisions on redress are taken
at an unnecessarily high level;
— Treasury's delegated authorities
seem inconsistent and illogical;
— reluctance to offer redress (for
example in cases of delay caused by backlogs of work);
— reluctance to accept the full consequences
of maladministration (for example where maladministration in one
department/agency affects an individual's relationship with a
different department/agency);
— differences in approach to the payment
of interest on actual financial loss;
— inconsistency between departments/agencies
in the level of and approach to consolatory payments;
— inadequate level of consolatory payments;
— reluctance to enhance reimbursement
of costs to cover loss of use of money;
— lack of policy on redress for expenditure
of individual's own time;
— increasing possibility of "big
systems failure";
— over-generous time targets for completion
of departments'/agencies actions;
— in sharp contrast in some instances
to the tight deadlines and penalties imposed by statute on individuals).
THE FUTURE
One final point is that no matter what kind
of complaints handling system is operated by bodies within the
jurisdiction of the respective Ombudsmen, until we get a better
public Ombudsman system, there will remain for complainants difficulties
such as accessibility, joined up action where more than one jurisdiction
is involved, and speed of resolution. Early progress is needed
on implementing the recommendations of the Cabinet Office review.
6 Office of the Health Service Commissioner for England,
Response to Reforming the NHS Complaints Procedure: a listening
document. Back
|
