Examination of Witnesses (Questions 1-19)
15 MARCH 2005
MR JERRY
WHITE, MRS
PATRICIA THOMAS
AND MR
TONY REDMOND
Q1 Chairman: Good morning everyone and
welcome to this session of the Select Committee which is carrying
out an inquiry into Local Government Ombudsmen for England and
how the Ombudsmen operate. Would you identify yourselves for the
record, please?
Mr Redmond: I am Tony Redmond,
the Chairman of The Commission for Local Administration and the
Local Government Ombudsman for most local authorities in London,
north of the Thames and also county, district and unitary authorities
in the South-East as well as Coventry.
Mrs Thomas: I am Patricia Thomas.
I am the Local Government Ombudsman dealing with complaints against
the authorities in the north of England, the North Midlands, Birmingham
and Tower Hamlets, and I am Vice Chairman of the Commission.
Mr White: My name is Jerry White.
I am the Ombudsman based in Coventry and I deal with south London,
the West Midlands and South-West England.
Q2 Chairman: Thank you very much. Do
you want to make an opening statement before we begin our questions?
Mr Redmond: No. We are happy to
go straight into questions.
Q3 Mr Cummings: It appears as though
you are all responsible for a bewildering geographical array of
areas. Can you tell the Committee how these areas are decided
upon? Does this division cause confusion to the public?
Mr Redmond: The history of it
is that, as we have three offices, we are regionally based. The
intention was that each would take their own area, ie the north,
the Midlands and the south, but in practice the distribution of
complaints has made that extremely difficult. In particular, the
situation in London and the South-East was exacerbated some years
ago when we had a rather significant increase in housing benefit
complaints and it was impossible for the London office to manage
all those at that time, so some of the areas within the jurisdiction
of the Ombudsman in London had to be redistributed to Coventry.
Also, there are authorities where each of us believes that it
would be inappropriate to investigate a particular complaint in
an area because we may know the individuals within the authority.
There has become something of a patchwork in terms of the jurisdiction
of the three Ombudsmen and it is something we regret because we
would very much like to have greater clarity, if that were possible.
We have to acknowledge that we are trying to manage the complaints
across the whole of England in an efficient way.
Q4 Mr Cummings: Have you made your frustrations
known to the Government, and what has been the response?
Mr Redmond: We have made the point
to Government and obviously there is an opportunity from time
to time to redistribute the complaints. We review the jurisdiction
at the Commission meetings on a regular basis. I suppose the upshot
of it is it is trying to predict the incidence of complaints in
different areas of the country in order for us to make sure that
we manage it better. In the end I think we are always going to
face some difficulties in the lumpiness in the distribution of
complaints that we receive.
Q5 Mr Cummings: So you would be satisfied
to continue the way you are at the present time?
Mr Redmond: I do not think we
are satisfied, no. I think the nature of the regional provision
is such that it is very difficult to ensure an evenness of distribution.
Q6 Mr Cummings: What has been the response
from the Minister in relation to representations the Commission
has made?
Mr Redmond: We have not made formal
representations.
Q7 Mr Cummings: Why not?
Mr Redmond: I think it is a matter
for the Commission to decide.
Q8 Mr Cummings: Have you questioned the
Commission as to why they have not made representations?
Mr Redmond: We have looked regularly
at the question of how we distribute our complaints, yes.
Q9 Mr Cummings: So the Commission does
not share your views?
Mr Redmond: The Commission does
share our views. We look at the complaints trends from time to
time.
Q10 Mr Cummings: But the Commission has
not made any representation that you are aware of to central government?
Mr Redmond: We have never made,
to my knowledge, and I have been with the Commission for some
three years now, a formal representation, but I do not know how
the ODPM, which is the sponsoring department, would actually resolve
that matter because it is a difficulty; it is associated with
the incidence of complaints across the country.
Q11 Mr Cummings: Obviously, even if they
are not approached officially, it should have been discussed officially
or you are never going to know what the official response is.
Mr Redmond: I know that.
Q12 Chairman: What statutory changes
would you wish to see to bring it up to the 21st century?
Mr Redmond: I think we feel that
within the terms of local authority service provision the areas
particularly in relation to the internal management of schools
could well be included within our jurisdiction. We deal with admissions
arrangements within local authorities for schools and we also
deal with special needs, awards and school transport, but we do
not investigate the internal management of schools, that is outside
of our jurisdiction. It does seem to be a part of the education
service that is absent from our jurisdiction.
Q13 Chris Mole: When you say special
needs, presumably that is those which are not covered by the special
needs appeals tribunal, is it?
Mr Redmond: Indeed. Where there
is an appeal mechanism we would tend not to investigate the complaint.
Q14 Mr Cummings: Is three Ombudsmen for
England enough?
Mr Redmond: That matter was considered
a little while ago. The way we see it is that as long as one has
a regional provision it is important that one has an ombudsman
in the area able to make those ultimate decisions. I think each
of us believes strongly that that situation should continue. It
is hard to argue that you need a fourth ombudsman. If there was
a massive increase in the number of complaints that we receive
then it may be more difficult to manage, but at the moment I think
we are content.
Mrs Thomas: The legislation requires
us to distribute complaints on a geographic basis. The Act actually
says that we are responsible for areas and it is for the Commission
to decide which areas. If the law were to be changed to remove
that restriction then it would be possible for us to distribute
complaints on a different basis, possibly on a subject basis or
any other form of distribution that we thought was appropriate.
At the moment it seems to work as we are doing it. So long as
we have the staff there is probably no need for additional ombudsmen
because you can take on more staff. We have delegated to our staff
the ability to make decisions on the vast majority of cases and
we oversee that and we supervise the work of our staff.
Q15 Mr Cummings: Mr White?
Mr White: We still like to retain
a personal involvement in as many complaints as we can. We thought
some years ago that if complaints got above 20,000 there would
be a good argument for having four ombudsmen. When I joined, which
was 10 years ago, we were dealing with 5,000 complaints each and
if it got over 20,000 then we would be up to nearly 7,000. Complaints
have hovered around the 19,000 mark. We feel that we are able
to retain a personal involvement in those complaints that are
the most difficult or where any member of the public wants the
ombudsman to take a personal decision in respect of it we still
can. At this time we do not think there is a need for a fourth,
but I think it is something that the Government would need to
keep under review because the personal touch of the ombudsman
is an important feature.
Q16 Andrew Bennett: You have got no power
at all, have you? You cannot force local authorities to accept
your recommendations. You are a bit like a toothless tiger. Fortunately,
most people do not get close enough to the tiger to see whether
it has got any teeth, so they take some notice of it. Is that
your experience?
Mr Redmond: There has been a debate
from time to time amongst the Ombudsmen as to whether we would
want coercive powers. The current situation is that our recommendations
are in large part agreed and adopted by local authorities, so
a very tiny proportion of proposed remedies and decisions are
not adopted by the councils. We do not believe that we should
have those powers and that has always been our view. I would add
that it puts us on our mettle in that we have to make sure our
decisions are absolutely sound when we make them, so we do not
seek those powers.
Q17 Andrew Bennett: Does it not start
the relationship between you and the local council on the wrong
foot when you go in to investigate because they know that they
do not have to take that much notice of you? They feel that on
good grounds they will do their best to fob you off, will they
not?
Mr Redmond: If they fail to implement
our recommendation then we have the power to go to public report.
I think the public report is something the councils wish to avoid
if they possibly can.
Q18 Andrew Bennett: How many public reports
did you make last year?
Mr Redmond: About 200.
Q19 Andrew Bennett: Are they particular
councils or is it totally scattered across the country?
Mr Redmond: It is scattered. Some
might have more than others.
| 
