Examination of Witnesses (Questions 20-39)
15 MARCH 2005
MR JERRY
WHITE, MRS
PATRICIA THOMAS
AND MR
TONY REDMOND
Q20 Andrew Bennett: What happens if you
make a public report?
Mr Redmond: That will be a public
notice, so the local residents will be aware of the fact that
we made a recommendation which the council has chosen not to implement.
If there is a failure to implement following that report, we can
issue a second report.
Q21 Andrew Bennett: How many second reports
have you issued?
Mr Redmond: A very small number.
In the last three years you can count them on one hand.
Q22 Chris Mole: Is that because they
have taken action after the first report?
Mr Redmond: Yes.
Q23 Mr Cummings: The Committee has heard
from one complainant who was told by a member of advice call centre
staff that the Local Government Ombudsman is "only answerable
to the Queen". How does your relationship with the ODPM work
in terms of accountability?
Mr Redmond: I think the first
thing to say is that we are funded by the ODPM, our money is top-sliced
from the Revenue Support Grant and we are wholly accountable for
every penny we spend. We submit a statement of accounts to the
ODPM every year. We also meet on a regular basis with ODPM officials
and I meet the Minister for Local Government at least once a year
to account for myself, as Accounting Officer, in terms of the
way that money is spent and the performance of the Commission.
As far as the investigation of complaints is concerned, each of
the Ombudsmen is independent in respect of decisions that they
make. We do not have any comeback from that in terms of the ODPM
in challenging our decisions, but there is the facility for judicial
review of our decisions and they do happen from time to time.
If there was a question of any misconduct of the Ombudsman, that
would be a matter for the ODPM.
Q24 Mr Cummings: So you are quite happy
with the relationship that exists between yourselves and the ODPM?
Mr Redmond: The relationship with
the ODPM is consistent with the legislation.
Q25 Mr Cummings: That was not what I
asked you. I asked what your relationship with the ODPM is like.
Mr Redmond: I think the relationship
is one of the ODPM challenging us in terms of our accountability
and I would say that is a reasonable relationship. We certainly
are keen to draw to the attention of the ODPM any areas we think
are in need of review within the legislation.
Q26 Mr Cummings: The ODPM have yet to
respond to the statutory review you carried out in 2003. When
do you expect a response to your recommendation? Have you made
your frustrations known to the ODPM?
Mr Redmond: The first point to
make is that although no action apparently has been taken in respect
of our triennial review in 2003, some of the issues that were
raised in that paper are being picked up in a draft Regulatory
Reform Order which is looking to address issues around joint working,
particularly with the Health and Parliamentary Ombudsmen. As far
as the remainder is concerned, you are quite right, I do raise
concerns from time to time in the meetings that the triennial
review has not examined and taken forward.
Q27 Mr Cummings: What has been their
response?
Mr Redmond: They have normally
said, "Yes, we must look at that".
Q28 Andrew Bennett: You would give a
local authority a pretty tough time, would you not, if they were
as dilatory?
Mr Redmond: We would go through
the process that I outlined earlier. You are absolutely right
that we are always concerned that if we produce a triennial review
of our own performance and operation we would want that taken
seriously.
Q29 Andrew Bennett: Why not produce a
report about the ODPM not responding?
Mr Redmond: It is an interesting
question. I am not sure whether it would be appropriate for the
Ombudsman to do such a thing. I am not sure we could contemplate
that.
Q30 Andrew Bennett: Would you like to?
Mr Redmond: No. I would go back
to the point that I think the relationship generally with the
ODPM is a reasonable one.
Q31 Andrew Bennett: Do you not think
that you ought to be making some sort of steer as you have waited
now nearly two years for the ODPM to respond?
Mr Redmond: I suppose I have taken
on board the fact that the Regulatory Reform Order, which was
one of our particular concerns, is now being progressed. Admittedly,
that does not cover all of the issues that were raised in the
triennial review, but that is where we are at the moment.
Q32 Chairman: On the question of value
for money and you say that there is a statement of your expenditure
sent to the ODPM, does the Audit Commission become involved?
Mr Redmond: No. The Audit Commission
has no jurisdiction in respect of the Ombudsmen operation. We
have external auditors that will validate our accounts before
we submit them as a public statement but also to the ODPM. We
have no relationship with the Audit Commission in that respect.
We have a relationship in terms of regulatory involvement but
not in terms of accountability.
Q33 Chairman: So the only accountability
is to the ODPM?
Mr Redmond: In terms of finance,
yes.
Q34 Chairman: You said earlier, in response
to John Cummings, that if there is a complaint against the Ombudsmen
it is for the ODPM to decide.
Mr Redmond: Yes, if it is a complaint
about the conduct of the Ombudsmen as opposed to the actual investigation
of a complaint which is not within the ODPM's area of responsibility.
Q35 Chairman: Would that apply to anyone
making allegations of maladministration on the part of the Ombudsmen?
Mr Redmond: No.
Mr White: We have an internal
complaints procedure where members of the public might complain
about the delay involved in investigating their complaint or they
might complain that an investigator had been rude and there is
a way in which internally those complaints are investigated. If
there is a complaint that I have got the decision wrong, the only
way of taking that forward is to challenge the decision in the
High Court through judicial review. The ODPM cannot go over my
investigation and tell me to do it differently. The only way to
challenge the decision is in the courts.
Q36 Chairman: What happens before it
goes to court?
Mr White: The complainant would
come back to the Ombudsman and say, "We think you have got
this wrong," and there is then an internal process of review.
Q37 Chairman: Who carries out the internal
process?
Mr White: Senior officers and
then, eventually, me.
Q38 Chairman: What about where the complaint
is against you?
Mr White: If I make a final decision
and the complainant is not satisfied with that and still feels
that I have got the decision wrong, there is nowhere that that
can be taken except the High Court.
Q39 Chairman: In a question that was
put to the Deputy Prime Minister on 8 December last year on who
is responsible for dealing with complaints of maladministration
against the Local Government Ombudsman the then Prime Minister
said in his response that the matter will then be considered by
a senior member of staff or the Deputy Ombudsman and then, if
there is no satisfaction, it is referred to the court.
Mr White: That is right.
| 
