UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT OF ORAL EVIDENCE To be published as HC 1012-i

House of COMMONS

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE

TAKEN BEFORE

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

 

 

PRE-APPOINTMENT HEARING WITH THE GOVERNMENT'S PREFERRED CANDIDATE FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT OMBUDSMAN AND VICE-CHAIR OF THE COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND

 

 

Monday 12 October 2009

DR JANE MARTIN

Evidence heard in Public Questions 1 - 52

 

 

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.
5.	Transcribed by the Official Shorthand Writers to the Houses of Parliament: W B Gurney & Sons LLP, Hope House, 45 Great Peter Street, London, SW1P 3LT Telephone Number: 020 7233 1935

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Communities and Local Government Committee

on Monday 12 October 2009

Members present

Dr Phyllis Starkey, in the Chair

Sir Paul Beresford

Mr Clive Betts

John Cummings

Anne Main

Alison Seabeck

________________

Witness: Dr Jane Martin, Government's preferred candidate for Local Government Ombudsman and Vice-Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England, gave evidence.

Q1 Chair: Can I welcome you, Dr Martin, and if I could start off with a couple of relatively easy questions and then we will move on to others later. First of all, can I ask you about the recruitment process that you have been through. How did you come into the system? Did you respond to an advert? In what way did you first get into the system for this appointment?

Dr Martin: Thank you. Basically I applied to a national advertisement which I think was in the Sunday Times, if I recall correctly, around about May time, I responded to that advertisement. At the same time I had been in touch with the agency who is dealing with the recruitment in relation to another post and they signposted me to the advertisement. I responded to that advertisement and put in my full application as a result of which I went through the recruitment process, which was a series of interviews.

Q2 Chair: How have you prepared for this hearing?

Dr Martin: I have refreshed my memory of the information that I provided to the interview panels which was quite a few weeks ago now. I have made sure, also, that I am completely up-to-date on the current work of the Ombudsman and the kind of issues that I thought you might be interested to hear from me about.

Q3 Chair: Okay. I noticed that you have a post as a Non-Executive Director of the Coventry Primary Care Trust. The Ombudsman's job is a full-time job, are you intending to retain that other appointment?

Dr Martin: No, I am not. I made it clear at the interview process and have now spoken to the Chair of Coventry PCT and made it clear that I will not continue with that post if I am successful with this one.

Q4 Mr Cummings: Would you tell the Committee why you believe the role of the Ombudsman is important?

Dr Martin: I believe the role of the Ombudsman is important because it is one of the most significant ways in which members of the public can make their complaints heard at a high level and be guaranteed independence and fairness in being dealt with in that complaint and to seek redress against maladministration of local government.

Q5 Mr Cummings: Would you tell the Committee how your experience to date prepares you for this job?

Dr Martin: Yes, I am happy to do that. Over 20 years I think there are three things I would like to highlight. The first is that I have got a very good understanding and expertise in local administration based on having a breadth of experience across the public sector, having worked in local government, health and education. I think I also bring a very wide perspective of issues in public accountability and indeed the challenges that all local organisations face in securing good public accountability. I think my perspective is both from the point of view of the official and also from the point of view of the consumer and the citizen.

Q6 Sir Paul Beresford: You have not had a senior post in local government, have you? You have not been a chief executive or deputy chief executive?

Dr Martin: That is true, I have not been a chief executive.

Q7 Sir Paul Beresford: How senior is the most senior post you have had in local government?

Dr Martin: I have not had a senior post in local government but I have had a senior post in other national organisations. The ones I would draw to your attention are that I was Executive Director of the Centre for Public Scrutiny and I am also currently Deputy Chief Executive of the Local Better Regulation Office.

Q8 Sir Paul Beresford: That is quite different from local government, local government problems, dealing with the problems of the public in local government and vice versa.

Dr Martin: I hope that what I will do is I will bring a wider perspective than perhaps somebody who has just worked as a chief executive. I am well aware that the other Local Government Ombudsmen are chief executives. I hope what I will bring to the Local Commission is a wider perspective based on having worked with a number of local authorities when I was a consultant for the Improvement and Development Agency and also, in fact, working for the Centre for Public Scrutiny.

Q9 Sir Paul Beresford: The problem with that is that effectively you are one of three separate geographically so you will only bring it to your area, if in fact it is a valid point.

Dr Martin: I hope that will not be the case. I will also be Vice-Chair of the Commission and hope that I will be working very much as part of a team with my colleagues.

Q10 Mr Cummings: Are there any aspects of the role that you will find particularly challenging?

Dr Martin: I do believe that I have got the breadth of skills and experience to tackle this role, however one of the first things I will do is make sure that I am up to speed on the recent work of the Ombudsman and also any areas of public law which will be important for me to have knowledge of.

Q11 Mr Cummings: So you are just entering the job and you do not think there will be any particular aspects that you will be dealing with that you will find to be problematic?

Dr Martin: I think I have just explained that there are two areas that could be problematic. One is making sure that I have got sufficient knowledge around areas of law and also sufficient knowledge and content around the work of the Ombudsman. However, as you perhaps will have picked up from my CV, I have worked in different areas across the public sector and I am fairly confident that I can pick up a new brief very quickly.

Q12 Mr Cummings: In those particular areas will you have adequate support within your department?

Dr Martin: I hope so, but in all honesty that remains to be seen. Certainly from early conversations I have had with other colleagues in the Commission I feel that I will be working in a very supportive environment.

Q13 Anne Main: What would you say the main challenges are for local authorities at present given that you do not have a specific local authority role that you can draw on?

Dr Martin: May I just ask for clarification. Do you mean the wider issues that face local government or in relation to the Ombudsman work?

Q14 Anne Main: No, the wider issues facing local government and also the challenges reflecting complaints from members of the public.

Dr Martin: I would say that the wider issues facing local government at the moment are perhaps two-fold. One is, of course, the question of public funding. All public authorities will be very mindful of the fact that there will be a squeeze on public funding and local authorities will be no exception to that. I know from the work that I have been doing in my current role that local authorities are very much looking to the ways in which they can make efficiencies, thinking of things like shared services, et cetera. The other point that I was going to make is that the way in which public services are delivered at the local level have of course been changing over many years and the local authority is less the direct provider of services than perhaps the commissioner of services. I know there are particular issues in the way in which public services around health and social care are integrated effectively between local authorities and the primary care trust.

Q15 Anne Main: You just touched on one thing I would like to explore a little further. You accept that there is going to be a major cutback potentially in funding. The 2008-09 LGO Annual Report, prior to the economic situation we are now in, suggested you are faced with an increased workload and diminishing resources. Now that sounds like it is only going to get worse, so are we expecting an impossible job?

Dr Martin: It is certainly going to be tough, I assume you are referring to the Ombudsman Service now. It is certainly going to be tough, and the Ombudsman Service will be no exception to other public services having to deliver more for less, particularly at a time when of course there are new responsibilities coming through to the Service for personal social care and for schools. My approach to this would be very much to be looking at demand management based, of course, on experience to date but having to think about forecasting how demand could be managed in the future.

Q16 Anne Main: You have handled situations like this in the past. Can you give us some examples?

Dr Martin: I have got examples of having worked as a consultant with the IGA with a number of local authorities, for example working with Hertfordshire and its districts to think about how they would manage demand for a new call centre which they wanted to collaborate on under the e.government scheme. I have also done work in that role for what was then the Equal Opportunities Commission looking at the way in which they manage demand for their contact call centre.

Q17 Sir Paul Beresford: How are you going to manage the expansion of the LGO as the money tightens because the role of the LGO has expanded recently?

Dr Martin: I think one of the things we will have to think more carefully about perhaps is proportionality. From what I understand at the moment the advice centre, which was initiated some 18 months ago, has made quite a difference to the way in which the work is managed so that there is, if you like, a triage system at the beginning of the complaints process, and that means that complaints that come through are often more complex and require more detailed investigation. It may be that we can look at ways in which we can develop that approach by thinking about the proportionality of the complaints, perhaps the significance of the complaint, the question about to what extent there has been maladministration. In short, to answer your question, I think proportionality is important.

Q18 Sir Paul Beresford: For every complainant that complaint is the number one thing.

Dr Martin: Of course, yes. Yes, I do accept that it is quite a difficult matter because we also need to ensure that all complainants are treated fairly and get a fair hearing.

Q19 Sir Paul Beresford: Have you ever had a job facing complaints?

Dr Martin: Yes, I have. I was a member of a school governing body for around about ten years. I am a parent of two children. On the governing body I certainly worked with parents and helped them to put forward complaints to the head teacher in that role.

Q20 Anne Main: That is a slightly different role, I would have thought, than what you are being asked to face. Would you say three Ombudsmen are enough? If you are discussing some sort of triage system, are three Ombudsmen enough?

Dr Martin: That remains to be seen. It is possible that there will need to be extra capacity in the service, at this stage it is a bit difficult for me to judge without any further information about the new responsibilities as they come on board.

Q21 Anne Main: In which case then how do you think the new legislation relating to complaints handling for individual school issues and individuals purchasing their own adult social care will impact on the LGO's ability to manage complaints effectively?

Dr Martin: Again, you have already touched on this point but it will require the Local Government Ombudsman to think very carefully about the way in which there is sufficient capacity to absorb that new work. I am familiar, for example, with systems such as Lean Systems thinking whereby you have to think very carefully about the demand that is coming into the system and look at different ways of managing it. I think until I am in the post it is a little difficult for me to give you any more information than that.

Q22 Sir Paul Beresford: This is going to be a huge area in numbers but smaller than the actual individual complaints, how are you going to get consistency?

Dr Martin: I will be led by a process which I will ensure is rigorous in terms of the evidence that is brought to bear on which I and of course my other colleagues will be making judgments. So I will be very much led by that process. Hopefully we will work closely together to ensure that there is consistency.

Q23 Alison Seabeck: You have talked about the process, you have talked about the importance of the process in dealing with pressures. You also though have a degree of discretion within your role as to which ones you do and which ones you do not. Is there a risk that if there is a significant number of cases that, using your discretion, you may err on the side of, "Well, perhaps the evidence is not quite as strong there" and will put it to one side and will that lead to a drop in the public's faith in the role of the Local Government Ombudsman if they think your discretion is being used too widely?

Dr Martin: I will certainly do all I can to guard against that. I am very well aware that public trust and confidence in this Service is absolutely paramount. For all complainants to be treated fairly is most significant. Although I can certainly use my discretion I will be led by the evidence and the facts that are in front of me each time, and take each case on its own merits.

Q24 Alison Seabeck: Can I ask also, there is a public perception amongst some of my constituents that the Local Government Ombudsman has not very much power. There are also concerns that you are often dealing with local authorities who are, we have heard earlier, commissioning out services. How strongly do you feel that you have enough power to deal with those services which are not within the direct control of the local authority but which are being delivered on behalf of the local authority to members of the public?

Dr Martin: I suppose that it is important to make sure that the local authority is aware that it is the authority, whether it is commissioning services, out-sourcing services, et cetera, and so we will need to be very clear about where the responsibility lies for that. My understanding of the Service to date is that there is a very high level of take-up of the recommendations of the Ombudsman and I would expect that to continue.

Q25 Alison Seabeck: This is probably a bit early in your interest in this role. Do you have any feel about the timescale under which local authorities are implementing Ombudsman's decisions? We have evidence that they are, indeed, taking an Ombudsman's decision and acting on them but I have a sense, particularly from local authorities in the South West, that some of them are really dragging their feet on that. Is there anything within your remit which allows you to apply pressure to insist that they act?

Dr Martin: Formally of course, no there is not, but I think this is where having good relationships with local authorities which are not too cosy are important, but it is worth remembering that the Ombudsman is about dispute resolution so I would hope that the ways in which we resolve disputes are acceptable to both sides. That is a way in which you will get the most speedy response and appropriate response.

Q26 Alison Seabeck: How do you get the public to understand that the LGO really is doing the job that they think you ought to be doing? How do you spread the word, if you like, about the role you have and the fact that you are doing it in a certain way?

Dr Martin: I think that is one of the areas that I would like to look at actually because it seems to me that the Ombudsman to date does not get out, as it were, through a range of media effective public information. Having had a look at the annual letters that go to local authorities, the special reports, they seem to me to be rather dry and to rely quite heavily on statistical information. I would like to look at ways in which the Ombudsman can get out more information about the nature of the work that is done and also around the lessons learnt for both local authorities and in the end for the public.

Q27 Alison Seabeck: It is interesting you used local authorities. Are there any specific demographic groups that you think you ought to be targeting separately?

Dr Martin: Certainly for a public service like this one should always be very mindful of the more vulnerable groups. We tend to talk a lot about consumer complaints in relation to choice in public services but, of course, we should always remember that for many people who are less able to have choice, who cannot exit services, as it were, then it is important that we get the message out to them in particular. I have noted, for example, that the Ombudsman Service already has good arrangements in place to support young people and I would like to be assured that the same is true for elderly groups and perhaps for particular minority ethnic groups in the community.

Q28 Sir Paul Beresford: What do you think of local settlements and buying out complainants?

Dr Martin: Local settlements run at around 25-27 per cent of the Ombudsman work at the moment. They can often be an effective solution because they cut down the time that a complaint can take so it means the complainant gets a more speedy redress. As I say, if it is about dispute resolution then where there is a willingness on both parties' part to settle at an earlier stage, if I can put it that way, then that has got to be a good thing. Having said that, I think I would want to be reassured that any local settlements were adequate and appropriate.

Q29 Sir Paul Beresford: What about the idea of buying off complainants to shut them up?

Dr Martin: That does not sound to me like a very sensible way forward.

Q30 Chair: Can I just pursue that. When you talked about dispute resolution when you were responding to Alison Seabeck is there not also the point that a single dispute may point up that the procedures of the authority need changing and that is what might be lost if you get a local settlement. What would you do to stop those lessons being lost?

Dr Martin: As I think I alluded to before in answering Alison Seabeck's question, I would like to see the Ombudsman being much more proactive in spreading the word around lessons learnt. Whilst there may be some advantages to local settlements, as I have tried to point out, that does not preclude the fact that, as you are also rightly suggesting, for some local authorities they need to look at their processes, perhaps their structures and the culture of the organisation and those messages should be got through as well. I do not think that these things are mutually exclusive.

Q31 Sir Paul Beresford: How are you going to be able to tell if there has been a local settlement if you are not notified, the complaint is just withdrawn?

Dr Martin: I would need to do some more investigation into that.

Q32 John Cummings: You tell the Committee in your CV that you have worked in many advisory and academic roles during your career. What experience do you have of making, and taking responsibility for, difficult decisions?

Dr Martin: You will have seen from my CV that I have been involved in setting up three national organisations. Whilst that can be very energising it is also quite difficult to make sure that those organisations meet the public policy brief. For example, making decisions at the Centre for Public Scrutiny about the way in which that organisation should be taken forward, working to a board and making sure it was acceptable to local government was quite a challenge. Similarly, when I was part of the senior team at the National Centre for Involvement for the NHS we had to take some quite difficult decisions and make fine judgments about what would be acceptable to the NHS in order to develop our brief for the organisation. Last but not least, the organisation I am working for at the moment, the Local Better Regulation Office, set up by the Better Regulation Executive to support local authorities, required us to think hard about the kind of strategies and interventions that we would make with local authorities in order to pursue our brief and to make sure the organisation was fit for purpose.

Q33 John Cummings: How comfortable do you feel about taking decisions in the absence of any legal definition of maladministration?

Dr Martin: I would be guided by the reputation and the track record of the Local Government Ombudsman Service, but I am very happy to take decisions based on robust processes of evidence gathering and analysis of evidence and I will ensure that they are as effective as they absolutely must be.

Q34 John Cummings: Could you just expand upon what you just advised the Committee in relation to decisions that have already been made by the Ombudsman on maladministration? You are not suggesting that you are using a set of precedents, are you?

Dr Martin: No, because that is not the way in which the Ombudsman Service works but I think it will help me get more than a feel for the way in which decisions have been taken in the past and that will help me as a new person on the team.

Q35 Mr Betts: The Ombudsman obviously has to come to a judgment between two competing views of a particular situation and, therefore, independence and being seen to be independent is absolutely paramount. Do you think it is a problem, therefore, that you have a declared political activity?

Dr Martin: No, I do not think it is a problem. I have been, and still am, a member of the Labour Party, however I will be relinquishing that membership before I take up the role of Ombudsman. I am not required to do so, but that is a decision I have made because I do think it is absolutely important that not only should I be independent and fair in all my judgments but I should be seen to be so as well, so I want to avoid any doubt about that.

Q36 Mr Betts: But your political affiliation, or past affiliation, will still be well-known, so do you think that is going to in any way compromise decisions that you make, that people might think you are reaching a decision against a Conservative council and you are going to be that bit harder there?

Dr Martin: No, I hope not. It certainly will not be the case. Perhaps I could just reassure you by saying one example where I have worked across local authorities and parties. For example, for the Centre for Public Scrutiny where I was promoting new scrutiny arrangements I have worked across local authorities of all different persuasions.

Q37 Mr Betts: In terms of independence, it is not just about being independent, it is about being seen to be independent as well. I think there is a feeling amongst some members of the public that the Ombudsman is not really independent at all because they are all bureaucrats together, they have got cosy relationships with council officers, they are all working in the same business and a poor little outsider making a complaint does not stand much chance because it is always going to be weighted against them.

Dr Martin: I hope that my career and track record to date will be quite a strength in this area because I can demonstrate that I have worked with governing bodies in schools, I have worked tirelessly for service users, for patients, I have researched the way in which parents work in schools and, of course, as a service user and parent of two children who have gone through the state system I do have a very good understanding of the point of view of the public, the citizen, the consumer, as well as the official, if I can put it that way.

Q38 Mr Betts: A lot of people working in the Ombudsman Service are actually ex-local government officials, are they not? Do you think that is a problem, that they will tend to see things from a local government perspective, an organisation perspective, rather than from the consumer's perspective?

Dr Martin: All I can say is I hope I bring a balanced perspective and I will certainly remind those I am working with that although all the work of the Ombudsman must be absolutely fair and must give due regard to both sides of any question, however the power differential, if I can put it that way, between institutions of the state and the public, we need to be very mindful of that potential imbalance.

Q39 John Cummings: Would you view it as poachers turned gamekeepers?

Dr Martin: For the colleagues who have come from local government?

Q40 John Cummings: Yes.

Dr Martin: No. I know a lot of people who have worked in local authorities and I regard their professional integrity very highly.

Q41 Mr Betts: Just in terms of your experience, you are saying you are one step removed from being a local government officer and being able to perceive maybe the consumer's point of view but, on the other hand, the fact that you have not got any particular experience, say of planning and housing where a lot of the complaints going to the Ombudsman Service are in those areas, do you think that is a particular weakness?

Dr Martin: No, I do not. I draw to your attention that I have two research degrees where I have honed very finely my skills to ensure that evidence gathering methodologies are appropriate. I am used to handling evidence, I am used to analysing evidence and bringing intellectual rigour to bear. You are right to point out that I have not worked in particular in a housing role but I am very confident that I can pick up a brief and make sure that I have the appropriate technical information should I require it.

Q42 Sir Paul Beresford: The response to that would be that you are academic, you have not actually done it, you have not had your hands dirty and you have not been at the front.

Dr Martin: I would regard myself as an academic but also as a manager and a practitioner, so I hope that I would be able to straddle both areas.

Q43 Sir Paul Beresford: How will you deal with a vexatious complainant?

Dr Martin: With care and consideration. I think the important thing as Ombudsman is to treat all complainants fairly. I am very conscious that a vexatious complainant can take up a lot of energy and can be seen to be dominant in terms of taking the attention of the Ombudsman. One of the pieces of work that I did as an academic was to look at the way in which so-called "angry parents" work with schools and I found that the most important thing was for the school to be more dispassionate about the complainant and to make sure that you focus on the facts of the case, and that is what I would do with a vexatious complainant.

Q44 Mr Betts: Can I just ask about job satisfaction. I think people tend to do a job better when they actually enjoy doing it. In your past roles, whether it has been academic research or other jobs you have had, regulation and the other units you have worked in, to some extent you have been able to set the agenda there and you had some control over what you did, trying to influence things, trying to take things in a certain direction, but this job is not like that, is it, you are sat there waiting for someone to complain about somebody else's mistake and you are not in charge of any agenda, you are totally reactive? Is that going to give you job satisfaction?

Dr Martin: Whilst what you describe is certainly the case I am also looking forward very much to being Vice-Chair of the Local Commission and working with my colleagues to shape the way in which the service is delivered. Whilst I do not for one minute minimise the important role of Ombudsman, as you have put it, in waiting for the next complaint and dealing with it, I regard the role as being much broader than that. In any event, I am really very pleased indeed to have the opportunity to take on what I believe to be a substantial public role. I have been a supporter of, interested in and somebody who as a practitioner has exalted public service organisations over my career to be very, very alive to the issues of public accountability and I regard it as a privilege to have the opportunity to be selected for this role.

Q45 Chair: Can we just turn to some of the criticisms that there have been of the Ombudsman Service, in particular criticisms that it has been a "toothless tiger". Do you think it needs greater powers? In particular, do you think it should be able to order councils to comply with its recommendations within a certain timescale, for example?

Dr Martin: I refer you in part to the answer I gave earlier which is to highlight the point that the Ombudsman Service is about dispute resolution. What I have found interesting in my current role in working for the Local Better Regulation Office and working with local authority inspectors who are enforcing regulation and one of the things that has become clear to me in that role is that the opportunity to enforce, to prosecute if you like, to require compliance is not necessarily the most important tool in the armoury, if I can put it that way. What is most important is to be able to be proactive in advising and supporting best practice and compliance with good practice in administration. From what I understand so far the Ombudsman Service has a very high level of compliance with its recommendations on behalf of local authorities. I am not sure at this stage from what I know that I would necessarily agree with your description of it being a "toothless tiger".

Q46 Chair: Do you think there is a greater role for the Ombudsman in checking up maybe a year down line whether the recommendations have really made a difference?

Dr Martin: Certainly I think that would be a very helpful thing to do. As any mechanism of public accountability as part of the regulatory machinery of government, if I can put it that way, the Ombudsman is only one tool and I know that the Ombudsman Service increasingly works with regulatory bodies and the more that we could make sure there is an effective feedback loop, if I can put it that way, so that the greater lessons learnt from the work of the Ombudsman support best practice, I think that would be an improvement. I would like to look at that as one of the first things if I take up the role.

Q47 Chair: Would that include greater feedback to the complainant? For example, if there were recommendations the complainant would be told that there were those recommendations but they too would not know whether the council had actually really acted on them.

Dr Martin: Absolutely. That is a most important fundamental point with any interaction or involvement of the public with local government or other public agencies at the local level. It is very important indeed that local people do get the feedback and see that not only have they had redress for a particular complaint but that is feeding into future practice, process and, indeed, culture of organisations.

Q48 Sir Paul Beresford: What do you do if you have had a full inquiry, full investigation, you support the complainant, it is a clear case and you write and explain this to the local government concerned and they throw it out?

Dr Martin: I understand that it is the practice of the Ombudsman certainly to make that public if that is the case and in many cases there is nothing like the oxygen of publicity perhaps to bring influence to bear. I think that is a good thing. I do take on board the point you are making and it is absolutely essential that future practice is influenced by the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

Q49 Sir Paul Beresford: Do you take the Government's report, and I am thinking of the Equitable Life report, and send in a second report?

Dr Martin: The other thing that perhaps we could look at is the way in which we tie up and align the Ombudsman work perhaps with other forms of accountability, for example the scrutiny function of the local authority, which you may know I have had a lot of dealings with. We have a consultative White Paper at the moment, do we not, looking at the way in which the scrutiny function might be expanded. It is just possible, is it not, that there may be some tie-ups we can make there to ensure that the internal scrutiny within the authority is adequately taking forward the recommendations of the Ombudsman.

Q50 Alison Seabeck: At the moment the Ombudsman's decisions can only be challenged in court. For a member of the public who is dissatisfied with a decision that may be a step too far, despite the fact that they may feel natural justice is not being done. Do you think there should be alternative options or do you think the court route is the right route?

Dr Martin: I recognise the point you are making that sometimes for members of the public that does seem to be a step too far, however it is consistent with other similar forums. The main point for the public surely is to make sure the forms of redress and public accountability are very clear-cut and simple and easy to understand. The more we can avoid complexity in the system then I think that has got to be a good thing.

Q51 Alison Seabeck: Should you be avoiding incestuousness in the system, if you like, in that if a member of the public felt something was not done fairly or reasonably by a particular member of your staff or team that complaint would be investigated internally at the moment, would it not?

Dr Martin: Yes.

Q52 Alison Seabeck: Are you comfortable with that because I know you have some strong feelings about accountability and have made that very clear?

Dr Martin: Yes, I take your point and I can see that there would be some merit perhaps in having some further external scrutiny of the Ombudsman Service. At the moment the Ombudsman Service is accountable to Parliament through this Committee and there may be ways in which we could improve that in the future.

Chair: Any further questions that Members have got? No. Thank you very much, Dr Martin.