Conclusions and recommendations
October 2013 update
1. In
2012 we made a number of recommendations because we had concerns
about the performance of the Local Government Ombudsman. We are
pleased that in its October 2012 response to our report, in its
July 2013 response to the external review—established as
a consequence of our report—and in its October 2013 response
to our request for follow-up information, the LGO has clearly
and consistently addressed our concerns, explained how it would
change its practices and worked to improve its performance. We
as a Committee have a responsibility to highlight poor practice
and performance wherever we find them. But when a public body
has changed for the better we are happy to draw attention to that
fact—particularly when that organisation has improved by
responding constructively to recommendations that we have made.
In our view, the LGO has sought to become more accountable, more
efficient and more transparent, and for that we commend it. (Paragraph
15)
Staff survey
2. In
2012 we concluded that the LGO's failure to publish its business
review in full fuelled a perception that senior management were
holding back unpalatable news. The LGO repeated this error in
2013 when it published only a summary of its staff survey. It
should not make the same mistake again. Given the LGO finally
consented to the survey's publication, with one small redaction,
we see no reason why the 2013 survey should not be published in
a similar manner or, ideally, in full. We recommend that the LGO
publish its 2013 staff survey in full. (Paragraph 19)
Further reviews of LGO performance
3. The
Local Government Ombudsman has moved quickly and effectively to
introduce its new case assessment process but, as the 2013 external
evaluation recommended, the quality control system for this new
process should be externally reviewed. The LGO has also worked
to bring under control the number of cases more than 52 weeks
old. It should ensure this improvement in the time it takes to
handle cases is maintained. Given the LGO's commitment to review
both processes, we are keen to make sure it builds on the success
it has achieved. We ask the Local Government Ombudsman to update
the Committee on the details of, and timetable for, the review
by LGO internal auditors of the quality control system for its
case assessment process. We ask the LGO also to ensure that the
arrangements for the external review of its case-handling time
targets are in place by February 2014. (Paragraph 23)
Independent Commission members
4. Given
that the Commission, which is responsible for the high-level corporate
governance of the LGO, is currently operating with only two members,
both of whom are ombudsmen, the input of independent, external
members would add to the transparent and publicly accountable
approach the LGO has sought to take over the past year. The Commission
agreed in 2013 that it might be desirable to augment its existing
membership with independent participating members in advance of
any legislative change the Government might make. Indeed, one
non-voting member has been added to the Commission without the
need for a Crown appointment process or any amendment to the law.
The Government has said, if parliamentary time allows, it will
legislate for two non-executive members to be added to the Commission.
We recommend that, in advance of any changes to the primary legislation
governing the LGO, the Commission seek to appoint, using the process
and personnel outlined in its 2013 external review, at least one
independent, non-voting member before the end of 2013-14. (Paragraph
25)
Complaints about LGO service
5. Given
the number of cases the Local Government Ombudsman handles, it
receives relatively few complaints about its decisions or its
service. But, while the LGO has made considerable progress on
many fronts, an element of external review would be one way of
dealing with some of the most keenly felt grievances that have
been brought to our attention. We do not support any external
review of LGO decisions, as this would not be compatible with
the ombudsman model of dispute resolution, but public confidence
in the LGO would be enhanced if it were to follow other ombudsmen
and introduce an independent external evaluator of complaints
about the operation of its systems and services. The Ombudsman
said it was reasonable to expect an external party to start looking
at complaints about the LGO service by the end of the financial
year. We agree. We urge the LGO Commission to introduce within
the next three months an independent, external evaluator of complaints
about the LGO's service, but not decisions. (Paragraph 27)
Conclusion
6. The
Local Government Ombudsman has made good progress over the past
12 months, but further work needs to be done. We appreciate that
the service has been the subject of yet another review, the Gordon
review of its governance structures, and that further changes
will have to be made. But the LGO has over the past year demonstrated
a willingness to introduce common-sense changes to its business
practices. It has done so through the reorganisation of its executive
structure under one ombudsman, the publication of its decisions
online and the creation of a forum in which it can listen to the
views of its service users. (Paragraph 28)
7. It is not clear whether the Government will find
time to legislate to change the LGO's governance structures, as
the Gordon review recommended, but this should not prevent the
LGO from implementing the recommendations we make in this short
report. They build on work it has either already undertaken, such
as its staff survey, or has plans for, such as an independent
reviewer of complaints about its own service. The LGO and its
staff have worked hard to enhance the organisation's transparency
and to create a new culture of public accountability. Our proposals
reinforce these reforms and we look forward to their being acted
on. (Paragraph 29)
|
