Further review of the work of the Local Government Ombudsman

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.

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finally consented to the survey’s publication, with one small redaction, we see no reason why the 2013 survey should not be published in a similar manner or, ideally, in full.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.

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.

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 Conclusions and recommendations 19 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.

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.

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.

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.