COMMISSION FOR LOCAL ADMINISTRATION IN ENGLAND
Minutes of the meeting of the Commission held at Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP on Tuesday 12 September 2006 at 11.00am
Present: Mr T Redmond (Chairman) Mr J R White (Vice Chairman) Ms A Seex Ms A Abraham
In attendance: Mr N J Karney Mr M King Mr N H Jones Mr P MacMahon Ms K Dowse Ms J Feeney Mr A L Creech
1. Apologies
Apologies were received from Neil Hobbs.
2. Matters arising from the minutes of 11 July Commission meeting
The minutes of the 11 July meeting were confirmed as an accurate record, and signed by Tony Redmond.
There was one matter arising from the minutes.
Minute 7: Equality and Diversity
Nigel Karney reported on progress with the further work requested by the Commission: this would be done in two stages:
1. Service delivery - report back to the Commission on 10 October. This timing would tie in with the joint London/Coventry exercise to recruit to the investigator pools. Anne Seex commented that the recruitment exercise should be viewed as an opportunity to convey key messages about the Commission to a wider audience than just to potential candidates, and this should be borne in mind when designing the advertising material. Nigel Karney would act on this suggestion with Vincent Hodges, the Commission’s interim HR Manager, and Jackie Feeney, Head of Communications.
2. Employment - report back to the Commission on 15 November, to allow time for discussion at the next scheduled meeting of the Equality and Diversity Group in early November.
This proposed timetable of work was AGREED by the Commission. NJK: VH; JF
3. Commission PIs: August 2006
CLA 1548 had been circulated. The following points were noted/agreed:
1 Table A: the number of new complaints continued its downwards trend, with 18,260 received in the last 12 months, 2.4% fewer than in the previous 12 month period.
Table C: the Commission expressed serious concerns about the continuing high number of cases in hand/unallocated/stockpiled in the offices, especially in London and York, and noted that the position would be even worse if there should be an upsurge in complaints. Anne Seex and Peter MacMahon gave a progress report on the measures that were being taken to remedy the situation. In the discussion, the Commission agreed that it was important that the focus on increasing productivity/reducing the number of in hand/unallocated/stockpiled cases should be in the context of continuing to assure quality/rigour in case handling and spotting opportunities to improve public administration.
Table L: the Commission considered that the ‘outcome of comeback’ statistics needed to be reviewed, so as to show as clearly as possible the number of comebacks where the original decision had proved to be wrong/faulty in some way. It was noted that, currently, the offices were each piloting different approaches to dealing with comebacks, and the Commission AGREED that it would be sensible to look at comeback statistics as part of the review of the pilots.
The Commission also AGREED to request that the Deputies arrange reports for the 5/6 October management conference on
o progress report on the comeback pilots o details of judicial review challenges and their outcomes. DEPs
4. Budgetary control report: July 2006
CLA 1539 had been circulated.
The Deputies made the following comments on the control reports:
Nigel Karney referred to unusual spending patterns in the first quarter of 2006/07, which reduced the accuracy of the year end projections. There were some concerns about underprovision in the staffing budget for a seconded Deputy Ombudsman, but he hoped these could be balanced by other economies. Anne Seex asked whether it would be possible to achieve savings against the computer budget by extending or putting on hold the current three yearly PC replacement programme. Nigel Karney would consider this further with Ricky Duveen, Head of IT. NJK; RKD
Peter MacMahon pointed out that the main focus was on the staffing costs. A London Assistant Ombudsman was currently looking at ways in which staffing movements can be built automatically into the budget monitoring reports: he hoped to have this completed by the end of the year. It was noted that the planned maintenance invoices had been submitted late after the 2005/06 accounts had been closed, and since the invoices had been higher than anticipated, the excess was reflected in the 2006/07 budgets.
Neville Jones reported on the negotiations with the Coventry office’s sub-tenant in respect of the call-centre it had installed on the ground floor; and also the
2 latest position on the office’s air conditioning unit, which he hoped would result in a substantial reduction in the 2006/7 capital spending requirement.
The Commission noted Neil Hobbs’ written report.
In the discussion that followed:
Tony Redmond pointed out that the reports should be a good basis for projecting the end-year variances/outturn figures, but this was not the case because the 2006/7 budgets had not been profiled to take account of anticipated patterns of expenditure over the course of the year (a point highlighted by the Deputies in their reports). This needed to be addressed. DEPs
The Commissioners confirmed that they found the Deputies’ commentary on the reports helpful, but it would be better if the reports could be written in a consistent style and format (with the York and Coventry reports as good examples on this occasion). They confirmed that the repetition of comments made in previous reports was acceptable where circumstances remained unchanged. DEPs
5. Health and social care complaints – integrating the statutory procedure
The Commission considered PHSO’s position paper on the design of the new/integrated health and social care complaints procedure (CLA 1552), together with the summary of key issues from the LGO perspective (CLA 1551).
Introducing the PHSO paper, Ann Abraham explained that this set out a draft position statement, built on previous publications, studies and best practice, and was on the level of broad principles rather than details (which could be discussed at a later stage). The intention was to put the position statement to the Department of Health so as to aid and inform discussions about the integrated complaints procedure. It would therefore be helpful if the statement could be endorsed by all the Ombudsmen. She added that this represented an important opportunity for the Ombudsmen to contribute to the discussions and influence the design of the procedure, and to share with Government their special insight into social services/NHS complaints.
The following key points were explored in the Commission’s discussions:
The importance of achieving local resolution of complaints at an early a stage, and with as much flexibility, as possible. It was noted that, under the new social care procedures, the principle of local redress of complaints had been reinforced, with the Review Panel having to consider/make recommendations on redress.
The position statement proposal that there would be one independent investigation stage would be a significant change/sensitive issue for councils, because this would mean the removal of the Review Panel stage. It was recognised that, while there was considerable variation in the Review Panels’ effectiveness, they could add value to the complaints process. And, in contrast to the NHS procedure, the Panels gave the opportunity for an input from local authority elected members into the complaints process.
3 The removal of the right for the complainant to “have another go” if the complainant objects to the council’s response would also be a significant departure from the current social services complaints procedure.
Whether the truncated procedure set out in the position statement (from three stages to one), and the removal of the independent Review Panel stage, might bring the Ombudsmen into taking a view on professional judgements and the quality of care/standard of service provided for the complainant. Although it was noted that the Ombudsmen may already take a view on professional judgements which are outside the bounds of reasonableness, and in such cases there was likely to be maladministration in other aspects of the council’s treatment of the complainant.
The removal of the right for a complainant to have an independent person reviewing their complaint, and with the authority complained about making the decision as to whether the complainant had the right an independent investigation, was discussed. It was recognised that it would not be appropriate to offer the right in all cases, however minor, but it would be important to ensure that this is offered in the serious cases, with some form of filtering mechanism. This was also likely to be regarded as a sensitive issue by councils, with questions about where the more limited right to seek an independent investigation would be located/implemented.
After further discussion, the Commission AGREED that:
i it was broadly content with the thrust of the PHSO position statement, although some detailed concerns had been expressed about how these might be applied in practice, which should be subject of later discussion.
ii Trish Longdon and Peter MacMahon should prepare a further draft position statement to take account of the points made in the discussion, for consideration and agreement by the Ombudsmen outside the meeting. PM;TL
iii Meantime, to make informal approaches to key stakeholders (in the case of the Commission, principally the LGA and the Association of Directors of Social Services). The Local Government Ombudsmen confirmed that they would be happy to be involved in the discussions with stakeholders where this would be helpful. PM;TL
iv To raise the issue at the next Public Sector Ombudsmen meeting on 12/13 October. TR; AA 6. FOIA
CLA 1553 had been circulated. The following points were noted:
The majority of FOIA complaints were from complainants rather than third parties.
The heading “number of complete replies” meant the number of cases where all the information requested had been supplied.
4 The Commission then considered reports from the Deputies on a number of cases referred to the Information Commissioner (IC), where IC staff had asked to see the information which the Ombudsman had refused to disclose to the complainant. The requests had been made by different IC staff, and had varied from asking to see the whole complaint file, to asking for a list of all the information withheld together with the FOIA exemption used.
The Commission noted that, in its view, the terms of Section 44 of FOIA exempted all the contents of case files in relation to the investigation of complaints. The Ombudsmen could decide to release information to assist an investigation, but that was a matter for the Ombudsmen, rather than the IC, to consider in the particular circumstances of the case. There was no locus for the IC to review the Ombudsmen’s decision on such matters, and so the Ombudsmen could see no reason for IC staff to request to see the information that had not been disclosed under the exemptions.
In the discussion, Ann Abraham referred to the Public Sector Ombudsmen’s previous decision to review their approach to the application of Section 44, and advised that PHSO had commissioned a special project, internally, to look at the issue.
The Commission AGREED that Tony Redmond and Ann Abraham would arrange to hold an informal meeting with the Information Commissioner, Richard Thomas, to discuss this issue, and in particular whether the requests made by his staff represented a change in IC policy/procedure. They would keep the Commission informed of progress. TR; AA
7. Sickness absence: June 2006
CLA 1554 had been circulated. The Commission AGREED that the analysis should be amended to show details on the number of staff who had been off sick, as well as the total number of days sickness absence. NJK; VH
8. Audit Committee
CLA 1555 had been circulated. The minutes of the 11 July meeting were noted, subject to the omission of not from minute 2(b).
Confidential business
9. Draft Corporate Plan 2007 to 2010 (exempt from FOIA under section 22)
CLA 1546 had been circulated to Commissioners and Deputies. The Commission considered the draft plan and AGREED that:
i Anne Seex would circulate to the other Commissioners her written comments on the Plan. AS ii Tony Redmond and Nigel Karney would construct a shorter, strategic document for agreement with the other Commissioners outside the Commission meeting. TR;NJK
iii The draft strategic document would be circulated as a draft to the LJC and LGA,SOLACE and ACSeS for discussion at meetings arranged for 25 September;
5 to DCLG officials; and as background material for the 5/6 October management conference. NJK iv The strategic document would then be put to the 10 October Commission meeting for final approval and submission to the DCLG by 15 October, together with the Commission’s 2007/08 budgets and other documents required under the Grant Memorandum. TR; NJK
10. Date of next meeting 12.00pm, 10 October 2006.
6