House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee COMPLAINTS: DO THEY MAKE A DIFFERENCE? Written Evidence List of written evidence 1. Adam Macleod (COM 01) 2. W S Beckett (COM 02) 3. General Medical Council (COM 03) 4. Brenda Prentice (COM 04) 5. Blue Flash Music Trust (COM 05) 6. Local Government Ombudsman (COM 06) 7. AW&I Tanner (COM 07) 8. Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, University of Oxford (COM 08) 9. Local Government Association (COM 09) 10. Citizens Advice Scotland (COM 10) 11. Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (COM 11) 12. Which? (COM 12) 13. Social Fund Commissioner (COM 13) 14. Trevor Buck, Richard Kirkham and Brian Thompson (COM 14) 15. Centre for Public Scrutiny (COM 15) 16. Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (COM 16) 17. NHS Confederation (COM 17) 18. Elizabeth Derrington, Jodi Berg and Ros Gardner (COM 18) 19. Office for Legal Complaints (COM 19) 20. Della Reynolds (COM 20) 21. Mrs W Morris (COM 21) 22. T J Bartlett (COM 22) 23. C N Rock (COM 23) 24. Alison Pope (COM 24) 25. Alan Reid (COM 25) 26. Janet Treharne Oakley (COM 26) 27. Simon Cramp (COM 27) 28. Frank Edohen (COM 28) 29. Elaine Colville (COM 29) 30. J Pocock (COM 30) 31. Robert Devereux, Permanent Secretary, Department for Work and Pensions (COM 31) 32. Karen Hudes (COM 32) 33. Margaret and Janet Brooks (COM 33) 34. Jan Middleton (COM 34) 35. Jan Middleton (supplementary) (COM 35) 36. Citizens Advice Bureau (supplementary) (COM 36) 37. Ann Marie Smalling-Small (COM 37) 38. Rosemary Cantwell (COM 38) Written evidence submitted by Adam Macleod (COM 01) Further to my letter to you of 1 April (copy enclosed), I offer the following comments on your first inquiry into the handling of complaints. For a number of years since retiring I have written many letters to key Departments offering suggestions for improving their procedures. Sadly not one of my suggestions has been accepted, without any valid reasons ever being given! Moreover, if I press Departments to give reasons, and draw attention to official guidelines on responding to correspondence, this often causes resentment, and sometimes even quite absurd claims that I am being ‘vexatious’ and therefore Section 14 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 relieves the Department of any obligation to reply. The guidelines to Departments on responding to correspondence from the public are very clear, viz: The CIVIL SERVICE CODE requires civil servants to ‘deal with the public fairly, efficiently, promptly, effectively and sensitively to the best of their ability’. The First Principle of Public Life stresses that ‘Holders of public office should act solely in the public interest.’ The Prime Minister in his foreward to the MINISTERIAL CODE (copy enclosed) has laid great emphasis on the obligation of the Government to serve the public. However, most of my suggestions and subsequent complaints about unsatisfactory replies appear to be dealt with by very junior staff who show little or no regard for this guidance, and appear to regard their role as being to totally defend existing procedures and never admit to any shortcomings: The Cabinet Office: Over two years ago, because of this extraordinary disregard of official guidelines, I wrote Francis Maude and Nick Hurd with the simple recommendation that the Government should take seriously and consider positively any constructive criticisms or suggestions from the public. In the absence of any meaningful reply I continued to send reminders, which simply caused resentment and the ridiculous charge that I was being ‘vexatious’: Finally I wrote to Sir Bob Kerslake, Head of the Civil Service, and Sir Jeremy Heywood, Cabinet Secretary, but amazingly, despite sending them four successive letters, I got no response whatever. The Prime Minister: I then felt obliged to forward this correspondence to the Prime Minister since only he could deal effectively with these appalling shortcomings, and his foreward to the MINISTERIAL CODE stresses the importance of the public. Sadly his Correspondence Unit at No. 10 has advised me that he is too busy to see letters from the public. The Department of Health: In 2006 I expressed deep concern that no disciplinary action had been taken against staff at Tameside General Hospital involved in the appalling deaths of four elderly patients. A junior officer simply advised me that this was a matter for the local trust, and this ‘hands off’ attitude appears to have continued to the present day. I also raised this with the Nursing and Midwifery Council, but they said that I must supply the names of the nurses involved, which I could not do because of the extraordinary secrecy surrounding disciplinary action. In addition, I protested when Patricia Hewitt panicked over possible overspend, and hospitals were ordering consultants to work more slowly as under the new NHS Accounting System this quite amazingly saved money. When the Atlas of Variations was published it revealed large variations in the cost of key operations. However, when I asked the Department what was being done to encourage all trusts to raise their standards to the levels of the best, I was again told that this was a matter for individual trusts. Again this ‘hands off’ attitude seems to still persist. Treasury: I have asked the Treasury four times whether they take any account of the adverse effects arbitrary cuts might cause. In particular I referred to the cut of 10,000 staff forced upon HM Revenue and Customs, which will result in a loss of BILLIONS of pounds in uncollected revenue since each tax collecting officer collects many times the value of his salary. I have had no reply. Tribunals Service & Ministry of Justice: A straightforward complaint I raised with the Information Tribunal took nearly two years to resolve, and involved no less than SIX JUDGES, TWO ORAL HEARINGS AND TWELVE FORMAL RULINGS. Repeated complaints I have made to the Tribunal President and to the Ministry of Justice regarding this appalling incompetence have been ignored. Office of Fair Trading: I complained to OFT about the serious confusion that exists regarding Departmental responsibilities for tackling fraud, which is costing the Country some THREE AND A HALF BILLION POUNDS a year. Sadly they have refused to reply on the grounds that my request is ‘vexatious’. I referred this problem to the Prime Minister nearly six months ago, but have had no reply. Action by Public Administration Select Committee There appears to be little evidence that previous inquiries have improved complaints procedures. I therefore recommend the following firm action: a) Sir Bob Kerslake and Sir Jeremy Heywood to be called before the Committee to explain why they have totally disregarded the very clear Guidelines on dealing with the public. b) They should also be called upon to agree to encourage Departments to welcome helpful suggestions from the public, unless they can produce valid reasons against this. c) The Prime Minister should be invited to attend, and bearing in mind the terms of his foreward – should be asked to instruct his Correspondence Unit to bring to his personal attention any correspondence from the public that raises serious issues that only he can resolve. April 2013 Written evidence submitted by WS Beckett (COM 02) I should like to make a contribution to your exercise : Complaints: do they make a difference? Yesterday I became aware of a matter that is likely to increase the costs of the printing and publishing industry and, because it seemed to be the result of one firm misusing its monopolistic position, tried to draw the attention of the Monopolies & Mergers (now restyled as the Competition Commission) to the issue. I was told quite bluntly that the CC did not speak to individuals and that I should contact the Office of Fair Trading. I rang the OFT and, after an almost interminable struggle with the exchange operator because I had no idea which department I wanted, explained the problem and pointed out that it would affect the costs of the industry generally and seemed to be a bad practice. I was informed that nothing would be done although the matter would be 'logged'. I asked what this meant and was told - in so many words - that the matter would simply reside forever in a database. I was not satisfied with this and persisted. I was told that if I wrote in, the matter might be looked at by another department (the 'competition team') but that I would not be advised whether or not any action was to be taken. This, I replied, was not good enough since if I brought to their attention a suspect activity that was effecting my business, it was only reasonable that I should know whether or not the matter was being pursued. Getting nowhere with the OFT - who, incidentally have an 08457 premium rate number - I rang (at their suggestion) the Parliamentary Ombudsman to suggest that there may be better ways of dealing with the public and was told (quite sharply) that to speak to the PO, I had to go through my MP! They suggested I contact the Public Administration Select Committee and thus it is I contribute to the debate you are holding. Perhaps you might consider the following: 1. Is there any good reason why members of the public cannot speak on the telephone to civil servants (sic) at a level able to address the matter in hand. 2. Is there any good reason why the telephone cannot be used in place of the written word. On the telephone I can explain a problem and instantly answer any points that need clarification. To clarify a point by post simply adds time to the exchange.