DOCSLIB.ORG

Complaints: Do They Make a Difference?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Complaints: Do They Make a Difference? 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.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Winston S. Churchill's Portrayal of the Second World War East of Suez Bein
    THE UNIVERSITY OF HULL “Hiding behind History”: Winston S. Churchill’s Portrayal of the Second World War East of Suez Being a Thesis submitted for the Degree of PhD in the University of Hull by Catherine Anne Virginie Wilson B.A. (Hons) Philosophy with History (University of Wolverhampton) M.A. Historical Research (University of Hull) May 2012 IN MEMORY OF MY FATHER, JOHN HENRY WILSON (1939-2008) * THE MONDOULET SCHOLARSHIP FUND * FOR MY MOTHER, BROTHER, SISTER-IN-LAW ALEX AND OLIVIA * THANK YOU ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am greatly indebted to Dr. David E. Omissi for his knowledgeable and inspiring supervision of this thesis, and for his seemingly endless patience. I would like to thank Professor Richard Toye (Exeter University) for agreeing to read and discuss the preliminary draft of the chapter on Churchill’s imperialism. Your kind comments and enthusiasm are much appreciated. Research is always a pleasure, but even more so when it is carried out at the following archives. Firstly, I would like to thank Allen Packwood, the Director of the Churchill Archives Centre, Cambridge, and all the staff for creating a friendly and welcoming place of research. My thanks also to the staff at: the Basil Liddell Hart Military Archive, King’s College, London; the University of East Anglia Archive; Hull History Centre; Exeter University Special Collections; John Rylands University Library, Manchester University; the National Archives, Kew; and the Imperial War Museum Archives, London. Accepting Professor Bill Philpot’s invitation to present my research at the IHR (Military History seminar) proved to be an exhilarating and rewarding experience—the fruit of which hopefully shows within the thesis itself.
    [Show full text]
  • La Transmission Culturelle Du Traitement De La Criminalité Chez Les Enfants Mineurs De La Grande-Bretagne À L’Écosse À La Suite De La Dévolution De 1999 Ahmady Camara
    La transmission culturelle du traitement de la criminalité chez les enfants mineurs de la Grande-Bretagne à l’Écosse à la suite de la dévolution de 1999 Ahmady Camara To cite this version: Ahmady Camara. La transmission culturelle du traitement de la criminalité chez les enfants mineurs de la Grande-Bretagne à l’Écosse à la suite de la dévolution de 1999. Sociologie. Université Toulouse le Mirail - Toulouse II, 2014. Français. NNT : 2014TOU20088. tel-01212540 HAL Id: tel-01212540 https://tel.archives-ouvertes.fr/tel-01212540 Submitted on 6 Oct 2015 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 5)µ4& &OWVFEFMPCUFOUJPOEV %0$503"5%&-6/*7&34*5²%&506-064& %ÏMJWSÏQBS Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès 1SÏTFOUÏFFUTPVUFOVFQBS Ahmady CAMARA le 14 novembre 2014 5JUSF La transmission culturelle du traitement de la criminalité chez les enfants mineurs de la Grande-Bretagne à l’Ecosse à la suite de la dévolution de 1999 ²DPMFEPDUPSBMF et discipline ou spécialité ED ALLPH@ : Anglais 6OJUÏEFSFDIFSDIF EA 801 CULTURES ANGLO-SAXONNES %JSFDUFVSUSJDF T EFʾÒTF M. Jean BERTON, professeur des universités, Université Toulouse 2 - Jean Jaurès Jury: M. Jean BERTON, professeur des universités, Université Toulouse 2 - Jean Jaurès M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Official History of Britain and the Channel Tunnel
    THE OFFICIAL HISTORY OF BRITAIN AND THE CHANNEL TUNNEL This authoritative volume presents the first official history of the British Government’s evolving relationship with the Channel Tunnel project from the early nineteenth century to 2005. The building of the Channel Tunnel has been one of Europe’s major projects and a testimony to British-French and public-private sector collaboration. However, Eurotunnel’s current financial crisis provides a sobering backcloth for an examination of the British Government’s long-term flirtation with the project, and in particular, the earlier Tunnel project in the 1960s and early 1970s, which was abandoned in 1975. Commissioned by the Cabinet Office and using hitherto untapped British Government records, this book presents an in-depth analysis of the successful project of 1986–94. It provides a vivid portrayal of the complexities of quadripartite decision-making (in two countries, with both public and private sectors), revealing new insights into the role of the British and French Governments in the process. Written by Terry Gourvish, Britain’s leading transport historian, this book will be essential reading for general readers and specialists with an interest in business history, international relations, public policy and project management. WHITEHALL HISTORIES: GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL HISTORY SERIES ISSN: 1474–8398 The Government Official History series began in 1919 with wartime histories, and the peacetime series was inaugurated in 1966 by Harold Wilson. The aim of the series is to produce major histories in their own right, compiled by historians eminent in the field, who are afforded free access to all relevant material in the official archives.
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Examining the Battle of Saltley Gate: Inter- Pretations of Leadership, Violence and Legacy
    University of Bristol Department of Historical Studies Best undergraduate dissertations of 2010 Robert Kellaway Re-examining the Battle of Saltley Gate: inter- pretations of leadership, violence and legacy The Department of Historical Studies at the University of Bristol is com- mitted to the advancement of historical knowledge and understanding, and to research of the highest order. We believe that our undergraduates are part of that endeavour. In June 2009, the Department voted to begin to publish the best of the an- nual dissertations produced by the department’s final year undergraduates (deemed to be those receiving a mark of 75 or above) in recognition of the excellent research work being undertaken by our students. This was one of the best of this year’s final year undergraduate disserta- tions. Please note: this dissertation is published in the state it was submitted for examination. Thus the author has not been able to correct errors and/or departures from departmental guidelines for the presentation of dissertations (e.g. in the formatting of its footnotes and bibliography). © The author, 2010. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means without the prior permission in writing of the author, or as expressly permitted by law. All citations of this work must be properly acknowledged. Re-examining the Battle of Saltley Gate: interpretations of leadership, violence and legacy. Candidate Number: 18836 Undergraduate Dissertation, Bristol University 2010. 1 List of Abbreviations ~ AUEW Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union EEPTU Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunications and Plumbing Union NUGMW National Union of General and Municipal Workers NUM National Union of Mineworkers NUVB National Union of Vehicle Builders SDP Social Democratic Party SWP Socialist Workers Party TGWU Transport and General Workers Union 2 Introduction.
    [Show full text]