Principles of Good Administration: Response to Consultation
Consultation began: 19 October 2006
Consultation closed: 12 January 2007
Response published: 27 March 2007
Introduction
This is the report to the consultation which sought views on our draft Principles of Good Administration. It covers:
- the background to the Principles;
- a summary of comments; and
- conclusion.
Background
On 19 October 2006, we published for consultation our draft Principles of Good Administration. The consultation was held between 19 October 2006 and 12 January 2007.
The Principles are broad statements of what we believe bodies within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction should be doing to deliver good administration and good customer service. We wanted to be more open and clear with both complainants and bodies in jurisdiction about the sorts of behaviour we expect when public bodies deliver public service, and the tests we apply in determining whether maladministration and service failure have occurred.
We appreciate that public bodies are many and varied with a wide range of remits and statutory obligations, and often have their own demanding standards. Public bodies have to take reasonable decisions bearing in mind all the circumstances; delivering good service often means taking a broad and balanced view of all of the individuals or organisations that may be affected by an organisation’s decisions. We hope the Principles will provide a framework for all public bodies within jurisdiction – despite their differences - to follow in fulfilling their duties.
The Principles are not a checklist to be followed mechanically nor are they the final or only means by which the Ombudsman will assess and decide individual cases. They are broad statements of what we believe bodies within our jurisdiction should be doing to deliver good administration and good customer service. We will apply the Principles fairly and sensitively to individual complaints which we will, as ever, continue to decide on their merits and all the circumstances of the case.
Summary of responses
A total of 58 responses to the consultation paper were received and a full list of those responding can be found here.
We were very pleased to see that the draft Principles were generally well received with many people commenting on their quality and clarity. A wide range of organisations responded including bodies within jurisdiction, advice sector groups, national and international Ombudsmen, professional bodies and others. The Cabinet Office co-ordinated a single response on behalf of government departments.
Some respondents offered views on all of the issues in the draft Principles; others focused on particular areas. The summary below does not include the detailed drafting suggestions which we received (which we considered carefully and many of which we took on board in the final editing of the Principles); but reviews the responses to the four questions asked, and highlights the general themes and comments which emerged. We have included some quotations to illustrate some of the points made by particular individuals or organisations, although the extracts should not be taken to reflect the entirety of their views.
Our consultation asked four main questions:
1. Are these Principles written in a way that is relevant and helpful to your work?
Most respondents welcomed the initiative and felt that the principles were written in a way that was relevant and helpful to their work. Indeed some made connections between the Principles and their own (existing) standards and said that they intended to develop initiatives to build on their own performance under each of the Principles.
Cabinet Office
Generally we think the principles represent common sense and good practice and that they are written in a way which staff will find relevant and helpful to their work.
National Audit Office:
The Principles should support improvements in public administration and the way in which complaints are handled. Such improvements would improve the quality of service for citizens and potentially reduce the cost of processing complaints and appeals.
European Ombudsman
Although your project is focused on complainants and bodies within your own jurisdiction, it could also be a valuable source of inspiration to Ombudsmen in other countries, including colleagues in the European Network of Ombudsmen.
2. Are there any words or terms that are unclear?
There were comments around the wording and terminology in the Principles and suggestions that we should have the document checked for plain English. Terms such as ‘risk-based approach to decision making’ and ‘joined-up’ were felt to be unclear.
We edited the language to make it more easily understood and more precise, where we thought it was possible and appropriate to do so. The document has been checked by the Plain Language Commission and has received their accreditation.
3. Should anything else be included?
Respondents answered this question thoughtfully and made a number of helpful suggestions. The key comments are set out below.
- There was a view that the Principles should acknowledge the availability of resources and affordability as a factor in public bodies’ ability to meet the Principles.
Cabinet Office: In providing public services, we all have to strike proportionate balances between reaching for the very highest standards of administration and sheer affordability, and it is important that the Principles should consciously recognise this judicious choice.
We took this point on board in the revised Introduction to the Principles and recognised the fact that public bodies have to balance being sensitive to the needs of customers with maximising the effective use of public resources. We do continue to stress, however, that resource constraints should not be used as an excuse for poor service or poor administration.
- A number of respondents suggested referring explicitly to Human Rights in the Principles.
We fully took the point about the importance of Human Rights and the need to give due weight to the Human Rights culture in the Principles. After careful consideration we decided against explicit reference to the Human Rights Act which might seem to give precedence to one piece of legislation over another. Instead, we amended Principle 1 – Getting it right, to reflect the need to take account of Human Rights, and it now reads ‘acting in accordance with the law and with due regard for the rights of those concerned’.
- Some respondents thought that the Principles might usefully highlight the need to manage customers’ expectations, and customers’ own responsibilities when dealing with public bodies.
Charity Commission: It would be a welcome addition for the Ombudsman to encourage public bodies to publish information about their standards and to offer transparency in managing customers’ expectations from the earliest point of engagement.
We agreed and amended Principle 2 - Being customer focused, to take this point on board.
- Many respondents thought that the Principles should refer to the importance of apologising quickly when things go wrong.
Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals: there was no mention of ‘apologise’ in the context of a complainant saying ‘if only they had apologised’ and felt that this might usefully be included.
Land Registry: We believe that an early apology is an invariable first step.
We agreed and added a new bullet point to Principle 5 - Putting things right.
- Some respondents suggested making more explicit the need to balance openness with due regard for privacy for personal and confidential information.
We amended the supporting text to Principle 3 - Being open and accountable, to make it quite clear that public bodies should handle and process information properly and appropriately in line with legal requirements. So, whilst their procedures should be transparent, public bodies should also respect the privacy of personal and confidential information when legally obliged to do so.
- A number of respondents thought that the Principles might be more explicit about ‘timeliness’ e.g. give timescales for responding to letters.
The Principles have been deliberately drafted at a high level; they are not intended to be a manual offering detailed practical guidance. It is up to public bodies themselves to determine their own processes and set their own standards (which should be available to the public) which will be appropriate for them and which they will aim to meet.
4. Is the supporting text useful and is it helpful to have the final Principles presented in this way?
Overwhelmingly, respondents thought that the supporting text was useful and some respondents thought essential to a proper understanding of the Principles. We therefore kept the original format of the Principles with the Introduction followed by the six Principles and their supporting text.
The Standards Board for England: would find it … most useful to have the Principles presented in this way, enabling quick access and easy reference.
Conclusion
We are grateful to everyone who responded; indeed all the responses have informed the development of our Principles of Good Administration. We published the Principles on 27 March 2007 and they can be found here.
List of respondents
- Action against Medical Accidents (AvMA)
- Gordon Adams
- Audit Commission
- Charity Commission
- Chartered Institute of Taxation
- Chartered Institute of Taxation, Low Incomes Group
- Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services (CAFCASS)
- Commission for Social Care Inspection
- Council on Tribunals
- Disability Rights Commission
- East Midlands Strategic Health Authority
- East of England Strategic Health Authority
- Environment Agency
- European Ombudsman
- Financial Ombudsman
- Financial Services Ombudsman, Ireland
- Food Standards Agency
- General Dental Council
- Gibraltar Public Services Ombudsman
- Government co-ordinated response from departmental Permanent Secretaries
- Government Offices for the English Regions
- Health and Safety Executive
- Healthcare Commission
- Her Majesty’s Courts Service
- Immigration and Nationality Directorate, Home Office
- Independent Case Examiner
- Independent Complaints Mediator for the Criminal Records Bureau
- Independent Police Complaints Commission
- Information Commissioner’s Office
- International Ombudsman Institute
- Land Registry
- Legal Action Group
- Legal Services Commission
- Legal Services Ombudsman for England and Wales
- Lord Justice Carnwath
- Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, Chartered Institute of Taxation
- The National Archives
- National Audit Office
- National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
- National Patient Safety Agency
- Office of the First Minister, (Head of the Civil Service) Northern Ireland
- Office of the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
- Office of the Ombudsman, Malta
- Ombudsman Service Limited
- Pensions Ombudsman
- Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland
- Public and Commercial Services Union
- Public Concern at Work
- Public Guardianship Office
- Removal Ombudsman
- Royal College of General Practitioners
- Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists
- Royal College of Surgeons
- Scottish Committee of the Council on Tribunals
- South West Strategic Health Authority
- Standards Board for England
- Tribunals Service
- Cecilia Wells (member of PHSO Advisory Board)
