Ewen Fergusson
The damage caused by failures such as Windrush, Grenfell, infected blood and the Horizon IT scandal goes far beyond the initial events. These tragedies have deeply eroded public trust in the institutions meant to serve us.
This is why the newly established Ethics and Integrity Commission has decided to look at the public sector ombudsman system for its first review. We want to see whether public sector ombudsmen can play an enhanced role in spotting systemic failure earlier so that tragedies – and the lengthy public inquiries that follow – can be avoided in the first place.
This review builds on our previous report ‘Recognising and responding to early warning signs in public sector bodies’, under the Committee on Standards in Public Life. That report called on public sector bodies to put systems in place to identify institutional failings and develop a culture where people are ready and willing to take action.
Too often, public institutions act defensively, appearing to prioritise their own reputation over their duty to the public. What might be dismissed as an isolated ‘unfortunate error’ could actually be the first symptom of a wider systemic issue.
An ombudsman is an independent, impartial official or body appointed to investigate and resolve complaints, typically about government departments, public organisations, or private companies. Acting as a ‘representative’ or ‘agent’, they aim to ensure fairness and accountability, providing a free, alternative method for resolving disputes without the need for costly, time-consuming court action.
Public sector ombudsman schemes are independent of the government. Their work is focused on a single, impartial question: has this person been failed? Even when a public services authority has dismissed a grievance, the ombudsman provides a secondary, objective lens to determine whether a complaint has merit.
By investigating these individual stories, ombudsman services can gain a unique insight. They can see where the public sector falls short and where a citizen’s search for transparency, accountability and redress has not been met. They don’t just see a case file; they see the friction points where the system stops serving the people it was built to protect.
Our review will consider whether the public sector ombudsman schemes can do more to prevent future serious failures from occurring, using their unique vantage point to spot trends and identify signs of a systemic issue.
The public sector ombudsman landscape can be complex, which is why we want to look at the public’s expectations of their role. We will also consider how ombudsman schemes might balance handling complaints, made by individuals, with identifying and investigating systemic failings – and whether they have sufficient powers to do so.
Should the review propose changes, we will consider the appropriate oversight mechanisms required for any proposed changes. We will also look at whether advisory standards are sufficient for encouraging high standards of complaints handling or whether Ombudsman complaint standards should be statutory and whether recommendations made by Ombudsmen should be binding.
Today, we have published a call for evidence asking a number of questions. We want to make practical, workable recommendations and this relies on gathering a broad range of evidence and views from experts and stakeholders, as well as hearing from the public.
We are not interested in making recommendations that would contribute to any unintended consequences, nor in making a system, which can at times be complex, even more so.
Our aim for this review is that any recommendations we make will be necessary, implementable and, most importantly, make a positive difference to the public.
The review’s terms of reference
The review will:
1. inquire into the public’s expectations of the role of the modern public sector ombudsman;
2. consider how ombudsman schemes should balance handling complaints made by individuals with identifying and investigating systemic failings and supporting public bodies with institutional learning;
3. identify the powers required by ombudsman schemes in order to be able to investigate systemic failings; and any barriers to initiating systemic investigations;
4. identify the appropriate oversight mechanisms required for any proposed changes;
5. examine whether advisory Complaint Standards are sufficient for encouraging high standards of complaints handling in the public sector or whether ombudsman Complaint Standards should be statutory;
6. consider whether the recommendations of ombudsman schemes should be binding; and
7. explore ways to make it easier for the public to navigate the public sector ombudsman landscape.
