I am very grateful to the British and Irish Ombudsmen's Association for the invitation to take part in this conference and for the opportunity to say a few words about the British Government's intentions concerning the resolution of administrative disputes.
Following on from an informative, fascinating and very amusing speech from Mr McCreevy. Firstly, I must apologise again for the absence of Lord Filkin who had to be elsewhere. I am Lord Filkin's colleague in the House of Lords and spokesman for the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Department of Trade and Industry.
It is due in no small part to the efforts of the Association, that ombudsmen continue to operate so successfully and enjoy the continued confidence and patronage of the public, both here and in Ireland. An international organisation of this kind is unusual and so its success is particularly welcome. I was particularly interested to learn about the work the Association has been involved with in helping ombudsmen schemes to become established in other countries - as far afield as Vietnam and Morocco. The sheer range in scale and variety of the work ombudsmen deal with - from a few hundred cases to almost a hundred thousand cases a year, covering school admissions to credit cards - make the UK and Ireland well-placed to offer such valuable advice and experience.
The purpose behind my speech today is to set out how the Government sees arrangements for redress developing - particularly between individuals and the state - and, I hope, stimulate some thinking and debate on where ombudsmen might fit in within that landscape. The landscape we have already mentioned this morning.
The Government is committed to modernising public services and no less so in the areas of redress and dispute resolution. We are moving away from the "one size fits all" approach and re-designing services around the needs of customers - patients, pupils, passengers, for example - as well as the wider general public. This is about setting standards that matter to people, delegating responsibility and accountability to those best placed to deliver, instilling greater flexibility in public service organisations and providing wider choice in the way services are provided.
In June last year the Department for Constitutional Affairs was created. One of the central purposes of this new organisation is to deliver key public services in the areas of justice, rights and democracy - services that meet the varying needs of users and their communities and not the institutions that provide them.
Redress is an integral part of public sector reform. The standards of service that the public receives and the means by which actions and decisions that are believed to be wrong can be questioned or challenged, bear directly on trust and faith in Government and state authorities. The public, as well as the agencies and institutions that serve them, need to have quick and effective redress systems in place for when things go wrong. People need to feel confident about their ability to get justice, particularly where the state is concerned.
So what do we know about what people want? Well, most people do not want to have to go before a tribunal or a court! They want to get what they feel is right or at least to fully understand why they got what they did, where that is different to, or less than expected. They want these issues resolved quickly and where possible, at source. Above all, they want to know that what they got was fair and that they have been fairly treated.
Early and proportionate dispute resolution is the goal of our policies. Our starting-point was Sir Andrew Leggatt's report "Tribunals for Users" but we have taken the opportunity to put that report in a much wider context. We are now reviewing the entire landscape of administrative justice with the aim of identifying existing gaps and weaknesses and bringing greater coherence. DCA's philosophy is that it exists not to service the institutions but to serve the public. So we are trying to look at redress from the point of view of the public, who need to be able to use the system. Within the next two months we will be publishing a White Paper setting out where we want to take the systems of redress available from central government.
I'd like to give you some idea of what we are looking at. Broadly, the areas fall into three categories; firstly, making the most of the opportunities to minimise and solve disputes that arise at the original decision-making stage, including where necessary, improving the use of review and reconsideration of decisions. Secondly, improving signposting so that people are directed more quickly to sources of help and advice; and thirdly reforming the available institutions so that they can be more efficient and flexible.
Our main focus is on tribunals, not just because of the Leggatt Review but because they deal with the rights and obligations of hundreds of thousands of users. They cover a huge range of types of case - from tax cases involving hundreds of millions of pounds with heavy legal representation to Social Security cases with unrepresented appellants. As well as unifying the administration we need to look critically at the services they provide and how they work. How can they be made more flexible - perhaps operating in ways more akin to ombudsmen? We know that some ombudsmen along with other complaint handling bodies often deal with large numbers of complaints very effectively using informal methods. We also know that ombudsmen enjoy an excellent standing amongst the general public. We believe ombudsmen schemes have much to teach us.
At a more detailed level - and these are areas where we really would welcome your input and suggestions - is there any scope for administrative staff in the tribunals to play a part in conciliation or resolution, in the way they do in ombudsmen and independent complaints handling schemes? How do we bring the flexibility to operate in other ways into the system without driving up costs? And how do we do all these things without unreasonably delaying or fettering access to the tribunal for those cases that are best dealt with in that forum?
Alongside these new and more flexible approaches, there will always be a requirement for tribunal hearings but we need a system which is both more coherent and more flexible than that which exists presently. We need to know more about users and potential users, particularly the latter, the people who do not appeal even when apparently, there are good grounds for them to do so.
What we do know indicates that what matters to users is independence, speed, understanding, fairness and accessibility. For some tribunals the waiting times are too long and even if they are not in most instances the appellant will already have been through a protracted battle with the department or agency responsible for the original decision or action. So the end-to-end process, which is the measure that matters to the user, can take significantly longer.
As well as dissatisfaction with delays, people find the process of appealing complex and difficult to understand. They often experience a lack of confidence about the independence of the tribunal, which can sometimes appear to be more theoretical than is desirable - for a number of reasons. For example, in some cases responsibility for policy, decision-making and the tribunal itself rest with the same Government Department. In other instances, although an appeal is made to the tribunal, the appellant is required to send the application form to the original decision-maker who, it then appears, has control over the point that the dispute becomes the a matter for the tribunal.
Most of these arrangements exist for good practical reasons and those who understand them will testify to the actual independence of tribunals but to citizens the links can often appear to be far too close. Clearly, in an ideal world, no aspect of the tribunal or its administration should be the responsibility of those whose policies or decisions, it is the tribunals' duty to consider. Underpinning all of this is the need for taxpayers to be confident that the systems that are in place offer best value for money and here again, there is scope for improvement.
The creation of the new tribunal system is a key element in the process of realising these objectives both in terms of delivering better services to users and providing the foundation for the wider reform of the administrative justice system.
The establishment of the new tribunal system under the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the transfer to it, over the next few years, of five of the largest Government tribunals will provide the manifest independence required.
The timetable for implementation is longer than we would have liked but the
decision has now been taken to create this new organisation and to equip it
to become a different type of organisation to the collective of tribunals which
will form its basis.
While we have been impressed by what we have seen of ombudsmen and complaint
handling bodies and what we have learned has inspired a good deal of new thinking,
there is a real issue about cost - some tribunals seem to achieve a significantly
lower unit cost and to be faster than comparable ombudsmen services. This may
be a bit surprising to you but it does seem to be the case. In short, there
is no single, simple model that we can use to replace the existing tribunal
system with. We need to work with everyone including you obviously, involved
in effective redress systems to understand what may be successful where and
we need to experiment with and pilot new methods.
At this stage we do not know exactly the range of services the new organisation - which will combine the existing tribunal judiciary and staff - will provide nor exactly how it will deliver them. But we know that its mission will be: to resolve disputes and raise standards.
What does this mean for ombudsmen and others in the administrative justice system? It is clear to us that in the new organisation, ombudsmen and complaints handlers will need to have a new relationship so that it is apparent where each element fits and the interaction between the various roles each play can be well defined. All institutions need to work in a complementary and supportive way. And individuals need guidance on how to navigate through the institutions. They need help to direct them to the best body able to deal with their problems, or mix of problems. We need greater flexibility, less emphasis on jurisdictional barriers and more co-operative working - particularly in the public sector.
Another institution likely to be affected by the changes we are making is the Council on Tribunals. It was created as a relatively weak central body at a time when tribunals were even more fragmented in their organisation than they are now. The creation of the new organisation radically changes the environment within which it works. The perspective I have described - with its emphasis on redress systems as a whole - suggests that there may well be a case for the Council's role to evolve into a broader administrative justice council, with the role of reviewing the way the whole of the redress scene fits together.
A new administrative justice council might be able to address what I know is one of your concerns as an organisation: the absence of restrictions on the use of the term "ombudsman". I know that some look at countries such as New Zealand where the term "Ombudsman" enjoys a degree of legal protection, ensuring that schemes there cannot fail to meet the stipulated criteria and yet still be called ombudsmen. We would have to look very carefully at that degree of control but a new council could be an equally effective guardian of the right of the public to rely on institutions which use this well-regarded title.
I hope I have said enough today to indicate that the government is thinking genuinely and seriously about these issues. We don't have all the answers yet. But within government we accept that redress, whether obtained through ombudsmen or complaints mechanisms, or through courts or tribunals, needs as a matter of policy to be approached holistically, and we intend that there is a clear, comprehensive approach to these issues across Government and we intend that this should be developed.
Thanks very much for listening to what I've said. I hope I have been able to shed a little light on the Government's plans in the area of administrative justice and redress and to re-assure that from now on, there will be a sharper focus in government for ombudsmen and redress policy generally. I'd like to thank you on behalf of the Department for the willingness many of you have shown in working with the staff of the DCA and others in taking forward this important area of policy development. We look forward as a Department to the continuance of that productive relationship. Finally I wish you a fruitful and enjoyable Annual Meeting.
Thank you.