BIOA – providing a platform for development and improvement · 6 Final report with recommendations on a framework for external scrutiny with key principles and options/models for

Issue 30 December 2006 The newsletter of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association

It is a privilege to Chair the British and Irish Ombudsman Association. BIOA is in very good order thanks to the sterling efforts of my predecessors,

particularly those most recent, Ann Abraham and Walter Merricks.

One of its great strengths is the excellent camaraderie established amongst the BIOA membership. Help and support is always at hand for new schemes or for those who may need guidance in a difficult situation. Equally, our common purpose brings a unity which binds the Association and provides a perfect platform for development and improvement. Our integrity and reputation as ombudsmen are critical to our success and our voice in effecting improvements to customer services and complaints handling arrangements is a powerful one.

There is much of considerable importance on the BIOA agenda this year. Principles of good complaints handling is a project being progressed by Jodi Berg and a group of other members. This we see as a real opportunity to set down the basis of our core business which we hope will be of help to all schemes, old, new, small and large.

It might offer reassurance to some and guidance to other schemes which may be in their infancy.

Another major initiative is a working party of BIOA members to examine the governance principles that might underpin ombudsmen schemes. Independence is the cornerstone of our operations but the funding, management, regulation and accountability of ombudsmen must be balanced against this in a considered way. Caroline Mitchell is chairing this group and we hope to report back at the Annual Conference at Warwick University next April. This highly popular event will take place on Thursday 26 and Friday 27 April 2007 and is a must for all ombudsmen. Further details of the conference are given on page 5 of this issue.

A third activity which BIOA will consider this year is the professional development of ombudsmen employees. The quality of investigations is something of which we can be justly proud. The training and skilling of investigators must be robust, relevant and rigorous as must be their continuing professional development. To establish universal standards with appropriate accreditation would be a daunting task yet every ombudsman would, I am sure, welcome a benchmark for investigative staff, formal training and refresher courses. All of which will in turn recognise the professional nature of the work and offer portability in employment enabling staff to move more readily between ombudsmen schemes as well as the regulatory environment.

Finally, can I say something about the growth of ombudsmen schemes in recent years. BIOA is in very good health and welcomes the influx of new members. However, key to this growth is the continued application of rigorous standards in determining whether the scheme meets the exacting requirements of the Association. The term ‘proliferation’ has, unfortunately, been attached to the creation of more ombudsman schemes but our determination is certainly not to grow indiscriminately but to welcome every member who can show that the scheme demonstrates integrity, independence and discipline, vital to our continued success.

I look forward to meeting many of you over the coming months and particularly at the conference next year.Tony Redmond

BIOA – providing a platform for development and improvement

1 EditorialTony Redmond, Chair BIOA

2 Newsdesk

6 Fair Premises Millbank Tower

6 PHSO Principles of Good Administration Ann Abraham launches consultation document

7 Public Administration International Study Programme By Claire Cameron

8 A Meaningful Apology by Carolyn Hirst, Deputy Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

10 New body to investigate police complaints in Ireland By Matt Merrigan

11 The InquisitionTom Frawley, Northern Ireland Ombudsman

12 Case Studies

13 Profiles Caroline Mitchell, Financial Services OmbudsmanJanet Gaymer, Commissioner for Public Appointments

14 Ombudsman news around the world Ian Pattison’s news roundup

2 The Ombudsman Issue 30

Newsdesk Newsdesk Newsdesk Newsdesk

Judiciary Ombudsman appointedA senior member of the Electoral Commission has become Northern Ireland’s first ever Ombudsman for Judicial Appointments. Karamjit Sukhmindar Singh was appointed to the part-time post by the Queen following a recommendation by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer. He will investigate allegations of unfairness and maladministration in the judicial appointments process.

Change of address The Financial Services Ombudsman’s Bureau for Ireland is now located at:

3rd FloorLincoln HouseLincoln PlaceDublin 2www.financialombudsman.ie

Key to first year secured! YEAR 8 pupils from throughout Northern Ireland started their second level education careers with a way to keep precious locker, bike and house keys safe, thanks to a key-ring from the Northern Ireland Commissioner for Children and Young People (NICCY).

The key-rings, together with a poster and leaflet, are a unique way for NICCY to let children and young people know about the services available from the Children’s Commissioner’s office.

It is part of a wide-ranging awareness campaign being undertaken by the Commissioner to make sure pupils know what NICCY can do for them.

“They’re a way for pupils to have the contact details of our office quite literally to hand,” said Commissioner, Barney McNeany. “And already we have had contact from schools throughout Northern Ireland to arrange visits from our participation team, as well as individual pupils raising issues.

“Part of our mission is to make sure children and young people, and their parents and carers, know about NICCY and what we can do to promote and safeguard their rights and best interests.

“Fun and interesting ways of raising awareness like key-rings, posters and our website are encouraging children and young people to find out more about our work and the rights they have under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.”

For more information see the website www.niccy.org.

Student outreachColleges and universities came under the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) jurisdiction with the commencement of the Further and Higher Education (Scotland) Act 2005 in October last year. With this in mind, publicity material has been designed to let students know that the SPSO can take on their complaint.

From October 2005 to the end of March 2006, SPSO received 22 enquiries and 26 complaints from students. The main subjects of complaint were academic appeal/exam results/degree classification; policy/administration; complaints handling; and teaching and supervision.

The new leaflets give advice to students about their right to come to the Ombudsman if they are unhappy with the response they received when they complained to their college or university. The leaflets have been distributed by the National Union of Students to Freshers’ Fairs throughout Scotland. The leaflet has been produced in English and Gaelic and copies are available on request.

For further information, please contact: Sarah Crawford, Outreach Officer

Tel: 0131 240 8842E: [email protected]

New Ombudsman for Estate Agents appointedChris Hamer has succeeded Stephen Carr-Smith as the Ombudsman for Estate Agents. He is the third person to hold the position since the Ombudsman for Estate Agents scheme started in 1989. A former private secretary to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, he later served as director of services at the

Insurance Ombudsman Bureau and general manager of the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman Bureau. Most recently, he spent six years with HSBC as head of insurance product and distribution risk.

Independent review of public services in ScotlandAn independent review of regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling of public services in Scotland is underway. The review is chaired by Professor Lorne Crerar, the managing partner of Harper Macleod law firm, and former Convener to the Standards Commission of Scotland, responsible for patrolling ethics in public life. Professor Crerar will evaluate the existing system of regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling in Scotland, and make recommendations to Ministers in June 2007 on a framework for the future external scrutiny of public services including:n the purpose, principles and

role of effective regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling, including clarifying who the customers and beneficiaries are;

n governance arrangements;n how regulation, audit,

inspection and complaints handling can better support continuous improvement in public services;

n how regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling can be more efficient and better co-ordinated;

n the priorities for change; andn any legislative or organisational

changes that would be required to implement the recommendations.

The review will carry out six substantive areas of work:1 Establishing the purpose

of external scrutiny – clarification of the principles and defining the purpose of effective regulation, audit, inspection and complaints handling across all public services, initially through a review of UK and international literature and research.

2 Mapping – of existing

audit, inspection, regulation, and complaints handling arrangements across public services.

3 Evaluation of the impact of the current system on service delivery/service users – analysis of the burdens and added value of external scrutiny on front line services, and the extent to which the current arrangements currently meet the principles of effective external scrutiny.

4 Prioritisation of critical issues – ie those parts of the external scrutiny system where issues are most significant and where reform is most needed.

5 Development of options/models for a revised external scrutiny framework, addressing the specific questions in the remit.

6 Final report with recommendations on a framework for external scrutiny with key principles and options/models for delivery.

New BIOA membersThe Association is delighted to welcome the following new members since the last edition of the newsletter:

Voting membern Hilary Bainbridge – Waterways

Ombudsman (previously Corporate Associate member)

Corporate Associate membersn Stella Burnside – Chief

Executive, Regulation & Quality Improvement Authority for Northern Ireland

n Seán Ó Cuirreáin – An Coimisinéir Teanga (Irish Language Commissioner)

n John Elliot – Registrar and Director of Regulation, Law Society of Ireland

n Monica McWilliams – Chief Commissioner, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

The LGO publish tenth Digest Complaints about education, housing, planning and social services all feature among the 68 cases selected for the Local Government Ombudsmen’s

Newsdesk Newsdesk

The Ombudsman Issue 30 3

Newsdesk Newsdesk

50th BIOA Executive Committee Meeting On Friday, 20 October 2006 the 50th Executive Committee meeting of the Association was held at the offices in Edinburgh of the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman.

The following members of the BIOA Executive Committee were present at that meeting:n Tony Redmond, BIOA Chair and

Chairman, Commission for Local Administration in England

n Jodi Berg, Independent Case Examiner and Independent Complaints Reviewer

n Professor Alice Brown, Scottish Public Services Ombudsman

n Elizabeth France, Telecommunications Ombudsman and Energy Supply Ombudsman

n Caroline Mitchell, Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service

n Ian Pattison, BIOA SecretaryDue to other commitments, Emily O’Reilly, Ombudsman for Ireland, was unable to be present.

A brief history of the AssociationIn 1991 a conference of ombudsmen from both the public and private sectors was held, at which it was agreed to set up an association for ombudsmen, their staff, and other organisations and individuals, such as voluntary bodies and academics interested in the work of ombudsmen. The Association came into being in 1993 as the United

Kingdom Ombudsman Association and became the British and Irish Ombudsman Association when membership was extended to include the Ombudsman from the Republic of Ireland in 1994.

The very first Executive Committee meeting of the Association was held on 13 May 1993. Present were:n Laurence Shurman, BIOA Chairman and

Banking Ombudsmann Dr Julian Farrand, Insurance

Ombudsmann Bob Peggie, Scottish Local Government

Ombudsmann Sir William Reid, Parliamentary and

Health Service Ombudsmann Gordon Adams, BIOA SecretaryThe term ‘ombudsman’ is not a protected title and it embraces not only public sector ombudsmen who examine complaints that injustice has been caused by maladministration and may make recommendations as to a remedy, but also private sector ombudsmen who may make a decision on the merits and can make binding awards.

Objectives of the AssociationThe objectives set out in the Association’s Rules are to:n encourage, develop and safeguard the role

and title of ombudsmen in both the public and private sectors;

n define, publish and keep under review criteria for the recognition of ombudsman offices by the Association;

n accord recognition publicly to those persons who satisfy the defined criteria for recognition in:l the United Kingdoml the Republic of Irelandl the Channel Islandsl the Isle of Manl the UK dependent territories

n formulate and promote standards of best practice to be met by ombudsmen in the performance of their duties; and

n hold meetings, conferences and seminars, publish information and engage in all such other activities as may improve public awareness of recognised ombudsman schemes and encourage their efficiency and effectiveness.

tenth annual Digest of Cases. Highlighting cases of particular interest in 2005/06, the Digest aims to maximise the benefit of the Ombudsmen’s work by sharing it with all local authorities to help improve public services.

Among the Ombudsmen’s selections are:n a case where a man, who had

daily epileptic seizures as a result of having been tortured in his home country, had to sleep rough because a council failed to handle his homelessness application properly;

n a case where a voluntary-aided faith school had admission criteria that were not objective or fair, and did not deal objectively or fairly with applications. The admission panel saw its role as arbiter in a competition to decide which families had the greatest commitment to the faith, and which the least. This subjective approach is contrary to the Government’s Code of Practice on School Admissions;

n a case where a private

company that provided care services under contract to the council failed to visit an elderly disabled woman who required daily contact for personal care. She had an accident and was found some 13 hours later on the floor of her home. She was taken to hospital and died eight days later. The council had received “a catalogue of complaints” about the care company, but had failed to take appropriate action; and

n a case where a council’s delay in taking enforcement action

against a builder’s yard led to it becoming lawfully established.

You can download the Digest from the Local Government Ombudsman website at www.lgo.org.uk/digest.htm

Joint BIOA/CoT projectFor some months now, a joint project with the Council on Tribunals (CoT) to map the complaint-handling landscape has been proceeding. This work is being undertaken by Gordon Adams, former BIOA Secretary,

Continued on page 4

Back row from left: Ian Pattison, Elizabeth France, Tony Redmond, Caroline Mitchell, Seated: Jodi Berg, Professor Alice Brown

Emily O’Reilly


and Margaret Doyle, ADR Consultant and also member of The Ombudsman Service Limited (TOSL) and Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education (OIAHE) Boards. This work is on-going and further reports will be made in due course.

The overall aims of the project are to:n define the territory of

complaint handling;n be a starting point for

rationalisation and avoidance of duplication of organizations;

n provide a format or vehicle for showing what is out there, accessible to government, practitioners and academics, and to aid networking;

n help to pull together areas of common interest and concern;

n allow the CoT to engage with different sectors in a more dynamic way than at present;

n help move the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council forward;

n stimulate good practice/principles;

n break down barriers, and to promote the idea of a wider administrative justice sector;

n enable BIOA to encourage membership of relevant schemes;

n stimulate debate on areas of commonality, and provide a common language and values; and

n widen the Adjust (CoT ezine) audience.

Summaries of meetings of BIOA Interest GroupsIan Pattison writes:During the latter half of 2006 a number of interest groups convened. Common themes discussed of the first three groups listed below included:n an update on the Principles

of good complaint handling working group;

n a report on the new Governance working group set up under Caroline Mitchell; and

n a report on BIOA’s joint project with the Council on Tribunals (CoT) to map the complaint-handling landscape.

They also all included a roundup from those present of items of interest in their schemes.

Personnel, Training and Development Interest GroupThe sixth meeting of this interest group was held on 11 September 2006 at the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner in Tooley Street, London.

The meeting was attended by 15 members. At the meeting, the current chair, Eric Drake (Deputy Scottish Public Services Ombudsman), stepped down and Peter Stansfield (HR Director at the Financial Ombudsman Service) was duly elected as the new chair. We are very grateful for the work that Eric has done over the past few years, and also grateful to Peter for agreeing to take his place.

Topics discussed at the meeting included:n a brief explanation by

Jane Hannah of the new Energy Supply Ombudsman scheme which is being run, together with the existing Telecommunications Ombudsman scheme (Otelo), by The Ombudsman Service Limited (TOSL) as reported in Issue 29 of this newsletter;

n work done by the Accreditation working group and the possibility that future work may be commissioned in due course on Accreditation, Training and CPD by the BIOA Executive Committee; and

n a workshop at the BIOA 2007 Conference on Accreditation to be run by the interest group.

It was agreed that topics for discussion at the next meeting would include the remit of the interest group, appraisals best practice, competencies and age discrimination. The next meeting of the interest group will be during March at the Financial Ombudsman Service in London’s Dockland.

PR and Communications Interest GroupThe ninth meeting of this interest group was held on 12 September 2006, again at the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner and was attended by 11 members of the group.

Although not able to be present at this meeting, the chair, Barbara Batchelor

(Communications Manager at the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman) had indicated her wish to stand down. Shelley Radice (Removals Industry Ombudsman) was elected in her place as the new chair.

Topics discussed at the meeting included:n accessibility to schemes; n bias in the casework process; n a workshop at the BIOA 2007

Conference on Complaint handling and the media to be run by the interest group; and

n promoting ombudsman schemes.

It was agreed that topics for discussion at the next meeting would include further discussions on promoting ombudsman schemes and also on the Conference workshop. The next meeting of the interest group will be during March at the Financial Ombudsman Service in London’s Dockland.

Legal Interest GroupThe tenth meeting of this interest group was held on 25 October at the offices of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, High Holborn, London.

The meeting was attended by 21 members of the group.

Topics discussed included:n The work being done by the

public sector ombudsmen in the UK and Republic of Ireland on human rights issues and the impact on ombudsmen of the Human Rights Act.

n Work being done on behalf of the group by David Baker and Hugh Batterbury on

compensation and redress, and on consolatory awards in particular the use and value of an ombudsman’s case review in a court, where either party seeks to overturn the decision.

n A Workshop at the BIOA 2007 Conference on Judicial Review to be run by the interest group.

It was agreed that topics for discussion at the next meeting would include difficult/unreasonably-persistent complainants, judicial review, the Law Commission’s scoping paper on Remedies against public bodies and the Legal Services Commission’s work on ADR. The next meeting of the interest group will be during March/April at the Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education in Reading.

Full notes of these three meetings are available from the Secretary on request ([email protected]).

Autumn seminar The Operational Management Interest Group’s biannual autumn seminar was run this year on 3 October, once again at the offices of Lawrence Graham, Solicitors in Strand, London. We are immensely grateful to Simon Randall and his fellow Partners at Lawrence Graham for allowing us the use of their premises. It was the last such seminar to be held in Strand as, early next year, Lawrence Graham will be locating to new offices across the river at London Bridge. We understand that we will be

Continued from page 3

Paul Kendall, Tony Redmond, Jan Smith and James Sandbach

Newsdesk Newsdesk


welcome there for the 2008 seminar!

The seminar was very successful and attracted nearly 100 delegates, drawn from member schemes. As previewed in Issue 29 of this newsletter, the two topics were First contact and Accessibility. The speakers, to whom we are very grateful for their time, were:

Morning session: First contactn Paul Kendall – Head of

Customer Care, Financial Ombudsman Service

n Jan Smith – Head of External Affairs, Consumer Credit Counselling Service

n Dr James Sandbach – Social Policy Officer, Citizens Advice

This session was chaired by Tony Redmond, BIOA Chair and

Chairman, Commission for Local Administration in England (Local Government Ombudsman)

Afternoon session: Accessibility n Andrew Bradley

– Communications Manager, The Ombudsman Service Limited (Telecommunications Ombudsman and Energy Supply Ombudsman)

n Dr Christina Julios – Director of Policy and External Affairs, Ethnic Minority Foundation

n Dr Nick O’Brien – Director of Legal Services, Disability Rights Commission

This session was chaired by Professor David Graham QC, a retired insolvency lawyer and now Visiting Professor of Insolvency Law at Kingston University Law School.

Principles of good complaint handling working groupThe work of this BIOA Working Group, chaired by Jodi Berg, is now nearing its conclusion with the planned production early in 2007 of a BIOA Guide to the principles of good complaint handling.

The initial draft of the document was prepared for the time of the BIOA Annual Meeting in Dublin on 23 May and BIOA members were consulted thereafter. A good response to the consultation was received with basically three categories of response, namely: n those with just drafting

suggestions;n those with responses to all

questions; andn those who gave an explanation

of their own schemes, showing how they did or did not fit in with the ‘Principles’.

Nothing came out of the consultation to suggest there was a major issue, and all who had responded said that they welcomed and would use the document. Two key areas were highlighted where it was felt that there some concerns, namely:n effectiveness, and what it

means; andn articulating more clearly the

importance of impartiality.It has been agreed that the guide, to be published in A5

booklet format, will also be available on the BIOA website. In addition, in time for the BIOA 2007 Conference (on 26/27 April), an abridged version for use as an audit guide will produced, as well as a trainers’ ‘tool kit’. Jodi Berg will present the guide and other documents at a plenary session of the Conference.

Governance working group This new BIOA working group, chaired by Caroline Mitchell, first met on 2 July and then again on 2 October. The background to and composition of this working group were described in some detail in Issue 29 of this newsletter. The group’s terms of reference have been approved by the BIOA Executive Committee and are: n to identify the general

principles of ‘integrated governance’ relevant to ombudsman and complaint-handling schemes which allow those schemes to function appropriately. ‘Integrated governance’ is where positive corporate governance is a value embedded throughout all of the organisation;

n to draw up a statement of those principles which underpin the BIOA core criteria of independence, fairness, effectiveness

A date for your diary! As previously announced, the Association’s 2007 Conference will take place at Scarman House Conference Centre, University of Warwick on 26 and 27 April.

The event has, in recent years, been over-subscribed so, to avoid disappointment this time, the size of the Conference is being increased from 130 delegates to 200 delegates. This means that we shall occupy the whole of the Scarman House residential facilities.

The overall theme of the Conference is – Ombudsmen; boundaries and balance. It will take a similar form to that of previous years with plenary sessions, workshops and a formal dinner on the evening of Thursday, 26 April. There will be a mix of external speakers and those from within BIOA.

The outline programme for the Conference (which also incorporates the formal Annual

Meeting for BIOA members and any guests who wish to attend) is as follows:

Thursday, 26 April 11.00am BIOA Annual Meeting1.00pm Buffet lunch2.00pm – 6.30pm Conference sessions

(opening address, two plenary sessions and one workshops session)

7.30pm for 8.00pm Dinner

Friday, 27 April7.30am – 8.30am Breakfast9.00am – 1.00pm Conference sessions

(one workshops session, two plenary sessions and closing address)

1.30pm Buffet lunch

The cost per delegate of the Conference, to include overnight accommodation at Scarman House and the meals shown above, is £380 (the same as for the 2005 Conference).

Registration details will be available shortly, and will be sent to all BIOA members and to those who are on the usual BIOA distribution lists. In the meantime, and in case you are not on the distribution lists, please email the Secretary (Ian Pattison) at [email protected] if you wish to be sent a registration form.

From left to right: Nigel Karney (LGO), Rafael Runco (HOS) and Carol Neill (SPSO) enjoy an anecdote told by Elizabeth Derrington, the Independent Complaints Adjudicator for

OFSTED and the Adult Learning Inspectorate, (far right, with microphone).

Continued on page 6

Newsdesk Newsdesk

Scarman House

Fair PremisesMillbank TowerNo 1 in a series

Millbank Tower – the seat of almost certainly the highest ombudsmen in the land; the UK Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman for England and the Judicial Appointments and Conduct Ombudsman (occupying floors 8,10-11, 13-15, 19-21, 23-24 of the 168m tall building between them – over a third of the building).

Handy for art lovers, being right next to Tate Britain, the building is on part of the site of Millbank Prison, demolished in 1890. Past occupants (of the building not the prison) include the UN and, famously, the Labour Party during the 1997 election campaign.

A recent visitor to the LGO was ex-MP Tony Benn, recording Radio 4’s “Sentimental Journey” with Arthur Smith. He had been born in a house on the site, and much later as Energy Minister worked on the floor now occupied by the LGO.


and accountability, while recognising the diversity of schemes and the need for flexibility;

n to publish a high-level statement of the principles which can be used as a guiding principle by existing schemes, by those seeking to set up new ombudsman and complaint-handling

schemes, and also by other interested parties such as consumer organisations and the recipients of schemes’ services.

Work is progressing steadily by individual members, and the group plans to meet again in February 2007 and there will be a workshop on this topic, chaired by Caroline Mitchell, at the BIOA 2007 Conference.


Newsdesk

In October, Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman,

launched six draft Principles of good administration for formal consultation.

The six Principles are key statements of what PHSO believes bodies within their jurisdiction should be doing to deliver good administration and good public service. The Principles’ accompanying explanatory notes describe them in more detail and how they might work in practice. The Principles are:1. getting it right2. being customer focused3. being open and accountable4. acting fairly and

proportionately5. putting things right6. seeking continuous

improvementPHSO says that it undertook the project because it wanted to be more open and clearer, both with complainants and bodies in jurisdiction, about the tests PHSO applies in determining maladministration. PHSO wants bodies within their jurisdiction to understand how the Office

will approach complaints and wants complainants to understand how their cases will be considered.

PHSO wants to do this in a positive way, so the Principles aim to define what public bodies should be doing, rather than what they should not. Ann has emphasised that the Principles are not hard and fast rules. They are not intended to be used as a checklist, nor will they be the only means by which the Ombudsman will assess and determine individual cases which will continue to be considered in the round. Failure to observe a principle will not automatically constitute maladministration and a test of reasonableness will continue to be applied, not a test of perfection.

The formal consultation started on 19 October 2006 and closes on 12 January 2007. For any information about the project, or if you have any comments on the Principles, please contact Lesley Bainsfair at PHSO email: [email protected] or telephone: 020 7217 3924.

PHSO Principles of good administration

From The Guardian

“According to a column by its ‘public editor’ (aka ombudsman, or official busybody), the New York Times has been asking itself whether it does enough to distinguish between fact and opinion in its pages. A ‘newsroom committee on credibility’ looked into the matter and decided that what was needed was a ‘news/opinion divide committee’. The nine lucky editors on this committee ‘worked for months’ to come up with a new system for helping Times readers who can’t figure out that ‘President Bush flew to Texas yesterday’ is a fact, whereas ‘President Bush is a bozo’ is an opinion.”From an article entitled Editors are molesting readers with their frantic semaphores about the content of articles by Michael Kinsley, 29 September 2006


Is there a collective noun for a group of ombudsmen? Maybe one of the many national and international ombudsman

organisations – or perhaps even a generous reader of this newsletter – could be persuaded to come up with a prize for the best suggestion? Whatever such collections may be called, Public Administration International (PAI) is delighted to welcome gatherings of ombudsmen and the staff of ombudsman offices to London each year, usually in May, when it’s spring – or supposed to be – in the UK.

The international programme, which lasts for two weeks, was the brainchild of Professor Gavin Drewry from Royal Holloway, University of London, and of Professor Roy Gregory (now retired) and Dr Philip Giddings, both from the University of Reading. It was further developed in collaboration with the Commonwealth Secretariat and launched in 1997. Since then, PAI has run 15 programmes and has been privileged to welcome 234 participants from nearly 70 countries in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean, Central, Eastern and Western Europe, the former Soviet Union, Latin America and the Pacific.

We aim to attract ombudsmen and their senior staff, as well as people from human rights and anti-corruption organisations, and to provide an opportunity for exchanging information and practical advice. We also do our best to make sure that participants enjoy their time in London together. In our experience, ombudspeople are a friendly lot (at least one pair of delegates met and subsequently married through attending the programme), and are part of a well-developed worldwide network. Much serious work is done, and many professional experiences are shared – but the atmosphere is always good-humoured and relaxed.

Another key contributor to the programme has been Judge Anand Satyanand, formerly one of the New Zealand Ombudsmen. Anand has played a key part, along with Gavin and Philip, in leading practical sessions, case studies and exercises. Anand has recently been appointed Governor-General of New Zealand. Happily, he has arranged for Beverley Wakem, one of the serving

Ombudsmen from New Zealand, to replace him on our programme, so our antipodean flavour will be retained.

The many visits, hosted by the UK ombudsman offices, Parliament and other relevant organisations in the UK, are crucial to the success of the programme. Regular visit hosts/contributors include the offices of the Parliamentary Ombudsman, the Local Government Ombudsman, the Housing Ombudsman, the Prisons and Probation Service Ombudsman, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Revenue Adjudicator and the House of Commons Public Administration Select Committee. We would like to thank them for their generosity in giving up their time to meet participants and for their unfailing help in sharing a wealth of experience, advice and information.

So what do the participants think? Here are a few observations from our evaluation sessions:

“The programme enhanced my knowledge of the Ombudsman office and its operations and the practical approach greatly broadened my experience. This is because a lot of ideas were shared between different countries”. Martha Lubemba, Commission for Investigations, Zambia.

“The learning experiences and the contacts will be invaluable”. Donna-Mollineau Hyndman, Office of the Ombudsman, Trinidad and Tobago.

“I picked up useful ideas which can be used in my home country to enable me to be more effective. The programme is very valuable for me as a newly-appointed Ombudsman”.Justice Faith Mwondha, Inspector General of Government, Uganda.

Ann Abraham has been kind enough to say that she likes the title of the programme. Her view is that an ombudsman who just handles complaints and neglects the important task of identifying systemic problems is only doing half a job. We hope that our programme goes some way to helping ombudsman offices across the world to do a whole job – and a good one at that.

Public Administration International’s study programmeWhen citizens complain: the role of the ombudsman in improving public services by Claire Cameron of Public Administration International

Claire Cameron, Judge Anand Satyanand and PAI’s co-Director Don McGregor


This quote in a letter from a complainant was in response to a letter of apology from an

organisation complained about. It is not an unusual occurrence. When the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman (SPSO) investigates a complaint and finds unremedied injustice or hardship, as in the above complaint, the investigation report will set out what an organisation needs to do to put things right. We often recommend that an apology should be offered by the offending organisation. It is our experience that many individuals and organisations do not understand what is meant and required for an apology to be meaningful to a complainant. In order to assist them, the SPSO has produced guidance in the form of a leaflet on the subject.

The SPSO Apology guidance is based on the work of Aaron Lazare, MD, who is chancellor, dean and professor of psychiatry at the University of Massachusetts Medical School. He is regarded by many as a leading authority on the medical interview, the psychology of shame and humiliation, and apology. For the past 10 years, Aaron Lazare has studied the structure and function of public and private apologies. This work culminated in his recent book On Apology (Oxford University Press, 2004). His goal has been to understand why certain apologies succeed or fail to

elicit forgiveness and bring about reconciliation.

The SPSO uses Lazare’s definition of an apology which is: an encounter between two parties at which one party, the offender, acknowledges responsibility for an offence or grievance and expresses regret or remorse to a second party, the aggrieved. Whatever the definition, it is clear from the work of Lazare that an apology is much more than an expression of regret. An apology is an interactive exchange between two parties, so getting the process right is as important as saying the right things. However, in all cases, it is for the recipient to decide whether or not to accept the apology.

Lazare considers that there are four parts to an effective apology (though not every apology requires all four parts). These are:1. An acknowledgement of the offence,

which makes clear who the offender is and who is the offended. The offender must clearly and completely acknowledge the offence. This description must be specific in order to demonstrate an understanding of the offence. It must also acknowledge the resulting impact on the aggrieved.

2. An effective explanation, which shows an offence was neither intentional nor personal, and is unlikely to recur.

3. Expressions of remorse, shame and humility, which recognises that the

offender recognises the suffering of the offended.

4. Reparation of some kind, in the form of real or symbolic compensation for the offender’s transgression.

Of these four parts, Lazare considers that the one most commonly defective in apologies is the acknowledgment. His view is that people fail the acknowledgment phase of the apology when they:n make vague and incomplete apologies

(an apology “for whatever I did”); n do not own the offence through using

the impersonal or passive voice; n make the apology conditional (by

saying “if mistakes have been made”) which casts doubt on what the victim experienced;

n question whether the victim was damaged (“if you were offended”);

n minimise the offence (“to the degree you were hurt” or by using statistics to show that it rarely happened);

n use the empathic “sorry” instead of acknowledging responsibility for the mistake;

n apologise to the wrong party (ie not directly to the victim); or

n apologise for the wrong offence (ie not the one experienced).

Lazare considers that the next important part of an apology is the explanation. An effective explanation may mitigate an offence by showing it was neither intentional nor personal, and is unlikely to recur. Lazare has found that an explanation will backfire when it seems fraudulent or shallow, as by saying, “I just snapped,” or “I was not thinking.” His view is that there is more dignity

“I am very unhappy with your letter which you seem to be classing as an apology. The terms of the insulting letter are not acceptable to me partly due to the cold and uncaring language. I am at a loss to understand why you would need to query if any distress may have resulted from your actions.”

A meaningful apologyCarolyn Hirst, Deputy Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, outlines the background to the publication of the Ombudsman’s guidance on Apology.


in admitting, “There is no excuse,” than in offering a fraudulent or shallow explanation.

Remorse, shame, and humility are other important components of an apology. These attitudes and emotions show that the offender recognizes the suffering of the offended. They also help assure the offended party that the offence will not recur, and allow the offender to make clear that he or she should have known better.

Finally, reparation is a way for an apology to compensate, in a real or symbolic way, for the offender’s transgression. When the offence causes

damage or loss of a tangible object, the reparation is usually replacement or restoration of the object. If the offence results in unintentional damage to possessions or loss and there was no pre-existing ill-will, then this reparation (ie replacing the items) may be enough to heal the relationship. When the offence is intangible, symbolic, or irreversible – ranging from an insult or humiliation

to serious injury or death – the reparation may include a gift, a financial exchange, a commitment to change one’s ways, or a tangible punishment of the guilty party. However, in these situations, the reparation by itself may not suffice. The complainant may also need to understand the motives of the offender, consider the probability of continued damage and/or seek to restore dignity and respect.

The SPSO knows that each complaint is unique and it follows that each apology needs to

be tailored individually. Our guidance stresses that when offering an apology, it is essential to understand how and why the complainant believes that they were wronged and what they want in order to put things right. It is impossible to construct a meaningful apology without this understanding. The SPSO recommends that an organisation asks a complainant directly what they want and involves them in deciding the form and content of the apology.

The SPSO guidance also has a view on who should apologise. As a general rule, where the person who committed the offence is willing and able to apologise, it is our view that they should be enabled and supported to do so. If a personal or official apology is delivered by a third party on behalf of an organisation, then it should be delivered by the leader ie the person considered by the complainant to be the most accountable.

The SPSO guidance also talks about the benefits of an apology. Properly delivered, a meaningful apology can benefit the organisation as well as the complainant. It can take some heat out of the situation, dissolve anger and reduce stress for both the complainant and the staff dealing with the complainant. It can also help to repair the relationship between the complainant and the organisation. An apology can be a sign of strength and it can demonstrate a willingness to learn when something has gone wrong. It can also demonstrate a commitment to putting things right. The SPSO believes that a meaningful apology is a vital part of any effective complaints management culture.

Carolyn Hirst


The Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, an independent body established to investigate complaints

against members of An Garda Síochána, is due to become operative in 2007. It will replace the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, set up under the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act, 1986, which currently investigates complaints against members of the force.

The plan for the creation of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission was drawn up by a committee under the chairmanship of Senator Maurice Hayes, former Ombudsman for Northern Ireland. Senator Hayes had previously been a member of the Patten Commission on policing in Northern Ireland. The Commission was brought into existence under the terms of the Garda Síochána Act 2005, which was passed into law in July 2005. Section 63 of the Act provides for the establishment of a body, to be known as the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, for the purposes of ensuring openness, transparency and accountability in the process through which complaints against the force are investigated.

On 10 February 2006, the Irish President, Mary McAleese, following nomination by the Government and approval by the Dáil and the Seanad, appointed the following persons to form the new Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission:

n Justice Kevin Haugh, Judge of the High Court, Chairman;

n Carmel Foley, former Director of Consumer Affairs; and

n Conor Brady, former Editor of The Irish Times.

The establishment of the Ombudsman Commission is seen by many as a welcome and a timely move. There had been a growing feeling that the existing mechanism for examining complaints, the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, which involved members of the force examining complaints against other members of the force, lacked the autonomy and independence to enable it to carry out comprehensive investigations of complaints against the force. This had led to a loss of confidence on the part of both the public and members of the force in the system. The Ombudsman Commission is seen as an means of restoring this confidence.

The Ombudsman Commission will be required and empowered to:n directly and independently investigate

complaints against members of the Garda Síochána;

n investigate any matter, even where no complaint has been made, where it appears that a Garda may have committed an offence or behaved in a way that would justify disciplinary proceedings; and

n investigate any practice, policy or procedure of the Garda Síochána with a view to reducing the incidence of related complaints.

Its functions include:n the receipt of complaints made by

members of the public concerning the conduct of members of the Garda Síochána;

n issuing guidelines for the informal resolution of certain categories of complaints and to make procedural rules for investigations;

n reporting on the results of its investigations to the Garda Commissioner and, in appropriate cases, to the Director of Public Prosecutions;

n conducting other investigations of matters concerning the conduct of members of the Garda Síochána; and

n examining existing practices, policies and procedures employed by the force.

The Commission will be required to investigate any case of death or serious injury arising from any person having been in contact with the force. This would include any death in custody, or shortly after release from custody, or the death or serious injury of any person as a result of an incident involving a Garda vehicle. It will also investigate all incidents involving the discharge of firearms by the force and all cases

New body to investigate complaints against the Police Force in the Irish RepublicThe establishment of the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission marks a new era in the investigation of complaints against the Republic’s police force – An Gárda Síochána

Matt Merrigan

From left to right: Conor Brady (Commissioner),

Carmel Foley (Commissioner), Judge

Kevin Haugh (Chairperson of Commission),

President McAleese, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern,

Michael McDowell (Minister for Justice,

Equality & Law Reform)


of alleged serious criminality by members.A complaint concerning any conduct of a

member of the Garda Síochána that is alleged to constitute misbehaviour may be made to the Ombudsman Commission. In this context ‘misbehaviour’ means conduct that constitutes an offence or breach of discipline. A breach of discipline can include:n discourtesy n neglect of dutyn abuse of authority The Commission will have its own, trained investigations staff, unlike the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, which relied on members of the force to investigate complaints against other members of the force. Its investigators will have ‘all the powers and responsibilities, duties and privileges’ of a Garda when investigating complaints. These include powers to enter Garda stations, to question, search, arrest, detain, take bodily samples and seize evidence. While the Commission will have the legal authority to investigate all complaints against the force, in practice it will require members of the force to continue to investigate many less serious complaints themselves. However, the Commission may either ‘supervise’ or ‘manage’ a Garda investigation, obliging the Garda investigators to account to the Commission.

A complaint can be made by a member of the public directly affected by, or who has witnessed, conduct that is alleged to constitute misbehaviour or by any person on behalf of a member of the public who is unable to make the complaint. The Commission can itself initiate proceedings without a complaint being made, if it is in the public interest, if it appears a member of the Garda Síochána may have committed an offence or behaved in a manner that would justify disciplinary proceedings. If the Commission has evidence of a crime, it will forward a file to the Director of Public Prosecutions who will decide whether or not to prosecute. If it has evidence of a disciplinary breach, it will make a recommendation to the Garda Commissioner.

The initial work of the Commission has involved study visits to their counterparts in Northern Ireland, England and Wales and initial meetings with the various stakeholders involved in the Garda complaints system, such as Garda management, the Garda representative associations and officials of the Department of Justice Equality and Law Reform. An initial budget of €10 million has been provided for the first year of operations. Work on staffing requirements and organisation development is progressing and a Transition Team is in place to support the Commission in the establishment of the new organisation. When operative the Commission’s permanent address will be in the Dublin City Centre, close to the main public transport hubs.

Who in public life do you most admire?Machiavelli

What was your first job?Helping on a brewery lorry, perhaps a preparation for later life!

Bach, Bacharach, Beatles, Buzzcocks, Britney?Bacharach – he showed me the way to San Jose

Who would play you in the film, “Tom”?Paul Newman, if only he had the looks

How do you travel to work?Slowly

What modern gadget can you not do without?The microwave (without which I would go hungry during the working week), closely followed by the George Foreman Grill

What is the most satisfying aspect of your job?Using complaints to deliver service improvements

It is a truth universally acknowledged that ... what?....filling out questionnaires for magazines has the potential to be career limiting

The best meal you have ever eaten is...? Weightwatchers Chow Mein with soy sauce provided in a separate sachet. It’s a great dish, providing you can conquer the microwave instructions

One thing you are very bad at is ...?Being good

And one thing you are surprisingly good at is ...?Being self-deluded when filling out questionnaires

Where would you most like to visit?South America generally, Argentina specifically. Perhaps there someone would want to tango with me.

And who would be your travelling companion?Natasha Kaplinsky, purely for her dancing skills

You have won the lottery. What is the most extravagant thing you do?Employ a full-time chef to break the link with the microwave. Alternatively, get a gold-plated microwave.

Which character in literature should you be cast as?Dorian Gray – I hope no-one ever discovers that portrait in the attic.

If you had the option of living in any other period of history which one would you choose?The Enlightenment... after all, I am a renaissance man

You are omnipotent for one minute. What do you do?Acquire the power of the Irish Ombudsman – see ‘The Inquisition’, Issue 28

What saying or quotation helps you through the day? The Serenity Prayer

How many roads must a man walk down?As few as possible...

What book are you reading?The Great War for Civilisation by Robert Fisk

In a parallel universe your job would be ...?A microwave fitter

What do you sing in the shower? Raindrops keep falling on my head…Bacharach again!

What is your favourite biscuit?Fig roll or Mikado

The Inquisition (no-one expects it)

Tom FrawleyNorthern Ireland Ombudsman

Case studies

Northern Ireland Ombudsman


Complainant claims financial loss as a result of delays

Ms A complained that, as a result of delays in calculating the initial maintenance assessment, she had suffered a financial loss. She said the Child Support Agency had failed to secure payments of regular maintenance, failed to return telephone calls, and had provided misleading information regarding a deduction from earnings order. Having spoken to Ms A, the ICE resolution officer agreed that in order to resolve her complaint they would obtain a chronology of the action taken by the Agency to establish whether any delays had occurred, determine what action had been taken to secure maintenance payments, and consider what if any financial redress was appropriate.

Having established that there had been a delay in calculating an initial maintenance assessment, but that a deduction order was in operation, the resolution officer advised Ms A that the Agency had referred her case to its special payments team to consider a consolatory payment in recognition of the poor service provided by the Agency, and the communication costs she had incurred. In addition,

it was to consider whether a compensatory payment in respect of financial loss was appropriate, in recognition of the fact that a maintenance application had been received in mid March 2003, but the maintenance assessment was only effective from 4 June 2003. The Agency also agreed to issue a letter of apology, monitor receipt of maintenance payments and consider whether an advance payment of maintenance arrears was appropriate. In response to which, Ms A said she was satisfied that the action taken by the Agency resolved her complaint.

Dissatisfaction with investigation of a complaint under harassment procedures

In this complaint to the Ombudsman, the aggrieved person expressed his dissatisfaction at the way in which the Department had handled the investigation of a complaint which was made against him, under the Department’s harassment and bullying policy. He was also dissatisfied with the decision by the Department to bring, and ultimately uphold, a disciplinary charge against him.

The overall facts and circumstances of this case, as established during the investigation, led the Ombudsman to the firm conclusion that the Department’s decision and subsequent disciplinary action was unreasonable and disproportionate.

He concluded that virtually all stages of the Department’s handling of the complaint and the related processes, as they affected the complainant, were flawed to varying levels of seriousness. He concluded that the Department’s actions constituted significant maladministration, as a

consequence of which he considered the complainant to have sustained significant injustice.

During his investigation the Ombudsman raised concerns about the lack of clarity in the Department’s guidelines and was assured by the Permanent Secretary that this had been remedied in the Department’s revised procedures which were issued in September 2005. The Ombudsman had no doubt that as a consequence of the maladministration the complainant had suffered the injustice of considerable distress, anxiety, annoyance and worry. With regard to redress he also took into account that the complainant had to expend a great deal of time and effort in pursuing his grievance, with all the attendant inconvenience which this had involved. The Ombudsman was pleased to record that the Permanent Secretary accepted his recommendation that the complainant receive a payment of £5,000 in recognition of the injustice he had identified, removal of the informal warning from the complainant’s record and a letter of apology from the Permanent Secretary.

The Independent Case Examiner

From United Press International

“A parking dispute has led to the ombudsman in a South Carolina municipality being charged with defacing a city councilman’s car with a key.

James Bell of North Charleston was allegedly angry because Councilman Bob King parked his SUV in the ombudsman’s marked

parking spot, the Charleston Post and Courier reported. He was charged after police set up a video camera in an effort to find out who had keyed King’s car a week earlier.

King said the first time his car was damaged he had parked in Bell’s spot on two days when he knew the ombudsman was not working.

Bell denies scratching the SUV

deliberately, arguing that what the videotape shows is that he leaned over to check the license plate number.

The tape was released to the news media after a Freedom of Information Act request. Bell’s lawyer said he would ask to have the charge dismissed on the grounds that a fair trial is impossible now.”From an article entitled Ombudsman charged with keying councilman, 14 September 2006


Profiles

Caroline Mitchell has been travelling through the ombudsman world for a long time and has stopped off at a number of different places along the way.

She gave up a partnership at Lawrence Graham to bring up her children. But after four years was beginning to climb up the walls when she spotted an advertisement in the Law Society Gazette for a part-time solicitor with some insurance experience to join the relatively new Insurance Ombudsman Bureau. Having found out what an ombudsman was she joined the IOB in 1984 and she’s been ombudsmanning ever since.

She spent 11 years caseworking and managing at the IOB ( part-time and full-time) and also had a spell at the Building Societies Ombudsman. But in 1995 she left the IOB and moved to the Police Complaints Authority. Dealing with complaints against police officers was quite different from insurance work which had never

required attendance at an autopsy or police firing range, for instance. But it was so interesting that getting paid to do it was a bonus! Members of the PCA had an important part to play in helping build public confidence in the police and the work involved both deciding on the outcome of complaints and supervising investigations into deaths in custody, shooting or road traffic incidents and other major events involving the police.

After six years it was time to move on and Caroline joined the Financial Ombudsman Service as a consultant dealing with insurance complaints. After a year she became an ombudsman handling investment complaints and then was appointed lead ombudsman with responsibility for general investment complaints.

Caroline is currently a member of BIOA’s executive committee and is chairing the BIOA working group on Governance. She thinks she is lucky to have discovered such an interesting career.

Caroline MitchellFinancial Services Ombudsman

Janet Gaymer CBE is the Commissioner for Public Appointments in England and Wales, regulating appointments made by Ministers to the boards of designated public bodies such as the BBC and NHS Trusts. Janet was appointed to this post in January 2006. She is also a Civil Service Commissioner.

As Commissioner for Public Appointments, Janet is independent of Government. She regulates public appointments through a mandatory code of practice which government departments are required to follow when running a public appointments process within her remit. She investigates complaints about these processes, publishes an annual report and generally aims to ensure that all public appointments regulated by her are appointments on merit following an open and transparent appointments process. Her remit covers around 9,000 to 10,000 non-executive ministerial appointments to around 1,100 public bodies.

Before becoming Commissioner, she was senior partner of Simmons and Simmons, a top international law firm employing over 2,000 people worldwide. As senior partner Janet carried overall responsibility for the growth and development of the firm, which is rated among the Top 10 International Law Firms.

Born in Nuneaton in 1947, Janet Gaymer studied jurisprudence at Oxford before joining Simmons and Simmons in 1971.

An eminent employment lawyer, she was a member of the Employment Tribunals Service Steering Board and Chair of the Employment Tribunal System Taskforce. She was also a member of the Council of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service from 1995-2001. She is an Honorary Fellow of St Hilda’s College, Oxford, an Honorary Doctor of Laws of Nottingham University and an Honorary Doctor of the University of Surrey.

She is also a member of the Board of the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Janet is married to a solicitor, lives in Surrey and has two adult daughters.

Janet GaymerCommissioner for Public Appointments

AustraliaPostal Industry Ombudsman launchesThe Postal Industry Ombudsman (PIO), which will investigate and act on complaints about Australia Post and registered private postal operators, has opened in Sydney.

The office was launched by the Minister for Communications, Information Technology and the Arts, Senator Helen Coonan, who said in a statement that the Federal Government decided that the PIO was best established as a separate office within the Office of the Commonwealth Ombudsman.

“A dedicated office within the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s Office brings the same benefits as a high profile and independent body like the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, in an efficient manner,” she said. “There is also significant benefit in drawing on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s existing expertise in dealing with complaints about postal services.”

The PIO scheme, which will become operational later in 2006, will be recouped by Australia Post and the private service providers who choose to register.

Non-registered providers will have their complaints handled by the relevant state’s Office of Fair Trading.Source: Smart Office News, July 2006 (Caroline Warnes)

BotswanaFace to face with new OmbudsmanAsk the new Ombudsman, Ofentse Lepodise, about the successes of the institution and he gives a good lecture about the operations of the office. Lepodise assumed office at the beginning of August, taking over from Lethebe Maine, the first Ombudsman who came to office in 1998.

He knows very well that a sizeable number of people think that the office of the Ombudsman is ‘useless’. He points out that the perceptions come from the lack of understanding of the functions and mandate of the office. “These perceptions are valid and it is a challenge for us to make people understand the mandate of this office,” he said. He

explained that he is a public sector ombudsman charged with investigating maladministration. Once his office has satisfied itself that an individual has suffered injustice as a consequence of such maladministration, he suggests a remedy. If the concerned department does not act, then the Ombudsman will recommend to the principal officer the remedial action to be taken.

“This is what we have been doing since the beginning of the operations of this office.” He emphasised that the role of the Ombudsman is to promote good governance; fair administrative practice and conduct; equity and fair play and observance of rules of natural justice. To show the success of the office, Lepodise points out that they have had 98 percent compliance to the cases they have investigated. However, in situations where there is no compliance, the office sends a Special Report to Parliament as the Ombudsman Act requires.

Lepodise talks with authority when he discusses the office of the Ombudsman. He knows the office like the back of his hand. He is one of the few people who set up the office in 1998. “At the time we were operating on a skeletal staff. The office was set up at a time when there was a moratorium on staff recruitment following a budget deficit. We could not grow as we would have loved to and this constrained us as we did not deliver as expected,” he points out. This however did not discourage them as they worked with what they had.

Lepodise is a law graduate from the University College of Swaziland having graduated in 1984. He then joined the Attorney General’s Chambers as a State Counsel. After three years he joined the private practice where he spent three years. In 1990, he joined the magistracy. He rose through the ranks and resigned in 1998 to join the office of the Ombudsman as the Chief Administrator. Lepodise is married with three children.Source : Mmegi/The Reporter (Gaborone), August 2006

(Kagiso Sekokonyane)

EuropeOmbudsman calls upon Council for more transparencyThe European Ombudsman, Nikiforos Diamandouros, has published a special report, which concerns the question as to whether the Council should meet publicly whenever it acts in a legislative capacity. At present, the extent to which the Council’s meetings in its legislative capacity are public is limited by the Council’s own internal Rules of Procedure. All that needs to be done in order to open all such meetings to the public would therefore be for Council to amend its Rules of Procedure. In the Ombudsman’s view, the Council’s failure to do so constitutes an instance of maladministration.

Mr. Diamandouros welcomed the initiative of the Austrian EU presidency proposing that the Council open more of its debates to the public. He stated: “The Austrian proposals are a step in the right direction but might still allow some legislative debates to be held in secret. We must recall that citizens will only be satisfied when all legislative debates are open to the public.” He called on the EU Heads of State and Government to prove their commitment to making the Union more accessible to its citizens at the EU summit held on 15–16 June when these proposals were discussed.

(Note: Article 1 (2) of the Treaty on European Union establishes a general principle that the Council and the other Community institutions and bodies must take decisions “as openly as possible”.)Source: BusinessUpdated.com, June 2006 (Eva Balla)

FinlandParliamentary Ombudsman rules against discrimination of smokers in hiringDeputy Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen has stated that Finnish legislation does not allow blanket discrimination against smokers in hiring. In an opinion given out recently, Jääskeläinen said that discrimination against smokers is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, where smoking would clearly harm the fulfilment of the duties of a job.

The issue of discrimination against smokers in hiring came out recently in a statement by Vladimir Spidla, the European Commissioner for Employment, Social Affairs, and Equal Opportunities, which was widely interpreted as giving employers permission to reject smokers applying for jobs.

However, in a recent statement, the Commission emphasised that Spidla’s comments were misinterpreted in


Ombudsman news from around the worldIan Pattison reviews happenings from ombudsman offices around the world

some media as giving a green light to discriminate against smokers, although the Commission did say that smoking is not one of the specific issues in which EU rules ban discrimination.

“The fact that EU legislation does not cover non-discrimination of smokers does not mean that the Commission regards discrimination against smokers as rightful. People should be employed on the basis of their skills and qualifications, not be excluded ex ante from proving their abilities on any grounds”, read the statement.

According to the law, an employer may inquire about smoking only if it has significant relevance for the fulfilment of the requirements of the job. “There are exceptional situations in which smoking can significantly influence work. For instance, smoking can affect the work of health educators or those working with allergy patients, so inquiring about the matter is fair”, Jääskeläinen says.

Trade unions take a cautious view of the possible discrimination against smokers. Anu-Tuija Lehto, a lawyer for the Central Organisation of Finnish Trade Unions, said that allowing discrimination against smokers could lead to other types of discrimination as well. “There is already plenty of unrecognised discrimination. For instance, overweight people say that it is harder for them to find work than thin people. I’m afraid that the situation would only become worse for others as well.”

Markku Lemmetty of the Confederation of Unions for Academic Professionals (AKAVA) is largely in agreement, although he does not completely reject restrictions on hiring smokers. “There are two sides to the matter. Every employee has the right to a healthy work environment. Non-smoking employees have the right not to be exposed to tobacco smoke. However, at AKAVA we have not yet thought about whether or not smoking could be a reason for discrimination in hiring situations.”Source: Helsingin Sanomat, August 2006

GibraltarGibraltar may implement own financial ombudsman serviceGibraltar is the latest offshore jurisdiction to consider implementing its own financial ombudsman service. If it goes ahead, the service will be up and running within two years, said Marcus Killick, chairman and commissioner for the Financial Services

Commission (FSC) in Gibraltar.The move follows that of the Isle

of Man, which established a financial ombudsman in 2001 following recommendations made in the Edwards Review, which looked at the crown dependencies in 1999.

Killick said the ombudsman service would work in the same way as the UK-based Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), which offers an independent dispute resolution service for customers with a complaint against a UK-based financial firm.

However, Killick said there was some way to go before a financial ombudsman

could be established. “The Government has to find the mechanics that will work considering Gibraltar is a jurisdiction with an international client base,” he said. “One of the challenges will be to provide a workable but cost efficient service.”

Gibraltar already has an existing Citizens Advice Bureau as well as an Ombudsman service, which was formed in 1999.Source: Investment Week, September 2006

IndiaTelecoms ombudsman to be establishedDespite the Telecom Department rejecting the telecom regulator’s (TRAI) suggestion on an ombudsman, the regulator has found a way out. It has convinced operators to set up an ombudsman, who will look into consumer complaints.

Right now if a mobile operator sends an insanely huge bill, all that the consumers can do is go to a consumer court. But very soon they will be able to connect to a much faster and easier complaint system – a telecom ombudsman – to be set up by mobile operators themselves.

Although the ombudsman won’t have any legal powers, because it is not being set up by the Government, it will have the TRAI’s blessings. “Soon we will give them a draft on what the powers and function of the ombudsman is going to be,” said Nripendra Misra, Chairman, TRAI.

The ombudsman will look into billing

disputes, complaints on poor service, and even frauds and cases of cheating. The telecom regulator believes that since the ombudsman is being set up with the consent of all telecom operators, peer pressure would ensure that the ombudsman functions independently and its decisions are implemented.

The TRAI has already worked out a preliminary blueprint for the ombudsman, which says that there will be a single ombudsman selected by a committee representing the telecom industry. If all telecom players agree to this, a new telecom ombudsman should be in place shortly.Source: NDTV Profit, June 2006 (Supriya Shrinate)

JamaicaPolitical ombudsman seeks to address political party conflictsPolitical Ombudsman, Bishop Herro Blair is seeking to have greater legislative powers to address conflicts within political parties. In the third annual report tabled in Parliament, Mr Blair noted that there were still some gaps in the provisions of the Political Ombudsman Interim Act 2002, which governs how cases are handled and resolved.

The report further noted that, while there is need to strengthen the Act, greater political will was required to allow for the existing provisions to address inter party conflicts which often affect public life. “The Political Ombudsman can only intervene in matters/conflict among the political parties. Intra party/conflicts, though they thwart the tenets of the Political Code of Conduct, are off limits by the Political Ombudsman,” he said.

“With the revised Agreement and Declaration on Political Conduct, there is more provision for the Political Ombudsman to have a say in matters of this nature without overstepping his bounds.”

Mr Blair said he has taken a stance to highlight such incidents to the leaders of the political parties when such practices surface. He said this would be further intensified as the country enters a period of more intense political activity.Source: Jamaica Gleaner, September 2006

JerseyJersey needs financial ombudsmanA new financial ombudsman could be paid for by companies in Jersey to help deal with complaints from individuals. The minister for economic development says Jersey is behind the times because it does not have a cost-effective option for local people.


Continued on page 16

People should be employed on the basis of their skills and qualifications, not be excluded ex ante from proving their abilities on any grounds


Editorial Board – Matthew Merrigan (Editor) Investigator, Office of the Ombudsman for Ireland ([email protected]) Ian Pattison Secretary, British and Irish Ombudsman Association ([email protected]) Barbara Batchelor Communications Manager, Office of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman ([email protected]) Carolyn Hirst Deputy Scottish Public Services Ombudsman, ([email protected]) Alison Hoyland Consumer and Parliamentary Liaison, Financial Ombudsman Service ([email protected])

Tony King Ombudsman, Financial Ombudsman Service ([email protected]) Nick O’Brien Director of Legal Services, Disability Rights Commission ([email protected]) Hilary Pook Communications and Records Manager, Commission for Local Administration in England ([email protected]) Rafael Runco Deputy Housing Ombudsman ([email protected])

The Ombudsman is published three times a year by the British and Irish Ombudsman Association to inform members of the association. The views expressed in The Ombudsman are not necessarily

those of the association or the editorial board and the views and information it contains are not intended to give specific advice and should not be relied upon as such. The association believes that the information contained in The Ombudsman is correct at the time of going to press but no responsibility can be accepted for any errors or omissions.

British & Irish Ombudsman Association, PO Box 308, Twickenham, TW1 9BE.

www.bioa.org.uk

Senator Philip Ozouf favours a similar system to the one in the Isle of Man. He said: “The ombudsman can make awards of up to £100,000 on an individual transaction if something has gone seriously wrong.” Mr Ozouf said the Isle of Man also has two full-time case officers and a panel of adjudicators who can make binding adjudications on financial companies.

Last September, Deputy Gerald Voisin said an ombudsman service would be a “waste of resources”. He said it would cost about £500,000 a year to run, which neither the States nor industry could afford.

But Mr Ozouf said he would like the island to have a limited service which would help ordinary people and would cost between £200,000 and £300,000. He told BBC News: “It would not be for very wealthy people who can look after themselves, but those with average or lower than average incomes who may have complaints about bank charges or insurance.”

The minister said many other European countries, including the UK, have an ombudsman system which is paid for by industry. Source: BBC News, June 2006

MalaysiaOmbudsman not suitable for MalaysiaKUALA LUMPUR: The Cabinet has decided that the ombudsman institution similar to that set up in many countries is not suitable for Malaysia. Nevertheless, several other ombudsman-based concepts were being studied to be modified to the country’s administrative system, Minister in the Prime Minister’s Department Tan Sri Bernard Dompok said.

“A suitable concept that suits the nation’s administrative system would be adopted by the Public Complaints Bureau in efforts to turn the bureau into an effective and reliable public complaints management organisation,”

he said when replying to Shim Paw Fatt who asked whether the Government had plans to establish an ombudsman system.

Ombudsman is an investigative commission or an independent intermediary body to enable ordinary citizens to lodge complaints on various issues including on misconduct and abuse of power.

Replying to a supplementary question from Shim, who stressed that the country needed an institution like the ombudsman with ‘semi-judicial powers’, Dompok said the Government did not see how such institutions could help solve its problems. “For instance, the ombudsman system in Indonesia and the Philippines did not help their governments to resolve problems,” he said.

Replying to a supplementary question from Wong Nai Chee (BN-Kota Melaka), Dompok said the ombudsman system was effective in Sweden as it had been practised since 1809 and was suitable to the country’s history. “In our country, we need to synchronise a system that suits our history,” he added.Source: Bernama, June 2006

New ZealandA day of firsts for the new Governor-GeneralPomp and pageantry was on display at Parliament with the swearing in of the new Governor-General Anand Satyanand. Judge Satyanand arrived at Parliament to receive an Indian welcome followed by the traditional Maori welcome.

A hundred men and women from the three armed services stood in the Wellington sunshine for more than an hour to honour the new Governor-General.

He is no stranger to firsts; he is the first New Zealander of Indian descent to take a seat on the District Court bench and the first to have become Ombudsman.

Having been born and brought up in Auckland, with parents of Indian descent from Fiji, he is the first person

of both Asian and Pacific heritage to be appointed to the post of Queen’s representative.

The occasion was the first time an Indian cultural group has taken part in this ceremony, the first time Judge Satyanand had inspected a guard of honour and he became the first man without a title to take the role.Source: NewsTalkZB, August 2006

NorwayiTunes guilty of breaking Norwegian lawThe Norwegian Consumer Ombudsman has ruled that the Apple iTunes service breaks the law, and has given the company two weeks to fix the problem. In January, the Consumer Council asked the Ombudsman to look at iTunes because of concerns that it breaks consumer protection law. The decision backs that complaint.

According to the ruling, iTunes breaks section (9)(a) of the Norwegian Marketing Control Act. The regulator said it was not reasonable that the consumer must sign up to a contract regulated by English law, rather than Norwegian law. It also said iTunes must accept responsibility for damage its software may do, and said it is unreasonable to alter terms and conditions after a song has been sold.

Consumer Council senior advisor Torgeir Waterhouse told the Reg: “The Consumer Council has asked Apple to respond as to whether iTunes should work on other platforms – they have until 21 June to respond. After that the Ombudsman is likely to set another deadline and then start fining the company.”

Waterhouse said the Ombudsman is not a toothless watchdog – back in April it fined Ryanair €62,500 for illegally charging refund fees. The council is not only concerned by iTunes. It says several other download services in Norway also break consumer protection law and it expects the Ombudsman to take similar action against them.Source: The Register, June 2006 (John Oates)


BIOA – providing a platform for development and improvement · 6 Final report with recommendations on a framework for external scrutiny with key principles and options/models for

Documents