By Sir Mark Boleat
Deadlines can sometimes work effectively – but sometimes result in poor decisions. The proposal for an ombudsperson in Jersey falls in the latter category. The Council of Ministers’ 100-day action plan included: ‘Establish a public service ombudsperson.’ On 18 October the government issued a press release headed ‘100-day plan delivered’ which included the following: ‘Announced the establishment of a Public Service Ombudsperson to help resolve complaints about public services in Jersey in a timely and transparent manner.’
So, clearly the commitment to ‘establish a public service ombudsperson’ has not been met. In fact the announcement on the ombudsperson came on 19 October: ‘Part of the Council of Ministers’ 100 Day Actions, Chief Minister Deputy Kristina Moore has now submitted instructions for new legislation to be drafted.’
The press release did not include a link to the instructions – one of a number of press releases announcing the publication of a document but not actually providing any details about where to find it. Those few people who can navigate the government website can find it as a link in a ministerial decision, even though the website said that the Chief Minister had issued no ministerial decisions since February. The instructions suggest that the proposal is largely based on a 2018 report by the Jersey Law Commission. However, the link given to this report shows ‘file not found’. So not good in respect of transparency.
The instructions state that the need for the ombudsperson is basically that the current Complaints Panel is considered to have limitations as an independent public service complaints body due in part to being associated with the States Greffe, delays in dealing with complaints, an overly formalised system for minor complaints with a burdensome process for the complainant to navigate, and the potential for an adversarial atmosphere when complaints are heard in public. The Law Commission report noted a ‘worrying’ pattern in relationships with ministers, highlighting the rejection of many findings and recommendations and an atmosphere of mutual distrust.
However, most of these points are administrative (and I suspect can justifiably be challenged by the Complaints Panel) and seem capable of being dealt with accordingly. And the proposal allows the recommendations of the ombudsperson to be rejected – as is the case for the current arrangements. The case for the proposal is not well made, particularly when the financial considerations are taken into account.
Normally an ombudsman scheme covers decisions by government and government bodies. But the Jersey proposal goes much wider to cover government-funded bodies including schools, GPs, Citizens Advice, the Association of Jersey Charities, the Jersey Opera House and the Jersey Arts Centre as well as arm’s-length organisations such as Jersey Post, JT, Ports of Jersey and Andium Homes and other social housing providers. This seems far too wide – well beyond what is normal in the UK.
The exclusions are even more notable. Clearly ‘insiders’ have been able to exclude themselves merely because of ‘concerns’.
The Judicial Greffe, including the Tribunal Service, were originally included within the remit of the ombudsperson. In consultation with the Judicial Greffe, noting and reflecting on their concerns, it has been concluded that they should not fall within the remit of the ombudsperson at this time.
The Viscount’s Department and the Probation Department and After Care Service have been excluded on the same basis.
Even more interesting is the exclusion of the Law Officers and the Law Officers’ Department on the grounds that ‘the independence of the Law Officers is provided for in law’. This cannot be justified as an ombudsman scheme is designed to deal with maladministration which is capable of happening regardless of independence.
Far from providing for an independent ombudsman scheme the proposals put control in the hands of ministers and the States Assembly. The normal arrangement is for a board to be appointed and for the board to appoint the ombudsman. The proposal for Jersey is to have a board but to take away its responsibility for pointing the ombudsperson, handing this instead to the Chief Minister and the chair of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee to make a recommendation to the States Assembly which will make the final appointment. Similarly, the chair of the board is to be appointed by the Assembly on the recommendation of the Chief Minister and the chair of the Scrutiny Liaison Committee. This gives the impression that the government wishes to be firmly in control of the process.
It is envisaged that there will be a principal ombudsperson, which implies that there might be other ombudspersons, and also case officers, together with a board comprising a chair and between two and eight members. The only information on the budget is in the Government Plan 2021-2024 which provides for expenditure of £200,000 in 2022, £401,000 in 2023 and £412,000 in 2024. Given the planned remit and staffing these figures look hopelessly unrealistic. The equivalent body in Wales has an annual budget of £5 million with the salary and pension contribution for the ombudsman alone being £210,000.
Jersey has a well-established scrutiny function. It should look seriously at the proposal – and those organisations which perhaps have not yet realised that they will be caught should express their ‘concerns’ so as to gain exemption in the same way as parts of government have been able to do.
And I confidently predict that Jersey will not have an ombudsperson in 2023 and quite possibly 2024, and that should it ever materialise as envisaged the budget will be well beyond £400,000 a year.
-
Sir Mark Boleat has held a number of leadership positions in companies, public bodies and charities in Jersey and in the UK. He has been political leader of the City of London Corporation and leader of the Jersey Alliance.
