WE might presume that when no one seems happy with something, change might swiftly follow. Yet the process for handling complaints made about Jersey’s Public Service seems to be, perhaps ironically, stuck in a bureaucratic hole, unable to move forward or back.
It’s been there for twenty-six years, ever since these words were written by the Clothier Review Panel in December of the year 2000:
“We recommend the institution of a proper Ombudsman to hear complaints of maladministration by Government Departments. This would be a matter of little difficulty and no great expense.”
That “matter of little difficultly” has proved to be a matter of more than a little difficulty.
Fast forward to the present day, and the publication of report by Deputy Moz Scott, the latest politician to try and get the system unblocked – remember, the States Assembly formally agreed in 2018 to go ahead and set up the Ombudsman. Eight years later, Deputy Scott was asked to look at it one more time, and concluded thus:
“A JPSO would help embed a culture of timely, effective complaint resolution, reducing escalation, complexity, and unnecessary costs, this would provide strong social value, improve delivery standards, and help public services to meet public expectations.
“While limitations on funding must be considered, there is compelling evidence that an ombud scheme would enhance service quality, accountability, and civic engagement.”
Her report has been described by the Council of Ministers as a “helpful contribution to the debate” – which some might describe as hardly a ringing endorsement, or a commitment to implement its findings without further delay. And to be fair, that’s not a comment on the report itself, but more on the fact that it seems the Council itself is split on this issue.
While a recurring annual budget of £398k has already been allocated to the new Office, it clearly has not so far been a priority, perhaps over concerns about creating another layer of bureaucracy, or creating a structure which is the right size for Jersey.
That is all undoubtedly true. But Deputy Scott also makes the point, echoing one made by the Law Commission (and others) that an “ombud scheme” does not necessarily have to be seen in an adversarial or transactional way, in which a member of the public airs their grievances against public servants.
Actually, when properly set up, it can become a process for the steady improvement of public services in general, both in the way they handle complaints, but also in their overall efficiency and and effectiveness – a way of helping our public administration to learn from its mistakes.
