• You are here:
• Home /
• Archived /
• Beyond Service Quality - Equity and Openness in Public Service Delivery (5 Mar 1998)

Beyond Service Quality - Equity and Openness in Public Service Delivery (5 Mar 1998)

Beyond Service Quality - Equity and Openness in Public Service Delivery (5 Mar 1998)

Address by Kevin Murphy, Ombudsman to the IPC/NPC Conference on "Working Together for Excellence in the Public Service", Conrad Hotel, Dublin, 5 March 1998.

Mr Chairman, Conference delegates and organisers - the National Centre for Partnership and the Irish Productivity Centre - thank you for inviting me to speak to you today. It is a time of considerable change in the Irish public service. The imperative to become more responsive to the needs of the public together with legislative initiatives such as the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 and the Public Service Management Act, 1997 will radically change the way in which public servants work and, just as importantly, will also change the public perception of that work. It is an exciting and challenging time for public servants and it is especially interesting for me to witness and take part in these changes from the independent viewpoint of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. The programme of reform which is in progress demands that public service managers and staff rethink their roles and relationships with one another and with the public whom they serve. As part of the Strategic Management Initiative the objectives of public bodies have been reviewed and clarified, detailed consideration has been given to how these objectives might best be met and how performance in meeting them might be measured. This is inevitably leading on to questions about skills and level of staffing required and about the morale and motivation of staff.

I know from my experience as Ombudsman and from my work in the Irish Civil Service over the years that conflict in an organisation can seriously impair effectiveness and the level of service offered to the public. I welcome the emphasis in the '90's on working together and on partnership between staff and management. It is obvious that trust between staff and management is vital if a successful partnership is to be developed. For that trust to exist, each party must be fair and open with the other. But that equity and openness which should underpin our working relations with our colleagues should also underpin our dealings with the members of public whether they are seen as customers, clients, citizens or simply human beings.

If it makes sense to work towards partnerships in the workplace, moving away from a Them and Us attitude, then how much more sense does it make to move away from any attitude of Them and Us or of the Governors versus Governed in the relationship between public bodies and the general public? We hear a lot both at national and European level of the growing democratic deficit of the increasing alienation of many groups in our society from the institutions of state and of the use of undemocratic means by the groups to pursue their interests (and I am not talking about paramilitarys). The public service in reorganising how it works, therefore, needs to look outwards to the people it is there to serve and not simply to the many groups which represent particular interests. In that regard there have been many interesting and innovative developments in relation to partnership at community level and it is through these community partnerships that providers of public services as well as my own Office may become aware of those in the community who are missing out or being overlooked.

I welcome the emphasis on quality customer service and I applaud the commitment by public bodies to the Principles of Quality Customer Service, which is part of the Strategic Management Initiative. The publication of quality service standards, the provision of clear, accurate and timely information, the commitment to deliver services with timeliness and courtesy with due regard to the needs of minorities and those with disabilities, and the introduction of complaints and redress procedures are excellent developments. If delivered upon, the citizen's dealings with the State will be transformed by these changes. My Annual Reports and those of my predecessor, Michael Mills, have featured many instances where members of the public have been denied such basic rights in the 14 years since the Office of Ombudsman was established.

The further commitment on the part of these public bodies to consult in a meaningful and structured way with the customer about the development, delivery and review of services, the promise of choice, and the fostering of integration and co-ordination in delivery of service are also welcome. One obvious way in which feedback from users of services can be gathered is through the introduction of internal complaints mechanisms in public bodies themselves. I repeatedly emphasise that part of my job is to draw lessons from the individual complaints I receive and to contribute to improving standards of public management. There is no reason why a public body should not use its own internal complaints mechanisms as a form of quality control. Yet there continues to be a sensitivity among public servants about all complaints as somehow reflecting on them personally.

A further important aspect of the work of Ombudsman is to identify and highlight what may be termed "endemic failures" in our public management system. As part of my efforts in this area, I have published two investigation reports in the last year. The first, published in April 1997, involved the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs and the operation of the Claims and Payments Regulations. This report dealt, inter alia, with the question of democratic accountability in the framing of secondary legislation and the use of extra statutory exceptions which were not public. The second report, published last month, concerned the Department of Education and Science and the provision of school transport for children with disabilities. Among the issues raised in this report was the need for the Department to be fair and open in publishing a scheme for the school transport service for these children. The documents which public bodies will be required to publish under Sections 15 and 16 of the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 about their activities, rules and procedures will enhance this openness.

As Ombudsman I am concerned also with more than simply quality of service, important though this is. The wider issues, including the issues of equity and Openness referred to in the title of my paper today are of critical importance. The raison d'être of my Office is to ensure fair and equitable treatment of persons, which can include corporate bodies or voluntary organisations, by the State. I am optimistic that the impending Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill will contribute to the effectiveness of my Office in this area and include within my remit public bodies which are currently excluded, including public voluntary hospitals, vocational education committees and non-commercial state sponsored bodies.

The question of openness is inextricably linked to that of equity. A person denied access to information on which he or she might argue a case or a person who is denied reasons for decisions cannot be confident that he or she is being treated equitably. The Freedom of Information Act, 1997 which comes into effect for the civil service and certain other public bodies in just over 6 weeks time will introduce important statutory rights for the public, including access to records held by public bodies and the right to reasons for decisions affecting them. As Information Commissioner, my Office will play a central role in relation to this legislation. In addition to determining appeals on access to information requests, the Information Commissioner is charged with fostering openness among public bodies. It should be remembered, of course, that the Freedom of Information Act sets down the statutory minimum standards which apply to openness. However, I intend to encourage public bodies to adopt a proactive approach towards the publication of information about their activities. Also of relevance to openness is the issue of standards in public life. I am a member of the Public Offices Commission established under the Ethics in Public Office Act, 1995 which provides for the disclosure of interests by the holders of certain public offices including Ministers and members of the Oireachtas. The Commission also has a role in relation to the Electoral Act, 1997 which provides for the disclosure of political donations and election expenditure and expenses.

The Ombudsman Act, 1980 established my Office as an independent institution to examine complaints from persons adversely affected by administrative actions where those actions may have been flawed in one or more ways. The Act gives a catalogue of potential flaws and it is worth reciting these here. I can examine actions where it appears to me that the action was or may have been:

1. taken without proper authority,
2. taken on irrelevant grounds,
3. the result of negligence or carelessness,
4. based on erroneous or incomplete information,
5. improperly discriminatory,
6. based on an undesirable administrative practice, or
7. otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration.

While these are all equally important, I have long felt that the phrase "sound administration" has a peculiarly Irish ring to it. To know what constitutes sound administration, the Ombudsman must surely be a "sound man" or a "sound woman"!

What constitutes "sound administration"? In case anyone familiar with "Alice in Wonderland" is tempted to claim that it means exactly what the Ombudsman chooses it to mean, could I say that I have published, in my annual reports, guidelines for the public and for public servants on what I consider sound administration to be.

In my 1994 Report, I included a list of Citizens' Rights and a number of Principles of Good Administration which I believe should underpin the citizen's dealings with the public service. In 1995, I further illustrated the Principles of Good Administration by reference to the cases which I had examined and in 1996 I published a Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants, again drawing attention to the relevance of the Guide to some of the cases which I had dealt with during that year. My 1997 Annual Report which will be published in the next few weeks, will continue this trend - I will concentrate on internal complaints systems and the essential elements of such systems. Some of you have been so kind as to send me your comments on my Reports, and I very much welcome this feedback. Incidentally, I would also like to convey my appreciation at this point to those public bodies who have seen fit to refer to the Office of the Ombudsman as an available avenue of redress in their published Customer Service Action Plans.

I am sometimes asked whether as Ombudsman I can objectively observe the public service since the only stories I hear about it are from dissatisfied people. It is true that the numbers who come to my Office represent a tiny fraction of the client base of the public service and that these people are usually far from happy at the service they have received. Aside from the singular perspective which they offer, I would argue that because of the nature and powers of the Ombudsman and the ongoing contacts which my Office has with public bodies, I am well-placed to comment on the realities underlying the statements of quality service, the customer service action plans and other public commitments to customer service arising from the Strategic Management Initiative and Delivering Better Government. Naturally, these plans and statements of quality service will be taken into account by my Office in the light of the complaints we receive; specifically where a complainant is aggrieved by a shortfall in the published level of service.

I referred earlier to the current emphasis on the need public bodies to measure their performance as they strive to meet their objectives. One possible indicator of the quality of service offered by public bodies is the level of complaints which they receive. The level of complaints to my Office is another such indicator and I publish detailed statistics on the complaints received each year in my Annual Reports.

Graph 1: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman 1988 - 1997

Year 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Complaints 2803 2655 2727 2603 2637 2419 2489 2250 2536 3126

Comments: trend varies but recent trends clearly upwards.

As with any statistics or performance indicators, interpretation requires caution and I am aware that the number of complaints which I receive depends on many factors, including the level of public awareness of my Office. Towards the end of 1997, we conducted a market research exercise on the public awareness and perception of the Office which shows there is a growing awareness of its role. Hopefully, resources will permit this exercise to be repeated periodically. An examination of the level of complaint against individual bodies poses some interesting questions.

Graph 2: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning Telecom Éireann 1988 - 1997

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1270 1087 1032 726 486 331 291 261 272 262

Comments: the trend here is clear and is due to the provision by the company of account information (itemised billing) to customers.

Graph 3: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning the Department of Social Community and Family Affairs 1988 - 1997

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 630 650 675 716 820 720 712 574 653 1007

Comments: The increase in the level of complaints against the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in 1996 and 1997, after a declining trend, is due in large part to the additional publicity generated as a result of the publication of the investigation report I mentioned earlier.

Graph 4: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning Local Authorities 1988 - 1997

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 247 260 282 356 430 459 576 497 569 761

Comments: This shows a continuous and significant rising trend perhaps attributable to greater community awareness of and interest in local development.

Graph 5: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning Health Boards 1988 - 1997

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 196 237 249 295 369 332 302 345 411 403

Comments: Because the larger Dublin hospitals are at present outside remit, there is a lower level of complainants in this area than in corresponding jurisdictions abroad.

Graph 6: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning the Department of Agriculture, Food 1988 - 1997

Graph 7: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning the Department of Education and Science 1988 - 1997

Graph 8: total numbers of valid complaints to the Ombudsman concerning the Office of the Revenue Commissioners 1988 - 1997

Comments: I would draw attention to the trend in complaints against Revenue as shown by the purple line on the right hand side. I think this confirms that actively pursuing a policy of delivering a high quality service to clients does pay off and I also would include the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs in this comment despite the 1996 and 1997 increase in its complaint numbers.

As I said earlier, a increase in the level of complaints against an individual body can arise for all sorts of reasons and does not necessarily imply a deteriorating quality of service provided. These statistics deserve more detailed examination, however, perhaps through academic research and my Office is prepared to co-operate with any interested institutions in this regard.

My Office examines the work of over 160 departments, offices and agencies. As Ombudsman, I have access to any information or documents which in my opinion are relevant to an examination or investigation. This is a far-reaching power and one which is indispensable to the proper investigation of complaints. As you will appreciate, it differs in significant respects from the process of discovery as it operates in the courts system. In effect, if I deem it necessary and relevant, I can engage in a trawling exercise through a public body's records. The Ombudsman Act requires me to operate fairly in the conduct of my investigations; this is as it should be. The Act also gives me and my Office absolute privilege for investigations and other reports. This protection is one rarely granted by the Oireachtas and in effect it means that I am largely unfettered by fears or threats of legal action when I report on my work. My Office does not determine legal liabilities; our concern, as I said earlier, is with fairness, and while my recommendations are, of course, not binding on public bodies I would modestly claim a certain persuasive authority for them.

Finally, I want to pose a question. Is the word "customer" appropriate for the members of the public who use public services? While in many respects it may be useful to view the public as customers, we should not forget that in the vast majority of cases these people have no alternative choice of supplier...they are captive customers and cannot be viewed as autonomous actors in a perfect market. They are also citizens or taxpayers who have rights in their dealings with public bodies; these rights derive not from a contract or a bargain but from the very fact of their citizenship. Public bodies, in turn, have obligations towards the citizen. But let us not forget those people who may not be citizens of the State or of our European Union partner states but who are still entitled to be treated with fairness and dignity as human beings. The use of the term "customer" may bring certain benefits to both the public body and to the "customer" but it must not distort our view of the true nature of the relationship involved. Pressures arising from the drive towards greater efficiency in the use of resources need to be balanced by the obligation to be demonstrably fair, open and honest in the use to which public funds are put. We need to be conscious of the risk that the introduction of market values and techniques could compromise the values which are intrinsic to the public service and to the relationship between public bodies and their clients.