Once again, there are rumblings of ombudsman reform.  Cabinet Office minister, Oliver Letwin MP, has announced a review of the landscape early in 2014 to the Public Administration Select Committee (PASC) enquiry into the role of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

It will also examine the impact of complaints handling on government.  The independent governance review of the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO) last year indicated support for future simplification and unification of ombudsmen.

It encouraged the discussions already taking place to increasingly harmonise the way in which LGO and PHSO work.

Pragmatic change by degree has served us quite well over the years.  Successive governments have taken a look at the fitness for purpose of the ombudsman system at given times and largely concluded that barring some changes around the edges, things are on the right track.

Good examples of this are the Regulatory Reform Order 2007, which has allowed the LGO and the PHSO to work together on joint investigations.

And, the extension of the LGO jurisdiction in the Health Act 2009 to include all registered social care providers (for privately paying customers as well as those paid for by the local authority), effectively makes us the social care ombudsman in all but name.

The time is now right to once again consider if the ombudsman landscape is relevant and resilient.  Forty years on from our founding legislation in 1974, it is time to ask ourselves what a local government ombudsman is for and how we achieve its objectives most effectively.

There have to be three main drivers for reform: a better service for the public, better value for money and better public accountability.  These create a virtuous circle which can underpin a consumer democracy where service improvement and the administration of government are genuinely supported by what the public, as consumers and citizens, want and need.

Confusion currently exists for members of the public seeking redress, which the LGO ‘complaints maze' has laid bare.

Layer onto that the trials of navigating a multi-agency provider environment (in the first instance) and the impenetrable accountability mechanisms which hinder redress and improvement, and the case for change seems clear.

Any solution must be led by what those making complaints need in order to achieve an independent route to redress.

The key principles on which the ombudsman reform debate should be framed are:

Increased public awareness and access:
The public needs to know about the role of the ombudsman, what can be achieved to remedy their concern and how to access the service. As is already the case in Wales, there should be a single portal for complaints about public services which is effectively promoted.

Direct access – the ability to come to the ombudsman without an advocate – is essential and has been the case for LGO since 1988.

Members of the public need to know about the ombudsman at the point at which they have a complaint but are unhappy with the local resolution.  Local government has been good at signposting complainants to LGO and this needs to be put on a statutory footing and apply to all bodies in jurisdiction.  The public should also have a statutory right to an independent route to redress.

Seamless service:
Complaints about public services are not confined to administrative or other sector boundaries.  The administration of services which have been the responsibility of central government departments are now also being devolved to local authorities.

The public should not have to make complex determinations about who is accountable for the delivery of their service and therefore liable for redress and which ombudsman can help them when those services fail.

There should be a single Public Services Ombudsman for England with a common business model and service standards across sector-specific jurisdictions.

Maximise knowledge and expertise:
The value of an independent and impartial investigation by the Ombudsman should not be underestimated.  This is equally valuable in highlighting when no fault has occurred as it is in determining fault and injustice which require remedy.

Any Public Services Ombudsman should operate with lead ombudsmen, overseeing complaints about specific sectors, to provide public confidence and assurance in the quality of the scheme.

Authority to remedy injustice and require service improvement:
At the end of an investigation, those making a complaint want to know that something will be done to put things right.  They want to know that their complaint will be investigated by somebody with the authority to require action.

Under the current arrangements, public bodies usually comply with ombudsmen recommendations, but as many more bodies come into jurisdiction this would be strengthened by discretion to enforce  recommendations, when required.

LGO has always worked closely with the appropriate regulator, but the public would have greater confidence if the ombudsman role was strengthened by a duty to refer concerns to the relevant regulator for action.

Strong local complaint handling with independent oversight:
There is no question that members of the public want their complaints resolved as quickly as possible by the body concerned and see referral to the Ombudsman as a final stage.

The LGO has supported local complaints handling over many years by providing training and guidance. Mirroring the Scottish Complaints Standards Authority, the Ombudsman should have a duty to set common standards for complaints handling with a role for the relevant regulators to audit compliance.

Value for money: