CLA 1104

5 December 2001

Commission for Local Administration in England

Handling complaints from councils where an ombudsman has a close personal relationship with a senior officer or councillor

Summary

The Ombudsmen may wish to decide what should be the usual practice for ombudsmen when they have a close personal relationship with a senior member, chief executive or other senior officer in a body within jurisdiction.

Background

The Local Government Act 1974 does not address this issue. The only reference to conflicts of interest is in Schedule 4(2) where a Local Commissioner is precluded from `conducting a case' in an area where he/she has been a councillor in the previous five years.

As this issue relates to the performance of an ombudsman's duties rather than conduct of the Commission's business, they do not address it in the Code of Conduct for Commission Members. But reference is made in that document to the Nolan Committee's seven principles of public life which include:

“Integrity

Holders of public office should not place themselves under any financial or other obligation to outside individuals or organisations that might influence them in the performance of their official duties.”

It has been recent practice of the Commission that where an Ombudsmen has held senior office in a local authority, that local authority area is to be dealt with by another ombudsman (Mr White, concerning LB Hackney, and Mr Redmond, concerning LB Harrow.) Also where an ombudsman is married to a senior officer, for that council area to be dealt with by another ombudsman (Mr White, concerning City of Birmingham).

The Ombudsmen may wish to consider whether this practice should extend to other relationships such as close friendships; Mr Redmond has indicated that he is a close friend of a number of chief executives in London. Mr White is a close friend of the newly appointed solicitor for City of Coventry.

On the one hand, extending the protocol would avoid any public concern that the judgement of the Ombudsman and the staff in his/her office was affected by the relationship. The public might take a view that as a local authority's performance is judged by the number and outcome of Ombudsman complaints, it is in the interest of the Chief Executive to seek to influence the Ombudsman. If it was Commission practice to adjust areas to reflect close friendships, then would it also extend to all close friendships at senior (ie: Director) level?

On the other hand the adjustments to areas needed to take account of friendships might mean that ombudsmen's areas become more complicated and difficult for the public to understand. The economies associated with visits to neighbouring councils in the investigation of complaints might also be affected.

An alternative (which is probably already the usual practice of ombudsmen) would be that if the ombudsman is aware that his/her friend has been personally involved in the action which is the subject of the complaint, then he/she will arrange for that complaint to be considered by another ombudsman. This would not, however, apply where the friend had been involved in the internal investigation of that complaint (eg: chief executives do sometimes become involved in consideration of internal complaints) or to any other complaints concerning that local authority.

At Deputy level, Mr MacMahon takes no part in complaints about Enfield (where he was formerly a senior officer) or Essex County Council (where he is a close friend of the CEO), but both are within Mr Redmond's area. Any complaints about Woking High School where Mr Karney is chair of governors would be dealt with by the Local Commissioner for Wales (subject to agreement). There is extensive guidance on staff interests in the Code of Conduct for Employees.

Recommendation

The Ombudsmen are invited to agree what will be their practice in this matter, and whether the Commission should further adjust their areas to reflect this.

Nigel Karney

Deputy Chief Executive & Secretary

22 November 2001

H:\COM\Papers\cla1104.wpd

2