Oliver Letwin review into complaint handling and public services.

phsothefacts Pressure Group made this Freedom of Information request to Cabinet Office This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

Cabinet Office did not have the information requested.

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear Cabinet Office,

It has been publicised that Oliver Letwin is due to commence two reviews into the way that public service complaints are handled.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24...

We are requesting information concerning both reviews. Can you provide us with a remit which would indicate the areas of interest to Mr. Letwin? We would also be interested to know how this review compliments the key target areas already identified by the Cabinet Office.

Can you tell us the time scale for the review?

Will members of the public be able to provide evidence to either or both reviews?

How will members of the public be informed about evidence gathering opportunities?

Yours faithfully,

phsothefacts Pressure Group

FOI Team - Cabinet Office [Restricted],

1 Attachment

  • Attachment

    Freedom of Information request Oliver Letwin review into complaint handling and public services..txt

    2K Download View as HTML

 

 

CABINET OFFICE REFERENCE:  FOI318917

Dear PHSOTHEFACTS PRESSURE GROUP

Thank you for your request for information. Your request was received
on 17/01/2014 and is being dealt with under the terms of the Freedom of
Information Act 2000.

This email is just a short acknowledgement of your request.

If you have any queries about this email, please contact the FOI team.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

Knowledge and Information Management Unit

Cabinet Office

E: [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

phsothefacts Pressure Group left an annotation ()

Thank you for seeking answers!

E. Colville left an annotation ()

A reply to me this evening from Oliver Letwin's Private Office, not the minister himself, reveals what sort of whitewash of a review to expect him to conduct:

"Thank you for your email correspondence to the Minister for Government Policy. I acknowledge receipt.

The Minister’s work on complaints cannot, I’m afraid, take into scope individual cases but I see that you have forwarded your evidence and concerns to the PASC, who will no doubt take them into consideration as part of their enquiry.

Kind regards,

Minister for Government Policy’s Private Office
Cabinet Office"

The evidence I presented Mr Letwin reveals that for over two years the Cabinet Office has systematically ignored and covered up my complaints about the Cabinet Office itself.

The minister answered none of the specific questions I raised in the correspondence his office has acknowledged receiving.

The minister knows that the PASC, as other select committees, do not or will not address "individual complaints" - unless of course it is to come in aid of a fellow minister or other high profile persons.

If this is his attitude he might as well forget all about conducting a review into complaint handling and public services.

Della left an annotation ()

The more you see of politicians the more apparent it is that only two things will galvanise governments into action. Money and the fear of revolution. If you don't have the first then you must use the second.

E. Colville left an annotation ()

You are absolutely correct Della. Two things are clear. There's no such thing as honest government far less accountability through Parliament.

FOI Team - Cabinet Office [Restricted],

1 Attachment

 

 

Please find attached the reply to your recent FOI request

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

FOI Team

1 Horse Guards Road

London

SW1A 2HQ

 

Email – [1][Cabinet Office request email]

 

 

show quoted sections

phsothefacts Pressure Group

Dear FOI Team - Cabinet Office [Restricted],

We do apologise that our simple request for information on how to submit evidence to assist Mr. Letwin with his enquiries into complaint handling led to such a dilemma for you. It was our belief that Mr. Letwin had already stated his intentions as stated below.

"Complaints from members of the public should help make Britain's public services better, says Oliver Letwin.
Instead of viewing them as a "danger," complaints should be seen as a vital "mine" of information, the Cabinet Office minister told MPs."

Our basic request for information seems to have been treated as something of a 'danger'in its own right. When denying access to any of the information requested you wrote:

"However, the public interest has to be weighed against a strong public interest that
policy-making and its implementation are of the highest quality and informed by a full
consideration of all the options.
As part of the review process it is important that Government has a clear space to
consider the policy options free from external pressure to act, in which it can debate
matters internally with candour and free from the pressures of public debate."

We have no desire to damage the high quality decision making process or interfere with candour.

We foolishly thought that the announcement followed the planning, as in announcing a plan of action, when in fact it is the case that Mr. Letwin has not yet decided what to investigate, how to investigate it and how this fits with government policy, let alone the time scale.

When the mist clears and the high-quality policy making is complete then perhaps you can ask Mr. Letwin to put the basic facts out in the public domain. Unless of course Mr. Letwin intends to review complaint handling from members of the public without actually consulting with members of the public? But what would be the point in that?

Yours sincerely,

phsothefacts Pressure Group

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

So there will be a new website for all complaints to the Ombudsman.....

Er..that's it.

E. Colville left an annotation ()

On "policy-making" with respect to "complaints handling" and review of the PHSO service will Oliver Letwin follow the principles and provisions set out in the Cabinet Office paper speaking to Professional Policy Making for the 21st Century?

The disclosure of this information surfaced as a result of the following FOIA request for internal review made to the Cabinet Office yesterday: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/p...

Here are selected relevant extracts which stand very starkly juxtaposed to Mr Letwin's evident reluctance to involve actual complainants who can provide hard evidence to help inform Cabinet Office policy making:-

"1.3 The need to involve and communicate effectively with those affected by policies as well as those who deliver them on the ground is also well understood and is producing innovative ways of consulting and involving a wider audience in the policy-making process."

"1.4 [...] The report identifies four "big ideas" for the centre to pursue....These are: developing a policy knowledge pool - covering for example, the objectives of new policy projects; the results of impact assessments; relevant consultation documents and information about responses; details of evidence used; and of policy evaluation - to allow easier sharing of information about and experience of policy making and to create a more easily accessible source of evidence for future policy making"

"Figure 1 - Characteristics of "modernised" policy.

• Strategic - looks ahead and contributes to long tern government goals
• Outcome focused - aims to deliver desired changes in the real world
• Joined up (if necessary) - works across organisation boundaries
• Inclusive - is fair and takes account of the interests of all
• Flexible and innovative - tackles causes, not symptoms and is not afraid of experimentation
• Robust - stands the test of time and works in practice from the start

"Figure 2 - Core Policy Process"

- Understanding the problem
- Developing solutions
- Putting solutions into effect
- Testing success and making it stick

"2.7 The reasons why policy making gets underway will vary from case to case (manifesto commitments, court decisions; responses to external events all make for different approaches) as well as the existing state of the policy, its complexity and range"

"2.8 For policy making to be fully effective, policy makers not only need all the "traditional" attributes (knowledge of relevant law and practices, understanding of key stakeholder' views, ability to design implementation systems) but they must also understand the CONTEXT within which they (and the policy) have to work. This means understanding not only the way organisational structures, processes and culture can influence policy making, but also understanding Ministers' priorities (such as the importance of constituency concerns or impending elections or re-shuffles) and the way policies will play in the "real" world where they will make an impact"

"5.5. Communication of Policy"

" 5.7 At the same time, policy makers directly involved in EU policy work, including the negotiation of regulations and directives, need to make use of the good practice material that already exists. The Regulatory Impact Unit (RIU) of the Cabinet Office has recently published a guide on good practice for Ministers and policy makers involved in negotiating, implementing and presenting European law."

"5.8 On communications [...] the disciplines of project management seem to provide a mechanism for ensuring that communication does become an integral part of the policy process. Project management methods require policy makers to carry out a stakeholder analysis which ensures they have identified those groups and interests affected by the policy and considered communication issues in detail at an early stage"

"6.5 [..] effective risk assessment was integral to determining the policy itself. These show how risk techniques can be used to inform policy decisions [....] even the most basic rules - that the policy might not achieve its intended outcome or that it might have unforeseen consequences did not appear to be addressed"

"7.1. - Use of Evidence [...] policy decisions should be based on sound evidence. The raw ingredient of evidence is information. Good quality policy making depends on high quality information derived from a variety of sources - expert knowledge; existing domestic and International research; existing statistics; stakeholder consultation; evaluation of previous policies; new research, if appropriate; or secondary sources..."

"7.2 The best cases we found in our work on good practice are those able to demonstrate what evidence had been used to underpin policy decisions"

"7.4 [...] evidence can be collected to identify optimum opportunities for intervention, particularly when the nature of the intervention can be targeted very precisely"

"7.6 Research commissioned by departments is only one source of evidence for policy making [...]"

" 7.10 [....] ensuring that policy making becomes more soundly based on evidence of what works means tackling two key issues - the need to improve departments' capacity to make best use of evidence; and the need to improve the accessibility of the evidence available to policy makers"

"8 - INCLUSIVENESS"

"8.1 The concept of inclusiveness is concerned with ensuring that policy makers take as full account as possible of the impact the policy will have on different groups [...] who are affected by the policy. As well as being a mechanism for ensuring fairness, it also gives policy makers the opportunity to maximise their understanding of how the policy will work on the ground and to see it operation from the point of view of the users thus reducing the likelihood of unintended consequences. The principal way of achieving these objectives is by involving a wide range of interested parties - such as those who will be affected, service deliverers/implementers, academics and voluntary organisations - in the policy process. Considering the effect of policies on different groups is done formally through impact assessment techniques"

"8.4 We still found some evidence of consideration being used primarily as a means to flush out challenges to emerging policies. Such an approach can undermine public and interest group confidence in policy making. Consultation should be seen by policy makers as part of the gathering of evidence to underpin policy advice; it is not a substitute for analysis and Ministers still have to make the final decisions"

"8.7 Inclusiveness does not simply mean involving people OUTSIDE government in the policy process"

"8.8. Whilst consultation and involvement are essential to find out about how stakeholders perceive policy options, the formal tool policy makers are expected to use to address the question of how "fair" are the policies they propose is the impact assessment"

" 8.10 [...] At present, policy makers are required to carry out separate assessments of the impact of policies on businesses, sustainable development, health and particular groups [etc] . Each of these assessments is done in isolation and each is the subject of long and involved guidance. In order to help policy makers to use these various tools more effectively, the RIU has been co-ordinating a project to bring them together in a user-friendly form. The project has come up with a "rapid checklist" listing of some of the key elements of the policy process and providing an electronic link to all the relevant guidance policy makers need when working up a policy proposal. Providing the checklist in electronic form will ensure that policy makers always have access to the latest guidance, it will allow the checklist to be customised to the needs of individual departments and ensure that the checklist can easily be updated and amended. The intention is that the checklist will be supported by training in impact assessment provided either by departments or buy the CMPS."

"9 - JOINING UP POLICY MAKING

Figure 21 -

"When new policy is planned which affects more than one of the [departmental] Ministers' responsibilities, the following should be produced, collectively agreed and, where necessary, revisited as the policy is developed:

• A rationale and priority for the policy consistent with the strategic aims and objectives [..]
• A policy appraisal which specifies objectives and outcomes; identifies options based on evidence, and assesses costs, risks and benefits;
• A plan and timetable for involving and consulting others;
• A full specification of the policy based on the agreed option which sets out what is to be achieved, by when and how achievement will be measured, at what costs, to whom and how the costs are to be met;
• Plans and timetables for implementing policy, monitoring progress and evaluating the policy"

"ANNEX A - A DESCRIPTIVE MODEL OF PROFESSIONAL POLICY MAKING"

Della left an annotation ()

That should give them plenty to think about during their high-quality planning. Just won't hold my breath as to when they might actually be ready to get the whole inquiry off the ground. My thoughts are that they may just sit it out until the next election and pass it on to someone else.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

.....Combined Ombudsman portal then.

And don't forget to minimise any impact on our friends in private healthcare companies, who do not need to be unnecessarily stifled in their mega-money making process by being criticised by footling complaints from patients and their families.

Ian Clegg left an annotation ()

On 4/12/2013 Mr Letwin advised me:
"I am simply holding a review (a) of the way in which public services could make better use of the patterns of complaints to identify and cure deficiencies in the services they provide and (b) of the extent to which we might be able to reduce the number of different ombudsmen to whom the public can take complaints."

Even in hindsight I doubt he is doing / intending to do anything serious.

Ian Clegg

Della left an annotation ()

I'm sure you are right Ian. No intention at all to do anything meaningful. Just put a single portal onto a sinking ship so we can all go down together. Cosmetic window dressing which will cost a fortune in new logos and P.R. and achieve - nothing at all.

E. Colville left an annotation ()

How many were unaware, as I was until today, that Oliver Letwin's wife is Director of Legal Services at the Department for Health? -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...

Della left an annotation ()

All in it together.

[Name Removed] (Account suspended) left an annotation ()

There sounds to be a serious conflict of interests in the Letwin household!! E.Colville Let alone in Government!

E. Colville left an annotation ()

Cabinet Office response to this request: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/r..., dated 12.12.13 confirms that the Parliamentary & Health Service Ombudsman Champion in Government is Robert Devereaux, Permanent Secretary at the Department for Work & Pensions.

Reference the Cabinet Office publication of December 2011 on Ministers' Interests: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy... it establishes that in relation to Oliver Letwin, Minister for Government Policy:

"Mr Letwin's wife is Director of Legal Services at the Department of Work & Pensions"

By contrast, in this CO response dated 24.02.14 https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/m... the requester was told that:

"We can confirm that the current Ombudsman Champion is Una O’Brien, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health."

As annotated yesterday, the October 2013 version of Ministers' Interests states that:

"Mr Letwin's wife is Director of Legal Services at the Department of Health" - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/sy...

Quite a coincide that the same Director of Legal Services should also be assigned to work with the Permanent Secretaries selected to be the Government's Ombudsman Champion in the Departments whose policies give rise to the major part of complaints to the Ombudsman and whose husband, as Minister of Government Policy, is now the Government's complaints Tzar in the Cabinet Office - which is the principle liaison with the Ombudsman, holding 'in camera' bi-monthly meetings about which the general public who make complaints are not permitted to have any information. And we're really expected to believe there is no conflict of interest?