By David Czarnetzki
“To me, an ombudsman service should not have another ombudsman looking at what they are doing”.
Right now, you may be wondering where this quote came from.
On 16th November 2022, the result of a two-day Peer Review of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman was published. The chair of the review was Dr.Andreas Pottakis, Greek Ombudsman and President of the International Ombudsman Institute Europe. Also on the review team were:
Matanyahu Englman – State Comptroller and Ombudsman of Israel
Andrea Keeney – Chief Operating Officer of the Housing Ombudsman
Professor Robert Thomas – University of Manchester – report author.
Annex A point 9 (p33) of the review report covered opinions as to PHSO adherence to the Venice Principles.
After careful consideration, I have come to the view it is in the public interest to reproduce the text of email exchanges I had with Professor Thomas about the Ombudsman’s own adherence to the Principles.
David Czarnetzki to Professor Thomas 09:44 25th November 2022
Dear Professor Thomas.
I have read the peer review recently published on the PHSO website and ask for your comments regarding the following.
Within Annex A (adherence to the Venice Principles), I note point 9 states:
“The Ombudsman shall not, during his or her term of office, engage in political, administrative or professional activities incompatible with his or her independence or impartiality”.
May I refer you to the third part of the evidence I submitted to the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) ahead of their annual scrutiny of the Ombudsman due to take place next Tuesday 29th November (2022).
In my evidence, I raise the Ombudsman taking a role as the Chair of Governors at Anglia Ruskin University (Peterborough). The evidence is supported by minutes of a PHSO Board meeting, contents of which are available on the PHSO website. I gave examples of how the independence of the Ombudsman could be perceived to be compromised by his university appointment.
I raise this with you because the peer review describes the Ombudsman as being fully consistent with the aims of point 9 and would like you to explain why the peer review considers this to be the case. At the very least the review should have amber or, dare I say, a red rating for the reasons I gave to PACAC.
Yours sincerely
David Czarnetzki
Professor Thomas to David Czarnetzki 09:20 28th November 2022
Dear David.
I think the legal position would broadly be as follows. The case-law says that the test for apparent bias is whether a fair minded and informed observer would perceive there to be a real possibility of bias. The leading case is the decision of the House of Lords in Porter v Magill (2002) 2 AC 357. Whether or not the rule against bias has been breached is a matter to be determined on the facts of specific instances, not general circumstances or hypotheticals.
Hope this helps.
Best
Robert
David Czarnetzki to Professor Thomas 10:12 28th November 2022
Thank you Robert.
Does this mean you feel Mr. Behrens appointment at Anglia Ruskin University is not in breach of the Venice Principles? As I have explained to the Public and Constitutional Affairs Committee, including by example, the Ombudsman could find his position compromised. Whilst such a situation is as present hypothetical, it could not be resolved by the Ombudsman recusing himself from an investigation into one of the organisations mentioned in my evidence because he is the final arbiter. I am a fair minded person and cannot see how a supposedly independent Ombudsman can take such an appointment whilst in post, whether remunerated or not. The position of Ombudsman is unique and this situation certainly is not a good look.
Can you also advise whether the Peer Review was aware that Mr. Behrens had taken the position at Anglia Ruskin University when the report was completed? I appreciate your initial response and look forward to your further reply.
Yours sincerely
David Czarnetzki
Professor Thomas to David Czarnetzki 10:43 1st December 2022
The law distinguishes between independence as a structural feature and impartiality as a person’s state of mind. I don’t think that the university appointment alone breaches independence. The Venice Principles cover things like appointment procedures and matters of structural independence. So, if the ombudsman spoke out in favour of one political party over another, then that would be a problem.
The link with the university is more like a connection which could potentially – in some circumstances, depending on their facts – affect the perception of the ombudsman’s impartiality, although there would be means of avoiding those types of problems in practice, e.g. by him having no involvement with that case and passing it to the deputy ombudsman.
Robert Thomas
David Czarnetzki to Professor Thomas 09:13 6th December 2022
Dear Professor Thomas
Thank you for your response. I must again ask whether any member of the Peer review members were aware of Mr. Behrens’s appointment as Chair of Anglia Ruskin University Board of Governors before making the conclusion at Annex A, Point 9? As you probably know, the Ombudsman is governed by the 1967 and 1993 legislation. His independence/impartiality allows him discretion as to whether a report concerning an investigation is laid before parliament or not. No one else in his organisation is permitted to make that decision and it cannot be passed to a deputy.
I think our exchanges make for an interesting article on the website PHSO The True Story. However, before composing it, I would just like you to give a straightforward answer to my question regarding the knowledge of the Peer Review members regarding the university appointment. I hope you will as failure to do so will lead people to draw their own conclusions.
Yours sincerely
David Czarnetzki
David Czarnetzki to Professor Thomas 09:32 9th January 2023
Dear Professor Thomas
I send again my email of 6th December to which I have not had the courtesy of your reply. May I again ask that you clarify whether the Peer Review group was aware of Mr. Behrens’s appointment to Anglia Ruskin University (Peterborough) before the report was compiled?
Yours sincerely
David Czarnetzki
Professor Thomas to David Czarnetzki 10:34 9th January 2023
I think you need to contact the chair of the peer review panel.
My observations
This exchange led me nowhere. It is a sad reflection of my education that I do not read, write or speak Greek and I do not feel it right or polite to make contact with the Greek Ombudsman in anything other than his national language. It also demonstrates how our elected politicians are answerable to us, yet it is suggested writing to a Greek Ombudsman, answerable to nobody in the UK, for clarification about a question relating to our own ombudsman is an appropriate way forward.
Is it also a fact that the Greek Ombudsman lies outside of the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner and, as such, would not legally be obliged to respond to any correspondence? The headquarters of the International Ombudsman Institute is based in Vienna, Austria.
PACAC held its latest scrutiny session of the Ombudsman on 14th November 2023. I was in the Thatcher Room at Portcullis House to witness the questioning of Mr. Behrens and his recently appointed CEO Rebecca Hilsenrath. Of particular interest was the Ombudsman’s responses to the questions of John McDonnell MP who accused him of ‘marking his own homework’. Take a few minutes to view the exchanges in the video clip below.
Peer reviews, particularly unaccountable international ones, are not the answer to the many issues surrounding the performance of PHSO. In his letter to the Secretary of State for Health dated 23rd August 2023 (here), the Ombudsman himself identifies the issue of a ‘crowded landscape’ regarding investigating complaints about the NHS. I can agree with his assessment of the issues but not his solutions.
Finally, I can reveal the answer as to who made the quote reproduced at the beginning of this article. It was given in answer to a question by David Jones MP at the scrutiny hearing on 14th November.
Precisely Mr. Behrens. I couldn’t agree more. Your successor should scrap this Peer Review nonsense. Judge-led public inquiry needed.
Footnotes:
Professor Thomas was given the courtesy of advance notice of my intention to publish the emails forming part of this article
The full transcript and video of the PACAC hearing of 14th November 2023 can be found at these links. The hearing lasted 2 hours and 10 minutes
Peer review looks set to stay.
‘We welcome decision challenges as a valuable opportunity for learning. Even where we do not uphold the review (and find the decision itself sound), the Ombudsman Assurance Team will capture and share learning. These rich insights feed into our learning curriculum for caseworkers and offer feedback for individual case handlers. This is also triangulated with data from our quality sampling to ensure a consistent approach.
We believe this process, which was endorsed by our Independent Peer Reviews, has integrity and appropriate separation of functions… ‘
Rob Behrens letter to William Wragg MP dated 27/11/23
https://committees.parliament.uk/work/7910/parliamentary-and-health-service-ombudsman-scrutiny-202223/events/all/
The letter was in response to a request from PACAC Chair William Wragg MP:
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/copy_of_letter_to_william_wragg#incoming-2486510
LikeLike
So different parts of the organisation agree they are all doing a splendid job and this is a process which has ‘integrity’ If this model is considered to be appropriate for the Ombudsman then why not introduce it into schools and do away with Ofsted?
LikeLike
Rob Behrens likes to be the only one overseeing the casework. That way no one can see how disingenuous the investigation is.
LikeLike
The email exchange with Professor Thomas was intended to set the scene about Peer Review. The real issue is contained in the two video clips. Note how Mr. Behrens praises the virtues of peer reviews in the exchange with the MP John McDonnell yet, in the same scrutiny session, makes the comment that one Ombudsman should not look at what another Ombudsman is doing. Spend a few minutes looking at the videos. They reveal all.
LikeLike
The current PHSO is retiring Spring 2024 allegedly. But Della with all the corruption discovered maybe yes we do need more oversight but really we just need honest people is that a bridge too far?
speakoutpeople@gmail.com
LikeLike
You can’t have an honest Ombudsman overseeing a corrupt system. The whole government machine is corrupt and so are the courts.
LikeLike
As ever the Government is proving daily they are ‘UNFIT FOR PURPOSE’. I have suggested the many of them that any politician should take a Menser Test before entering office. ALL SHOULD REAR ‘FAILURE OF STATE’. Trevor D. Peckham-Cooper.
WE ARE ALL SICK TO DEATH OF TOTAL DAILY INCOMPETENCE.
LikeLike