Finance Committee

So, this is our substantive item this morning, now, in public. So, it's the post-legislative review of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019, and this is the sixth evidence session. We have our witnesses with us. Do you want to introduce yourselves for the record?

Yes. Bore da. Michelle Morris, Public Services Ombudsman for Wales.

Croeso.

Bore da. Katrin Shaw, executive director casework and legal.

Fantastig. Croeso cynnes.

It's good to welcome you here, and I'm sure you've been following the sessions that we've been having. Obviously, we had an initial session with you at the beginning of the process, and now it's to reflect on what we've heard and what other witnesses have told us, as we're going through. So, this is, as a reminder, the post-legislative review of the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019.

So, what I'd like to start with is to explore whether the 2019 Act has enhanced the perception of the PSOW, or whether the PSOW needs to improve outreach to broader demographics. So, if we start there and then I'll bring my colleagues in, as we're going along. So, the committee has heard evidence that there is a perception that the role of the ombudsman is a middle-class remedy for middle-class people, to some extent, and that it doesn't have the broad reach to all different types of demographics that it perhaps should have. What are your thoughts regarding the perception of the office? And are there demographics you still need to work on and get in touch with? So, over to you.

Okay. We'd have to agree with that point, that there's a real risk for us, and all ombuds schemes, to be fair, that we do attract a certain group of people within the community that are able to find us, are able to make complaints, are able to put their arguments forward, and that that means that some are less able and less likely to come to us. So, there is a risk there. We fully accept that. I think we'd be quite open about that challenge for ourselves.

So, when I agreed my first strategic plan, when I came into role in 2023, one of our strategic priorities was around accessibility. It is about the fact that we recognise that there are certain groups within our community that are less likely to reach us, and that we have to work hard and have to continue to work hard, because we haven't cracked it yet, to make sure that they're aware of us and that our services are accessible to them. So, I think it's a well-made point in that respect. Just to remind Members, in terms of our strategic plan, our focus is around younger people, people from diverse ethnic and national backgrounds, Welsh speakers and people who are experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage and disabled people. So, those are the groups that our data tell us are less likely, in some instances, to come to us and make complaints. They're under-represented, in terms of the proportion within the wider population of Wales. I think we've found it quite hard, to be honest, to move the dial on these things—they're challenging areas to address—but we've got to continue to try.

I think, this year, we've narrowed down our focus a bit more, because we're very conscious, with limited resources, that perhaps we were trying to spread our effort too wide. So, we focused in, and we're going to focus in this year, particularly around those from diverse ethnic and national backgrounds, Welsh speakers, and people experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage. We do tend to find that there's better representation now from people with disabilities coming forward in our complaints case load. So, that's encouraging, and also it's pleasing to see that, for the first quarter of this year, we're now seeing an uplift, or an increase, in complainants from diverse ethnic backgrounds as well. So, we do hope that some of the work is starting to move us in the right direction.

You asked about outreach work, Chair. Well, that is a part of our work that we already do, and we use our outreach to target those communities where we know we'd like to see more complaints coming in, to make sure they are aware of us and that, if there are barriers to them using our services, we understand what they are. So, the outreach work is getting us out into, we hope, talking to the right organisations that represent and work in those communities.

This year, we've gone to gofod3 for the first time, which is a voluntary sector exhibition and networking event. We hope that's helped us reach out to lots of groups in the community, and we'll be having a presence at other events across Wales, such as the Eisteddfod and the minority ethnic communities health fair, which is an annual event as well. So, we're trying to get into the right events to start talking to the right organisations. And we're also—. I think one of the feedbacks we've had is that we need to improve our resources in different languages, so, where we've got information about who we are, what we do, how people can access our services, we need to provide that in other languages than English and Welsh. And so, we've been doing more of that this year as well.

So, is there anything within the Act that's maybe adding to those barriers, or anything in the legislation that is under-utilised maybe, or something that you might want to develop further, just because we're reviewing the Act, as opposed to the work? Is there anything that, systemically, is causing issues within that, or is it just the matter of embedding the ombudsman's office within these communities?

I think it is the latter, but I should say that one thing in respect of the Act—and we spoke about this when we talked to the committee in April—is around our ability now to take oral complaints, because that does give us flexibility; it improves our accessibility so that we can, hopefully, remove barriers, such as language, to people coming forward with complaints. And we've got some nice examples that have happened this year of where we've been able to take oral complaints in a language that is that complainant's language, and we've been able to provide either staff who speak that language and can facilitate, or use translation services. So, I think that's a positive way that the Act is helping us to make our service more accessible and removes that barrier for people whose first language isn't English. But I don't know if there's anything else you'd pick up on that, Katrin?

No, I'd agree. I think the challenges we see with all of the groups that Michelle has outlined, really, are the same in terms of, it's that knowledge, awareness, ensuring that people know when they can access us and what we can do. I don't think there are any other difficulties, and, as you say, the oral complaints function does give us that flexibility, and we're able to step in and help people on the phone or face-to-face, if we need to.

And in that engagement work, I suppose what we've heard from some witnesses is that people know you exist, but don't necessarily know what you do, and is that something that's been developed through these outreach activities that you're doing, or is there anything else that is maybe stopping people from engaging with you or realising, 'Well, actually, the ombudsman could help us with this?'

It very much is part of outreach work. It's an opportunity to talk to people. So, I was at gofod3 last week—it was just last week, yes—and it was a great opportunity to talk to organisations that are supporting people with disabilities, supporting people from ethnic minorities, to talk to them about what we do, because they're taking that knowledge and that information back into those communities and can identify people that might need help with our services and then perhaps advocate and support them to bring the complaints forward. So, I think the outreach is really important in that respect, and we're trying to get ourselves into the right places with outreach so that we're broadening those conversations into communities where perhaps we haven't been so strong previously.

And are you capturing any data around that, to be able to measure how it's going?

Yes. So, an example there: all contacts we make, we take contacts, we don't just say, 'Nice to meet you', and allow people to just drift away. We were taking information on contacts; we will follow that up. We'll make sure they're added to our quarterly newsletters that we do to get out into communities. So, we will try and keep that dialogue going. And we're also very happy, and we do this quite regularly, to go back and talk to groups that might say, 'Well, can you come and talk to our volunteers or our workers about what you do and how you might be able to help?' So, we're open to doing that as well. So, we try to be quite flexible and responsive.

We've had evidence from the older people's commissioner, and that's a group that you haven't mentioned, as in older people in general. What measures are you using to engage with older people? I suppose talking, you know, being able to take oral complaints helps, because—whether or not they're digitally excluded or whatever that might be. But are there any other mechanisms that you're able to use and to raise the awareness within those sorts of—you know, the older community?

It's interesting, because our data shows us that, in terms of awareness of the ombudsman's office—I think we've reported previously and we report in our annual report—that stands at about 48 per cent. We'd like that to be higher, and we've got stretch targets around that, but that compares well to other ombuds organisations in the UK that publish awareness data. Interestingly, people over the age of 55, which is classified as older these days, their awareness is as good—it's slightly better in fact; it's about 49 per cent. So, our data doesn't show that they're any less aware than the wider community, although of course we'd like to push that figure up.

And I suppose it is the case, you're right, that older people are not a particular target group of ours at the moment. We're focusing on those other target groups. But it is correct that we tend to see fewer complaints from people over 65 in particular. But I think we need to balance that off with the fact that, quite often, people make complaints on their behalf. We find that daughters, sons, perhaps advocates, organisations like Llais, are supporting people who are in that category and we obviously work closely with them as well.

So, we're not specifically targeting old people, because we've had to make a decision as to where we put our resources and we've chosen to focus on those areas at the moment. But we do feel that there are other mechanisms for older people to access our services through advocates and through the support they receive off family members.

We've been talking a little bit about oral complaints now, and that's part of what the Act allowed you to do, to be able to take those, and you've said that you only need to use the oral complaints option when it's really necessary. I wonder if you could unpack that a little bit for us, and how you would assess the need for an oral complaint, and what the process is for verifying the complaint with the complainant—so, just more of the minutiae of how it works and why you'd go down that route.

Katrin's going to contribute on that one.

Yes, thank you. Yes, I think I would start by saying it's very much demand-led, the service for oral complaints, and the change in the new legislation very much made it a right for people to request an oral complaint. So, when that happens, absolutely we will offer that service.

I think what we have found over the years since the introduction of the Act—. At one point, we were taking oral complaints every time somebody requested, but, when the complaint they wish to make isn't a matter that falls within the PSOW's jurisdiction, we have taken the view that there's no point going through that motion of, you know, spending half an hour with a complainant and taking a complaint where we are just going to say, 'We can't do anything with that.'

So, our approach with those types of scenarios is that we will offer signposting assistance to the person. When it is, for example, a body that isn't a public body that they want to complain about, we'll signpost them to a suitable organisation if we can. Or say, for example, a complaint is about a matter that is absolutely outside our jurisdiction—so, something like an employment, personnel, staff-related matter that we have no remit in—we would say, 'Look, sorry, there's no point us taking this oral complaint', and we would signpost them, as I say, to an appropriate organisation for advice. Likewise, say, if it was a school complaint that we don't have jurisdiction over.

But when it is firmly a matter that falls within our jurisdiction, absolutely, we will take that oral complaint. And the process that we've developed and refined over time is that the caseworkers on the front line of our service, who deal with our phone calls, will have that conversation. Usually, as we've said in our evidence submission, we will make an appointment for that conversation to happen. But when, of course, somebody appears to be in distress, or it seems to be an urgent matter, we will take it on the spot.

Our process very much aligns with those requirements in the legislation. So, we take the complainant through our complaint form—what the matter is that they're complaining about, how they have been personally affected—and we will send that back to them, as we're required to do, to ask them to verify the details. Once they've agreed that, then we assess the complaint in the usual way. So, that's the only scenario where we have tried to really ensure that people understand what it is we can support them with. And as I say, we wouldn't go through the motion of taking an oral complaint if we felt that something was absolutely outside our remit.

So, if somebody was calling in, would they be offered the oral complaint process as the first stage, or would the call handler say, 'Well, go on our website and fill out the form'? How is that approached? Is it the last resort or sort of the first resort, and how does that work?

Well, under the legislation, we're required to publish our guidance to complainants on how they can make a complaint, which, of course, includes oral complaints. We also have a factsheet available, which we would send to people. So, that fact sheet does outline every option that is available. Yes, the top line says, 'Please submit your complaint using our website', but it also says that you can do it by phoning us and making an oral complaint, and we'll make that arrangement for you.

So, obviously, most people do access our service through the online complaint form, and not everybody does make that initial phone call to us. So, when we receive the phone calls, we will explain the various options, in line with our guidance. But when it's clear that somebody does need that support, or is asking for the support, as I say, we will take those oral complaints. And even when somebody has sent us something in writing, by e-mail or in an online complaint form, and we think that they may be struggling to get the gist of the complaint through to us, we will offer that oral complaint at that stage.

Okay, thank you for that. It just clarifies a little bit about how the process works and the priority that you put on an online, as opposed to an oral, complaint. I think that that's the bit—. So, do you measure oral complaints versus online complaints and where those originate from? Would you measure if it was a phone call and then it went to an oral complaint, or a phone call that went to an online complaint?

I'm not sure that we measure that train. We do measure the numbers—

So, the journey of the complainant.

No, I don't think that we measure that directly. As I say, the majority of cases do come through our online form. I think that we would struggle, from a resource perspective, to deliver them all via oral complaints. They are quite resource-heavy because it's that one-to-one contact and time on the phone. But we do measure our numbers of oral complaints. We haven't set ourselves targets for oral complaints, for the reason that I was outlining, really. As I say, there's no point in us spending our resources on issues that we can't help people with. So, that's the approach that we've taken so far.

So, it's more that filtering process at the beginning, to start with.

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much for that. You've talked about target groups that you're trying to reach from ethnic minorities or those whose nationality is not UK. Can you explain how you intend to do that and what impact do you think that might have on maybe the types of complaints that you get, or how those communities are able to make oral complaints? You mentioned a little bit about the language aspect that we talked about earlier. How has that developed? What sort of languages are we talking about? It would be interesting for the committee to understand.

Yes. We have resources available where we can support people on our website, and we do offer translation services. The example that Michelle referred to earlier: we had a caller and we recently took an oral complaint in Bengali. Our front-line member of staff speaks Bengali and was able to do that and translate it for the caller. It did take a little bit longer for us to make the arrangements to do that, but it was really important that we were able to provide that service and ensure there was accessibility of our service. As Michelle has outlined, one of our aims for this year is to improve the various languages we have available for all of our publications. There is a translation tab on our website for languages other than English and Welsh. That's a recent example.

Is that driven by artificial intelligence? How does that work?

I'm not sure exactly what the technical aspects are for that, to be honest. I think it must be some form of automatic translation. What we're working on, as Michelle said, is ensuring that our resources are translated and available in the documentary form for the outreach work we are doing with the groups. We will explain—. I think it's fair to say that, when we do our training via outreach events, advisers and advocates are always really pleased that people can make their oral complaints to us, because that is really important in terms of improving accessibility.

Before I bring Mike in, have you ever taken an oral complaint using sign language?

Yes, we have.

Is that what you were going to ask? Sorry, Mike, I'm taking over. [Laughter.]

Yes, we have. In fact, there are a couple of examples in the evidence submission, I think, where we took a complaint in British Sign Language, and the person did contact us again after that. So, although we couldn't help them with the substance of the matter they were complaining about, they clearly had trust in our process and came back to us again for assistance with a different matter. So, yes, absolutely, we do that. And actually, some of our feedback from our research has shown that there is quite a good knowledge of that now, that people can make their complaints via BSL.

Was that the question you were going to ask, Mike? There we are. I'll bring Sam in at that point, then. Thank you, Sam.

Diolch, Chair. Good morning. Thanks for having time with us today. When you were here a couple of months ago now in the initial evidence session, and in the evidence sessions we've had so far, we heard some of the issues around the own-initiative investigation powers. Do you just want to briefly remind us of what some of those issues that you raised with us were, and where the opportunities might be?

The issues we raised around our own-investigation powers were—. We highlighted the challenge that we have with the consultation requirements at the beginning of the process. So, at the moment, there's a two-stage process that we follow, that's in the legislation. We talked last time, didn't we, about the fact that the investigation, particularly the recent one we've done, has taken a long time, and how we're going to try and reduce that down in terms of our future work. So, I think one of our challenges that we were highlighting to the committee in terms of the legislation was we felt that was perhaps overly restrictive and not helping us.

There are a few other areas, then, if you want me to go on, where we've identified ourselves through the work that we've done so far in OI. Because it's early days; we are learning a lot about how to use this power, and how to use it well. Through our own work around looking at lessons learnt, we've identified areas where we think we can make that process more effective and efficient. So, the first was around initial engagement with the bodies that we would be considering for investigation—making that a bit tighter, I think, so that it doesn't become an ongoing, lengthy conversation, but ensuring that, at the outset, we provide clarity on the process we're going to follow, the criteria, and what the expectations would be of the investigated bodies through that process. And I think the other thing, then, was to make our findings a bit more succinct. We tend to gather a lot of evidence through the own-initiative investigations. So, presenting our findings in a succinct way, but backing it up with the evidence so that it's robust—we feel that that's something we can perhaps do more effectively in future reports, and we looked at that a lot in our recent report.

And the final point—and I think I mentioned this last time I was here as well—for me is being very tight about our scope and the scope of the investigation at the outset. We have done a couple of investigations that have been very broad in their remit, and I think in the future I would like to be able to focus the scope and remit in to be much tighter and more specific, so that we could get through more investigations, but in a more focused way. So, those were the areas, I think, that we've touched upon in our submission. But in terms of the legislation, the particular point was around the consultation requirements.

Thank you. That was helpful. And so, on those consultation requirements, we have had evidence from stakeholders who suggest that any risks in watering down those consultation requirements, or removing them, may, as they describe, reduce procedural fairness and result in less co-operation from those affected by those investigations. What would be your view on that?

Just to be clear—I think this is known—we're not suggesting there shouldn't be any consultation. It's absolutely right for procedural fairness and engagement with the bodies concerned that there's a good consultation process at the outset. So, we're not proposing to remove it altogether, we're just saying that we feel it could be less onerous and have a single step of consultation rather than two. Our view is that that wouldn't reduce procedural fairness, and, actually, perhaps it would be less of a burden on public bodies to have to engage twice on the same process. Clearly, removing consultation would remove procedural fairness, and we wouldn't be suggesting that. So, we feel that what we're suggesting would be reasonable.

In terms of how we interpret the current legislation, we take a risk-based approach to how we interpret it. We have to be mindful, perhaps less so than those that gave evidence, of potential challenge around our use of the powers. It is new, so we're finding our way through this. So, for that reason, we take a risk-based approach to avoid that challenge, and that's what we've done up until now. But I think—

Sorry, on that point, do you think you're being too risk averse, then? I appreciate, as a public body, naturally, that's a space you'd occupy. Do you think, in your interpretation of the legislation, you are being too risk averse in that interpretation, and therefore over-engineering your internal processes?

We noted that evidence and that view expressed. Up until now, no, we don't feel we have been. But I think, to be fair, you know, the evidence coming back from other bodies is interesting and useful for us. So, we will give some further consideration to that point, and we are starting to shape, obviously, our next own initiative. So, we'll look at that when we're starting that process.

I think the other thing that will help, perhaps, with that level of risk that we're prepared to take is around strengthening our use of data. Now, we've talked about that previously with the committee. If we've got a strong body of evidence and data that says, 'No, look, there's a real suspicion, strong suspicion, of systemic maladministration here', then that gives us a strong base on which to move forward and do that investigation. That might help us, in future, to take a different view on our risk levels.

Just on that point, you mentioned those words 'systemic maladministration'—I think in the actual legislation itself, it talks about you using your own-initiative power where there's reasonable suspicion of systemic maladministration. We did hear evidence that those words, 'systemic maladministration', are undefined, and therefore may impede you from—. You're having to obviously interpret what systemic maladministration may look and feel like, which may limit your pursuit of some of those OIs. Is that a fair comment, do you think? Do you feel like you're restricted by those words 'systemic maladministration', where there may be OIs that may be appropriate, where it may not be systemic, but certainly issues that you would want to investigate further?

I think from a practical point of view, up until this point, we haven't found that it has impeded our work, to be honest. Admittedly, we've only done two wider investigations up until now. I think we interpret the legislation widely in this respect, and it is helpful that the legislation says ‘suspicion’ of systemic maladministration. That gives, we feel, scope for wider interpretation, and wouldn't prevent us going after specific issues, because we would back it up with other evidence and data to show what's happening in that sector or why we think there would be wider problems. Just because a complaint comes in or an issue has affected just one or two people, the nature of that issue could then very much suggest that there's a wider issue that would allow us—and we feel the legislation does allow us—to pursue that.

Okay. And then you mentioned a few moments ago the best use of data as well, to inform your work on those OI investigations. I think you used the words ‘lessons learned’ as well through some of this process. Do you intend to share some of those lessons learned to either ourselves or to other stakeholders at all?

To be honest, it wasn't our intention to share our lessons learned more widely. It's an internal document to help us develop our—well, to make sure that we develop our use of these powers based on previous experience, don't make the same mistakes again, and pick up some of the things we think we could do better. So, it wasn't our intention. Obviously, we've shared some of the key messages already with you through our consultation response and through our conversations at committee, so I think that's our position on it.

Yes, sure. Okay, thank you. And a similar theme, but just slightly different. We did hear from some evidence that some of the timing—. The example they gave was the timing of the OI investigation overlapped with the Care Inspectorate Wales investigation or similar work. Of course, you wouldn’t want to see duplication in place. As part of the ‘lessons learned’ work you're doing, would that include anything to avoid any future duplication, do you think?

I think I've been clear from the outset, since I've come into this role, that I wanted to use our OI powers to be able to do investigations into areas that perhaps don't present themselves readily through our complaints work, particularly to those groups that find our services perhaps a little more inaccessible. But I definitely didn't want to be using the powers to duplicate what other public bodies were doing. I wanted to use it to add to the conversation and the knowledge about the delivery of public services, and that's still very much my position.

My experience of the unpaid carers work was that, before we started that work, we had a lot of conversations with other bodies and inspectorates, including Care Inspectorate Wales, because we were very mindful of the potential for overlap and duplication. But they didn't raise any issues with us at that point. They said, no, they thought it was a good topic to look at. They didn't see that it presented any conflict or duplication with work that they were planning. So, that has been our practice, and it will continue to be our practice, because it's really important that we don't create a more cluttered space for where other inspectorates and other bodies—Audit Wales is the other example—are already working. So, that's our practice up until now, and we'll continue to do that.

Just something related, when you're producing an OI investigation and your findings are then binding on the authorities that you've investigated, say that you've investigated five or six local authorities, they have a duty to pay due regard to what you say, but the other 17 don't necessarily. So, is that something that—? Because it came up in one of the evidence sessions, I think. How do you make sure that the work that you've done finds its way into good practice in other aspects?

And I think that's one of the things we've highlighted in our consultation response, and we discussed last time, that we would like—. That's one way we think the legislation could be more helpful in allowing me to extend recommendations across the sector, rather than just at the body or bodies that have been investigated. So, I think there is scope there for the legislation to be more helpful in that regard.

I think we also spoke, didn't we, that perhaps, in terms of engagement with public bodies, it might be seen as fairer if those recommendations then apply right across. So, in effect, we've taken a sample of public bodies, we're doing that work, and then we're looking at good practice, but also things that could be improved, and we're asking the whole sector to look at those issues.

So, I think from the point of view of fairness and our ability to engage with the public sector on this work, but also from the point of view of impact, and being able to improve services on the back of OI reports, then it would be advantageous for the legislation to allow us more scope in that respect.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Just building on that point again, another view around that is if you had the powers to apply the recommendations to other linked bodies, there's been a comment that that could then blur with the role of Audit Wales. Do you want to address that point?

Yes, we noted that point; I think that was a point raised by Welsh Government. I think my response to that would be that our remit is much narrower than that of Audit Wales; it's focused around systemic maladministration and personal injustice, so it's a much narrower remit than Audit Wales have. So, I can't see how that would present a challenge. I don't think it would give us—. That extension we just talked about wouldn't put us in the position where we were duplicating with Audit Wales, because they have a very broad remit, and obviously can—

I expect you can understand that by broadening your remit out, you can understand why people may be concerned about that risk of duplication or blurring.

I suppose my view on it would be that our remit isn't being broadened, but we are just able, purely for OI investigations, to make those recommendations to the sector, rather than just to the bodies investigated. I don't think it would blur our role alongside Audit Wales, and I note that Audit Wales didn't pick it up in their response as a concern.

And then we recognise your comments and the exchange we've had about the desire to have more OIs, not just for the sake of it, but because of the quality output that comes out the back of it, and how helpful it is. We have had comments in regard to the transparency of decision making when it comes to knowing which OIs to pursue. Do you think there's an opportunity there to improve the transparency of your decision making about which OIs to pursue?

We weren't sure of the basis for that particular comment. We do try and explain in our consultation documents why we're proposing to pursue a particular theme, and we do explain our rationale in our subsequent reports. I guess perhaps the way you're asking the question there it is a bit broader—it's about which are the ones that we consider and then don't pursue, how we arrive at a particular one. I think that's probably a fair comment and something for us to reflect on.

We've certainly identified in our consultation response to the committee the potential for us to work more closely with the third sector around how we gather intelligence for this work. I think that would allow us to have more open conversations, possibly, about what are the options for us with our next investigations, what are the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing different lines. So, I think that's something we can certainly reflect on and consider when we start now looking at our next investigation. Because there are topics we consider but then don't pursue; obviously, we make a choice to go down one particular avenue.

It's interesting; the very fact that you are prompted to consider something is interesting in and of itself, isn't it? Because things wouldn't pass your desk just by chance. The fact that you're having to consider some of this is actually an interesting indicator of what may be a future investigation, not necessarily today, but something that may be considered in the future as well, I suppose.

Yes.

Okay. Going back on the use of data, did you want to expand at all on how you may be able to get hold of some of that data, and your thoughts as to the sort of data that you might be missing at the moment and where other bodies may be able to support you in providing the information you need? Are there any recommendations for us, that we as a committee should consider, to enable you to get hold of that clearer, better information to allow you to have more informed decision making about OIs? Sorry, my question probably is: are there barriers that you find at the moment where you probably know there's data out there—

But we can't find it—

—but you can't get hold of it?

—we can't get hold of it. I suppose, at the moment, we use, we rely quite heavily on our own data in terms of data that we have about complaints and casework. I suppose the first point is that we know—. We've got a data strategy in place now, and we know we can improve how we use our own data. So, that's not necessarily a barrier, but it's certainly something we know we can do better. So, that work is ongoing.

I'm struggling to think of a particular barrier in terms of other sectors. I think we probably haven't been as good at linking into the third sector as we could be, and that's what the research that we commissioned earlier in the year has identified. So, we're going to take steps now to address that. Those bodies in that sector may well have data, or certainly intelligence and knowledge, that we're not tapping into at the moment and that would potentially help us. But I think that's down to our effort to go and have those conversations rather than a particular barrier. I can't—. I don't know—. I can't think of any others.

No, as you say, I think we've got good links with other public bodies. The two wider OIs we've done have been in areas where we don't have a huge number of complaints, so we needed to reach out and understand the context. And—

I guess—. Sorry, Chair. Just to help with this, I'm not necessarily talking about explicit barriers in terms of organisations or public bodies saying 'no'. It's the built-in systemic barriers of lack of consistency in how data is recorded and the measures that are taken, which then, I expect, you're trying to compare and contrast, or trying to gather a pool of information. I know that can be a challenge, because even, say, local authorities or health boards, they may collect similar data in different ways, and therefore your ability to know what the true picture is, I guess, can be a challenge. I'm wondering if there's something there we could think about. [Inaudible.] Oh, sorry, Chair. [Laughter.]

Yes. Okay. That's a fair comment. Obviously, we've done a lot—. I'm sure we'll come on to talk about this. We've done a lot to try and standardise complaints data and people's approach to that. But the sort of data you're talking about goes way beyond that. Yes, you're right: not only difference between sectors, different health boards will gather data in different ways, and if we're trying to find something consistent across the piece, then that can be a challenge.

I'm conscious I cut across you, Katrin. Was there anything that you wanted to say further?

No. I was only going to follow up on Michelle's point, really, about the third sector work that Ruth Marks did for us. We do think that's important, because, often, there is a lag in—. By the time things reach us as an office, there may be some real burning issue on the ground that is affecting people that we should consider. That's more general for us, really, in terms of taking that forward now, but just to give us that intelligence on what aren't we seeing.

It is that intelligence, isn't it? Sometimes when we talk about data, we risk thinking about complicated algorithms and that sort of thing, but, actually, it's just pretty basic information that can inform intelligent decision making in terms of what you should and shouldn't be pursuing. And also it creates efficiencies and, yes, knowing what not to pursue. Because if that can be made clear to you fairly quickly by the information you receive, it saves a lot of time and energy running down rabbit holes you don't need to go down. Sorry, Chair, was there anything you wanted to say?

No, I was nodding in agreement.

I want to move on to a slightly different theme, away from the OIs. Thank you for your response on that there. We had spent some time exploring whether the powers around accepting private healthcare complaints are limited in some of their scope as well. We did hear evidence that the power to investigate private healthcare had been described as having real limitations, as written out in the Act, specifically if somebody has to receive private treatment linked to a public health service. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on that at the moment, and areas of powers you think should be considered for amending in that space.

Our position hasn't really changed since our evidence submission was made and our first session with you, really. We do feel the current arrangements are appropriate. Our focus is on public services, so we feel that's right, really. Where we can't effectively and completely investigate NHS care and treatment, we should be able to look at that private care element. I think, previously, we explored perhaps the reasons why we hadn't taken forward certain complaints that had been made to us. When the legislation was introduced, we knew this was going to be quite a sparing power that we would use. But, as we've said in our submission, we do think it's really important to keep it in there and futureproof us as an organisation, particularly with pressures on health services. It gives us that flexibility, we think. So, our view is that the provision is right as it is and we don't need to seek amendment on that. But obviously we respect the views that have been given to the committee.

There's been specific comment around cross-border private healthcare services as well, specifically because of, I guess, the frequency of access to services in England from residents in Wales, and your inability to perhaps investigate further some of the issues that might occur there. Is that a view you'd share, or a concern?

Yes, I think there's a gap there, potentially. I think we discussed last time that, where NHS commissions care across the border, we can obviously consider that, follow the money, in that sense. But there is a potential gap when care is privately commissioned by an individual in England. On NHS cases, we have the powers in the legislation to work jointly with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, when we feel that's appropriate. And even when we don't feel we need to formally investigate together, we can work closely on cases. I don't believe they have the equivalent power in England as we do in Wales. So, they wouldn't be able to join that loop when they feel there's that private element of care in the middle of a case in England. So, there is potentially that gap, yes, I think so.

But, to be really clear, we're not talking about private healthcare commissioned through the health service.

No.

This is people accessing private healthcare of their own accord.

At their own expense, yes.

I'm just thinking this through. You're a public services ombudsman, aren't you—

Yes.

—not a private service ombudsman. There's a risk of your remit going to areas that—. I can understand why we think that might be helpful, but it's a very different world when somebody chooses to access a private, whatever the service might be, versus having commissioned through the public services.

Exactly. Yes.

But is the logic here that people perhaps feel they have no other choice and, therefore, whilst these private healthcare services might be commissioned by the health service, because of some of the challenges in the health service, people feel they don't have a choice but to access private healthcare themselves, and that might be a reason why you might need to have a view on some of the issues that are in those spaces. Is that fair? I'm just trying to think it through.

That could potentially be part of the reason that people think that's appropriate. I remember when the legislation was originally going through, I think the committee did then hear quite a lot of evidence from the private health bodies on the complaints processes that were available at that time. But yes, I understand that might be a driver. But as you say, I think our focus is on the public services aspect of our role. We feel the link with that NHS-related care is appropriate because of that.

Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Mike Hedges.

I have two questions. One relates to local government, one to health, which I think probably are your two biggest customers. Either you or your predecessor told us that where local authorities had a good departmental complaints procedure and where they had a good corporate complaints procedure, then the number of people complaining to you at the end of it were low. And, again, in health, when people are prepared to say, 'Sorry, we got it wrong' early, that reduced the number of people coming to you. Have we made any progress in that?

Yes, I believe we have. In our consultation response to the committee, we highlighted some recent figures—which also I think we referred to in our annual report—that show that the percentage of the complaints we deal with on an annual basis that are about poor complaint handling is at its lowest level; it has fallen to 12 per cent. We would like to get it below that, obviously, but it does show the right direction of travel in terms of bodies being better at complaint handling.

What we also do is we publish annually data that shows how many cases are referred to us from local government, from health, and also our intervention rates in respect of those. The issue isn't necessarily fewer coming through; the issue for us, the real test, is the intervention rate. Because if those cases are coming through because people remain dissatisfied with the outcome—. But if we don't intervene, it's because we've looked at that, how that complaint's been handled, and we've said, 'No. They've done a good, objective investigation, they've come up with a reasonable outcome.' They may have already apologised or provided some redress. If we don't think we can add value to that—if we don't see anything wrong, if you like—then we wouldn't investigate it further. We have to prioritise where our resources go. We are seeing some progress in that respect.

So, for us, we want to see, over time, our intervention rates tracking down, which, to us, would indicate an increase in quality in complaint handling by those public bodies. It's only four years since we've had the complaints standards powers, and we'll probably go on to talk about that a bit more. So, we're—to coin a phrase—very much on a journey in that respect. But in terms of where we're at now compared to where we were four years ago, before the powers were enacted, it's a much better position, yes.

Carrying on with complaints standards, are you confident you're capturing sufficient operational data on complaints standards?

I suppose I'd go back to follow on from my previous answer. I think what's important here is to consider distance travelled. So, four years ago, we had a situation where the approach to complaint handling was quite fragmented across the public sector—different procedures, different standards, different responses to customers depending on which public body they went to. There was no publication of complaints data at all in a coherent way—back to your point about good data and reliable data. Four years on, that position has improved. Of course, there's a lot more work to be done; we've not completed that journey yet. But we know that that complaints standards work today covers all our health boards and trusts, it covers all our principal local authorities, and about two thirds of housing associations to date. So, that's a big step forward.

We do publish data twice a year about complaints handling for those bodies that are in the complaints handling scheme, and, as with the discussions you had with other people that gave evidence, that currently focuses, largely, on the quantity of complaints, the timeliness of the complaints. That's the information that we publish, as I said, twice a year. But also, over time, we will probably develop further the complaints data that we collect, but I think we have to be proportionate in terms of what we're asking public bodies to collect in terms of where we're at now.

But we also publish other data, and this will be in our annual report, which looks at—. So, the statistic I just talked to you about, the fact that we've seen a decrease in the number of complaints about complaint handling we receive, that's a good indicator of improved quality, and acceptance, if you like, of the outcomes by complainants. And we also do some work around our national survey, and we know that there's been an increase, compared to 2020, in the proportion of people who said they found it easy to make a complaint about a public service. That's gone up to 72 per cent. And the proportion of those happy with how their complaint was resolved is at 47 per cent. That's increased. It needs to go further, obviously, at 47 per cent.

What I'm trying to say is, as well as the complaints data from public bodies, we publish our own data about intervention rates, et cetera. We also publish data that demonstrates people's feelings and experience of making complaints. So, we feel that presents quite a rounded picture about what's happening in complaint handling in the public sector in Wales. But there's a lot more work to do, and it might be, in the future, we will want to gather more data from public bodies. But, at the moment, our focus is trying to bring more public bodies into the complaints standards scheme.

Moving on, the committee heard the stakeholder research you commissioned offered a limited perspective due to a small sample size and represented largely chief executives. Will you be expanding this research beyond that sample group to gain a more thorough understanding of stakeholders' views regarding your complaints standards work?

I don't necessarily agree with that statement that was made in evidence to yourselves. I'll explain why. We do extensive stakeholder consultation on an annual basis, and we report that in our annual report. And it'll be in our annual report that's just being finished now. And we also included a lot of data and evidence in our consultation response to this committee for the work that you're currently doing. So, that annual research covers complaints officers within public bodies, advice and advocacy groups, complainants, so a random sample of people who brought complaints to us during the year, and then we do wider surveys of the public through random surveys. So, we actually do quite a wide range of consultation. It's not just chief executives.

What we did do this year for the first time was include a sample, admittedly a small sample, of chief execs from public bodies in our work, and that's because I felt it was important we understood their strategic perspective about the impact of our work on their organisations and how they deal with their customers. That work was valuable, and we'll continue with that. So, it was a random selection. I don't know who was interviewed, and we value the feedback that we got. And then we also did some additional work around the third sector. So, I don't accept that we don't do extensive consultation. I feel that we do.

I was just offering a view that the committee had been given.

Yes, I understand that.

Can I go on to housing associations? I've got three questions on housing associations. The first one: I live in Swansea, and housing associations in Swansea keep on changing their name. Does that cause you any concern, or do people complain about the wrong housing association?

I'm not aware of any complainants complaining about the wrong housing association. There's quite a lot going on around housing at the moment—mergers taking place, and the mergers inevitably come up with a new name. So, there is a process of learning for everyone to go through in that. But I don’t think that causes us challenges, personally.

Sorry, I meant that they still call it by the old name. In Swansea, lots of people talk about living in a Gwalia house, and Gwalia haven't existed for over 10 years—it’s been the Pobl for that length of time. It’s that sort of thing, but if that doesn’t cause you any concern, you can actually translate it to what they really are complaining about.

I think so, yes.

Yes, we can. And if we see a complaint form coming through, I'm sure our staff in the intake team will put down the new name, if you like.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to start this with 'The committee heard—', because this is not something I am saying—

Yes, I understand.

I'm just reporting back to you. It's regarding the misrepresentation of housing associations complaints data. Could consultation with housing associations and the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales prevent this from either happening, or being perceived to happen?

Yes. Thanks for that question. So, we’ve got a good process in place for how we collate data from public bodies, and how we publish that data. And we’ve developed that and used it over a number of years with health bodies and local councils. So, that’s in place. And consultation with public bodies, and sharing information in advance of publication, is part of that, so there are no surprises for anyone. So, unfortunately, when we published the housing association data for the first time in January, that process was not followed. That was an error on our part. And when I realised what had happened, and became aware of the situation, we withdrew that data, and I apologised at that time to chief execs for the error.

So, since that time, we’ve redoubled our efforts, really, to engage with them. So, there’s been a lot of work done with my team, engaging housing associations. I’m currently getting out and meeting some of the chief execs from housing associations as well, those that we’re hoping to bring into the scheme in the second half of this year, so that when we go out and publish this data in the autumn, in September, we will not be in that situation, there will have been good engagement, they will know what we’re going to publish, we will have shared the data with them in advance. And I really don’t foresee those problems happening again. And I understand that Community Housing Cymru are content with that process, because they’re now part of it. So, it was an error on our part, and we’ve done everything in our power to correct that.

But if I could just add one point as well, because we have followed the evidence. There was a suggestion that we publish data as league tables. We absolutely don’t do that. But, of course, what we can’t control is how the media and the press then analyse and present the data back in their own publications. We don’t present league tables; we wouldn’t do that.

And Community Housing Cymru know you don't do that.

Yes.

I just wanted to clarify that. Finally from me, and, again, from Community Housing Cymru—and you’ve partly answered this, so you might say you’ve already answered it, but I’ll ask it for the record—they've said that it was unclear to all housing associations how the data that is collected will be used.

That shouldn’t be the case, because, as I said, we have a team that works closely with public bodies who are in our Complaints Standards Authority scheme. If they weren’t aware previously, I hope they will be now, because of that work our team has been doing since January. And as I’ve said, I’ve been getting out and talking to chief execs of the housing associations that we’re looking to bring into the scheme in the remainder of this year, to try and address any of those issues upfront. So, if that is their perception, I hope we will have corrected it.

Finally from me, will you be meeting with Community Housing Cymru to discuss all the things you’ve said to us today, and when we have further discussions, they’ll be telling us, 'We’re happy with the way it’s been dealt with'?

I’ve met with Community Housing Cymru before, but I will certainly, yes, pick up these points, because I’m very keen that everything goes smoothly when we publish this data in the autumn, and everyone understands what’s happening.

Thank you very much.

I’ll just move on, then, to a final few questions. We had some evidence from Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, which said that you shared information and findings on healthcare summits and that you attended those summits. How do these summits influence your choice of future investigations? In the discussion, from memory, it was more the perceived potential conflict of interest, maybe. Could you talk a little bit about how they work, what the benefits are and that aspect?

Yes. As an office, we do participate in those summits, as you’ve heard, and we are one of many public bodies around the table, really. I don’t believe it causes any conflict for us in terms of topic choices. It’s a very useful arena through which we can gather that intelligence that we spoke about earlier. As I say, there’s often a lag by the time that complaints reach us. What are the current issues? What do we need to prepare for that might be coming down the track towards us? But vice versa, where we see issues that may be public interest issues that we are actively considering, often we do, when we reach the end of those investigations, share those reports with HIW, because the ombudsman’s role, as we’ve said, is very specific in terms of remedying injustice. Where we see that there might be wider work that, for HIW, would fall within their space for future inspections on healthcare, that’s where we’d make a decision to share that information with them.

But I’d also say that, in terms of choosing topics for investigation, our health investigation cases are very high, as you know. Our investigation case load is health heavy. So, we’ve tended to use those own-initiative powers on non-health topics because health is very well represented in our case load. But just by participating in those summits, I don’t see any conflict in terms of the appropriateness of our investigations. We’re certainly not sharing or actively engaging with them as part of ongoing investigations, it’s more that intelligence gathering about current or future issues that may be of interest to us and vice versa.

And then obviously, as you do investigations in the course of your work, how well do you think that you share those findings more widely? You talked there again about disseminating that information, and we had some stakeholders raising concerns about how you communicated those findings. So, could you talk a little bit about how you could improve the dissemination of the findings to the media in particular, that relationship with the media and getting the wider public to understand the types of recommendations that you’re making?

Well, certainly, what we do do—. I know that there were some suggestions made in the evidence session, but perhaps it would be helpful to set out what we do do. I suppose that the starting point is to say that all of our decisions are published on our website. So, last year, for example, there were about 600 decisions made. They’re all on our website, so it’s all open and available to everybody. In terms of the press and media, what we do is we focus on our key publications that we put out every year. So, for example, that’s public interest reports, anything we might do on own initiative but also thematic reports. So, for instance, there were thematic reports on housing last year. So, last year, that amounted to 11 reports. Every time we put a report out, we put out a press release alongside it. That gives the press and media the opportunity to either publish that or to come and talk to us further about it. And we do get a really good response from the press and media when we put reports out. More often than not, we will get requests for media interviews and we will get coverage in print and online publications as well. So, we feel that that’s quite a strong part of what we do, and obviously all of that information, reports and press releases, are then published on our website as well.

So, we’re very mindful of the fact that there’s no point in doing these reports and then keeping them a secret; we do push them out as much as we can. We make sure that they’re sent to Members of the Senedd and other bodies that have an interest in the work that we do. So, a lot of effort goes into that, and we do get good engagement from press and media on our reports.

Thank you very much. We've got a couple of other topics, as we come towards the end of our session with you. We heard evidence that, while the Welsh Government could see the benefits to widening the jurisdictions with regard to schools, considerable issues would need to be taken into account. What estimates have you made regarding the potential increase in cases or costs, should your jurisdiction be widened, and what considerations have you made regarding any potential overlapping, then, with Estyn, in a similar way to HIW in health and that aspect?

I think perhaps at the outset, just for us to say, what we did in our submission, given that the Act as a whole was being reviewed, was we felt it was right to point this gap out to you, because it is a gap in terms of pupils' parents being able to access administrative justice in Wales. We haven't done any specific modelling ourselves of what any likely case load might be for us in Wales, but from discussions with colleagues in Northern Ireland, we know that when they took on this new role, it did form 10 per cent of their case load, so quite a substantive area of work. And I think, as we've said before and as Michelle said earlier, if there were any proposals for change in this area of work, we would see our role and remit being exactly as we do every day—looking at complaints of alleged maladministration and personal injustice, which we think is different to what, perhaps, Estyn does in that, as the inspectorate in Wales. And in exactly the same way as we currently sit alongside Care Inspectorate Wales and HIW by providing individuals with redress, we leave the inspectorate work to them and share our reports of interest with them. So, that's how we would see our position sitting alongside, without us in any way treading on their toes or overstepping the mark there.

Okay, thank you very much. And it would be wrong for this committee, as the Finance Committee, not to talk about the money and the costs, potentially. So, public bodies have faced indirect costs as a result of the 2019 Act. Do you think public bodies have had adequate resources to fully implement the Act, and how do you engage with public bodies, then, regarding what resources they require, should they be the subject of an investigation or complaints by yourselves?

We haven't actually done any work to assess the impact of the cost of the Act on public bodies. To be honest, that isn't a piece of work that we've done. I suppose my reflection on that point is that, even before the new powers came in in 2019, public bodies had a statutory responsibility around complaints handling in any respect, so that wasn't new—it wasn't brought in by the Act. The way we're approaching it, and trying to make it more consistent and coherent across the Welsh public sector, yes, is different.

If I talk about the complaints standards for a moment, the way we've approached that as an office is through a very supportive and engaging role with public bodies, and includes a lot of advice, support and training that has gone from us into those public bodies to try and help with the implementation of the complaints standards. So, we've tried to mitigate some of the impact of implementation, if you like, through that work. But as I said, they had responsibility for complaints handling prior to the Act.

I suppose the other thing I would say, and it goes to something that we talked about earlier, is that the whole point of our work, particularly around complaints standards, is to improve how we deal with complaints across the Welsh public sector. So, if those complaints are dealt with better, earlier, at the first point of contact, then that's more efficient; we can actually develop public services that are more responsive—there's an efficiency there, rather than things being handled badly at that first point of contact and then having to go through several other stages, and consume public resources in doing so. So, there's a real opportunity, we think, from this work to be more efficient about how we handle complaints across the Welsh public sector, and that's what the complaints standards powers are about.

In respect of the other new powers—particularly, I suppose, own-initiative—we haven't had those conversations about the resources required. I struggle to see that it's onerous; it's a power that we don't use—. I don't think we overuse it. We have the discussion; there is scope to do more. But, at the moment, there have only been two investigations since the new power came in, and actually focusing on different authorities in different parts of the public sector as well. So, it's not a repeat burden. So, I think that would be my position.

And then from your own side of things, then, you state that you believe the balance between expenditure and delivery has been appropriate. Are there areas regarding the implementation of the Act where you have been able to make efficiencies to get that balance?

I think it's difficult to identify very narrowly around the new powers efficiencies, but we can identify where we've made efficiencies right across the office and all our operations, which has enabled us to do two things: to deal with our increased case load that we've seen growing over the previous years, but also then to give us the capacity to deal with the new powers that we have. And obviously, those sorts of activities and the savings we report to you annually through our annual report and through our annual accounts as well. But the sorts of things that we have done over the years—to give you examples, we've done quite a lot around IT efficiencies and our work with third-party suppliers and moving some of our systems in-house. You know that, last year, we did quite a big exercise around our office and downsizing our office, which saved a significant amount of money and continues to do so, and we've developed our website to try and introduce more self-service and signposting facilities to prevent people reaching our teams that don't have valid complaints—ones that we can't deal with under our jurisdiction, for example. So, there's a number of things that we've done; it's very hard to pin them to the new powers specifically, but they are across the office, and they've helped us deal with both the proactive powers and the reactive work we have to do on case load.

Thank you. And just finally from me: reviewing anything gives you the opportunity to assess what you've been doing, what could change within this process, and we talked to you last year—when was it; in April—and we've been doing this over time. Has anything within that period struck you and you've thought, 'Actually, we'll implement that change now', because of feedback you've had from stakeholders or evidence sessions you've heard in this room or elsewhere? So, as a direct result of actually going through the process of reviewing the Act, have there been any improvements that you think that you'll do, even without reading any of our report on this? Is there stuff that you're going to be doing anyway?

I think it's been an extremely helpful process, to be honest, because, from the outset, it caused us to sit down and pause and think ourselves about how we wanted to respond to your call for consultation and how we'd implemented those new powers over the last four to five years. So, it's a good point to pause and reflect and think about how that's been done and perhaps then where are the gaps. So, I think through the consultation that we did, we've identified areas. We've talked about the voluntary sector, where we feel we can do more work to engage them in our work that we're doing, particularly around our proactive powers, so that's a strong area. And there are one or two points from evidence in response to yourself where we take on board that different perspective, and we’ll consider that now as we go forward to look at our OI work, as to how we interpret legislation around certain aspects. So, I think there are a number of things that have come either from our own consultation and reflections or from evidence that others have brought to the table. That's just a couple of examples of things; it's been an extremely useful process.

Great, thank you very much. Unless any of my colleagues have any further questions, that brings us to the end of our session today. Thank you very much for coming in and for your evidence. Obviously, there will be a transcript available for you to check for accuracy after this meeting, and we will see you in the autumn for your annual report and budget setting.

In accordance with Standing Order 17.42, I propose that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. You're content. Thank you. Thank you very much.