Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee
Oral evidence: Pre-appointment hearing for the role of Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, HC 1819
Monday 18 September 2023
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 18 September 2023.
Members present: Mr Clive Betts (Chair); Ian Byrne; Mrs Natalie Elphicke; Ben Everitt; Kate Hollern; Andrew Lewer; Mary Robinson; and Nadia Whittome.
Questions 1 to 79
Witness
I: Amerdeep Somal, the Government’s preferred candidate for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and for Chair of the Commission for Local Administration in England.
Witness: Amerdeep Somal.
Chair: Welcome everyone, to this afternoon’s Levelling Up, Housing and Communities Committee session. This is a slightly different sort of session because we are not inquiring into a particular subject but have before us the preferred candidate for appointment as the Local Government Ombudsman. I will come to Amerdeep Somal in just a moment, but first will Committee members put on the record any particular interests they have that may be relevant? I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association.
Kate Hollern: I employ a councillor in my office.
Nadia Whittome: I am a board member of One Nottingham.
Ben Everitt: I am a VP of the LGA and I employ a councillor.
Q1 Chair: Thank you for that. As I say, this afternoon’s session is slightly different. To explain to the people watching, the Local Government Ombudsman is ultimately accountable to Parliament and to this Committee, but the appointment is instigated by Ministers, who advertise the job and eventually select one preferred candidate. That candidate, Amerdeep Somal, is before us today. The Committee conducts a session in which we assess the suitability of the preferred candidate for the job by asking them questions about the role they are applying for and their past experience.
Thank you very much for coming to the Committee this afternoon, Amerdeep Somal. I will begin the questions. You applied for this job but you have, apparently, no experience in local government or social care. The full title is the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and chair of the Commission for Local Administration, so local government, councils and social care are clearly important matters, but you have no background in them. Why are you right for this role?
Amerdeep Somal: Well, I have 25 years’ experience in regulation across a number of sectors, including health, education, policing, financial services and so on, and there are many similarities and parallels with the work that the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman does. I would be able to apply the learning that I have from that work to this role. I have a breadth of experience and think it is very important that the organisations can learn from other sectors too.
If you look at my CV, you will see that the DNA that runs through it, and through my career, is about independence, impartiality, holding organisations to account and transparency. That is really important in a local democracy and working with local government.
Q2 Chair: Clearly, you have a background in complaints and regulation. Do you think that the lessons you have learned and the experience you have in areas such as financial regulation are easily applicable to the role you are applying for now, or do you anticipate significant differences that you are going to have to work at?
Amerdeep Somal: There are actually very many similarities. Good complaints handling affects all organisations and really used to be at the heart of good corporate governance at board level, along with accountability. Yes, the organisations are different, and we are now dealing with locally elected councillors and so on, but there is significant learning, parallels and crossover that would be applied to the work here too.
A big part of the work I have done in my experience has been around service level improvements and driving learning across organisations nationally to try to improve the service for citizens, and that is a really important plank of the work of the Ombudsman.
Q3 Chair: Okay. Those are the similarities; what are the differences that are going to challenge you?
Amerdeep Somal: The differences are going to be that these are sectors that I have not directly worked in. I have never worked within local government and I have never worked within health and social care. Some of the challenges and so on will be similar, and some will be different because of course you are dealing with democratically elected individuals. It is about making sure that I remain impartial and independent, but of course I must give a voice and amplify that voice when I find that there are shortcomings too.
Q4 Chair: Right. So the differences are that you are going to be working with some elected politicians. What other differences are there?
Amerdeep Somal: There will be issues, for example, around funding. Just from reading recent press reports and so on, we know that some councils are in financial distress, so there will be challenges around that. Other sectors I have worked in have also had financial restraints—particularly in the medical profession and in policing. So there will be challenges around doing the same, and sometimes more, with less funding.
Q5 Chair: You went through a recruitment process. How did you find it?
Amerdeep Somal: It was a long process, a rigorous process, and I felt it was a fair and challenging process.
Q6 Chair: Was it too long?
Amerdeep Somal: Well, when I was appointed as Financial Regulators Complaints Commissioner, it was a different process which took even longer. I have almost come to expect that when there is a public aspect, it will take some time. In an ideal world, of course I would like it to be quicker, but I appreciate that there have to be certain checks and balances and rigour applied to appointments like this.
Q7 Chair: Why did you apply for the role?
Amerdeep Somal: I applied for the role because it looks interesting. I am passionate about transparency, holding organisations to account and improving people’s daily lives. That is an important plank of the work of the Ombudsman: driving through improvements, learning and sharing across the sector and the country.
Q8 Chair: Were you encouraged to apply for the post?
Amerdeep Somal: No, I saw it—it was an open advert— and that is how I applied.
Q9 Chair: So there was no telephone call, saying, “Go on, have a go at this. You might be alright”.
Amerdeep Somal: No, not on this occasion.
Chair: We will move on to questions on the responsibilities.
Q10 Nadia Whittome: I have a few questions, Amerdeep. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman website lists four strategic objectives. Can you take us through what they are, please?
Amerdeep Somal: One of them is to make the organisation, the service, easy to use and accessible, so people can very easily find the Ombudsman, how they can make a complaint and what the potential remedies and outcomes will be.
Another objective is around remedies—making sure that the service delivers when it is appropriate to do so proportionate outcomes that put people back in the position they would have been had the fault or maladministration not occurred.
The third is around learning lessons, so driving through service improvements, and sharing learning across other organisations and sectors to improve services for citizens.
The fourth, of course, is around accountability—making sure that the service itself is accountable, transparent, data-driven and analytical, and that when the Ombudsman has a voice and gives a voice, it is based on casework and what the data tells us.
Q11 Nadia Whittome: If appointed, how would you work towards those objectives?
Amerdeep Somal: I think there are two aspects to that answer. The first is internal. It is really important that you give citizens, when they complain to the Ombudsman service, an answer as quickly as possible to the complaint they have made. It is about is making sure that casework is on a sustainable footing, that there continues to be improvement, quick responses, proportionate responses. It is about working closely with the CEO, the directors, the executive team and the board, and being accountable through this Committee to Parliament. It is obviously working with the board itself and working closely with the staff to deliver the delegated functions that I, as the Ombudsman, would delegate to them.
Aside from the internal face, there is the external face. I would work collaboratively with the sponsoring body and with key partners—for example, the Care Quality Commission, Ofsted, the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care—other interested parties such as the Local Government Association, and of course citizens. They are our representative groups out there, and they will want to know who the Ombudsman is, what their vision is, what their values are and what they see as their priorities. It is about making sure that I deal with the internal and the external.
Q12 Nadia Whittome: If appointed as Ombudsman, what challenges do you envisage the service might experience during your term, and how would you mitigate those challenges?
Amerdeep Somal: There are certainly two key challenges that I see currently, and I do not think they are short term. The first is dealing with the fact that it is a case-led, demand-led organisation, so there will be demands on the services at a time when budgets are being squeezed.
When people make a complaint, they are already pretty fed up by the time they come to the Ombudsman service, because they have waited some time before they have had their complaint dealt with at local level by whichever organisation it is. We must ensure that the casework is sustainable, efficient and effective, and that we give people answers to the complaints they have made as quickly, fairly and objectively as we can based on the evidence.
You have to balance that with the fact that in real terms we have had budget cuts. That means that we are having to do more for less and making difficult decisions around which cases we take on. Some cases come our way that we simply cannot take on because they do not fall within remit or jurisdiction.
We have to tell those complainants quickly, “We are very sorry, but it is not something we can help you with, and this is the right place to go with your complaint.” For the cases that we do take on, we have to make decisions around which ones they are. Where is the public interest in a particular complaint? Do we deal with the individual complaint, or do we deal with our resources more smartly, for example, by choosing cases that have a wider public interest and ramifications and that do not just affect the individual? I prefer to call those public interest cases.
In real terms, the Ombudsman service has had a 10% reduction in full-time equivalent staff in the last year because the funding was not increased. There have been cost efficiency savings, such as a 60% reduction in the accommodation estate. Of course, the nationally agreed pay award had to come out of static budget too. So there is a challenging increase in demand on the service against a smaller budget.
Also, when recommendations are made for service improvement, we must ensure that those are implemented quickly by councils and the bodies that we are making recommendations to, such as adult social care services, and when they are not, we must follow up as to why. We need to ensure that the democratically elected leaders are also holding the executives to account, and, if the Ombudsman has made its recommendation, asking why it is taking so long. It is about making sure that the whole system is working effectively, and we have an important part to play in that.
Q13 Nadia Whittome: You mention real-terms budget cuts, and how that means you have to be more selective with the cases you take on. Do you think that undermines any of the strategic objectives listed? I am particularly thinking of the second one, which is to remedy injustice through impartial, rigorous and proportionate investigations.
Amerdeep Somal: No, I do not think it does. We have to make very careful judgments about how many cases we take on, where the public interest lies, and weighting the cases. We cannot possibly take on every complaint that comes through the door, because we are simply not resourced to do that. We have to make finely balanced judgments about the cases we take on. The cases we take on will always be independent, rigorous, impartial and evidence-based investigations. Where we find failures, we will say so without fear or favour. I am confident that will not be the case at all.
Q14 Nadia Whittome: You touched on casework. What will your approach be to tackle the backlog of casework and ensure that complaints receive a timely response?
Amerdeep Somal: In preparation for this, I had a look at the current casework figures. The Ombudsman service is making very good progress across all levels of casework, and that is down to a highly effective operational executive team and very hardworking and committed staff. However, like any organisation that is demand-led, there is always room to do more, and to do what we already do well even better still.
I have an extensive background in casework and investigation, as you know, and I want to see a sharper focus on ensuring we triage a complaint effectively when it comes in, and when something does not fall within our jurisdiction telling people very quickly that it is outside our remit. It should not take weeks to tell people that. You should be able to see on the face of it that a case simply is not for us. It is something to do with financial services, for example, or furniture, and nothing to do with the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
It might not require a report; it might require a phone call to somebody. We should be thinking about how we use our resources quickly, sharply, and more effectively and proactively. If you are a complainant—I am sure that most of us have been complainants in different aspects of our lives at some stage—sometimes you just want an answer: “Can you deal with it or can’t you? If you can’t, just tell me, so I can get on with the other aspects of my life or take my complaint elsewhere.”
We must make sure there is robust monitoring of casework progression, so that managers are actually managing and supervising, pushing things along. When there are delays or bottlenecks, they should find out why and what more we can do to unplug them.
We must also work collaboratively with partners, because sometimes there will be joint investigations with other partners in the system. We must make sure we work closely with them, so we are all as good as each other and supporting each other through that.
Q15 Nadia Whittome: You said in your questionnaire response that you have made difficult and sometimes unpopular decisions in previous roles. Do you envisage having to make difficult and unpopular decisions in this role if appointed?
Amerdeep Somal: Absolutely, and that is one of the reasons why I applied for the role. When you do the kind of work that I have done around complaints investigations, you are often dealing with people who are not very happy by the time they come to the commission or the Ombudsman; in fact, they are fairly fed up by that stage. Also, you don’t do this kind of work because you want to win popularity votes; you do it because you want to put things right, you want to improve things and you want to make service better for everybody.
If somebody makes a complaint and you investigate an organisation, somebody will not be happy with the outcome; sometimes both parties will not be happy with the outcome. But you have to be driven by the evidence and go where the evidence takes you. That might mean giving somebody unhappy or unpopular or unwelcome news, but you have to do it in a way that is simple to understand and that explains the reason for the decision. People tend to come to terms with that and accept it. It is when people feel that they have been marginalised or ignored, or that their complaints are not being treated seriously, that they become even more disenfranchised.
I do this kind of work because I want to improve things. If I am liked, that is a bonus, but actually I come into it to be respected. To be liked and respected would be wonderful, but it is not an objective I have set for myself.
Nadia Whittome: Okay. Thank you, Amerdeep.
Chair: Right, we move on to working with the Government Department. Ben.
Q16 Ben Everitt: What experience do you have of working with the UK Government?
Amerdeep Somal: I have never worked with a political party directly, but of course I have worked within Government. For example, at different stages in my career I have worked with Governments of different persuasions: I have worked with the coalition Government, Conservative Governments and a Labour Government, which I guess is probably a sign of my age. I have worked with shadow Ministers and with serving Ministers and Secretaries of State, and I have worked with senior civil servants and permanent secretaries and directors general. It is something that I do, and I navigate quite seamlessly and effortlessly because it is something that has been part of the kind of work that I have had to do throughout my career, and I have enjoyed it enormously.
It comes with its challenges, of course, but I think I have acquitted myself fairly diplomatically and sensitively. However, I am not afraid of saying when I find fault or maladministration, because that is why somebody is appointed to the kind of roles that I have done. I am not afraid of calling things out when I think it is important, and I find fault regardless of whether, for example, it contravenes or is contrary to Government policy.
Q17 Ben Everitt: You mentioned in your answers to Clive that independence was in the DNA of all your previous roles. Can you talk us through how you might display that if you come to one of the situations that you just described, where the view you have is different from the Government’s or the Minister’s view?
Amerdeep Somal: It is what I do. My personal style is that I like to communicate, explain and give a rationale for my thinking. That takes us almost over the line anyway, but sometimes when there is strong opposition—there has been, of course, particularly when asking for a policy change that might be contrary to the Government direction of travel or the Government view of policy on a particular matter—I explain why and what I think the benefits would be for the wider public interest. I find that that is an effective way of doing business.
It is really important to be open, honest, transparent and fair in my dealings, particularly when working in this space. A lot of documents and policy changes go out to public consultation—as they should, in fact—and, to be transparent, they are published. If you look at my website, my policy and proposals are always out to public consultation and so on. That is how I approach things.
When I know that there are, for example, different views on something, which could be emotive for some people, I make sure that I speak to a wide range of stakeholders and listen to lots of different perspectives. Sometimes I might change my view on a policy direction of travel because I have had a more well-rounded discussion with people who have different perspectives. I am not inflexible.
Q18 Ben Everitt: That is good to hear. Can you draw our attention to an example from your previous roles where you have been through those processes?
Amerdeep Somal: Yes. At the moment, for example, a complaints scheme consultation is out. The consultation has finished recently on financial regulation and the complaints scheme that I oversee and implement. I have made my position very clear on the direction of travel on the part of the regulators.
My view has been that the complaints scheme has always envisaged—when Parliament appointed the commissioner—that the commissioner should have full remit around all types of redress and remedies, without fettering. That is not necessarily a view that the regulators have shared, so it is a question of degree and extent.
I have been on the public record about my view, and the Treasury is aware of that. It is about exerting the independence, the influence, but showing that you work collaboratively. You do not always win every argument or policy proposal that you want, but I think as someone who operates in this space as an independent, impartial person, you have to be prepared to say so, and to say so publicly. There is of course the court of public opinion out there.
Q19 Ben Everitt: Indeed. You mentioned accountability to the Committee. Will you walk us through your understanding of what this Committee does and how you would seek to engage with us if you were to take up the role?
Amerdeep Somal: Of course, the Committee has a vital role, first and foremost, in the recommendation following my appearance today and in the accountability of the Ombudsman. As you know, the Ombudsman has three hats. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman is a quasi-judicial role, fundamentally rooted in the Venice principles, the human rights principles of the convention and the Council of Europe principles on independence. Reporting to Parliament through this Committee is one way in which I would have an important relationship with Parliament. That relationship is important to my scrutiny and my accountability to Parliament.
The second hat of the Ombudsman is not the local commissioner role, but is as chair of the Commission for Local Administration for England, which is essentially a non-executive, arm’s-length-body relationship. The appointment is by the Secretary of State so, in that context, the role is accountable directly to the Secretary of State. The third hat is of course as the external spokesperson and ambassador for both organisations.
Under the first hat, the relationship is very important and strong through the Ombudsman role: reporting to the Committee, as required, laying reports before Parliament through the Committee, and appearing before the Committee whenever it calls me to do so.
There might be, for example, special interest or public interest cases where the Committee wants me to talk about findings. It might want me to talk about how the Ombudsman service is performing against the objectives in the strategic plan; the triennial review; and the wish list that the Ombudsman service has put forward in terms of being ready and modernised for the next few years—the years ahead.
Certainly, I want to have a very positive relationship with the Committee and would be very happy to appear before the Committee whenever it called me to do so.
Q20 Ben Everitt: That is good to hear, too. You have referenced a few times the financial pressures that authorities are under. Of course, there is also the legislative environment—in particular with LURB, the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, which is a bit of a monster; people are talking about it now—according to the screen behind you—in the House of Lords. It will change things considerably for local authorities and disturb the way they do things as well.
You highlighted the new powers for local authorities in your response to the questionnaire prior to this hearing. Do you have any concerns about the direction of travel of the legislative environment, and in particular LURB, for local authorities?
Amerdeep Somal: I think it is very exciting that there will be greater accountability of locally elected representatives to the citizens who elect them; I think that is a real positive. In turn, what it will mean for the Ombudsman is far greater scrutiny, of course, of locally elected councillors. In turn, that will mean that more people will be aware of the existence of the Ombudsman service; great accessibility is one of our strategic objectives. That in turn will no doubt lead to more demand on the resources and the services that we provide.
I am very excited about levelling up and making sure that people in local communities don’t feel ignored or marginalised. I think that is really positive, and we will play our part in that in terms of shining a light on children and education services, adult social care services, housing and so on.
Of course, where particular challenges come to light when the Bill is passed and becomes an Act, enshrined in law, we will look at where we want to prioritise our resources—public interest investigations, for example. If we see, as a result of the changes, that there are particular aspects of people’s lives that have been disadvantaged or hampered, we would want to shine a light on that in some of our thematic work, our focus work.
I am very much keeping an open mind about it. It’s very early days, and I certainly don’t want to prejudge the direction of travel.
Ben Everitt: Very wise.
Amerdeep Somal: I’m in danger of sounding like a politician here!
Q21 Ben Everitt: Indeed, and who knows what is going to pop out of the Lords and come down to our end?
I have just one quick follow-up on that—sorry, Chair. You have mentioned quite a few times that you anticipate dealing with complaints against elected officials. Is that primarily where you see the workload, or is there going to be some engagement with issues relating to council officers as well?
Amerdeep Somal: Oh, everything. It is a very wide remit, as you know. The Act itself, the terms of appointment of the Ombudsman and the framework agreement with the sponsoring body, gives the Ombudsman complete discretion in how they—he or she—exercise their quasi-judicial role and the complaints they take on, the matters they investigate, completely independently of central and local government.
So yes, the relationship of course has to be there with the councillors, the civil servants and the officers, but the remit is far, far wider than that, and I very much see myself, if appointed, working widely and across the whole spectrum, because everybody needs to have a voice.
Local services are really important, and we know there are pinch points across local services and local government. It would be a case of working across a whole ambit, whether it involves special educational needs and disability, homelessness, children’s education—free schools, academies and maintained schools—or complaints against councillors. We don’t know, so I am very much keeping an open mind.
Ben Everitt: It is indeed a massive brief. Thank you very much.
Q22 Chair: You mentioned thematic reports. You have a big backlog of individual cases. How are you going to have time to do thematic reports? They won’t be a priority, will they?
Amerdeep Somal: The priority has to be giving people who have gone to the time and trouble of making a complaint to the Ombudsman an answer to their complaint as quickly and fairly as possible. Then, of course, we have to also look at the wider public benefit.
There is a wide public benefit to focus reports on, for example, homelessness and section 117 after-care discharge for mental health services—the report around children who, for whatever reason, are out of sight, out of mind because they are no longer in school, and making sure that local authorities provide alternative suitable accommodation for their needs. That work cannot be forgotten and neglected, because the impact of that work is very real and palpable.
Q23 Mary Robinson: My apologies for not being here for the opening statements at the start of this meeting. It is great to have this opportunity to talk to you about the potential role.
In Greater Manchester, there are 10 combined authorities and a Mayor. There is an interaction between the Mayor’s responsibilities and the local authorities. How will you extricate those responsibilities in terms of doing your job and holding them to account?
Amerdeep Somal: Clearly, a democratically elected Mayor is an important relationship for the Ombudsman in the same way as the democratically elected councillors are important relationships for the Ombudsman, so it is important for me to make sure that those lines of communication are open. For example, if a councillor wants to raise a particular concern directly with my office on behalf of their constituents, of course they are entitled to do so in the same way that any other councillor would be entitled to do so where there is not a democratically elected Mayor.
Q24 Mary Robinson: Do you foresee any complaints or issues coming your way that might be relevant to the mayoralty? Would that cross your path?
Amerdeep Somal: At the current time, as things stand, it does not fall directly within remit. But one of the triennial proposals you will see was around bringing complaints about the conduct of councillors—democratically elected individuals—within remit. That remains to be seen, along with various other policy proposals.
Chair: We now move on to some of the challenges facing councils at present.
Q25 Kate Hollern: I am sure you are aware that some councils recently submitted a section 114 notice—I think Birmingham is the latest. It is also reported that there are likely to be a further 20 that may need to issue those notices. Do you think that will lead to an increase in the number of complaints you get from affected people?
You spoke about children’s services and adult social care. Given that councils’ resources have dropped significantly since 2010 and they are quite often unable to deliver the services they need, have you envisaged the increase in your workload should you be appointed to the position?
Amerdeep Somal: Clearly, I am not in post, which is why I am here. Those discussions have not been had yet with the organisation, because they would be premature, but of course it is something I have given thought to in preparation for today’s meeting.
It seems to me that where you have councils under financial stress, as we do—if the reporting is accurate, there are several more coming into that position too—of course they will be under severe pressure. If any organisation, whether it is a council or any organisation in any sector, is under pressure, then services will slip. It is almost inevitable. Given the complexity of councils and the different types of services they provide, the pressure is going to be potentially intense. You are dealing with people’s real lives, the impact on people’s daily lives, accommodation, homes, children—everything. For me the question is, do we as the Ombudsman service take a different approach?
In truth, my view is that we cannot possibly take a different approach. If you are, for example, a carer, parent, pupil, somebody waiting for accommodation or whoever, you still want the council to provide good standards of service, and I do not think the fact that councils are under pressure necessarily means that the end service user, whether a pupil, parent or user of adult social care services, should be bearing the brunt of that. Would we, for example, be looking to lower the standards that we expect of councils? I do not think that we can, actually, because the public will still be expecting us to hold councils to account when they have a legitimate cause for complaint.
Q26 Kate Hollern: That is interesting. In the last review of local government complaints, of 15,488 complaints, recommendations were made on 2,548, 74% of which were upheld. They say that that is partly attributable to fewer investigations being carried out. So there are fewer investigations, which improves the performance of the board but does not necessarily deliver for service users or the councils. There is a much stricter set of criteria by which the Ombudsman would actually select these cases. That is totally the opposite of what you have just said.
By the way, I agree with you that it is important that people get the service, but given that that is what is currently happening, and in view of this post, there are likely to be even more cases. It is going to be very difficult, isn’t it?
Amerdeep Somal: It is going to be challenging, particularly at a time when we know that councils are in a very difficult financial position. Yes, 74% of complaints were upheld, but some of that was down to a change in how cases were recorded by the Ombudsman service; the reporting mechanism changed as well, and part of that was attributed to that.
Ultimately, I would need to sit down as Ombudsman with the organisation, the executive team and the board, and we would need to decide, collectively as a board, what our strategic priorities are going to be. What do we see as being the big issues where the public interest lies?
Those are, for example, the focus investigation reports that we want to do, which have wide reach: they affect not just the individual but institutional service improvement across the sector and across the country. Do we want to make sure that we can, for example, have greater impact, but using pretty much the same resources as we had before, and indeed fewer resources?
We are going to have to make some very hard, fast and difficult decisions, but what I am saying is that we do not operate in a vacuum. We do not operate in a vacuum—we are mindful and cognisant of the difficulties that councils are under—but also there continue to be the end users.
Q27 Kate Hollern: Finally from me, the Ombudsman’s “Principles of good administrative practice” guidance for local authorities was last updated in December 2018. Do you think it needs to be updated soon? If so, how would you approach that?
Amerdeep Somal: Yes, it is certainly due a refresh. Public law principles, of course, have not changed, and that is an important factor. We know, for example, that successful challenges to the Ombudsman are very, very few and far between. So, again, it is not something that is not pressing, from a legal point of view; however, a new Ombudsman will be coming in, so it is an opportunity to look at everything, and that is something that would be part of that refresh and review.
Q28 Mary Robinson: As you know, dealing with complaints can be very tricky and difficult, but I am thinking about whistleblowing complaints and those people within organisations who recognise that there is malpractice, corruption or fraud happening within organisations but don’t know where to go. What is your view on how best to protect and deal with whistleblowing complaints specifically, which are covered by the public interest disclosure legislation?
Amerdeep Somal: I have dealt with those sorts of complaints for probably the last 15 years or so across a number of different sectors. Recent cases have really brought to the forefront the importance of treating whistleblowers carefully and with consideration, listening to them, taking their concerns seriously, and giving them appropriate protections when they have the courage to speak up about organisations. Certainly the learning from the cases that I have been involved in through my career history and from the cases that we have all been reading about in the last couple of weeks or so have been precisely about that. So, nothing has changed there.
What has changed is that the recent publicity will, hopefully, give people even greater courage to come forward, knowing that there are people in this space, like me, who are empathetic, sympathetic and want to encourage them to come forward, and feel safe and protected in voicing their concerns, knowing that the world is not going to collapse on their heads and shoulders, and that they will be guided through the process.
Significant learning comes out of the courage of those very brave people, because it takes a lot for people to say, “The organisation in which I work is doing this and it worries me, because I can see wider ramifications if they carry on doing business the way they do.” So it’s something that I am very cognisant of and something that I take very, very seriously indeed.
Q29 Mary Robinson: I am pleased to hear that. Often, one of the issues is that people within organisations, as you will know, are afraid to bring the complaints forward, as the organisations themselves try to close them down because of reputational damage. Do you think that more systems need to be put in place to prevent that and, if so, would you be part of driving that process forward?
Amerdeep Somal: I completely agree with you, Mrs Robinson, about that. I do think that people are afraid because they are worried about being harassed, being bullied, or being forced out of their workplace, or resigning because the situation becomes so intolerable. And yes, absolutely, systems and processes need to be in place and they need to be strengthened.
Actually, that scrutiny needs to take place at board level. To me, whistleblowing should be on every main board critical register, because it’s where a lot of the reputational and financial risk comes out, too, and potential litigation. So, boards should be really looking at this at that level—at that macro and micro level.
Q30 Chair: When we were discussing a few minutes ago the issues arising from the reductions in local government finance, I think you said something to the effect that service users shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of those decisions. However, if a library shuts, or a bus service is cut, or the criteria for getting social care is changed, the service users do bear the brunt, don’t they?
Amerdeep Somal: They do bear the brunt, but equally they are still entitled to make a complaint about the service they are receiving. And if they make a complaint about the service they are receiving, then of course, if it’s something we take on, we would look at it as rigorously as we do now.
Q31 Chair: Yes, but you can’t get involved, can you, in second-guessing the priorities that a council decides upon?
Amerdeep Somal: No, absolutely not. Those are operational financial decisions for the councils to make themselves—absolutely.
Q32 Chair: So what do you think you might investigate in those cases where there were cuts to services of the kind I just described?
Amerdeep Somal: It might be, for example, if we are talking about adult social care services, that it is the same sort of issues that we are dealing with currently, which are about inadequate record-keeping or records being fabricated, for example. And if services are under pressure and people decide to cut corners because of the pressure on services, for instance, that is not an excuse to fabricate or cover up records. Good record-keeping should still be happening and people should not be cutting corners because their budgets have been reduced.
Q33 Chair: Right. Just while we are on adult social care, if I may, the previous Ombudsman was very clear that he felt there ought to be more explanation to users of private care homes who are self-funded that they could still come to the Ombudsman, because while “local government” was in the name, “social care” was there as well. Not a lot of complaints come from that group of people.
Do you think there should be a requirement on social care providers, particularly residential care providers, to make it clear to all their residents that they have the right to go to the Ombudsman?
Amerdeep Somal: I absolutely do. I completely endorse what the previous Ombudsman said about that, because I think there is possibly a misconception out there that the Ombudsman service only deals with complaints about public sector adult social care services, but of course it includes private sector adult social care services. There should be a requirement because, at the moment, they are not being told about it, and why would they?
Chair: Let’s move on to the issue of the finances of the service.
Q34 Ian Byrne: Thanks very much for the evidence so far; it has been really good.
Michael King, the former Ombudsman, told us that budget cuts to the Ombudsman service “could leave the organisation in an untenable position”. What is your assessment of the organisation’s funding as we stand here now?
Amerdeep Somal: In real terms, the service has had budget cuts for the last few years, so we know the organisation has been operating a very lean model. It has made significant efficiency savings. Sixty per cent of its accommodation costs have been reduced. It has not recruited staff when staff have left. Its full-time equivalent headcount went down by 10% last year, and it had to meet the national pay award out of its existing funding when no further funding came forward. So there is no doubt at all that it has been and is a service under pressure, and it has done a remarkable job with finite resources.
If we want to be better still at what we are doing well already, and to do all the nice-to-do as well as the core, basic dealing with complaints—for example, as Mr Betts said, thematic work and the focus reports—we have to make hard and fast decisions. So it is absolutely right to say that it is an organisation that has had to make some very difficult decisions because of the finances.
Q35 Ian Byrne: You said a couple of things like “hard and fast decisions”. These things really scare me, to be honest. In July this year, the interim Ombudsman said the situation at the moment with resourcing means that the LGSCO is “less likely to carry out investigations into ‘borderline’ issues”. That terrifies me. When you are in charge of such an important sector that affects so many people’s lives, how can you make those judgment calls on borderline issues? How can you find failures if you are not going to investigate them? How can you drive up standards in the areas that we are talking about if you are not going to be able to shine a light and investigate them?
I have listened to your evidence. You seem independently minded, and you seem to be able to say what you want, but if I was in your position going into this department and I thought that I could not do my job to its fullest and serve the people well—how vocal are you going to be about the cuts? You keep saying “hard and fast decisions”. Are you willing to stand up to Ministers? Potentially, you could be serving another Government next year. Are you willing to stand up and say, “Unfortunately, the job is untenable as it stands now, given the level of cuts that have been levelled at me, and I can’t protect the public in the way I should.”? Is that something you are prepared to do?
Amerdeep Somal: Of course, I am not in post yet.
Q36 Ian Byrne: But if you were in post.
Amerdeep Somal: If I was in post, I would obviously have those difficult decisions and sit down with the CEO, who is the accounting officer, about the money. I would sit down with the board and decide what the priorities for the organisation are, and what is fundamental that we must do and cannot not do. If the funding is inadequate to do that fundamental work, of course I would go cap in hand asking for more money, along with very many other bodies, I’m sure.
Q37 Ian Byrne: But would you be vocal publicly on it?
Amerdeep Somal: If I need to be, of course.
Q38 Ian Byrne: Would you let the people know that, potentially, this service, which is supposed to protect us and drive up standards, has been cut so much that it is not fit for purpose? You keep saying “hard and fast decisions”. It is no good just accepting that you are potentially going to have a second-rate department to do such an important job. We have all seen the horror stories on social care. It is such an important role, isn’t it?
Amerdeep Somal: It is an absolutely vital role—
Q39 Ian Byrne: If you want a better functioning society.
Amerdeep Somal: It touches people’s everyday lives, and people’s lives can become very miserable if they are not having adequate adult social care services, housing, education—
Q40 Ian Byrne: So you accept that if you did get this role, you would have a responsibility to be extremely vocal if you thought that you couldn’t do your job, or the Department couldn’t do its job to its best, and would then leave people unsafe and defenceless? A lot of people who are affected by some of these issues that we see, certainly in social care, are defenceless and haven’t got a voice. They need you to stand up for them.
Amerdeep Somal: You will see from my track record that I’m not afraid of calling things out when I need to, and that includes, for example, not having enough money. If that was the case, I would want to go in and see for myself, but I would have no hesitation in saying that we require extra funding—no qualms whatsoever about that.
Ian Byrne: Thank you.
Chair: We move on now to the public profile. Natalie.
Q41 Mrs Elphicke: I have been very interested by what you have said about why you are interested in this role and what has motivated you. I am looking specifically at your answer about working in local government or adult social care. You said that you have had “dealings…both as a stakeholder and in a personal capacity as a citizen.” What does that mean?
Amerdeep Somal: I have done different roles throughout my career. I was a judge very early on in my career, on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Tribunal. So I have dealt with, for example, parents, children and carers. Often, it is not just about care around the child itself, but some of the parents themselves have been in adult social care services too. I have had that interaction.
But, also, friends, people in the community and family have been users of adult social care services, as you would expect. I have also had direct dealings with local government as somebody who has had cause to raise concerns at public meetings in the past around particular services in my local community.
Q42 Mrs Elphicke: Could you just expand on that? What do you mean by “raise concerns”?
Amerdeep Somal: Going to public meetings, for example, and asking questions—
Q43 Mrs Elphicke: About?
Amerdeep Somal: Planning.
Q44 Mrs Elphicke: So you have objected to planning in a personal capacity?
Amerdeep Somal: A long time ago, yes.
Q45 Mrs Elphicke: And what type of council do you have within the area? Obviously, we are in a public setting, so I am not suggesting that you tell us which specific council, but what type of council is it that you have at the moment?
Amerdeep Somal: A parish council.
Q46 Mrs Elphicke: A parish council. But what’s your next level of local government that you have over the parish council, because obviously the parish council doesn’t decide on planning—
Amerdeep Somal: It’s a borough.
Q47 Mrs Elphicke: A borough council? Okay. So, in relation to that, have you attended a meeting at your borough council?
Amerdeep Somal: No.
Q48 Mrs Elphicke: Okay. You mentioned being a judge, and I noticed that you were intending to stay as a judge. That is correct, is it?
Amerdeep Somal: My judicial sittings, I have put into abeyance until my term comes to an end.
Q49 Mrs Elphicke: Well, it says here, “although I will not be sitting, other than on an infrequent basis”. That is not abeyance; it says “infrequent”.
Amerdeep Somal: Correct, Mrs Elphicke. That was put in two weeks ago. So, the current position, as of today, is that I have agreed that it will be held in abeyance.
Q50 Mrs Elphicke: So you will not be sitting as a judge, but you will still be a judge?
Amerdeep Somal: I will be a judge, but in abeyance. I will not be sitting, I will not be doing any training etc.
Q51 Mrs Elphicke: Just help me a little with that. It says here that you need to sit to maintain your “continuous professional development”.
Amerdeep Somal: No, I will not be doing that.
Q52 Mrs Elphicke: So, you won’t be able to resit as a judge while having this role?
Amerdeep Somal: Correct.
Q53 Mrs Elphicke: Okay. How do you make that abeyance? What is the technical process? Who has to agree that?
Amerdeep Somal: That’s been agreed with the president.
Q54 Mrs Elphicke: The president?
Amerdeep Somal: Of the tribunal.
Q55 Mrs Elphicke: Right. So you haven’t agreed that with the organisation?
Amerdeep Somal: I have agreed with the president of the tribunal that I won’t be sitting.
Q56 Mrs Elphicke: Right. So you could reverse that with the president of the tribunal, outside of this organisation, as the Ombudsman?
Amerdeep Somal: I don’t see why I would need to or wish to while I was doing this role.
Q57 Mrs Elphicke: Right. Just to dig down a bit further, I want to explore a bit further the other role that you intend to carry on with. Could you take us through this, because there seem to be an awful lot of non-exec and other roles that you have at the moment. Let’s suppose that you’re confirmed in this role. What will you be doing? What roles will you be carrying out?
Amerdeep Somal: The only other role I will be doing is chair of the Law Society.
Q58 Mrs Elphicke: And that will be a new role that you will be taking, after having accepted this role and been appointed to it? That’s right, isn’t it? It starts next year.
Amerdeep Somal: Correct—in January.
Q59 Mrs Elphicke: I am just mindful that we are looking at the question of public profile and reputation. Do you think there is a risk that you will be seen as having a perceived conflict, given that you have, as you have described, a quasi-judicial role and that some of the matters that you are responsible for include the legal jurisdiction of the organisation that you are going to be the new Ombudsman for?
Amerdeep Somal: There is no work to be done on the immigration and asylum tribunal, because I will be doing nothing on that at all while I am in this role.
Q60 Mrs Elphicke: As the chair of the Law Society, you are not chair of the Law Society; you are chair of the sub-committee on immigration. Is that what you are saying?
Amerdeep Somal: No, I am chair of the Law Society.
Q61 Mrs Elphicke: So you are going to be chair of the Law Society and you are going to carry out a quasi-judicial role in relation to matters of law in the Ombudsman role, and you do not think there will be a perceived conflict.
Amerdeep Somal: No, I don’t. The chair of the Law Society is the chair of the board of the Law Society. It is not the president of the Law Society. The chair of the Law Society is responsible for overseeing the board. The strategy is set by the council. The council is sovereign. The council is there and the board is here—it oversees the business implementation of the council’s strategy.
Q62 Mrs Elphicke: How well do you think that is understood by people who will come to you as an Ombudsman?
Amerdeep Somal: It will be transparent. It will be in the register of interests and will be disclosed on the website and anywhere else it could be disclosed.
Q63 Mrs Elphicke: In terms of that public profile, how well do you think the man or woman on the street who uses your services will understand that very clear but complicated distinction about what it is to be chair of an organisation called the Law Society, when you have a quasi-judicial role and legal responsibilities for matters that they are asking you for help on, because they are some of the most important aspects of the role?
Amerdeep Somal: They are two very distinct roles. I don’t see that there is any confusion about that, because it would be made very clear what the separation is and what the roles are.
Q64 Mrs Elphicke: If there were that perceived conflict, or that arose, would you be prepared to not be chair of the Law Society?
Amerdeep Somal: That would be something I would need to give very serious consideration to. It is not something I am going to make a decision on as we are sitting here, as I am sure you will understand.
Q65 Mrs Elphicke: So if there were a perceived conflict between being the Ombudsman and chair of the Law Society, you are not prepared to say that you would give up that other role, which would not be your full-time, obligated role?
Amerdeep Somal: I do not see a perceived conflict.
Q66 Mrs Elphicke: But other people might.
Amerdeep Somal: I don’t know. I can’t speak for other people.
Q67 Mrs Elphicke: But if it was raised with you that this was a perceived conflict—
Amerdeep Somal: As I say, I would need to give that careful consideration.
Q68 Mrs Elphicke: Okay. On the public profile and reputation, what would you see as a good customer satisfaction score to target in your first two years?
Amerdeep Somal: It is difficult for me to say without getting into the bones of the organisation. I could pluck a figure out of thin air, but I am not going to because I want to see what the history of customer satisfaction has been over the preceding three to five years of the Ombudsman service and what the trajectory should be going forward.
Q69 Mrs Elphicke: That information is in the public domain, so it is information that you could have looked up. We have it here in front of us. It is at pretty disappointing levels—for example, 3.8 out of 10 on how fairly the complaint was handled. Would you agree that understanding what the customer satisfaction position is to date, why it is there and what people feel about the service would be part of due diligence for this role?
Amerdeep Somal: Absolutely. That was one of the inquiries I made as part of my preparation for today. At the current time, there is not an up-to-date customer satisfaction survey to present you with. It was something I inquired about before today.
Q70 Mrs Elphicke: Finally, to build on the Chair’s question, you mentioned that you were going to—forgive me, this is in my own words—hold politicians to account for not delivering frontline services, such as social care, library services or other things that might be needed. If we look at the current situation in local government, how are you going to provide that public assurance and reputation for the organisation that you are not meddling in politics?
Amerdeep Somal: How democratically elected councillors oversee councils and deliver those services is an operational matter for them and they hold their staff to account. It is not something that we would meddle in in the same way that you would not meddle in how the Ombudsman service deals with individual complaints. Those are very distinct, but we would shine a light for example where services are failing because our complaints data would show us, for example, where there is room for improvement and where things have gone wrong.
Q71 Mrs Elphicke: I will finish with one concrete example. At the moment, some councils have taken on a lot of debt. There are councils that have statutory obligations, particularly in relation to adult social care, that have caused immense strain on delivery.
How would you distinguish between a complaint about the closure of a particular service—be it a library or a children’s centre or whatever—on the basis of a local authority choosing to take on a particular amount of debt, and perhaps not being funded in full in relation to additional statutory burdens? How would you distinguish between those two?
Amerdeep Somal: The decisions about where councils decide to spend their money are operational, strategic decisions for them. For example, if they decide to close the local library as it is not a priority for them, that is not a matter for me as the Ombudsman.
Q72 Mrs Elphicke: So you do not yourself as having a role in saying, for example: “The council has borrowed lots of money. It cannot manage to pay everything back or it has had some commercial developments that have not gone right and that is why it is cutting services”? You would not see yourself as having a role in observing the reasons behind that, if you thought those reasons were clear?
Amerdeep Somal: Decisions about priorities are for the council to make.
Q73 Mrs Elphicke: But what would you see as your role in that? Because we are looking at a service not being provided properly, which I think we would agree is within your remit to comment on. How would you go about assessing the reasons? You said that you will assess those reasons. You have said that you are going to comment on why people are doing things or not doing things. That is a really good example because it is a very current one that councils are grappling with, so where is that distinction? How would you see that being described?
Amerdeep Somal: I would speak out about matters where I believe the council to have been at fault through our complaints handling. Everything would be evidenced based through the complaint we are dealing with. I do not, for example, see myself going off on a frolic of my own “just because”. That is not the reason why the Ombudsman is there. The Ombudsman is there to deal with complaints and speak out without fear or favour when they find fault through maladministration.
Chair: Let us move on to relationships with the other Ombudsman services.
Q74 Andrew Lewer: Who would you say are the main stakeholders for the Ombudsman service, and how will you develop constructive relationships with them?
Amerdeep Somal: There are quite a lot of people on this field. My key relationships are going to be with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman because we have the power to make joint investigations because of the interaction between health and social care. Of course, there is the joint guidance on section 117 aftercare after discharge from mental health services, so there is lots of room for joint collaborative work there. Also, the respective ombudsmen sit ex officio on one another’s boards. That will be a very important relationship.
There is also the relationship with, for example, the Housing Ombudsman. Again, there is some synergy with the work there. We will have work with Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission on ensuring that there are appropriate memorandums of understanding and protocols for clear understanding about what our respective roles are, what the overlap is, where there are shared powers, and so on—and when we refer cases to one another, because not everything that comes our way will actually fall within our remit, but might be one for a different Ombudsman service.
Then, there is an important role to play within the Ombudsman Association itself, because they are working across the whole Ombudsman space, and in ensuring that we are involved in some of those discussions and the working groups with the Ombudsman services.
Q75 Andrew Lewer: One thing we are not short of in modern Britain is process. I am sure that there are lots of committees, rules and procedures and so on, but what role would you see for a more personal relationship—in terms of cutting through difficulties between services that your work will overlap with?
Amerdeep Somal: Well, my personal style is to work in a collaborative way with key stakeholders, so that means being able to have open dialogues with them, understanding who is responsible for what, so there is less room for confusion—that is really important for the staff working in both organisations—and being able to sit down and talk about things before they go wrong, for example.
Q76 Andrew Lewer: I am in my 21st year of elected politics, all of which has involved things that have been related to local government, and it has probably taken me until now to work out how these various bodies relate and work together with one another—
Chair: You’ve done it already, have you?
Andrew Lewer: I am probably giving myself inappropriate airs there, because it is still as complex as ever. Do you see the future for these bodies as being even more integrated, or as keeping themselves fairly separate from one another? What view do you take about making these services, and the others that will overlap, remotely navigable for ordinary service users and people in their day-to-day lives?
Amerdeep Somal: I can certainly see that it is a crowded field. People see the word “Ombudsman” and there are probably 10 ombudsmen out there, if not more. I receive complaints in my current role that have nothing to do with financial services but are actually about furniture or something completely different. It is about ensuring that there is clear understanding, clarity and signposting with working with all of those partners, so the public understand who is responsible for what, and about being as helpful as possible to the public, so they are not wasting their time and can go to the right place at the first instance.
The whole issue of Ombudsman reform has been on the back burner for quite some time now. As you will know, the previous LGSCO Ombudsman and the current PHSO Ombudsman spoke some time ago about Ombudsman reform, and their contributions to that were around the strong public-interest case regarding the merger of the organisations—so that there was one Ombudsman service—because, actually, it would be in the wider public interest, rather than just protecting their own organisations. I think that was very selfless, actually.
Ultimately, it is about doing what is best for the public, and if that direction of travel would make it easier for the public, particularly as there is so much overlap between health and social care, then that should not be off the table.
Q77 Andrew Lewer: Either within that sphere or looking more broadly across your role and the responsibilities, is there any particular big idea or innovation that you would like to see?
Amerdeep Somal: Across which?
Andrew Lewer: Either across the LGSCO in terms of its co-operative work with others, or indeed just in terms of running the service—something where you think, “I’ve got an idea with that, and I am really going to change it.”
Amerdeep Somal: If resources were not such an issue for the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, as they are with very many other bodies, there are areas of business which present an opportunity for some really good work.
For example, with special educational needs and disability, parents are increasingly finding things very distressing for their children and for themselves around provision and when they make a complaint to a council around their child. So not only are they grappling with looking after their child, making sure they have appropriate provision in place, then they are also dealing with things like transport for their child, getting them to school, and periods when their children are off school.
There is potentially a big holistic piece around special educational needs, disability, transport, health—that whole wider piece. At the moment there are different segments doing little bits, but actually I can really see that there is something quite exciting that could be done around improving things tangibly for so many different people across society and making people feel they're not marginalised and are listened to and that people do care.
Andrew Lewer: Thank you very much. Thank you.
Q78 Chair: We talked about overlap, but there are also some gaps in what the Ombudsman can look at that the Ombudsman service has previously said they would rather like filling. Have you looked at those and what are your thoughts on them?
Amerdeep Somal: I am sorry; I did not quite hear the question. I heard “gaps”.
Chair: The Ombudsman service previously identified some gaps in their remit and ability to investigate certain complaints they get. Have you had a look at those and have you any views on them?
Amerdeep Somal: I have not looked in detail into those. I am aware, for example, that the previous Ombudsman talked about gaps in remedies—for example, the culture and the spirit of learning and knowledge, bank, etc., and moving away from blame and punishment. I do not have any strong views about that yet, but I want to really test the mood music.
For example, what are service users telling us about what they want to see as an appropriate remedy? For many of them—certainly from the reading I have done—it is about not just a response to their individual complaint, but making sure the same doesn't happen to somebody else. Is that the real driver of why people are making complaints, or is it really about the individual? I suspect it is actually much wider than that.
Q79 Chair: Is there anything you would like to say to us before we conclude the session?
Amerdeep Somal: No. I would just like to thank you for your time.
Chair: Thank you very much for coming and for your time as well. I will bring the public session to an end, after which the Committee will go into private.