Key issue III
Listening to people

Reactions:
There was support for the People's Panel, though some concern that it might not be truly representative of the population as a whole.

Respondents also commented that, although the People's Panel could be useful for obtaining views on a national basis, it would be important for services to continue to carry out locally-focused consultations to ensure that their local needs were taken into account.

'[ consultation] should not of course be confined to 'users' - citizens generally, including the staff of services themselves, should also be included. ' (Professors Faulkner and Freedland, St John's College)

Other suggestions included: a national network of local panels; involving voluntary and representative organisations at both national and local level; establishing a Consultation Task Force; consulting front-line staff; and the provision of best practice guidance on how to consult.

Our response:
The Government announced the establishment of the People's Panel on 28 January 1998. The Panel will be made up of some 5,000 people, randomly selected from across the country to ensure that it is representative of the population at large.

The Panel will inform national decision-making on issues affecting public services. It will not replace research that is already being carried out on a local basis, whether through local authority panels or by other means. We agree that it is vital for local consultation to continue and be improved so that providers can find out what local people really want from their services. That is why we are also producing a new guidance document called 'How to conduct written consultation exercises - an introduction for central government' and we intend to produce new guidance for local service providers on how to consult effectively. They will give practical advice on how service providers should go about consulting their users. We are also considering how to share best practice with local authority panels and similar national initiatives.

We accept that the knowledge and experience of front-line staff has sometimes been under-valued. Our new guides make clear that they have an important part to play. To demonstrate this, the Parliamentary Secretary in the Office of Public Service, Peter Kilfoyle, has held a series of seminars around the country with front-line staff to get their views on how services might be improved. These seminars will continue on a regular basis.

We asked:
What other methods of involving ordinary people might be considered on a local basis? What are the pros and cons of such methods?

Reactions:
A number of suggestions were made, including: local market research; suggestion boxes; surveys; telephone surveys; local user or focus groups; comment cards; radio phone-ins; open meetings; consulting staff providing the service; and developing community forums.

The main concerns raised were that: these methods can be both time-consuming and costly; it is important not to overburden people by consultation; a proper representative sample is needed - but such groups need to be established with care or they could become populated with the vocal minority rather than the silent majority; and it is important to establish terms of reference, so that users understand the context and do not have unrealistic expectations.

Our response:
We are grateful for the comments received. They have helped the development of the new best practice guides on consultation.

We asked:
What more can we do to spread best practice in complaints handling throughout public services?

Reactions:
A number of suggestions were made including: re-issuing the Complaints Task Force report and other Charter Unit and ombudsman publications; publicising a central point where guidance on complaints can be obtained; use of local and Quality Networks to allow people to share best practice; workshops and seminars; and publicising case studies.

Our response:
The Citizen's Charter Complaints Task Force's report was published in June 1995. To reflect latest thinking and departments' experiences in implementing the Task Force's recommendations, we have produced a new guide on complaints handling, 'How to deal with complaints'. This is in two parts. Part 1 summarises good practice in complaints handling, and gives examples from across the public sector. Part 2 gives advice on establishing independent complaints review arrangements in public services. We are grateful for the suggestions made, which have informed the guide's development. It is available from the publications line on 0845 722 32 42.

We asked:
How can users be encouraged to make complaints? What kinds of redress should be available under charters?

Reactions:

'People need to have confidence that when things go wrong they have access to straightforward, fair and effective avenues for complaint and redress. It is important that complaints procedures are well publicised, easy to pursue and produce results quickly. ' (Wales Council for Voluntary Action)

There was a general agreement that users should be encouraged to make suggestions and comments as well as complaints and that providers should view such feedback positively.

'Complaints should not always be seen as being hostile, they can add to the learning of an organisation and can

be used positively to inform policy and service developments. ' (The Association of Community Health Councils of England and Wales)

Specific suggestions included: publication of complaints procedures; a mechanism for independent review; certainty of confidentiality; assurance that complaints make a difference; training for all staff in handling complaints; procedures that are simple and immediate; annual publication of details of compensation payments; independent representation of members of the public; adopting a carrot and stick approach, for example an award for best complaints procedure; and 'naming and shaming' the worst offenders.

On redress, many respondents thought there should be a range of options from an apology through to financial compensation. Some doubted the role of financial remedies, while others pointed out that this needed to be balanced against the constraints on using taxpayers' money. But there was general agreement that users need to know what remedies are available to them and that organisations must publish this information.

'There is probably no general answer about the kinds of redress that are appropriate. In some cases simply providing what should have been provided in the first place is the thing that matters most. In cases of the most serious failure, monetary compensation and referral to disciplinary procedures of staff alleged to have behaved in negligent or unjust ways is the appropriate redress. What is important, and not always achieved by all charters, is that the public understands the full range of redress that is open to them, in the event of default against standards by any public service. ' (Demos)

Our response:
We agree that an effective complaints procedure is essential to providing quality public services. But people will only complain if they know how to do so, and believe they will be listened to. The new complaints handling guide will encourage public services to welcome complaints and comments, and to use the information to improve services. It contains examples of how best to let users know how to make complaints, and of how services publicise to staff the lessons to be learned from complaints. The guide advises public services to make clear to users the full range of remedies open to them, and discusses the scope for financial compensation.