Back-
Outgoing Ombudsman Peter Tyndall
As the only global organisation representing Ombudsman Institutions, the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) considers policy areas that are of specific importance to its members, and therefore contributes to improving public services around the world.
According to Günther Kräuter, Secretary General of the IOI, one of the core issues for the IOI is to ensure access to independent redress mechanisms for people using public services. As many public services are being privatised, the responsibility for running them has increasingly been transferred to the private sector. This has had consequences for the work of ombudsmen worldwide as it has often reduced their area of competence, as well as removed access to redress for citizens.
Peter Tyndall, Ombudsman of Ireland and Second Vice-President of the IOI, has taken the lead in writing a paper on the effects of privatisations on Ombudsman Institutions that has since been adopted by the IOI Board of Directors. Günther Kräuter would like to thank him and all the colleagues who commented on the draft for their time and commitment in drawing up this policy paper on privatisation.
Let’s ask Peter Tyndall directly to give us an overview on the issue:
Why does the IOI get involved with privatisations?
The IOI represents more than 170 parliamentary or public sector Ombudsmen. They investigate individual complaints by citizens who encounter problems with public administration and public service providers. If certain services are privatized citizens potentially lose their right to seek redress from an independent Ombudsman Institution.
What are the main consequences of privatisations of public services for ombudsmen schemes?
We have been able to observe three common scenarios regarding privatisations. In the first one, public services are privatised but redress continues to be provided by existing public services ombudsmen. In the second, redress is provided by private sector ombudsmen or through other arrangements. Unfortunately there have also been cases in which access to independent redress has been entirely lost.
Can you tell us how these changes have been implemented in the different countries in practice?
The solutions have varied from country to country. Let me explain by giving some European examples: In Belgium, there is an energy ombudsman. In Catalonia, the Ombudsman has retained responsibility for utilities as they are privatised. In countries such as Sweden, redress is provided by a national consumer body which itself is within the remit of the Ombudsman. In Greece, water and electricity services will be removed from the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction when they are privatised. In Ireland, water provision has been lost from jurisdiction on its recent transfer from local government. In the case of telecoms in Greece, and water in Ireland, there is no clear access to independent redress at the moment.
Is this mainly a European problem then?
No, it is a global phenomenon. We can also find cases in Canada or Australia for example.
Which problems have arisen through the privatisation of public services for the access to redress?
Unfortunately we have seen that because of privatisation during the last three decades, the investigative authority and jurisdiction of public services ombudsmen has diminished. In some cases access to independent redress has been entirely lost. In other cases the establishment of new ombudsmen institutions and redress mechanisms has led to confusion for service users. Where private sector schemes have taken over the task of providing redress, these schemes are often not independent.
Are there sectors and countries where ombudsmen services have been especially affected by privatisation?
Some services that have been subject to privatisation more than others have been health and social care, energy suppliers, postal services, telecoms, water and public transport. The financial crisis and EU competition requirements have seen the acceleration of privatisation across Europe, and similar patterns have been seen elsewhere. The UK is an example for a country where many former public services have been privatised in the past years.
What are the main differences between public and private sector ombudsmen
Public services ombudsmen are usually funded by their parliamentary body to make them independent of government. The funding of private sector ombudsmen is often provided by the industry sector in which they operate, and not by the state. These “ombudsman” cannot claim to be independent to the same level than public sector ombudsmen. The IOI does therefore not support the use of the name ombudsman in such cases. Some Ombudsmen for privatised services have been properly established by statute and are independent of the sectors in their jurisdiction. While a proliferation of ombudsman institutions can cause confusion, these nonetheless do meet the requirements for the use of the title. Another distinction is that public sector ombudsmen make recommendations, but cannot issue binding decisions. For private sector ombudsmen only compulsion is likely to prove effective, as the political recourse to bring reports on non-compliance to the attention of their parliamentary body will not have the same weight in respect of wholly private providers.
What are your main recommendations to deal with access to redress when services are privatised?
All public services – whether privatised or not – should remain in the ombudsman’s jurisdiction to ensure that citizens have access to independent redress. Complexity in service provision should be counterbalanced by simplicity in accessing redress. A “one stop shop” for all public service complaints is the way to do this. Where access to redress via an ombudsman has been lost, we should argue for it to be restored.
How can members concretely support these efforts of the IOI?
Each national or - where appropriate - regional ombudsman institution should monitor "privatisation developments" in its respective country and notify the IOI of any concerning or indeed, positive developments so the IOI can identify emerging issues and trends. I also encourage all national and relevant regional ombudsmen to speak out actively by advocating that all public services – whether privatised or not – should remain in the ombudsman’s jurisdiction to ensure that citizens have access to independent redress. This can be achieved through the law which privatises services or through contracts between the state companies who take over public services.
How should the IOI proceed concerning membership questions of private sector ombudsmen?
While the IOI rules specify public services ombudsmen as members, in practice membership is largely comprised of National Ombudsmen, and state or regional ombudsmen. There is less of a tradition of members being drawn from ombudsmen covering individual public services such as energy or transport ombudsmen. The IOI is an organisation of public services ombudsman and should not seek to include wholly private sector schemes. However, where privatised services fall within the remit of a private sector ombudsman, provided that such schemes are compliant with our requirements, in particular with regard to independence, governance and objectivity, we should encourage them to become members.
Thank you very much for the interview!
