Department for Culture, Media and Sport

4. Mr R complains about the actions of DCMS in May 2021. He says it:

• released guidance restricting singing 36 hours after ‘Step 3’ of the government’s COVID-19 roadmap began • failed to ‘justify’ why the restrictions were released late • did not answer his queries during the complaints process.

5. As a result, Mr R says this caused ‘a great deal of distress and disruption’. He says singing has ‘many social and health benefits’ which were restricted without reason at a ‘vital time’. He also says that poor complaint handling has added to his frustration.

6. By bringing this complaint to us, Mr R would like ‘justification for the guidance change’, service improvements, and an apology.

7. Below, we have set out a summary background that refers to the key milestones in this case.

8. On 10 May 2021, the Prime Minister’s office confirmed the government’s COVID-19 roadmap was ‘on track’ and the planned ‘Step 3’ easing of restrictions would go ahead on 17 May 2021. From this date, ‘the majority of the indoor and remaining outdoor economy can reopen, and gathering limits will increase indoors and outdoors…‘indoor hospitality can reopen and indoor entertainment can resume, including cinemas, museums, and children’s play areas’. It also said that ‘Up to 6 people or 2 households will be able to meet indoors and up to 30 people outdoors’.

9. On 18 May 2021, DCMS issued its Performing Arts Guidance. Mr R contacted DCMS on the same day with his unhappiness with the guidance. He expressed concerns about the restrictions being put on singing and said he understood other sectors such as sport had not been affected so much.

10. On 25 May 2021, DCMS responded to Mr R’s concerns.

11. On 26 May 2021, Mr R contacted DCMS to say he was unhappy with its ‘generic’ response. He asked DCMS to answer some specific questions he had.

12. On 4 June 2021, DCMS sent a response to Mr R’s correspondence and questions. It also gave Mr R some information about a study that had been commissioned to investigate the production of aerosol when singing.

13. On the same day, Mr R replied to DCMS as he was not happy with its response.

14. On 21 June 2021, DCMS responded to Mr R saying if he was still unhappy, he could ask his MP to refer his complaint to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (us).

15. On 17 September 2021, Mr R’s MP referred his concerns to us.

18. We have explained the reasons for our decision under headings below.

Delayed issuing of guidance

19. Mr R says not only was he frustrated and unhappy that the guidance was issued late, but that indoor singing for groups of more than six was not allowed.

20. We asked DCMS to explain why its guidance was issued 36 hours later than the start of ‘Step 3’ of the government’s roadmap.

21. DCMS told us that while it tried to publish guidance before any changes to COVID-19 measures, and it spoke with key stakeholders early, the move to ‘Step 3’ meant a large number of guidance pages had to be updated at the same time.

22. DCMS said that it tried to do things quickly, but the short delay was needed to complete internal reviews within government and to make sure its guidance was accurate.

23. DCMS explained what the government’s internal review process looked like. It said before it could publish the guidance, it had to be reviewed and cleared by the Cabinet Office, Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA - known before as Public Health England), and No.10 Downing Street.

24. This means that although DCMS did amend and publish the guidance online, it could not do this until these organisations had reviewed the proposed changes and agreed them. DCMS was not a decision maker in this process.

25. We understand the purpose of this process is to make sure the published guidance includes the agreed policies, had the correct health input, and could be understood easily.

26. In the case of the ‘Working Safely guidance for Performing Arts’ the process followed was:

1. DCMS drafted the guidance to reflect the new rules starting under ‘Step 3’ and it was cleared by DCMS’s legal team 2. A review was carried out by the COVID Taskforce in the Cabinet Office and approved 3. DCMS re-drafted its guidance where necessary in response to the comments from the Cabinet Office 4. DCMS shared its guidance with DHSC and its legal team, UKHSA, and No.10 Downing Street 5. DCMS responded to any comments received from these organisations and redrafted its guidance where needed 6. DCMS published its guidance.

27. DCMS told us these steps were important to make sure central government guidance reflected core public health advice, was legally sound, and had the right central management, given its impact on individuals and organisations.

28. We understand this process was known as ‘Triple Lock’ and was used for major changes to COVID-19 guidance across government departments.

29. From the evidence available to us we can see the Cabinet Office contacted DCMS in April 2021 and asked it to review its guidance, in line with the ‘Step 3’ changes.

30. It asked DCMS to review and change sections of its guidance and to let the Cabinet Office know which pieces of guidance would be updated, when they would be sent to the Cabinet Office for clearance, whether the changes needed ‘Triple Lock’ clearance, and when the guidance was planned to be published (if it was to be published before the ‘Step 3’ changes started).

31. The Cabinet Office notified DCMS it would need ‘more than the 4 days we usually ask for the clearance process’.

32. DCMS responded on 20 April 2021 and provided the requested information to the Cabinet Office and explained its aim to publish before 17 May 2021.

33. On 30 April 2021, the Cabinet Office contacted DCMS after reviewing the information it had given. The Cabinet Office asked DCMS to review and update its guidance using some ‘standard lines’.

34. On 7 May 2021, DCMS sent its updated guidance to the Cabinet Office for ‘Triple Lock’ clearance.

35. We recognise that during this time in the pandemic, many government departments were sending their updated versions of guidance to the Cabinet Office, many of which needed ‘Triple Lock’ clearance. Once DCMS sent its guidance to the Cabinet Office by the deadline set, any delay in reviewing the changes cannot be put on DCMS.

36. The Cabinet Office did not complete its checks and authorise DCMS to publish its guidance until after close of business on 14 May 2021. This meant DCMS was therefore unable to publish the guidance on 17 May 2021, as the government had hoped.

37. Also, we recognise that in the email from the Cabinet Office which told DCMS it could publish its guidance, it asked DCMS to make further changes first. Because of this, it is unlikely DCMS would have been able to publish its updated guidance later that same day on 17 May 2021.

38. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say public bodies ‘should act according to their statutory powers and duties and any other rules governing the service they provide’.

39. We consider DCMS acted in line with the process as set out by the Cabinet Office when it asked DCMS to update its guidance to reflect the ‘Step 3’ changes.

40. We do not uphold this part of Mr R’s complaint.

DCMS’s complaint handling and responses

41. Mr R complains DCMS sent him three basic letters that did not address his concerns and it repeatedly referred him to the published guidance he had already read, which led him to make his complaint.

42. Mr R asked DCMS eight specific questions that he put under three headings.

43. On 4 June 2021, Mr R asked DCMS to read and respond to the questions he asked on 26 May 2021. He also explained what he considered to be the ‘key questions’ from that eight-question list.

44. As part of our first enquiries, we asked DCMS about how it had considered Mr R’s questions. DCMS told us Mr R’s correspondence was handled as part of a batch response that it says included all the ‘relevant key information’.

45. However, DCMS also recognised there were some questions it had not given a direct response, because it was not in line with its policy to do this given the large volume of correspondence it was receiving at the time.

46. From the evidence available to us, we can see DCMS’s Correspondence Guidance says:

‘The [system name] batch response process allows you to respond to treat officials which require the same template response. If you have more than 15 treat officials on the same issue, batching is an efficient way of responding […] Before a batch can be set up you need to have the process cleared by both the policy team and correspondence manager’.

47. This tells us while it is not always the case that DCMS will use batch responses on any issues it receives 15 or more pieces of correspondence, it is open to DCMS to use its discretion to decide if using batch responses is an appropriate and useful way to respond to the correspondence.

48. We can see DCMS got nearly 500 pieces of correspondence from members of the public on issues relating to choirs. As a result, there was an agreement between DCMS’s policy officials and its MST that a batch response approach would be taken for choir correspondence.

49. Once this decision was taken, this meant Mr R would get responses to his queries that understandably appeared to him to be ‘generic’.

50. We recognise the frustration this would have caused Mr R, particularly at a time when an activity in which he found much enjoyment, and which was clearly very important to him, was unexpectedly restricted.

51. We consider the decision to issue batch responses to have been appropriate and in line with DCMS policy in the circumstances, because of the obvious pressures it was under to respond to large volumes of correspondence in a short space of time.

52. We note that DCMS’s batch response did respond to the issues Mr R had raised, even if not in the direct and specific way he was hoping for. We cannot see any signs that in taking the batch response approach, DCMS failed to meet our ‘Principles of Good Complaint Handling’ and DCMS’s own complaints procedure.

53. Our ‘Principles of Good Administration’ say organisations ‘should follow their own policy and procedural guidance, whether published or internal’ and that ‘people should be treated fairly and consistently, so those in similar circumstances are dealt with in a similar way’. They also say when organisations make decisions, they should be ‘appropriate in the circumstances’.

54. We consider DCMS to have acted in line with its own policy and our principles. We do not uphold this part of Mr R’s complaint.

55. This is our final decision on this complaint.

1. Mr R complains about the actions of Department for Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport (DCMS) in May 2021 and the length of time it took to issue coronavirus (COVID-19) guidance for the performing arts sector, and its handling of his concerns. We recognise this continues to be frustrating for Mr R.

2. We have not found failings with how and when DCMS released the performing arts COVID-19 guidance.

3. We have not found DCMS failed to ‘justify’ why its guidance was released late or that it did not answer Mr R’s questions. We do not uphold this complaint.