Ministry of Justice

4. Mr J complains that in January 2020, the Minister approved three documents that have errors, namely the ‘Compact’, ‘Code of Conduct’ and ‘Disciplinary Procedures’. He says the Minister should not have approved these documents created by IMB’s national chair and their board, as they do not have any legal powers.

5. Mr J says the ‘Compact’ allows the Chair of the IMB and its board to sign off contracts agreed between themselves. He says this creates contracts between two parties ‘on the same side’ and this is not fair. Mr J also says IMB members already follow the ‘Seven Principles of Public Life’ (the ‘Nolan principles’ detail the ethical standards for people working in the public sector) and the Cabinet Office’s ‘Code of Conduct for Public Office Holders’. He says both the ‘Compact’ and the IMB’s ‘Code of Conduct’ just reword these documents and this is ‘unnecessary’.

6. Mr J complains several parts of the IMB’s ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ wrongfully take away powers from the Minister and gives them to the national chair and their board.

7. The ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ say IMB members may appeal to the IMB’s national chair about sanctions the Minister agreed from misconduct investigations, who will make a final decision. Mr J says as the Minister agrees these sanctions, IMB members should appeal to the Minister, who should make the final decision.

8. The ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ say the disciplinary panel will decide an appeal outcome, which the national chair reviews and decides whether to allow the appeal or uphold its decision. Mr J says the panel has no power to make decisions, only recommendations. He says such recommendations should then be decided by the Minister.

9. The ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ say board members should report suspected crimes to the appropriate police authority immediately. Mr J says it is for the Minister or his officials to decide whether to involve police.

10. Mr J also complains MoJ have failed to manage his complaint correctly. He says the national chair and their team should not have investigated and responded to his complaint, as his concerns relate to the Minister’s approval of these documents, rather than the national chair and board’s creation of them. He says the IMB would not take his complaint to the Minister despite him addressing his initial complaint to them.

11. Mr J says the errors within these documents raise issues around the national chair and their board staying impartial in matters involving them and IMB members. He also raised concerns the errors in the ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ incorrectly removed the Minister of some of the powers they previously held. He considers the documents would not hold up in court.

12. He is unhappy with how his complaint was handled and explained the inconvenience of dealing with these issues, which he feels could have been easily and quickly resolved. Mr J says he does not feel he can retire until these issues are resolved, which is something he would like to do in the near future.

13. Mr J would like MoJ to answer the points raised in his complaint and put right any errors within the documents. He wants MoJ to explain its poor complaint handling and to apologise, with an explanation of how they plan to avoid this happening again.

14. The IMB website explains IMBs are volunteer boards working in every prison in England and Wales that ‘report on whether the individuals held there are being treated fairly and humanely and whether prisoners are being given the support they need to turn their lives around.’

15. There are many IMBs across England and Wales, each covering different geographical areas. Each local IMB is made up of a local chair and its members.

16. The IMB national chair and management board are responsible for the IMBs strategy and developing policies and guidance which support and develop their work. They gather information through their regional representatives, who provide support to local IMBs.

17. The Minister is responsible to Parliament for the policies and actions of IMBs.

18. The IMB Secretariat are a team of MOJ civil servants who provide the IMB with administrative and policy support.

19. In January 2020, the Minister approved three IMB documents, the ‘Compact’, ‘Code of Conduct’ and ‘Disciplinary Procedures’.

The ‘Compact’, ‘Code of Conduct’ and ‘Disciplinary Procedures’

23. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the organisation has got something wrong. We do this by comparing what should have happened with what did happen. We have done this and have not found any signs something has gone wrong.

24. Mr J complains three documents approved by the Minister contain errors. We spoke with the IMB Secretariat to understand the document writing and approval process. They said ‘policies don't exist between the department [MOJ] and an ALB (Arm’s Length Body) - policies only exists within organisations to define the way that they work. What we have here is what is in all intents and purposes an ALB of the MoJ that has a protocol with the MOJ that defines how it works.’ This means there is no specific standard for us to refer to which sets out the document writing and approval process.

25. The protocol between the national IMB chair and the MOJ says the national chair and management board ‘sets the overall strategy and corporate and business plans for the IMBs, and develops policies and guidance that support their work and enhance their independence and impact, working within existing legislative and financial constraints’.

26. The protocol also says the Minister is ‘accountable to Parliament for ‘the policies, decisions and actions of this Department,’ including matters relating to the performance of the IMBs’.

27. The IMB Secretariat said ‘it is therefore the national chair that creates the documentation/standards as they see fit, but recognising the status of members as public appointees, the national chair would seek agreement from the Minister on documents that have fundamental requirements of those public appointees in terms of conduct and performance. Operational policies and guidance would not need any such agreement.’ This explanation is in line with the protocol.

28. The IMB Secretariat said the Minister agrees a protocol that defines the working relationship between MOJ and IMB. The IMB work to the protocol agreed by the Minister.

29. The IMB Secretariat said ‘it is in the gift of the IMB national chair to decide what processes should be developed to best support the role of the IMBs. They, and their management board, define the process in which documents are drafted.’

30. The final document is then submitted to the Minister, who can decide whether to approve or not, or may request further work to be completed before they approve the document.

31. But, the IMB secretariat said the IMB only seek approval for ‘documents that define the expectations of public appointees (who are essentially the responsibility of the Minister) in terms of conduct and performance’. The IMB secretariat said any operational policies do not need agreement from the Minister.

32. We have seen no signs the process explained by the IMB Secretariat was not followed for the three documents in question.

33. The statements below look at what Mr J says is wrong about each document and the national chair’s response.

The ‘Compact’

34. The ‘Compact’ is an agreement between an IMB member and their board. The document sets out what the member can expect from their board, and what their board expects from them.

35. On 18 February 2020, Mr J complained to the Minister. He said they had approved the ‘Compact’ and it contained errors. He said the ‘Compact’ meant IMB created an agreement with themselves, as the members and the board are ‘on the same side’. The chair of the board would have to sign this twice, once as a member and once as the board.

36. He also said IMB members were told if they did not sign the 'Compact’ they would not be recommended for reappointment. Mr J says this would not stand up in court, as courts would only consider the content of Cabinet Office’s ‘Code of Contact’ and the ‘Nolan principles’, rather than the ‘Compact’.

37. The IMB’s national chair responded to Mr J saying it was ‘both normal and good practice, in organisations that work with and through volunteers, to have a clear and mutually agreed statement’. They said the document agreed what IMB volunteers can offer and what is available to them.

38. The national chair also said they and their board ‘can and do make recommendations about appointment and reappointment of members’. They said it is then a decision for the Minister.

39. The national chair said if there were to be legal action, a legal review would decide whether ‘decisions were lawful, reasonable, proportional and procedurally fair.’

40. Mr J says the ‘Compact’ ‘makes no sense’ and says the national chair has not provided any evidence of how they and their board can recommend appointments and re appointments.

41. The IMB has explained the purpose of the ‘Contact’ to Mr J. While Mr J considers the ‘Compact’ document is not fair, he has not provided any evidence which says such an agreement cannot be in place. The national chair also explained courts would decide if decisions were lawful and fair. The IMB Secretariat told us the ‘Compact’ has never been described as a legally binding document.

42. The protocol says the Minister is accountable to Parliament for ‘the policies, decisions and actions of this Department, including matters relating to the performance of the IMBs.’ The national chair’s response said they can make recommendations for appointment and re appointment, but it is then for the Minister to decide whether to agree this.

43. We consider this is in line with protocol. Mr J has not given any evidence that shows why the national chair or their board cannot make such recommendations, other than disagreeing with this himself. We see no signs anything has gone wrong.

The ‘Code of Conduct’

44. The ‘Code of Conduct’ sets out the behaviours expected of IMB members.

45. The ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ say organisations should make sure they listen and show a clear understanding of what the main issues are for the service user.

46. Mr J complained to the Minister on 18 February 2020. He said the document did not serve any purpose as IMB members were already required to follow ‘the Nolan principles’ and the document would not stand up in court.

47. On 15 December 2020, the national chair told Mr J ’the Nolan principles’ have no more of a legal status than its ‘Code of Conduct’. Mr J has not provided any further evidence which challenges this explanation or the purpose of the ‘Code of Conduct’..

48. While Mr J disagrees about the purpose of the ‘Code of Conduct’, he says there is nothing stopping IMB making this document.

49. We consider the national chair’s response shows they have understood Mr J’s concerns. We consider they gave a response which addresses his question, in line with ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ of being thorough and fair. We see no signs of maladministration (an organisation doing something wrong or not acting properly).

‘Disciplinary Procedures’

50. The ‘Disciplinary Procedures’ set out what the IMB should do when dealing with misconduct allegations. While only a Minister can terminate appointments, the procedures say IMB members who appeal misconduct findings must now appeal to the national chair. The national chair can choose to allow appeals, uphold the decision or impose a reduced sanction. The procedures also say the board should report matters involving allegations of crime to the police.

51. The ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ say organisations should ‘give a clear and balanced account of what happened, based on established facts.’

52. On 18 February 2020, Mr J complained to the Minister, saying the procedures wrongly took away powers from them and gave them to the national chair and their board.

53. In their response, the national chair said the document had been made using knowledge about law held by the IMB members. They also said the MOJ’s legal department checked the document and it will be continuously reviewed.

54. They said only a Minister can terminate appointments, but before that there must be an investigation which sets out recommendations to them. The national chair also said outcomes not requiring termination may not need the Minister to be involved.

55. Mr J says the national chair or their board cannot hold these powers. He says as the Minister is responsible for terminating appointments, they should be responsible for managing appeal decisions.

56. He provided several pieces of evidence which he felt showed the powers each person should hold, including the Prison Act (1952).

57. The Prison Act (says the Minister holds the power to suspend IMB members while they complete investigations into misconduct. It also says the Minister holds the power to terminate appointments. However, it does not say how the Minister must do this.

58. We have not seen any evidence which says the national chair or their board cannot hold the above powers, other than Mr J’s personal belief they cannot.

59. We consider the national chair has clearly explained the process and facts in response to Mr J’s complaint, in line with ‘UK Central Government Standards’. We see no signs of maladministration.

Complaint handling

60. Before we decide if we should do a detailed investigation of a complaint, we look at whether there are signs the event complained about had a negative effect which the organisation has not put right. Having done so we have identified that there was a delay which caused Mr J an inconvenience. However, MoJ have agreed to do more work which we consider resolves this.

61. Mr J says MoJ have not managed his complaint correctly. He says the national chair and their team should not have investigated his complaint as his concerns relate to the Minister’s approval of the documents IMB created. He says they would not take his complaint to the Minister, despite him addressing his initial complaint to them.

62. The ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ (October 2022) say to be ‘thorough and fair’, organisations should: • ‘actively listen and demonstrate a clear understanding of what the main issues are for the service user who has made the complaint, and the outcomes they seek’ • ‘look for ways they can resolve complaints at the earliest opportunity’ • ‘make sure key parties (including those being specifically complained about) know how they will look into the issues. This includes what information complaints colleagues will need, who they will speak to, who will be responsible for providing the final response and how they will communicate their findings.’

63. On 18 February 2020, Mr J sent his first complaint to the Minister.

64. On 16 March, the MoJ responded to Mr J’s complaint, saying, ‘in the first instance and in line with the IMB MoJ protocol I have asked [the national chair] to respond to the concerns outlined in your letter to the Minister. Following [the national chair’s] response and if you continue to have concerns we will then refer this to the Minister.’

65. On 4 May, the national chair sent a complaint response to Mr J.

66. On 5 May, Mr J responded to the national chair. He said he was unhappy with the response and said why he believed the Minister should be responding to his complaint.

67. On 28 May, the national chair sent Mr J a further complaint response. Mr J responded on 5 June and again said he felt the Minister should be dealing with these issues.

68. On 15 December, the national chair sent a further response to Mr J’s complaint.

69. On 17 December, Mr J said again why he felt the Minister should be responding to his complaint. The national chair replied the same day, saying, ‘The correspondence has been passed on to me, as that is what is set out in the protocol with the MoJ’.

70. The protocol says ‘Where complaints are received about the IMBs or matters within their remit, the MoJ will refer these to the national chair to deal with. Complaints about the personal conduct of the national chair or those relating to the sponsorship or mandate of the MoJ will be considered by the responsible Minister. If the responsible Minister decides the complaint should be investigated, he will appoint a civil servant from another part of MoJ to investigate the issues and make recommendations to him about the complaint resolution.’

71. In Mr J’s correspondence of 5 May with the national chair, he says ‘for many months we have been trying to solve certain issues that I had brought up with you in the past but resolution still seems very far away. So the next best thing is for me to wait until documents are 'approved' by the Minister and then alert [them] to the mistakes and misinformation that they may contain so that they can be put right. There surely must be a better way!’.

72. We consider this shows Mr J’s concerns were more closely concerned with the content of the documents created by the national chair and their board, rather than the Minister’s approval of them. As such, the core elements of Mr J’s complaint would fall within the national chair and their board’s remit, and as per the protocol, the national chair is the appropriate person to respond.

73. Despite this, the MoJ did tell Mr J on 16 March if he was unhappy with the national chair’s response, they would refer this to the Minister for their consideration. However, the national chair continued to provide further complaint responses.

74. When examining this against the ‘UK Central Government Complaint Standards’ there are signs MoJ understood what Mr J wanted and had agreed who would provide a final response.

75. But, they did not refer it to the Minister as promised and Mr J did not receive a response from the Minister until August 2022. We consider this is not in line with being fair, given this is what they told Mr J they would do. We recognise this has led to a considerable delay in the complaints process for Mr J, causing him inconvenience and frustration.

76. We have spoken with MoJ about our concerns. It explained the standard MoJ process would have been for a senior official to respond first, then the Minister. It explained as colleagues involved had now moved into different roles, it could not explain why this was promised to Mr J.

77. It agreed to apologise to Mr J about the time it took them to refer his complaint to the Minister as agreed. It also agreed to review the complaint handling lessons from this case.

78. Our ‘Service model guidance’ explains resolution as ‘delivering an answer or outcome for a complainant that resolves the complaint they have brought to us’. Mr J wanted an apology for the handling and delays in his complaint, and to understand what MoJ were going to do to avoid it happening again.

79. We consider the agreed actions by MOJ resolve the complaint handling issues Mr J has brought to us.

1. We have carefully considered Mr J’s complaint about the Ministry of Justice (MoJ).

2. Mr J complains the Minister for State at the MoJ (the Minister) approved three documents that the Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) national chair and their management board created, which contained errors. We have seen no signs anything went seriously wrong. We recognise this will be a disappointing result for Mr J, especially given the amount of time he has spent bringing his concerns to us. We value the time he has spent in helping us understand his complaint.

3. Mr J also complains MoJ failed to manage his complaint correctly. We have seen signs things may have gone wrong. But, MoJ have agreed to do more work on this and we think this resolves this part of Mr J’s complaint.