Arguments for direct access
Jump to
The primary argument for the removal of the MP Filter is that reform is a key factor in improving accessibility for the public. Our research20 indicates that the requirement to involve an MP in order to access the Parliamentary Ombudsman can act as a deterrent. In a recent public survey, 1 in 5 respondents said that the MP filter would make them less likely to contact the Ombudsman. In a survey of 40 people who had approached the Ombudsman without an MP referral (and subsequently failed to obtain one), 25 per cent (10 in total) did not even attempt to contact their MP.
There is evidence that there are inconsistencies between MPs in their handling of requests from constituents to refer their complaints. Some MPs exercise a systematic filter, whilst some refer all complaints that their constituents ask them to21 – including some that are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. These inconsistencies can create confusion and/or frustration for complainants. It is argued that allowing complainants direct access to the Ombudsman would help ensure a consistent service and equal access for everyone.
The requirement to involve an MP can also cause delay in the resolution of a complaint. Our research also shows that in some cases it can take more than three months for a complainant to obtain an MP referral. In any event, when Parliament is dissolved prior to a general election people are unable to take their complaints to the Ombudsman because there are no MPs to refer them. The most extreme example of this was in 1974 when two elections in nine months resulted in a total of nine weeks when complainants could not access the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s services.
The Parliamentary Ombudsman has evolved since 1967, adapting to the changing face of government services and the needs of the public. The Ombudsman is now a more public-facing organisation than it was when created. While the relationship between the Ombudsman and Parliament remains essential, there is now a more even balance between providing a service to Parliament and providing one to individual members of the public.
The MP filter in its present form leaves the Parliamentary Ombudsman out of step with other modern public sector ombudsmen in the United Kingdom: the Health Service Ombudsman for England, the Local Government Ombudsmen in England, and the Public Service Ombudsmen in Scotland and Wales all take complaints directly from the public.
Direct access is generally seen as an essential feature of a modern ombudsman institution. Not being able to access an ombudsman directly is seen as having an adverse impact on a complainant, as the statement of the European Network of Ombudsmen makes clear.22 Following reform in France, the UK Parliamentary Ombudsman is now the only model in the world where members of the public do not have direct access to their national ombudsman.23
The wider complaints system that now exists is very different to that of 30 or 40 years ago, as complaints systems are now more robust and often include an arms length second-tier complaint handler. Although direct public access could bring about a rise in complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman of between 20 - 40 per cent, that would equate to only a 7 - 14 per cent overall rise in the work of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman across both jurisdictions.24 The Parliamentary Ombudsman has committed to absorbing the cost of any rise in complaints within her current resources.
20 PHSO, The MP Filter: Summary of Opinion Surveys, 2011
21 MP Survey: 128 out of 205 MPs who responded to the question ‘Do you always refer a complaint if a constituent asks you’ said ‘yes’.
22 European Network of Ombudsmen Statement (2007): ‘The ombudsmen in the Network seek to facilitate free and equal access for everyone who is entitled to make use of their services. Complaints may normally be addressed to an ombudsman directly … Where exceptions to the above principles are imposed by law, the ombudsman seeks to minimise their adverse impact on complainants, as far as possible’.
23 The Northern Ireland Ombudsman’s legislation is modelled on the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, and as a result has an Member of the Legislative Authority (MLA) filter in place. Following a recent consultation in Northern Ireland, there are currently discussions underway around the possible removal of the MLA filter.
24 In 2009-10 the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman received 26,439 complaints: 14,429 were health complaints and 8,543 were parliamentary complaints. 3,467 complaints related to bodies outside our jurisdiction.
