Foreword
Jump to
Under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, complainants can only submit complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman through a Member of Parliament (MP). This process is often referred to as the ‘MP filter’. My recent consultation sought the opinions of a range of stakeholders on my view that complainants should have direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. I believe that the requirement for MPs to refer someone’s complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman restricts the Ombudsman’s ability to provide a fully accessible service to complainants.
I am extremely grateful to everyone who responded to the consultation. The responses we received demonstrate that there is a consensus not only amongst ombudsmen and academics, but also amongst advice and advocacy stakeholders and, most importantly, members of the public, not to mention a significant number of bodies within my jurisdiction, that reform is long overdue and that citizens should have direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
‘My colleagues from Sweden, Finland and Denmark, who represent the most long-established ombudsman offices in the world are quintessentially parliamentary ombudsmen. All of them would regard as frankly, bizarre, the idea that members of parliament should decide whether or not the ombudsman may deal with a complaint. They would certainly regard any such system as seriously compromising the ombudsman’s independence, which is regarded internationally as an essential characteristic of the institution.’
European Ombudsman
Despite this, there remains a degree of resistance to removing the MP filter from some MPs themselves, who are concerned about a variety of issues, particularly around maintaining a relationship with their constituents.
I have always believed that the Parliamentary Ombudsman’s relationship with Parliament is critical to the success of the Office and I am clearly not alone in this view. The challenge therefore is to convince Parliamentarians that direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman can be achieved without disturbing the relationship between the Ombudsman and Parliament, and between an MP and their constituent. I believe we can address the concerns that MPs have raised without continuing to make complainants seek an MP’s support before they can take their complaint to the Ombudsman.
The majority of respondents argued that the dual track proposal, which would allow complainants the option of either making a complaint through an MP or accessing the Parliamentary Ombudsman directly, would achieve the principle of direct access without damaging the role MPs play in supporting their constituents and holding government to account.
‘… the passage of time [since 1967] has sufficiently demonstrated that the role of the Ombudsman is complimentary to that of MPs, rather than a threat …’
Office of Fair Trading
My colleagues in the devolved administrations of Scotland and Wales, where direct access to the Ombudsman is permitted, have overcome those concerns, and are known to provide a valued service to the MPs, MSPs and Assembly Members who work in their areas. I see no reason why we cannot do the same in the case of the Parliamentary Ombudsman.
Redress systems should not be designed for the ease and comfort of the bodies complained about, for political representatives, or even for those, like ombudsmen or courts, who make decisions about disputes. They should be designed with the user in mind. As one member of the public put it in their response to the consultation:
‘A citizen should have the right to choose who to involve in their complaint.’
Member of the public
‘… in order to be effective, public sector redress systems need to be accessible, easy to navigate, transparent and responsive. The development of some existing systems has resulted in complexity and variations in approach. This has the effect of discouraging citizens from seeking redress with many feeling that their complaint would not be taken seriously.’
National Audit Office
I am pleased that the Public Administration Select Committee will be taking forward the debate around direct access and that we will jointly conduct a survey of MPs to complete a more comprehensive assessment of their views. This is very much in keeping with my Office’s role in assisting Parliament to drive improvements in public services.
Ombudsman reform itself is very topical. The Law Commission’s recent report Public Services Ombudsmen recommends a number of changes to modernise the legislation governing public sector ombudsmen in England and Wales, including reform of the MP filter. The Law Commission also recommends that the Government establish ‘a wide-ranging review of the public services ombudsmen and their relationship with other institutions for administrative redress, such as courts and tribunals’. The Government’s own recent Open Public Services White Paper also proposes exploring the jurisdiction, resources, powers, profile and transparency of ombudsmen.
The Government could remove the MP filter and allow direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman either by swiftly and decisively amending the legislation that governs my Office, or as part of the wider strategic review recommended by the Law Commission. But what this consultation report clearly shows is that there is an overwhelming majority in favour of this particular reform.
Ann Abraham
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
