2. Summary of responses

2.1 Overview

Below is a high level overview of the 113 responses we received, followed by a summary of responses by sector. The summary does not include all the detailed comments which we received and which we have considered carefully, but reviews the responses to the questions and highlights the general themes and comments that emerged. We have included various quotations to illustrate some of the points made, although the extracts should not be taken to reflect the entirety of a respondent’s views.

2.1.2 The first question in the consultation document was:

Would you be in favour of complainants having direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, as is the case with the Health Service Ombudsman for England, the Local Government Ombudsman for England and the Public Services Ombudsmen in Scotland and Wales?

2.1.3 Of the 113 responses we received to the consultation, 107 clearly indicated a preference for or against direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, or that they had no preference at all. In six cases, the respondent’s position was unclear.

2.1.4 Overall, there was overwhelming support for direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Of the 107 responses that gave a clear answer to this question, 91 (85 per cent) were in favour of direct access, 15 (14 per cent) were against and one (1 per cent) indicated that they had no preference
(see figure 1).

2.1.5 The second question in the consultation document was:

Specifically, do you think that the MP filter should be:

• Abolished outright and replaced with direct access so that an MP referral is not required to access the Ombudsman?
• Replaced with a dual track system which would allow complainants the option of either making a complaint through an MP or accessing the Parliamentary Ombudsman directly?
• Retained, so that the public continue to require a referral from an MP to access the Parliamentary Ombudsman?

2.1.6 98 responses expressed a clear preference in their answer to this question. 29 (30 per cent) felt that the MP filter should be completely abolished and replaced with direct access, 54 (55 per cent) were in favour of a dual track system, 14 (14 per cent) were in favour of retaining the MP filter and one (1 per cent) expressed no preference (see figure 2).

2.2 Members of the public

2.2.1 Although organisations and corporate bodies are eligible to take complaints to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, almost all of the 7,360 Parliamentary complaints we received in 2010-11 were made by individual members of the public.

2.2.2 Members of the public are central to the work of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. We strive to ensure that things are put right where they have gone wrong, and to ensure that public bodies learn from complaints. We also seek to learn from our complainants about our own accessibility and processes.

2.2.3 We were pleased that 33 members of the public responded to the consultation, of whom 32 expressed a clear preference regarding direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. 31 (97 per cent) were in favour of having direct access and one (3 per cent) was opposed.

2.2.4 One member of the public (1 per cent) wanted to see the MP filter retained, with 14 (44 per cent) advocating the abolition of the MP filter and 17 (53 per cent) a dual track approach.

2.2.5 Perhaps unsurprisingly in the present political climate, where public confidence in politicians remains relatively low, many members of the public were concerned about being forced to engage with MPs in order to get their complaint referred to the Parliamentary Ombudsman.

2.2.6 Respondents expressed concern that MPs from the party of Government might not forward complaints to the Ombudsman because of party politics. Although there is little evidence to suggest that this might be true, the very existence of the MP filter has already deterred one potential complainant from pursuing their complaint.

2.2.7 Some respondents simply could not see why an MP’s involvement was needed in the first place. They felt disempowered, disillusioned and sometimes lacking control of their own complaint.

2.2.8 The well-documented issue of the additional delay that can be caused by seeking an MP referral was also raised by members of the public, many of whom felt that their MP did not, or would not, have anything to add to their complaint.

2.2.9 However, several members of the public did note the advantages of having an MP involved in a complaint. Some of those who had had difficult experiences with MPs still thought that an MP’s involvement could prove invaluable for those who sought it, particularly where someone might not feel able to manage their complaint through the process by themselves.

2.2.10 Some members of the public also noted the importance of MPs continuing to receive information about the performance of public services from the Ombudsman.

2.3 Advice and advocacy sector

2.3.1 In June 2011, shortly after the consultation period began, we hosted a breakfast briefing seminar for stakeholders from the advice and advocacy sector to discuss not only the direct access consultation, but other issues relating to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s accessibility.

2.3.2 There was a consensus in discussions that equal access to any Ombudsman is imperative and that the variation in the way that MPs handle requests to refer complaints to the Ombudsman prevents equal access, thereby supporting the case for removing the MP filter.

2.3.3 In addition to equality of access, participants made it clear that speed of service and simplicity of process were also important. They were concerned at evidence that suggested the MP filter could introduce significant delays to the overall complaints process, noting that direct access would allow complainants to avoid that potential delay.

2.3.4 A number of the advice and advocacy sector organisations agreed that it was important to ensure that MPs, many of whom had played pivotal roles in championing asylum cases and other causes, were not removed entirely from the complaints process or prevented from referring complaints to the Ombudsman. There was agreement that the dual track option might help address that.

2.3.5 There was a general agreement that by-passing MPs entirely could actually decrease access to the Ombudsman, as members of the public often approach their MPs without knowing of the Ombudsman’s existence, and only become aware of the Ombudsman when they are referred. Again, it was felt that this supported the argument for a dual track approach.

2.3.6 Seven organisations representing the advice and advocacy sector subsequently responded to the consultation. All seven supported the proposal for direct access, with a preference for a dual track approach.

2.3.7 Their formal consultation responses reflected many of the points made at the seminar, with some additional concerns raised, such as those by Which?

2.3.8 Consumer Focus were concerned that the continuing use of an MP filter appeared to be contrary to current Government policy on public services, stating:

2.3.9 There was a degree of sympathy for MPs who were concerned about retaining a link with their constituents. Many advice and advocacy sector stakeholders reiterated that there was a role for MPs to play in supporting constituents who wanted this. Consumer Focus summarised:

2.3.10 A position which was supported by the British Institute of Human Rights:

2.3.11 In summary, the advice and advocacy sector was strongly supportive of direct access, but were opposed to a solution that might prevent MPs playing a part in the complaints process. As a result, they was strongly supportive of a dual track approach, which they felt would empower individuals to resolve their complaints more effectively, allowing them to decide whether to seek their MP’s support or pursue resolution of their complaint on their own.

2.4 MPs

2.4.1 Before the consultation period began, we wrote to MPs to alert them to our consultation. We told them that we intended to work closely with the Public Administration Select Committee to complete a more detailed assessment of MPs’ views after the public consultation period closed. It would not, therefore, be accurate to interpret the low response rate from MPs as an indicator of their engagement on the subject of direct access.

2.4.2 We received 17 responses from MPs from a range of political parties: eight from Conservative MPs, six from Labour MPs,
two from Liberal Democrat MPs and one from a Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) MP (see figure 3).

2.4.3 A small majority of the MPs who responded were in favour of direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, with nine (53 per cent) in favour and eight (47 per cent) opposed.

2.4.4 Of the 17 MPs who responded, 14 expressed a clear view on whether the filter should be abolished, replaced with a dual track approach or retained.

2.4.5 The eight MPs who were opposed to direct access were in favour of retaining the filter. Of the nine MPs who were in favour of direct access, two thought the filter should be abolished outright, four were in favour of a dual track approach, and three did not state a clear preference.

2.4.6 Interestingly, MPs made up only 9.9 per cent of those who said they were in favour of direct access to the Ombudsman, but 53.5 per cent of those who were opposed (see figure 4).

2.4.7 We also received a response from the Parliamentary Labour Party, confirming the Party’s support for direct access and the dual track option in particular.

2.4.8 The issues raised by MPs reflected those set out in the consultation document. Those who opposed direct access raised concerns over the constitutional role of MPs, cost implications and volume. Those who supported direct access predominantly did so on the principle that citizens should have direct access to redress, although some respondents noted that the Ombudsman’s Office was better resourced to handle the initial assessment of complaints.

2.4.9 The inconsistencies between MPs in their handling of requests from constituents to refer their complaints was in some cases explicitly acknowledged by MPs in their response.

2.4.10 This reflects the findings of the 2004 Survey of MPs on the work of the Ombudsman, conducted jointly by the Public Administration Select Committee and the Parliamentary Ombudsman, which highlighted the inconsistencies that members of the public experience.

2.4.11 Some of those who opposed direct access cited concerns over an unmanageable increase in numbers for the Ombudsman and the potential financial implications.

2.4.12 Respondents who supported the removal of the MP filter quoted the principle of direct access to redress and citizen choice as the main reason for doing so.

2.4.13 Respondents who supported the MP filter often quoted the role that MPs serve in filtering inappropriate complaints.

2.4.14 However, one supporter of direct access highlighted that this role is already performed by the Ombudsman’s staff in relation to complaints about the NHS.

2.4.15 Some of the MPs who argued for the retention of the MP filter also expressed concerns that direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman would undermine their constitutional role.

The Government

2.5.1 We also received a response to the consultation from the Government. The Government reiterated concerns about altering the constitutional position of the Ombudsman, that MPs might lose touch with constituents’ concerns if direct access were introduced, and that a substantial increase in the number of complaints might lead to a request for further resources. For these reasons the Government said that it ‘currently favours retention’ of the MP filter.

2.5.2 The Government did, however, comment that potential reform required consideration and debate and welcomed the Public Administration Select Committee’s further work on direct access to inform the debate.

2.6 Bodies in jurisdiction

2.6.1 Of the 28 bodies within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction that responded to the consultation, 24 expressed a clear preference for either direct access or retaining the MP filter, and one stated that they did not have a preference. In three instances, it was unclear whether the body had any preference.

2.6.2 A significant majority of bodies in jurisdiction supported direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. 19 (76 per cent) bodies were in favour of direct access, five (20 per cent) were in favour of retaining the MP filter, and one (4 per cent) did not have a preference either way (see figure 5).

2.6.3 When asked specifically which option they would like to see implemented, the respondents were less clear. Only 20 of the bodies answered this question, with six (30 per cent) in favour of abolishing the MP filter, nine (45 per cent) in favour of a dual track system, four (20 per cent) preferring to retain the existing filter and one (5 per cent) expressing no preference.

2.6.4 Over half of those respondents who supported direct access named the Government’s current reforms regarding transparency and choice as the reason for doing so.

2.6.5 A number of respondents who supported direct access also pinpointed the delay that can be caused by the need to obtain an MP referral as a reason for supporting direct access.

2.6.6 The five respondents who preferred the retention of the MP filter pointed towards the possible rise in numbers of complaints as the reason they opposed direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, however, the majority of respondents expressed their confidence that the Ombudsman would be able to absorb any increase.

2.6.7 However, the concern that their own internal complaints process might be by-passed as a result of direct access was shared by both those that supported and those who opposed direct access.

2.6.8 There was also a concern expressed by some respondents that direct access might weaken the relationship and dialogue between MPs and the organisations involved in addressing customer complaints.

2.7 Ombudsmen and other complaint handlers

2.7.1 A total of 12 ombudsmen and other complaint handling organisations responded to the consultation. All 12 responded to the first question and they were unanimous in their preference for a form of direct access.

2.7.2 Of these 12 responses, one response did not address the second question. Of the 11 who did answer the second question, nine advocated a dual track approach and two were in favour of abolishing the MP filter outright.

2.7.3 All 12 respondents expressed strong support for the principle of direct access to an ombudsman as an inherent right.

2.7.4 The respondents, most of whom were speaking from the experience of direct access within their own jurisdictions, highlighted the importance of maintaining engagement with elected representatives and keeping them informed of any trends that emerge from complaints about public services, but noted that it was not felt that direct access had damaged that relationship.

2.7.5 Respondents were dismissive of the fear that the removal of the MP filter would lead to an unmanageable increase in complaints, with the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman speaking from personal experience. The Adjudicator echoed the comments from respondents across all sectors when pointing out that even if numbers did increase, that was not seen as a good enough reason to restrict access.

2.7.6 The Northern Ireland Ombudsman noted in their response that the Northern Ireland Assembly had recently decided to reform their own Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) filter. One of the reasons given for the Assembly’s decision was the strength of research by Deloitte that showed that some members of the public did not pursue their complaint precisely because of the requirement for referral by an MLA. The Deloitte research mirrors the recent public survey in relation to the Parliamentary Ombudsman in which 1 in 5 respondents said that the MP filter would make them less likely to contact the Ombudsman.^[1]

2.8 Academics and administrative justice experts

2.8.1 In total, 11 academics or administrative justice experts responded to the consultation. All 11 answered both questions and were unanimous in their support for a form of direct access. Six were in favour of a dual track approach and five of abolishing the filter outright.

2.8.2 Academics were broadly critical of the MP filter for being outdated and decreasing the Ombudsman’s accessibility.

2.8.3 There were a number of suggestions that the continued existence of the MP filter constituted not only a barrier to access to justice, but also a reputational risk to the Parliamentary Ombudsman herself.

2.8.4 However, several responses acknowledged that reform might not necessarily have the support of those who would be responsible for voting for it – MPs themselves. And, as with our advice and advocacy sector stakeholders, there was some sympathy with why MPs might have those concerns. Some respondents were very clear that MPs should still have a role to play:

2.8.5 But there were also strongly held opinions that if a form of direct access were implemented, MPs’ concerns about understanding issues in their constituency could be addressed fairly easily.

2.8.6 However, several respondents were less convinced of the validity of some concerns that had been raised by MPs. In relation to the concern that direct access might result in an unmanageable increase in the number of complaints, The Odysseus Trust noted that, in itself, this was ‘not a good reason to oppose reform’.

2.8.7 Academic experts were also dismissive of the argument that removing the MP filter would irreparably damage what they agreed was the crucial relationship between the Ombudsman and Parliament, noting that the role of the Public Administration Select Committee was the key to that relationship.

2.8.8 The Scottish Committee of the Administrative Justice and Tribunals Council (AJTC) concluded that: