3. Conclusion and next steps
Jump to
3.1 Overall, respondents to the consultation were overwhelmingly in favour of direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, with a strong preference for the dual track approach.
3.2 Respondents from all sectors acknowledged the important role that MPs can play in resolving their constituents’ grievances and noted in their responses that they thought the dual track approach would protect that relationship.
3.3 Another point highlighted by respondents was that an active constituency MP will often become involved in concerns regarding housing, local authorities, and health, all of which do not currently require an MP referral to approach the relevant Ombudsman. It was noted that direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman would have no effect on an MP’s involvement in those issues and that, in the same way, constituents could still raise their concerns regarding government departments with MPs.
3.4 Respondents were clear that the Ombudsman should provide information to MPs and Parliament about failures in public services, to assist them in holding the government to account. This already happens to an extent through the publication of individual reports, themed case digests, and the Ombudsman’s annual reports into the complaint handling performance of both the NHS and government bodies.
3.5 However, some respondents acknowledged that the removal of the MP filter might mean MPs are unsighted on the concerns of their constituents. Several respondents suggested that the Ombudsman could provide MPs with annual information about what bodies their constituents had complained about to the Ombudsman and what the outcomes were of those complaints. We will explore how best to achieve this.
3.6 Respondents agreed that the support of MPs is key to the independence, authority and effectiveness of the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Most respondents also agreed that it is through the Public Administration Select Committee that this relationship is best exercised.
3.7 In total, 76 per cent of bodies in jurisdiction supported direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman. In their responses they reiterated their commitment to learning from complaints and improving the customer journey. Many of them also referenced the Government’s aspirations to increase openness, transparency, accountability and choice as the main reason for their support for direct access to the Ombudsman. That aspiration was also referenced by numerous other respondents.
3.8 There was some concern raised that direct access might result in bodies’ own complaints procedures being by-passed. We can confirm that the policy that complaints are best dealt with by the body complained about and that internal complaints procedures should be completed before escalation to the Ombudsman would continue regardless of direct access.
3.9 The 14 per cent of respondents who opposed direct access raised the possibility of an unmanageable increase in the number of complaints, and the possible request from the Ombudsman for additional resources, as justification for maintaining the MP filter. The majority of bodies in jurisdiction were, however, confident that the increase would not be substantial and that the Ombudsman was equipped to deal with any increase that did occur. Respondents also noted that the removal of the MSP filter in Scotland, where it operated from devolution in 1999 until the Scottish Public Services Ombudsman was established in 2002, did not result in an unmanageable increase in numbers there. Respondents from all sectors also argued that the fear of an increase in numbers was not justification enough to deny the citizen direct access to redress.
‘Any significant increase in the number of cases requiring full investigation would indicate that the MP filter had acted as a deterrent or had not been successful in identifying serious cases that merited referral.’
Valuation Office Agency
3.10 Respondents also noted that the Ombudsman’s own research suggests that direct access might result in a 7 to 14 per cent increase in the number of complaints received and that we have committed to Parliament to absorb the costs of any rise in complaints within our current resources.
3.11 Although this consultation report shows that there is overwhelming support for direct access, responses received from MPs suggests that opinion is still split amongst MPs themselves. Following publication of this report the Ombudsman will be conducting a joint survey of MPs with the Public Administration Select Committee to complete a more detailed assessment of their views on direct access.
3.12 The Law Commission’s 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 recommended 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 is expected to publish an interim response to the Law Commission’s recommendations by January 2012, and a full response by July 2012.
3.13 The Government could remove the MP filter and allow direct access to the Parliamentary Ombudsman either through an amendment to the legislation that governs the Ombudsman’s Office, or do so as part of the wider strategic review recommended by the Law Commission.
