Conclusion
Jump to
The Office of the PO has not been immune from criticism, but these criticisms should be understood within the context of an evolving institution finding its place within the constitution. In the early years the Office's first challenge was to establish its credibility and to obtain the confidence of both complainants and government departments. 116 While this preliminary objective was largely achieved a major unwanted side-effect, and one which can still draw comment today, was the excessive time that it took to resolve complaints. Out of this experience it has become clear that the PO cannot rely upon the quality of its reports alone. To remain a viable institution it must provide a prompt service to its most important stakeholder, the complainant.
Despite the problems that the Office has sometimes experienced, later post-holders have been able to take advantage of the solid foundations that were laid by their predecessors and have increasingly explored the flexibility contained within the 1967 Act. In more than one respect this is leading to a more effective and interesting institution, one which is able to develop and promote high administrative standards. Indeed, at its best, the PO should ‘be a harbinger of the future’ and point to ‘tomorrow's standards today’. 117
The work of the PO is strengthened by the growth in the ombudsman community that has taken place since1967, which has allowed ideas about the potential in the role to be explored and shared. 118 The fact that the current PO has an ombudsman background and was neither a civil servant or a lawyer, as with all her predecessors, is perhaps the most important recognition yet of the importance and distinctiveness of this branch of the civil justice network.
A few required amendments aside, the Parliamentary Commissioner Act remains a good piece of legislation and the constitution is much stronger for the Parliamentary Ombudsman. As well as improving the power of the citizen to gain redress, as was originally intended, Parliament itself has gained a valuable tool in the ongoing process of calling the government to account.
Dr Richard Kirkham
Lecturer in the School of Law University of Sheffield
