The Ombudsman's Mechanism as a Mechanism of Redress and Parliamentary Tool of Accountability

...

Accessibility has been criticised for being compromised by the ‘MP filter’[25]. Anna Abraham[26] claimed that the removal of the MP filter is necessary to provide complainants with direct access to the ombudsman and argued that MP response is unmonitored and uncontrolled therefore contributing to a lack of transparency. However, the MP filter assists the Ombudsman in it’s role by allowing disputes to be resolved at the earliest stage possible and disposes of smaller claims preventing the Ombudsman from being swamped with claims. The MP filter can be a lot more cost effective as the MP system is effective machinery for grievance dispute and helps with the ombudsman’s heavy workload. The Law Commission[27] recognised the need for reform in this area when they suggested the MP filter to be replaced with a ‘dual-track system’ thereby allowing for the benefits to be retained without restricting the PCA’s accessibility.

One of the most incremental setbacks to the efficacy of the Ombudsman is the delay in resolving cases. Moreover, a large fraction of complaints received are not actually investigated. However, this may be because many cases do not meet the criteria required or are not remediable. A fast track procedure has been brought in to speed up the process[28].

Gwyn[29] explored the ‘Ombudsman vs. Ombudsmouse’ debate that criticises the ombudsman’s role due to the lack of public awareness of the ombudsman. The UK ombudsman has poor visibility compared to other European jurisdictions where the ombudsman will receive much media attention and exposure. Anna A made further criticisms that the Ombudsman system needs to improve customer service. This is however, being redressed e.g. via the ‘five-year plan’[30] that aims to investigate more complaints, increase quality and raise awareness. Statistics show that there has been a 17% increase in cases received in September 2016 compared to September 2015 indicating that more people are now aware of the Ombudsman. The 2007[31] report also reported a more robust and efficient approach to complaints handling. The ombudsman has developed a very strong customer service approach and her methodology has been referred to as the ‘Rolls Royce’ procedure[32] for its high level of professionalism.

Mark Elliot[33] argued the ombudsman system might not be needed as the judicial review system already exists. This undermines the role of the ombudsman which can often be more extensive than courts and tribunals as it is the only one out of these that can offer compensation to the complainant and offers free grievance redress without the need for legal representation. Another huge strength of the Ombudsman is its ability to be an independent and impartial body. The development of the PASC[34] has also improved the efficacy as it’s existence ensures compliance to the Ombudsman’s findings and also ensures the Ombudsman is functioning effectively.

Conclusively, although the Ombudsman may not be the largest or the most powerful mechanism of redress and accountability, it is able to carry out investigations thoroughly and exert pressure enough to bring both ‘redress and oversight’[35]. Making the Ombudsman a tool of accountability does not dilute its function but enhances it and allows it to fully develop it’s potential. There are many areas where reforms are needed but it is clear that this is being addressed. If anything, recent reports and articles have only emphasised the need to extend the Ombudsman’s remit to adopt a stronger fire-watching stance as this not only adds legitimacy and authority to its role but also improves the administrative system. The Ombudsman’s capabilities have evolved to allow it to challenge administrative wrongdoings by being a powerful tool of inquiry.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

JOURNALS

- R. Kirkham, B. Thompson and T. Buck, ‘Enforcing the Recommendations of the Ombudsman’ [2009] PL 510, 522.

- William B Gwyn, 'The British PCA: "Ombudsman Or Ombudsmouse' (1973) 35 The Journal of Politics

- T Buck, R Kirkham, B Thompson, ‘Time for a Legatt-Style Review of the Ombudsman System? (2011) PL 20-29

- Mark Elliot, ‘The Government versus the Ombudsman; What role of Judicial Review’ (2010) CLJ 1-40

- R Kirkham, B Thompson ‘When putting things right goes wrong: enforcing the recommendations of the Ombudsman’ (2008) PL 510-530

- A Abraham ‘The ombudsman and "paths to justice": a just alternative or just an alternative? (2008) PL 1-10.

- A Abraham ‘The future in international perspective: The Ombudsman as Agent of Rights, Justice and Democracy’ (2008) 61 Parliamentary Affairs 681.

BOOKS

- L. C Reif, The Ombudsman, Good Governance and the International Human Rights System (Konkinklijke Brill NV, 2004)

- C Harlow and R Rawlings, Law & Administration (3rd ed, Cambridge University Press 2009)

- M Seneviratne, Ombudsmen: Public Services And Administrative Justice (1st edn, Thomson Litho Ltd 2016).

- M Ryan and S Foster, Unlocking Constitutional And Administrative Law (3rd edn, Taylor & Francis Ltd 2007)

- P Giddings, Parliamentary Accountability: A Study Of Parliament And Executive Agencies (1st edn, Palgrave Macmillan 2014).

- P Leyland and G Anthony, Administrative Law (7th ed, Oxford University Press 2013)

CASES

- R v Local Commissioner for Administration, ex p Bradford Metropolitan City Council[1979] QB 287, Denning J.

- Ms W x Home Office’ PCA Annual Report (2015) pg 36

LEGISLATION

- Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATION

- Parliamentary Commissioner Bill (vol 734 cc51,18th Oct 1966)

- Anna Abraham, ‘Principles of Good Administration’ (The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman 2009)

- Parliamentary Commissoner for Administration, ‘The Barlow Clowes Affair’ (Her Majesty’s Stationary

...