This article is written by Vidhish Muthanna C. A, of Symbiosis Law School, Pune
Abstract
This research paper critically appraises and analyzes the role of the Ombudsman in England, with a specific focus on the parliamentary commission. The Ombudsman serves as an independent and impartial body, entrusted with the responsibility of investigating complaints against public authorities and promoting fairness and transparency in governance. This paper examines the historical development of the Ombudsman institution, its legal framework, powers, and limitations. Furthermore, it explores the effectiveness of the parliamentary commission in ensuring accountability and enhancing the Ombudsman’s role. Through a comprehensive analysis, this research paper sheds light on the strengths, weaknesses, and potential areas for improvement within the Ombudsman system in England.
Keywords: Ombudsman, Independent, investigating, Public Authorities, Transparency, Accountability
Introduction
The ombudsman of England is a parliamentary post established in 1967 under the provisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Acts, giving powers to a new type of public official who will investigate complaints received on the malafide working of the administration department by government officials. While introducing the legislature, Cabinet Minister Richard Crossman expanded the term maladministration to include biased behaviors, neglect, delay and incompetence, arbitrariness, ineptitude, and perversity. But an issue arose after the introduction as some criticized it as an attack on the constitution by means of reducing the traditional role of Members of the Parliament, who are responsible for following up and perusing grievances made by people. Thus, to overcome this, a new scheme was launched requiring that all complaints be made to the Parliamentary Ombudsman through the MP’s channel, thereby creating an MP’s Filter system to scrutinize and effectively deal with complaints of maladministration.
The National Health Service Reorganization Act of 1973 was given life under the powers of the Office of Health Service Ombudsman following the pressure from the Parliamentary Commissioner Act, for an effective resolution to the grievances of the issue relating to maladministration. This was later modified by the Parliamentary and Health Service Commissioners Act 1987, the Health Service Commissioner Act 1993, and the Health Service Commissioner (Amendment) Act, 1996. This enabled the Act to broaden its scope for investigation by providing the Health Service Centers (HSC) to investigate all complaints regarding the National Health Service (NHS) care and treatments[1]. This, therefore, put the Ombudsman on the top of the list to deal with the unified NHS complaints. Therefore, the parliamentary ombudsman office investigates cases of government departments, agencies, and other public bodies where maladministration has been reported or complained. The Public Administration Select Committee monitors the working of the Parliamentary Health Services Ombudsman.
Legal Framework
The Ombudsman plays a crucial role in public accountability by investigating complaints against government bodies and public organizations. In England, the legal framework governing the Ombudsman is established primarily through the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, which outlines the powers, jurisdiction, and procedures for handling complaints. The cornerstone of the legal framework for the Ombudsman in England is the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967[2]. This legislation created the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, commonly called the Ombudsman. The Act sets out the Ombudsman’s mandate to investigate complaints of maladministration by government departments, local authorities, NHS bodies, and other public organizations.
The concept of maladministration is broadly defined, encompassing actions or omissions that result in injustice, hardship, or undue delay for individuals. It covers administrative faults such as bias, negligence, incompetence, and procedural irregularities. This expansive definition allows the Ombudsman to address various forms of misconduct and ensure fairness and transparency in public administration. Under the legal framework, accessibility is a key principle. Individuals who have exhausted internal complaints procedures and received a final decision or response can approach the Ombudsman. This accessibility ensures that those who have experienced maladministration have an independent avenue for redress. The Ombudsman’s investigation process is informal, independent, and aimed at resolving complaints efficiently. The Ombudsman can gather evidence, request information, and investigate alleged maladministration. Following the investigation, the Ombudsman can recommend remedial action, including financial compensation, procedural changes, and redress for the complainant.
To maintain transparency and accountability, the Ombudsman reports to Parliament and submits an annual report detailing activities, findings, and recommendations. These reports are made public, ensuring parliamentary oversight and facilitating discussions on improving public administration and the Ombudsman’s effectiveness. It is important to note that the Ombudsman system in England comprises various specialized offices, each with its own specific legal framework and jurisdiction[3]. Examples include the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman and the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman. These offices provide specialized oversight in different sectors, further strengthening public accountability. The legal framework for the Ombudsman in England, anchored in the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, safeguards public accountability by addressing complaints of maladministration. With its accessible, independent, and transparent approach, the Ombudsman system reinforces the principles of fairness, integrity, and effective governance in the public sector.
Powers of Ombudsman
Empowered by a robust legal framework, the Ombudsman possesses significant powers to investigate complaints, gather evidence, and recommend remedial action. The powers granted to the Parliamentary Ombudsman in England enable them to conduct thorough investigations into allegations of maladministration, ensuring fairness and justice in the functioning of public bodies. These powers are derived primarily from the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, with subsequent legislation expanding their scope. One of the key powers of the Ombudsman is the authority to investigate complaints. Individuals who have exhausted internal complaints procedures and received a final response or decision from the relevant organization can approach the Ombudsman for an independent review. This power ensures that citizens have recourse when they believe they have suffered due to maladministration.
To carry out investigations effectively, the Ombudsman possesses the power to request information and documents from government departments, local authorities, NHS bodies, and other public organizations. This authority allows them to gather the evidence to make informed judgments regarding the complaint. The Ombudsman’s access to information facilitates impartial decision-making and strengthens their ability to hold public bodies accountable. Moreover, the Ombudsman can summon witnesses and take statements under oath during investigations, enhancing their fact-finding capabilities. These powers enable the Ombudsman to delve deeper into complex cases and ensure that all relevant parties are heard. Once an investigation is complete, the Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations for remedial action. These recommendations may include calling for procedure changes, providing financial compensation to the aggrieved party, or seeking redress in other appropriate forms. While the Ombudsman’s recommendations are not legally binding, they carry significant weight due to their impartiality and expertise.
Additionally, the Ombudsman’s powers also extend to reporting their findings and recommendations to the Parliament. Through the publication of annual reports and engagement with Parliament, the Ombudsman contributes to public debates on administrative practices, advocating for improvements and reforms to enhance public services and governance. Therefore, we may say that the Parliamentary Ombudsman in England has extensive powers to investigate complaints, gather evidence, and recommend remedial action. These powers are crucial in upholding accountability, ensuring redress for individuals affected by maladministration, and fostering transparent and effective governance in the public sector.
Limitation of Ombudsman
While the Ombudsman in England serves as a vital institution for addressing grievances and upholding accountability, it is essential to acknowledge its inherent limitations. Despite its significant powers and impact, the Ombudsman system faces challenges related to jurisdiction, enforcement, resource constraints, and legal restrictions. This article explores the limitations of the Ombudsman in England, highlighting areas for improvement to enhance its effectiveness.
One key limitation of the Ombudsman in England lies in its jurisdiction. The Ombudsman’s powers are limited to investigating complaints against government bodies, local authorities, NHS bodies, and specific public organizations. This jurisdiction excludes private entities, the judiciary, and certain decision-making bodies. Consequently, individuals who have grievances against entities beyond the Ombudsman’s scope may face challenges in seeking redress.
Enforcement is another area of limitation. The Ombudsman’s recommendations are not legally binding, which means that public bodies have discretion in implementing suggested remedies. While the Ombudsman’s influence and reputation often compel compliance, lack of enforceability can undermine the effectiveness of recommendations, particularly when dealing with resistant entities.
Resource constraints pose another significant challenge. The Ombudsman’s workload can be substantial, resulting in delays and backlogs in addressing complaints. Limited resources, including staffing and funding, can impact the speed and thoroughness of investigations, potentially leaving complainants waiting for extended periods before their cases are resolved.
Moreover, the Ombudsman’s authority is constrained by legal restrictions. Certain areas of decision-making, such as matters of national security or policy, may be excluded from scrutiny due to legal constraints. This limitation prevents the Ombudsman from fully examining the actions and decisions of certain entities, potentially limiting accountability and transparency. Furthermore, public awareness of the Ombudsman’s role and accessibility can be limited. Some individuals may be unaware of the Ombudsman’s existence or the avenues available for lodging complaints. Lack of awareness can hinder the Ombudsman’s ability to reach a broader range of complainants and address a wider spectrum of grievances.
While the Ombudsman in England plays a crucial role in upholding accountability and addressing complaints, it faces limitations in terms of jurisdiction, enforcement, resource constraints, and legal restrictions. Overcoming these limitations would require ongoing efforts to expand the Ombudsman’s scope, strengthen enforcement mechanisms, allocate sufficient resources, address legal barriers, and raise public awareness. Such enhancements would contribute to a more effective and robust Ombudsman system in England.
Recommendations
In England, the Ombudsman system needs to be improved to enhance its effectiveness and public trust. By implementing comprehensive recommendations, the Ombudsman system can be transformed into a robust and responsive institution that addresses grievances, holds authorities accountable, and promotes fairness for all citizens.
- Independence and Accountability:
The independence and accountability of the system serve as its cornerstone. The selection procedure for the Ombudsman should be open, free from political interference, and include the necessary checks and balances in order to guarantee its objectivity. The Ombudsman ought to have the funds, power, and independence needed to carry out investigations well and make recommendations that are legally binding.
- Broadening Jurisdiction:
The fragmented nature of the Ombudsman system in England presents difficulties for people looking to redress across various sectors. The complaints procedure would be streamlined, and a unified Ombudsman’s office would guarantee uniform standards for investigation and resolution with expanded jurisdiction. Citizens would benefit from this consolidation because it would give them a single point of contact and would make it clearer which Ombudsman to contact.
- Empowering the Ombudsman:
Enhancing the Ombudsman’s authority is essential for ensuring compliance and putting recommendations into practice. This includes the power to compel witnesses, gain access to pertinent records, and impose sanctions or penalties on organizations that don’t comply. The Ombudsman’s credibility will be boosted by these powers, which will also encourage businesses to resolve complaints quickly and take corrective action.
- Enhancing Accessibility and Awareness:
The function of the Ombudsman and how to use its services have yet to be widely known among English citizens. Therefore, by conducting extensive public information campaigns about the Ombudsman system, its functions, and people’s rights should be started to address this. People will be more likely to voice their complaints if the complaints process is made easier to use and more straightforward, ultimately promoting a culture of accountability and transparency.
- Timeliness and Efficiency:
A successful Ombudsman system depends on its efficiency. Clear deadlines for handling complaints will guarantee that they are investigated quickly, minimizing delays and aggravation for complainants. The Ombudsman’s efficiency and effectiveness should be measured using performance metrics, and regular reports on the results and suggestions should be published. The public will be able to hold the Ombudsman responsible for their performance thanks to this transparency.
- Learning and Improvement:
A robust mechanism for monitoring and evaluating its decisions and recommendations must be in place to continually enhance the Ombudsman system. This includes reviewing the impact of findings, tracking implementation by relevant organizations, and incorporating feedback from complainants. By identifying areas for improvement, the Ombudsman can adapt its processes, address systemic issues, and ensure continuous learning and development.
- Collaboration and Coordination:
The Ombudsman’s office should foster closer collaboration with other regulatory bodies, consumer protection agencies, and professional standards bodies. This collaborative approach will facilitate the exchange of information, expertise, and best practices, ensuring a coordinated effort to resolve complaints and address systemic issues. Joint investigations and sharing of resources can lead to more effective outcomes and improved public services.
- Continuous Training and Professional Development:
For staff members of the Ombudsman, it is crucial to invest in continual training and professional development. As a result, they will be better prepared to handle complicated complaints, carry out impartial investigations, and settle conflicts successfully. Their talents will be improved, and a high level of service will be provided via training in topics like conflict resolution, mediation, and the particular industries the Ombudsman covers.
Conclusion:
The Ombudsman system in England is essential for promoting accountability, transparency, and justice in public services. By implementing the aforementioned recommendations, the Ombudsman system can undergo significant improvements, resulting in increased public trust, improved complaint resolution, and strengthened oversight. These changes will empower citizens, hold authorities accountable, and contribute to a fairer and more equitable society.
In conclusion, establishing a Parliamentary Commission dedicated to examining the Ombudsman system in England would provide a valuable opportunity to comprehensively evaluate its effectiveness, identify areas for improvement, and propose necessary reforms. Such a commission would bring together experts, stakeholders, and lawmakers to thoroughly review the Ombudsman system, considering public input and international best practices. By leveraging the insights and recommendations generated by the Parliamentary Commission, England can strengthen its Ombudsman system, ensuring greater accountability, transparency, and access to justice for all citizens. This collaborative and evidence-based approach will help shape a more robust and responsive Ombudsman system that effectively addresses grievances and upholds the principles of fairness and equity.
REFERENCES
Bradley, A. W. “The Role of the Ombudsman in Relation to the Protection of Citizens Rights.” Vol. 39, No. 2, The Cambridge Law Journal, pp. 304–32, (1980) http://www.jstor.org/stable/4506281
Najmul Abedin, “THE OMBUDSMAN INSTITUTION AND CONFLICT RESOLUTION IN THE CONTEMPORARY THIRD WORLD SOCIETIES,” vol. 23, no. 1 Journal of Third World Studies, pp. 219–33, (2006) retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/45198724.
N. Patterson, “The Ombudsman,” 1 U. BRIT. COLUM. L. Rev. 777 (1963)
Juliet Yates, “The Function of the Ombudsman in Local Government,” 4 AUCKLAND U. L. REV. 295 (1982)
R Masterman & Murray, “Constitutional and Administrative Law” (3rd ed.) Cambridge University Press, (2022) doi:10.1017/9781009158497
Stuhmcke, A, “The Ombudsman: Modern Administrative Law in Australia: Concepts and Context” Cambridge University Press (pp. 326-347) doi:10.1017/CBO9781107445734.018
Oswald, R. “The Health Service Ombudsman” Psychiatric Bulletin’, 18(11), 694-695. doi:10.1192/pb.18.11.694
Orfield, L. B “THE SCANDINAVIAN OMBUDSMAN” 19(1) Administrative Law Review, pp. 7–74, (1966) http://www.jstor.org/stable/40708529
Jain, M.P. “THE FIRST YEAR OF OMBUDSMAN IN ENGLAND” Vol.14, no. 2, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, pp. 159–186 (1972) http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950128
The Legal Ombudsman, Gov.UK, available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-legal-ombudsman
Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, available at: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
[1] Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, available at: https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/
[2] Jain, M.P. “THE FIRST YEAR OF OMBUDSMAN IN ENGLAND” Vol.14, no. 2, Journal of the Indian Law Institute, pp. 159–186 (1972) http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950128
[3] Bradley, A. W. “The Role of the Ombudsman in Relation to the Protection of Citizens Rights.” Vol. 39, No. 2, The Cambridge Law Journal, pp. 304–32, (1980) http://www.jstor.org/stable/4506281
0 Comments