Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman
Yesterday, the Government issued an apology to the women affected by its failure to communicate State Pension age changes. This is a very significant announcement that thousands of women across the UK have waited many years to hear. For some it came too late and for many others it will fall very far short of their expectations.
Acknowledging mistakes
I listened to the announcement with great care. There is much to welcome, including the Government’s recognition that mistakes were made. My office independently and impartially investigates thousands of complaints each year from the NHS in England and Government departments and agencies across the UK. An acceptance that a mistake was made is one of the most important issues sought by complainants in almost all of the complaints that my office receives.
The commitment from the Secretary of State to make sure this never happens again was also welcome. Complainants often tell me that they want to make sure organisations take responsibility, learn lessons from failures and apply these so that others do not suffer the injustices that they have experienced.
In her statement, the Secretary of State committed to working with my office on an action plan to take forward work to improve how changes to pensions are communicated in future. We look forward to seeing the detail but the commitment is welcome and we are ready to work with the Government to support the change.
A disappointing decision
However, the Government’s decision not to accept in full the recommendations made by my office is disappointing. It is particularly disappointing that the Government has not accepted our findings that sending letters earlier than they did would have helped very many women. It will be hard for those women to hear, and I understand their frustration. As Robert Peston argues in his article, if this proven maladministration had been by a bank or private sector institution, regulators and courts would probably compel payment of compensation with minimal requirement to prove direct loss. My office is neither a court nor a regulator and we have no powers to compel the Government to act.
The Ombudsman's purpose
So what then is the purpose of the Parliamentary Ombudsman? I find myself often reaching for the explanation offered by Richard Crossman (the former Leader of the Commons) in 1966 during the debates about the Bill that gave my office its powers.
Firstly, I am a servant of Parliament. I act on behalf of and at the direction of MPs ‘to provide the back bench Member, once he knows how to use it aright, with a new and powerful weapon which, up till now, neither he individually nor we collectively as a House has ever possessed — the possibility of impartial investigation into alleged maladministration’.
In almost all cases, the organisations that we investigate accept our recommendations. They issue apologies when we say they must do so because we are acting on behalf of Parliament, in line with the powers bestowed on us by Parliament. In a constitutional democracy, Parliament and public accountability matter profoundly. Trust in our democratic institutions flows directly from them.
In this case, my office has fulfilled its duties to Parliament. We investigated in detail and found there to be maladministration. We passed our findings and recommendations to Parliament to decide how to hold the Government to account. To do more, such as compel the Government to act, lies beyond our responsibilities, our powers in law and our role in our democracy.
Serving and supporting Parliament
There is much that I would seek to change about our powers. One example is the requirement for individuals to submit complaints to my office via an MP. While noble in purpose, this ‘MP filter’ places an administrative burden on MPs and our research shows that it is a barrier to potential complainants. MPs should be empowered to work with the Ombudsman to hold the Government to account for failures. Their role is not to be a post-box for complaints, nor should they be required to have expertise in the complex world of government complaints processes.
However, I do not seek powers to compel the Government to act on our recommendations. It is – and should be – for Parliament to decide whether the Government has gone far enough to address the failings we have identified or whether it has adequately explained why it cannot. My office exists to serve and support Parliament and I stand behind the findings of our report.
