Ombudsmans Contribution to the Task of Ensuring that...

Ombudsmans Contribution to the Task of Ensuring that Government Decision-Making is Conducted in a Defensible Way The Parliamentary Commissioner for Adminstration (PCA) was set up under the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 as a result of the Crichel Down affair in 1954. It was thought that pre-existing judicial and parliamentary remedies did not provide adequate redress for members of the public who suffered as a result of maladministration in central government. No action was being taken towards defective administrative workings, either because it fell outside the jurisdiction of the courts or because MPs did not have sufficient powers to investigate it satisfactorily. The Ombudsman stands as†¦show more content†¦These include extradition and fugitive offenders, the investigation of crime by or on behalf of the Home Office, security of the States, action in matters relating to contractual or commercial activities, court proceedings and personnal matters of armed forces, teachers, the Civil Service or police. The government has always resisted the extension of the Ombudsman system into these areas. Furthermore, Schedule 2 does not include public corporations, tribunals, the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or, crucially, the police. A further important limitation, the system of making the complaint through a Member of Parliament, has been much criticised: it is thought that this ‘screening’ of complaints does not serve the best interests of complainant. This is where direct access to the ombudsman is denied and the MP is made to be the middleman. The involvement of MPs in the process may mean an inadequate working system since MPs do not possess the power to investigate in great detail as to scrutinise the matter at hand to its depths. Another problem that is seen within the role of PCA is also due to the lack of power to award remedy. However, the fact that the PCA operates informally and privately has been thought to enhance his powers of persuasion. A good example is that of the Ostler case (1977), where the Department of