PARLIAMENT AND DEMOCRACY - Inter-Parliamentary Union

An accessible parliament I 75
Nowadays such committees are usually reserved for the consideration of
petitions indicating a general problem and supported by a large number of
signatories. This is the case, for example, in Portugal, where ‘petitioners must
be heard whenever a petition has over 2000 subscriptions’. In many countries,
a more usual avenue for individual complaint today is through the office of an
Ombudsman or Public Protector, whether accessed initially through a member
of parliament or, more usually, directly by the complainant. Even in the latter
case, it remains the responsibility of parliament to provide and supervise the
framework by means of which the rights of the public can be protected.
Originating in Scandinavia, the position of Ombudsman or Public Protector
has emerged as a widely established avenue for individual complaint against
the actions of public authorities. While the remit of the office differs from
country to country, it typically investigates actions of public bodies which
involve an infringement of human rights, abuse of office or other maladministration.
After receiving a complaint from a member of the public, the
Ombudsman will be empowered to investigate it, and where appropriate to
seek redress for the complainant and/or a change in the institutional practice
that led to the complaint. Although decisions of the Ombudsman in most
countries are not binding, they have considerable authority; and it has been
argued to be an advantage that they avoid the adversarial approach of the
courts and allow for greater flexibility in the remedies and changes in administrative
procedure that can be recommended. Here are two brief accounts of
the establishment of an Ombudsman’s office, from Ireland and Argentina
respectively:
Ireland: Up to the 1960s, citizens seeking redress generally went to
Parliament (or the Petitions committee of Parliament) or to the Courts.
The complexities of the modern State, the domination of Parliament by
Government, the delays and expense involved in going to Court and the
growing alienation of citizens from all these institutions, led to the
emergence in the 1960s and 1970s of the latter day Ombudsman, a
variation of an office which had existed for many years previously
in Sweden and Finland. Denmark was first, followed by New Zealand
and Britain and Northern Ireland. The Irish model as set out in the
Ombudsman Act, 1980, was greatly influenced by these countries……While
the number of complaints each year is small relative
to the millions of individual decisions taken annually by our public service,
the activities of the Office, undoubtedly, have a cautionary effect
on public bodies and an influence on their decisions. (Kevin Murphy,
former Ombudsman).