OVERSIGHT

The position of Commonwealth Ombudsman’s office was established in 1977, with the ombudsman being appointed by parliament and charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens. Its services are free of charge.

The Austrian Ombuds Office (Volksanwaltschaft) is a monitoring instrument of the parliament. Although parliament elects the three directors (ombudsmen, or Volksanwälte) for six-year terms, the office is not directly part of the parliament. Each of the three parties in parliament with the largest representation has the right to nominate a director, but all three must be elected by parliament.
Since 1977, when the office was established, the parties in parliament have consistently nominated and elected prominent political figures, which has the advantage of producing directors who are familiar with the political process. The potential disadvantage is that there is perhaps not enough distance between the political elite on the one side and the office and its directors on the other.

In 1955, Denmark became the third country in the world, after Sweden and Finland, to introduce the institution of the ombudsman. The ombudsman is appointed by parliament, and the office is an independent institution. Citizens can complain to this office about decisions made by public authorities. The office, which has a staff of about 85, can also begin investigations on its own initiative and visit institutions. In 2006, there were 3,767 complaints, 245 own-initiative cases and 41 inspections of institutions. The institution produces an annual report.
Distinguished law professors have held the position of ombudsman. Criticisms from the ombudsman will normally lead to a change in practice or decisions. The ombudsman’s views have very high credibility and respect.

Parliament has an ombudsman office, consisting of one ombudsman and two assisting ombudsmen. Established in 1920, this office is the second oldest in the world. The office has a staff of more than 40 people. The officeholders are appointed by parliament, but the office is expected to perform its duties in a neutral manner and is independent of parliament. The office reports once a year on its activities to parliament. Citizens may complain to the office in regards to decisions by authorities, civil servants and others who perform public duties. The number of complaints decided on by the ombudsman has been increasing in recent years, the number of complaints being 4,373 in 2009 and 3,694 in 2008.

The office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman (Umboðsmaður Alþingis) was established in 1997. The office takes up cases both on its own initiative and at the request of citizens and companies. It is independent in its work, efficient and well regarded.

The ombudsman, at the head of an institution created in 2004, has become a well-accepted and respected mediator between citizens and state authorities. His responsibilities have recently been broadened by a new function, the inspection of detention centers (in the context of the United Nations’ Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (OPCAT) convention).
The number of complaints to the ombudsman has been stable (between 900 and 950) for the past three years, as has the rate of rulings in favor of complainants’ correction rate (about 80%). These high figures show both the efficiency and the necessity of this institution.

New Zealand was the fourth country in the world to establish an Office of the Ombudsmen (in 1962). The office is highly effective in terms of formally or informally resolving complaints. Organizational reform is under discussion because of an ever-increasing caseload. In addition, there is an even older tradition of dealing with petitions in Parliament.

Norway has a parliamentary ombudsman whose task is to investigate complaints from citizens concerning injustice, abuses or errors on the part of the central or local government administrations. The ombudsman is also tasked with ensuring that human rights are respected, and can undertake independent investigations. Every year, this office submits a report to parliament about its activities. In general, the ombudsman is active and trusted.

It is no exaggeration to say that Sweden invented the ombudsman (indeed “ombudsman” is a Swedish word meaning “an official speaking on your behalf”). Over time, the ombudsman system has grown considerably. Today there are ombudsmen offices for complaints related to the exercise of legal authority, gender equality, ethnic equality and equality owing to sexual preference.

The independent federal ombuds office was established in 1995. The goal of the office is to have direct contact with citizens and inform them of the administrative process if need be and collect complaints against the administration. Parliament elects members of the ombuds office, but after their election, ombudsmen are totally independent and autonomous from government. The office reports every year to parliament and the report is made public (6,429 complaints and information demands were addressed in 2009). However, the ombudsman’s role is only informative and deals with facilitation or advocacy; he or she has no coercive power.
Some difficulties occur when a complaint touches upon an issue which concerns both federal and federate authorities (regions and communities). The federate authorities have their own ombudsmen, so some overlaps occur.

Hungary has four separate ombuds offices, including the Parliamentary Commissioner for Civil Rights, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information, the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities and, since mid-2008, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Future Generations. All four commissioners are accountable exclusively to parliament. The requirement of two-thirds majorities has favored the selection of independent candidates.

The National Ombudsman of the Netherlands is a “high council of state on a par with the two houses of parliament, the Council of State and the Netherlands Court of Audit. Like the judiciary, the high councils of state are formally independent of the government. Another sign of the National Ombudsman’s independence from the executive is that he or she is appointed by the parliament’s Second Chamber. The Ombudsman’s appointment is for a term of six years, and reappointment is permitted.”

The institution of National Ombudsman is established in order to give individuals an opportunity to file complaints about the practices of the government before an independent and expert body. Where the government is concerned, it is important to note that the National Ombudsman’s decisions are not legally enforceable. The ombudsman publishes his or her conclusions in annual reports. The government is not obliged to act upon these reports, but – owing to the public nature of the office – the ombudsman acts as an efficient mechanism for parliamentary control of the government. The ombuds office has 140 full time personnel.

In 2008, 13,073 complaints were filed by citizens; in 2009 this number dropped to 12,222. Most complaints were filed in the domains of public finance, health affairs and social affairs. Eighty percent of the complaints were found to be rightfully filed. If deficiencies in government interventions are detected, the government agencies in question are informed by the ombuds office and adequate measures are taken to redress the citizens. Since 2008, measures have been taken to increase public awareness of the existence and mandate of the ombuds office. One such measure involves the director of the office participating in public debates. He has, for example, publicly expressed his views on the riots at Hoek van Holland beach in which the public turned against the police.

There is an independent ombuds office (Defender of Public Rights) which is accountable to parliament. It takes up complaints of administrative malpractice, comments on laws and reports to the Constitutional Court when appropriate. During 2009, it was approached with 7,321 complaints from the public, of which 53% were found to fall within its sphere of competence. In 461 cases, the ombuds office questioned the actions of the administration. Save for making its opinion public, however, the office has no powers. It has been given additional responsibilities under the new anti-discrimination law, which are to be fulfilled without an increase in resources, raising questions as to whether the government has been serious about the anti-discrimination agenda.

Mexico established an ombudsman’s office in a law passed in 1992. The office is generally respected, and the ombudsman can and sometimes does criticize government policy. It does not follow that the ombudsman can make policy. In 2007, the ombudsman publicly advised President Calderón not to use the army in counternarcotics activities. Calderón nevertheless sent the troops in, which provoked an ongoing discussion on the army’s domestic tasks.

The Polish ombuds office, the Commissioner for Citizens’ Rights, is an independent state organ, but is accountable exclusively to the Sejm. It has substantial investigative powers, including the right to view relevant files or to contact the prosecutor general. Because of its strong engagement for citizens’ rights ever since its creation in 1987, the ombuds office has traditionally enjoyed a high reputation. This reputation has suffered as a consequence of the controversial views on issues such as homosexuality and the death penalty held by the current commissioner, Janusz Kochanowski, who was elected in January 2006.

In addition to the Petitions and Complaints Office of the parliament, there is an independent ombudsman, the Public Defender of Rights, who is accountable exclusively to parliament. The Public Defender is elected by parliament for a term of five years and reports regularly to parliament. Pavel Kandráč, ombudsman since 2002, has enjoyed a good reputation and has been quite effective in settling issues. The mandate of the ombudsman has been more limited than that seen in some other European countries.

Article 54 of the Spanish constitution establishes the Office of the Ombudsman (Defensor del Pueblo) as a high commissioner’s office, whose holder is appointed by the legislature to respond to requests, and to protect and defend basic rights and public freedoms on behalf of all citizens. He or she is authorized to supervise the activities of the government and administration, expressly forbidding any arbitrariness. The ombudsman is elected by both houses of parliament for a five-year period (thus, not coinciding with the legislative term of four years) by a qualified majority of 3/5. The office is not subjected to any imperative mandate, does not receive instructions from any authority (including the parliament), and performs its functions autonomously. The officeholder enjoys immunity and inviolability during his or her time in the post. During the period under review, the ombudsman appeared several times in parliament.
The Ombudsman’s mandate covers all central government authorities, the autonomous regions (the Constitutional Court recently annulled an article of Catalonia’s 2006 statute of autonomy rejecting the capacity of the Spanish Ombudsman to monitor the Catalan autonomous government) as well as local governments. The Ombudsman is authorized to appeal before the Constitutional Court and may also initiate any habeas corpus proceeding. The ombuds office publishes annual reports for the parliament and “monographic reports” on particular themes, as well as recommendations regarding the public administration’s legal duties toward citizens. According to the last annual report, submitted to the parliament in October 2009, the Ombudsman handled nearly 25,000 complaint cases; most of them related to the functioning of the Spanish judiciary, the worrying growth of the prison population, some cases of alleged abuse by the police, the need for better protection of undocumented migrants, inefficiencies in education grants and scholarships, the bureaucratization of the health care system, the slow implementation of the Dependency Law, or errors detected in the levy of taxes.
The advocacy role of the Spanish Ombudsman is limited by several factors: (1) a lack of resources, (ii) inadequate collaboration on the part of some public administrative departments, and (iii) its incapacity to ensure that the administration complies with its recommendations.

The U.S. Congress or its members, who cultivate close linkages with local constituencies, effectively function as an ombuds office. A separate institutionalization is not necessary in the U.S. system. Members of Congress each have several staff members – some located in Washington, D.C., and some in the respective state or district – dealing full time with constituents’ requests for service. The total number of staffers is estimated to range from 10,000 to 12,000 individuals. A weakness of this arrangement is that it is somewhat informal and the coordination and management of staffers is left up to the individual congressional office. Government agencies do not suggest that clients encountering difficulties should contact their senator or representative for assistance, and the constituency service staff does not develop specialized expertise, except for the most common categories of request (e.g., social security payments, visas for relatives, and the like).

The standing parliamentary Petitions Committee is provided for by the Basic Law. As the “seismograph of sentiment” (annotation 2 Blickpunkt Bundestag 2010: 19; own translation), the committee deals with requests and complaints addressed to the Bundestag based on every person’s “right to address written requests or complaints to competent authorities and to the legislature” (Art. 17 of the Basic Law). It is able to make recommendations as to whether the Bundestag should take action on particular matters. Nonetheless, its importance as a citizens’ advocate and initiator of governmental action to address public concerns is negligible, and it operates primarily as a symbolic institution. However, the committee at least offers an operative contact point for citizens.
Two additional parliamentary ombudsmen are concerned with the special issues faced by patients and soldiers.

The Office of the Ombudsman investigates complaints about the administrative actions of government departments, the Health Service Executive and local authorities. Ireland largely follows the Scandinavian ombudsman model. This presents the ombudsman, who acts in the public interest as part of an overall system of checks and balances, as representing and protecting the people from any excess or unfairness on the part of government.
Controversy has recently arisen concerning a report from the ombudsman’s office. This related to a relatively minor issue known as the “Lost at Sea” case, and dealt with a judgment on the administration of a program compensating fishermen whose boats are lost at sea. The ombudsman’s report on the program was published in December 2009, after the recommendations it contained were rejected by a government department. This was only the second time in the 25-year history of the office that its recommendations had been rejected. Since that time, the ombudsman has been invited to appear before the relevant parliamentary committee to explain her views on the matter.
The fact that this sort of conflict has arisen so rarely, and attracted such publicity, is evidence that the office operates effectively. In addition to the main Office of the Ombudsman, there are separate ombudsmen for the police force, financial services, children, insurance, the army, the press, and for pensions. These offices are effective in listening to the concerns of citizens who must deal with government agencies.

The British Parliament has a Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which looks into complaints if “government departments, their agencies and some other public bodies in the UK – and the NHS in England – have not acted properly or fairly or have provided poor services.” Besides the parliamentary ombudsman (which also has offices in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh National Assembly and other government institutions), there are several other ombuds services in the UK, including Energywatch, the Financial Ombudsman Service, the Local Government Ombudsman, the UK Pensions Ombudsman and several others.
Several of these ombuds services, such as the Local Government Ombudsman, have been accused of bias and mere rubberstamping of the decisions of the institutions they are meant to oversee.

The federal government (unlike certain provinces such as Ontario) does not have an organization called an ombuds office, but it does have certain organizations that are functional equivalents. These include the Access to Information Office and the office responsible for the protection of whistleblowers. The advocacy role of these organizations is limited, however. Other mechanisms that more informally fulfill an ombuds role include departmental units responsible for investigating appeals to decisions related to social programs such as employment insurance and pensions, and the offices of members of Parliament, which act as champions for the interests of their constituents.

According to Article 16 of Japan’s constitution, each citizen has the right to peaceful petition. While there is no “ombuds office” as such, the two houses of parliament handle petitions received by them through their committees on audit and administrative oversight. However, a more important petition mechanism is found in the Administrative Evaluation Bureau of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications. This is Japan’s member of the Asian Ombudsman Association. The bureau runs an administrative counseling service that handles about 180,000 complaints per year. It has various offices throughout the country, and supports some 220 civil servants. In addition, about 5,000 volunteer administrative counselors serve as go-betweens.

Portugal has no parliamentary ombudsman. However, the Portuguese Ombudsman Office (Provedor de Justiça) is a part of the judicial system. This office serves as an advocate for citizens’ interests.

Parliament does not have a formal ombuds office. However, the parliament and its members listen informally (but not systematically) to concerns expressed by citizens and public advocacy groups, inviting them to parliamentary hearings.

Parliament has no ombudsman office, but members of parliament play an active role, as action by citizens has to be channeled though the mediation of MPs. Traditionally, the French parliament played a decisive role in mediating between individuals and the administration in cases of excessive delays, red tape or difficult cases. This role was very much related to MPs’ local involvement and allowed for an individualistic and particularistic relationship with the citizen-voter. Instead of parliament, government has an ombudsman (“Médiateur de la République”) who is left the cases that MPs are not able to solve.

The parliament does not have an ombuds office, but the Greek Ombudsman is an independent authority. The officeholder is selected by the government, but the candidate must obtain the approval of a body consisting of the president and the vice presidents of the parliament. The Ombudsman is also obliged to submit an annual report on its activities to the parliament.
The Ombudsman’s office has quickly established its reputation. The lack of a specific ombudsman’s office for parliament is not a prominent matter of debate, though it could help with accountability and alleged corruption.

Italy does not have a national ombuds office. Some functions are performed by regional ombudsman offices. Through questions and interviews, members of parliament to some extent perform an analogous advocate’s function with regard to issues and complaints raised by citizens

At the federal level, there is no ombuds office. Some cantonal administrative do have an ombuds office, however.

There is no ombuds office in the parliament, but a parliamentary petition committee reviews citizens’ petitions and refers them to the relevant authority, if applicable. Moreover, the Human Rights Investigation Commission has the capacity to receive, investigate and review complaints on issues of human rights. The Commission on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men is entitled to review complaints about the violation of gender equality, and refers them to the relevant authority if applicable.
In the period under review, the parliament’s Petition Committee and the Human Rights Committee continued to accept citizen complaints. The Human Rights Commission in particular turned out to be very active in urging the administration to look for and enact remedies.
In 2006, the parliament passed a law to establish an ombudsman office. The law was returned to parliament by the president, who later applied to the Constitutional Court for its abolishment. In April 2009, the court declared the law to be unconstitutional because the new institution would not fit into the existing constitutionally protected administrative structure, and would violate the principle of separation of powers. Approximately four years after the law’s initial passage, the establishment of an ombudsman office was included in the package of amendments to the constitution. This amendment was subject both to a new review by the Constitutional Court and a referendum held in September 2010.

The Korean parliament does not have an ombuds office. Under the Lee administration, the government’s ombuds office was merged with the civil rights and anticorruption agency into the Anticorruption and Civil Rights Commission of Korea. This commission is accountable to the president.