The Parliamentary Commissioner (Hansard, 8 October 1981)

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness Young)
No, my Lords. The Parliamentary Commissioner is there to help Members of the House of Commons discharge their responsiblities as the elected representatives of their constituents, and the 1967 Act accordingly provides for complaints to be made only through Members of the House of Commons.

Lord Winstanley
My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness for that informative reply, which sets out all the facts? May I ask her whether she agrees that it is high time that noble Lords in this House stopped reinforcing the widespread public view that there is but one House of Parliament? May I also ask her whether she is aware that many noble Lords and noble Baronesses are frequently involved in matters of injustice and maladministration which come within the scope of the Ombudsman? For them to have to seek out a Member of the other place in order to put the complaint is surely undesirable and ought to be unnecessary. Finally, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she agrees that it is timely today to remind the great British public that Parliament is now sitting, by virtue of the fact that this House is sitting whereas the other place is not?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, on the first and third point that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, has made I shall of course take every opportunity to remind members of the public of the work that the House of Lords is currently doing and continues to do throughout the year. I believe that to be important. On the specific point that he has raised, he will know that when the Bill was going through another place this matter was raised on an amendment and was defeated. When it has subsequently been looked at it has always been the view that the object of this is to enable a Member of Parliament to perform his duties more effectively, particularly where the operations of the Executive affect his constituents. I see no reason for altering that at this stage.

§ Lord Byers
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness this question: Since Members of this House have access to the Crown, just as Members of the House of Commons have access to the Crown, would it not be logical that matters involving Members of this House and any members of the public should be remitted to the Ombudsman?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I do not believe that this is quite the same parallel. It is very important to emphasise that, regarding the raising of questions by members of the public, they do not necessarily have to do this through their own Member of Parliament. They can go to any Member of Parliament if they believe they have a point which they wish to put forward.

§ Lord Kilmany
My Lords, arising out of a previous question, may I ask my noble friend whether she would agree that Members of your Lordships' House are just as capable of recognising cases which should be investigated by the Ombudsman? They are just as capable as Members of another place. Would it not be in the public interest that we should have equal facilities to do so?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I take the point of my noble friend; but, as I indicated in an earlier reply, this matter was raised during the passage of the Bill in 1967 and it was then turned down. I do not think that the particular reason that was given has been invalidated, because it rests on the basis of the Bill.

§ Lord Molloy
My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to bear in mind that, since the creation of the first Parliamentary Commissioner, when the rule that only Members of another place could make submissions to him and no one else was written in, two additional Parliamentary Commissioners have been appointed, one for the National Health Service and one for local government? Regarding the Parliamentary Commissioner for local government, an ordinary member of the public can write and complain or ask for help direct. Does it not seem that there is now a reasonable case to support the submission made by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I certainly note all that the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, said and I am very glad to feel that he thinks that this House has such a useful role to play.

§ Lord Byers
My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness would reconsider the reply that she gave to me, because it may unwittingly be misleading. Am I not right in thinking that the convention in another place is still as it was when I was there? A constituent should take up a matter with his or her own Member and not with any Member. That convention is a very important one. If it is not obeyed, a lot of difficulty occurs in another place.

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I am advised that the Act allows complaint to be made to any Member of the House of Commons and that, if an individual cannot persuade his own Member to take up his case or if the 198 individual does not want to ask for his own Member's help, he can approach any other Member of Parliament. I am sorry if there was any misunderstanding about my earlier answer.

§ Baroness Wootton of Abinger
My Lords, would the noble Baroness have in mind that a great number of persons make complaints through their Member of Parliament addressed to the Ombudsman and are dissatisfied? Members of this House frequently get a second round when the dissatisfied person comes back and asks: "Can you not do something about this?" Is it not right that we should be available even as some form of a court of appeal, so to speak, where a constituent does not feel he has been satisfactorily supported or his case satisfactorily put to the Ombudsman by his own Member of Parliament?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I take the point that the noble Baroness has made, which has been raised by other Members of your Lordships' House. I note the strength of the feeling on the subject. I can only reiterate that when this matter has been looked at on other occasions it has always been felt that the primary responsibility for defending the citizen against the Executive does rest with the Member of the House of Commons and the Government share these views.

§ Lord Wilson of Langside
My Lords, will the noble Baroness acknowledge that one of the reasons why the 1967 Act did not fulfil the expectations which many of us had of it was the undue restriction to complaints made through Members of the House of Commons? Would she not acknowledge that Lord Winstanley's suggestion would go far to correct this? In the second place, would a simple amendment to the 1967 Act not suffice?

§ Baroness Young
My Lords, I do not feel that I can usefully add anything to what I have already said. I will of course look carefully at all the points that have been raised. I feel that it would serve no purpose to reiterate the argument that I have already made to the House.