Challenging the Authority of the Ombudsman: The Parliamentary Ombudsman's Special Report on Wartime Detainees
In the main the Parliamentary Ombudsman (PO)' occupies an eminent position within the British constitution2 and provides a highly effective form of alternative redress against acts of government maladministration. However, in order to maintain that status the PO is reliant upon the continuing cooperation and respect of government departments. It is therefore of some concern that within the space of eight months during 2005-06 the PO was twice forced to issue a special report in response to a government rejection of her findings, an unprecedented rate of government resistance. This article examines in some detail the first of those reports, M Debt of Honour': The ex gratia schemefor British groups interned by thejapanese during the Second World War (hereafter 'the Special Report'),3 and analyses the legal questions that arose during the course of the PO's investigation.4 The Special Report was laid before Parliament under section 10(3) of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 (PCA) and is noteworthy amongst ombudsman reports because in completing her investigation the PO had to address a number of legally uncertain features of an ombudsman's powers. Significantly, in relation to her functions, the PO chose to interpret widely the lines of inquiry that she is legally empowered to pursue and the standards of maladministration that she can apply. This approach brought her into conflict with the department responsible, the Ministry of Defence (MOD), which was concerned that the PO was trespassing into areas of authority which belonged to the courts alone. For the MOD, the PO should have shown much greater deference to the decision of the Court of Appeal on the same issue in Association ofBritish Civilian Internees: Far East