Ombudsman hearing

In your article Tribunals on Trial (see [2000] Gazette 6 July, 26), you quote me as saying that 'the [Pensions] Ombudsman's system does not provide an independent hearing in about 99% of cases'.

1 consider it important to clarify that this was a reference to oral hearings.

1 was certainly not seeking to suggest that cases before the Pensions Ombudsman do not receive independent consideration, albeit after written rather than oral submissions.A further interesting issue under the Human Rights Act is whether the Pensions Ombudsman constitutes an 'independent and impartial tribunal', certainly in cases involving the interests of the state, given that under section 145 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 he is removable at any time on written notice by the Secretary of State for Social Security.

The Secretary of State has stated that the Pensions Ombudsman's current appointment is to 31 August 2001, after which it will not be renewable.

In the meantime, the only grounds upon which he might be removed are misbehaviour, incapacity or insolvency, with the concurrence of the Lord Chief Justice following an investigation by a judge.Is this fixed-term appointment coupled with a voluntary restriction by the Secretary of State of his statutory power of removal sufficient to render the Pensions Ombudsman 'independent and impartial'? 1 would think so, but the issue is not beyond argument.

This episode illustrates just one small facet of the changes and uncertainties that the Human Rights Act is going to cause throughout the legal system.

Giles Orton, chairman of the litigation committee, the Association of Pension Lawyers, London