7 Jørgen Steen Sørensen Parliamentary Ombudsman There are many words that may be used to describe the Ombudsman institution in 2016. One of the most important of those words is cooperation. Some may think of the Ombudsman institution as a somewhat unapproachable place. A place where contact with the outside world is conducted in a way that is rather stiff and aloof. Without the parties ever really seeing each other. This perception is utterly wrong. An Ombudsman institution without formal power is dependent on the understanding, acceptance and respect of the outside world. Therefore, cooperation is a key word. Cooperation with Parliament. With relevant organisations. With the media. And not least with the administrative authorities. The last thing an Ombudsman institution can do is to barricade itself in stand-offishness. It may sound strange to talk about ‘cooperation’ with the authorities. After all, the Ombudsman oversees the authorities. Surely this cannot be built on cooperation? It is true that there has to be a considerable degree of formalism when it comes to the individual cases. The theme of the case must be defined. The authorities must explain themselves. The Ombudsman must give his statement. The authorities must follow up. This is not solved through idle chatter. But the contact between the Ombudsman and the authorities reaches far beyond the individual cases. If an Ombudsman institution really wishes to influence the public administration, it must make itself available in a constructive way. Through seminars, conferences and informal discussions. The approx.