Deputy W. O'Brien has 25 minutes remaining.
Private Members' Business: Ombudsman Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
When I reported progress last evening I was about to refer to the complaints of recipients of social welfare, and many others, with which public representatives were confronted in the past year, problems never before experienced in our history, occasioned by the postal strike and the many other problems caused internally and externally, which meant that recipients of social welfare in particular had a very rough time.
Bearing in mind all of those experiences of the past year this Bill affords us a tremendous opportunity to move towards the appointment of an ombudsman. Practically all other countries, with the exception of one or two in the EEC, have already made that appointment. I am sure that it was after many years of difficult experiences and unpleasant happenings that those governments were forced to make that decision. I am delighted that we are almost at the point of that appointment. Irrespective of whoever may claim credit for its introduction, it must be regarded as a much needed Bill. Such an appointment is necessary in the interests of the defence of individuals, at a time of growing bureaucracy with much paper work and generally the work of the Government being spread over many areas. Because of this phenomenon many individuals fear that their grievances will not be taken seriously and will be cast aside. There is no greater danger of a break-down in democracy than having people who, even without a grievance, feel they are being victimised. People who wish to have an objective examination of their case are so entitled; indeed it is their right more than their privilege. It is above all important that they have that right and that the ombudsman would be seen to be a man of independence, playing an independent role.
In addition to the many grievances that will be placed on the table of the ombudsman I am sure he will have many initial grievances of his own because no doubt, in investigating other grievances, he will discover many an injustice that has not come to light. In itself I believe that will form a major part of his functions and I sincerely hope he will not be hampered in that role in any way.
A special section of the office of ombudsman should be devoted entirely to dealing with the problems of women, particularly issues of marriage and those of children's rights, an area in which we fall down. As public representatives we are approached daily by heartbroken women complaining about their family life. Certainly that aspect should be included in the functions of the ombudsman because he would be in a better position to take decisions than even the courts or our public representatives. He could use his role to great advantage in that respect.
In other countries the investigatory powers of the ombudsman are very great, allowing him to compel the attendance of witnesses and the production of documents. The very fact that those powers obtain acts as a disincentive to people making deliberately wrong decisions. I am not for a moment suggesting that anybody in the civil service would do a deliberate disservice to an individual or in any way deny him his rights. But mistakes do happen, and happen very often. Very often civil servants are misinformed. I had experience of a particular individual who approached me having been cut off from his unemployment benefit for 3 months as a result of a letter sent to the Department to the effect that he was working and simultaneously drawing unemployment benefit. When that case was investigated—and it took a long time—it was ascertained that the letter in question had been written by a crank who had a personal grievance with the applicant. Very often a civil servant may not be prepared to come out and admit that such has happened, resulting in continuing injustices, upsetting not alone the individual concerned but his family because there may be no money coming into that household. These are the types of matters we should examine carefully.
When we talk about the appointment of an ombudsman, we must not think in terms of police officers, army officers, who can obtain justice in their own fields. The ombudsman will be more important to the under-privileged than any other sector of the community. For that reason, I am very happy to know that this Bill, or one of the two Bills, will be passed through this House. I understand the other Bill is at present in circulation. I welcome that; it is an incentive to people on this side of the House to introduce more Private Members' Bills.
Could the Chair intervene for a moment? Just in case there is any doubt whatever, there is one Bill only before the House. I am just putting everybody on notice at this stage.
I was only talking about the circulation of the second one.
——and we can only discuss what is before the House. The Chair has not seen any other Bill, nor could he allow any discussion on it.
Surely we can refer to it.
Can we discuss what the Minister referred to when he was speaking?
There is one Bill only before the House and we cannot refer to another. There is no other Bill before the House; it is the Deputies' own Bill that is before the House, and we cannot refer to another.
But Deputy Briscoe spent ten minutes last evening lauding the new Bill that would be introduced shortly, telling us the difference between the two of them, and hoping that we would be men enough to support it when we saw it.
When it appears in the House for discussion Deputies will be able to discuss it.
With respect, Sir, it has already been on the Order Paper for a month.
The Chair has not seen it. It is not before the House. Until the House decides that, we are dealing with the Second Stage and that is all.
If the Chair stops interrupting me I will speak.
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle does not wish to interrupt, but I would put everybody on notice because I do not want trouble later on with anybody. Deputy O'Brien, please, on the Bill before the House.
We cannot ignore the indecent haste with which the other Bill was introduced. The Opposition should never pass up an opportunity to introduce important legislation. Were it not for this Private Members' Bill we would probably never have heard about the second Bill for many years. It is important that we have achieved the speedy introduction of the second Bill. I pay tribute to the all-Party Committee who worked so hard on this report. It was a bit embarrassing for the people from the Government Party who were represented on that Committee that no progress was made to date. The indecent haste tonight is an indication of bitterness which I do not like.
Many of the reported grievances of constituents are not due to maladministration. The ombudsman has the choice as to whether or not he will proceed with a case. I hope that the small unimportant things will not make the ombudsman's role impossible although I am aware that he will have a full time staff to lighten his burden.
Will more legislation be introduced or will a provision be included in the next Bill to deal with people who wilfully obstruct this ombudsman in the course of his duty? Will the ombudsman be likened to a court and will the same type of penalties apply which apply to those who obstruct the court in the performance of its duty?
When this Bill was first spoken about I wished it to cover local authorities in general. I understand that health boards are not covered. Last Friday in my county we had the unique experience of a court of inquiry where a medical surgeon who was acting in a temporary capacity for 20 months in the Regional Hospital in Limerick was called before the Appointments Commission but was not successful in his application and another surgeon was appointed.
It is very unwise to deal with specific cases at this stage.
I am using this case to illustrate the importance of an obmudsman. I am not being critical of anybody.
I accept that, but the Deputy will agree that it is terribly unwise.
I am speaking about frustration. That man was frustrated because he had to leave his job. I do not suggest that the decisions of the Appointments Commission be cast aside—I pay tribute to that Commission who have acted in a responsible way at all times—nevertheless that man was left in a position when an inquiry was made and the end result of the inquiry was that the man was placed back in his job in a temporary capacity.
The Deputy should get away from a specific case. A specific case like that might eventually come before an ombudsman so it should not be mentioned.
Mr. O'Brien
It will be all right. I will move away from that.
There is plenty of room to debate the Bill without reference to specific cases.
I sincerely hope that the introduction of the second Bill will not deter Opposition Deputies from introducing Private Member's Bills. Were it not for the work of that Committee in bringing in this Private Members' Motion we would be far from the appointment of an ombudsman. I am glad for the people in the all-party committee who put a lot of work into this, that their work has come to fruition and tonight we are nearer to the appointment of an ombudsman.
The debate on this Bill so far has been rather interesting and very peculiar in many respects. There appears to be an idea on the Government side that there is something wrong with introducing a Private Members' Bill. It is provided in the rules of the House that such a Bill can be introduced. For a debate which is considered important, very often a Private Members Bill is the only way in which the matter can be brought before the House. The introduction of this Bill was very wise. As events have turned out, it appears to have had some of the desired effect.
There seem to be mixed feelings among the Members of Fianna Fáil as to whether or not we need an ombudsman. By way of interruption one prominent Fianna Fáil backbencher suggested that we were doing very well without an ombudsman and that an ombudsman was hardly required. A number of speakers on all sides of the House gave the impression that the appointment of an ombudsman would automatically ensure that the role of Deputies in making representations for constituents would cease. Nothing could be further from the truth. If an ombudsman is appointed I assume he will deal with important matters. I am as anxious as anybody to ensure that people get their entitlements without having to pull strings as they must at the moment. If it is only through the Members of Parliament or through the local councillor that a person can get his entitlement he should use that vehicle. If anybody believes that the appointment of an ombudsman will automatically cut out this type of work for Deputies so that all Members of the House would spend their time legislating, they are entirely wrong. I know of a Deputy who years ago was approached by a number of constituents to make representations to a certain Minister but he said that he was not a messenger but a legislator. There was nothing strange about the fact that he was not returned to the House. I make no apology for making perhaps 40 or 50 representations in writing and by telephone on behalf of constituents and I have done so for 25 years. I am sure everybody in the House who wants to remain here must do the same. We are easily contacted.
When we come to the question of what the ombudsman should do, I would hate to see a proposal coming before the House with the waving of flags and the blaring of trumpets, which would suggest, that an ombudsman would be appointed and yet the very Act of Parliament which established his office would preclude him from dealing with many things which need to be investigated. If a Government have the majority Fianna Fáil have, all they have to do is bring in a Bill, have it debated in both Houses and by weight of their majority pass a Bill which will exclude for good any reference to matters they do not want dealt with. All they have to do is to add a special section which says that the Minister may in writing at any time prevent any matter being discussed if it is politically embarrassing. That is the kind of thing I would be afraid of.
I do not want to see any whitewashed ombudsman coming in here. I do not want to see a Bill introduced which will given the impression that the wrongs done to the people will be redressed and then find the people are not getting anything. What is important to a Government is one thing but what is important to our citizens may be an entirely different matter.
This evening I had a phone call from a very irate lady. She made representations to me last week. A school bus took children from her area to the secondary school and the only child not being carried was her daughter aged 12. She wanted to know why this was so. It turned out to be a mistake. The child was not going to a convent but her name was on the list for the local technical school. Pending the difficulty being straightened out, a temporary ticket was issued to the child. This evening an inspector got on the bus and put the child off, not at her own home but a good bit down the road. That is not important to the Government but it is very important to the woman whose child was put off the bus and to the 12-year-old girl. This is the sort of small thing about which we make representations and in which apparently there will be no way an ombudsman can be involved.
The Government may feel it would be grand to have on the Statute Book, like every other country in the EEC except Luxembourg, legislation providing for an ombudsman. His appointment would mean that, if people had grievances, they could be redressed. However, from the approach to it by the Government so far, I believe nothing could be further from the truth. I believe an effort is being made to try to pull the wool over the eyes of the people and, in my view, it will not be of any use.
If there were an ombudsman, in time he could do a lot of good. But what exactly is he supposed to do? Where does he start? What provision will be made for staffing his office? How many of a staff will he have? It is a great distance from Donegal to Cork. How would he operate so that everybody would get a certain amount of justice and not only somebody living a couple of miles from the centre of Dublin?
Take a matter which will be completely excluded from any Bill coming before this House—and this question is causing endless trouble—that is, the state of houses, the conditions under which a man buys a house, estates on which houses are bought but which are not properly finished and which turn into slums in a very short time. Somebody wrote to the Irish Independent last week and complained about their house, which was built in 1970. In some peculiar way I was held responsible, although I had not been appointed as a Government Minister until 1973. Despite the fact that that information was incorrect, that kind of thing will have to be covered by an ombudsman. There is no point saying that that matter is difficult to deal with. Of course it is, but we must be prepared to deal with matters of this kind and to have some arrangements made to ensure that there will be an investigation into matters which are causing uneasiness.
Various speakers referred to social welfare. I do not know how far it is proposed to deal with social welfare matters in this Bill. Over the last six or seven months letters from the Department of Social Welfare said that the reason some poor old age pensioners have not got the books to which they were entitled some months ago was because of the postal strike. This is November 1979. Is there not an necessity to have this sort of thing investigated? There must be something seriously wrong here.
I have the greatest respect for civil servants because most of them do a tremendous job, particularly those in the Department of Social Welfare with whom I had many contacts over the years. I always found they were prepared to deal immediately with complaints, but they are not doing that now. There must be some reason for that. I believe it is because of intereference by somebody else. That is why I am very suspicious about the suggestion that a Minister might be able to write off any complaint simply by saying "This cannot be investigated because I say so".
When there is a shortage of money it is the easiest thing in the world for a Minister to slow down the paying out of money from Departments, such as the Department of Social Welfare, and save a tremendous amount, although this may cause untold misery to unfortunate people throughout the country. Hardly a day passes that I do not get at least a dozen complaints. I do not believe that the ombudsman, as we seem to be envisaging him here, would be in a position to take up these matters because they require instant attention. They must be dealt with now, not in three or four months' time. A person who does not get his social welfare benefit and has no other income would be dead from hunger in two or three months' time.
In my view these matters will continue to be dealt with by Members of this House and people like them, even if an ombudsman is appointed, unless specific arrangements are made whereby certain sections in the ombudsman's office can be set up specifically to deal with such complaints which at present are very numerous. The same applies to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs and the ESB. If a person comes to me and says he paid £300 to the ESB last summer for a connection to his new house and he still has not been connected, what will I say to him? The other day a person told me he paid £147 for a telephone connection and was told the phone would be connected as soon as the money was paid, but it still has not been installed. He was told there was a shortage of wire or a dispute in telecommunications last February or something like that, and that the job cannot be done.
If we are talking about an ombudsman we are talking about somebody who can investigate complaints which affect ordinary people. Listening to and studying this debate, I am of the opinion that many people here do not have the slightest intention, particularly those on the Government side, of allowing an investigation of that kind to be carried out. They want to see a job done and to give the appearance of having somebody to do the job, and then forget about it.
There was a lot of talk about youth employment. Parks, walks along rivers and so on were being dealt with under youth employment and a certain amount of money was made available. I found that after a certain amount of money was given to one section for employment and a certain amount for materials required, such as occurred at the sports ground in Navan, there was no money left with the result that employment could not continue. However, as far as the Government were concerned they had made available money for employment. Elsewhere one would find youths aged between 17 and 21 being employed for between £17 and £20 per week. Those youths were sent from AnCO to jobs where they were supposed to be learning a trade. AnCO paid £20 a week for them but in a lot of cases the employer did not give them anything on the basis that they were being paid by AnCO. Is there any hope of having such matters investigated by the type of ombudsman the Minister for Finance is considering appointing?
The Leas-Cheann Comhairle has already told us that the Bill which was introduced this evening could not be discussed. I accept the ruling, but it was most unfair of the Government to make that Bill available immediately before this evening's debate commenced. In other words, they were having it both ways. The Fine Gael Bill must be voted on because we have seen another example of Fianna Fáil treating the House with disrespect. The whole idea of an ombudsman is that a person should be appointed who would be able to do a job we have been all crying out for. It should be remembered that the last Government set up a Committee in 1975 to consider this matter. That committee worked very well. I read the comment of the Minister for Finance about whether or not there was a trick before the last election to try to rush the appointment of an ombudsman through. The Minister took long enough to consider this matter, almost two-and-a-half years. It is correct that the last Government did not introduce a Bill, but the bones of such a piece of legislation had been put together. I would prefer the earlier suggestion to that put forward by the Minister as being the ideal way of dealing with the question of an ombudsman. We should have an open debate on legislation of this type and, if a reasonable suggestion is put forward, it should be accepted, as happened on many occasions when I was on the Government side. The Government appear to be of the view that any amendment to their Bill will not be accepted. I gather from the Minister's comments last week that whether the Opposition like it or not Fianna Fáil will put through their type of Bill. The fountain of knowledge does not rest on the Government benches alone and the Minister was wrong to shoot down the Bill under discussion, saying that there was no merit in it. In preparing their own Bill the government should have taken into consideration the good points in the Bill under discussion. Instead they completely ignored them.
An ombudsman should be appointed for the purpose of carrying out investigations which affect our people. The person appointed should investigate specific complaints made by people here. There is no point in saying that this Bill is not acceptable to the Government and then introducing a Bill bereft of so many provisions that it would be impossible to have a full investigation into any complaint. I hope the Government will not continue with this attitude when they put their Bill before the House. If that happens the Bill will not help to redress the numerous wrongs which have occurred because of the failure of Fianna Fáil to do what they were supposed to do since returning to office. They made trouble enough with all their omissions, their failure to pay grants and loans and their misinterpretation of certain matters relating to this House. Two weeks ago the Minister for Agriculture gave me a reply to a Question which I accepted in good faith, but within one hour I got information to the effect that half of what I had been told by the Minister was entirely incorrect. The Minister was either misinformed or misunderstood the reply given to him. That cannot be dealt with here because it is under the Minister's wing but it could be dealt with by the Department of Agriculture. I am referring specifically to the payment of debts for services rendered. If somebody is preparing a Bill for the Government attempting to see to it that the Government are pleased by ensuring that everything they can be caught on is excluded then the discussion of such matters here is a waste of time.
I question the commitment of the Government to establish an independent fully operational ombudsman. My reasons go back a long time. The post of ombudsman has a long and honoured history in many parts of Europe and throughout the world. The name comes from the countries where the idea originated, Scandinavia, and this idea has been under discussion here for many years. During the term of office of the last Government a Member of the Fine Gael Party tabled a motion asking the House to approve the appointment of an ombudsman. After a debate that motion was accepted unanimously an all-party Committee was set up to discuss it. Some Members of that Committee are now senior members of the Government. That Committee presented a draft report in February, 1977, and it was published the following May, but two-and-a-half years later we are discussing legislation to appoint an ombudsman. If there was a commitment on the part of the Government to establish the post of ombudsman why was a Bill not introduced in the early days in the term of office of the Government?
I should say that the action taken by the Government only came to a head, as far as I am concerned, at a quarter or 20 minutes to seven this evening. I then received a copy of the Bill being circulated by the Government. This is the fourth day on which we have been debating the Fine Gael Bill to establish the appointment of an ombudsman. It is important that we look at the action as well as the inaction of the Government in this regard. If they were committed to the appointment of an ombudsman, why did they not accept the Fine Gael Bill and put down amendments to it on Committee Stage if they felt amendments were necessary? Is there some sacrosanct rule that no legislation can be put on the Statute Book except by the present Government? It seems clear that Standing Orders provide for the introduction of Private Members' Business and in that situation an explanation is due from the Government as to why, if they are committed to the appointment of an ombudsman in the context in which we see it they did not accept our Bill and amend it if necessary on Committee Stage? Their inaction for two and a half years is to me the first clear indication that they have no commitment to the establishment of such an office. Only now are they taking steps in response to the Private Members' Bill put down by Fine Gael.
There are other grounds. There was an all-party committee to which contributions were made by five representatives of Fianna Fáil three of whom are now members of this Government. That committee came to the conclusion that it was absolutely necessary that an ombudsman if appointed should have his or her independence emphasised and his acceptability across the widest spectrum of Irish society ensured by requiring the appointment to be made by the President and to have the support of two-thirds of the Dáil and the Seanad. Yet, in the Bill produced by the Government at the last minute—I am open to correction here, because I have had a very short time to go through it—I find that the appointment of the ombudsman is to be made on a simple majority. Am I correct? Is there some provision in the Bill that my necessarily hurried perusal caused me to overlook? The Minister, by his silence I assume, accepts that this is not so.
We cannot discuss the Government Bill.
I am actually referring to the all-party report and the provisions of section 3 of the Fine Gael Bill before the House which require that the ombudsman shall be appointed by the President on the nomination of each House of the Oireachtas by resolution passed by not less than two-thirds of the Members present and voting. That is the provision which an all-party committee of the House decided was necessary to ensure the independence of the person appointed and to ensure the widest possible acceptability of his appointment to all sections of our society. Are the Government accepting that provision or are they reneging on that report of the all-party committee to which they were a party? This is an absolutely fundamental point if there is to be any semblance of independence and if we were to discuss a Bill which did not include such a provision, one of the most fundamental aspects of the independence of an ombudsman would be lost. On that basis I am asking the Government to think again. I do not intend to go into the details of their Bill. The suggestion that the ombudsman should be appointed by a simple majority giving an absolute fiat to the Government of the day to appoint the ombudsman is completely contrary to the letter and spirit of the all-party report. Therefore, I suggest that is further ground for believing that the Government do not want to have a fully independent ombudsman.
Thirdly, one would expect that if an ombudsman were to be fully independent and effective he should have the widest possible powers. That would mean that all matters which would appear to be proper for investigation should be capable of being investigated by the ombudsman. Our Bill provides that the ombudsman would have power to investigate a very wide range of activities including Departments of State, local authorities, health boards and a very considerable range of State-sponsored bodies. This would seem to make sense to anybody interested in establishing an independent and effective ombudsman. If one were attempting to establish a person in such an office, wishing to ensure that the ombudsman did not have fully effective powers, the obvious thing to do would be to try to limit the powers. Again, it appears that the lack of commitment of the present administration to the appointment of an ombudsman is clearly indicated by the limitations imposed in its own Bill in this regard.
This situation, which does not apply to our Bill where we have provided for a very wide range of activities to be capable of investigation by the ombudsman, makes it clear to me and to any independent observer that what the Government are trying to do is to establish a paper ombudsman, a paper tiger. Why is this happening? Last week in the Dáil the Minister for Finance referred to a reservation of the all-party committee in regard to—and I quote—
certain decisions by Ministers where they were required or allowed to make value judgments should be subject to investigation, probing and censure only by the Houses of the Oireachtas themselves and should, therefore, be excluded from the ombudsman's remit.
That is an extract from the all-party report. It raises a point which should have been covered on Committee Stage by an amendment excluding the item mentioned in the all-party report. Certainly it would be in no way covered by giving power to a Minister to exclude any and every item merely by writing a letter to the ombudsman to that effect. That indicates that the Government wish to establish an office but to exclude from investigation by the ombudsman anything which they would find embarrassing. Such a person would be appointed without the full support of this House or at least appointed only by a weighted majority. He would be in the situation where anything could be excluded from his investigation merely on receipt by him of a letter from a Minister. How could such a person function as a fully independent and effective ombudsman? All of these matters make it clear that the Government do not want an ombudsman.
That raises the question as to why this should be so. Certainly on paper in the past and in public pronouncements the leaders of this administration, when in government and when in opposition, indicated their anxiety to have such an office. If we are faced with the situation whereby all matters can be excluded from investigation by an ombudsman merely on a request in writing from a Minister of the Government, I believe we might as well not establish the office at all.
Deputy Tully raised the point as to whether this Bill, put down by Deputy Richie Ryan of my party, will be coming to a vote. Surely it is quite obvious that it must come to a vote. Indeed even more so, any Member of the Government who genuinely believes in the establishment of an effective and independent ombudsman should vote for our Bill. I am not saying that the terminology in it is perfect. What I am saying is that the principles underlying the Bill are the ones which have been accepted by an all-party committee and are ones which I believe would answer the calls of those people here who really believe that we need such an ombudsman.
If the Members of the Government march into the lobby tonight and vote against our measure and then insult the electorate of this country by proceeding with a toothless Bill providing a paper ombudsman, then they will be attempting to play the ultimate joke on the electorate; but the last joke may be on themselves. It is quite clear that the provisions in the Government Bill to which I referred make the whole exercise a joke and it calls at this stage for a serious comment and a serious reply from the Government as to their intentions on this matter.
Do the Government believe that there is a need for a fully independent ombudsman here? Do they not accept that in this present century, because of the complexities of modern legislation which has to be implemented by human beings so that there is always the danger of human error and of maladministration—and that situation applies to virtually every democracy—the problem has been resolved by establishing an offence similar to the one which we now wish to establish here and which we propose to appoint? The name of the person varies from country to country but the general purpose remains the same. The situation therefore is that with the complexity of modern life it is accepted by every thinking person that there is a need for this office. But certainly there is a need for one which will be beyond reproach; there is a need for one that will have the full weight of public support behind it; there is a need for one that will be totally independent and fully effective. It is on that basis that we in Fine Gael presented this Bill to the House.
At this stage it appears that the reaction of the Government is that they will not accept it because it is initiated by a Member of the Opposition and that they are not prepared to accept the fundamental principle of the establishment of the office of ombudsman. As we see it on that basis they have circulated their own Bill, refusing to accept the one initiated by us. They circulated their own shortly before the conclusion of the debate tonight. It was obviously circulated and produced in such an unseemly rush that I see they did not even spell the word "initiate", correctly on the very front page.
We are facing a fundamental situation. We have had a lot of discussion over the four days during which this Bill has been debated on the role and functions of different persons and bodies to whom complaints can be made in regard to malpractice, maladministration, human error and mistakes made in the exercise of administrative justice. It is clear that, while a role can be played by the various institutions that have been referred to in regard to many areas which need to be covered, the courts, for instance, are not the answer to the problem. We have had a role for the courts and they fulfil a very basic function in our society, but there are difficulties in regard to expense and problems which often can be the subject of complaint are such that they are not capable of resolution through the courts system.
Reference has been made to the role of TDs and to Members of this House carrying out their functions as what are termed messenger boys. It is good for a Deputy to have a function of listening to the problems of his constituents and trying to help them as best he can. It keeps his feet on the ground and gives him a broad knowledge of the problems affecting particularly the weaker sections of his constituency. However, the actions of a Dáil Deputy in helping to resolve these problems are, of necessity, limited. These matters have all been considered in the past and were dealt with in great detail in the report of the all-party committee. The unanimous opinion of that committee was that the office of ombudsman, fully and freely independent, should be established. It referred to the existing main avenues of redress which I have touched on and to the possibility of appeals under legislation passed by this House. The committee decided to recommend that that system of appeals should not be extended, favouring instead the establishment of an ombudsman. The clear indications in that report were that such an office should be filled by somebody of very high calibre with a personality that would leave him open to deal with human problems rather than a cynical approach which one might expect from somebody who had only a lawyer's qualifications. Above all, such a person would be acceptable to the widest possible spectrum of the community and would have powers which could not be interfered with by anybody.
On that basis this Committee reported and that report has been gathering dust during the two-and-a-half years during which this unfortunate country has been ruled by the present administration. The suggestions made by the Minister for Finance and the Public Service of tremendous activity in the light of this report are false. He attempted to explain away the delays but it is quite clear that those explanations were purely sham. Therefore, we have before this House a Bill which almost totally carries out the recommendations of the all-party committee. We have proposed this Bill ourselves without any assistance from the civil service, parliamentary draftsmen and so on. It incorporates the principles required to establish a fully free and independent ombudsman. If the Government believe that such an office should be established, they should vote for our Bill. If they do not, they should vote it down and proceed with their toothless Bill to establish a paper ombudsman.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 37; Níl, 63.
Tá
- Barry, Myra.
- Barry, Peter.
- Barry, Richard.
- Belton, Luke.
- Bermingham, Joseph.
- Boland, John.
- Bruton, John.
- Burke, Liam.
- Cluskey, Frank.
- Conlon, John F.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cosgrave, Michael J.
- Crotty, Kieran.
- Deasy, Martin A.
- Desmond, Barry.
- Donegan, Patrick S.
- Donnellan, John F.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom. (Cavan—Monaghan).
- Griffin, Brendan.
- Harte, Patrick D.
- Hegarty, Paddy.
- Kelly, John.
- Kenny, Enda.
- L'Estrange, Gerry.
- Mannion, John M.
- Mitchell, Jim.
- O'Brien, William.
- O'Donnell, Tom.
- O'Keeffe, Jim.
- O'Toole, Paddy.
- Pattison, Séamus.
- Taylor, Frank.
- Timmins, Godfrey.
- Treacy, Seán.
- Tully, James.
- White, James.
Níl
- Ahern, Bertie.
- Ahern, Kit.
- Allen, Lorcan.
- Barrett, Sylvester.
- Brady, Gerard.
- Brady, Vincent.
- Briscoe, Ben.
- Browne, Seán.
- Callanan, John.
- Calleary, Seán.
- Cogan, Barry.
- Colley, George.
- Conaghan, Hugh.
- Connolly, Gerard.
- Cowen, Bernard.
- Daly, Brendan.
- de Valera, Síle.
- de Valera, Vivion.
- Doherty, Seán.
- Fahey, Jackie.
- Farrell, Joe.
- Faulkner, Pádraig.
- Filgate, Eddie.
- Fitzgerald, Gene.
- Fitzpatrick, Tom (Dublin South- Central).
- Fitzsimons, James N.
- Flynn, Pádraig.
- Fox, Christopher J.
- Gallagher, Dennis.
- Geoghegan-Quinn, Máire.
- Haughey, Charles J.
- Andrews, David.
- Andrews, Niall.
- Aylward, Liam.
- Herbert, Michael.
- Hussey, Thomas.
- Keegan, Seán.
- Kenneally, William.
- Killeen, Tim.
- Killilea, Mark.
- Lalor, Patrick J.
- Lawlor, Liam.
- Lemass, Eileen.
- Leonard, Jimmy.
- Leonard, Tom.
- Leyden, Terry.
- McCreevy, Charlie.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- Moore, Seán.
- Morley, P.J.
- Murphy, Ciarán P.
- Nolan, Tom.
- O'Donoghue, Martin.
- O'Hanlon, Rory.
- O'Leary, John.
- Reynolds, Albert.
- Smith, Michael.
- Tunney, Jim.
- Walsh, Joe.
- Walsh, Seán.
- Wilson, John P.
- Woods, Michael J.
- Wyse, Pearse.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies L'Estrange and B. Desmond; Níl, Deputies Woods and Briscoe.
Question declared lost.
May we take it that when the Government bring their Bill before the House, they will at least have corrected the spelling in it?
Surely the Deputy expected more than 37 votes for his Bill.
The Government cannot even get the spelling right.