Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 22 May 1980

Vol. 321 No. 3

Ombudsman (No. 2) Bill, 1979: Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. F. O'Brien

When speaking the last day I mentioned the importance of this Bill, which has my wholehearted support and is long overdue. This is not a novel idea but one which has been adopted since the early part of this century in other countries and has made its way into most countries of the western world since then.

People may ask why an ombudsman is necessary. It is quite clear with the vast area of bureaucracy, the vast Government agencies and the large number of semi-State bodies, that it is important that people have recourse to agencies who can examine their case fully, who will have access to both sides of the coin as it were. We in this House can put down parliamentary question and write to Departments and take up cases in this way, but we cannot have access to what may be in the files and this always casts a doubt on whether we are meeting the case. Once there is a doubt in the mind of the public it behoves us to eradicate that doubt. I am certain that when the ombudsman is appointed initially we will get a number of complaints, possibly some of them frivolous, but when the matter settles down he will not have a very large volume of work. One of the effects will be that once he is appointed people in the various Departments, knowing they have somebody looking over their shoulder, will want to be a little more meticulous to ensure that what they are doing is done properly. That will cut down complaints, and that is important. I am not casting doubts on officials here. The officials we have are of a very high standard, but mistakes can be made which must be rectified and the ombudsman will have responsibility for that.

I want to come back to the area of local authorities and State bodies. It is important that they should come under the ombudsman from day one. The local authorities in themselves have a mechanism to which their members have tremendous access at local authority level and they can put down motions for consideration by their various committees and get at a lot of the problems there and solve them. That is not the case with the health boards. Large numbers of people are affected by the activities of the health boards and how they deal with problems. The health boards should be taken under the ombudsman straight away because to some degree they are isolated and in isolation they are not easy to get at and can stand on their dignity. I will be looking at this on Committee Stage to see what can be done to ensure that they will come into it very early.

With the growing numbers of semi-State bodies it is important that they are identified closely with the ombudsman. I mentioned on the last day that in the report it was intended that a two-thirds majority of both Houses would be required to remove a Member. The Constitution does not permit this and says that it must be by a simple majority. This is regrettable and is an example of where we require a constitutional change. The ombudsman must be seen to be above reproach and his should not be seen as a political appointment. Where a simple majority applies it can—I am not saying it would—be seen as being a political appointment vested in the Government of the day to make that appointment. I do not think that that is what is intended. We should consider what can be done to meet this wish of the all-party Committee who considered this matter and who were broadly in agreement with the whole aspect of this Bill. It will be a pity if their wishes cannot be met. We are all sincere in the view that this is a very important step we are taking, that it must start on the right note and that the man selected must be seen to be above reproach. The requirement of a two-thirds majority to remove him would give the feeling that there is impartiality here. That is why it is a little disturbing that we cannot meet what I suggest is a pretty simple requirement. I am not too happy about this.

The ombudsman will have a beneficial effect right across the board in the sense that his reports, which he will be laying before the House, will have the effect of streamlining Departments and of eradicating a lot of the problems that can for one reason or another become built into Departments and systems, and because they have been there for a long time and tradition has gone with them, they have not been removed. If, through the department of the ombudsman and his office, they are seen as an irritation and a cause of a large number of complaints, then he will make the recommendations and his recommendations should be accepted by the Departments. The ombudsman is a guardian of the rights of John Citizen, an administrator of justice. Given all that and the sense of impartiality, the ordinary man, the small man as we call him, can have his grievances aired. People of wealth and position can by their very position use influence and power and be seen to use them in order to gain privilege. It may be what they are entitled to, but because of their position and wealth they can and do exercise certain influences, whereas the ordinary citizen is depending on the day-to-day operation and hoping that a letter to his Department or a visit to his public representative can solve his problem. That is a haphazard situation, not fair or seen to be fair. A citizen will now be able to write to or call and state his case at the office of the ombudsman and will feel happier that his case is being processed to the full. Grievances, however small, are often magnified in the mind of the individual concerned, and unless they are cleared up properly probably cause feelings of discontent. I have no doubt that the new system will eliminate this.

The ombudsman is there to protect the interests of citizens and ensure that when a serious problem arises the citizen has a platform to ventilate his case and seek justice. I do not anticipate any hornets' nest being unearthed as a result of the appointment of an ombudsman. That is not what it is intended to do. Basically, it is intended to give freer access to the public to a right to be heard, which is important. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and the only way that can be done is by giving people this facility.

The public are being more and more involved in public administration whether income tax, social welfare or physical planning, and more tensions and frustrations can build up for the ordinary man in the street as a result. If these emotions build up without the safeguard and protection of an ombudsman you tend to get a breakdown in respect for administration. That would be a pity. That is another reason why it is important that the office of ombudsman should operate as soon as possible. The selection of the first office holder for this appointment is very important. He will tend to set the pattern thereafter. He will have to be a person of humanity and warmth, accustomed to dealing with people, a person of broad common sense, a commodity sadly lacking in the present day world: it does not seem to abound any more.

The application of common sense solves many problems. I hope we shall have this type of person appointed rather than a person able to administer laws and justice as we see this done in other areas. We are not talking about a court but about people's human problems and frustrations. That is why it is important that we set the right tone in selecting a person for this job. I look forward to seeing who it will be, because once a pattern is set and standards established these tend to be followed in the future.

We have had sufficient time to think about the matter. In 1975 this suggestion appeared in a Private Members Motion. It is now May 1980 and five years have elapsed since the proposal first came to the House. We have all had time to reflect on what we want and expect. Basically, I expect that we shall have simplicity and accessibility and that the office will not be developed as in other areas, that it will be as informal as possible, easy for people to deal with. People should feel that it is there for them and exists as their office for their complaints. If we look at it like that we shall be establishing the right tone and attitude at the very beginning.

As a member of the All-Party Com-mittee one thing that came across quite clearly was that all Members desired to see this institution operating effectively in a very humane and easy way. That is what we want to see. If it begins like that it will set a very high standard, and I would hope that this human approach would percolate through all Departments, because in many Departments and public service agencies there is a lack of the human touch, possibly because of the rush and bustle of business: rules and regulations are of paramount importance and the public of lesser importance. That is disheartening but it is a reality. We must try to humanise administration and establish a humane basis of operating. The important aspect of this new office, in my opinion, is that it should operate in this way. If it does that it will do away with many of the niggardly problems, doubts, suspicions and distrusts of many people.

I am glad people will have direct access to the ombudsman. In the United Kingdom the public must approach the politicians. I would be totally opposed to that system because the whole idea of an ombudsman is that he be independent, not answerable to the Government. No doubt public representatives will also have access to the ombudsman but the important thing is that the public will deal directly with him.

This is an important Bill, but we have to include local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies from the beginning. If we are serious about the office of ombudsman we must start the right way. I realise it would only require orders to bring in these various bodies, but the tone and the pattern set from the beginning is very important. If these bodies are included now, the pattern will be right from the beginning. Are we afraid there will be too many complaints? Have we looked at the type of complaints? Where do these problems manifest themselves most? Have we come up with an answer? It is important to find out where the discontent lies. Are the problems in the area of Government? Are they in the area of local authorities, health boards or State-sponsored bodies? If we examine these questions we will find that Government bodies will not be on their own.

As members of local authorities we know how far we have to go to get things done. In the various committees we can put down motions and have them voted on. The same applies to State-sponsored bodies. Because of their terms of reference they are very far removed from the general public and from this House. If a Deputy puts down a question about a semi-State body it is excluded. The only time we can discuss those bodies is when we are debating the Estimates, and those debates are limited. We are not given the time we require. It is incumbent on the Minister to include these bodies now. If we do that we will be starting off the right way.

I support the appointment of an ombudsman. If changes are needed we can make them by order. Reports will be laid before the House and recommendations from the ombudsman requesting additional help or powers or extending his terms of reference will be forthcoming. These recommendations should be examined and acceded to where necessary. The ombudsman will be a person on whom we can depend and will make recommendations. Over a few years I believe this will develop into an office which will have a very effective part to play in public administration. The ombudsman will ensure that people are treated fairly, are seen to be treated fairly, and that their grievances will be fairly dealt with. This will make the various Departments and semi-State bodies aware of the fact that there is a place where people can go to have their cases examined. This will have the effect of streamlining administration and will have a very beneficial effect.

I welcome the Bill.

Mr. B. Desmond

On behalf of the Labour Party I welcome this long overdue Bill. There have been numerous questions in the Dáil over the years asking successive Governments to introduce the office of ombudsman. A number of Governments, three at least, have given consideration to the introduction of this measure. During the period of the last Government there was a special Dáil Committee established to consider the matter and to report to the House. My preoccupation, therefore, this morning is that we should speedily enact this Bill whatever defects there may be in it at this stage. There are a number of reservations about aspects of the Bill but, after six years of debate the best course is to put the Bill through the Houses of the Oireachtas before the summer Recess so that some financial provision can be made in the current year's Estimates so that an appointment can be made before the end of the year. I would also hope that the name of the new ombudsman would be before the House when we reassemble in October.

On that basis I welcome the Bill on behalf of the Labour Party. It is important that we proceed now to enact the Bill and make the appointment, because otherwise the impetus surrounding this question will be lost and that would be unfortunate.

The Minister should ensure that reports received from the ombudsman are periodically reviewed by the House. It is essential that after a period of about three years there should be a full scale review in the Dáil on the operations of the Act itself. As we go along we may well have to amend it. I, as a member of a local authority, and quite a number of my colleagues who have experience of State-sponsored bodies and health boards may have a number of amendments to suggest. But the most sensible course at this stage is to put it through the House immediately. I join with Deputy Fergus O'Brien in welcoming the Bill, such as it is. It has had a long gestation period. It has been the source of some internal party political controversy between the parties over the years and successive Ministers for Finance have crossed swords on it. In this sense it has had a reasonable airing, and those of us who have a particular interest in this subject are well aware of the experience in other countries but there is no need to trot them out again in this House.

It is essential that we make the appointment now so that the ombudsman can get down to work because it is amazing how slow the bureaucratic Bills are. If a man is appointed in October it will probably be the middle of 1981 before he gets an office and the end of 1981 before he gets any staff and it will probably be 1982 before he is in a position to deal with any complaints.

Mr. Briscoe

If he is any good he will be able to get around all that.

Mr. B. Desmond

I welcome the Bill despite whatever reservations we would have at this stage, and they are fairly substantial. But nevertheless we would wish to see it enacted as quickly as possible and will give it our support at this point.

Mr. Briscoe

I would also like to welcome this Bill. It is reasonable to say that whilst the all-party committee sat on this in 1976 to have a completed Bill before us now ready to be enacted, it is not such a long delay as legislation goes. Experience has been generally that once one gets set to enact certain types of legislation, particularly new legislation, there may be delays. I would stress here that in this Bill we are not attempting to introduce a carbon copy of any other Bill in any country. This is our own collective wisdom, but it is not only taken from the collective wisdom of all the other ombudsman legislation in other countries, it is also from our own experience here.

I hope that the Minister, in concluding, will give the House some indication as to when he hopes the ombudsman will be appointed. It would be a great advantage to have an idea, and certainly no public official will enjoy more of the good wishes of this House than this new man. I hope that he will be a man more noted for his common sense than for his great learning. This is an office that will call for a man with not only common sense but a feeling for people and their problems, a compassionate person but, at the same time, a man who will be ruled by his head. Although I have nothing very much against people who sometimes allow their hearts to rule, in such an appointment as this I know that could not be. I would rather have a man noted for his common sense, a man who is well known, if possible, to the public or certainly to large numbers of the public for the successful manner in which he has operated and, I do not think one rules out that a woman might be appointed to this office; it might be an ombudswoman.

Having said that I would hope that once this Bill has been enacted the Minister for the Public Service will see that such bodies as the National Social Services Council are informed so that they can, in turn, inform the community information offices with which they have direct links throughout the country. This is an appointment where it will be very important that the community at large have an opportunity of being informed accurately about what the purpose of this office is. I would hope that maybe the Minister would consider having a Press conference with the appropriate correspondents from the news media, so that he will be able to literally give them a briefing as to the functions to be performed by the ombudsman.

I do not see my work as a public representative being lessened at all by the appointment of this man nor do I personally look to him to ease my load as a public representative. The person appointed will be recognised by civil servants as having a right to inquire into everything connected with the civil service. Doors cannot be closed to him and he will be in a position to check on all decisions. He must be able to satisfy himself whether those decisions were wrong and unfair or whether they were correct and fair.

One of the reasons for the delay in introducing this Bill was the fact that the Government invited representations from the public. The Minister pointed out that the committee's recommendations in principle had been accepted, but that committee did not suggest, as was adopted by the Government, that the views of the public be sought. That was done through advertisements in the newspapers in 1978. I would be interested in hearing the response of the public to those advertisements.

The Minister has made a great effort to ensure that the provisions of the Bill work. During the course of a debate on the appointment of an ombudsman last November, Deputy Fergus O'Brien suggested that the functions of the person appointed be extended to cover local authorities and health boards. Perhaps it will be possible, after the ombudsman has acquainted himself with the situation in the civil service, to extend his duties to cover local authorities and health boards. The task of the person appointed will be vast enough without extending it outside the civil service. Taking the entire civil service under his jurisdiction is an ambitious task. We must ensure that the terms of the Bill are workable and avoid having to introduce amending legislation.

The provision whereby the ombudsman can be removed from his position by a simple majority of the House takes care of any likely political jobbery. A new Government might decide to sack the ombudsman because they view him as a creature of a former administration but, nevertheless, his removal must be debated in the House. We must accept that the majority the Government enjoy today is not usual under our system of proportional representation; it probably will not be seen again in our lifetime. I believe a simple majority vote is sufficient to keep all Governments honest in this direction.

The importance of the new appointment is that it imposes certain restraints and constraints on public officials. We have a high standard of officials in the civil service but there are exceptions. It is important that they are made aware of the fact that there is a person with the authority to inquire into their behaviour or inefficiency if Seán Citizen feels the great big bureaucratic machine is rolling over him like a steamroller. I have often described my role as a public representative as that of a buffer between the people and the bureaucrats. The ombudsman will have such a role to play. Although he will be a bureaucrat he will also be independent of the bureaucratic system.

I am glad that the terms of reference of the ombudsman will be such that he can proceed to the heart of a problem without getting caught up in long legal disputes which could drag on for years. He will not, as the Minister stated, get bogged down in the morass of conflicting statutes. It is important that the person appointed understands the law. Sometimes I am dubious about too many lawyers being appointed to such positions because I have always had a feeling that lawyers can only see things in black and white with no grey areas. While it is important that the person appointed has a knowledge of the law I do not believe it is necessary that he should be a lawyer although I accept there are many lawyers who possess a great deal of common sense.

This represents a big step forward. We are all concerned to see this office succeed and to see constraints exercised over certain types of civil servants who act in an arbitrary manner. In some cases such officials got away with things in the past and although their immediate superior may have reprimanded them the public were never given the impression that justice was done.

It is important that the ombudsman should get through problems quickly because the old saying that justice delayed is justice denied can be quite true. He should be able to get to the kernel of the problem straight away. In the case of people who come to me, as a public representative, who feel they did not get a fair hearing, fairly quick decisions are reached on writing to the Department concerned. Sometimes people do not put all the facts on the table when they are talking to a public official and sometimes they may be dealing with a public official who is impatient with them and does not listen to the problem being related.

It is important that he should be seen as an independent and easily reached mediator. Accessability to the ombudsman is of paramount importance. I welcome the fact, as did Deputy O'Brien, that unlike Britain where complaints can only be made through the ombudsman people here can go directly to him. The Minister might tell us whether the Bill in any way excludes a public representative from going to the ombudsman on behalf of a constituent where the constituent requests him to do so. Will we have the same accessibility as a public representative as we would as a private citizen?

I look forward to the time when this office will be extended to take in local authorities, health boards and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. I appreciate, as the Minister said, that this is only a temporary exclusion. We must accept that we must start off modestly with the amount of work this man will have to undertake. Initially he will have a lot of frivolous complaints brought to him. The public should be educated not to make frivolous objections or bring frivolous cases to him. Information could be given through the National Social Services Council which is subject to the Department of Health. I often wish it could be taken under the wing of the Minister for the Public Service or the Minister for Social Welfare. It is an extremely useful medium for informing the public and I hope the Minister's officials will take note of that suggestion.

It is important that people know that any problem brought to the ombudsman is treated as confidential and that there is no fear it will be bandied about all over the place. People should not feel they will be victimised if they go back to a Department with another problem. When people bring complaints about unjust treatment or wrong decisions they do so because they believe it is wrong and should be put right.

I compliment the Minister on the manner in which he gave his Second Stage speech. It is most informative and extremely helpful. A lot of what he has said should be put into booklet form. It is clear and easy to understand and I intend to keep it as a book of reference. Information leaflets incorporating much of what has been said should be issued. The ombudsman should be seen as an accessible and informal investigator to the man and woman in the street. That is very important. The fact that the Minister sees this as complementing our work in the Dáil is important. That would make me hopeful that we will have access to him if we are asked by our constituents to go to him on their behalf. If this is not to be, we should be able to tell them clearly how to make their approach to him.

I welcome the Bill and hope it will have a speedy passage. I hope the problems of the ombudsman will be very few and that he will have the happy and helpful co-operation of all concerned.

Mr. Deasy

I welcome the Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service to the House and congratulate him on his appointment. In his office so far I found him to be extremely courteous and helpful.

This Bill has great significance for Members of the House, public representatives generally and for the public. I am dismayed at the lack of interest expressed in it by Members of the House. I thought they would be queuing up to speak on such a matter which will be of major assistance not just for the public but for public representatives and nobody more than Dáil Deputies.

As things stand I identify three functions Deputies perform. Firstly, as a legislator; secondly, as an ombudsman and thirdly as a sort of roving ambassador between constituents and the various Government Departments. Despite what the more uncharitable members of the public may think Deputies are vastly overworked. Any mechanism which will help them unload some of that work is to be welcomed, especially where that work is superfluous. An ombudsman is the ideal person to help us out in our duties, to enable us perform our primary function of legislators. Without exception we all find that our abilities and best intentions are greatly hindered by the wide area to be covered under the three headings I have mentioned. If that work area can be reduced in any manner without damage to the public interest then we should be one hundred per cent behind it. That is what this Bill sets out to do, to help those members of the public who may have grievances. It will also help Deputies, who should be primarily legislators, per-form their task more efficiently because of the extra time that would be placed at their disposal.

Of course if we could be given the additional secretarial assistance we need in this House to perform the third part of our role, that of a constituency representative, the link between the constituent and the public Department, then we could do far better still. I understand there are moves afoot within the House to provide that type of secretarial help which is very much to be welcomed. Around the country I see junior staff officers, whether they be in public Departments, health boards or local authorities with what would appear to be unlimited secretarial assistance at their disposal. On the other hand a Deputy, who is supposed to be primarily a legislator, must spend perhaps a half or a third of his total working week writing letters in long hand and making telephone calls, many of which involve very menial tasks and which should not absorb our time to that extent. Of course we have an involvement in that area; that is our bread and butter. But it is time we got our priorities right. I am contending that at present they are all upside down. I should like to see the day arrive when Members of this House would be able to spend the greatest proportion of their time on legislation and a very minor part on the rather menial tasks which at present occupy the bulk of our time. I am not trying to detract from the fact that contact between the ordinary member of the public and a Dáil Deputy is the first essential—of course it is—but that should not lead to a Deputy being completely tied down and unable to perform his primary duty as a legislator.

Those of us who have the privilege of serving on various committees of this House find that we cannot do justice to the very spirit of the committee, whether it be an EEC Committee, State-sponsored bodies or any other.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is hardly all that relevant to this Bill but I have allowed the Deputy to make his point.

Mr. Deasy

Fair dues, the Chair has allowed me sufficient latitude to say what I wanted.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am as interested in it as is the Deputy but nevertheless it is not wonderfully relevant.

Mr. Deasy

I will endeavour to leave it at that and be relevant on the Bill. I ask myself in regard to this Bill: will the public actually believe that this is true? The Irish public are very peculiar people. I think it would take an awful lot of publicity and a good deal of time to make them realise than an ombudsman is to be appointed to act in their interest. The Irish public have become accustomed and conditioned to believing that patronage and fair play are the prerogative of politicians and political parties and that they could not possibly hope to get such from an independent individual such as an ombudsman. That message will take some getting across. Just as I find it astonishing that so few people are involved in this debate here, I find it difficult to be convinced that the public will believe that such will happen. I think they will be very sceptical, that it will take considerable time for them to really comprehend the fact that this man, this office, will be acting in their interests. I think they will be extremely slow to go along with it and appreciate it.

The standard practice in this country has been that people go to their local TD, their politician, their political party, their link man on the ground at grassroots, whether he be a local cumann or branch secretary or whoever. In their eyes he is their ombudsman. He is the man who will get something done for them or, if they feel they are being wronged, he will iron out their grievance. It will take quite a public relations job to persuade them that that can be done by any other means. I am all for the other means; it is long overdue. It is about time we had an independent, fair-minded method of dealing with genuine complaints on the part of the public. The day of jumping the queue, of jobs for the boys, the day of being given favour because of one's political allegiance hopefully will come to an end.

I hope the ombudsman will be sufficiently strong, sufficiently independent, so that he cannot be removed from office in a simple manner if he does not meet the whims of politicians, whether at local or national level. I hope he will be, and will be seen to be, a truly independent person. I hope he will be given sufficient staff to deal with the problems coming before him. I hope he will have the gumption to carry on and take the right decision when a problem arises and is not influenced by politicians at any level. I hope that independence and fairmindedness will be in evidence, which would give a new dimension to public life. At present the public are very cynical about their chances of getting a fair deal. Therefore it is essential that this move should not fail. It is absolutely vital that this office of ombudsman be seen to work extremely efficiently.

One of the few reservations I have about the Bill is that it is not being exten-ded immediately to local authorities and health boards, to what are described in the Bill as non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. I find it difficult to define what is meant by non-commercial State-sponsored bodies and I should like the Minister to clarify this when replying. However, I regret that the provisions of the Bill are not being extended immediately to include local authorities and health boards because the bulk of grievances felt by the public arise in those areas. The Minister made it quite clear in his speech that the provisions of the Bill would be extended to such bodies by ministerial order at a later stage. I should like to see it introduced as soon as possible.

I am sure this Bill will be a success and that the ombudsman will carry out his functions and will be appreciated by the public in time. Therefore, it is all the more important that this should be extended to every possible area in which the office could be relevant. There are areas dealing with the Garda and the courts in which the ombudsman will not be involved directly, and that is as it should be. I do not wish to argue on that point. It should be extended to every relevant area where the public have grievances.

Those of us who are public representatives know there seems to be a formula in Government Departments and local authority groups for not giving information on matters of public interest. They are very reticent. There seems to be a rule: "If we do not tell them they cannot find out and, if they cannot find out, that makes our work load easier". I abhor that policy. I really object to it. When the ombudsman is examining public grievances he should try to eliminate that attitude on the part of public officials. Of course, most public officials are quite helpful and do their best to help you with problems. Far too many senior officials try to keep you in the dark for as long as possible because, if they explain your entitlement and how you go about getting it, that creates problems for them. They need to be taken by the scruff of the neck and shaken. People have to drag out of them their entitlements. Their local TD or councillor probably has to do it for them. There should be a more open form of Government. That expression is in the Minister's speech and that is exactly what we want.

How many people are not getting benefits to which they are entitled because they do not know their entitlements? I would estimate that the number of benefits which are not given for that simple but disgraceful reason must run into thousands and perhaps tens of thousands. The day has come when we should have an open form of Government. People should not have to apply for something to which they are entitled. It should be granted automatically. If the ombudsman reads through this debate in the Dáil, I sincerely hope he will take that point.

There are people who thought that because they had a few pounds in the bank or some very meagre means they were not entitled to a pension. It may be ten years later when they discover that they have missed out and have not been getting their fair entitlement. That should not arise. When the person qualifies he should be granted a pension immediately. The same rule is applicable in regard to children's allowances or any other form of social welfare benefit. The system should not be there to injure the public. It should be there to assist them.

In many instances the fact that you do not apply in time reduces your entitlement. Your entitlement is judged from the day on which you made application although you may have qualified months or years previously. I strongly advocate that that unfair system should be abolished as quickly as possible. I know this would lead to an increase in administrative work and to the employment of extra people within the Department. People's ages should be tabulated and they should be given their entitlement on the date they qualify. There is a vast area in which people are not getting their just rewards. It is time that that type of closed Government, as it could be called, ceased.

The ombudsman will be inundated with false and useless grievances from cranks and it will probably take quite some time for the genuine cases to be sifted from the ones which are not genuine. All public representatives know a great deal of their time is wasted by people who are trying to work an angle, who know in their hearts and souls that they are not entitled to something but insist that they should get it. They can be a great nuisance. Unfortunately, this will impede the ombudsman in his task because he will have to spend a good deal of time finding out which grievances are not genuine.

Could the Minister give us any idea about the staffing of the ombudsman's office? What will be the set up? How extensive a back-up group will he have? That is where the new office will either succeed or flounder. If he is given the proper back-up service he will do a brilliant job, but if not he will be frustrated in the extreme. How often have we seen it happen in the public service that genuine people who mean well, have ability and want to do well, are frustrated because they have not got the facilities they could realistically expect to have?

If the facilities and manpower are not provided, the influence and effectiveness of the ombudsman will be diluted. If decisions cannot be taken relatively quickly, much of the effect of this man's office will be lost. We find when we make representations that we get an initial acknowledgement within a matter of days, or a week and then we have to wait six or nine months for the eventual result. That type of performance will not suffice. It is essential that quick decisions be given. In many cases the grievances will have lost their relevance and the wrong will have sunk so deeply that the actual solution, if it is in favour of the offended party, will not have much effect.

It is nice to know the ombudsman will have access to Government files. This is were politicians and Deputies in particular are very frustrated. We come into the Dáil as the last resort to try and elicit information on certain matters and we come up against a stone wall. If the Minister is not in good form or does not feel like divulging the information, he gives you a straighforward answer and then tells you to put down another question if you want to get the rest of the information. That is frustrating in the extreme. Parliamentary Questions are the last resort of Deputies at the moment if they are to do their job properly for the ordinary people who elected them. We have been putting down more Parliamentary Questions in this Dáil than in any previous one, so much so that we are getting complaints from our fellow party members about the volume.

I hope the appointment of the ombudsman will help to ease this situation, that we can pass on the numerous grievances that are clogging up Parliamentary time in this House at Question Time. In recent times you, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle, and the Ceann Comhairle have had to refer to questions which Deputies have tried to bring before the House in an effort to remedy grievances and problems of their constituents in relation to such things as delays in social welfare payments, delays in new house grants and delays in telephone connections. Many of these should never have to come before the House and in that respect I agree that the ombudsman to be appointed under this Bill could be a major help. The fact that he will have access to Government files will mean that not alone will he be able to answer some of the questions that at the moment we have to put down but the supplementaries as well.

I suppose there is fear and discontent running through the civil servants in various Departments at the thought of this man moving in and finding out about the things they have been trying to conceal from the public for years. At least the ombudsman will get the public off the Minister's back but he will catch out dishonest, lazy, deceitful civil servants, if there are such.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Deputies should not make charges against civil servants.

Mr. Deasy

I am not making charges. We have lazy, deceitful, dishonest politicians as well.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

You will have to make the charge against the political heads of the Departments who are responsible for their Departments.

Mr. Deasy

I think you understand what I mean. Above all else, as the Minister said in his opening statement, the ombudsman will act as a guardian of individual rights and ensure necessary reforms in the public service. Because the Bill is providing for such an office it is welcomed by all of us—I do not see how anybody could object to it. The ombudsman can do useful service for every sector of the community and, as I have said, he can help to ease the pressure of work on the House. If the Bill improves administrative justice I give it my full support.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. Moore)

Briefly I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister for the Public Service for his work in preparing a rather difficult piece of legislation. We must first of all examine why it became necessary to establish such an office, but we should play it on a low key because we must not build up public hopes that the ombudsman will be able to heal all their ills, solve all their problems. In this Bill we are not appointing a god, not the Holy Ghost, not a man named Solomon, but an ordinary human being who will be working within our scheme of government.

Deputy Deasy rightly pointed out that we are legislators. Since I entered public life I would love to have spent many more hours debating legislation in the House, but as politicians we are closely engaged with our people. We must spend more time engaged in community work than in legislative tasks. Perhaps inadequately, we are being paid primarily to do the work of legislators, and if the office of the ombudsman relieves us of some of our parliamentary duties it will be to the benefit of the Oireachtas generally and the Bill will therefore be all the more welcome.

In many areas, even in Ireland, democracy is under threat, and there is a danger in relation to this Bill that the ombudsman will come to be seen as part of the establishment, and therefore suspect. Accordingly, in our speeches on the Bill here and elsewhere we must point out that we will not find a wizard, man or woman, to fill this post. What we are doing is extending the public service so as to be able more effectively to try to ease the problems of our people vis-à-vis the State.

Sometimes in public life there are dishonest people who promise much to the people who elected them but who cannot deliver on those promises. The people find such people out eventually and disillusionment sets in. In this context I would emphasise that the person who will be appointed to this job will be given the necessary facilities to do a good job, but it must be appreciated that he will be human, not a superman.

I am glad of the welcome and the attitude of the House on this measure. Now it remains for us to design the structure of this office so that the ombudsman will be able to give the best possible service. I hope we will be able to review the work of the office in each two- or three-year period. We must ensure that the ombudsman will not become another vehicle in the establishment. It will not serve any useful purpose if that happens. The Irish politician is probably the most accessible of public representatives in any country in the world and I have boasted of this when I was abroad. Foreigners have commented that Irish politicians are hard-working people with a genuine concern for those whom they represent. Because of that the ombudsman will have to offer an even greater service than that given by public representatives. It is a tribute to Irish politics that we have such a high standard among public representatives. Deputy Deasy referred to the lack of facilities in this House for Deputies to perform their duties efficiently. It is a tribute to them that they do their work so well despite the lack of facilities and I include members of all parties. It is good to know that the Government are providing better facilities for Deputies.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister must be aware that, like the comment of Deputy Deasy, that matter does not arise on the Bill. If we get into a debate on facilities for Members of this House goodness knows where it will end.

Mr. Moore

I accept what the Chair has said. I am trying to make the point that the ombudsman will not be perfect. The world has not yet found the perfect system and I doubt if it ever will do so. I am afraid that the hopes of people may be raised too much by the appointment of the ombudsman and in our enthusiasm to improve the social service I am afraid we will put him in an ivory tower. People may become disillusioned when they realise he is not a god, that he does not have all the answers and that he must act under certain constraints that will be placed on him. One part of his job should be to show people how to help themselves. To rely on the ombudsman to solve all problems would be very dangerous.

The system operating in Britain provides that a person must channel his complaint through the local MP. Our system will be different; I think it will be better but I am afraid that hopes may be dashed when people realise that the ombudsman cannot solve all problems. Throughout the ages people have sought some person or office to solve their problems. In the time of St. Paul they had a system whereby people with a grievance spoke in an open forum at Corinth. Man has always searched for some system to help him.

The great wealth of political life in Ireland is due to the fact that most of our time is spent on community work. In one way it is to be regretted that we do not spend more time in this House legislating for the common good. Frequently there is public criticism of the fact that debates in this Chamber are attended by only a few Deputies but critics forget that Deputies are working in their offices or are among the people doing essential social work. Whether we are trained for that is another matter but I suppose that with experience one trains oneself. One's political fortunes will depend on how successful one is at community level. A person may make wonderful speeches in this House on legislation but if he neglects community work he will not last long.

The ombudsman will fill the gap that many think exists at the moment. In my view every Dáil Deputy is a kind of om-budsman in his own area. At times he is almost a father confessor. Deputies have clinics where their constituents come to see them and tell them their problems. The ombudsman will do this on a greater scale with the benefit of a large staff. He should not be regarded as a buffer against bloody-minded bureaucrats. Those words are used contemptuously on many occasions but in my experience in public life I have seldom come across bloody-minded bureaucrats. The vast majority of officials have a deep concern for members of the public and are interested in working for the common good. I have never come across a heartless public official who had little sympathy for people with problems and I am sure the ombudsman will have a sympathetic approach in this matter.

The only thing I am afraid of is that we will put too much faith in the person appointed as ombudsman. A famous Irish leader who fell foul of the people is supposed to have said that the next time they appointed a leader they should appoint a man, not a god. We are not going to appoint a deity who will reside in an ivory tower. The ombudsman will be an extension of the service provided by the State and he will have constraints put on him because of our system of government.

There are many ways of solving these problems. I do not regard the ombudsman as a rival to any Deputy. I hope he will be able to do better than us, although I doubt if he will overall. As our lives become more complex we are inclined to leave things more and more to the State and this is a dangerous development. Our biggest problem will be to educate the people on how to use the ombudsman to solve their problems. However the ombudsman will not have tremendous resources of wisdom and knowledge and people should appreciate that we had only one Solomon. We will appoint this civil servant and afford him certain facilities but we cannot give him sufficient wisdom to solve every problem that will come before him. I would ask people not to expect too much too soon or else they will be disappointed and disappointment here will only breed a new degree of cynicism.

I hope that each year on the Estimate we can review the appointment of the ombudsman and get the reaction of people to the work he has done. After a year I hope this will be shown to be a worthwhile appointment. This Bill will be adopted unanimously and I feel the Minister has made a very good job in presenting a difficult Bill. I congratulate him and wish the ombudsman every success.

I do not know what type of person will be appointed but I am sure people expect someone who will do a great job to ease our problems. Despite our affluence our problems seem to have increased. That is obvious when one considers the domestic problems and the problems everywhere else. I look to the ombudsman to do a good job but I do not expect him to revolutionise matters in social reform. This is a very necessary appointment but the people must play their part in making it a success.

Miss M. Barry

The concept of ombudsman is a very good concept and after five years we are glad to have a Bill of this nature before the House even though there are some things with which I do not fully agree in the Bill. In most western European democracies, the exceptions being Ireland and Luxembourg, the ombudsman system has been operating. Where countries are ruled by democracies something is needed to override politicians. People are becoming cynical about democracy, although it is the best form of Government we know of. We cannot afford to place our democratic system in danger and that is why I appeal to the Minister not only to pass this Bill but to strengthen it. Its great weakness is in section 5 (3), lines 33 to 36 where it says:

Where a Minister of the Government so requests in writing ... the Ombudsman shall not investigate, or shall cease to investigate, an action specified in the request.

That simply makes the ombudsman a puppet of the Minister. It returns the power to the Minister.

What we are looking for here is complete justice and fair play. Even though I am only in Dáil Éireann a short time I can see that many people are not getting their entitlements and that an ombudsman would be of great benefit to them. The ombudsman should not be based solely in Dublin but there should be regional offices in places like Fermoy, Bandon, Kinsale and Skibbereen where people are not aware of their entitlements. The office of ombudsman should be well staffed to cater for all these people. At the moment social welfare recipients are suffering daily because they cannot receive their entitlements. Old age pensioners have been waiting for six months for their pensions and people cannot put bread and butter on the table because they are not getting their disability benefits. Widows are crying out for payments and young people are waiting a year-and-a-half for the £1,000 grant while they are paying interest to the bank. Many farmers are also waiting for £7,000, £8,000 and £10,000 for farm modernisation. The Government have all this money locked up in their purse for the last year although it rightly belongs to the farmers and not to the Government. If it was the other way round it would not be long before the farmers were requested to pay up. That is the way the whole system operates. Various Government Departments are holding on to money which rightly belongs to the people and this is unjust. The ombudsman would be able to deal with these problems because, as the Minister said in his speech, the ombudsman will be easily accessible. That is very important because at the moment, as every public representative knows, one can ring the Department of Social Welfare all day long and it is constantly engaged. Public representatives waste a lot of time on work that could be done by the ombudsman.

This society is based on the development of the individual and I agree that one individual is as important as another. It is right that if an individual has a complaint he should be able to have it solved. The ombudsman system caters for individuals and not just for a group.

The role of TDs is twofold; they must legislate and be of assistance to the people they represent. Many people think that the role of the TD should be just to legislate. But let is be honest about it, that is not true today. If TDs were not prepared to help their constituents in whatever way they could, they would not get elected to this House in the next general election. The appointment of the ombudsman would give Deputies a chance to spend more time researching Bills and would give them an opportunity to have a greater interest in the Bills passing through the House. This morning is indicative of the type of interest in Bills passing through here. Yesterday evening two Deputies settled down for the afternoon and that also indicates the type of interest shown in the running of the Dáil. As a schoolchild I remember coming here on school tours and looking down from the Gallery on the same situation with two or three people present in the Chamber and when I read Dáil reports in the paper that evening I often wondered if it was the same place I had visited. It always appeared that nothing happened here. Fifteen years later the situation looks the same. The appointment of an ombudsman could be the first step in creating a better Dáil Éireann for the people.

I appeal to the Minister to reconsider section 5 (3) lines 33 to 36, of the Bill. The choice of staff and the regionalisation of the offices are very important, and if these are given that importance I welcome this Bill.

Mrs. Lemass

I very much welcome this Bill as the first little ray of sunshine to come into this House for a long time to help the legislators by relieving them of some of the vast load of work which they must carry out each week. I am delighted to be able to say a few words on this Bill. I find it very difficult to get time to come to this House and read through papers and hear what is going on. I should like to spend a lot more of my time as a public representative sitting in this chamber listening to debates. As Deputy Barry said, it is extremely dif-ficult to find the time to attend. When the general public come into the gallery or read in the newspapers that there were only two Deputies in the House, they think that the others are walking up and down the corridors, enjoying themselves, or sitting in the dining-room drinking coffee, whereas in actual fact their full time is taken up with work which it is hoped that the Ombudsman will help to do. He will not be able to do all of it and the various public representatives will still get a great deal of work from the public.

Because of the affluent society in which we now live and the increase in size and volume of work of the different departments over the last decade, the public sometimes do not know where to turn. When they have a problem, they do not know who to contact or phone, or what Department to approach. The public representative is the nearest, and that is where they go at the moment. No matter how large the department of the Ombudsman is, it cannot reach every point of the country. The public representatives will still have people coming to them for a solution to their problems. To make the office of Ombudsman 100 per cent efficient there would need to be somebody representing it in every small town and village in Ireland, to listen to people and try to solve their problems. I do not think that is possible, however. Nobody could set up an organisation which is completely efficient in that respect.

I am extremely glad that this position of ombudsman is being created, and hope it will be a very effective one, with a large staff. I would not like this job, if it were the last one on earth. The man or woman who fills this position will have to be chosen extremely carefully. To deal with the public in these matters he or she would have to be very considerate, and of a certain temperment to cope with such a situation, able to put people's minds at rest and assure them that their problems will be dealt with adequately and efficiently. Somebody must be found with all those qualities, who is efficient and able to get things done quickly.

Obviously the headquarters will have to be in Dublin. I hope that, when people go to these offices throughout the country or to the headquarters, they will find them pleasant places. At the moment, people with problems must go to certain Departments and wait in long queues in very bad offices with no privacy, which is totally wrong. People with personal problems, or requests, or situations which they want to discuss in order to find out more information, should not have too long to wait, sitting or standing in a queue. They must be properly treated and listened to. I hope this new office will be able to deal with all these matters.

I should imagine that a public representative could bring a persons problem to the ombudsman. We shall still be asked to deal with a lot of problems by our constituents, and I should like to be able to discuss these with the ombudsman for his or her adjudication. The introduction of this office will give the public representative a chance to do a little more legislative work than is possible at the moment. I said in this House, when I had been a member for only a year, how unhappy I was at not being able to spend more time on doing basically, what I was elected to do. At least three-quarters of my time is taken up in trying to cope with peoples' problems and find a solution. In this day and age we have so many matters of concern to people in respect of the Department of Social Welfare—so many grants pensions and different amounts of money. People are not getting their allowances on a regular basis, I am sorry to say, which is a great problem and one which I hope will be solved fairly soon. I imagine that this delay has something to do with computers, of which I have an absolute horror. Since we came into the computer age, we are in three times as big a mess as we ever were. Perhaps it is the human element and that people are not giving the computer the right information. Certainly, the computer is not doing a proper job at the moment. I hope this new Department will have a little humanity about it, that it will be the human factor which is dealing with people who have problems and not some vast computer giving out the wrong information, perhaps for a second time.

Because of the amount of different grants and pensions, people need some liaison between themselves and the various Departments. They may not be sure if they are getting the correct amount, because this might vary a little from one week to the next. They have no way of finding out or checking, which worries some of them. They come to a public representative and say that all they want to know is whether they are getting their fair due and justice. When they get this information they are happy.

I hope the work in this new office will be efficiently, humanely and properly carried out. I wish the ombudsman luck. He or she would need to be a very calm individual, capable of coping quietly and efficiently with the job. I hope the public will be properly informed on how to reach this office or this person, and the proper channels to go through. I hope that will be advertised fully and got across to people so that they will not have to worry or be in any hassle about it. They will be able to come along to a quiet, peaceful office for an efficient, good service and somebody to deal with them who will be considerate and helpful.

Mr. Keating

While being extremely supportive of the concept of introducing and creating the position of ombudsman of the State, one that is long overdue, I must express grave reservations about this Bill. There is a real danger that the ombudsman who is to be appointed in the context of this Bill may well become little more than a puppet of the Government of the day. That would be tragic if it happened because we must meet the gradual and growing pressure which our increasingly enlightened society applies in pursuit of setting up such an office.

The terms of the Bill allow only an extremely limited freedom to the ombudsman, and the ombudsman operates only with the goodwill and at the behest of the Government and particularly the Minister of the day. His powers and the regulations which would govern his actions are so circumscriptive in nature that there is a real possibility that, unless the person involved is of the highest possible calibre, the job may become little more than another tier of bureaucracy and the complaints and the areas of investigation needing attention will not be attended to properly. I will give two examples of why I think this fear is genuine. In regard to the manner of operation of the ombudsman the Bill makes it mandatory that the proceedings and investigations of the ombudsman under the Bill would be conducted otherwise than in public, which is fair to a significant extent. However, accompanying that we find that a simple order in writing by a Minister may disbar the ombudsman from investigation of a specific inquiry or area of concern. Further, we find in other sections that the area of secrecy relating to the information would ensure that any information gained in the course of such an inquiry, regardless of its benefit or use to the community or of the potential for good to many people—indeed, regardless of the impact it would have with regard to showing that justice is being done—nevertheless cannot be released.

I do not understand why we as a State have to be hidebound by some sort of vast mesh or cobweb of secrecy or paranoia. Since I came into this House I have been struck by the fact that it is increasingly difficult to obtain the most rudimentary information on matters not only of public concern or public interest but of public right to know. There comes a point where one has to draw the line and say that if we are to extend the right to know beyond this point there may be difficulties for security and for the manner in which the Government conduct their business, but, for example, to refuse to tell a Member of this House what grant is paid to a particular school, to refuse to indicate how massive sums of public money are being disbursed or to give any information thereon on some vague, nebulous reference to security is a fairly abject dereliction of Governmental responsibility and a diminution of the right of people under the Constitution.

There are many areas where the ombudsman should be entitled to act and where I fear he will not be able to act. An example which concerns me is a matter which relates to the operations of the courts and specifically the judiciary. Unfortunately, we are not entitled to deal with this matter in the House here because it is outside the Minister's jurisdiction and, therefore, the ombudsman would appear not to have the entitlement to operate in that regard by virtue of some sections in the Bill. This means that somebody who is concerned legitimately, after years of waiting for a reserved judgement in the High Court, to come to a conclusion is unable to register that protest anywhere and, therefore, justice is not being done. A public representative who brings a matter up here is told by the Minister, regardless of which Government are in power, that that is outside the jurisdiction of the House.

There should be some way of ensuring that the public's right to have justice done and rapid access to the courts and rapid court procedures is obtained. This Bill does not do that. There is not a Member of this House who is not increasingly aware of the growing concerns, frustrations and bureaucratic subjugation of the members of our community every day of the week. People are frustrated, unable to cut through the web of bureaucracy. I am not blaming the bureaucrats because bureaucracy per se is a good thing. It is the paralysis which sometimes afflicts some of the worker bureaucracies that causes all the problems. This Bill, by virtue of the fact that it does not give true independence to the ombudsman, is not going to help us in some of these areas. For example, will it help the person who clearly has obtained less than satisfactory standards of justice from the legal profession? I do not think it will, and that is a real problem. Will it help people who are unable to pay the substantial legal costs involved in taking a case against, say, a builder? I do not think it will, for reasons that I will be going into on Committee Stage. Certainly the list of exclusions is disturbing. Without going into specifics in a Second Stage debate, we find in section 5 (1) (b) a disturbing, sinister reference in a global way to actions relating to or affecting national security or military activity, and section 5 (1) (c) relates to recruitment or appointment to any office or employment in a Department of State by any other person specified in the First Schedule. These are some of the exclusions. I will never accept that there should be any distinction in law between the actions of the State and those of a private citizen.

We have had this innuendo—it is more than that—this desire to create this distinction and to give the State exclusion from responsibility which does not apply to other people. We have had this in the Landlord and Tenant Bill and a number of other Bills where different standards apply. If anything, standards applying to the State should be more rigorous than those applying to the private citizen. Here once again we see the back door being closed and our flanks being guarded. Whatever else, we may be sure that if an action presented to the ombudsman for investigation is awkward we shall have recourse to vague generalities about security or military activity. There is even reference in this Bill to the cover, the umbrella—the Offences Against the State Act which, like much other legislation on the Statute Book, needs overhaul. Legislation as soon as it is introduced becomes relatively outdated and there is absolutely nothing wrong with trying to create a system whereby all legislation, particularly that affecting fundamental freedoms, is reviewed regularly to see if it is any longer relevant and if it is not caus-ing more harm than good. If it serves no useful purpose it should be got rid of. We should have the courage to do this rather than stop at a situation that has occurred throughout the short history of this State where obnoxious measures were introduced into the Statute Book of this House, condemned by many Members of this House and subsequently utilised by Members of this House when they had the opportunity of doing so. That is anti-democratic and is to be condemned.

Again, we find this fearsome approach to open and honest investigation in this field. The ombudsman will, and can have no function and serve no purpose unless he and his office are truly divorced from the trappings of Government and given every necessary facility to conduct in an open and extremely committed way a thorough investigation of any subject or item he or she believes necessary or open to such investigation. Yet, we find that the ombudsman may not bother about an investigation or may discontinue it if, for example, he is of opinion that complaint is trivial or vexatious. The triviality of a complaint is not a good reason for discontinuance of investigation. Trivial relates to size, degree of importance, but it is the degree of importance which the complainant assigns to the act that is all-important here. We know that what is serious to some of our constituents might not be serious to us and sometimes might seem somewhat trivial but on their horizon these are big problems. Therefore, I worry about a situation where an ombudsman, his office running parallel to the office of Government, perhaps in the same building as the Minister for Justice, is able to refer to a belief on his part that a complaint is trivial. The word "trivial" should not be there.

I am not sure what "vexatious" means. All it means to me is that a complaint might give rise to contention, which is a little tautological because it would not be a complaint if it did not give rise to some contention. That is section 4(3) line 16. That line is disturbing because it again allows an escape hatch. How can the citizen—increasingly, in my view, oppressed and surrounded by the trappings of a State sliding away from the concept of true open Government— contend with a Bill which allows a Minister or an ombudsman, not just the ombudsman but either, to ensure that an investigation no longer goes on or is not initiated by reference to generalities about its alleged triviality, vexatiousness or its alleged impact on national security, as instances?

These are severe and significant restrictions on the rights of the ombudsman to investigate. If the ombudsman is not a thorn in the side of Government he has no function. There should be a natural tension between his position and office and that of the Government. If their relationship is cordial and too close the work of the office will be jeopardised and in my view ultimately subverted. That is why I would prefer a system devised where the ombudsman would even be appointed by somebody other than the Government. The appointment ostensibly is made by this House, but that is an unreal provision.

I cannot imagine a debate on the appointment of a specific person nominated by the Government which would be meaningful. Can we conjure up Members of the House debating the merits of a named individual? Such a debate would possibly do deep harm to the manner in which the named individual would be able to carry out his duties. Therefore, I see the debate as being a gesture towards democratic appointment of someone who is, in fact, appointed by the Government on criteria set down by the Government, to be concerned with investigations where the parameters are set by the Government and where continuance of the investigations, if they become unpleasant, embarassing or difficult can be concluded by the Government. That is unwhole-some and will make for a bad office and for lazy, incompetent and — hopefully not, but certainly possibly — corrupt Government.

The citizen has two possible final bastions of appeal. One is at present the courts. I am among the growing number of people who believe reform is necessary in that area—but that is for another day. The ombudsman is a symbolic figure in Europe, and hopefully on this side of the Continent, of justice for the individual. That is not effected in this Bill which is too cowardly and seeks refuge too easily in escape hatches for whichever Government happens to be in power which would willingly seek refuge in such clauses.

Therefore, I ask the Minister and the Government to reconsider many of the trappings of this Bill while not interfering with the principle of the appointment of such a person at the earliest possible date. Let us not forget this Bill has been promised for a long time. We see in the functions of the ombudsman, in exclusions applying to his office, in the manner of handling his reports, in the powers given to him in respect of examinations and investigations and specifically in the conduct of these investigations and the secrecy surrounding the information gained in the investigation, too much paranoia, too much fear, too little wisdom and courage. The ombudsman should be as autonomous as it is possible for any public servant to be. His freedom should be at least analogous to the freedom of the Judiciary—more so if possible and I believe it is possible.

Unfortunately, none of these things obtain. There is a possibility, we find, that in some circumstances the very principle which the ombudsman office is designed to insist on could be foiled by the manner of his appointment and the Bill before us. As an example, we are told that the ombudsman in carrying out an investigation would do so otherwise than in public, which is a fascinating insight also into the way we have to entrap even the most simple expressions in a cobweb of semantics designed presumably to obscure what we mean. "Otherwise than in public" means, I presume, in private. Why do we not say "in private"? In private then means possibly in secrecy which I admit is a more furtive term and conjures up more sinister images—perhaps that is what is meant.

If a person with a complaint who might be able to go at least to the media or even to the courts decides to go to the ombudsman, we could find that public ventilation of that complaint which up to now was possible if not satisfactory in terms of the conclusions often drawn about it, is no longer afforded and that the manner in which it is being investigated takes it out of centre-stage, puts it into a private room and arguably, because of the heat of the afternoon and the degree of vexation involved, or for some other reason communicated to the ombudsman by the Minister, the investigation is discontinued.

The proceedings under the Bill are bound in secrecy and any proceedings for an offence against the Official Secrets Acts, 1963 alleged to have been committed in respect of information or a document or a thing obtained by the ombudsman or any of his officers by virtue of the Act, must be disclosed. In other words, rather than creating a solid support and cornerstone of an open-ended, enlightened, fearless area of Government standing up to public scrutiny, willing to take the lash where necessary, willing to accept public investigation in the real sense, we might find we have instead a covert refuge for secret investigations the proceedings of which may not be disseminated. That is an unkind interpretation, but one interpretation.

I have a belief, maybe a naive belief, that whenever we are enacting legislation we should think not of the possibly and probably benign Government of the day but consider what would happen if other people less benign, acting more inimically to the idea of democracy, more antagonistic to an open and free society, took up some of the powers which lay relatively dormant on our Statute Book. To give such people powers would be wrong and none of us would want it. Therefore, when we introduce legislation in the belief that that is an extreme situation, we do ourselves a disservice. I would like to see the shackles being taken off the ombudsman and see him being given the freedom he needs if this office is to be useful.

There is another specific point fraught with some difficulty and open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding and one I want to put on the record—that is, an area of exclusion in this Bill which could relate to areas of inquiry, investigation or interrogation by the security forces, the Garda Síochána, the Army and the Navy. The Barra Ó Briain report made certain recommendations in this regard which would make an impact on the office of ombudsman if they were accepted. They would include the possibility of the ombudsman assigning officers, or going himself, to attend upon some areas of the interrogations in situations where such seemed warranted or where there was a case to be made for such personnel to be present.

I believe it would be helpful to the overwhelming majority of the Garda Síochána and helpful to those law-abiding democratic citizens who, nevertheless, have slight fears lurking at the corners of their minds about some aspects of such investigations in the re-cent past, if the ombudsman was empowered to initiate such inquiries and to be present. If this happened, the mere possibility alone would act as a focus for good and would probably dispel the reasons which existed, and which, for all I know, may still exist, for these fears. Such a proposition would not be resented by the Garda and would be in the interests of that important principle of justice being seen to be done. There has been too much ground for suspicion in this area in recent times. The ombudsman is a gentle way of bringing progress in this regard without starting a major divisive debate into the operations of the security forces in this context.

If we as a society have nothing to fear, have nothing to hide, let us give the ombudsman access to whatever corners of the State he or she wishes. No State, no government, has the right to institute structures or to draw limits beyond which, or access to which, people are prevented from going while acting without a mandate from the people in that specific regard. In other words, there is a kind of assumed collective wisdom which sometimes operates in parliament which says we have a quasi-divine right to decide how much the public will know and how much they will have access to the structures of government, bureaucracy, the public service and so on. That is the people's right. If evidence available from other countries and from this country is anything to go by and if that power is entrusted totally in the hands of the Government or parliament, we will always err on the side of caution, on the side of fear, of being timorous about these things.

Our approach to access in this area in EEC terms is at the bottom of the league, with the possible exception of Britain. There is therefore an urgent need accompanying the setting up of a really independent and powerfully motivated ombudsman for a freedom of information Bill, for a date protection Bill, to make sure that such information obtained cannot be abused, and for other measures analagous to the thinking behind the need for this Bill which would ensure that the people have the ultimate right to put government in its proper context, that is, as a servant of the people and sometimes, hopefully, as a leader but never as a dictator.

This Bill when compared with similar legislation in other countries is in my view deficient. Anybody who reads it will see that we err on the side of not being brave enough to say that we will set up an independent man. Let us not at this stage draw lines and markings beyond which he may not step. Let us not give ourselves an escape hatch in case the Pandora's Box which will open will be so awkward, embarrassing and difficult to deal with that we may have to take refuge. I realise that this might cause a very serious and delicate situation to emerge, but on balance, I believe these situations should be allowed to emerge.

In the last few days we heard reports on matters which happened a decade ago. We want to be concerned about the future, not the past. If an open system of government had been able to give the facts long ago, these problems would not still be in people's minds, they would not be sapping the energies of specific Ministers or occupying the minds of individual politicians. Arguably such concerns distract them from their jobs and the way they carry out their functions.

I am making a plea for open government in the knowledge that those who embrace it may be defeated ultimately by the openness of that government. That is the healthiest form of democracy. I appeal to the Minister to have another look at this Bill because it requires a major rethinking of the fundamental role of an ombudsman in our society. The sooner such a person is introduced with the real freedom and power necessary the better. As the inimitable Deputy Kelly, my friend and colleague, said when he was promised this Bill initially, the individual who will grace the office of ombudsman is more likely to be not so much an ombudsman as an ombudsmouse. That is a sad thing, but we can do better if we try and I appeal to the minister to try.

Mr. Filgate

While the idea of an ombudsman here is not really a new idea it is, nevertheless, a very important one for all of us. It is important for the ordinary people to know that at least it will be possible for them to put their grievances before a totally independent arbitrator. The only drawback I see in this Bill is that the very important areas of local authorities, which include health boards and perhaps State or semi-State bodies, will not be covered by it but will and can be the subject of amendments by the Minister later on. Those of us who are members of local authorities know only too well that we are not dealing totally with infallible people. Each and every one associated with the matters and business of local authorities is open to error, and errors are being made every day. For this reason, if for no other, the sooner this area is covered in the same way as the private individual the better it will be for all of us. We have not the time nor indeed have we the ambition or the incentive to spend sufficient of our time in investigating the many problems of county councils.

I—as is every other public representative—am in a position to know that if one took a very small cross-section of one's constituents sufficient work for the ombudsman would be collected in a few minutes to keep himself and his staff fully occupied for two or three weeks. This is an indication of the kind of work which will be presented to this new office when it is established. The field is so great that I think we will find that the ombudsman will be overpowered with work in a very short time to the point where the Minister will undoubtedly have to review the situation again.

It has been stated on many occasion that the ordinary Irish man or woman is very timid especially in relation to the legal end of the business. They have such a measure of confidence in the legal profession and in the courts that they no longer question what they have been told but unreservedly accept what is being said to them. Again this is not covered in the Bill. This is a field which should and must at some stage be covered by it. The ordinary people going about their or-dinary business know only too well that mistakes are being made, and they accept that because they are in the position that without going through the very difficult, long-drawn out and expensive course of going to the law courts to get their rights they can do nothing so they accept what is given. The ombudsman will fill this great void and will be very acceptable to the people here. Almost every field of endeavour should be covered by this Bill. We have referees and deciding officers, very often faceless people about whom we know nothing, collectively called the bureaucracy. This requires to be unveiled to allow the ombudsman and the ordinary members of the public to come face to face. He will, under this Bill, become very accessible to the people who require his services. This is the one great factor in it. Unlike the English ombudsman where a complaint must be made by a Member of Parliament, a member of the public can make it here. The Minister is to be complimented on this aspect of it. Any man with a grievance can put his case before the ombudsman and have it fully investigated. The areas are so many and so great that I doubt very much if, in the initial stages, he will be able to cope with the volume of work which will be presented. This is a follow up to the prices Bill and the Purchase of Goods Act which deals with prices and purchases but in some of these cases disputes cannot be resolved satisfactorily unless there is open discussion across the board between the ombudsman and the person making a complaint.

In the matter of delays in relation to complaints at present, we find that the only course open to the ordinary people in Ireland is to go to the courts. But if we are to give them a measure of fair play in relation to the ombudsman we must see that the hand of the ombudsman is strengthened. We must see that he is given every power so that the burden will be lightened on the people whose complaints he investigates. He possibly will also serve to lighten the burden on the courts, which are overburdened with work so that special courts have to be held to settle the most trivial cases, which is very expensive for the public purse. When a case comes before the new ombudsman it can be efficiently and effectively dealt with.

Among very many other aspects of the ombudsman's work, he might very well address himself to social welfare. This is a field in which there is quite an amount of valuable work which he might do. Semi-State bodies could take some scrutiny from this office. People who have complaints in relation to employment may be afraid to project their image in relation to the complaints they have for fear of minor intimidation later on or fear of being discriminated against and for that reason accept what is given. In all these fields I would like to see a situation where there would be no fear of coming forward with a case so that it can be fully and justly investigated by the ombudsman. Even though our courts may give decisions, very often they are unsatisfactory. Justice is seen to be done but the complainant is still unsatisfied. It is in this field that the work of the ombudsman will be most felt. Above all, the aura surrounding the legal profession and the courts will be overcome by talking to an ordinary individual with ordinary staff who will be sympathetic to their case.

For this reason the Bill is welcome. In the field of other simple disputes the services of the ombudsman will, undoubtedly, be invaluable. The Minister is to be congratulated on this Bill and is deserving of every assistance in implementing its provisions. It contains some amendments to the original Bill which the previous Government had prepared. Some of the problems have been overcome and for that reason its provisions will be more acceptable to our people. I wish the Bill well and I hope that the public administrative and political systems will later be fully taken under its aegis.

Mr. W. O'Brien

I welcome the introduction of the office of ombudsman, something which is long overdue. We are one of the few countries in the EEC which does not have such an appointment. A similar appointment was made in Northern Ireland in 1967 and in Britain in 1964. I was disappointed that it took so long to introduce this Bill which had the full support of all parties. It has been stated by many speakers that the necessity for the appointment of an ombudsman was to take some of the work off public representatives but that was not the intention. I am sure it will help the many people who have genuine grievances. Many have imaginary grievances and when they are not resolved to their satisfaction those people feel that all public representatives, and everybody associated with political parties, are part of an establishment. I am sure the appointment of an ombudsman will to some extent modify those fears. People will view the ombudsman as a person with a more independent approach. They will be content in the knowledge that their imaginary grievance, by virtue of its size, will not be cast aside and will get a full investigation.

Many people are happy if they are made aware of the fact that their grievance has been dealt with and for that reason this appointment will give greater confidence to the system. Public representatives are approached about many problems which on many occasions are genuine. Very often public representatives are approached about a Land Commission problem and the person involved may not qualify for a portion of land for some reason or other. That person then makes representations to all representatives in his constituency and that is where the trouble starts. All the public representatives waste hours investigating the matter only to be told that the person involved does not qualify. It is fair to say that in most cases I have come across, if people qualify for a certain benefit they receive it but it is those who do not qualify who create all the trouble. Something similar applies in relation to social welfare benefits. Public representatives have to deal with problems relating to them daily. When one contacts the Department by telephone one finds that the service at the other end is not very good. I am not referring to the person who takes the telephone call but to the person who does not answer the telephone. It can be frustrating particularly where a constituent waits with a public representative for up to an hour while that representative endeavours to get through to the department. It happens in many cases that families are in dire necessity and may not have any money for meals on that day. It is also frustrating to be told at the end of such a delay that the matter will be investigated.

There is little use in telling a constituent who needs money immediately that a matter is being investigated. It is possible that the ombudsman will have a special line to the Department to deal with such problems and give some relief to the unfortunate frustrated people in that category. We are the most cen-tralised country in Western Europe and, as time passes, we will become more so. We have already lost control of local authorities. Many people have grievances about aspects of local government, roads, housing and grants. We are approached about such matters daily and we must spend a lot of our time on the phone about them but without a great deal of success. Again, the public representative is the victim because such people will go home remarking: "They are all the same; they are all part of the establishment. It does not matter to them how long it takes me to get my money, they have no interest in me." Public representatives who attend all-party meetings are aware that if a person present declares that all politicians are the same and do not have any interest in local problems he will be loudly applauded. The vast majority of people attending those meetings are convinced that public representatives are part of the establishment with an obligation to defend that establishment. The greatest danger of a breakdown in democracy is if people are convinced that they are not getting a fair deal.

We have a certain number of cranks in our community, people who for some reason or another like to inconvenience or frustrate unfortunate people who are receiving social welfare benefits. Those benefits are stopped immediately if a crank, who may be a neighbour, writes to the local office stating that so-and-so was working while drawing the benefit. After the payment stops frustration sets in and it takes far too long to ascertain whether the statements are correct or not. Nobody suffers except the unfortunate recipient, his wife and family, the innocent victims of the entire joke. I hope this will be met by the kind of person we appoint as ombudsman. It may appear to be a small function but there is no doubt that there is nothing more important to a man and his family as some system that would speed up social welfare payments when they are due.

His appointment will be more beneficial to the underprivileged than to any other section of the community because the vast majority of complaints are about delays in payments. Wealthier people can afford to wait. Farmers are in the same position with regard to modernisation grants. They find it very difficult to get them. Social welfare recipients are people all parties would like to see payments speeded up for. I hope the functions of the ombudsman will not, in any way, be reduced. He should have power to deal with the vast majority of complaints. In other countries they have great power. Let us hope we will not appoint an ombudsman for the sake of appointing one. I hope he will have as much power as is necessary to eliminate the hardships that confront the many underprivileged people at present.

Mr. V. Brady

This legislation is very important and its importance has been emphasised by previous speakers. The fact that it has been in the pipeline for some time makes it more welcome at present. I should like to think that the reasons for the delay in bringing it forward have been to ensure that it is sound, workable and will not get into technical problems at a later stage. This would be to the detriment of the legislation, of the community and of the public.

This Bill will give a certain feeling of confidence to the community. It will give the feeling to what the last speaker described as underprivileged people that here at last is someone who is available to speak on their behalf if they feel they have a grievance. For far too long the community has had to deal with a faceless bureaucracy. Many complaints and claims which are often of a justified nature have been rejected and turned down, often without any explanation whatever. This type of exercise makes a person cynical and causes tremendous frustration to people who find themselves in this position.

The Bill has been described as an ombudsman Bill. I should like to think we would be more correct referring to it as an ombudsperson Bill. Deputy Briscoe mentioned that possibly a woman might be appointed to this position.

Mr. O'Toole

An ombudslady.

Mr. V. Brady

An ombudsperson might be more appropriate. Whoever will be appointed, it should be of tremendous benefit to the individual and the community at large. The legislation is not controversial and has been welcomed by all sides. It is intended to safeguard the rights of the individual. In the past they found it extremely difficult at times to obtain information from various bodies in relation to a complaint or grievance. Very often they found themselves in what can be described as a cul de sac. This led to frustration and a feeling that bureaucracy was expanding like an octopus over the years and had taken over civilisation.

There are a number of exclusions in the Bill. Deputy Keating described some of them as being of a sinister nature. I would like to see more in the Bill but I would not go as far as he did and describe the reasons for the exclusions in that way. We all accept that the ombudsperson cannot be given complete powers, powers that might be unrealistic and make him or her answerable to nobody at all. This would be totally unsatisfactory. The Minister and those responsible for the legislation were faced with a difficult and complex task and have gone a long way towards satisfying most of the requirements. I am sure there are and will be many legal difficulties. It is important that legislation, when passed, is workable and that delays in dealing with complaints should not be long or long drawn out. Otherwise we might find ourselves in a similar situation to what we have at present—dissatisfaction and frustration among those seeking replies to their complaints.

Some problems that will be brought to the attention of the ombudsperson will probably not be justified. This is bound to happen. As mentioned by the last speaker there are many people with im-aginary grievances. The Bill makes provisions for this type of situation where the ombudsman will make a decision himself if he feels that further action or investigation should not be pursued in a case which would seem on the surface to be unjustified.

I would like to have seen this legislation extended in some way to the courts, indeed, covering the legal profession generally, because this is one area giving greatest cause for complaint and uneasiness as far as the general public are concerned. For example, how often do we see total inconsistency in various judgments given in our courts? It is an area also in which the ordinary citizen has little or no right of appeal. However, I realise it would be difficult to cover this area for a number of reasons. But, now that we are endeavouring to go so far to bring about a feeling of justice to the ordinary citizen, feeling that their complaints can be investigated, that at least they have somebody to represent their views in a fair-minded way, it is a pity it was not found possible to cover the legal process in some way.

It is indeed an important Bill which will be beneficial to everybody. It is noncontroversial. Obviously the Committee Stage will take up some time, when I would anticipate certain changes being recommended. Overall, however, it is a start and, as the Minister has indicated, this legislation will be reviewed by the Government at subsequent stages. Now that a start has been made I hope we can look forward to this legislation proving to be of benefit to the community at large.

Mr. O'Toole

As other members of my party have done, I too welcome this Bill. As Deputy Brady has just said, it is a start and a step in the right direction.

We have had in this House in the not too distant past legislation concerning the consumer who is covered to some degree in the purchase of goods and services in ordinary day-to-day living. This Bill will provide a certain degree of protection to the consumer also in dealing with the public service, local authorities, health boards and so on. I forsee those two types of legislation complementing one another.

The need for this Bill, for the creation of the position of an ombudsman, or ombudsperson, is long overdue in that we all know—indeed Members of this House know better than most—how complicated life has become dealing with the public service. That is not due to any great fault on their part. I suppose the whole problem begins on the floor of this House on the introduction of what must be, of its nature, complicated legislation to deal with current problems. In many cases the average person is completely at sea, at a total loss to know where they stand in relation to their entitlements. Invariably these problems land on the desk of a Member of this House. Members have certain channels through which they can have complaints processed.

One of the advantages of this Bill, although we must await its implementation, is that hopefully it will unload some of the routine, time-consuming work of politicians. While I would not be in favour of delegating all work to an agency, or an ombudsman, it will help to relieve some of the pressures on public representatives. At least it is an extra channel through which they can have their complaints or appeals processed. The danger I see is that where there are processes in existence—and there are mechanisms set up at present in many areas; for example, in the case of social welfare there are appeal bodies that can review a person's complaint, call him as a witness and so on—we all know that is most cases the individual throws himself at the mercy of his local representative seeking his aid. For example, we are all aware of the very worthwhile service provided in the person of an information officer in the social welfare field. I happen to live near an employment exchange where there is a fully qualified and very informed information officer—the Minister will bear me out on this—but the people who ought to be go-ing to him for advice come to me or the Minister. How to break down that kind of public attitude, which is probably more an historic throwback than anything else, will be very difficult to determine. But this kind of Bill is a step in the right direction in informing people that there are avenues open to them, set up by this House, that will seek to unravel their complaints, process them and reach some solution. It will be a long, hard road because of this in-built suspicion which, I suppose, many people have of anything that smacks of formal officialdom.

Therefore, the implementation of the provisions of this Bill must be monitored carefully, to see to what degree they are availed of by the public at large. Hopefully something along the lines of an all-Party Committee—which proposed the establishment of this office—would come together after a reasonable time, review the working of this office, ascertaining to what degree the public at large are availing of the ser-vices provided. Hopefully, at that stage, the Minister of the day will not be averse to having amendments introduced to meet whatever needs are thrown up by this all-party committee. There must be an ongoing scrutiny of this problem area because of the historical background which has perpetuated this attitude in regard to officialdom. This is worthwhile legislation and it has not come one day too soon.

Mr. Crinion

I welcome the Bill. I spoke about this matter in the House before. We all act as ombudsmen in having problems investigated, but there are certain groups and individuals who feel they should not have to come to a public representative to have their case investigated but who feel, nevertheless, that their cases should be investigated. They can appeal to the ombudsman.

We have all heard over the years of files being mislaid and, as a result, people are not paid money to which they are entitled. Wrong decisions are made. Because a precedent was set some years ago, a civil servant might not use his imagination and reach a proper decision. We can put down Parliamentary Ques-tions and raise matters about which the Minister has to answer.

I am glad it is proposed, in time and by Ministerial order, to include local authorities, health boards and semi-State bodies. I appeal to the Minister to bring that section of the Bill into operation as quickly as possible. In a court case recently the CEO of a health board refused to give reports of interviews to the Comptroller and Auditor General. The CAG had a right to see these reports and the court upheld it. It shows what little gods some officials of State bodies can become. Officials of health boards, in particular, feel they need reply to a query only if they feel like it. I have seen officials in two different health boards helping favoured public representatives and sending them letters, before they would help anyone else. I know of two cases where this happened with two different TDs. That would not happen in the public service, but it happened in health boards and the committee had to put up a very strong fight to get it clarified. The TDs had to bring it into the open. If people in local authorities, health boards and semi-State bodies would do that to TDs, what would they do to ordinary individuals who have no redress? I urge the Minister to include those bodies.

It is very hard to question their spending. Local authorities need ten days for a notice of motion. How often have we found that they have an excuse for avoiding a particular item? In quite a number of cases no action is taken. They feel that if they send an acknowledgement, that is the end of it. That has happened to private individuals. People have told me that their letters have not been answered. Important matters have not been dealt with. In cases like this we certainly need an ombudsman.

It is a great blessing that we have Parliamentary Questions. We can raise an issue before it is covered up. Applications have been lost and, when a question is put down, one hears of officials leaving Dublin to get a form re-signed so that everything can be cleared up before the question is answered. With the public service growing so big, if individuals feel aggrieved they should have the right to appeal. If they feel they do not want to go to their public representative—I feel they should—it is our duty to provide an ombudsman. However, the ombudsman will not give as good a service as a TD if he becomes just another part of the establishment. On the other hand, he will be able to give an unbiased opinion on whether complaints are justified, but more important he will be able to alleviate the fears of people about faceless officials making decisions on their problems.

Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service (Mr. Calleary)

First of all, I welcome the manner in which Deputies received the Bill. I thank them for the welcome they gave me personally and the kind remarks they made about me.

It has been known for a long time that there would be general agreement about the setting up of this office, and the pressure for the Bill goes back a long time. Although there may be some differences of opinion about what the ombudsman should investigate, the consensus of Deputies has been that the appointment is long overdue and that it should be made quickly. Therefore I ask the House to accept the Bill as drafted. Deputies will be given an opportunity to look at its operation at a later stage.

Some Deputies may have been under a misconception about the role of the ombudsman. Many of them spoke about delays in paying grants and pensions and the difficulties people have in contacting Departments. This is just a matter of efficiency which can be dealt with without an ombudsman. I will pass on the views of Deputies in this respect to the Department of the Public Service who in turn will contact the various Departments. There is a possibility of achieving better efficiency.

Many Deputies felt that the ombudsman would be a panacea for all ills and that overnight the person appointed would improve efficiency. Honestly, no matter whom the person appointed is, he will not be able to do that, for obvious reasons.

I will now deal with some of the specific points made by Deputies. Deputy Fergus O'Brien has been interested in the establishment of this office for a number of years. He spoke about the need for an ombudsman particularly in relation to local authorities and health boards and he suggested that semi-State bodies should be included from the beginning. It is the view of all parties that all State bodies should be included eventually, but we must get this office off the ground in a cautiously pragmatic way.

I would point out that the Bill provides that all of these bodies can be brought in later, and the Government will give careful consideration to their inclusion in the light of experience of the operation of the office. I assure the House that the points made by Deputies in this respect will be considered carefully, but I honestly suggest that the main thing is to get the Act off the ground quickly.

Deputy Fergus O'Brien spoke about the provision in the Bill for the appointment of the ombudsman by a two-thirds majority. He said that the office must be seen to be impartial so that the person appointed will have the full confidence of the House and the public. Though the all-Party Committee made the two-thirds majority recommendation, the Constitution is clear in this respect, that it should be decided by a simple majority, except in matters like the impeachment or removal of the President from office. Unfortunately there is not any way around this because our legal provisions must not be in conflict with the Constitution.

Deputy Deasy spoke about the role of the public representative. He also asked what is the distinction between commercial and non-commercial semi-State bodies. Commercial and semi-State bodies derive revenue from selling goods or services, bodies like CIE, Bord na Móna and so on. Non-commercial semi-State bodies are simply agents of the Government under boards financed from public funds, such as Bord Fáilte, CTT and so on. The Schedule to the Bill does not distinguish between the commercial and non-commercial bodies. The all-Party Committee recommended that the non-commercial State bodies should be brought under the Ombudsman Act as soon as practicable but suggested that such supervision would be a commercial liability for the commercial bodies. I do not think there will be any great problem about bringing them in later after we have had an opportunity of seeing how the office has been running. It is a matter that can be considered by the Government at a later stage.

Deputy Keating was in a pessimistic mood this morning, and I could not understand why on such a fine day. I do not share his pessimism. Though there are certain things wrong with our system I do not think it is as bad as Deputy Keating suggested. I will deal with some of the specific points he made.

He said the ombudsman will not be able to deal with grievances against the courts. I would point out that the purpose of the Bill is to provide a focus for investigation of complaints of individuals against the administration, not individuals against individuals or individuals against the State. The ombudsman will be an official of the Oireachtas, and under the Constitution he cannot examine the activities of the courts. Neither can it be proposed that he would provide remedies for complaints by an individual against another individual. Perhaps there is a problem in this respect but to suggest that the ombudsman should act for individuals against individuals is contrary to the whole purpose of the Bill.

Deputy Keating expressed doubt as to whether the ombudsman would be free from Government intervention. He will be, and a section written into the Bill emphasises this. There are some areas which he cannot examine but most Deputies are of the opinion that this is only right and just. Deputy Keating said he wanted the shackles to be taken off. I am not aware they have been on, and I suggest the Deputy is under a misapprehension in regard to the post.

Many Deputies complained that the local authorities and health boards were not included from the beginning and anxiety was expressed also whether the ombudsman would have sufficient and proper staff to deal quickly with complaints. I agree with the latter point but I think that if the health boards, local authorities and semi-State bodies were included at the beginning the office would be overloaded before the necessary staff were appointed.

I urge the House to accept the Bill as it stands. It will give us an opportunity to see how the office will function and we can take steps to improve it if necessary. I take the suggestion of Deputy O'Toole that an all-party committee might look at the situation after a year or two in the light of the experience we will have gained and also having regard to the fact that an all-party committee were appointed at the beginning to make recommendations. I should like to point out that, to a great extent, their recommendations were met.

There has been reference to the delay that has occurred. I can assure the House that this was due to the fact that the Bill was very complex and comprehensive in order to meet the wishes of the all-party committee and the representations that were made. Deputy Briscoe asked how many representations were made; the answer is 18. A number of Deputies wanted to know if a public representative would have the right to make representations and the answer is he would. Deputy O'Brien spoke about the individual who has an imaginary grievance. The job of the ombudsman will be difficult enough without asking him to solve imaginary grievances and we should not make his job any more difficult. Deputy Keating raised the question of secrecy. The office of ombudsman will investigate and, if there is a need, will try to solve the grievance of an individual. I do not think that any information that is obtained while that is be-ing done should be released if there is a prospect of settling the grievance. I do not think that individuals who make a claim would be happy about making that claim in the open. I think the situation is best met as is proposed here.

Mr. O'Toole

Does the Minister envisage that this office will have a separate subhead in the Estimates which was sought also in respect of the Director of Consumer Affairs?

Mr. Calleary

That will have to be looked at. I will get in touch with the Deputy on the matter. The people employed will be servants of the State, not civil servants.

Mr. O'Toole

Is it a unique position from this aspect?

Mr. Calleary

It is like the office of Director of Public Prosecutions.

Question put and agreed to.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 27 May 1980.