Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 25 Oct 1983

Vol. 345 No. 3

Appointment of Ombudsman: Motion.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann recommend Michael Mills for appointment by the President to be the Ombudsman.

Deputies will recall that I announced in the House on 8 July last that arrangements were being made for the appointment of the Ombudsman from the 3 January next, the first working day of 1984.

The House will be aware that the Ombudsman Act of 1980 provides that the Ombudsman is to be appointed by the President upon a resolution passed by the Dáil and Seanad recommending the appointment of the person concerned.

This motion is the culmination of a series of events beginning in 1975. In that year a motion requesting the appointment of an Ombudsman was tabled in the Dáil by Deputy Fergus O'Brien following which an All-Party Informal Committee was established. I had the honour of serving on that committee.

I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to Deputy O'Brien, now Minister of State at the Department of Health and Social Welfare, for his commitment to, and dedicated pursuit of, the concept of an Ombudsman for Ireland. It is to his commitment, and indeed that of former Deputy Richie Ryan and the late Deputy George Colley, Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Informal Committee, that we owe today's resolution.

The 1980 Ombudsman Act was based largely on the recommendations of the All-Party Committee on Administrative Justice, to which I have referred. The remit of the committee was to formulate proposals to meet the needs of citizens aggrieved by administrative actions posed by the continually expanding activities of Government across the whole area of the public sector.

The recommendations, published in May 1977, had the backing of all parties in the Dáil and, although they were subsequently refined and modified somewhat, when they were put into legislative form I think it can safely be said that the institution of Ombudsman which we now have has the support of the parties in the House today as evidenced by the unanimous recommendations of the All-Party Committee.

The appointment of an Ombudsman will, I am convinced, be a significant advance in the practice of public administration in Ireland. Definite steps have at last been taken to provide the citizen with a means of redress — a means which, I might add, has become the hallmark of the more developed countries.

This appointment will undoubtedly be of major significance for politicians, administrators and for the general public. By his availability to the citizen, coupled with his direct reporting relationship to the Oireachtas, the Ombudsman will provide a direct link between the people and the Legislature.

Not only will he provide a means for the remedy of grievances about administrative actions, or lack of action, but he will also help us as legislators to become more aware of the effects of the legislation which we enact in this House.

I hope the Ombudsman, through inquiring into particularly difficult questions or grievances laid before him by members of the public will, in the course of time, have this effect of lightening the load of inquiries and representations to Members of the House and afford them more time to devote to the Business of Parliament.

He will have the onerous duty of speaking and acting on behalf of the individual citizen in his everyday contact with the administration.

The Ombudsman under the Act is empowered to investigate complaints from members of the public against the actions of administrators. He will examine the actions of public officials in their handling of particular cases and seek a satisfactory remedy in those instances where he finds that a citizen has a genuine grievance. He may begin an investigation on his own initiative — arising out of a newspaper report, for example.

The Act allows him to establish his own procedures for the conduct of investigations. It also outlines the main stages which the Ombudsman is required to follow in investigating a complaint. At each stage in the investigation where he makes a finding or criticism adverse to an organisation or person, he must allow that organisation or person to consider his finding and make representations to him about it.

The Ombudsman will be independent in the performance of his duties and will report annually to the Houses of the Oireachtas. In addition, he may, from time to time, make such other reports to the Dáil and Seanad as he thinks fit. This, I think, is sufficient evidence of the importance of the office in our administrative machinery.

In view of the Ombudsman's influential position, therefore, and in view of his wide range of contacts with the public and with the administration, it is of vital importance to choose a person of the right calibre. The post demands someone with the qualities of tact, diligence and a common sense approach to officialdom, allied to a commitment to the basic rights of the individual.

I must admit that it was not an easy task to find someone with all the requisite qualities. Over the summer I looked at eight different areas from which suitable persons might be selected — the Law Library, the Civil Service, the wider public sector, private business, the media, the political field, the trade union movement and academic interests. Following very careful examination of all of these areas I have no hesitation in saying that I believe Michael Mills to be the most suitable and best qualified of the various names which I considered.

In addition to the qualities which I have mentioned earlier as being necessary, he possesses two other — and in my view, vital — qualities, those of compassion and a well-developed sense of humour, qualities which stand many politicians in good stead and help to keep them at their task.

I believe he will bring distinction to the office and help in the initial years to establish very firmly the office of Ombudsman as having a central role in the conduct and improvement of public administration in this country.

In accordance with the commitments made during the passage of the Bill through the Dáil and Seanad in 1980, and specifically my own commitment here in the House on 8 July last, I have consulted with the Leader of the Opposition in advance of making known the nominee.

I am sure the House will agree with me when I say that we have been very fortunate in finding someone as well suited for the position as he is.

A Cheann Comhairle, I consider this recommendation to be an imaginative one and I am particularly pleased that the announcement has received such widespread commendation. Michael Mills has been a journalist for 30 years and has been a senior distinguished political writer and commentator with The Irish Press for the past two decades. He has written extensively on matters relating to Government, politics and administration, and his is a household name as a current affairs commentator on both radio and television.

I would hope that, as well as being a recognition of Mr. Mills' substantial contribution to Irish politics and journalism, his nomination might also be regarded as a particular recognition of the important and vital role which responsible journalism plays in helping to explain and debate the political issues of the day.

I am completely satisfied that he will prove to be a worthy Ombudsman and, accordingly, I confidently recommend his appointment by the President to that Office.

Mr. Gene Fitzgerald

I was Minister for the Public Service when the then Minister of State Deputy Calleary, steered the legislation through the Dáil enabling the appointment of an Ombudsman to be made. I am glad of this opportunity to make a few comments on this appointment, and of reiterating the importance of the post and the qualities needed by the occupant. What we are doing today is the easiest part of this exercise.

The appointment of Mr. Michael Mills to the post of Ombudsman is welcomed by all. The Minister must make available the necessary staff and accommodation to enable Mr. Mills to make a success of his office. Perhaps the Minister would tell the House if such accommodation has been provided and where. If Mr. Mills is to take up his appointment in January sufficient staff must be provided. What arrangements has the Minister made for staffing in view of the present embargo?

I agree that the office needs a certain amount of flexibility in its approach to the public and it must be able to provide guidance for all. Despite attacks on politicians, I believe we have provided an information service and a complaints bureau for our constituents and it is to our credit that so many members of the general public feel free to come to us to help them get over their difficulties.

Although I am praising a Bill introduced by my party, I still regard it as a welcome move to give the general public direct access to the Ombudsman, unlike the United Kingdom where this is not possible. When the Bill was going through the House an undertaking was given that the Leader of the Opposition would be approached about the appointment. We are not opposing this appointment. Mr. Mills must appreciate the onerous responsibilities being placed on his shoulders, and I wish him well.

As I have said already, the Minister must provide the necessary accommodation and the staff to service this office, but it is important that the public have the right concept of the post of Ombudsman. They must know what the office means. It is an appeals commission where complaints can be investigated and where certain alleged deficiencies in the system can be examined to see if the allegations are valid. We must strive to avoid the Ombudsman becoming an additional Member of this House or, worse still, an additional administrative layer. It is extremely important that the Ombudsman be seen to be independent but he should have the accommodation and staff to meet the requirements of the office. He should not have to appeal to the Minister of the day to provide him with an adequate staff to serve the public. If he were not independent, it could lead to an undermining of the post. He must be seen to be, and he must be, in an independent position to comment on complaints, problems and allegations brought before him.

I hope Members of this House will not avoid work by referring difficult problems to the Ombudsman because that would be very unfair, although there might be the temptation to do so. It might happen that from time to time we will have to bring to his notice problems we hear from our constituents.

A very welcome provision of this Bill is that a member of the public does not have to approach a politician first. The Ombudsman should be available to all, whether a person be from Cork, Tipperary or Galway. I envisage that there will be a presence in our second city and occasionally in other major centres. It should not be necessary for my constituents to have to write to Dublin; they should be able to get in touch with a local office. Depending on the number of cases involved, it might be necessary to have offices nationwide.

I wish Mr. Michael Mills well in his task. I look on the appointment of an Ombudsman as a positive step forward because it will provide the best possible service for the customer — in this case the ordinary taxpayer, the ordinary citizen.

Mr. Manning

This is a very happy debate because it is not often a Government can make two good decisions at the same time. There has been a very general welcome for the decision to go ahead with the establishment of the Ombudsman. This will bring us into line with some of the more advanced countries around us.

There has been universal praise for the person chosen to fill the office. Rarely have we seen so much agreement on the choice of person to fill a high office. We all know the person chosen very well and it is not my intention to embarrass him today, but the fact that Michael Mills was chosen is vital to the success of the office. It is important that the first holder of the office be seen to be of the highest calibre, a person who would from the beginning give the office standing and credibility in the community, and also give it acceptability. Unless this happens, for many years to come the office of Ombudsman will be fighting for the type of recognition and profile needed to give it the degree of public acceptability which is vital.

The Minister has given that office, an office described by a word unfamiliar to most of our people, a word which might take quite a long time to get across, a face and identity, an identity which will be very acceptable and which will be likely to commend it and the office to the public. Almost no amount of advertising or public relations work could achieve so effectively what the Minister has done by one stroke in this appointment.

Even if the Minister says so himself, he can rightly claim that the appointment was one of imagination. Already some commentators, in writing about the Ombudsman, have begun to apply to him the term invented by Professor Basil Chubb to describe the work of TDs many years ago, when he said that most of our time was spent going about persecuting civil servants. I hope the Ombudsman does not see himself in that role and I feel fairly confident that he does not. It would be very easy for a new Ombudsman to seek the headlines in the early days by waging a selective campaign against civil servants, by appearing as the fearless confronter of the bureaucrats. That would be too easy an approach and would be destructive ultimately.

Obviously while the Ombudsman must have the confidence of the public, if he is to succeed, he must also enjoy the confidence of the civil servants. Their confidence in him is as important as that of the general public. Civil servants who will be investigated must have the right to expect fair play, no more, no less — they are certainly entitled to that — and to know that complaints made against them will be investigated in an orderly, procedural way, that they will have the right of reply, that there will be no question of any arbitrary decisions taken against them. That is part of the provisions of the Act and also part of the personality of the person who will be the first Ombudsman. They are entitled to feel that the Ombudsman will not begin with an anti-Civil Service bias, will not seek easy victories or cheap headlines at their expense. They can now feel assured that they have someone who is fair, somebody whose professional background has given him a good nose for the cheap headline seeker, for the false and spurious claim. I feel certain that anybody who approaches the Ombudsman with that sort of intent will get very short shrift indeed.

In mentioning the number of categories from which the Minister sought an Ombudsman, he was wise not to appoint somebody from within the Civil Service. There are extremely good people within the Civil Service, some perhaps with greater technical expertise than the person appointed, some with the technical competence to fill this office in an exemplary way. But to appoint somebody from within the Civil Service would be to damage the entire concept of the Ombudsman as somebody independent of the Civil Service. A person appointed from within the Civil Service very probably, because of his or her background, would become a scourge of civil servants, perhaps all the more effective because that person would know the short-cuts, would know some of the tricks of the trade and where some of the bodies were buried. No matter how hard that person tried, the very fact that he or she came from the Civil Service, probably from the early stages would damage their acceptability with the general public.

Likewise, from among the other categories mentioned by the Minister, he was very wise not to go for a judge or a lawyer, not because there are not excellent people in both categories but because the office must not appear to be as remote as a court of law; above all else it must be accessible. People must have the confidence that they can approach the Ombudsman without the fear of incurring great cost, long delays or the need for all the panoply of the law. Obviously bringing in a person from the courts almost inevitably would bring in many of the manners and attitudes of the courts and would not be beneficial to the office in its early stages.

All in all the Minister has made a most commendable choice. He has chosen somebody who is pre-eminently fair, who will give cothrom na féinne all round, who will be seen to do so. He has chosen somebody who is humane, who will see that the administration is tinged with compassion, somebody whose experience will not be easily fooled and, most of all, somebody who is tough when it comes to defending principle or exposing maladministration. Of all the fine qualities which repose in the person who has been chosen as Ombudsman it is this core of toughness about principle which will give the office the impetus and boost it will need in its early stages and ensure that it will succeed.

I might make three brief points to the Minister. The first would be an appeal first made by Deputy Gene Fitzgerald which I would make to all TDs and all public officials, that is not to overload the system, especially at the beginning. They should pick out the real cases rather than using the office as a dumping ground either for impossible cases, which we all have, or for trivial ones. We should not go around using the Ombudsman as a scapegoat for the cases which we cannot solve, for cases which cannot be resolved, using the Ombudsman as the person to whom we will refer them in the hope of putting off the giving of bad news for a further few weeks or months. I hope we will not go around blaming the Ombudsman for decisions which were refused elsewhere and which we, in conscience, could not in any reasonable way refer to him.

The success of the Ombudsman is vitally important in the interests of this House and of administration generally. By using the office sparingly at the beginning, by using it carefully, by picking out the right cases, not making false claims about it, by not building expectations too high we can contribute to its success, even if there will be a temptation, which we may all feel from time to time, to refer cases to the Ombudsman to keep some of our more difficult constituents at bay for a while longer.

I also support the plea of Deputy Gene Fitzgerald — and I know the Minister is fully behind this — that from the beginning the Ombudsman be given the proper back-up services, the proper type of resources to ensure that his attentions and energies are focused on doing the job properly and not on scavenging around for the resources in order to make the office effective. I know the Minister is fully aware of that and will give it every support.

I would ask the Minister also to ensure that there will be a fairly frequent review, especially in the early stages, of how the office is working. In the debates on the Ombudsman Act there was a teasing out of what would or would not be done. Reading over it today it was a very effective debate in the course of which many issues were raised. Undoubtedly there will be teething problems. I hope that, after the first year or so, there will be a fairly comprehensive review to ascertain what, if anything, needs to be done, to ascertain if other areas need to be brought within the scope of the provisions of the Act. I am sure the Minister will be open to that proposal.

In congratulating the Minister I join with him in his praise of Deputy Fergus O'Brien. Going back over the debates one can see, at the early stages, the idea of an Ombudsman was almost a one-person campaign by Deputy Fergus O'Brien to ensure that this new layer of administration would be set up. At times it must have been a fairly lonely campaign; he had great difficulty in explaining what was involved in the office and in winning public support. But he did so and if any one person is to be singled out for praise on this appointment it is Deputy Fergus O'Brien. I am glad the Minister mentioned him in his speech. I should like to be associated with those remarks.

Finally I think I am expressing the sentiments of everybody in wishing Mr. Michael Mills well as the first holder of this office. I hope and know that the confidence which this House is reposing in him will be fully honoured.

Mr. Tunney

Níl sé ar intinn agamsa mórán moille a chur ar an Teach ach ba mhaith liom a rá cé chomh sásta is atá mé go bhfuil an tairiscint seo os ár gcomhair. Ba mhaith liom an tAire a mholadh as ucht a bhfuil á dhéanamh aige, agus fáilte a chur roimh an té atá ceaptha aige, Michael Mills, agus tá súil liom go n-éireoidh go geal leis sa mhéid a bheas á dhéanamh aige.

Ba mhaith liom a chur in iúl dó roimh ré go mbeidh mise ag breathnú air agus go mbeidh súil agam nach mbeidh sé i gcónaí ag sodar i ndiaidh rudaí a bhaineas go díreach leis an gcorp, go bhfuil rudaí a bhaineas le anam na tíre seo agus scaití déantar dearmad orthu, agus go mbeidh mé ag ceapadh go mbeidh sé sásta bheith freagrach as ceisteanna, clamhsáin agus rudaí mar sin a cuirfear os a chomhair amach anseo.

Sílim gur chuala mé an tAire ar raidio agus é a rá go raibh díomá air nach bhféadfadh sé teacht ar focal i nGaeilge a bheadh oiriúnach don cheapachán seo. Nuair a bhí mé ag éisteacht le Maurice Manning ansin luaigh sé "cothrom na féinne" agus sin díreach atá i gceist. B'fhéidir go bhféadaimis teacht ar focal mar "cothromaí" nó "cothromthóir" nó rud éigin a bheadh níos oiriúnaí do shaol na tíre seo seachas an focal atá os ár gcomhair. Sé an rud is tábhachtaí ná go bhfuil sé os ár gcómhair agus go n-aontaíonn an taobh seo den Teach leis an fhear atá ainmnithe ag an Aire. Rud eile, tá dóchas againn go mbeidh rudaí níos fearr sa tír as seo amach.

In the times in which we live we must agree that one of the major frustrations suffered by citizens here at times is the feeling of hopelessness and helplessness in respect of the power machines, whether they be political, educational, commercial or ecclesiastical, which seem to have so much power and control over persons' lives. Having listened to people outside, I suggest that this feeling of helplessness among citizens leads to more distress than do most things. I will call the Ombudsman a "cothramaí", especially in the person of Michael Mills. People will now have an opportunity for the first time to seek redress from the Ombudsman. This load was carried by politicians, but from now on the people will see in the Ombudsman the person from whom they will get redress on occasions when those powerful organisations seem to be doing them injustices.

That is a great step forward in an effort to humanise those frightening institutions that exist. One can recollect the latest occasions when one had to make representations to one of the big institutions, the big Departments, and how difficult it has been to get anybody at the other end of the telephone, or to get a reply to a letter which would accept responsibility for information given or for the approach which the official may have to the matter brought before the institution or Department.

I hope I will not be doing what Deputy Manning asked us not to do, that is, bringing trivialities before the new Ombudsman. In a democracy we must allow each person to decide what is trivial and what is major to the person involved. People come to us and, having listened to them, we may think that what is agitating their minds may appear to be trivial. However, that may be of major proportions to the people troubled by it. Even though to me a matter might appear to be trivial, I should not like to think there would be a prohibition on me in the matter of transferring that problem to the Ombudsman. That would be his function rather than mine. Of course, I am sure we would all use our discretion about conveying to the person with the grievance that we might think he or she should not proceed further. I have said at seminars and elsewhere that problems referred to us often are regarded by intellectuals and others as village pump matters, but if a matter is causing pain or worry to a person it deserves consideration. We cannot dismiss matters in that way.

I said earlier that I hope the Ombudsman will not always be dealing with purely material matters. In Ireland there has been neglect of matters which could be described as culture, language, music, etc. If it can be demonstrated to the Ombudsman that constitutional questions in relation to our language are not being attended to by some culpable agent, he should attend to these matters, some of which could be described as spiritual.

Ní ocáid í seo chun óráid fada a dhéanamh. Is ocáid í dúinn a rá go beacht cé chomh sásta is atáimid go léir go bhfuil ar tairiscint os comhair an Tí agus cé chomh sásta agus atáimid leis an fhear cáiliúil atá ainmnithe chun na cúraimí seo a thabhairt air féin, agus cé chomh dóchasach agus atáimid gur ar mhaitheas na tíre a bhéas sé ag obair amach annseo.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

I join other speakers in complimenting the Minister for having brought this motion before us. I also congratulate him for having made a commonsense choice, a person whom all of us admire for his reporting during the years. In these times it is important that such a person will be there, easily available to the public, and that the public will have ready access to him and an opportunity to put their complaints, their side of the story, and that they will get replies and in many cases redress of their complaints.

There are two sides to the role of the Ombudsman. He will be dealing with individual complaints and from his experience in dealing with such complaints, listening and evaluating people's comments, his annual report to the Oireachtas will be of great value to us. The Minister for the Public Service has expressed concern at certain inadequacies in the whole public service area and perhaps now improvements can be attained so that people who have had their rights infringed in the future will have redress available to them. In turn that will mean that we will be able to legislate in a manner that will ensure people will be treated fairly, because there will be accountability in the various public service bodies from whom people seek help and information.

The word "commonsense" would seem to epitomise the choice made by the Minister for this post. The person chosen will not be too academically-minded or legalistic. He is not a person with a Civil Service mentality. I hope the Civil Service will take these words in the manner in which they are meant. At times there is too much overloading of the bureaucracy and from that point of view the Minister has made a good choice. It is important that the Ombudsman should be a person with a developed sense of humour, a person who will understand problems and the workings of the political systems and the bureaucracy, so that people will have easy access to him.

Perhaps the Minister would indicate when replying what offices and staff will be at the disposal of the Ombudsman when he takes up office in January so that he can get to work immediately. It is important that he should not have a developing entourage during the first six or eight months which would impede the proper carrying out of his functions.

I agree that Deputies and others who deal with various problems should not try to offload all of them on the Ombudsman. Inspectors should be appointed who can examine various cases, picking out those which can be readily dealt with and investigating the remainder.

I compliment the Minister on his sensible choice and wish the person named every success in his job.

Mr. De Rossa

I join other Deputies in welcoming the appointment of Michael Mills to the position of Ombudsman and I wish him every success in his new job. It was suggested in a number of newspaper reports that the appointment was made following consultation with all parties in the Dáil. While that is not strictly true, if we had been consulted we would have agreed enthusiastically to the proposal. It is hard to think of an appointment to a public position which has received such a widespread welcome. Michael Mills has carried out his responsibilities as a political commentator with independence and integrity and I have no doubt he will bring the same qualities to his new and demanding position.

The greatest benefit I see deriving from the appointment of an Ombudsman is the possibility that it may reduce the degree to which our political system relies on clientelism — this business by which Deputies are expected to act as messengers for constituents. That should not be taken as meaning that Deputies should not be concerned about the problems of their constituents, but a properly developed Public Service with adequate forms of redress would reduce the load with which Deputies have to deal. It would help to combat the attitude that Deputies can gain favours for constituents and that for this reason they should be supported. Hopefully the appointment of an Ombudsman and the reorganisation of the procedures for dealing with complaints in other parts of the Public Service and in the legal area will force Deputies and parties to concentrate more on the policies they are promoting and on their political programmes rather than acting as elected social welfare workers.

The appointment of an Ombudsman will be futile if the Government and the House do not pay attention to the reports which the Ombudsman will be required to place before us. We will be codding ourselves if we do not pay attention to any alterations he may propose. Experience in the area of consumer affairs is a good indication of the way in which a good idea can be rendered useless by failing to give powers to the people appointed, failing to provide the proper legislation and failing to respond to their reports. The effectiveness of the Ombudsman should reduce his workload rather than increase it, provided we pay attention to the reports he produces. He should also reduce the workload of Deputies. Matters should develop to a point where a constituent will go direct to the Ombudsman rather than to his local Deputy who would then refer the problem to the Ombudsman. A proper public education programme must be carried out. The problems brought to the Deputies should then be more of a community and political nature. For that reason I am sure most Deputies will welcome the appointment of the Ombudsman.

While I stress our welcome for this appointment, I have reservations about the manner in which the appointment was arrived at. The Minister has explained that he went through the various areas of public life to find someone for the job. We have no quibble with the person proposed but section 2 of the Act says that the appointment shall be made by the President upon a resolution passed by Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. This gives the Government of the day the power to appoint the Ombudsman. In this case the process has worked well and we have a very good person to fill the job but we have no guarantee that future Governments will act in the same way or arrive at the same worthwhile decision. We have no guarentee that in future political patronage will not enter into this area. For that reason I would suggest that we should consider recommending to the Minister that before the forthcoming six-year period elapses the Government should consider entrusting to the Civil Service Commission or some other independent body the task of finding a suitable person or compiling a short-list of such people to be considered by the Minister. The procedure as used by the Minister will be open to the charge of political patronage, no matter how honest or clear thinking the Minister of the day may be. I would urge that in future the Civil Service Commission or a similar body should be asked to recommend a person to the Government.

Mr. O.J. Flanagan

I have a word or two to say in relation to the appointment of an Ombudsman. There was a time when I had very grave reservations about this matter. So few re-echoed my sentiments that I saw the merit in the case they put forward and gradually came around to the view that such an appointment might not be any harm. An Ombudsman is new in this country, but 4,000 years BC the Greeks had advisers and counsellors and people came from all over their empire to have their grievances investigated and remedied.

In the year 250, during the height of the Roman Empire, the consul sat regularly and met all classes and creeds for the purpose of hearing their grievances. I presume that it was in those early days, in which there were devoted people trying to solve difficulties, grievances or injustices imposed on their fellow men, that such an appointment took root. I thought perhaps we were too small to appoint an Ombudsman; but, nevertheless, the appointment seems to have general agreement. I wholeheartedly support such an appointment in the hope that it will be extremely successful. There are two aspects which we must debate calmly: first, the duties, responsibilities and position of the Ombudsman and, secondly, the quality of the person who will undertake the task.

We are now going to pass this resolution asking the President to appoint a nominee of this House as Ombudsman but we have not gone very fully into his duties and responsibilities. According to the terms of reference, the Ombudsman will be responsible for the investigation into the problems of perhaps 65,000 or 70,000 people who are subject to the Civil Service and who may have a problem or a grievance of a public character to be investigated. However, 360,000 to 385,000 people are left out and will not have redress to the Ombudsman or his Department. If we are going to have an Ombudsman, he should have free rein to deal with grievances, problems and injustices. His hands should not be tied. Efforts should be made to have his activities extended — not confined — as widely as possible.

I should like to see the Ombudsman dealing with the activities of all Ministers and civil servants, especially where an injustice has been created, where someone has been deprived of their rights and denied what they feel they are justly entitled to, and where a Minister has made an order accordingly denying such person the privilege and the rights to which they are entitled. The same applies to all activities where a citizen may feel he has been victimised by a ministerial order, if a citizen feels he is a victim of a decision made by a civil servant and is doing it at the behest of his Minister, he too should be able to appeal to the Ombudsman. I presume the Ombudsman will have power to send for persons, papers and records to query the Minister in regard to his actions in so far as any alleged injustice is committed against a citizen. No person in authority should be free from the careful, watchful and independent eye of the Ombudsman. Full powers should be vested in him and people who deal with matters pertaining to the public should be fully investigated if a grievance is brought to his attention.

Of course, there is always the citizen who suffers from an imaginary grievance and we, as Members of the Dáil, have to deal with problems of that nature with courtesy, understanding and tact. I presume the Ombudsman will have access to experts who will be capable of immediately identifying the genuine injustice. I had hoped that the terms would be wider in relation to the activities of all State Departments. However I am glad that after a while health boards will also be subject to the Ombudsman, because in the past there have been extraordinary decisions taken by health boards. If there are to be investigations into the actions of Ministers and higher civil servants, surely we cannot deny the Ombudsman the right to facilitate the citizen by also investigating fully the actions of county managers, chief executive officers and those responsible for the administration of health boards. I am dealing with civil servants longer than any other Member of this House. In recent years I have dealt with civil servants in other European countries and in the United States and Canada and the Irish civil servants must rank as the most courteous and efficient taking into account their restricted financial means, their limited office accommodation and the limited assistance they receive.

It has been said in many countries that Irish civil servants are top class administrative personnel and I can recall when attending a meeting of the World Food Organisation in Washington that officials of our Department of Agriculture were looked to to give a lead to civil servants from other countries. What ever else may be said about our civil servants we must accept that they are highly efficient, courteous and understanding. They seldom receive the tributes they are entitled to. The debate on this motion gives us an opportunity to salute the quality and calibre of our civil servants. They are outstanding. It may not be possible to get them all in step but those who are responsible for the administration of public services are outstanding.

Since I was first elected to Dáil Éireann many years ago I have been dealing with civil servants and I have yet to find complaint with them. I must salute their dedication to duty and commend the work they perform. Our civil servants are dedicated to their work irrespective of the party in power. Their allegiance is to their Department, the people and the country in preference to the political party that may be in power. On occasions since the forties I have expressed my admiration for the dedication of our civil servants and I am sure the person appointed to the post of Ombudsman is aware of their ability.

Numerous citizens feel aggrieved about the administration of health boards, local authorities and the work of city and county managers. However, the Ombudsman should have some powers in regard to the Prison Service and the Garda. Many gardaí have grievances but they do not have any way of having them resolved. The same applies to the Prison Service. What about a prisoner who may feel that an injustice has been done to him? Is he to be deprived of his rights the moment he is put in a prison cell or should he have the right to consult with the Ombudsman if he feels an injustice has been done to him? Army personnel should also have the right of appeal to the Ombudsman. On another occasion I hope to have an opportunity to deal with the need for a complete review of Army law. In the short period when I was Minister for Defence I made inquiries about this matter. If senior officers or enlisted personnel have genuine grievances or feel they are the victims of discrimination, the doors of the office of the Ombudsman should be open to them so that their problems can be investigated.

We do not seem to place the same importance on the provisions in our Constitution as other countries do. Our Constitution gives our citizens certain privileges and rights. If we feel those rights are taken from us we are told to apply to the courts. It is easy to say that and to tell citizens that our courts will ensure that their constitutional rights are protected, but many people are not in a position to adopt that procedure because of the heavy legal costs involved. Our legal system is so complicated that it is seldom possible for a citizen to ventilate a grievance within his lifetime. I hope the Ombudsman will have power to investigate such complaints and so ensure that all citizens get fair play.

I am sure the Minister examined the Act operating in New Zealand, which gives the Ombudsman wide powers. I hope there will not be any question of restricting the activities or the powers of the Ombudsman. The Act operating in New Zealand is democratic. The activities of the Houses of the Oireachtas, the Army and the Garda should be subject to careful examination by the Ombudsman in the event of an injustice being alleged by any citizen.

I should like to refer to the person nominated by the Government, Mr. Michael Mills. His appointment has been widely applauded. It has been said that the appointment of the Ombudsman will mean less work for TDs. I do not think that will be the case. On the contrary it may mean more work for them because they will have to make inquiries regarding cases. If it becomes known that the Ombudsman comes from my town, that we both went to the same school and so on, I can see everyone from the four corners of Ireland who have a grievance writing to me in order to get the goodwill and support of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Mills is the most suited and the best possible person for this post. I take great pride that he comes from Mountmellick. I remember him as a little boy and at that time he was as conscientious, honourable and courageous as he is today. From his early school days he was looked on as a person of outstanding integrity and was highly respected and liked by his school friends. Mr. Mills has been selected for the post of Ombudsman because of his qualities. He has the great qualities of understanding and of patience, the ability to listen and, above all, he is an extremely courteous man. He comes from a family who have the highest standards of integrity. Mr. Mills has been absolutely impartial in his profession as a journalist. He may have had his own views but in his dealings with people he has shown understanding, care, friendship and courtesy.

Above all, Mr. Mills has been a great credit to the profession of journalism with which he has been so prominently identified. He belongs to the old school of journalists and they are very few nowadays. He followed in the footsteps of people like Paddy Quinn, Joe Dennigan, Jim Doyle, Hugh Curran, Michael McInerney and the other great men who sat in the Press Gallery here. All of them were journalists of integrity. I knew of one case where great publicity was given to a person in the public eye. Mr. Mills was known to say he was not worried about the manner in which the material was published but he was extremely worried because it was not the truth. Mr. Mills has always been concerned about truth and it is fitting that he is now selected for this most responsible post of Ombudsman.

I have been reading the work of political correspondents and journalists since the 1940s. I have never seen an article by Mr. Mills in which he belittled Parliament or cast a reflection on the rights, privileges and the dignity of Members of Parliament. He has never belittled the office of President or the rights of Parliament. He has upheld the institutions of State with pride, admiration and respect while many others tried to belittle them and pull them down. Not so with Mr. Mills because he realised the importance of upholding the dignity of Parliament. That is a quality that is disappearing rapidly in the world of journalism today, not only in this country but elsewhere. Mr. Mills was one of the old school who respected and loved the institutions of State. I do not know of any Deputy who ever suffered from the pen of Mr. Mills. He always respected the dignity of Members when others tried to belittle them.

I am proud of Mr. Mills and I say this as a fellow-county man. He has been an outstanding journalist. It gives us all great confidence in the office of Ombudsman. He will have to take on the great responsibility of investigating the grievances of the ordinary citizens, the poor, the semi-hungry, the ill-clad and the ill-shod as well as the fat and rich who may drive up in their Rolls Royces to have their problems investigated.

I am confident that we are starting on the right footing in creating the office of Ombudsman. I join with other Deputies who have appealed to the Government not to place restrictions on staff, accommodation and money. I ask them to give a free hand to a completely independent person of solid integrity to investigate the injustices of which our people may complain. There is no man in this State more suited to the post than Mr. Mills. He has commonsense, intelligence, sympathy and understanding. All these qualities are still evident in his aged mother who lived in my constituency. Mr. Mills has inherited these worthwhile qualities not only from his parents but from his grandparents and great-grandparents. His family have always been held in the greatest esteem.

There is no doubt that the appointment of Mr. Mills will ensure that people have confidence in the Office of Ombudsman. The Irish people can always say: "We now have an organisation led by a man of integrity who believes in justice and honesty and who will see that we get a fair crack of the whip". I hope that when the Ombudsman decides that there has been an injustice against a citizen there will be adequate means for ensuring that the injustice is put right and that ample compensation is paid by whoever is responsible for causing the wrong to the citizen. When the Ombudsman reveals that such a thing has taken place it should be put right and the law should enable it to be put right.

I know Mr. Mills for a long time and I know he will not be satisfied by just saying that an injustice has been done against a certain person. I do not believe he is the type of man who will say: "You are right but we are very sorry and there is nothing we can do about it". That would immediately handcuff the office of Ombudsman. Not alone should the injustice be exposed but if the good name of the citizen has been tarnished he should be adequately compensated for this injustice. Such a person should not be at any financial loss because of the injustice done to him. If a job has been lost the job should be restored on the recommendation of the Ombudsman. If a citizen has been deprived of X£, that money should be readily available on the recommendation of the Ombudsman. No matter what the grievance or the injustice carried out against the citizen, it will not be enough for the Ombudsman to say: "I have investigated it, you are quite right, an injustice was done to you". The injustice must be rectified.

The Ombudsman we are now appointing can be described as a family man, a man who believes in family life, who believes in the rights and the protection of the family and a man who believes that a citizen should not have to take drastic action in order to obtain his rights. Now that the Ombudsman-elect is leaving the Press Gallery I hope he will be able to whisper a word into the ears of some influential people about the necessity for a press council here. This is very necessary. I have been speaking about this for years but my plea has always fallen on deaf ears. Maybe we will hear more about that as times goes on.

The Minister said today:

The remit of the committee was to formulate proposals to meet the need of citizens aggrieved by administrative actions posed by the continually expanding activities of Government across the whole area of the public sector:

That covers what I was referring to a short time ago, that the many branches of the public service should come within the scope of the Ombudsman. I do not know what the views of the Garda and the Army authorities would be in relation to this matter but I believe it is always better to have Army and Garda grievances dealt with by somebody who is not directly involved in either the Garda or the Army. What better person to deal with the growing number of injustices springing up in our Defence Forces and in the Garda than the Ombudsman? He should be permitted to look at some of those problems. Not only will he provide the means for remedying grievences in relation to administrative actions or lack of action but he will also help us as legislators to become more aware of the effects of the legislation we enact in this House.

Parliament is proceeding to set up an Ombudsman for the first time and we are appointing a man who has been sitting for many years in the Press Gallery watching legislation going through. He has praised and condemned legislation. There is no man better qualified to address himself to any Government about the need for legislation in certain fields of public life than the man who is now being appointed. There is no man more qualified to say that the legislation which he saw going through is now causing injustice to people than the man who is now being appointed. I am convinced that if Mr. Mills sees there is need for any legislation or amending legislation or if there are people suffering an injustice because of the lack of legislation, he will have it suitably noted and ensure that the attention of the Government, no matter what Government are in power, is called to it and that such legislation is implemented.

The Minister said:

He will have the onerous duty of speaking and acting on behalf of the individual citizen in his everyday contact with the everyday legislation.

Members of this House have the closest possible contact with the ordinary citizen. The appointment of an Ombudsman will not lessen the volume of work of TDs. I do not believe any TD seriously believes that because an Ombudsman is being appointed he will have less work to do. Our job is to speak for and look after the interests of all our constituents. If the TD or Parliament fails, if the parliamentary question fails, if the Minister remains silent when he should have spoken, if the civil servants have not responded satisfactorily, the Ombudsman can act. There is no point in any TD going to his constituents and saying: "The Ombudsman is there and you should write to him". Those constituents would then say to their TDs: "We voted for you, we did not vote for Mr. Mills". It is the man who goes round seeking votes who is expected to look after his constituents. Any TD who wants to pass that work over to Mr. Mills is not doing his job.

The TD who says that he is only here as a legislator, that he is not there as representative for his constituents is not doing his work properly for the people who voted for him. We must represent the people in every way possible. We only resort to the Ombudsman when everything has failed in order to get a satisfactory response to our representations. I am glad the Minister referred to this in his speech. At the moment we seem to forget the individual. We speak of wealth, riches and property. All these things fade into insignificance in comparison with the importance of people. There is nothing in the world more important than people. The individual, whether he is dressed in rags or in silks, whether he is hungry or overfed, is still an individual. It is our job to protect and look after the needs of the people.

People are now being looked on as numbers. I am saddened by people at medical clinics being called by numbers. People in the Army and in the Garda are also called by numbers. People in the prison service have their numbers. The ordinary individual is more than any number. We are human beings and we have the right to life, to speak, to understand, to be given a standard of living. It is the voice of all the individuals together that can create a loud voice. The voice of one person is not heard. There is nothing more important than people. No matter what one's walk of life is, whether one is a university professor, whether one sleeps under canvas or in a caravan, one is still a citizen with rights.

The Ombudsman will protect and look after the rights of our people. I hope Ireland will be one of the first countries in the near future where the number will be removed and where everyone will have the privilege of being called by his name and not a number such as XY8574. I have always maintained that it is wrong to describe a man or a woman by a number. They all have names which should be used and respected.

More than once in the Minister's speech he referred to the right of the individual. Nothing is more important or more vital than the right of an individual in a democracy. For the time being we are a democracy. While we are a democracy let us protect the rights, privileges and the entitlements of the individual. The individual should be looked on not as a number but as a person with a place in society.

The Minister said:

He will examine the actions of public officials in their handling of particular cases and seek a satisfactory remedy in those instances where he finds that a citizen has a genuine grievance.

That is the kernel of the responsibility of Mr. Mills. No man in Ireland today is more qualified to deal with that aspect of the problem than the man named in this motion. The Minister said:

He may begin an investigation on his own initiative, arising out of a newspaper report, for example.

Mr. Mills will have plenty of scope if he commences investigations into newspaper reports. There have been reports from time to time which were not very accurate. I am sure the man we are now vesting with these powers will carry out his duties with credit and distinction. I have no hesitation in saying that. The Minister said:

The Ombudsman will be independent in the performance of his duties and will report annually to the Houses of the Oireachtas.

I hope that when his report comes before us the debate will not restricted to ten, 15 or 20 minutes or half an hour. Reports relating to the activities of the European Economic Community come before us frequently. I have not heard long debates in this Parliament on those matters, even though they affect the lives of every citizen. The agricultural community, the industrial community and the consumers are all affected, yet reports from the European Economic Community seemed to be passed over with haste and with a great lack of concern and interest.

When the Ombudsman's report comes before us I hope we will debate the grievances he has solved, grievances which should never have existed. I am sure he will point out in his report who was responsible, whether it was a senior civil servant, a Minister, a county manager, or a chief executive officer. He will spell out who was responsible for the grievance which caused embarrassment and injustice to the individual citizen. In a democracy this will give us an opportunity to ventilate the problems. The Minister said:

Michael Mills has been a journalist for 30 years and has been a senior distinguished political writer and commentator with The Irish Press for the past two decades.

I will not repeat what I have said about Mr. Mills apart from saying that as a journalist he has had the highest standards and integrity. He has shown respect and admiration for the institutions of the State. Nobody inside or outside of Parliament was ever belittled in any way by the writings of the Ombudsman elect, who always wrote with clarity, impartiality, understanding and a very high degree of justice and fair play. He did not take that from the ground — I have known his family for my lifetime. I wish him every success in his job, for which he is well able. He will tackle the problems and he is a good sympathetic listener with plenty of courage and he will not be afraid to put the blame where it should lie. A man of his type will set the office of Ombudsman on a solid foundation.

For the record, as a fellow townsman and as everybody from Mountmellick does, I rejoice in his appointment. There are not many Laoismen who get to the top, which sometimes makes us envy the Dublinman and Corkman his success. He will succeed. As a family man he will protect the rights and interests of the individual against injustice. I wish him the best of success and the height of good luck. Because of his past record of justice and honour, respect and dignity, his efforts will be crowned with the success which he so richly deserves in the highest post which could be given to him at present.

Mr. Calleary

I shall be very brief. I do not intend to detain the House for very long. It is with some personal satisfaction that I welcome this motion as I had the privilege of piloting the Ombudsman Act of 1980 through the Dáil and the Seanad. It was with some surprise that I and many others heard the announcement of Mr. Mills' appointment. However, on reflection one came to the opinion that this was an excellent appointment, which ensures that the experience and expertise which have been garnished by Mr. Mills over very many years will now be put to use on behalf of those who feel that they have not been given a fair deal by the various Departments of State.

I congratulate the Minister on this appointment and I am very glad that he has upheld the commitment which I gave to this House on behalf of the Fianna Fáil Government at the time of consulting with the Leaders of the Opposition in relation to the appointment. The House has heard very eloquently from Deputy Flanagan and I shall not elaborate on the various complaints which may be put to the Ombudsman. These are well documented in the Bill and were discussed in detail when the legislation was going through the House. However, I would ask the Minister to implement the other commitments given at the time, in particular in relation to the health boards, harbour boards and so on. I further ask him in 12 months or so, when he has gained experience of how the Act is operating, to look at the other sectors of State not now included in the Schedule of the Act but about which great concern was expressed by many Deputies during the debate of 1980.

Like the other Deputies, I congratulate Michael Mills. His qualities have been well enumerated at this stage and the Minister spoke very highly of him in the Bill. May I add two other qualities of which I have experience — his approachability and his calmness? When one adds these qualities to his integrity and compassion, his common sense and tact and the enormous experience he has gained over the years in writing about politics and politicians, one comes to the conclusion that he will be a very capable and formidable Ombudsman whom future Ombudsmen will have to work very hard to emulate.

Mr. Skelly

I concur with the commendation of the other Deputies on the appointment of Mr. Mills as Ombudsman and I welcome the appointment. I congratulate the Minister on bringing this motion before the House. While not a fan of the organ for which Mr. Mills has worked, mainly because of its flagrant bias over the years — this being something of which I was aware even before becoming a member of a political party — nevertheless it is significant that a person of his calibre was able to promote his brand of integrity in his reporting of debates on the political scene over the years in that organ. This has won the respect of everybody both inside and outside the House. I have made it a habit from time to time to consult his paper in order to see what he had to say about different matters.

This was the most universally acclaimed appointment in years. It will mean an advance in the practice of public administration and will be a means of redress for citizens long overdue. It may contribute to the dilution of the drab constituency duties of TDs who can be deflected from their rightful duties as legislators. In these times particularly we need to devote more of our time to tackling the problems of the country while, as Deputy De Rossa said, no one disagrees with having to help constituents in every way possible.

The significant appointments of An Bord Pleanála, of the DPP and of the Ombudsman have been made while Fine Gael and Labour were in office. I invite Fianna Fáil to join in the process of cleaning up public life. Much more remains to be done. Last week all sides of the House came together to put forward another important piece of legislation for the advancement of public life and the security of the citizens of the State. I hope we shall see more of this in the future.

There have been criticisms in this House in the past that the Minister has aped British legislation. I was delighted that he did not make it a condition that the complaints of the members of the public should have to go through TDs or public representatives as is the case in Britain, or was the case in Britain. I am glad that the Minister, when deciding on the appointment, gave careful consideration to many walks of life and that although he considered an appointment from the Law Library, they lost out on something.

It appears that nothing can be done without considering somebody from the Law Library. Never before was such a dose of realism served to the Irish public than by the appointment of a journalist of standing to the post of Ombudsman. Journalists have their feet on the ground. They are realists and very much in touch with what is going on. I hope in future an embargo will be put on appointments from the Law Library to positions like this and that consideration will be given to people in other walks of life.

There are many reasons why this appointment should be welcomed. It was a departure from normal practice. For example, the appointment could not have been made from the Civil Service because there could be a conflict of interests, but that is not to say that it would not have been possible to get a suitable person from the Civil Service and we must be seen to be fair when making this appointment. It is to be welcomed that the position was not filled from the political field for the same reasons. This would have been the most unsuitable arena from which to select a candidate. I hope the Government will bear this fact in mind when making future appointments, particularly when they are appointing judges. The appointment of an academic would also have been unsuitable because, like the clergy, they are not in touch with reality.

Mr. Kelly

The Deputy is trying to enrage both Deputy Andrews and myself.

Mr. Skelly

From where else but the profession of journalism could this appointment have been made? The public need this further boost of confidence in impartial appointments. As every Deputy knows who holds clinics and listens to complaints from ordinary decent and, perhaps, uneducated people who do not know where to turn, this is a particularly welcome appointment which will do a lot to restore public confidence and eliminate a lot of the bitchiness that goes on with people constantly complaining about one thing or another. This simple method of letting it be known that this office is available to the public will do much to get rid of a great deal of this unpleasantness and will help people to become more positive in their daily lives.

In the British Parliamentary Commissioner's Annual Report for 1982 he said:

I received several visits during the year from representatives of other countries having (or planning to have) ombudsmen. But the main opportunity of establishing and renewing personal contacts with other ombudsmen was provided by a Seminar which I and my deputy attended in Siena at the end of October. This was organised jointly by the Council of Europe and the University of Siena and had as its theme "Non-judicial means for the protection and promotion of human rights".

It appears that the Ombudsman can play an international as well as a national role. This will give him the opportunity to liaise with international ombudsmen. I hope our Ombudsman will attend the next four-yearly gathering of ombudsmen planned to be held in Stockholm in June 1984. Edward Gibbon said, "All that is human must retrograde if it does not advance".

The appointment of Ombudsman is an important step forward for us. If he issues a statistical report at the end of the year it will enable us to compartmentalise complaints and to deal with them quickly. This will also help reduce a great deal of the moaning and groaning done by the ordinary people and it might even eliminate this grumbling altogether. At the end of the year we will be able to examine the report and see where there seems to be most difficulty and this will give us an opportunity to take action to correct the situation.

For these reasons I welcome this motion. I congratulate Mr. Michael Mills wholeheartedly on his appointment and wish him every success.

Mr. D. Andrews

I wish to make a short contribution on this appointment and to pay a tribute to an old associate, Mr. Mills. A number of Deputies have made comments which should not be left unanswered but in the absence of ministerial intervention, I feel I should correct the record.

The previous speaker said Mr. Mills' paper was guilty of flagrant bias. I would not say that about The Irish Press. As a reader of The Irish Press, and the other Irish newspapers, I want to put on the record that it could bear scrutiny for editorial balance and could compare favourably with any European paper. It is a good newspaper, although it may not have the highest circulation in Ireland. Nevertheless, it is only fair to say that it is not a bad newspaper by any means. I want to put on record my appreciation of The Irish Press for its journalistic balance over the years.

Deputies commented on who might apply for the position of Ombudsman. In my view any citizen should be allowed to apply for a job whether he is a Law Librarian, an academic or a politician. A person's profession should not preclude him from applying for a job because every person has the right to apply for any position and each applicant should be considered on his merits. They have their rights as citizens, they must exercise those rights and be given equal treatment.

In defence of the Law Library — of which august institution I happen to be a member — there are many people in the Law Library who could well qualify for the position of Ombudsman. The suggestion that politicians are in some way unsuitable public representatives, or in some way unsuitable for the position of Ombudsman underrates, undermines and understates the role of politicians in this country. What is wrong with our politicians is that their critics are mainly politicians. I strongly object to my position as a politician being undermined by politicians. The people from whom most criticism emanates are the politicians themselves in relation to the profession, trade or call it what you will, of politics. Politics is an honourable profession. I am proud to be a politician. I am proud to have served the people of Dún Laoghaire for the last 20 years. I will serve them in that capacity as long as they want me and, when they cease to want me, so be it; I will not shed any tears. In the meantime I will serve them, that is what democracy is all about. I find it distasteful that politicians undermine the profession of politics. If we do not stand up for ourselves here, nobody else will do so. I might bring that to the attention of the previous speaker. Our politicians have served this nation well down the years. I do not think we have anything of which to be ashamed.

I agree that, as Dáil Deputies, we should be seen as legislators rather than as mediators. I do not think we should be grievance men or women. Unfortunately the situation has arisen over the last 15 years in which the clinic system has emerged under which we have to present ourselves at such clinics on a weekly or monthly basis throughout our constitutuencies. This is the type of service people want or appear to want. I am, in inverted commas, "guilty" of practising within that system. I often wonder whether I am wasting people's time in that practice. What happens is that Mrs. Murphy comes into Deputy David Andrews saying she has not received her pension for some reason or other. I will say to Mrs. Murphy that certainly I will write to the Minister about it. A standard letter comes to me saying that the matter is being attended to and that I will hear from the Minister in the next week or two. Inevitably the follow-up arrives setting out the reasons Mrs. Murphy is not entitled to her pension. I will already have told her the reasons she was not entitled to her pension when she came to me in the first instance. That is a waste of Mrs. Murphy's time, of my time and of the taxpayers' money. The reality is that the taxpayer is paying for the time taken up by that individual bureaucrat responding to a query, the answer to which was known in the first instance. That is not good practice. The reality now is that unless Dáil Deputies serve the people at local level they will not be re-elected to this House.

If the appointment of this Ombudsman achieves one goal, that of bringing about in the minds of people that we be seen as legislators, not middle men between the bureacracy and the Dáil, or between Government Departments and the people, if this appointment brings about an honesty of service to the people it might eliminate the unreality in which Dáil Deputies operate. In saying that I am not underrating the role played by us at local level. We have now a sophisticated, young and very educated electorate. If the electorate examines what I have to say they will see that it is an honest expression of a point of view they would themselves accept. I may well be talking myself out of the Dáil by expressing such views; so be it but I do not think so. In the meantime if the Ombudsman can bring about a situation in which he will deal with these grievances, real and unreal, expressed by individuals to him in relation to grievances they may have arising out of some piece of bureaucratic bumbledom it would be a good thing. For that reason alone I welcome the appointment of this Ombudsman.

I do not like feeding off other people's speeches because that is not fair. Nevertheless Deputy Oliver J. Flanagan made the point that the Ombudsman should have some role to play in relation to the performance of Dáil Deputies. He did not mention Senators specifically. I think what he meant were Members of the Oireachtas. I would reject the idea of the Ombudsman having any role at all in that regard. I see the Ombudsman as a creation of this House, a creature — and I say that with the greatest respect to the Ombudsman-elect — as the servant of this House. I do not think any Dáil Deputy should be answerable to the Ombudsman. Rather should the reverse be the case, that the Ombudsman be answerable to this House and I am pleased to note that he will be reporting to this House on a regular basis. That is as it should be. As I see it the role of the Ombudsman is clearly defined by the Minister in the course of his introductory remarks when he said:

The remit of the Committee was to formulate proposals to meet the needs of citizens aggrieved by administrative actions posed by the continually expanding activities of government across the whole area of the public sector.

It is my view that that remit should remain within those parameters. I do not think we Deputies should be subject to this individual. Coming to the merits of the individual sycophancy is not my strongest point. I was never a great man to proclain my own virtues or those of others. But what I say I say with, I hope, a measure of sincerity, that is in regard to the individual who has been appointed as Ombudsman. I have been a Dáil Deputy for 20 years now. Over those years, Mr. Michael Mills has proved to me that he is one of the most decent men I have come across in journalism. He is a man of the very higest journalistic standard, as I understand journalism. In the main the journalists in this country adhere to those standards, those to which Mr. Michael Mills, the Ombudsman-elect, adheres. That is how it should be. He is not of the "peep-hole" variety of journalists. Thanks be to God there are few of that variety in this country but there are a few and they make me quite ill. A number of them do not understand or would not recognise the truth if it was presented to them. Mr. Michael Mills has been a representative of the Press Gallery in the Dáil, which has been staffed by men and women of the highest journalistic integrity. I am pleased for Mr. Mills personally. I wish him well in his new appointment. I have no doubt that from time to time we here are seen as miniombudsmen or women. I wish him all the best, in a deeply personal way, because I have been associated with him for years. His standards have been of the highest order. I wish him every success in this new position.

Mr. Kelly

I will begin by taking up where Deputy Andrews left off. I welcome this appointment personally. I know Mr. Mills fairly well. I have known him for ten or 15 years and have the same high regard for him as other Deputies have expressed here. I do not want to imply that his colleagues in the press are all different from him, because they are not, but he has been very conspicious as a serious journalist. In a sense, that may be a weakness in a journalist because taking issues 100 per cent seriously and not being diverted by the anxiety to make catchy headlines from the raw material of the news may mean that his name is not as much a household word as those of some of his colleagues.

In saying that, I do not intend criticism of journalists whose talents lie in another direction because, of course, it is a talent to make the raw material of news, which may be pretty dull to the man in the street, suddenly interesting, colourful and alive. I am not belittling the other kind of journalism but it is fair to Michael Mills and those who are like him to say that his brand of journalism takes every issue as being deadly serious and keeps it as that, and does not look at it in that awful Irish village-street-squinting-windows way in which the whole thing can be explained through referring to whom a person is married or where he came from Mr. Mills has not any of that.

A month ago one might have been surprised at the prospect of discussing the likely performance of an ombudsman in terms of his performance as a journalist, but I think that quality is a pointer to the inner man, and if the innerman is a grave, honest character, as I believe he is, then the office which he will fill will be given a very good start. Some Deputy earlier said it will be a start which will set a standard which his successors will have great difficulty in keeping up.

Without going back on the grounds which we argued when the Ombudsman Bill was before the House, I must say that I am afraid he will have a rough time to start with, because most people have only the faintest idea of what an ombudsman is — I do not mean those in this House but most people in the world generally. An ombudsman seems to have come into the public consciousness as being to the administration what Santa Claus is to a child's weekly pocket money: he is something over and above the usual pocket money, someone who showers benefits regularly, even though one has not had to budget for them. In the public perception, an ombudsman is a person who will produce results from the administration which the administration itself has been powerless to do and which even the intervention of Deputies and Senators going around the country have not been able to do.

I want to strike a note out of compassion for Mr. Mills, and I do not want him to become dejected early in his career, but I am afraid he will be unavoidably the necessary source of a good deal of disappointment in the months ahead. I do not know when it is planned to equip him with the apparatus of office, the familiar wall-to-wall carpeting, the stainless steel plate and the graphic artist-designed annual report — I do not know when all these things will begin to happen — but the very moment he will take up office he will get the standard Stationery Office baskets which will groan with post. In the post I get from my constituency — a lot of it comes from throughout the country as well — I have yet to be able to recognise the handwriting on many of the letters. There are chronic grievances from people and I do not mean that they are all nut cases, though that category is well represented among them, but there are people who simply cannot be persuaded that the law applying to their cases is a proper law. Of course it may not be a proper law and Mr. Mills will have the heartbreaking experience of writing to people who genuinely feel that the world has done them down, to tell them there is nothing he can do to help them because he is not empowered to change the law — he cannot tear up the law in the way Santa Claus can make confetti of a child's budget in Christmas week. He will have to stay within the four corners of what the law makes possible in regard to social benefits or grants or amenities and so on. He will have to steel himself — I do not think any speaker has said this today — to being the conveyor of a lot of what will come across to the people as bad news. People are inclined to turn ungrateful quite quickly and Mr. Mills may find his name being bandied in the correspondence columns in the next six months or 12 months as a by-word, as somebody who can do nothing.

I hate to strike that unhappy note so early in the career of Mr. Mills, before it has begun, but it would be cruel of this House to do otherwise because all of us, collectively and individually, have a far wider experience of observing the things that come across to the ordinary voter as grievances. I do not think it would be a bad thing for Mr. Mills to ask some particularly busy Deputies, some with particularly big posts — I would not be one of those, I am not in the class of some of my colleagues on the Fine Gael floor — to see their post. It might not do him any harm to come in and look at such post for a week or so. By all means let him go to Deputy Calleary's rooms where I am sure he will be facilitated by one of the ladies or gentlemen there. He could go to the Labour Party rooms to get some kind of clue about how helpless people are about going after their rights. He would also learn about how difficult it is to persuade people that they have got, not perfect justice because the world does not provide that, as much in the way of rights as the law affords them. He will find it difficult to persuade them that no one from the Taoiseach down can do more than to ensure that they will get the rights the law affords them. The office of Ombudsman is not giving any extra dimension to that picture.

I have said all that because it would have been cruel to allow Mr. Mills, who is flesh and blood like the rest of us, to read the reports of today's proceedings here and then travel on the wave of euphoria that I would feel if I had so many ladies and gentlemen speak well of me for nearly three hours. I am just warning him that he is bound to cause a great deal of disappointment. He will have a great deal of drudgery and many angry telephone calls and abusive letters from people who will be saying, "Have we added you to the list of well-paid State servants who can do nothing about my grievance?"

I am sorry to be so brutal about it, but that is the kind of stuff he will get, perhaps not very much of it. Knowing him, I appreciate he has the strength of character not to be worried about it unduly but it is fair to tell him he will have a rather up-hill climb, perhaps even emotionally, in this job in trying to give a character and a profile to what must be a useful addition to the scene here.

If he looks at section 4 of the Act under which he is appointed he will find the criteria on which he will be allowed to condemn or denounce or find fault with some administrative actions. There are seven in number. There is reference to action taken without proper authority, taken on irrelevant grounds, the result of negligence or carelessness based on erroneous or incomplete information, improperly discriminatory, based on undesirable administrative practice, or otherwise contrary to fair or sound administration. At least four and possibly six of these grounds are already grounds in law for having an administrative decision struck down or invalidated.

I hope Mr. Mills will not resent my stressing that he is not a lawyer. He is too intelligent to be under the impression that it is at present possible for an administrative authority to get away with an action taken without proper authority or a decision taken on irrelevant grounds, or negligently or carelessly. He would be under an illusion if he thought it was possible to get away with being discriminatory from a legal point of view or with an undesirable or unfair administrative practice. The legal system, not merely in our own time but even when the British were here, always regarded these as criteria which would suffice to have a decision declared void before a court.

To some extent Mr. Mills is being asked to duplicate, by a quasi-administrative process, namely that of his own office for which no strict guidelines have so far emerged, what is already being done in the courts. It is true that one might have to start in the High Court, which is an expensive business, and I do not suggest that the widow who cannot understand why she should not qualify for free fuel should be sent to the High Court to prove herself right. I have suggested before that we might have a simplified, very cheap administrative process of a judicial kind within the familiar dimensions of the legal system to apply to all kinds of humble administrative decisions like the refusal of the welfare officer to put someone on the free fuel list. That may be too humble a thing to take to the High Court but it may be the only grievance that an old lady has. We ought to have an ordinary legal process, without any bowing and scraping and wigs and gowns, built into the legal system which will get to the bottom of these things quickly and with the minimum building up of files.

What will Mr. Mills be doing? He will be administering criteria which are essentially legal criteria which the courts already apply but he will not have quite the same preemptory engine which the court represents. People are inclined to complain about the old fashioned panoply and intimidating formality of a court. I think it is a damn good thing that to some extent courts should be intimidatory. My experience in practice is that witnesses are a bit over-awed by the look of a court and perhaps this is no harm. It makes them slower to tell the lie they would tell in any other kind of setting. When they do tell a lie it is easily detected by the sixth sense of even a dull advocate. I have no objection to that slightly over-awing dimension of a court, although I do not mean it to intimidate poor, simple people. On the contrary, it is the gougers and the scroungers who deserve to be intimidated. That is why it is a good system.

Mr. Mills will not have any of that. He will be simply Mr. Mills, admittedly an Ombudsman with statutory powers of some kind. He will not be equipped with the peremptory and very tough powers which a court has in order to compel obedience to its orders. This will require from Mr. Mills — and I am sure his character is up to that measure — unusual firmness and persistence to extract from the administration the kind of result which a court would get by a three-line order.

I will not go to the same fulsome lengths as Deputy Flanagan in praising public servants because I have known a few bad apples as well as all the good ones. My experience and impression from reading the law relating to times earlier than our own is that maladministration in the sense of dishonest or recklessly bad government at Civil Service level is very rare. Most of the mistakes of the kind which come under these criteria in the Act, most instances of something being done without proper authority or on irrelevant grounds, occur in practice by accident, not by design. They may occur because an official is in a hurry or is overworked. He may be lazy or careless or perhaps he is cutting a corner. Perhaps he is sick of the sight of a particular problem and thinks of a quick way out of it. These are the kinds of mistakes that anyone makes and civil servants are not necessarily immune. The sort of bad government one might have expected in some remote province in eighteenth-century Russia does not exist here or at least exists to only a marginal extent. I believe it is extremely rare. Most forms of error which will come under these criteria are not of a malicious nature.

The Ombudsman will not be equipped with the same peremptory powers as the court. He will be duplicating work which the courts do but he will be dealing with humble people who are afraid to go to court and could not afford it. He will be up against a bureaucracy which by and large is extremely honest. Some Departments are slow and perhaps not 100 per cent polite. Some are not free of the taint of bloodymindedness in certain sections or contexts but by and large we have an extremely honest administration which is one of the more shining parts of our national picture and we are lucky to have it.

Mr. Mills will find it a pretty depressing job. He will go through the motions of trying to find whether So-and-So ought to have had a pension and he will get a letter, which in almost all cases will rest on a correct appreciation of the facts, signed by a responsible official who will not attempt to conceal his name. I welcome the recent announcement by the Minister for the Public Service that the giving of officials' names will now be standard. That is a good move. I am not trying to imply that I have had any difficulty in trying to extract an official's name. I find them quite willing to give their names when I am discussing something with them on the telephone. I am sure you have found that too, Sir. The full responsibility will rest with him to track down a supposed injustice in an individual case and I have the impression that he will be fighting his way through a tunnel stuffed with cotton wool. He cannot see the light at the end of it. It does not offer much resistance, but neither is it very easy to get to the end of it. There is no malice, dishonesty, no recklessness or anything like that, but it is just desperately difficult to get to the rights or to prove that any wrong has taken place in even the simplest instances.

Deputy Andrews might have said, when he mentioned telling the applicant that she was not entitled to a pension, that he told her so before she started and that his words had been confirmed by the Department, that the lady's next act would be to go to Deputy Desmond and, if she has the same experience with him, she will than go to Deputy Barnes, Deputy Cosgrave and Deputy Barrett. I am afraid that the Ombudsman in the eyes of the people — unless Mr. Mills has an unusual flair for explaining himself loudly and clearly so that it lodges with everybody before disillusionment sets in — will find he is looked on as a sixth wheel in the Dún Laoghaire constituency or some other constituency, another string to the complainant's bow. Whether they will try that wheel before going to TDs or the other way around naturally will depend on chance, but I am afraid it will turn out like that.

I want to make a suggestion to Mr. Mills for saving himself from that fate, which will break his heart if it descends on him, and the heart of his staff also. He would give great example by spending as little as possible and ignoring the appeals which, I am sorry to say, came from my own benches, for unlimited State expenditure on offices, equipment and staff. There is no need for him to build an empire; but what he could do, with even a fairly skeleton apparatus to serve him, is to hold as many press conferences and explanation sessions as he can. They will be glad to have him on RTE programmes for a certain time and it is only thereafter that bodies like An Coimisiún Dumpála decide they have to spend £1,000 buying four square inches of space in the daily papers because no one is interested in having An Coimisiún Dumpála on "The Late Late Show" or whatever. For a while he will have instant access to publicity and he should use it. This is well meant advice. He should try to damp down expectations of what he can do and explain to the public that there are things he cannot do and that, if one or other office has repeatedly said that a claimant is not entitled to something and if Deputies and Senators and so on have also said so, there is no use coming to him because perhaps in only one case in 10,000 will he get a different answer.

People will be scrutinising the Act with a high powered lens to try to find some way of defeating the Ombudsman and he could interpret the word "action" in section 4 as meaning action of a Department or an official in drawing their salaries and taking their holidays but in not doing what they are there to do. That could be done. I hope that the people in the press and the public galleries will not misunderstand what I am saying here. I am not suggesting that that is a posture or a frame of mind characteristic of the Civil Service but there are times and contexts in which the Civil Service, or elements of it, do not seem to be producing the goods. The output at one end of the apparatus does not seem to justify the volume of money put in at the other end. The Ombudsman could invite people who are owed liquidated, settled, uncontested sums of money by State bodies that are within his remit — a very large number of them, of course, are not — and where there is no dispute any longer about entitlement, to let him know if they are experiencing delay in extracting their money from a Department. That is a humble suggestion. He will not have to break many lances or conquer many dragons to do that, but it seems to be something about which no argument is possible and on which there can be really no excuse except some form of administrative constipation which he should be able to clear out of the way.

Departments which do not provide adequate explanations for some step which they have taken, which is, in essence, a step of a kind they are perfectly entitled to take, could be challenged and asked to provide an adequate explanation. The simple instance here is the telephone billing system. I know that a Department would suffer a rush of blood to the head if they were personified here as having anything wrong with their billing system. However, the other day I received a letter from the man in charge of the money at a boy's school. It was an account of his differences with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs in regard to the telephone bill. He was so uneasy about the billing that he had a private monitoring system inserted into his own telephone to monitor the number of units consumed and the discrepancy disclosed between what the Department were trying to charge him at the end of the quarter and what his own monitor had recorded was 10,000 units. It is a big, busy school and undoubtedly the telephone is heavily used. I think I observe some activity here on my right in writing down that figure. But I want to stress that I am not accusing the Department of being wrong. Perhaps the Department are right in sending him that bill and maybe his monitor is at fault; but it is wrong that he should have to go to the rounds of writing to a Deputy, getting the Deputy to make photocopies of the correspondence, sending it in and even then perhaps not getting a satisfactory explanation. That case has nothing to do with the group called Telephone Protest who exist for no other reason than to extract some sense from the Department in regard to their billing processes. That is something the Ombudsman might go into and get his teeth into and not relinquish them until he has broken whatever is causing the trouble in that Department. Although the Department of Posts and Telegraphs are, in schedule 1, one of the Departments which he may investigate, there is no mention anywhere of the two giants, An Bord Telecom and An Bord Poist. They do not figure anywhere in the legislation. It is possible that the reason is that they did not exist when the Bill was passed in 1980. It may be that there will be amending legislation in the Bills to establish the two boards putting them into one schedule or another in the Act. I had better not be positive about that, but the Act does not contain any mention of the two bodies I have referred to although they will in a short time have charge of two important functions.

That must be regularised because I would bitterly object and oppose any suggestion that an Ombudsman worth the name should have the workings now with the Department of Posts and Telegraphs withdrawn from his scrutiny. In my constituency — it may be that in Deputy Nealon's constituency there are other problems; I know they have telephones now — there is no single matter I get more post about than telephone grievances. I am referring to real grievances, such as complaints from people who have paid deposits on the undertaking that they will get something within a certain number of months. The Department have their £60, £80, or whatever figure, but they do not have a telephone and there is no question of paying interest on the money held by the Department either. We all know that the telephone system here is the source of the most universal grievance and anything which would withdraw that from the Ombudsman's purview would take a lot of use from the Ombudsman as far as my constituency is concerned.

People talk as though people in Dublin suburbs do not have any right to call themselves part of the country, but they are Irish also. Many of them come from the constituencies represented by the two gentlemen behind me. They pay their taxes and are entitled to the same considerations as any other citizen. Their votes, funny enough, are just as good as the votes of Mayo or Sligo in putting a Government in or putting one out. They are entitled to expect that, when they are going to have to pay for the apparatus of an Ombudsman, that Ombudsman would not only be permitted but encouraged to put his nose, as a first priority, into the telephone service to see what is going on. We have poured hundreds of millions into that system and we are entitled to know what has happened to it.

Mr. Mills might say "Do not expect too much from me in the way of individual cases about this or that because there are a couple of big things I want to try to understand, without condemning anyone unheard, without coming to any rash conclusions and I want to try to understand what they are all about. I want to see what exactly is wrong with the telephone system and why this country, after all the expenditure, is unique in Europe in the awfulness of that system".

Mr. Nealon

Deputy Kelly is being very unfair because the system has improved enormously in the west of Ireland.

Mr. Kelly

They must have put a few office holders in the west since I last heard statistics. They must have located a few cars west of the Shannon.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy should confine himself to the appointment of the Ombudsman.

Mr. Kelly

My first suggestion was that the Ombudsman should invite the public to let him know when they have a claim that is no longer in dispute, when they are simply waiting for a cheque and are told by telephone that the cheque is on the Minister's desk awaiting signature. There is no reason why any person should have to wait for money which is due to him now. An Ombudsman ought to be able to put an end to anybody having to wait for money from any of the Departments under his scrutiny. That is something he can do and for which he will be thanked. It is not spectacular.

For so long as the Department of Posts and Telegraphs is under the charge of the Ombudsman he should say "Let us understand that the thing which is the biggest source of grievance — it can be multiplied over and over again from individual instances — is the telephone service". He should say he would like to meet everybody involved in that service from the Ministers down to the linesmen laying the cables, those out on the job and those who are now working in the new suburbs in my constituency marching up the Dublin foothills. People in that area have been waiting many years for a telephone. If I am not mistaken somebody connected with Minister of State O'Brien has been waiting six years for a telephone in my constituency. If I was the Ombudsman I would like a briefing on this. I would like to know what this is all about because I would expect many complaints about telephones. I would like to have my own picture of what is going on and why there is such colossal expenditure in a country of our size with a growing population but not growing quite like rabbits. I would like to know why it has produced such a poor result.

I am sorry if I have struck a different note to other speakers and that I have gone on longer than I intended. I wish Mr. Mills every possible success. I have had an opportunity to convey that wish to him earlier. I know I speak for every Member when I say that anything any of us can do in an unpartisan way to help or advise him will be willingly at his disposal. I should like to congratulate him on being the first holder of an office I hope will develop. He has a chance to make it into a most important and valuable office, an office which will be a friend to liberty and decent Government.

Minister of State at the Department of Health (Mr. F. O'Brien)

I am happy this appointment has been made. In 1975 a Private Members motion regarding the appointment of an Ombudsman, which I tabled, was passed by the House. Subsequently, an all-party Committee considered the matter for a number of months and produced an effective report which was adopted by the Government. It has taken a number of years to get this far, but I believe all Members welcome the appointment. I am not saying that the delay was deliberate; it was one of those things that had to be processed. I should like to compliment the Minister for the Public Service on his prompt action in making the appointment. It is in line with his thinking on the review of the public service and the role it should be playing. Deputy Kelly in his contribution gave the distinct impression that he was in favour of the appointment of an Ombudsman and expressed a view that he had a useful role to play. I agree with those sentiments and that was why I was keen that the appointment be made some years ago.

There is a view that everybody with a grievance or a problem runs to their local representatives. While we deal with many of the problems the great majority of people plough their own furrow and feel frustrated and alone. For the good of the public service, and confidence of the general public, it is important that people should not have to run to politicians if they have a grievance. It is good that there will be a person they can go to, a grievance settler. Deputy Kelly made the point that in 90 per cent of the cases the Ombudsman will have to write back to say that people were not entitled to the assistance sought but the important thing is that people will have had recourse to an independent person to investigate their case. That will give people a sense of confidence in the whole area of public administration.

The appointment of Mr. Mills was a wise one. Like Deputy Calleary, I was surprised when I heard the name of the person to be appointed but on reflection I viewed the appointment as a good one because Mr. Mills has tremendous experience. He has the humanity to deal with problems and will not have a cold calculated legal outlook on matters. He will have a common-sense approach to problems. Long may he hold this important position. I do not intend to go into the merits or demerits of the position and I am happy that the matter has been resolved. The appointment of an Ombudsman will be most worth while and well justified. The public service will know now that somebody will be able to see both sides of the coin and this will make the whole administration more streamlined and efficient. It will also engender a greater degree of respect for the public service and those who work in it.

I am happy this appointment has been made and I congratulate the Minister on taking such swift action and on making such a fine appointment to this post. I wish Mr. Mills well. I am sure he will bring all the qualities he has shown as a political correspondent to his new job and that he will be well respected. I am sure this first appointment will set a high standard with regard to the post of Ombudsman.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I should like to thank the numerous speakers who have contributed to the debate. I am heartened by the positive response that has come from all to the nominee of the Government for the position of first Ombudsman. A number of points were raised but many of them were much more relevant to the debate on the Bill relating to the Ombudsman. As Deputy Calleary will recall, many of the points raised were dealt with comprehensively during the passage of the Bill in 1980.

The order bringing into effect the office of Ombudsman was made last July and I spoke about this in the debate on 8 July. Today we are dealing with a single motion putting forward the name of the person to be recommended to the President for appointment. However, a number of points were raised that are worthy of comment at this stage for the purpose of clarification.

Deputy Gene Fitzgerald and others referred to the need to provide adequate accommodation and staff for the office of Ombudsman. Both of these matters are well in hand. I am particularly anxious that the accommodation to be provided for the Ombudsman should be central and convenient to Government Departments, should be easily accessible to the public and preferably that it should be independent of any other Government office or Department so that the independence of the Ombudsman is emphasised even in the physical location of his offices. Plans are well advanced for the acquisition of suitable offices and I hope we will be in a position to announce their location in the near future.

The staff for the office of the Ombudsman will be appointed following recruitment by the Civil Service Commission. They are an independent body who will make impartial recommendations in connection with the appointment of staff. When appointed, the staff will be civil servants but applications will be invited from serving civil servants and members of the general public. Following their appointment they will be civil servants but rather than being civil servants of the Government they — as is analogous with the staff in the office of Director of Public Prosecutions, the office of Comptroller and Auditor General and the staff of the Houses of the Oireachtas — will be independent civil servants responsible only to the Ombudsman. They will not be civil servants of the Government and any fears that in some way they will be responsible to a Department or to the Government of the day are ill-founded.

There is an important difference in the manner in which complaints can be referred to the Ombudsman in this country as opposed to some of our near neighbours and that point was referred to by a number of speakers. The provisions in our legislation ensure that any member of the public or any group or body who consider they have a grievance or a matter for examination may refer that complaint directly to the Ombudsman. That is in sharp contrast with the practice in some other countries where reference must be through Members of Parliament. It was felt by the all-party committee and the Government of the day who put forward the legislation that that was not the most acceptable practice. Consequently, the right of direct access to the Ombudsman was provided for in the 1980 Act. I think that is correct and I am sure the public will welcome their direct access to the Ombudsman.

That is not to say that Members of the Oireachtas cannot refer complaints or matters referred to them to the Ombudsman. I suspect that in particularly difficult cases or in cases where Members feel it might be especially appropriate that they will refer such matters to the Ombudsman. There have been pleas that initially at least Deputies should not decide to send all their constituency correspondence in one large bag to the office of the Ombudsman. That is self-evident. If we were to resort to that it would be an abuse of the system. I hope that over a passage of time the more difficult cases which take longer for Deputies to resolve and which can be frustrating for the constituents and the Deputies might be referred by Deputies to the Ombudsman or in time, might be referred directly by the constituent to the Ombudsman. If that should happen it would have a most beneficial effect on this Chamber. It would allow Members to devote more time to the affairs of Parliament. In that way the office of Ombudsman would have a positive beneficial effect that was not perhaps of prime importance when the office was established.

Deputy Fitzgerald referred to a matter of great importance, namely, that there should be occasional regional appearances of the Ombudsman, that he should not be seen as somebody operating exclusively from an office in Dublin. I subscribe fully to that belief. One of the reasons why Deputies from outside Dublin have received so many representations is that their constituents are aware that they travel regularly to Dublin and are in contact with Government Departments. Quite understandably there is an impression throughout the country that all decisions are made here and that the more removed one is from the seat of decision-making the more difficult it is to get simple administrative decisions put into effect or to make complaints and appeals against such decisions. For that reason people in the parts of the country removed from Dublin have recourse to their elected representatives more frequently and ask them to operate as ambassadors of appeal for them in their dealings with Government Departments. The provision whereby the Ombudsman will have the right to travel to any part of the country in connection with his investigation of any matter is important and I am sure the Ombudsman will respect that provision.

I would like to think in time to come — I am expressing here a personal opinion — and in the light of experience of the operation of the office of the Ombudsman and after his remit has been extended to take in areas other than the Civil Service proper, that there might be consideration given to the establishment either of regional offices for the Ombudsman or of regional Ombudsmen who would deal mainly with problems that arise in the regions. If that development occurred over a period of time it would radically change the perception of the public service in the minds of the public and also the role, requirements and demands placed on elected representatives in the various regions.

Deputy Manning reminded the House of a description, which, perhaps, it would prefer not to be reminded of, that is the description given by Professor Basil Chubb to Members of the Dáil as being perceived in their main role as persecuting civil servants. We all know that is not the role that Members of Parliament should have. The Deputy suggested it is not the role either which is appropriate to the Ombudsman. I do not believe that if the person we are selecting is a suitable candidate for the office he either would perceive his role as being that of persecuting civil servants. His role must be to ensure that the administration is being carried out properly and fairly and that he can adjudicate upon complaints and grievances made to him, that where those grievances are upheld the wrong is put to right and where those grievances are found to be without substance the correct decision of the Civil Service and the public service is identified and made clear and the proper action of the service is also highlighted. The role of the Ombudsman, as well as being a protector of the public's right to fair administration, I would also see as being a role of ensuring that, where the administration is operating fairly and is proven to be so, as a result of his investigation, proper administration and the proper conduct of public servants in relation to their duties are also referred to and highlighted.

A number of Deputies asked that the operation and the remit of the Ombudsman should be reviewed after a certain length of time. I have mentioned in the House previously and in other places that it is my intention, after the Ombudsman has been operating for some time, to extend his remit to the area of the local authorities and the health boards. It is also my belief that after some length of time, whilst he operates the wider remit, the area of at least some State bodies should also be included within the remit of the Ombudsman. It is our intention that the extension of the remit to local authorities and health boards should take place preferably some time within the first year of operation. It is important, however, that we should allow the Ombudsman some months in operation so that he can gauge the volume of complaints being submitted to him and the length of time it takes to investigate them, and that the Ombudsman and his staff are absolutely satisfied of their capabilities to take on and investigate thoroughly and efficiently additional complaints before the remit is extended. It would be unfortunate if we placed a burden on the Ombudsman and his office which meant that none of the work he is charged with doing could be carried out properly. I understand that recent experience in some other countries where the remit was too wide perhaps initially has led to some administrative difficulties, to put it mildly.

I understand it was for that reason that the right of the Ombudsman to investigate complaints dates only from the date upon which the office is established. If that were not the case I suspect that he might well be snowed under with complaints dating back not to 1922 but, perhaps, even as far as the Act of Union, and the sheer difficulty of sorting out the volume of paper that would descend on the unfortunate incumbent, if there was not a cut-off date from which he began his investigations, would be a serious problem indeed. From that point of view the appeals which have been made that Members of the House also should not over-burden the Ombudsman in the initial months needs to be respected. A number of Deputies spoke about the fact that from time to time, and as a minority, thankfully, proportion of our constituency representations, all of us get complaints either from what have been referred to here as crank cases, or people who have become particularly obsessed with one matter or another and where all the normal courses of administrative justice have been resorted to without success for the simple reason that the persons are not entitled to what they have convinced themselves of entitlement to. Rather than referring to them in the same manner as other Deputies have this afternoon, I refer to those cases in my own constituency as being the St. Jude cases. It would, indeed, be unfortunate if the many qualities outlined here this afternoon as being in the possession of the Ombudsman — and indeed of his forebears as well, as has been so graphically explained to us by Deputy Flanagan — were to be extended to the taking on, in addition, of the powers of St. Jude.

Deputy Tunney spoke about the concern, which he heard me previously voice, about my disappointment that it had not been found possible to find a suitable Gaelic word to strike a chord with the Irish people. I looked into the matter and discovered that a number of words had been suggested, each unfortunately having its own failing or connotation. Arriving late on the scene, I might have favoured the word "cara" but gather that that is being used as a trade name. One must accept that the word Ombudsman, a Swedish name, is in normal usage in English and other languages. I understand that it is contained in most standard English Dictionaries. It is, as a matter of interest, not a sexist word and means a person charged with authority to investigate on behalf of Parliament. The person may be of neither sex.

Deputy Liam Cosgrave referred, in particular, to the necessity for a person with the responsibility of Ombudsman to have, above all else, a common sense approach. That is a quality which might be extended to many others in public life. It is one which I regard as a first prerequisite for the office of Ombudsman. He also, as I have, mentioned that the nominee has a very well developed sense of humour. I say that for a particular reason. As Deputy Cosgrave suggested, it is important that the nominee should understand the workings of administration and of bureaucracy. I suggest that to understand the workings of administration and bureaucracy in this country one would have to have a sense of humour. To be able to follow the many varied and complicated paths and laneways which have been developed in the building of our administrative system over the years one would have to have, from time to time, the ability to smile wryly at oneself and at one's own capabilities.

Deputy De Rossa suggested that there should be a reorganisation generally in dealing with complaints made by the public. The establishment of the office of Ombudsman is the foremost and most important step which can be taken in allowing a new vehicle or access for complaints of the public which they feel are not perhaps being properly attended to. This was also referred to by Deputy Tunney. I might divert slightly to remind the House that during the last week I announced that, in future, officials within the Civil Service will be required, in connection with all letters they write, to sign their own names and have typed below their signature their names and ranks. They will also be required to give their names in answer to telephone queries or conversations and those in public offices will be expected to wear name badges designating also their rank. That is accountable management at the sharp end. That step, of itself, will mean in many ways a reorganisation of the method by which people make inquiries or complaints.

There is provision that the Ombudsman is obliged to report to the Houses of the Oireachtas annually. I agree with the Deputy that those reports should be fundamental to the conduct of the Oireachtas and be given the closest attention and debated in the Houses. I hope to ensure that when the first report from the first Ombudsman arrives the opportunity would be taken to have a full debate on the office and its operation. If the House then identifies areas where the remit of the Ombudsman might be widened even further, the opportunity should then be taken to do that.

A few Deputies, including Deputy De Rossa in particular, inquired as to the method of appointment and suggested that perhaps the Ombudsman might be appointed by the Civil Service Commission. I sometimes suspect, as mentioned by Deputy Andrews, that politicians' worst enemies are, in fact, politicians. There is a school of thought which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would result in the self-abolition of this Chamber and all political institutions by the politicians on the basis of transferring all powers — which are really responsibilities — from the Parliament and the elected Members to other people. It is a poor parliament indeed which is not mature enough to come, on a consensus basis, to the choice of an impartial and well qualified person to act as Ombudsman in the public interest. To suggest that this Chamber is not in a position to do that is unworthy and totally contradicted by the contributions from Deputies on all sides of the House this afternoon.

I have no intention of changing the system whereby the House jointly recommends to the President who the Ombudsman should be. I would be more than surprised if ever there arose a need for a vote on any nominee. I would assume that the Government of the day, according to the undertaking given when the Bill was going through and as was complied with by a subsequent Government, would consult with the Opposition and ensure that the name put forward was generally accepted. In that regard, Deputy De Rossa suggested that I did not consult with all the Opposition. Of course not. I have more to do than consult with 80 or 90 members individually. I gave a specific undertaking at column 2602 in the Volume of 8 July as follows:

I will therefore consult with the Leader of the Opposition before bringing any such resolution before the House.

I complied with that undertaking, which was the appropriate undertaking to give and the appropriate method by which consultation would take place.

Deputy Flanagan, being from the same town as the nominee, knows more about the Ombudsman and his antecedents than perhaps most of the House do — or did until this afternoon. He has given the House the benefit of his intimate knowledge of the town of Mountmellick and the family of the Ombudsman. Listening to him, I could not but be even more convinced of the correctness of our choice, on hearing the very many admirable qualities surrounding the nominee, even in his earliest and school days.

The Deputy pointed out that he was originally opposed to the concept of Ombudsman but over the passage of time and listening to his colleagues he had changed his mind. I am glad that we have managed to change the Deputy's attitude through these contributions and greater enlightenment. The Deputy spoke of a number of exclusions provided in the Act. Most of those are as a result of the All-Party Committee's recommendations, except in one or two cases — and in particular the case which he mentioned, the area of the prisons. That area has been excluded from the remit of the Ombudsman for a specific reason. The office of Ombudsman should be available to allow people with a genuine grievance to have that investigated impartially and adjudicated upon. Unfortunately, the difficulties in our prisons today stem in large measure from a large part of the occupancy being reserved for subversives of one type or another. For the Ombudsman to be a vehicle by which subversive organisations endeavoured to gain for their cause particular or strident publicity would be a direct abuse of the office of Ombudsman. I am inclined to agree with those who first framed the Bill that so long as our prisons are heavily populated by subversives or people who are there for political reasons, it would be wrong to make the office of Ombudsman subject to political pressure from people, many of whom have the intention of overthrowing not just the Ombudsman but the State itself.

Deputy Kelly mentioned that two new boards intended to come into operation to replace the Department of Posts and Telegraphs from the beginning of next year were not mentioned in the Act. That is because they were not in existence at the time of the passing of that Act. The remit of the Ombudsman can be extended by ministerial order and I have already indicated that I intend doing that in relation to local authorities and health boards. When we come to consider the area of the State bodies, there is no reason why the Ombudsman's remit should not be extended to one or other, or both, of these bodies. My personal inclination would be that this ought to happen at that time.

The Deputy also said that the term "action" should also have been extended to include inaction. It does have that meaning, in fact. Deputy Kelly said that Government Departments should issue cheques when they are due. I could not agree more.

An Cheann Comhairle

I should remind the Minister that we shall shortly be moving into Private Members' Time.

Mr. Boland

This specifically is the sort of case where action and intervention by the Ombudsman is envisaged as being particularly effective. The Deputy suggested that advance publicity regarding the role of Ombudsman was essential and that that should include outlining the extent of what the Ombudsman can or cannot do. I am very conscious of this need in the run-up to the taking of that duty at the beginning of January. There will also be some provision for advertising subsequent to the appointment.

One of the fortunate side-effects of the existing profession of the nominee is that he has, I would hope, rather close contacts with the media in general. I would hope that, with the amount of publicity engendered over the next months, the Ombudsman might be in a position to arrange that sort of publicity at less cost to the State than might otherwise have been the case.

I thank the House for the very fulsome support to the nomination of Michael Mills to the President for appointment to the position of Ombudsman. I ask that the House agree to the passing of the resolution.

Question put and agreed to.