Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 4 Dec 1984

Vol. 354 No. 7

Ombudsman Act (First Schedule) (Amendment) Order, 1984: Motion.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I move:

That Dáil Éireann approves the following Order in draft—

Ombudsman Act (First Schedule) (Amendment) Order, 1984

a copy of which Order in draft was laid before the House on 23 November, 1984.

The draft order before the House, a Cheann Comhairle, is a logical development of the process begun when I introduced the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill in the House last month. During the debate on that Bill, I indicated that I would come back to the House shortly with proposals for a major expansion of the Ombudsman's remit, and I promised that I would fully involve the House in all decisions affecting this remit. This I am now doing. If the House approves the draft order before it, it will mean that the actions of an additional 100,000 public servants approximately would come within the remit of the Ombudsman. This represents, in numerical terms, almost a threefold increase in his existing remit. Given that the Ombudsman has been in operation for less than a year, I think that the expansion proposed must, by any reasonable standards, be considered a major one.

In the complex series of relationships which exist between the bureaucracy and the public, the Ombudsman has a vital role to play. His primary concern is to ensure that the public is protected against administrative malpractice. At the same time, it is likely that, in many cases, his investigations will show that decisions taken were justified. He is, therefore, in a real sense the man in the middle. He is the friend of the public but he is not an enemy of the bureaucracy. I think that it is important to make this point as a prelude to considering the specific expansion proposed in the Ombudsman's remit.

During the earlier debate, both in this House and the other House, on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill many speakers emphasised the role of the Ombudsman as the protector of the public. Indeed, one of the contributors in the other House, to my recollection, referred to him as the "Tribune of the People". I think these points were well made and I fully share the sentiments behind them. In fact, these sentiments provided the impetus for the all-party agreement to establish the office of the Ombudsman in the first instance, a decision which has been shown to be fully justified by his operations to date.

As I have said, however, the Ombudsman is not the enemy of the bureaucracy. I think that, on all sides of the House, we can be proud of the public service we have. It has served us very well, but it is also true to say that it is a vast organisation, and all organisations, both in the public and private sectors, make mistakes and are capable of improvement. That is a fact of life.

It is particularly important that the bureaucracy, whose work impacts so much on the public, should operate efficiently and effectively. Where wrong decisions are made, they must be rectified. When injustice is done, it must be put right. The Ombudsman is there to help to ensure that necessary remedial action is taken. He seeks fair play for all — for the bureaucracy as well as the citizen.

In deciding on the framework for the extended remit, the Government took into account the availability of resources and the areas where these resources could be employed to optimum advantage. In essence, they had to balance resources against priorities.

The discharge of the extended remit envisaged in the draft order will require a major increase in the existing staff resources of the Ombudsman's office. To this end, the Government have provided some £300,000 for extra staff in the 1985 provision of the office. In percentage terms, this represents the largest increase in 1985 provisions generally. It underlines the Government's firm commitment, even in a time of stringent economies, to ensure that the remedy of citizens' grievances be treated as a major priority. I am glad to say that the provision indicated will fully meet the additional staff resources which the Ombudsman indicated were needed to discharge his extended remit. It will enable the Ombudsman to recruit, at senior level, an extra three senior investigators and 12 investigators during 1985, together with necessary back-up staff at lower levels. The additional senior investigator and investigator posts represent a threefold increase in the existing staff complement of the Ombudsman's office at these levels. All of the new posts would be filled through a special public competition. This would allow the Ombudsman to obtain people of the highest calibre.

Even with this major increase in staff resources, it was necessary for the Government to make a choice as to what areas the extended remit should cover. It was clear that this remit should embrace health boards and local authorities. The 1977 all-party committee, whose work did so much to provide the basis for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman, considered that his remit should be quickly extended to these areas. I fully agree with that view and I have, in fact, given an earlier commitment to the House that this would be done.

The basic question facing the Government, therefore, was what other areas should be covered with the resources available. During the earlier debate in both Houses on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, many Members on all sides commented on the position of Bord Telecom Éireann. Reference was made to the large volume of complaints which existed in this area and, indeed, some criticisms were made of the way the company reacted to representations. It was clear to me, therefore, that a level of dissatisfaction existed among public representatives with the position here. This seemed also to mirror a similar feeling among the public at large. I must also say that the points made reflected my own basic viewpoint which I made clear during that debate.

The Government, therefore, took fully into account the view of the House, and indeed my own views, in deciding to extend the Ombudsman's remit to Bord Telecom Éireann. In taking that decision, there was, of course, no wish on their part to single out this body among all State-sponsored bodies. Indeed, the Government accepted that Bord Telecom Éireann have, since their establishment, built on the large-scale capital investment in the telecommunications area over the past number of years to make major advances, but they also recognised that, in tandem with these advances, there seemed to exist a serious level of public grievances. These grievances embraced not only telephone accounts but other matters such as service and connections as well. In such a situation, where such a large number of public complaints arise, the Government rightly decided to utilise the Ombudsman whose primary role, as I have said, is to seek redress on behalf of citizens in their dealings with bureaucracy.

An Post would also be included within the Ombudsman's proposed remit. I think it is only right to say that the level of complaints in relation to An Post does not seem to be comparable with that in the telecommunications area. It is, however, appropriate that the remit should embrace An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann, since both bodies were established at the same time and since their operations have such an important and immediate impact on the public in the postal and telecommunications area as a whole.

The Government, therefore, have decided that the proposed extended remit is the most appropriate one by reference to the resources available and the priority areas arising. It is proposed that the new remit would take effect from 1 April 1985. This is to allow the Ombudsman to recruit and train the additional staff required. He is, as the House is aware, already deeply involved in the Civil Service area and he needs a certain breathing space before he takes on the major additional responsibility envisaged.

In relation to health boards, the Ombudsman's remit would not cover actions involving the exercise of clinical judgment. The primary purpose of the Ombudsman's is to investigate administrative malpractice, not clinical judgments reached by doctors and others as a result of their professional medical expertise. The exclusion of clinical judgment reflects the clear view of the all-party committee to which I referred earlier.

Similarly, the reserved functions of elected members would be excluded from the Ombudsman's remit in the local authority area. These functions are essentially policy matters and would not be appropriate for investigation by the Ombudsman. Their exclusion reflects the practice followed in Great Britain and Northern Ireland and, I understand, other administrations.

With these exceptions, the whole area of health board and local authority administration, which impacts so much on the public at large, will be open to investigation by the Ombudsman.

As I have said, the expansion now envisaged in the Ombudsman's remit is a major one. That is not to say, however, that further additions could not be made to this remit as appropriate. This is a matter which I intend to keep under review. I also intend to review later, as necessary, the underlying legislation under which the Ombudsman operates. If the Ombudsman's remit is extended as now proposed, his responsibilities would embrace a vast area of the public service. While I have no reason to anticipate it, it may be that experience of his operations in these areas could indicate the need for some changes in the relevant legislation.

I think it would probably be best if both reviews were carried out together at the one time. I consider that it would be wrong now to indicate a definite time-scale for these reviews but it might be appropriate to start them about eighteen months hence. I will, of course, take immediate action on any specific matter arising which requires my urgent attention in the meantime.

The successful implementation of the proposed expanded remit will depend, to a great extent, on the co-operation which the Ombudsman receives from the organisation, and indeed each individual member of their staffs, involved. I have no reason to believe that such co-operation has not been forthcoming to date. This, to my mind, is a tribute to the way in which the Ombudsman has approached his task. It also reflects well on the attitude of the Civil Service. I would expect and, indeed, have no doubt that this attitude will be reflected in the bodies covered by the proposed extended remit. I need hardly say, however, that any absence of co-operation would not be tolerated.

It is very important, particularly in the context of the proposed extended remit, that the general public are made fully aware of the important work of the Ombudsman. I am glad to inform the House that I have recently discussed this aspect with the Ombudsman. A major publicity campaign to this end, which may have come to the attention of Deputies, has just now been launched.

I intend to come back to the House in the new year with proposals for some further changes in the Schedules to the Ombudsman Act, 1980. Basically, these changes will be aimed at bringing the Schedules up to date — to take account of the establishment of new bodies and other matters since the original 1980 Act. I have thought it best to treat these separately from the change proposed now in draft order before the House. This change envisages a major extension of the Ombudsman's remit and is one deserving the full consideration of the House in its own right.

I also look forward to debating in the House in the new year the forthcoming report of the Ombudsman which, I am sure, we are all awaiting with interest.

During the debate on this matter in the other House last week, the point was made that the draft order involved not just an extension of the Ombudsman's remit. It was an extension of democracy. I think that this comment went to the heart of the issue. I am glad to have helped by taking action to increase the protection of the public against administrative malpractice. As a public representative, I have always firmly believed in the right of the public, who after all are the ultimate payers, to receive fair treatment at the hands of the bureaucracy. I am sure that this is a view which is shared by my fellow public representatives in the House.

Motion No. 4 asks the House to take note of my decision to add Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post to the schedule of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. The Joint Committee asked me earlier this year to take such action and I am glad to comply with their request. The necessary procedures as indicated in the Orders of Reference of the Joint Committee have been complied with. It is appropriate that these commercial State-sponsored bodies should be included within the ambit of the joint committee. I commend the two draft motions to the House.

Mr. B. Ahern

Some weeks ago when speaking on the amending legislation in this area I said that it should be extended without delay to local authorities, health boards, non-commercial State-sponsored bodies and to some other areas, including An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. There has been no delay and I welcome both the motions before us today.

I am glad to note also the date of the coming into operation of the extension. I remarked on the last day on which we discussed this matter that the extension had been delayed for a number of years. I cannot blame the present Minister for that.

On the last occasion too, and also during discussion of the matter in the Seanad last week, the point was made that the ordinary public consider administrative injustices whether at local government, health board, State-sponsored body or any other level, as being a matter for the State and that they do not distinguish as between the clauses in the Ombudsman legislation. In other words, they fail to realise that the Ombudsman's authority extends only to certain areas. However, we can all be happy that in future the Ombudsman will be in a position to investigate matters relating to many other arms of the State.

Like the Minister, I shall be anxious to read the first report of the Ombudsman. Undoubtedly the report will illustrate certain administrative injustices that have been inherent in the system for a number of years. In some of his recent statements the Ombudsman highlighted one matter which any active public representative would be familiar with, that is, the 1953 Social Welfare Act whereby thousands of people without them realising it were removed from the social welfare code. Apparently they were never informed that they could have continued as voluntary contributors. I shall be interested in hearing the suggestions of the Ombudsman in this regard.

I trust that the Minister will seek an opportunity of having the report debated here. In recent weeks we have spent a lot of time debating matters that are of much less importance. After the report has been debated the next step is to bring in amending legislation to deal with the injustices, the anomalies and the discrepancies that may be highlighted in the report. Perhaps it has been because of legislation being interpreted in different ways that the anomalies and so on have arisen, but it is for the House to make the necessary amendments in legislation as soon as possible; otherwise, the whole exercise would be a total waste of time. The Minister seems to be concerned genuinely with ensuring that the grievances of citizens are dealt with properly.

Following the debate in the House on the last occasion there seemed to be some hysteria on the part of the chief executive of Bord Telecom. In my remarks I was concerned solely with a situation in which all of us as public representatives were receiving numerous complaints about, among other matters, the billing system of the board. In other countries the Ombudsman is involved in that area. Outside experts are called in to examine the various procedures and to ascertain whether there are irregularities in the system. Regardless of whether some of the executives of Bord Telecom are so aware, their billing system is a cause of great concern to many people. We can no longer raise such matters here because of the board being semi-State. While the parliamentary question process has many disadvantages, at least it enables us to come here and raise individual cases in the knowledge that they will be investigated. Now if one puts down a question in relation either to Bord Telecom or to any other semi-State body, one is informed by the Ceann Comhairle's office that the matter is outside the function of any Minister and consequently cannot be dealt with by way of parliamentary question.

I think we all agree that Bord Telecom are doing a fairly good job but it would be rather odd if they were to regard themselves as being outside the authority of anyone. In their own interests they should not react so violently to comments that are made here in the interest of those whom we represent. I fail to understand why when anyone here utters a word of criticism about that semi-State body certain individuals take great umbrage.

It would not be my wish that the Ombudsman would have the task of dealing with thousands of complaints about telephone bills but I understand that in other countries there are set down formulae and standards relating to telephone account billing systems and that these enable people to at least do some kind of check themselves rather than the Ombudsman having to check each case.

The advantage in regard to this motion compared with other motions which come before the House is that the necessary finance is provided in the 1985 Estimate. In addition, the Minister has set down clearly the date for the implementation of the amended legislation. That procedure is to be welcomed. Obviously, for whatever reason, the Minister has issued a warning somewhere that delays will not be tolerated. He must have his reasons for that because he would hardly expect people to be delaying deliberately such an important matter. He indicated on both the last occasion and today that there have been delays. If that is the case it is worth clearing up the matter now.

The only people I can think of who might not wish to co-operate are the county managers who have such massive powers and control and who perhaps would not wish the Ombudsman to have the power to check some of the rather peculiar decisions they make. It is of considerable importance that such decisions can be investigated. Perhaps county managers would not be prepared to co-operate with the Ombudsman to the same extent as other people in the public service might co-operate.

The workload of the Ombudsman and his staff must be extremely heavy and in these circumstances the appointment of the additional staff as outlined by the Minister is to be welcomed. During 1984 the Ombudsman dealt with almost 1,000 cases so it is obvious that he has a case for extra staff. I welcome, too, the Minister's statement regarding the launching of a public media programme to make people aware of their entitlements. However, it must be set out clearly that the Ombudsman is not to be used in every local authority and health board case where a person considers he has a grievance by reason of not being given a house or a medical card or in cases of some local authority systems in respect of which people often have grievances in relation to welfare officers, health officers and various local authority inspectors who deal with the public on a daily basis. People are often unhappy with findings of these officers. If people were to stop referring to the guidelines for obtaining medical cards, houses and so on and bring all these cases to the attention of the Ombudsman it would damage the service for which the office was set up.

I would ask the Minister to ensure that any publicity campaign should clearly set out that the function of the Ombudsman is to deal with legislative or administrative injustices and not to change regulations which are clearly set out in explanatory leaflets available from local authorities and health boards.

The public service is doing a very important job and the Ombudsman is part of this service. A lot of people see the public service as being a bureaucratic administration against the ordinary citizen but the findings of the Ombudsman in most cases show that the interpretation of the regulations and of the legislation by various officials is correct. However, it is important that a person can have a check so as to ensure that he is not being treated shabbily.

In relation to An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann no doubt the findings of the Ombudsman as a result of any complaints will follow the same pattern and the officals will be found to be correct. There have not been many complaints about An Post which is giving an excellent service. The Minister said the last day that the level of complaints to the Ombudsman by people who are not aware of his present remit in relation to the health boards is not very high either, but the local authorities area is one where citizens would bring many cases. From my experience of Dublin Corporation, complaints about the interpretation of the regulations that govern the allocation of houses and flats in the city would keep a number of ombudsmen busy. I hope these complaints will not smother the Ombudsman with papers relating to decisions that he cannot change.

I welcome these motions that the Minister has brought before the House and I welcome the Minister's commitment that if further regulations or amendments are needed the 1980 schedules will be updated in the new year to cover new organisations. I could argue that these schedules should be extended further to cover non-commercial State-sponsored bodies and I could put some arguments in relation to the clinical area of medicine. However, I agree that to put clinical judgments in the hands of the Ombudsman would mean that he would have to bring in expert people and that that would be a duplication. As in other countries, the whole area of medical investigation will expand, but I hope that we will not get into the area of clinical investigation to the extent that they do in the States and in Canada and in some other European countries where almost every time something goes wrong with a patient a case of malpractice is brought, involving solicitors, insurance companies and other experts. If clinical investigation were brought into the ambit of the Ombudsman it might entice people to bring that sort of case. The Ombudsman should deal with administrative rather than medical areas. In some of the Canadian states where the ombudsman has clinical powers it brings his functions and role into disrepute. That would not be liked by the medical profession here, so I support the Minister's decision to keep clinical judgements out of the Ombudsman's ambit. I would ask the Minister to consider at some later stage the position of the other State-sponsored bodies so that when we see how the health boards and the local authorities get on they could be considered for addition to the list, if not in 1985 then soon afterwards.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

I join the previous speaker in welcoming the motions before the House particularly in relation to An Post and Bord Telecom. It is appropriate that these motions are brought together. Now that these two bodies are outside of what was formerly the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the two groups that can keep an eye on them are the Ombudsman, as a result of the passing of this order from next April, and the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. We all welcomed the setting up of the office of the Ombudsman and from all reports the decision to set up the office was a felicitous one and a lot of good will result from it. We look forward to seeing the first report showing the numbers and type of cases which have been investigated and adjudicated upon. We are all concerned with ensuring that both the public and the public servant get the best value. The public are entitled to such service, partly because they pay for it and any such service should be provided in an effective and efficient manner.

As the Minister said this afternoon, the public service today represents a vast organisation some parts of which were established many years ago. There is now a need to remodel and update that organisation, bringing it more into line with the eighties. Without being critical of it, it can be said that there is room for improvements, some of which have been initiated by the present Minister through his concern to make the public service more accessible to the man in the street, thereby ensuring that such members of the public are treated as persons who are entitled to the utmost respect and attention so that they do not feel they represent merely another statistical problem.

Some innovations effected in the public service in the past year or two are to be welcomed and, hopefully, constitute a beginning only. As we public representatives know through complaints made to us by constituents, very often it is little things that lead to many of the larger problems and on many an occasion, the mere reception of personal attention can easily sort out one's problems. However, on other occasions bureaucratic delays and so on lead to people becoming frustrated, resorting to their local representative in order to have their problems teased out, problems which should not really come within the remit of public representatives.

We shall welcome the first report of the Ombudsman illustrating the types of problems he has been investigating and on which he has been adjudicating. I hope this report will contain suggestions for improvements in many areas, perhaps the disbandment of certain practices the initiation of innovative ideas and reforms resulting in an overall better public service. I hope the Minister will take on board any such suggestions.

The fact that the office of the Ombudsman is to be allocated additional staff will guarantee that persons' complaints are dealt with as speedily as possible, ensuring that people receive acknowledgements that their complaints are being investigated and, if it transpires that there should be a common problem obtaining, that it be resolved.

The Minister today mentioned a publicity campaign. I would hope such a campaign would ensure that certain public offices — for example, post offices and the like — would be advertised, showing telephone numbers to be contacted in case of complaint. Some constituents have come to me with complaints and for some time I did not even know where the office of the Ombudsman was or whom should be contacted. It is imperative that people have easy access and that when complaints are received, whether by telephone or in writing, they receive some acknowledgement. While some such complaints may be of a somewhat trivial nature, if adjudicated on and results issued, the same problems can be avoided in the future.

The extension of the remit of the Ombudsman is to be welcomed so that he will now be able to investigate complaints in regard to An Post or Telecom Éireann, health boards and local authorities. The main problem springing to most peoples minds will be that in relation to Telecom Éireann which inherited many of the problems and difficulties of the old Department of Posts and Telegraphs. We need only look at today's Order Paper to observe the few questions down to the Minister for Communications, whose former remit was Posts and Telegraphs, to see the number of queries Deputies are receiving, many of which are of a minor nature, sometimes with regard to telephone accounts, telephones being out of order or other problems encountered with the telephone service, people inquiring when they will receive telephone service and so on. The investigation of such problems should not come constantly within the remit of public representatives, particularly in the case of a telephone being out of order. But if a business person's telephone is out of order thereby affecting his business, then there is a duty on public representatives to inquire why it may take sometimes three or four weeks to deal with that problem, whether the excuse advanced is that of the old reliable about cabling or whatever. Given present recessionary times business cannot afford to carry added burdens in respect of what should be their basic right.

While one would hope that the changeover to Telecom Éireann will mark a fresh beginning, it must be remembered that they do inherit historical problems. It has been amply demonstrated by correspondence to date that there still remain many problems to be resolved for which we cannot necessarily blame officials of Telecom Éireann who within the resources available to them are endeavouring to do the best possible job. However, in some areas perhaps they could do that little bit better, improving on their performance even in little ways. In recent years there have been the problems in regard to An Post, Telecom Éireann and the public service generally which it has not been possible to resolve; and, if we cannot resolve the smaller problems how can we expect to resolve the larger ones? We must ensure that certain procedures exist. For example, if a person is concerned about his or her telephone account, certain procedures should be followed with, hopefully, an acknowledgement being issued as speedily as possible.

It should be remembered that there is a duty on those providing that service to reinstate or repair, whether it be the case of an individual, an old person who may need a telephone in order to contact medical personnel or a business or firm, and to do so speedily. On occasion inordinate delays occur in resolving small problems. I do not know what the problem is. Perhaps there is inordinate delay from the time a complaint is received to the time it reaches the engineers or technicians on the ground because of lack of communication or something else along the way.

While hoping it will not be necessary for the Ombudsman to investigate every individual complaint I am sure he will receive many queries with regard to telephone accounts, of which there are so many at present and, despite assurances on the part of Telecom Éireann, there must be something going wrong somewhere along the line, whether it be their computers or whatever going out of order. I heard of a case recently in which a person was billed two or three times for the same call made on one day, which call was trebled on the same bill. Obviously, if such errors can happen, so can others.

With the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman to these other areas, particularly with regard to Telecom Éireann, hopefully he or one of his officers will be able to investigate the practices in operation with regard to complaints received by members of the public, how they are dealt with and how such procedures can be improved on. At times people may report that their telephones are out of order and technicians arrive the same afternoon while others, even businesses, doing likewise do not see an engineer or technician for over a month. In such cases there must be a breakdown in communications.

We all welcome the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman to those new boards, the health boards and local authorities, in investigating individual or group complaints thereby guaranteeing an improved service for all. In the light of the first report I hope there will be suggestions and recommendations about certain practices which will be followed by a response from the Government or from individual Ministers. The public deserve an efficient and effective service, no more and no less than would be given if they were paying directly over the counter. Operations must be carried out on a commercial basis and there must be a resultant benefit to the public.

As a member of the committee I welcome the new terms of reference of the committee in relation to these two boards. The committee were set up in July 1983 and since October of that year have met 42 or 43 times. They have done a certain amount of good work and, apart from the Ombudsman, the committee are the only body which can render the board and their operations more accountable. Much public money is being spent on these bodies and, in the light of results from some of them, we have to be careful about how they operate and perform. A stringent watch must be kept on the expenditure of public money and services provided to the public. Any wasteful expenditure of public funds must be eliminated. The committee have issued one report and have examined a number of bodies. We are concerned to ensure that the public get a certain return. Some of the bodies have performed quite well and some are obviously meeting difficulties. Serious questions have arisen in relation to some of the uses to which public money has been put. In future the Government and individual Ministers will have to look carefully at the operations of these boards to see that the public are getting a good return.

Similarly the committee are responsible for examining the operations of these bodies and it is important that the reports of the committee should be considered. Ministers must ensure that the people chosen to serve on these boards are efficient and competent. In relation to the OIE report, individuals admitted that decisions were taken which would not have been taken if their own money rather than public money was being used. We must ensure that people are even more viligant when using public money than they would be in relation to their private funds. This has not been the case.

I hope that with the setting up of various committees it will not be necessary to go to Ministers repeatedly for permission to do this or that. The House should have the opportunity to discuss these reports. We submitted a request some months ago for a debate on the OIE report but is has not yet been acceded to. In relation to the operation of these hotels and restaurants serious questions have come to light about how money was spent and decisions were reached. While it may be too late to do anything about that operation, there are lessons to be learned for other State-sponsored bodies since we must ensure that the public get an efficient and effective service and a return for the money which is being pumped into these bodies. The Government and this House must be concerned at the operations of some of these agencies. Some of them were set up many years ago and may have outlived their usefulness. Their objectives may need to be redefined and brought up to date.

I hope these few comments will be taken on board by the Minister who is always responsive to any suggestions. I welcome the two motions. It is clear that the operations of the Ombudsman have been successful so far. It is important that the process does not become snarled up so that it becomes another link in the bureaucratic chain. The Ombudsman's office must be able to come up with reports, recommendations and suggestions. The solving of individual problems is in itself a success but greater success would be achieved if these problems could be avoided in the future by changes in practice or codes, by a quiet word from the Ombudsman to a Department or by a suggestion in the report upon which the Minister can act. We are looking for a better and improved service and I hope this will be ensured by the passing of these two motions.

Mr. Leyden

I welcome both these motions regarding the extension of the Ombudsman's duties in relation to Telecom Éireann and An Post and the inclusion of both bodies within the terms of reference of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. I thank the Minister for including these organisations because he admitted in the Seanad that there was great disquiet, particularly in relation to Telecom Éireann and their accounts system. There have been numerous debates over the years in relation to the inadequate billing system. Members of this House and the public have very little recourse to complain about this organisation because it was taken out of the political spectrum when vesting took place on 1 January last. Since that date all Deputies and Senators have been inundated with complaints regarding the accounts system. The Minister for the Public Service mentioned that in the region of 100,000 active complaints or queries on accounts had been received so far

When the Department of Posts and Telegraphs were responsible for this service the public had recourse to Members of the Oireachtas to air their grievances but there is no facility now for the public to do so. The Ombudsman will now have the responsibility to take on board complaints regarding the working of Telecom Éireann and An Post. Mr Michael Mills, the Ombudsman, deserves our compliments for the fine work he has done since his appointment. I have read many interesting reports issued by his office where serious anomalies were highlighted, particularly in the Department of Social Welfare.

Last April I mentioned the disquiet among the public regarding the telephone accounts system. At that stage I appealed to the Minister to make public the report on the accounts system carried out by a Swedish firm of telecommunication consultants. I should like to repeat that plea. That firm was appointed more than 12 months ago but their report has been suppressed by the Government and not made public. That is one of the few reports that was commissioned by a Government Minister, and paid for by the taxpayers, but has not been published. The Minister should place a copy of the report in the Oireachtas Library and make it available to the press so as to allay the fears of the many subscribers who are concerned about the difficulties in relation to their telephone accounts.

We are all aware of many complaints about telephone accounts. I am aware of a postmaster who, following very high telephone bills, arranged to have all calls from his telephone put through the local operator. However, when his account arrived he discovered that he was charged for quite a number of units although that was not possible. In spite of the fact that all his calls were operator assisted his accounts showed that he had used between 950 and 1,000 units. That case is being investigated.

I should like to repeat my recommendation that Telecom Éireann arrange open days so that the public can view the meter connected to their telephone operating. People concerned about the accuracy or efficiency of the meter in the local telephone exchange should be invited to carry out spot checks. The system of private meters should be introduced.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Deputy's contribution would be more appropriate for an Estimate debate. We are dealing with an extension of the powers of the Ombudsman to include Telecom Éireann and An Post. I will regard the Deputy's recent remarks as a passing reference to deficiencies in the service.

Mr. G. Mitchell

Would it be in order to report Deputy Leyden to the Ombudsman?

Mr. Leyden

I am anxious to outline guidelines for the Ombudsman to follow. As far as I am aware, in the Seanad the Minister referred to difficulties in the accounts system. I read reference to that in the newspapers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

This is not an Estimates debate.

Mr. Leyden

The Chair was not in the Seanad for the debate.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

And the Deputy was not. The Deputy should confine himself to the matter under consideration.

Mr. Leyden

The Ombudsman will now have an opportunity to carry out a serious investigation of the accounts system. I have no doubt that he will be very busy and will need a lot of assistance. The annual report of the Post Office Users' Council for 1983 outlined difficulties in relation to the accounts system. In effect, the Ombudsman is taking on board work which that council are engaged on at the present. I understand that the council have power to appoint consultants to investigate certain matters and I suggest that they appoint such a group to go into the telephone accounts system.

Very few complaints have been made in regard to An Post. That body is operating a very efficient service. The innovations since vesting date were welcomed by all. However, there was a miscalculation of the demand for the special offer of 17p Christmas stamps.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion is not about Christmas stamps. The Deputy is inclined to move away from the central theme of the motion.

Mr. Leyden

The Chair is being grossly unfair to me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I have never been unfair to Deputy Leyden.

Mr. Leyden

The Chair is restricting me.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The motion refers to the Ombudsman and the Deputy must confine himself to that.

Mr. Leyden

The Ombudsman is being given wide powers.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

They will not be wide enough to include Christmas stamps.

Mr. Leyden

They may be. Many people have not been given an opportunity to buy these stamps and they feel aggrieved.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is not a matter for the Ombudsman.

Mr. Leyden

If the Chair was not able to get 17p Christmas stamps he would have a grievance also. I do not believe the Ombudsman will be overburdened with complaints about that body. However, I hope he will have power to investigate personnel problems. The personnel of the two bodies had more security under a Minister. I am not saying that there are many staff problems but such matters should be considered by the Ombudsman. When I was Minister of State I heard many grievances from staff. Under the Department of Posts and Telegraphs staff could refer their grievances to a Minister who adopted a humanitarian approach. That has been replaced by a bureaucratic system. I am pleased that now the public and the staff will have an opportunity of highlighting any grievances they have.

I welcome the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman to health boards and local authorities. There has been a tendency for the Oireachtas to hand over too much power to semi-State bodies, health boards and local authorities. In a sense, the Oireachtas is becoming less relevant because we have set up so many organisations and distanced ourselves from the people.

The people elect us to this House and we in turn elect the Government of the day, but members of semi-State organisations or chief executives are not elected and much more is expected from semi-State organisations, local authorities and health boards. The fact that we have an Ombudsman who can be approached as a last resort to highlight grievances is to be welcomed.

I would like to compliment the Minister for bringing forward these motions which are positive steps towards the restoration of democracy. Through the Ombudsman a certain amount of democracy has been restored and the public will have an opportunity to highlight their grievances. I regret that the position of Ombudsman was not created many years ago because in my first year as a councillor an ex-local authority employee never had his case heard. He had a grievance about his pension rights but he could not get satisfaction from the Department or the local authority. With the extension of the terms of reference of the Ombudsman he will now have the opportunity to consider cases dealing with pension rights and so on.

I welcome the fact that Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post will be examined by the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies. I believe they will be a help to those two companies in relation to investment policy and future developments. By approving motions Nos. 3 and 4 we are doing a very good job today and I would like to compliment the Minister for bringing them before the House.

Under the Post (Telecommunications Services) Bill, 1982, Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post were set up. I would like to draw the attention of the House and the Minister to section 34(6) which states that an election for the purpose of this section shall be held within 12 months after the vesting date or as much longer a period as may be agreed between the company and——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That has nothing to do with this motion.

Mr. Leyden

The Ombudsman may be required to investigate the reason why worker directors are not being elected within 12 months of the vesting date of both An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. I will bring this to his attention if this matter is not resolved when the Ombudsman is given power to take responsibility for An Post and Telecom Éireann. The worker directors and the postmasters have not been given an opportunity to elect their representatives to both boards. If that matter is not resolved before next April it would be for the Ombudsman to resolve it.

Mr. G. Mitchell

I, too, welcome the extension of the terms of reference of the Ombudsman. I hope before long his powers will be extended to the IDA, CTT, CIE, Aer Lingus, ESB and Bord na Móna. If he had been involved with Irish Shipping who knows what might have happened. We are bringing within his ambit the newest semi-State bodies, An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann. Already there are a number of cases which he could deal with. Telecom Éireann took £100 deposits last August from a large number of people, many of them old people, but have not yet provided a service. This amounts to a cash flow free loan from people who cannot afford to be funding a large semi-State body. In my view this is a matter for the Ombudsman.

As regards An Post, I know a man whose application for employment was turned down because he grew up in St. Teresa's Gardens and he got a lift in a stolen car when he was 16 years of age. How long do we operate black lists? This young man is of very good standing in the community, is very highly recommended and does not have a criminal record. He has not done anything wrong since he was 16 years of age. Given the environment in which he grew up, that was a very mild offence. If a black list can be operated against a person for the rest of his life, that might be investigated by the Ombudsman. The powers of the Ombudsman could be extended to semi-State bodies and all areas of Government, including local government. We must guard against involving the Ombudsman in so many areas that he becomes ineffective because that would not benefit anybody.

I do not know if the Minister examined the British legislation but it might be desirable if, instead of examining every case sent to him, the Ombudsman had a sifting arrangement whereby people should first raise the issue with their local representative and if they did not get a satisfactory reply, they could send their complaint to the Ombudsman. I do not want to create another layer but if the Ombudsman's terms of reference are extended to cover local authorities, health boards, vocational education committee and all semi-State bodies, he will not be able to see the wood for the trees. I understand that in Britain a Member of Parliament can refer an issue to the Ombudsman if he has not had a satisfactory reply from the company concerned. This ensures that only serious issues are sent to the Ombudsman. That is something the Minister might consider.

Like the Comptroller and Auditor General who reports to the Committee of Public Accounts and issues a report annually to the House, I believe the Ombudsman should also report to a Dáil committee and that committee should go through his report while he is present. Where Departments, local authorities or semi-State bodies regularly offend against the public, they should be called in before the committee and, in the presence of the Ombudsman, asked to give an account. I do not believe the Ombudsman should issue his report and leave it at that. His report should be referred to a Dáil committee who could review it and see if further action is required.

Since the Government are considering an independent complaints procedure for the Garda Síochána, if we were to extend the powers of the Ombudsman to cover this area it might deal with the problem. As Deputy Leyden said we are setting up boards for planning appeals and so on and we are becoming increasingly remote from the people. We have here a man who can deal very effectively with complaints against the public service. Therefore, why not extend his terms of reference to include complaints against the Garda Síochána? I cannot see why that is not a practical possibility. I ask the Minister to consider this suggestion when he is again extending the terms of reference of the Ombudsman, which I hope he will be doing before long.

I would like to see civil servants and public servants being encouraged to report inefficiencies in the public service to the Ombudsman. When they come across inefficiencies they should be allowed, without penalty, to draw them to the attention of the Ombudsman and should be encouraged to do so.

Many of us as public representatives build up a relationship over a period with public servants and sometimes find that the best way around a problem is to take the advice of a public servant. Indeed, many public servants abhor the complicated and difficult procedures which citizens are put through unnecessarily. Not all public servants are happy to go along with the present system and often have good suggestions to make. I would like to see a specific commitment and encouragement given to civil servants to report to the Ombudsman inefficiencies in matters relating to the public.

I hope that we can consider extending the same powers of the Ombudsman to the Director of Consumer Affairs. In other words, the Ombudsman would act for the public in the area of State or semi-State bodies and the Director of Consumer Affairs would act similarly in relation to the private sector. I hope that the Ombudsman will not get himself tied up in knots, rendering him as ineffective as some consumer legislation.

I should like to pay tribute to the Ombudsman, who is an excellent choice, and has the confidence of the House. However, I appeal to the Minister and the House to discuss with the Ombudsman ways and means of sifting through the complaints he gets so that he will deal only with those which have been turned down through other channels. This would mean he would be more effective and that people will have confidence in him. I commend the Minister for bringing in these motions and for extending the powers so quickly. I hope it will not be long before we give the Ombudsman the full range of public bodies to examine as part of his responsibilities.

Mr. Tunney

I suppose it is not often that a Minister can sit happy in the knowledge that his motion will be accepted. We know that the establishment of the Ombudsman was welcomed by all sides of the House and the character and personality of the man appointed added further delight to those of us who had felt the need for the establishment of such an office.

To some extent we are handicapped from speaking at any great length about it in so far as what was theory for so long is practice for such a short time that we have not yet got positive results. We look forward with eagerness and a certain amount of optimism to the report which will come before us. Naturally, I welcome the motion to extend the deliberations of the Ombudsman to other areas. My reason for speaking is to reinforce what Deputy Liam Cosgrave said earlier on.

Every public representative knows that the country is strewn with bureaucratic victims and disasters. Every day we meet people who have applied themselves to extracting their entitlements from the system which, because of inefficiency or lack of co-operation, they are denied. One of the greatest sources of frustration to the man-in-the-street — as there are no ladies present I will not extend it to a lady-in-the-street — derives from the fact that he feels so helpless against all the power machines which control him and over which he has so little control even though ultimately he pays for them. In so far as the spirit of this legislation is aimed at removing a citizen's frustration we should, in tandem with the development of this office, be careful not to develop it as an office which must reside in Dublin. More than ever nowadays people want to be able to associate a person or persons with their problems. I acknowledge the advances that have been made whereby you can now ring a Department and ask for the civil servant with whom you are dealing and where members of the public can be referred to identifiable people in the Civil Service. However, we still have a long road to travel.

Somebody referred earlier to the practice of making complaints to the Ombudsman by letter or by telephone. That is not the best way for someone who is not skilled in letter writing or in articulating his problem. We are concerned about the people who do not have the capacity to articulate their problems over a telephone or present it on paper. They are able to speak at a counter and we meet people like that in our clinics. They always shy away from the suggestion that they might write or telephone about their problem. I hope that the Minister does not see the Ombudsman's role as a reproduction of the appalling and frightening bureaucratic institutions which are already established. That even applies to local authorities, although they are at last becoming aware of the fact that they should have local offices. I remember the time of the great controversy regarding the centralisation of Dublin Corporation in offices at Wood Quay. I was not as concerned as other people about the nature of the soil on which the offices were being built or about the fact that there were archaeological digs taking place on the site; I was concerned about the fact that the people who are paying for the service in Tallaght, Blanchardstown, Ballymun, Swords or Rathfarnham would not have access to this office, that they would need a day to come in. The best service of all is where you can discuss your problem at a counter. I know that the Ombudsman cannot have counters in every area but I hope it is envisaged that his office will be decentralised; otherwise I cannot accept what the Minister has said that this is an extension of democracy.

I know Ministers have to be cautious and that they cannot antagonise individuals or institutions. The Minister said that the Ombudsman is the friend of the public but not the enemy of bureaucracy. If he is not the enemy of bureaucracy we must presume he is the friend, but if the Ombudsman is pursuing the interests of the offended person, pro tem at least he will have to appear to be the enemy of bureaucracy. He must attack bureaucracy if he is to secure for the offended person the rights that have not been given to him.

I do not think we should be too apologetic about whose toes are tread upon. We all know that at times certain elements of the bureaucratic system are insensitive to the needs of the people whom they were established to serve. In attacking them at times we must appear to be their enemy because those elements in bureaucracy are not doing what is correct. Where a bureaucrat is not acting in accordance with his duties and responsibilities he is our enemy and we will attack him for what he is doing or is not doing if it is not in accordance with his duties. Further, if he insists on continuing on that course it is our responsibility to have him or her removed elsewhere. For far too long we have shown a concern for people who are not operating in the way expected of them. We do not owe them any apologies. They are the servants of the people to whom the Minister for Finance must go to collect money. The least the bureaucrat should do is to perform his duties with efficiency and sympathy. The Ombudsman cannot be the friend of bureaucracy and of the person whose rights have been denied because of a lack of proper interpretation of those rights.

I am linking my final point with something said by Deputy L. Cosgrave earlier. The Minister said that all organisations both in the public and private sectors make mistakes and are capable of improvement. That is a fact of life. The Ombudsman and his office will not be immune. It is a human institution and perhaps we should be considering what vigilance the Ombudsman might want from us with regard to charting a course for him. I am not expecting that the Ombudsman will come to us and tell us he wants to decentralise a certain service. We should be able to indicate from our experience what we know is desirable.

I am happy that the Ombudsman will have a three-fold increase in staff. Where he had one senior investigator and three others he will now have an additional 12 staff members. I am happy the Minister has succeeded in getting the necessary financial provision for that. Far too often we have heard Ministers come here and tell us what is desirable and necessary, that they intend introducing various measures but that unfortunately the appropriate financial provision is not made.

With regard to recruitment, the Minister has said that the people appointed will be of the highest calibre. I remember years ago when I had the honour and pleasure of sitting on interview boards and often I had to contend with my colleagues that high academic qualifications, even in respect of teaching, did not necessarily guarantee that that person was the best available. I would not presume to indicate to the Minister what criteria should be laid down for the appointments in this case but from my experience I would be happy to advise him that I would not base selection on high academic qualifications. I could argue that a knowledge of or a degree in law might help, that a person who had studied psychology and politics might be a worthwhile candidate, but I would also argue that a person without either qualification might be the better investigator and better officer.

I am not at all suggesting that the people selected should be the appointees of the Minister, even though in many cases those people might be as good as anybody else. I hope that when the advertisements are being issued it will not be a sine qua non that the successful candidate should have an honours degree in A, B or C. I hope that there will be an interview board where the suitability of the person in dealing with the public will be the key factor. We will assume that the person has intelligence and the other qualifications but the people for whom we are catering want initially a sympathetic ear. Those of us who hold political clinics know that often by listening to a constituent we can send him away happy, although I am not saying we can solve his problems. What is needed is somebody who will respond to the person who seeks help rather than somebody who just tells him the cold, legalistic position. That will not serve the spirit or purpose of the legislation that gave rise initially to the establishment of the Ombudsman and to the worthwhile motions introduced by the Minister.

I will not follow the usual fashion of castigating Telecom Éireann. Some years before Telecom Éireann were established I had a personal problem in trying to convince the Department of Posts and Telegraphs — we were in Government at the time — that the fact that my telephone had been linked to the public telephone in the local public house for a fortnight — which they knew — indicated that the bills they sent to me were not the correct ones. It took me a long time to convince them but, happily, they gave me some credit. Since the establishment of Telecom Éireann I have had occasion to write to the chief executive officer and, even though I got the same reply that is sent to everyone, I do not condemn him in the way that has become fashionable. In this computer age appalling situations are arising because of demands in respect of telephone calls that are not made. If Bord Telecom Éireann would admit that it is due to the peculiarity of the system of computerisation they have introduced rather than try to defend themselves, there would be far less criticism of them. Therefore, one does not regret that the remit of the Ombudsman has been extended to them, but they are not the only institution that occasion injustice and botheration to the public. Anticipating the Ceann Comhairle's eternal vigilance I will only say that if I had my way there is one area to which I would have the attention of the Ombudsman extended, and that is the appalling injustices that happen under our legal system. I will leave it at that.

I do not think this House will ever have the key to the presentation of problems. I must say with a certain envy that I am amazed at the rapidity with which Gay Byrne can have a problem solved as against the painstaking efforts I would have to exert to do likewise. It causes me to think. My only answer is that people fear Gay Byrne because of the publicity. It is not that they accept him as an endearing man: they fear the ability he has to expose them.

I wonder if we here are doing an injustice to ourselves. Up to some years ago there is no doubt that there was a certain response to the prospect of a matter being raised in the House. That is as it should be because this House must always be the court of final appeal. Those people responsible for injustice or omission must fear this House. I do not think that is the case now and it is regrettable. What is proposed here, as the Minister said, is an extension of democracy and we, as parliamentary elected representatives, should examine our position. More power to Gay Byrne and other personalities in the media because, I suppose, the pen is mightier than what we can say here. They are able to have these matters resolved. Perhaps the Ombudsman, a good media man, will be able to do the job better than we can, but the elected Members of Parliament should always have the biggest clout in these matters.

Mr. Prendergast

On behalf of the Labour Party and my own behalf I not only welcome what the Minister is doing by these two motions but congratulate him for the welcome, human and very simple but fundamental improvements he had made in attitudes in the public service since he was appointed Minister to that Department.

As chairman of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies I am thankful to the Minister for his response to our request that An Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post would be brought within the responsibility of the committee. That is beneficial because semi-State bodies know they will be expected to give a public account of their actions to the taxpayers through the committee who are subject to this House which, as Deputy Tunney pointed out, is the ultimate arm of democracy here.

I have long held the belief that the Scandinavian system of politics is the finest in the world. They have given western democracies, especially, many good leads, and their concept of an ombudsman is the greatest benefit they have conferred on any democracy. Though we introduced it belatedly, I welcome the Act that appointed the Ombudsman here. When the appointment was first made I was critical of the concept that it should not extend to local authorities and health boards. As everybody interested in such affairs would be, I am delighted that these two sectors of local government are to be brought under the microscope.

For many reasons, the Ombudsman is a most important arm of democracy. Week after week, public representatives hear thousands of complaints from constituents throughout the country against the many forms of bureaucracy. I often smile when I hear that word being used. We call people bureaucrats because they do not meet what we are looking for and appear to be too rigid, though 99 out of 100 of them are very human and cooperative people and can help to ease problems. I suppose it is human nature that we all tend to highlight those with whom we do not succeed.

In spite of the best endeavours of people in the public service to answer a very demanding public there is in some quarters a residual attitude that they are there for the benefit of the public but not there to serve the public. Therefore, when we make representations we tend to get the "Yes, Minister" approach, with much cover up. On many occasions we go with serious distressing complaints many of which have caused great emotional distress to people and their families, but when we go to an authority — I speak particularly about the health boards because by the very nature of their operations they deal with people in hospitals — it is very difficult for public representatives to get satisfactory answers to complaints by citizens and sometimes we are put in the invidious position of having to raise the complaints in public which only exacerbates the hurt, sensitivity and the embarrassment of the individuals or families who raised the complaints in the first instance. That is why the Ombudsman has a vital role to perform and that is why it is crucial and pressing that the Minister's undertaking to introduce a publicity campaign to highlight the existence and the work of the Ombudsman is very welcome. It should be done as soon and as effectively as possible.

As somebody who is an advocate by my training as a trade union official I can say that when you go to make complaints or submissions sometimes you come up against a stone wall. There is nothing so effective in redressing grievances or complaints as the knowledge on the part of civil servants or public servants that their actions will be subject to the most minute and professional scrutiny by somebody as competent as the Ombudsman and his staff. Civil servants can fob off public representatives who cannot get the necessary background or detail to enable them to articulate the grievance fully and carry it through to the end.

I welcome the suggestion made by previous speakers that the Ombudsman should make a report to this House every year. The present Ombudsman was the most excellent choice which could have been made. That is agreed by all sides of the House because of his manner, his disposition, his training and his general outlook. So far as possible his staff should be endowed with the same virtues. That kind of collective image of the Ombudsman and his staff should be brought very much into the perception of the public.

No area of public life should be kept from the Ombudsman. I am talking about the Garda and the Army. It may be said that, for reasons of security, secrecy or confidentiality, the Ombudsman should not be allowed to direct his attention to that area. That is wrong. It is incorrect if there is a miscarriage of justice or a breach of equity and natural justice. I have one example in mind. A high ranking Garda officer was dismissed apparently without any proper trial or opportunity to defend himself. This happened many years ago and he had no redress. I hope to raise this matter shortly. Had the Ombudsman been there at the time the individual would have felt that his case had been examined rigorously by a competent, objective and neutral and, at the same time, friendly advocate.

If it emerged that any element of security or secrecy was involved in a case the Ombudsman could have access to the information but need not necessarily disclose it in his report. He could indicate to the person who came to him with a grievance that he had investigated the position and was satisfied that, in all the circumstances, justice had not been done. That would appease any sense of hurt or grievance such a victim, if you like, felt. Nothing adds more to a sense of hurt or grievance than the feeling that your case is not being examined fully, fairly and objectively.

We should have an Ombudsman's office in each region. This should be part of the general image. It would be the ultimate in democracy. I make due allowance for the fact that at times our geographical situation impinges on our nature as a people. We tend to crib and gripe. We have a highly over-democratic population with a healthy disregard for the law and the institutions of the law. In a democratic context that is very much to be welcomed. Some people, because of a sense of inadequacy or bad education through no fault of their own, are afraid to go to the establishment or the bureaucracy to put their case. If we had regional offices a local person would be there and poor or humble people could go there. I am talking about cosmhuintir. Perhaps I could say it better in Irish than in English.

I am talking about deprived and underprivileged people who could go to these offices and pour out their grievances, imagined or otherwise, with full confidentiality and sympathy to a representative of the Ombudsman who would have the matter examined sympathically. To me that is an essential corollary to the whole concept of the Ombudsman. He will be in Dublin. That kind of concept is as remote mentally as it is geographically from people down the country who would feel there was no use in going to see anybody and they had to put up with it.

I welcome the Minister's intention to review on a continuing basis the remit of the Ombudsman to see where improvements can be made. I have an unreserved welcome for the whole concept of the Ombudsman and the extension of his powers. That is one of the greatest things this Government or any other Government could do for the people. While welcoming the office of the Ombudsman and the move to extend his powers, my party also press upon all Ministers the need to examine clients' grievances against their Departments, whether they come through a TD or the office of the Ombudsman. This would enable Ministers to be fully aware of the type of grievances which arise and eliminate them or help to redress them.

We should also ensure that local authority and health board staff who deal with the public are trained to cope with the type of problems which cause clients to come to their offices. Very often clients meet the most junior staff who are not trained to cope with clients suffering from personal hardship or depression. In the name of the Labour Party I ask the Minister to provide a level of confidentiality for clients who, under the current system, have to discuss details of their private lives while standing in a queue. Nobody in public life could fail to feel humiliated and upset by the system which applies in the local offices of Departments. People have to queue or wait in a room almost in a Dickensian atmosphere. Somebody shouts: "What is your name? What is your problem?" There is very little privacy.

I welcome the moves which have been made over the past ten years or so to humanise that situation. The Minister for the Public Service is a pre-eminently practical and humane man. I ask him to consider civilising and humanising offices where there is a one to one contact with the public. In so far as possible, the public should be able to come into an office and do their business in private with the officer or the civil servant. Under other European systems, clients have the privacy of an office where they can discuss their personal problems. I ask the Minister to give more encouragement to citizen's advice bureaus which operate in the local areas. Citizens may drop into these offices and get advice which helps them to pursue their complaints. This immediate advice eliminates much of the distress which is caused by lack of information or by clients not providing adequate information in their own cases. All these measures would help the office of the Ombudsman but, more important, would ensure that fundamental problems would be dealt with sympathetically and, where possible, eliminated.

This, in turn, would enable Deputies to spend more time on research and legislation and could create a more effective form of Government. It is to be deplored that politicians elected to Government spend most of their working week at present processing clients' grievances against the agencies of the State. That is the tradition and culture of clientism which we have developed here. The appointment of the Ombudsman and the extension of his powers will help to do away with that. I congratulate most heartily the Minister for his very welcome initiative on this.

Mrs. O'Rourke

Like the previous speaker, I wish to congratulate the Minister for his speed in bringing in this amendment to the Ombudsman Bill, extending the remit of the Ombudsman. I particularly wish to refer to the extension of the writ as it appertains to local authorities. Almost 12 years ago, when I was elected to the local authority in my area, a reporter interviewing me asked how I saw my role as a local authority member. I said that I saw myself as an ombudsperson. That was long before the terminology had come into local parlance or into our everyday life. Essentially, local authority members spend a lot of their time in their constituencies involving themselves with the executive and housing officers and various personnel who go to make up local authorities. I have mixed feelings on the extension of this writ. The Minister has said, rightly, that the Ombudsman's writ will not extend to the reserve powers of local authority members. However, might I put it to the Minister that it might be time to look at the whole county manager system, although that is not the province of this Minister. The number of complaints by people who feel that in one way or another they are being discriminated against by local authorities has grown enormously over the past few years. Part of this growth of discontent among those living in towns, villages and rural areas arises because they feel that the bureaucracy of local authorities in many instances is removed from their daily lives. I would reject Deputy Prendergast's belief that we should not concern ourselves with problems in our local areas. Local authority members meet the people in the towns and villages but very often one comes up against an impasse when dealing with a particular county manager. When set up first, the local authority system envisaged a very good, vibrant working relationship between the members elected and the members appointed — that is, the elected representatives and the county manager. Together they were to run the system effectively and in many counties that is what happens. The county manager sees the interchange of ideas and submissions put forward by the members as very useful to him in the formation of his final decisions, particularly on matters of housing allocations and various similar matters. At times, however, county managers take upon themselves supreme powers. They do not care to listen to, and treat with contempt, representations, statements or wishes of local authority members. This is very regrettable, but it does happen. When the open contempt of a county manager towards the elected representatives is clearly shown, then the marriage — which was meant to be happy — of elected members and managerial persons becomes a strained relationship, one which is likely to founder at any time and end in stalemate in many instances.

I would be sorry that the Ombudsman would have to intervene in matters regarding local authorities. At the same time, local representatives in some instances are definitely not being treated with the courtesy and respect which was envisaged in the County Managers Act when it was set up. The Bill brought in here last year, which gave to the county manager the power unto himself alone of fixing the rate of the water charges without any reference to the views of the elected members was essentially a great negation of democracy. At one stroke the local authority members were left in an extremely humble and, dare I say, lowly position. If the extension of the Ombudsman writ does something to rectify that, that is good.

I cannot let this occasion pass without extending from the Minister for the Public Service to the Minister for the Environment, to whom I say that we in local authorities want some of the powers of which we were stripped given back to us — this is highly relevant——

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

Excuse me, Deputy. If you are referring to the Ombudsman's involvement in local authorities——

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am, yes.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

——you are not referring to the Minister for the Environment, but to the Minister for the Public Service who is moving the motion.

Mrs. O'Rourke

That Minister said that he saw this Bill as an extension of democracy.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

I am indicating clearly to the Deputy that items 3 and 4 deal with the extension of powers of the Ombudsman.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I know that.

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

The Minister for the Environment has no involvement in those items.

Mrs. O'Rourke

I am talking about the powers taken from local authorities two years ago with the introduction of the Water Service Charges Bill. I understand that that legislation was introduced into this House by the Minister for the Environment. Would I be right in that?

An Leas-Cheann Comhairle

That is right, Deputy, but Items Nos. 3 and 4 deal with the powers of the Ombudsman and the extension of those powers. The Minister for the Environment is not directly involved. While the powers of the local authorities may be involved, I am clarifying that the Minister for the Environment is not involved in these two items. The Deputy should confine herself to those items.

Mrs. O'Rourke

The powers of the Ombudsman have had to be extended because, unfortunately, the powers of the local authority members have been removed. However, that is not the province of this Minister but of another. Deputy Prendergast said that he hoped there would be regional offices of ombudsmen set up throughout the country. I do not agree with that at all. The aura and attraction of this office is that people see it as a court of final appeal. If everybody along the line fails, they have envisaged in their minds this one person to whom they may refer their complaint at a higher level. I am a great believer in decentralisation and in Government Departments being transferred down the country, but this office of Ombudsman is for a central point. I shudder at the thought of regional offices scattered around the country. That would be a grave dilution of powers. Deputy Prendergast mentioned the citizens bureaus as well as regional offices of Ombudsmen, but that would lead to a great amount of overlapping of powers. I agree with him about the need for privacy when one is dealing with personal matters. Would it be possible to have free postage for those who wish to write to the Ombudsman? Postal charges might not seem to us to be enormous but there are people who may have a case to relate to the Ombudsman and postal charges could be a consideration. Perhaps some arrangement could be made whereby there would be free postage.

I welcome the idea of an accelerated publicity campaign. I know that this has started. I have come across people who have said they do not know who the Ombudsman is, what the office is all about, where to contact him or what kind of cases he deals with. They say, "But sure he would not listen to us". They are very courteous in that office and of course the Ombudsman would listen to them. This publicity campaign will let people know where the Ombudsman can be contacted, precisely what areas he and his staff will deal with and will give them an opportunity to correspond freely, in the correct sense of the word, with him whenever they wish.

I welcome the extension of the powers to embrace the operations of local authorities. I regret that the decline in the powers of elected members means that we have as much power as people in the street in many cases in dealing with the county managerial system. I look forward to the first report of the Ombudsman which will be brought before the House and to hearing the diverse cases with which he will deal. Part of the complexity of modern life has led to this facility. I am glad that in an area of stringency the Minister has been able to increase expenditure for the office of Ombudsman.

Mr. Taylor

One can only welcome the extension of the powers of the Ombudsman as proposed here. It is good to see that the armament, little though it is, which is available to the private citizen is being extended in this way. I am pleased that the Minister referred to the question of taking urgent necessary steps from a publicity point of view to bring the work of the Ombudsman and his staff much more into the public eye than has been the case heretofore. I referred to this when speaking on the Bill before the House recently and pointed out that it was interesting that the first Ombudsman was a media person. I welcomed this because a crucial part of his work is to ensure that the work of the office is made known to the public.

I am pleased to see that the publicity arrangements are to be expanded. I note that some advertisements appeared in the press recently and I hope they will achieve the desired result. It must be an ongoing process. As well as providing for this publicity on the availability of the Ombudsman to investigate the grievances of people, it is also important that equal care be given to ensuring that the findings of the Ombudsman in case of maladministration, inconsistent decisions, unfair decisions, delayed decisions and so on are brought to the notice of the public and to the Members of this House.

The Minister made an interesting comment in his speech when he said that when injustice is done it must be put right. I agree but as the adage says, justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. It would not meet the situation merely for the Ombudsman and his staff, behind the scenes as it were, to discover cases of maladministration, remedy them and keep them quiet. The findings in individual cases, without the publication of names, must be brought before the public and this House or a committee of this House for evaluation and examination. The Ombudsman's reports must not be confined to mere statistics. They must give examples of actual cases examined by him and his staff, details of inquiries made and of the findings. In cases where maladministration or injustice is found the result of the intervention of the Ombudsman should be given. I do not say that names should be published in the report but the actual case history must be published and in certain cases where the Ombudsman thinks that injustice on a wide scale has taken place, it would be of value if in the newspapers and media a brief case history was published so that people could read those reports and say, "That is interesting; something like that happened to me and I will now refer it to the Ombudsman for remedy". I would envisage it in much the same way as the excellent advertising done by the IDA where they quote specific case histories, giving the photograph of the person who received benefits and saying what was done. I am not suggesting that a photograph should be published but the case history should be published. That would be a valuable step forward.

Publicity is essential because it is directed not only to the end of apprising members of the public of their rights and the options open to them but also at civil servants. They will know that there is a watchdog over them to which they might, on suitable occasions, be made amenable. The Civil Service must be made sensitive to the needs, requirements and rights of the citizen. By and large they are but all too frequently there is some kind of superior air that permeates too many of our civil servants who, as the name implies, are the servants of the public and not their masters. We as Members of this House doing our constituency work all too often hear complaints about civil servants at all different levels, central and local, of high-handedness, off-handedness, discourtesy and matters of that nature. If it is brought home to the civil servants that the watchdog office of the Ombudsman is there, it will make them more sensitive to the needs and rights of members of the public.

There is and must be a special relationship between the office of the Ombudsman and this House and the Members of this House. It is interesting to note that in the UK the Ombudsman is known as a parliamentary commissioner, which highlights the connection and interplay that must exist between the House and the Ombudsman. I would like to suggest for examination at some stage that a procedure be set up under which one of the Joint Oireachtas Committees would be given the function of meeting with the Ombudsman from time to time in session to discuss with him his work and to hear from him the types of cases that he is investigating. There may be particular patterns of abuse of operation in the Civil Service, central or local, and the Members of the Oireachtas in that Joint Committee would be enabled to discuss that work with the Ombudsman at regular meetings from time to time. Likewise the same committee who would discuss the work of the Ombudsman with him would and should also be empowered to call in for discussion appropriate civil servants to discuss with them matters that have arisen that would be of interest to them in their discussions with the Ombudsman.

Civil Servants of all ranks, central and local, should be amenable to be called in to that Joint Committee for consultation and discussion on possible injustices and abuses that might be brought to the committee's notice following on the meetings with the Ombudsman. A typical situation could be described as negligent misstatement. Very often it has come to my notice that a member of the public would go into a Government or local authority office and would be given information which later would turn out to be incorrect or incomplete. That could cause serious hardship to a member of the public and all too often the citizen concerned finds himself unable to redress the matter. I hope that that kind of situation will receive the special attention of the expanded office of the Ombudsman.

The extension proposed here will produce a very substantial increase in the load of the staff of the Ombudsman. I wonder if there will be adequate gearing, even with the increased staff that the Minister proposes, to cover it. I can visualise a massive array of complaint and referral to his office. In that context I must say that, so far as organisation is concerned whether it be on a central or local basis, it would be essential there should be at least three or four local offices staffed by senior officials of the Ombudsman's office to which people in local or remote areas would have access. I did not hear the contribution of my colleague, Deputy Prendergast, who it seems advocated some kind of local office arrangement up and down the country. Deputy O'Rourke did not agree with that; but I do, particularly where local Government is concerned. Not everybody can write letters or make a case, and in this special relationship that must exist between the members of public and the Ombudsman's office, the possibility of person to person contact is essential. I doubt if the staff of the Ombudsman's office will be in a position to interview potential complainants all round the country and therefore some local presence in parts of the country outside Dublin would be essential.

I wonder why the Minister has decided to include in this extension the health boards to be made amenable to the Ombudsman's work but has left out the VECs who are in a rather parallel situation to the health boards, being subsidiaries or associated bodies of the local authorities. I would have thought it logical to have included the VECs in tandem with the health boards. Perhaps that could be considered as soon as possible on some future occasion.

The type of work involved in this new arena being introduced here where local authorities and health boards are concerned would be of quite a different nature from investigations of complaints regarding the Civil Service. A degree of specialisation would be required to investigate the new type of complaint under this extension. For that reason I would have thought that the organisation may be found to require some kind of subdivision in the office of the Ombudsman under which particular subordinates of his would specialise in each of the fields concerned.

I can see the question of inquiries into matters of planning by the local authorities giving rise to considerable difficulties. Very many complaints arise in the field of planning and planning laws. In County Dublin re-zoning of land took place on a large scale in course of the work leading up to the last county development plan. Will that kind of matter be open for examination on an objective basis by the Ombudsman and his staff? People seek planning permission in rural areas where, apparently inexplicibly, planning permissions are obtained by some people and refused to other land owners in the same immediate area for no apparent or obvious reason. Will such matters be open to examination by the Ombudsman and his staff? I would hope so.

Disquiet has been increasing in the public mind regarding many aspects of the operation of our planning laws and it is important that it should be known that some kind of supervisory function will be available through this extension now proposed by the Minister and that it will be open to a person aggrieved by a planning decision, be it for him, against him or whatever, to refer his complaint for an examination in context by the Ombudsman's office. An Bord Pleanála are the final court of appeal in planning matters, and I do not know whether or to what extent their activities will be open to critical examination and comment by the Ombudsman. There would be little point in the Ombudsman looking at planning decisions of a local authority and yet not having the power to look at similar decisions in the same line of country by An Bord Pleanála. Many of the decisions in recent years of An Bord Pleanála — not the present board but the previous one — gave rise to considerable public disquiet. In respect of many of these I would have welcomed the opportunity to have been able to refer the reports I had to an official such as the Ombudsman.

There arises too on this legislation the question of the appointment of the Ombudsman and some members of his staff. I note that the new posts to which the Minister refers are to be filled by way of a special public competition. Great care is required in the manner of the appointment of the Ombudsman and of his senior assistants. This is because of the particularly sensitive nature of these posts. The Ombudsman is in an especially sensitive position. Within his remit falls the investigation of most branches of the Civil Service, local authorities, health boards, with perhaps increased powers at a later date. It must be absolutely clear that the Ombudsman is one who will be independent in every way possible, one who will owe nothing to those responsible for having him appointed.

I would have thought that a committee of this House would have some role, even if only consultative, in the appointment of the Ombudsman and his senior assistants. I am not saying that the appointments should be made by a committee of the House, but when such appointments are in the offing there should be consultation with a committee of the House so that it would be seen, at least in the public eye, that the appointments were broadly based and were not within the realm of narrowly based internal appointments on a ministerial basis. Such a procedure would be in the interest of the Minister, of the Department and of the public.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I thank Deputies for the general welcome they have given to the terms of these motions and for the high degree of praise they have extended to the Ombudsman for his work to date in investigating complaints into the operations of the Civil Service.

It is no harm to remind the House that the Act provides that the Ombudsman is appointed by the President after recommendation from both Houses of the Oireachtas. So far as I recall, Deputy Taylor participated in the debate in that regard last year. The name was put before the House by me but required the consent of both Houses before the appointment was made by the President.

Mr. Taylor

I was thinking in terms of having deliberations on perhaps a number of names at an earlier stage, before the decision was hardened.

Mr. Boland

One could carry democracy to such an extent that it would be impossible to arrive at decisions on any issue. At the time of the debate last year I expressed the opinion that in general it would be a poor reflection on the choice of the Government if there was not unanimous acceptance by the House of the name put forward. I would expect that normally sufficient care would be taken to ensure that the name proposed would be found to be acceptable generally on all sides. I had discussions with the Leader of the Opposition prior to the name being put before the House. Some such procedure, however informal, should be adhered to.

Regarding the staff who were recruited at that time, the appointments were by way of the procedure of the Civil Service Commission. It is the intention that the additional investigatory staff be recruited in that way also.

Deputy Tunney correctly expressed the view that academic qualifications are not always the best criteria for determining the best person possible for certain positions. He speculated, for instance, as to whether a qualification in law or in psychology or politics or some other academic area might not be regarded as a particular qualification. In general the main qualification that would be expected of applicants for these posts would be a knowledge of the operation of the public service. If the motion is accepted by the House the new posts will be advertised immediately. The particular requirement will be that applicants have a specific knowledge of the operation of local authorities or health boards since the powers of the Ombudsman are being extended to these areas. It is very important that the staff recruited are seen to be independent of the political system. I am not sure that even a committee of the House being involved in some manner whether advisory or otherwise, would lead to as much confidence in the system as would the employment of the Civil Service Commission to make the appointments after public advertisements. In that way those appointed are responsible to the Ombudsman rather than to any Department or Minister.

Some Deputies referred to the necessity for an advertising or publicity campaign for the purpose of informing people of the existence of the Office of Ombudsman. Since this point was raised here some weeks ago an extended advertising campaign has been embarked on. I posed the question earlier today as to whether Deputies had noticed increased advertising in this regard. As recently as the weekend I noticed some such advertisement on television. It is the intention of the Ombudsman's office to conduct a fairly big campaign in relation to the supply of posters to public offices and to other places which the public normally would frequent. This advertising campaign is funded under a subhead of the Vote of the Ombudsman which is moved by me in the House, but the advertising campaign is ultimately decided on by the Ombudsman.

I was struck by the contribution of Deputy Liam Cosgrave when he referred to the fact that often the question of personal attention to the individual member of the public who comes to deal with the bureaucracy does not appear to impinge so much on the consciousness of the person working inside the bureaucracy as it does on the individual member of the public. The words he used were that little things cause big problems. I went out of my way in my introductory remarks to say that in general the public service have served this country very well over the years and many fine people are employed within it. As happens in very many large organisations, they come to find it difficult to appreciate the areas which cause problems to the public and the greatest problem which the general public experience is the bureaucracy itself, its size and anonymity. That is why we made a number of changes in the last number of years regarding the personalising of individuals working in the bureaucracy. I hope that that has gone some way towards helping people to find the service more personalised. Civil servants are now personally identified and this has given them greater satisfaction in the conduct of their jobs.

I found it very difficult to persuade the Civil Service of the reality of small problems. Very often small problems frustrate or dishearten members of the public. These problems would be regarded by people working in the system as little things but they cause major problems to the ordinary person if he does not know his entitlement, if he does not know where to have access to offices to obtain information about entitlements or to have forms completed, if he does not know how to go about pressing a complaint or if he feels that he cannot have a confidential hearing of his affairs. All these things add up to a sense of frustration and helplessness.

I have often described one aspect of the role of public representative as being the obligation to stop the relentless grinding of the enormous cogs of the bureaucratic machine and turn the cogwheel back to extract for that machine a file and identifying that file as being about an individual, to be considered more on the basis of an individual with a problem than as another file with a number. The Ombudsman has a facility to do just that.

In many of the cases addressed to the Ombudsman an informal contact between his office and the offices involved has been able to resolve the complaint. That reflects credit on the civil servants with whom the Ombudsman dealt during the course of the last year, because of their ability to respond quickly and to recognise the Ombudsman's role and responsibility and to be able to come up with a positive response to his inquiries. In that regard the sum total of his inquiries, especially into the more difficult and intractable cases with which he dealt over the first year will form the subject matter of his annual report. The Act provides that that report should be laid before the Houses. I have separately given a positive commitment that when the annual report is available I will, by way of motion here, ask the House to take note of that report so that there will be positive discussion both here and in the other House on the provisions, reporting and recommendations contained in the Ombudsman's report. I hope that that more than covers the points raised by some Deputies when they suggested that there should be some Oireachtas committee who would regularly meet with the Ombudsman so as to ascertain from him a report as to his progress. The statutory requirement of the publication of an annual report and the commitment given that that report will be discussed in the House will mean that there will be the fullest of opportunities to discuss the findings of the Ombudsman on an annual basis. The Act also provides for the Ombudsman to make special reports from time to time more frequently than annually on a generality of topics or on a special topic if he feels that it is of sufficient importance.

Deputy Leyden made a number of points which are more particular to the Minister for Communications in relation to his contact with Bord Telecom Éireann and to An Post than they would be to me in my proposing of an extension of the Ombudsman's remit to the two telecommunications and postal bodies but I will ensure that the content of the Deputy's remarks are passed on to the Minister for Communications despite my suspicion that this will not be the first time that he will have heard some of these suggestions from Deputy Leyden. The extension of the remit specifically to Bord Telecom Éireann and to An Post is as a result of the reservations expressed by Members of the two Houses both in the course of the formal debate here in the last few weeks and since the bodies were established. There is progressively greater efficiency within the telephone system. Indeed that is to be expected after the enormous capital investment in it in the last eight to ten years. One would have expected that there would be a radical improvement in the standard of the service. That has not always been matched by an improvement in the standard of treatment of the members of the general public in relation to their queries about billing, connections, repairs and service. One would have expected that an organisation so customer-related might become more customer-orientated when it became a commercial State body. It is no harm to remember that courtesy costs nothing and improves the image of the body concerned. It will be interesting to see the numbers and types of complaints made to the Ombudsman with regard to the operation of An Post which came into being on the same day as Bord Telecom Éireann.

I earnestly hope that one of the products of the extension of the Ombudsman's remit to the telecommunications body will be a much greater attention to and appreciation of the needs of the customer to have information supplied courteously and to have queries dealt with expeditiously. If that happens the need for the Ombudsman to investigate an enormous number of complaints against the body will be diminished. The remedy appears to lie very much in the hands of the people operating within those bodies about which complaints are made.

Deputy G. Mitchell was anxious that the remit of the Ombudsman should be extended to all of the commercial State bodies. At the same time he seemed to have reservations lest the Ombudsman be snowed under with so many complaints he would be unable to deal with them effectively. I am not sure that those two aspirations are reconcilable. Initially what we have endeavoured to do is to have the Ombudsman investigate queries in relation to the Civil Service and then, as of now and on foot of an earlier commitment, progressively extending that to the health boards, local authorities, and to these two State bodies which have so many dealings with the general public.

The British model, as advocated by Deputy G. Mitchell, was examined at the time the all-party committee conducted their investigations and when the legislation was passed through the House. The model was specifically rejected because it was dependent on complaints being dealt with by the Ombudsman where they had been addressed to him only — in Britain he is known as the Parliamentary Commissioner — by a Member of Parliament. It was felt that that would inhibit the system to too great an extent and would mean that very many genuine grievances by individual members of the public and complaints of malpractices might never get as far as the Parliamentary Commissioner or, in our case, the Ombudsman.

It is right that the basic Scandinavian model, to which Deputy Prendergast referred, was adopted here, with all members of the general public having the right of recourse to the Ombudsman if they felt they had a grievance. I should say that Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas have referred cases specifically to the Ombudsman when they have been following up representations made to them and have found that they have been unable to see them resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant. With the passage of time I would expect there to be a much greater recourse to the Ombudsman by Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas in relation to the more difficult matters of representation referred to them.

Several Deputies who spoke — in particular Deputies Leyden and Prendergast — seemed to feel that the Ombudsman should have power to investigate personnel matters, matters of grievance of employees of the bodies concerned against their employers. That point was made previously in this and the other House in relation to civil servants. At the time the matter was discussed initially the feeling was that the Ombudsman should not act as a type of personnel officer for the public service. There are fairly well laid down procedures, certainly in relation to the Civil Service, very detailed and complicated procedures laid down in the last year whereby any civil servant who has a grievance may go through a series of procedures to ensure that that grievance is given the fullest attention. I presume that a similar practice applies in the public sector bodies which will now come within the remit of the Ombudsman. However, I must say that, in view of the number of Deputies and Senators who made the point last week, I have a relatively open mind regarding such personnel matters. I am prepared to consider when next we come to look at the extent of the Ombudsman's remit whether that area might not usefully be taken within his ambit.

I am equally impressed by the remarks of the former Northern Ireland Ombudsman, now a Member of the Seanad, Senator McGonagle, when he made the point that the Ombudsman should not attempt to replace the role of the courts nor the role or duties of trade unions. Perhaps it might be more appropriate that personnel matters be dealt with by those who represent personnel in staffing associations, as happens to a large extent at present. It is better that the present situation should obtain for the time being. If there is a considerable volume of belief among public servants that in their own right as employees they should have recourse to the Ombudsman, then certainly that matter can be considered but it would require amendment of the 1980 Act.

Deputy Tunney, I think, was inclined to be upset at my remarks to the effect that the Ombudsman, while being a friend of the public, is not an enemy of bureaucracy. In a rather black and white situation, he seemed to feel that if an ombudsman was a friend of the public he could not also be a friend of the bureaucracy. Perhaps the fault is mine by my not suggesting that he need not necessarily be an enemy of the bureaucracy. Quite a number of complaints addressed to ombudsmen throughout the world — and I understand that in the case of ours the situation is no different — about which individuals feel aggrieved, result in the Ombudsman deciding that the bureaucrats or those operating the system had operated it fairly and impartially and that there was no validity in the complaint of an individual complainant. That was the specific point I had been endeavouring to make: that the Ombudsman was not appointed on the basis of conducting a witch hunt against the public service or the bureaucracy and that it would be very wrong had he so been. Rather was he appointed to ensure that fair play operates, and of course that involves both sides. Where the Ombudsman finds that the public servants involved have operated impartially and above board, without delay, and have administered thoroughly the law or regulations as handed down to them, then he should say so and find accordingly. That is the point I had wanted to make.

Deputy Tunney, as did one or two others, referred to a point I made myself in this House on 25 October 1983, which was that the Ombudsman should not be seen to be and should not be exclusively Dublin-based, that he should make himself available at other local offices. I think there is a feeling in rural Ireland that all decision-making is centralised in Dublin, that the farther one is from Dublin the more likely it is that there will be a feeling of remoteness and alienation from the decision-making system. I often suspect that that results in Deputies from the more remote rural parts being given a far greater volume of representations to carry with them physically to Dublin, because of their regular visits here, than Deputies in parts of Dublin, because of the proximity of their constituents to many Departments of State.

At column 656 of the Offical Report of 25 October 1983 I had this to say:

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.

I still hold the view that that would be an ideal situation. I should like to think that it might be possible to achieve that in time to come. However, in the interim I have previously suggested to the Ombudsman that I feel it would be a good idea were he from time to time to advertise the fact that he or a senior officer of his Department would be available at centres such as, say, Cork, Limerick or Galway on some designated days of the following week. This would mean that people who had addressed complaints to him in writing to his office in Dublin and who wanted to get a personal hearing might more easily be able to attend at that temporary, regional office, or that people who felt they wanted to discuss their case personally and who would not be in a position to travel to Dublin might, through advertisement, become aware of the office being available virtually on circuit and be able to attend there. I realise that that could be done to a limited extent only but it would help to establish on an even basis throughout the country the concept of the existence of the Ombudsman and his powers. I do not think it would be necessary always for the Ombudsman himself to attend at these offices; some of his senior investigators from time to time over the course of a year could usefully carry out that function.

There is provision in the Act to recompense witnesses who travel to give evidence to the Ombudsman, both in relation to travelling expenses and in respect of lost time and I gather that provision was included in the legislation specifically to ensure that people would feel they could pursue a case with the Ombudsman without its interfering with their income.

Deputy Tunney and others referred to the handling of representations from Members of the House and some Deputies referred to representations coming to them from members of the general public. I referred earlier to the proposed White Paper on improvements in the public service and I would hope that two of the areas which would be addressed in the White Paper would be the announcement of a much improved method by which Deputies could pursue representations, such as Parliamentary Questions, especially in respect of individual cases with the Departments of State and also an improved and more efficient method of processing complaints addressed to Departments by members of the general public.

I would hope those proposals would meet some of the reservations and regrets of Deputy Tunney. He seemed to regret that the ability of a Member of the Oireachtas to see a case resolved satisfactorily had lessened and seemed to feel that Mr. Gay Byrne was in a position to achieve much more speedily the resolution of complaints addressed to him. I rather facetiously wondered whether the solution might not be to have Deputy Tunney conduct Mr. Byrne's morning radio programme and have Mr. Byrne represent the people of Finglas and Cabra and see whether that might improve the situation for Deputy Tunney. What we need to do is ensure that the situation is improved for all members of the general public so that they do not have to write to Mr. Gay Byrne, and to ensure that Members of the House are able to resolve effectively and expeditiously any complaints addressed to them. I hope that the White Paper proposals will receive a general welcome from public representatives.

Deputy Prendergast spoke about the Citizen's Advice Bureaus. They are an important adjunct to the democratic system and the work of the National Social Services Board in ensuring the progressive extension of advice centres in many parts of the country has helped to disseminate a wider knowledge of the availability of and entitlement to various schemes and programmes conducted by the State. There are improvements which could be made which are worthy of attention.

In relation to the extension of the remit to local authorities and health boards, Deputy Taylor asked why the extension had not simultaneously been designed to cover the area of the vocational education committees. The committees, while appointed by local authorities, are not regarded as local authorities for the purpose of the legislation. I should point out that the vocational educational committees in general provide second level education and some third level education in respect of those who operate regional technical colleges, but there are a number of other bodies and organisations such as voluntary secondary schools, community schools and community colleges providing second level education. I felt it would not necessarily be right to include the vocational educational committees while other totally funded second level schools such as community schools would not be included. The question of further extensions will need to be left until such time as there is an assessment of the level of public complaint regarding areas which are not within the remit at present and until the Ombudsman has been given a reasonable time to put into place effectively this major extension of his remit so that he is in a position to pursue complaints made to him by the public in relation to these four additional areas, as well as the area of the Civil Service where he has been operating since the beginning of this year.

Motion No. 4 is on foot of a specific request by the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies to allow them to conduct if they see fit investigations into the two bodies concerned. This is an important committee and as well as considering the report on Irish Shipping and Údarás na Gealtachta I understand they are initiating examination of Bord Gáis Éireann, RTE, ESB and Irish Life. The work of the members of the committee is very much appreciated by the Government and I was happy to be able to respond, following consultation with the Ministers for Finance and Communications and the Leader of the House, to the request from the committee that their terms of reference be extended to allow them to investigate Bord Telecom Éireann and An Post.

The response by Members of the House to these two motions has been very favourable. I thank Members for the welcome they have given and the useful suggestions which I and the Ombudsman will find helpful.

Question put and agreed to.