Deputy Proinsias De Rossa gave me notice of his intention to raise on the Adjournment the subject matter appertaining to the office of the Ombudsman.
Adjournment Debate. - Ombudsman's Office.
Before I begin, if it is in order with the House I would like to share some of my time with Deputies Shatter and Barnes. I will attempt to keep my remarks as brief as possible.
I sought to raise this matter on the Adjournment for a number of reasons but particularly because it has been clear for some time that there is a crisis in relation to a body which this House established some years ago and which the House unanimously agreed was essential in order to service the needs of individual citizens of this State who had no redress other than going before an independent body with investigators to investigate complaints with regard to the services available from public offices.
Last November the Ombudsman issued a special report outlining that he expected that he would have a serious problem with regard to carrying out his functions. The House failed to debate that report although The Workers' Party put down a motion at that time seeking a debate on it. For a variety of reasons it was not deemed necessary by the House to have a debate.
We now have before us the annual report of the Ombudsman for the year 1987 and the statements by the Ombudsman yesterday outlining clearly that there is a serious problem with regard to how he can carry out his functions. The number of investigators which he has had, a maximum of 16, has now been reduced to eight. He has made it clear that it is impossible for him to carry out his functions with that number of investigators given the level of complaints he is in receipt of.
I am, quite frankly, alarmed at the way in which the Ombudsman's office is being treated because I see pattern with regard to the attitude this Government have taken towards independent bodies. I refer specifically to the National Social Services Board which this Government attempted to dismantle by incorporating its functions into various Departments of Government. This would have meant that the community information centres would have lost their independence. They have also dismantled the Health Education Bureau which was an independent body with its own funding and incorporated it into a Department of Government. There are now 130 civil servants serving Ministers in various Departments. Obviously there is a necessity for some civil servants to operate in Government Departments of Ministers, but it is extraordinary that there are, in some cases, more civil servants operating in a single Department servicing the Minister than there are investigators with the Ombudsman. That is not acceptable, if the Minister cares to hear, I can list out the numbers who are operating to the Minister for Agriculture, the Minister for Defence, the Minister for Education——
I gave the Deputy permission to raise the subject matter of the Ombudsman's office. He ought not to go outside the ambit of that.
I am doing my best to put the question of how the Ombudsman's office is being dealt with in the context of how this Government are treating other Departments and themselves with regard to assistance in dealing with constituency complaints. It is not acceptable that a body established by a unanimous vote of this House should be cut back in the way the Ombudsman's office has been, with the number of investigators reduced by half from 16 to eight at a time when there seems to be no embargo with regard to how Ministers themselves are serviced. I am also trying to put it in the context of how it would appear that this Government are intent on limiting the independence of other agencies. That is why I am alarmed at the way in which the Ombudsman's office is being treated. There must be no further cuts in the Ombudsman's budget and resources must be restored to his office to enable him to do his work.
The Workers' Party put down a Private Members' Bill in January in relation to the Ombudsman's office seeking an amendment to the 1980 Act whereby the Minister for the Public Service would decide, in consultation with the Ombudsman, the number of staff etc. that he would require to carry out his functions but that where there was disagreement the Ombudsman would, in the last resort, have the right to say that he needed so many to clear such a number of complaints. I make this point because it is essential that the Ombudsman's office is seen to be independent.
I would also make the point that in the 1980 Act it has been made clear that no one may impede the work of the Ombudsman. I would argue that the steps taken by this Government to reduce the resources available to the Ombudsman is a direct interference in his capacity to carry out his functions, that the Government are acting outside the law; they are impeding the functions of the Ombudsman and are therefore in breach of the 1980 Act. I would be interested in getting an opinion on that from the Attorney General, and if the Minister is not prepared to seek that opinion I intend to write to the Attorney General to ask for an opinion in relation to that matter.
Regardless of the legal position, if we are to retain any credibility in this House we must ensure that the Ombudsman has adequate resources to carry out his functions. It is serious, too, that at a time when the responsibilities of the Ombudsman have been extended these resources have been reduced. We have added on responsibility for Telecom Éireann and An Post because, again in a cost cutting measure, the Government decided to abolish the complaints committees which these companies operated. The Government abolished those overnight and put the responsibility on the Ombudsman to carry out investigations into complaints from customers of those two bodies so we have a double cut. Customers who can no longer get satisfaction regarding compaints with Telecom and An Post must go to the Ombudsman and, perhaps, wait for two years to get a response because of the cutbacks in the office of the Ombudsman. He has pointed out that the level of complaints from An post and Telecom now make up the bulk of the complaints he has to deal with.
I am seriously concerned about the direction in which this Government are going regarding the possibility of citizens of this State having their complaints investigated independently. I urge every party in this House to support the steps we have taken to try to rectify the problem. I made an appeal yesterday to the Whips to put the matter on the agenda for next week for Private Members' time. I do not mind in whose party name the Bill is, whether it is Fine Gael, The Labour Party, the Progressive Democrats or even Fianna Fáil. I would be happy if our Private Members' Bill were taken next week so that this matter could be properly debated, teased out and the appropriate steps taken to rectify the appalling situation in which the Ombudsman's office now finds itself.
The Ombudsman plays a unique and independent role within our administrative system. His role is to protect the individual citizen against bureaucratic inefficiency, carelessness and administrative unfairness and to confront not only problems that arise in the operation of Government Departments but to deal, as the previous Deputy said, with An Post, Telecom Éireann, local authorities and health boards. He is given a remit to provide the ordinary citizen with a means of dealing with major State agencies, whose activities impact directly on their lives and when those agencies operate inefficiently they can have a devastating effect on the lives of the individuals affected by them.
I am greatly concerned by the contents of the Ombudsman's report. Deputy De Rossa is right in saying that before Christmas the Ombudsman sounded a warning about the difficulties he was experiencing in his office. I had hoped that when the annual report was published this week we would see that those difficulties had been remedied. Instead, we see that those difficulties have got worse. It seems to me that Fianna Fáil dislike bodies that act as independent watchdogs. It seems also, and one has the suspicion, that some civil servants feel threatened by the Ombudsman and that they would like to neutralise the effect of his office and render him impotent to carry out his functions.
I believe this Dáil has a duty to protect the position of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has a role which was established by this Dáil. He was given additional functions by this Dáil and the Minister is under an obligation to ensure that he has adequate funds to carry out those functions. I think it is an objective of this Government to turn the Ombudsman into an administrative eunuch.
This Government are directly seeking under the guise of cutbacks, to prevent the Ombudsman carrying out his functions and in a very sinister way they are undermining the independence and credibility of the office of the Ombudsman. I challenge Fianna Fáil to come clean in this House and tell Members if they are trying to drive the current Ombudsman out of office; an Ombudsman whose appointment was welcomed by all sides as clearly being a politically neutral appointment. I suspect Fianna Fáil are trying to drive him out of office and that, instead of Michael Mills, Fianna Fáil and this Government would like to see in the office of the Ombudsman a tame, party political nominee who would not carry out his functions independently not have the courage to criticise.
The Minister, under the Ombudsman's Act, has a discretion with regard to staffing. It is my contention that he cannot reduce the staff so as to make it impossible for the Ombudsman to carry out his functions. I would go somewhat further than Deputy De Rossa in asking the Attorney General for an opinion. It is my view that, due to the effect of this Government in undermining the ability of the Ombudsman to fulfil the many statutory functions imposed on him and the statutory obligations he must meet, the Ombudsman could properly institute court proceedings against the Government to require the Government to provide him with adequate financing to carry out his functions. The Ombudsman is very much the citizens' bulwark against administrative inefficiency, carelessness and neglect. To prevent the Ombudsman fulfilling his role is to promote inefficiency, to reduce and, in some cases, totally remove the accountability of anonymous officials, at all levels, operating in Government Departments, in State bodies such as Telecom Éireann and An Post and within local authorities thereby depriving the ordinary man and woman of the basic means of having injustices redressed.
It is very useful to have had an opportunity to raise this issue on the Adjournment. I thank Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Barnes for agreeing that we all share time to countribute to this on a cross-party lines. I call on the Minister — having heard this debate — to come into this House next week and give a commitment to Deputies of all parties that the necessary funding will be provided immediately to the Ombudsman to allow him to increase his staffing to the 16 staff members he requires to carry out his functions. Deputy De Rossa is correct in pointing out that, currently, to carry out functions nationwide the Ombudsman has, at present, fewer officials to assist him than some Government Ministers have to assist them in their local parochial constituency work. This is outrageous. What is happening to the Office of the Ombudsman is a sinister and unpleasant development which I hope the Government will immediately take steps to redress.
I thank the House and in particular Deputy De Rossa and Deputy Shatter for agreeing that we should share this time. The Ombudsman is a man of such sincerity and commitment that his appointment was welcomed universally. Everyone agreed he was a man of the greatest integrity that we could have chosen. At the end of the 1987 report he had this to say and serious comment to make: "The Ombudsman's Office has now become part of the problem of delay it was set up to resolve." This is the very office that was set up to combat what was a scandalous delay regarding difficulties, problems and downright injustices so far as the citizen was concerned.
The task of the Ombudsman was carried out with great effectiveness while he had his staff. I pay tribute to those staff who have been sent away and to those who still remain. The Ombudsman went on to say that the full complement of 16 staff succeeded in completing over 5,000 cases and in reducing a backlog of 1,800 at the end of 1985 to a backlog of 1,500 in 1986. We learn also that by the end of 1987 the number of cases will have risen to 2,500 and that it will take the remaining staff their entire time to deal with the backlog, not to mention the thousands of new cases that will be presented in this difficult time of recession and cutbacks. It is a very serious case. I, too, call on all Members, and on the Minister to have a full debate on this matter.
We are denying people rights which we have recognised by setting up the Ombudsman's Office and by doing that we are — and this I deplore — funnelling back to the TDs and Ministers problems which they have no right within a national parliament, nor no time, to deal with. Not alone are we denying rights to people who suffer real injustices and deprivation because of the delays in the Ombudsman's Office but we deal an even deeper blow to our people——
I am very sorry to interrupt the Deputy but the time has come to call the Minister to reply.
We are continuing the psychological dependency of our people which we have no right, in conscience, to do and that is the most serious blow we are dealing.
I thank the Deputies for their contribution to the debate and I thank Deputy De Rossa for raising this matter. I want to try to put to rest many of the statements that have been made that there is a crisis in the Ombudsman's Office. That is far from the truth. At the outset I want to pay tribute to the Ombudsman, whom I have known personally for a number of years. In the public service now he is my next door neighbour and we have a very good relationship. In the interest I have in the Office I had the privilege recently of a meeting with the man pertaining to the difficulties all Departments and all State agencies have at this time vis-à-vis the staffing situation throughout the country.
The Ombudsman's Office must not be regarded as a State agency.
(Interruptions.)
The Deputy had his chance.
Let us hear the Minister's reply.
I interrupted nobody and there were plenty of opportunities for me to do so. At least I am entitled to reply. The Deputies have referred repeatedly to the reductions in the staffing of the Ombudsman's Office as if such cuts were somehow unique or special. In doing so they failed to distinguish the wood from the trees.
There is no need for me to outline to the House again the state of the public finances and the Government's programme of action to remove the imbalances therein. In this context, the size of the Exchequer pay bill at over £2.9 billion is crucial and must receive priority attention. Our prime objective in this regard is to achieve the maximum level of saving while preserving an adequate level of essential services. At the same time we have attempted to ensure that no sector is being asked to shoulder an unreasonable share of the overall burden of savings.
The Government value the special contribution being made by the Ombudsman's Office to our system of public administration. Nonetheless, taking into account the overall budget situation it was not possible to exempt that Office from the overall drive to reduce the size and cost of the public service to the taxpayer.
(Interruptions.)
It is undeniable that the staffing of the Office grew from 14 in 1984 to 41 in 1986.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Shatter, please.
Let me say to Deputy Shatter that when his party were in Government in 1984 if they had been committed to the Ombudsman's Office and if the problems he articulates in this House are so drastic, why when his party were in Government did they not provide sufficient staff for that Office?
We provided the staff.
Their case falls on the basis that the Ombudsman's Office today has 100 per cent more staff than it had in 1984 when the party were in Government. Those are the stark facts.
What about the staff we appointed in 1985 and 1986?
Deputy Shatter, I allowed this Adjournment debate on the assumption it would be orderly. The Minister has a limited time to reply and he must be heard without interruption.
The Minister is trying to mislead the House.
I resent that remark.
If the Deputy finds it difficult to listen to the Minister he has a way out and there are many exits from this Chamber.
This was exceptional as it occurred over a period when staff cutbacks were the order of the day elsewhere. While due to staffing restraints generally, the complement has been reduced in 1988, the Government are satisfied that the financial provision and the level of staffing are adequate to enable the Ombudsman to maintain an efficient service to those making complaints to his Office.
I must emphasise to the House that the overall strategy on staffing, of which the Ombudsman's Office is but a part, can succeed only as long as it is maintained in spite of the special pleadings that can be advanced on behalf of any public service. It is all to easy to plead that any particular area should be treated exceptionally for its own good reasons. I have to say to the Deputies, therefore, that the Government are resolute in their determination to see this programme of recovery through. In this context, the allocation to the Ombusman's Office for 1988 is the most we as a nation can afford while still enabling the Office to provide an efficient level of service.
What are the savings?
I want to reply to various points and allegations that have been made in the House. First, the Government have 113 civil servants serving Ministers and Ministers of State. No comparison can be made between the Government and the affairs of Government, working on behalf of the State——
Doing constituency work.
——and on behalf of the people of the State, and the Ombudsman's Office which has a specific duty to perform. An allegation was made by Deputy De Rossa that the Government have interfered directly and are acting outside the law. I resent that remark. There has been no interference whatever with Ombudsman's Office and no Government could contemplate that.
You just removed the staff.
Fianna Fáil are the party responsible for creating that Office and in 1980 we put the Ombudsman Act through this House.
(Interruptions.)
My colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Seán Calleary, put the Act through the House. We were all delighted with the quality of the man appointed as Ombudsman and we are deeply grateful for his leadership and the tremendous work he is doing. I compliment the Ombudsman and his staff on the great work they are doing and I compliment the Ombudsman on the enthusiastic effort he is making to save his staff. That is the duty of any good captain of any team.
He needs a team.
Deputy Shatter says he is gravely concerned and that Fianna Fáil dislike bodies who act as watch dogs. That is not true. He has asked us to come clean. That is a terrible statement for a public representative to make in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
We put the Ombudsman Act through the Dáil in 1980, we provided the Office and we are proud of the work that has been done there. This country has a national debt of £26 billion. The Houses of the Oireachtas have voted £6.3 billion to run affairs of State in 1988. Each office in the State, including the Ombudsman's Office, has to make its contribution to effecting savings to make sure we can run the affairs of State on the amounts of money allocated by the Houses of the Oireachtas. I assure the House that the Government support fully the tremendous work being done by the Ombudsman and his staff. The House can be assured that the money allocated is the only amount of money available for the Office in 1988. We regret that is so, but it is a gross insult to the Ombudsman's Office for Members of this House in here to make allegations that cannot be substantiated.
Since the Office was set up in 1984 about 50 per cent of all complaints they dealt with had to do with BTE alone and the experience garnered by the staff resulted in tremendous efficiency in dealing with problems and giving a great service. I am confident that with the efficiency of State and of Government Departments through the advent of new technology over the years the number of complaints the Ombudsman will have to deal with will be lessened. The House should acknowledge the great work being done by the Ombudsman and his staff and not take an opportunity like this for total political opportunism.
(Interruptions.)
The Dáil adjourned at 5.30 p.m. until 2.30 p.m. on Tuesday, 17 May 1988.