I am pleased that Dáil Eireann has availed of this opportunity to consider the thirteenth Annual Report of the Ombudsman for the year 1996 published in June last. It is timely and appropriate that the House should turn its attention to this important report.
I will first, take a look at the report in terms of presentation and what it says about complaints made to the Ombudsman, their number and character; second, within the context of the report, I will consider the overall process of change and development in the public services, particularly those changes encompassed in recently enacted legislation and, third, I will address a question raised by the Ombudsman about the Government's plan for extending his remit.
I am very impressed by the presentation of this report. In his introduction, Mr. Kevin Murphy recalls that in his 1995 report — which covered his first full year of tenure in office — he introduced a new format, style and general theme. The 1995 report was the first to be published in both Irish and English and the first to be made available to the general public on the Internet and on diskette. It also set out the Ombudsman's thinking on the general principles of good administration on which the delivery of public services should be based. That report was a model of how complex information should be presented clearly, comprehensively and accessibly.
How does his 1996 report measure up to that? It actually surpasses the calibre and quality of the previous year's. It would have been perfectly understandable had the latest report of the Ombudsman slipped back into a more sedate, conventional annual report format but such expectation would have been a profound underestimation of the Ombudsman and his staff. Mr. Kevin Murphy has had a long and distinguished career as a civil servant in the Departments of the Public Service and Finance. Those who know him are well aware he has never been known to rest on his laurels, that to him a sense of achievement and a job well done is not a cause for relaxation, rather a spur to renewed effort. The presentation of his 1996 report is imbued with his fundamental commitment to excellence.
His 1996 report has the superb qualities of presentation introduced last year, is bi-lingual, available on the Internet and diskette and its general format is clear, concise and comprehensive. It presents a checklist of standards of best practice which public bodies should adopt to ensure high quality public administration. This little guide to standards is embodied in the text of the report and made available directly in the form of a leaflet distributed to all public servants and available to the general public from the Ombudsman's office. It is just a list of commonsense practices public servants should adopt when dealing with the general public.
The public service is the biggest "business" in the State encompassing a wide range of activities requiring a myriad of rules and regulations with inherent potential for complexity and confusion. Yet such confusion and complexity, where allowed to persist, represents a diminution of the fundamental rights of our citizens. As the Ombudsman rightly points out:
". the relationship between public bodies and the citizen is an essential element in the quality of our society and democracy."
By providing this checklist of standards the Ombudsman opens up the notion of excellence in public services in a manner understandable and relevant to all citizens.
The Ombudsman noted the checklist was devised entirely by reference to complaints received by his office. In this regard the report is illuminating because it illustrates the Ombudsman's proposals for best practice by reference to specific examples. As the report shows, there were quite a few examples to choose from last year. During 1996 the Ombudsman received a total of 3,181 complaints which represented a 10.5 per cent increase compared with the previous year. Just less than half this total concerned the Civil Service, with the Departments of Social Welfare, Agriculture and Food, and the Revenue Commissioners together accounting for most of these. Other complaints mainly concerned local authorities, health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post. While this might be seen, prima facie, as evidence of declining standards in public administration in the areas concerned, I have no doubt the increase in the number of complaints received also reflects the efforts of the Ombudsman to spread information on and awareness of the activities of his office as widely as possible. Putting such information on the Internet and arranging for the delivery of information leaflets on his office to a significant proportion of residential households are two examples of recent initiatives.
I do not propose to refer specifically to individual cases reported by the Ombudsman. These cases concern the individuals directly affected and the Departments or offices of the public service where fault was found. My colleagues in Government who are now in charge of the relevant Departments and I have no doubt Ministers will ensure prompt action is taken in respect of specific recommendations contained in the Ombudsman's report.
I want to focus on two priorities identified in the report which, in my experience as a public representative, are essential to proper public service and whose absence leads to much unnecessary confusion, distress and waste of resources. These are the need to ensure public servants deal with citizens' queries promptly, avoiding unnecessary delay, and that people who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case have available to them appropriate information on appeal mechanisms. These are crucial elements of good public service. All in this House know the anxiety caused when our constituents suffer delays in respect of applications for pensions, benefits, grants, or other forms of income maintenance. For those on very low incomes an undue delay of even a few days can impose hardship. We see these troubles in our clinics on a weekly basis. Business people and farmers working in an increasingly competitive environment know how true is the adage "time is money". Bureaucracy and red tape impose costs on business operating in competitive markets and absorb resources needed to contribute to investment, jobs and wages. The Ombudsman notes frustration and uncertainty created by unduly slow service are sometimes compounded by further delays on the part of public bodies in responding to his office.
Similar difficulties arise where clients and customers of public bodies, who are dissatisfied with the outcome of their case, are unable to find suitable means of appeal and redress. The fundamental principles of fairness and transparency in providing public service demand not only that appeal mechanisms be available but also that members of the public be given adequate information, full co-operation, assistance, help and advice. Getting this right is not just about putting in place the structures, systems and processes of appeal; it requires most of all a "be of service" culture. The report of the Ombudsman shows that we still have work to do to develop such a culture in the public service. Developing a "be of service" culture is central to changing and improving the public service.
I want to consider aspects of this process, focusing especially on recently enacted legislation. The emphasis on a culture of quality in the public service is a legitimate expectation of the citizen. It informs much of the thinking underlying the Ombudsman's checklist of standards. The summary of standards of best practice presented in the Ombudsman's report is similar in concept to the statement of the rights of members of the public set out in the position paper, The Public and the Public Service: A Time of Change, which we published in May 1997. In that we suggested four fundamental rights: the right to procedures in accordance with natural justice; the right to courtesy and confidentiality at all times, even in adversarial dealings; the right to clear and concise forms and all relevant information; and the right to a transparent administrative appeal, the importance of which I have already emphasised. Observance of these fundamental rights is crucial to maintaining the proper, fair and impartial public service advocated by the Ombudsman. At the same time, our position paper recognised that excellence in public service is a two-way street: meeting the needs of the citizen also requires understanding and energising the officials who deliver the public service demanded. We particularly emphasised the need for proper training for sensitive public service jobs and the need to enhance flexibility in order to facilitate officials giving advice and practical assistance to clients and customers. This twin track approach to the provision of excellence in the public service underpins the programme of institutional reform designed to modernise Government administration, which we set out in An Action Programme for the Millennium.
It is a time of change in public administration. This process of change is not something which any sector of society or the economy can ignore. As I mentioned earlier, the provision of public services is big business. General Government expenditure is equivalent to over 40 per cent of gross national product. Given this scale of activity, it is inevitable the public service affects every other sector of the economy. There are approximately 219,000 public servants out of a total number at work of 1.25 million. With this level of direct involvement in the economy, there are bound to be difficulties. I want to make clear that I value and do not underestimate the major contribution made by the public service to the growth and development of the economy and society over many years. This is often overlooked and underestimated. Great credit is due to many within the public service for much of Ireland's achievement today.
There is a solid basis already in place on which to build excellence in the public service in the future. Moreover, the public is aware of this. For example, in a recent benchmark survey of the general public's experience of and attitude towards the Civil Service, carried out by Irish Marketing Surveys, over 70 per cent of respondents who had contact with the Civil Service in the past year rated the service fairly or very efficient. However, we want to increase that to 100 per cent. I will endeavour to assist the Ombudsman in whatever way I can using my role in the Department and my commitment to this office to ensure we take heed when he informs us and all throughout the public service of our requirements, obligations, duties and commitments to ensure the public has a service which is second to none and the envy of the world. That said, there is a common perception that the Civil Service is still too bureaucratic and too detached from the competitive world of business. Overcoming organisational problems and changing the public service for the better means aiming for the standards set by the Ombudsman. Achieving progress towards realising these standards is central to the Government's strategies for institutional reform.
A key element in the Government's programme for institutional reform involves the implementation of new legislation which has passed into law over the past few months. The most important elements of this legislative change include the Public Service Management Act, the Freedom of Information Act, and the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act. All these Acts were signed into law this year. In Opposition, we supported and facilitated the grounding of the process of change and development in the public services in this key legislation. Many of the essential elements were brought forward when we were last in Government. Now back in office, we are working towards the implementation of the changes required to ensure both the letter and the spirit of the law are fully reflected in improved structures, systems and practices in the public service. Our intention is to send a clear signal both to civil servants and the general public that the momentum of public service reform is being maintained and strengthened under this Government.
A key element in the programme of change in the Civil Service is embodied in the Public Service Management Act, 1997 which was commenced by order of the Minister for Finance on 1 September. This major Act empowers the Civil Service to undertake the steps needed to transform the fundamental structures of the administration of central Government. It provides a legal basis for a new management structure in the Civil Service and makes the accountability of civil servants more transparent. The Act provides for a new relationship between Government Ministers and the Civil Service and provides a basis in statute for the modernisation of the machinery of Government.
A key feature of the Public Service Management Act is the requirement that Departments prepare and submit to their Minister, no later than March next year, a strategy statement which will set out the key objectives, outputs and related high-level strategies, including use of resources, of the Department. Once it is approved, Ministers will ensure that a copy of the strategy statement for their Department is laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 60 days. Bringing these statements before the elected representatives of the people will provide a positive and inclusive mechanism for determining whether the levels of quality and performance in the delivery of the public services meets the standards set, for example, by the Ombudsman's checklist. In my opinion, the preparation and the placing of these statements before Dáil and Seanad Éireann opens up the structure, character and performance of the Civil Service in an unprecedented way. All Members of the House have made reference to this in many debates in the last few years and we will all welcome it.
At present my colleague, the Minister for Finance, is preparing directions for Departments on the preparation of these statements and on the mechanisms of accountability for Secretaries General. Further work is also being undertaken in relation to the Act by the implementation group, set up by the Government on 28 July, to drive the process of change in the Civil Service under the Strategic Management Initiative. Putting the various elements of change required under the Act into place will involve a process of participation by all levels within the Civil Service and will necessitate meaningful discussions with staff interests. I hope all levels of staff will see opportunities to enhance their own career path in their work sphere so that they can take the opportunities presented under the Acts in a more modern, efficient and meaningful way.
A further major change in the Irish public service is being ushered in by the Freedom of Information Act. Under this Act freedom of information is now a citizen's right. In essence, citizens are empowered by being given a legal entitlement to have access to official information kept by the State, to have inaccurate or outdated information kept on them corrected, and to have access to reasons for decisions taken by public bodies which affect them. The Act ensures that members of the public will exercise this "right to know" to the greatest extent possible consistent with the public interest and legitimate rights to privacy. Experience in other countries has demonstrated the power of Freedom of Information legislation to change these matters for the better.
In summary, the Act brings about the following key changes. There is now a statutory right to official information based on a presumption of openness. Necessary exemptions are to be subject to an overall injury or public interest test, as appropriate. Public manuals on the structure and organisation of public bodies, and on rules, procedures and guidelines to be used in decision making by Government bodies will be prepared. There is now a legal obligation on officials to help citizens requesting information to identify and clarify what they need to know. There is an obligation on those who hold information to justify, with detailed reasons, any refusal to disclose such information. There is a powerful independent appeals system to resolve disputes between citizens and public bodies promptly and free of charge.
A central policy unit on freedom of information established within the Department of Finance has been charged with managing the implementation of the Act. This process, among other tasks, involves an intensive programme of training, a thorough and comprehensive assessment of official records and the creation of appropriate systems within the public service to facilitate access to information. When the Act comes into effect in April next year the public service will be ready.
I am confident there will be fundamental changes under freedom of information which will move the public services towards the standards of excellence advocated by the Ombudsman. Greater transparency in policy making will generate more confidence in the system of governance as a whole. The relationships between users of public services and the Government bodies providing them must improve as individuals gain the reassurance of having access to records. In practical terms, citizens will now have a direct means of finding out for themselves whether their cases are being dealt with fairly and impartially. Over time, an administrative culture which promotes openness rather than unnecessary secrecy will begin to develop across the public services. I am confident that this very spirit of openness will itself encourage quality: no one will want substandard work exposed to public scrutiny.
Underpinning these positive expectations of the benefits of this legislation is the acceptance by the Ombudsman of an invitation to be nominated as Ireland's first Information Commissioner. He will hold both offices simultaneously. The commissioner will be entitled to examine documents, summon witnesses and issue binding decisions in relation to individual cases. It is a key role demanding professionalism, insight and sensitivity, all characteristics abundantly evident in the author of the report before this House. This is a significant step forward and if anything tangibly demonstrates all the points I have made, the appointment of the Ombudsman does so. This is a positive way to show the public, the Civil Service and the public service that the Government is determined these Acts are not on the Statute Book in a meaningless way but will be utilised to the maximum by the public.
A further important initiative in the process of institutional change falls directly into the domain of members of this House and Seanad Éireann. I refer to the legislation which empowers committees of both Dáil Éireann and the Seanad to compel witnesses to give evidence and to confer privilege when they do so, that is, the Committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas (Compellability, Privileges and Immunities of Witnesses) Act, 1997. This Act enhances the capacity of committees of the Oireachtas to act on behalf of the citizen in investigating matters of public concern. The new law gives power to relevant committees, acting within their terms of reference, to compel witnesses to give evidence or produce documents and to grant them privilege and immunity from legal action if they do so. The Act comes into operation when the Committees on Procedure and Privileges of Dáil and Seanad Éireann establish the required mechanisms and the various Oireachtas committees begin to seek the relevant new powers. It is up to the members of the committees of the Oireachtas to make these new arrangements work in the public interest and I have no doubt that, over time, the value of these powers will be put to good effect. Having served on many committees of this House over the past ten years, I am aware that on many occasions they have been frustrated in terms of their power to get to the bottom of matters under examination and requiring decisions and action. I now look forward to committees developing the opportunities the new powers extend to them for their own benefit and that of the public.
Finally, I want to address a question raised by the Ombudsman in his report regarding the Government's plans for his Office. In particular, the Ombudsman has suggested that it might be possible to bring some public bodies within his remit quickly by means of orders amending the Schedules to the Ombudsman Act, 1980. In response to this I wish to draw the attention of the House to An Action Programme for the Millennium which includes the commitment that a key part of the process of institutional reform in the public service will involve "expanding the remit of the Ombudsman to include legal, medical and other areas". Since assuming office, the Minister for Finance has directed that earlier work in this area should be re-examined in light of this commitment. This work is now well advanced in relation to proposals designed to increase the powers and extend the remit of the Ombudsman to cover a number of new areas. Our thinking is along much the same lines as has been discussed in this House on other occasions. For example, consideration is being given to extending the Ombudsman's remit over administrative matters in non-commercial State funded bodies which receive most of their funding from the Exchequer including non-medical matters of voluntary hospitals. The Minister for Finance is currently finalising specific proposals to put to Government on changes in these areas. For my own part, I will ensure that appropriate legislative proposals are expeditiously brought before this House. I have also been informed by my colleague, the Minister for Health, that he is currently considering how proposals in relation to the medical area might be implemented. In this regard, it is envisaged that consultations with relevant interest groups will be initiated in the near future.
In conclusion, I thank the Ombudsman and his staff for their work and in particular for the 1996 annual report. They are making a very constructive and positive contribution to Irish public administration and their achievements and objectives for the future set standards of excellence which merit the attention of this House and at all levels across the public service. I commend this report.
