I referred previously to the number of visits to the regions and I welcomed the fact that the Ombudsman and his staff travelled to Galway, Waterford, Cork and Limerick. I was surprised that the number of complaints received by the office in 1996 was 3,181. I thought the figure would be higher. People would have greater access to the Office of the Ombudsman if it was more widely advertised on local radio. Approximately 40 people work in the office and it has the facility to deal with complaints. The public, particularly in rural areas, should have easier access to the office.
The Ombudsman's point in his report that FÁS, voluntary hospitals and vocational education committees should come within the remit of the legislation governing his office is most important. It is difficult to understand why FÁS and the Health and Safety Authority, which were previously under the Department of Labour, were not included. It is time to take up the Ombudsman's recommendation to include those bodies.
I increasingly use the Office of the Ombudsman although I was once reminded by a party leader that every Deputy is an ombudsman. It is no reflection on the Government that from time to time Deputies make inquiries of the Office of the Ombudsman on behalf of constituents. The public also uses the office and I hope more people will do so in the future. I recall a case when the first Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills, was in office. I could not get a satisfactory resolution to a query concerning what was then called the prescribed relative's allowance, now known as the carer's allowance.
A man was refused the allowance because he was told that as a small farmer he did not have enough time to look after the elderly person involved. The then Ombudsman, Mr. Mills, indicated that because the farm was so small and the man received social assistance anyway, he should be entitled to the allowance. This gave me greater confidence in the role of the Ombudsman and I have raised many issues over the years with the office, particularly with regard to social welfare problems. Regarding the carer's allowance, many carers are now lobbying strongly that they should be entitled to some time off. The regulations governing the scheme are very strict and people qualifying for it are supposed to provide care 24 hours a day to a relative. I would welcome an investigation of that area by the Ombudsman.
A striking aspect of the report is the delay in dealing with issues brought to the attention of various bodies by the Ombudsman and his staff and their frustration in securing redress for complainants. The Ombudsman gives the example of a farmer who waited 17 months for a decision relating to a cattle headage grant. Many public representatives have had the same experience in terms of trying to get a decision. I had a case a number of months ago concerning school transport. Although the Department accepted there was a sufficient number of pupils, that they were the correct ages and the correct distance from the school, it said it could not be sustained for a number of years and refused to sanction the school transport scheme. It took the Ombudsman 12 months to get the Department to agree to provide a service. Thankfully, it is now in place but the case highlights the problems encountered by public representatives. The Ombudsman refers on a number of occasions in his report to the frustration involved in waiting for decisions and particularly in getting documents from Departments to which he is entitled.
Many cases relating to local authorities are mentioned in the report. For example, my local authority, Galway County Council, did not accept that it was responsible for the flooding of a person's home. It took many months to reach a compromise where the council agreed with the Ombudsman's proposal to pay half the cost of the damage caused by the flooding. The sum involved was £3,000 and it was a major achievement by the Ombudsman. The report might appear as problem pages in terms of the issues highlighted.