We will now discuss with the Ombudsman the annual report of her office. We will also deal separately with the Information Commissioner's annual report for 2004. We may try to finish by approximately 1.15 p.m., but if we have not finished by that time, we can suspend for a short break and a cup of coffee, but we will have to resume in an alternative room at 1.30 p.m. We will see how we get on. How are the members fixed for time? If it runs beyond 1.30 p.m., so be it. We may be finished before then.
Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004: Presentation.
We are very busy.
We are all here today at any rate. We are joined today by the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, Mr. Patrick Whelan, director general, Mr. Michael Brophy, senior investigator for the Ombudsman, and Mr. Liam Kelly, senior investigator for the Information Commissioner. On behalf of the committee, I welcome them and thank them for their attendance today. Before the discussion begins, I advise the witnesses that the comments of members are protected by parliamentary privilege but those of visitors are not so protected. We will commence with a short presentation by Ms O'Reilly, followed by open discussion with members of the committee. We will deal with the Ombudsman's report first.
Ms Emily O’Reilly
I am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss the 2004 annual report of the Ombudsman and issues arising therefrom. As members will see, matters relating to the care of older people and nursing home provision are emphasised in the report, but before speaking about those, I wish to give them an outline of complaints numbers, two other issues that I believe of considerable importance, and a few significant cases with which the office dealt in 2004.
I received a total of 2,064 valid complaints in 2004 compared with 2,213 complaints in 2003. In addition to actual complaints, my office also dealt with 8,774 inquiries from members of the public. In total, almost 11,000 people contacted the office during 2004. While there was a 7% decrease in the number of complaints received in 2004, the trend to the end of May this year shows a 12% increase in complaints received when compared with the same period in 2004. In addition, the level of inquiries from the public to my office has increased by 14% over the same comparable period.
Bearing in mind that 2004 marks the 20th anniversary of the Office of the Ombudsman, I mentioned in my report that as far back as 1996 the Constitution Review Group report recommended that the Office of the Ombudsman should be given constitutional status. The review group noted that the Ombudsman monitors administrative accountability in the same way the Comptroller and Auditor General monitors financial accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General's office has constitutional status. It also seems anomalous that the local government system, which is subject to my jurisdiction, has constitutional status whereas my office does not.
The payment by the former health boards of the incorrect rate of blind welfare allowance to a considerable number of people was one of the significant cases dealt with by my office. The issue arose from an individual complaint in 2002, regarding which the health board concerned eventually agreed to pay the correct rate with arrears. The office discovered that a widespread application of the incorrect rate obtained throughout the health board system. I am pleased that the Department of Finance has now agreed to allow the Department of Health and Children to provide €4.3 million in its 2005 budget to cover the payment of arrears.
Another issue relating to planning matters concerns photocopying charges for planning applications documents. My office carried out a survey of 30 local authorities to assess the situation nationwide. We found variations from ten cent to €1 per single A4 page, with some charging minimum fees of up to €3. This contrasts with commercial rates of between ten and 15 cent, and freedom of information charges of just four cent per photocopy. As a result of my office's intervention, the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government has conducted its own survey and is now reviewing the matter.
Following the launch of my annual report last week, I published an investigation report for a complaint I received from a family whose father died in January 2000, two days after he had been admitted to Sligo General Hospital. The report was critical of the care and attention afforded to the man and the manner in which the hospital addressed the family's complaint about these matters. My recommendations for improvements were accepted in full by the hospital and the Health Service Executive.
I would now like to make some points on matters concerning my office's jurisdiction and to provide an update on more recent developments in this area. The Health Act 2004 makes provision for the development of a statutory complaints procedure in the public health area which will be introduced later this year. Not only does it cover the services provided by the new Health Service Executive, which is within my jurisdiction, it also encompasses health or personal social services provided by a service provider who has entered into an arrangement with the executive or who has received assistance from the executive for that purpose. Such actions are deemed under the legislation to have been taken by the executive. This means that for the first time my jurisdiction will extend to the actions of the major hospitals in the Dublin area and those agencies which provide services to the executive in respect of the intellectually disabled.
The Disability Act 2005 requires public bodies to ensure that public buildings and services are accessible to people with disabilities. The Act extends my jurisdiction in that I will now be dealing with complaints concerning the failure to provide such access in accordance with the legislation. In addition, a number of Departments are obliged to prepare sectoral plans which must give information about the measures designed to give life to the delivery of services to the disabled as envisaged in the Act within established timeframes. I will also have jurisdiction to examine complaints about failures in this area.
The extension of my remit under the Disability and Health Acts will clearly increase the workload of my office and, as such, will have resource implications. While noting these recent extensions to my office's remit, I must express disappointment that the amendment to the Ombudsman Act 1980 has once again been deferred and will not now be due for consideration in the legislative programme until 2006.
I plan to give formal feedback to some of these bodies on their complaint handling performance with the aim of improving working relations with the bodies subject to my remit. I believe it is appropriate that my first report will cover the Health Service Executive, a new body that faces old problems, many of which came to the attention of my office over the years. The report I will present to the HSE later this year will address the following areas: the main issues of concern in the health services from the Ombudsman's perspective, lessons to be learned from cases handled in the past, and guidance on principles of best practice in aspects of health service administration.
I reiterate my position on the entitlement of individuals to avail of inpatient services. Any elderly person who needs long-stay nursing home type care, which typically includes nursing care, supervision and assistance with daily activities such as feeding and dressing, is entitled to have these services provided by the HSE as an aspect of inpatient services. Formerly, these services should have been free of charge to medical card holders but charges were illegally raised. New regulations provide for charges in respect of the provision of inpatient services to all persons with effect from 14 July. The Health Act 1970 provides discretion to the HSE to reduce or waive a charge to avoid undue hardship in individual cases. I anticipate that I will receive complaints concerning the exercise of this discretion in respect of these new charges.
The Supreme Court judgment has implications for the rights of medical card holders to inpatient services in institutions for the mentally ill, community hospitals and other such institutions. At issue is the question of treating these classes of medical card holders in the same manner as those covered by the Supreme Court judgment. I will seek to ensure fair treatment for these individuals.
The Supreme Court judgment did not address the issue of those medical card holders who could not be provided with a bed in a public institution owing to a shortage of such beds and who were directed by the health boards towards private care without in any way acknowledging the boards' responsibilities in the area. Legal proceedings have now been commenced by one individual on this matter and I intend to monitor the outcome in respect of similar complaints I have received.
In addition, the Supreme Court did not address the issue of those patients who did not hold medical cards and who had similarly been directed by the health boards towards private care without in any way acknowledging their responsibilities in the area. The current legislation does not address this issue and I do not doubt that such cases will continue to be the subject of complaint to my office and, eventually, the subject of legal proceedings.
The Minister for Health and Children has indicated that she intends to introduce legislation to give effect to the repayments scheme. I understand that the scheme will not cover the individuals outlined above who could not be provided with a bed in a public institution owing to a shortage of such beds and who were directed by the health boards towards private care. I am not certain at this stage of the extent to which the scheme will apply to eligible individuals in institutions for the mentally ill, community hospitals and other such institutions.
As I understand matters, the scheme will seek to invoke the Statute of Limitations in respect of repayments to the estates of people who died before December 1998, regardless of the merit of the claims. Again, I do not doubt that such cases will eventually be the subject of legal proceedings. It is the intention of the Minister that the scheme will be processed by an outside agency on behalf of the HSE, incorporate a thorough and transparent appeals process and provide safeguards to prevent exploitation of those who receive payments and are not in a position to manage their financial affairs.
The administrative actions of the Department, the HSE and any agency acting on their behalf are subject to my jurisdiction. It is my intention to examine complaints which I am bound to receive on all the aforementioned issues under the terms of the Ombudsman Act 1980, as amended. In doing so, I will take into account the administrative actions of the HSE and the Department in the matter and any submissions they may make regarding any complaint or relevant legislation and court judgements. For any case in which I find that maladministration has adversely affected a complainant, I will make recommendations for redress to the relevant public body as appropriate.
I thank Ms O'Reilly for her work in this area, which all members of this committee regard as important. I note the comments she made on the necessity for development of the legislative framework.
I am aware, from the annual report, that the Ombudsman has reported adversely on Government policy on the nursing homes issue in 1989, 1992, 2001 and on other occasions. What has been the Department's defence to the Ombudsman's office of the policy of continuing to charge? How has it presented the version of events that portrayed the charges as legal and justified as opposed to the Ombudsman's view to the contrary, which was how the matter was subsequently regarded? I am interested in how this was defended.
The Ombudsman has consistently claimed that a case exists for people with medical cards who could argue that they were acting on practical compulsion or necessity in going into private nursing homes. These people have a legally acceptable case. I wish to know the response to the Department of Health and Children's continuing view that the Ombudsman is wrong on this and the existing policy is correct. In light of the new legal advice received by the Government, which triggered the change in policy on charging, has the Ombudsman received a response from the health authorities on the issue of the rights of those in private nursing homes? Have these authorities disengaged from the Office of the Ombudsman and its advice at this stage and gone down a solely legal route of fighting the issue tooth and nail?
I saw the Ombudsman's public comments that secondary orders, where Ministers make orders under legislation, are the root cause of much maladministration. Has an analysis of these secondary orders been carried out where they exist in the system and of the kind of rights that have been taken unilaterally by those who draft the orders away from the Legislature? If this were carried out, it would be possible to begin a process of identifying where these problems arise.
I am interested in the Ombudsman's comment that 50% of local authorities that made undertakings to her office did not deliver on them within the timescale agreed. Why is there a specific focus on local authorities and how extensive is the slippage in other bodies? Local authorities are one thing, but many more vital services are often handled by other authorities.
The question arises of whether the Ombudsman seeks the power of direction, even in extreme cases, or whether it be preferable to operate solely on a voluntary basis. A controversy came before the committee where the Ombudsman had done a deal. Having made a finding, the Ombudsman, lacking powers of direction, had to settle for half a loaf rather than no loaf at all in discussions with the Revenue Commissioners. The issue arose in committee whether it was desirable to maintain the voluntary role of the Ombudsman, with solely a right to report to the Oireachtas, or if a possibility of triggering more direct action could come about in more extreme cases.
The Ombudsman refers in the report to the fact that additional voluntary contributions often do not get the tax relief to which they are entitled. Has the Ombudsman looked more deeply into the rights of people to receive tax relief? I have done some rough statistical analysis and it strikes me that people do not get their tax entitlements for such items as home care allowance, medical relief, bin tax relief and trade union relief. Huge under-claiming of entitlements is evident in this area.
Would it be worthwhile for the Ombudsman to delve deeper into this? It is extraordinary that the Revenue holds on to money that does not belong to it, and if one figures out that it has done so, interest will only be paid if it was the Revenue's mistake. No other institution supervised by us would hold a client's money for four years, albeit not deliberately, and not pay some form of additional cost of living amount. The Revenue Commissioners does not take this view.
Is the Ombudsman planning to do any more in this area? People buy into the idea that the Revenue Commissioners rigorously pursue tax defaulters, but the quid pro quo should be that the body should be equally determined to ensure that people entitled to refunds get them. The Revenue’s computer systems are entirely designed for taking money in but are highly suspect when one is looking for money to be returned. A case exists in this area that should be examined.
On the Ombudsman's new power to overlook agents of the health authorities, it has probably been noticed that on 1 July, the day the Oireachtas went into recess, many home help providers received a notice that their budgets were to be cut, by 20% in my area. This means that people will have their home help hours reduced by about a quarter. Some of the most vulnerable people are losing out on their home help services. A situation of good faith and good administration exists for people who are on an agency basis and who have been pushed outside the bureaucracy of the State. As a result, when the funding situation gets tough, these people, who survive because of agents delivering a service, get a raw deal.
This must be the result of maladministration because it does not seem to be a conscious policy, or at least no Minister has stated that home help services should be cut. Maladministration seems to have a savage impact in this area, although I would not exonerate Ministers from their responsibilities in this and other areas. Nevertheless, something in the administrative structure seems to be protecting bureaucracy, even at the cost of service to people.
It is said that economists know the price of everything but the value of nothing. I note the complaints level per head of staff in the Office of the Ombudsman has been dramatically reduced from 90 to 48. Some might say this is a sign of inefficiency, but I am sure the Ombudsman would say it is a sign of efficiency because she is being worked out of a job over time. Will a day come when the public service will have taken on board many of the principles of good administration and the role of the Ombudsman will change to promoting best practice rather than focusing on complaints?
Can Ms O'Reilly's opening statement be published?
Ms O’Reilly
Yes.
Would Ms O'Reilly like to respond?
Ms O’Reilly
There is much to respond to. On the issues relating to the Department of Health and Children and the health authorities, one should appreciate that most of these issues came about before I became Ombudsman. I have briefed myself on them. Fundamentally, these bodies believed their interpretation of the 1976 regulations was correct. There was also evidence of an undertone of "appalling vista" in the eventuality of my predecessors' interpretation being proven correct.
Our interpretation, as set out by my predecessor in the nursing homes report, was that the regulations, or rather the interpretation of the regulations, made their execution effectively ultra vires. The bodies disagreed with this. It was not until the Travers report was seen in the Office of the Ombudsman that we realised that legal advice taken as far back as 1976, I believe, revealed that our interpretation was correct. Looking back on the Travers report and my predecessor’s report, it appears that the appalling vista scenario snowballed as we moved into the 1980s and 1990s. If at any point they had chosen to do what the Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, eventually did, nobody could have contemplated the scale of the cost it would entail. It was a dogged refusal to accept that the Office of the Ombudsman was right and a case of the health authorities clinging onto their interpretation because it had to be right. The possibility that it could be wrong was too awful to contemplate.
Individual health boards may have accepted in a number of specific cases that the Office of the Ombudsman was correct, and repayments were made. There was a promise that this was going to be dealt with in legislation and perhaps one of the reasons we did not delve further, having completed the initial report, is that we thought that would be the case.
There has been some discussion with the Health Service Executive on compensation but it has been very broadly-based, examining how the scheme will be set up and so forth. I have argued, and it will be argued in the High Court, that people who had to go into private nursing home care because public beds were not available should be compensated at some level. The argument before the courts is that they should be compensated for everything, that is, for the entire cost of the private nursing home care. As I have stated in the report, there is an arguable case that the compensation that will be paid to the people in public nursing homes, that is, 80% of their pensions, could also be the level of compensation available for those who were in private nursing homes.
In a sense, however, everything is on hold. We are in a limbo period. The Supreme Court eventually sorted out the issue of the charges and whether they were legal. The system is now waiting for this specific case to go through the High Court, and probably the Supreme Court, to determine how the issue of people with entitlement to public care that were forced into private nursing home care will be resolved.
I have not done a trawl of the relevant secondary legislation. My predecessor and I made an important issue out of these matters through the two major investigative reports of the office, one on arrears of pensions and the other on nursing home charges. It is our belief that the problems stemmed from the mismatch between regulation and primary legislation. This issue has featured strongly in our work and that is why we both recognised that there is a problem.
Recently I read the book, Administrative Law in Ireland, by Gerard Hogan and David Gwynn Morgan, where this issue is discussed. Mr. Hogan noted that in the past, an Oireachtas committee had examined regulations. However, the last time that committee was operative, I believe, was in the mid to late 1980s. There is a lack of scrutiny and such a lack can give rise to issues such as the two I have mentioned as well as other issues such as the welfare allowance for the blind. With the last issue, there was a question surrounding the interpretation of regulations which led to a large payout of €4.3 million, money to which people were entitled.
One of the ongoing debates regarding the role of the Ombudsman is whether he or she should be directing as opposed to recommending. It has always been the view of the office, which I share, that it works most effectively when it recommends rather than directs, even though there are cases where one would love to be able to direct that something be done. The track record of the office is extremely good. Virtually every recommendation is acted upon and I do not see myself in an adversarial role vis-à-vis the public bodies.
I am in the middle, mediating between the public and public bodies. The French word for an ombudsman is médiateur and that sums up what the office is about. The Ombudsman should not approach a problem with all guns blazing but instead calmly investigate what has happened and let the facts speak for themselves. In that way the public bodies can see that the Ombudsman is being reasonable, both in the approach taken and the recommendation made, and this generally works. However, if the system were different, it might not be possible to elicit the same level of co-operation from the public bodies that is currently available.
We have not had complaints on the under-claiming and tax relief issues but I take the point that it is an area of administration that needs to be tidied up. In the area of home help, there is policy on the one hand but on the other hand we do not have complaints. Obviously, I can do an own-initiative investigation but usually the quickest way into an investigation is the receipt of a complaint that can be examined.
Would the Ombudsman comment on the home help situation, which is sub-agent to the health authorities, and which appears to be treated in a way that is unacceptable? Does the Ombudsman have a view on how the Statute of Limitations should be operated regarding the back payments?
Ms O’Reilly
It is a matter for the Oireachtas to decide whether the Statute of Limitations is put in place regarding back payments. I have to accept it if that is what the law states. However, I imagine that there will be challenges in the courts because the Statute of Limitations does not apply in a number of specific circumstances. I have no doubt that cases will be taken before the courts on this matter, as with the main issue of charging and the related matter of private care. I suspect that the courts may have to resolve the Statute of Limitations issue.
Implicit in what the Ombudsman is saying is that because Governments ignored the advice given by the Office of the Ombudsman until the matter came to a head, the current Government cannot throw overboard the baggage associated with that advice being available and invoke the Statute of Limitations now. I understood from what the Ombudsman said that she does not feel it is proper to invoke the Statute of Limitations because the advice was available but was ignored. In those circumstances, there must be a cost involved for having ignored the advice.
Ms O’Reilly
A cost is obviously being paid by all of us but it is for the Government and the Oireachtas to decide on how the issue should be resolved, irrespective of my views. It is a matter for the Oireachtas to legislate as it sees fit and, as Ombudsman, I must abide by that legislation, as must everyone else. If people have issues with that, the courts will remedy it rather than the Office of the Ombudsman.
Would the Ombudsman not have a view on the issue?
Ms O’Reilly
My view is that the office identified the problem, informed the public bodies about it on countless occasions and eventually the Supreme Court, while not wanting to sound vainglorious, agreed with the office. The court ruling was in line with the findings of the Office of the Ombudsman.
The problem is now out in the open and the question is how it will be resolved. It is a matter for the Government and the Oireachtas to pass legislation to resolve the problem. That is what has been decided and the fact that I might wish for different legislation is irrelevant. It is not my business in that sense. The Ombudsman can advise on how the legislation is executed, as it did regarding the regulations and their interpretation and so on. It is now up to the Government to remedy the situation and if it does so in a manner that is legal and constitutional, I will not contradict that.
I welcome the Ombudsman and her staff. Chapter eight of the 2001 report on nursing home subventions from Ms O'Reilly's predecessor, Mr. Murphy, refers to the fact that although under the Constitution there is a separation between the Executive and the Legislature, in reality the Government of the day dominates the Legislature. I find the references by the Ombudsman to the distinction between the Government and the Oireachtas legislating interesting as they imply that the latter is free to legislate. The Ombudsman went through her predecessor's report at great length. The report stated that the effect of all of this, and we have seen it with regard to nursing homes in particular, has been to severely damage the integrity of the governmental process. Has the Ombudsman any proposals to improve the situation with reference to her predecessor's experience vis-à-vis the report on nursing home charges but also with reference to her own experience since she took up office? If there was a better functioning Oireachtas committee system the nursing homes scandal might not have arisen.
With regard to the current matter, there is a great difficulty for many families. Health boards effectively introduced a levy on adult children of people in need of nursing home care and made that the basis for granting subventions. It seems to vary depending on where in the country one lives and on the part of the health service with which one is dealing. It would be of significant assistance with regard to this area of public administration, but also with regard to a significant number of other areas of public administration, if there was much greater clarity and uniformity in calculating entitlements. This week families all over Ireland with an elderly relative who is about to go into a nursing home are uncertain as to what rules are likely to apply in the context of a subvention. Various rules are set down, but how they operate seems to vary from one area to another. I do not know whether Deputy Bruton agrees with me, but it is my perception that it is much more difficult to access health service entitlements in the greater Dublin area than it is in areas outside of Dublin. Even though the Health Service Executive is supposed to be a unified body the eligibility requirements in what used to be the Eastern Health Board Area seem to be far more severe than, for example, in Donegal. That can be seen by referring to the statistics relating to entitlement to various benefits. In Dublin one is chasing one's tail because under the current system nobody seems to know who is responsible for what, even regarding as simple a service as chiropody for elderly people. How informed the areas with which one is dealing are is entirely a question of luck.
The nursing homes issue is a major matter, but has the Ombudsman any proposals regarding how the Health Service Executive deals with the public? I note she will have powers in relation in particular to the Dublin hospitals. That potentially could be very good because unlike areas outside of Dublin, the six major Dublin hospitals are so large that it is difficult to get a detailed response to complaints. For instance, when elderly people are waiting in ambulances or on trolleys the adequacy of the response and how patients and their relatives are dealt with varies enormously from hospital to hospital. In one hospital one can get treatment within five or six hours. At another hospital where there appears to be the same level of activity getting treatment could take much longer. There seems to be no uniform standards in dealing with people. Blanchardstown, because it has a defined geriatric service, is probably one of the best in the Dublin area. However, if somebody aged 78 or 79 ends up in the Mater Hospital he or she could be two or three days on a trolley with no feedback.
In the context of the development of the Health Service Executive in the greater Dublin area and the general bewilderment on the part of most public representatives, not to mention ordinary citizens, has the Ombudsman any proposals to examine people's right of access both to services and information about the services and how, given the changes in the Health Service Executive, they can find the appropriate functionary to approach to identify how they can pursue that interest?
I want to mention a couple of other matters relating to the report. I note the Ombudsman's comments regarding planning charges by local authorities. Fingal County Council's per page charge is approximately 25 cent, which is very much towards the high end of the spectrum.
I also note that a number of cases arose where people were confused about dates because it is often difficult to understand the planning notices. This week and next week the Dublin local authorities will receive many planning applications, in particular Fingal County Council which is the biggest area of development in the country at present in terms of housing. These applications are timed to coincide with the holiday period. It is also usual for Fingal County Council to receive many applications during the last working week in December, again to coincide with the holiday period. No account is taken of this. I note the Ombudsman has a case in Galway which relates to the Galway Races but, again, no account is taken of the holiday period. I am talking about Fingal County Council in particular, but this probably applies to the other counties around Dublin. Unlike some of my colleagues from rural areas who are often concerned about one-off houses, I am concerned with gigantic developments where the minimum number of houses, apartments or units ranges from 500 or 600 to 3,500 and the public capacity to be aware, to be informed and, subsequently, to make objections is severely curtailed because planning notices are often obscure in terms of where they are displayed on buildings and applications are submitted during holiday periods so that residents' associations have no chance to see them. Local authorities will often sheepishly apologise but the time has been lost. In addition, the notifications which go out from the council do not, broadly speaking, indicate the date by which objections or observations must be lodged. They stipulate instead that objections or observations must be in within four or five weeks from the date of the notice, and council officials do not know the date of the notice. Similarly, if a person who has made an application wishes to appeal to An Bord Pleanála, the information that comes out is not dated. That makes accessing the process even more difficult for non-practitioners such a residents' associations because people do not know whether the time within which objections and observations must be made is five working weeks or five calendar weeks. The operation of the planning system is an obstacle course from the point of view of local residents and residents' associations. I am aware that in many ways the Government has consciously moved to do this. There has never been a resolution. The European Union advised against the €20 planning application fee, but the Minister has never revoked it. Has the Office of the Ombudsman made any inquiries on its status?
In the greater Dublin area there is confusion in regard to housing applications. Each local authority keeps a list of applications. Certainly in Dublin the lists are scrutinised and people are deleted from lists by local authorities to whom they have applied for reasons that are often not clear. Frequently it has to do with responding to letters.
Shared ownership applications are confusing particularly in respect of the status of non-national applicants. There is no uniform regulation on the status of people not born in Ireland who either have been naturalised subsequently or are undergoing a process of qualifying for naturalisation. A standard indication of the rules by local authorities would be helpful. As the Ombudsman has dealt with many planning cases and other interactions of people with local authorities throughout the country, does she have any observations to offer? I realise the Ombudsman is talking about a charter of rights but in my experience most of these are rubbish.
Ms O’Reilly
On the issue of the secondary legislation regulations and the issues my predecessor raised in the report and have subsequently been raised, in the past that was dealt with through an Oireachtas committee. It is a matter for the Government to decide to do that. I read the remit of the last committee that dealt with that issue in the 1980s but it was specifically to ensure the regulations accorded with the intent of the legislation. I do not know why a committee has not been put in place since then but I imagine that would be the most effective way of dealing with that issue.
In regard to the difficulties people have in knowing their rights and entitlements in private nursing home care, I accept that is a huge problem and there are major variations. Also, people are never sure how discretion is used in making decisions on the amount of subvention they should get. As I said in an article in a newspaper last week, I am dealing with three such cases. During the week another case came in to the office. All these cases relate to families with very ill mothers who are entitled to public beds but none is available. They have all gone into private care which costs up to €3,500 per month, which is enormous.
I was reading in a newspaper this morning about the nursing home in Offaly that has closed down where there is a sit-in——
One nursing home has closed.
Ms O’Reilly
——that the owner has claimed people were not paying the fees. I imagine that happens quite often in nursing homes because the fees are huge and are an enormous burden. If half the people in a nursing home miss a few payments, that is a huge cost on the residents.
In these three cases the women who are in the nursing homes all have houses and, therefore, the subvention is partly based on the value of the house. There is a formula that is used but there are difficulties. In one case a middle aged son is still living in the house. That is his home and he could not afford to buy a new one if the family decided to sell it. He would have to go into private rented accommodation and, obviously, that would be traumatic. In another case the mother co-owns the house with a son. The son was advised that he might buy out the mother's share. If he did that, his mortgage repayments would go sky high. In the third case, even though the mother had given the house to the son, because of the time lag there was still an entitlement.
I have decided to take all three cases and have a special investigation into them. The people accept there is no option but private care. That is an issue that will be thrashed out in another forum in regard to what eligibility, entitlement and so on entail. They are concerned that they are not getting an appropriate level of subvention. One must remember these people are entitled to public care in any event. What I will look at in these cases is the thinking behind the use of the discretion by the health authority.
I imagine that looking at these three cases will raise issues that are applicable in many other Health Service Executive areas. Arising out of that I may be able to make observations and recommendations on a national scale. My entrée into that area is by taking those three cases and examining them and seeing what lessons can be learned and what recommendations can be made. Was there another issue on nursing homes?
Yes, the variations in qualifications in different geographical areas.
Ms O’Reilly
In regard to the HSE nursing home areas, that is an issue that may also emerge. It may be useful to do a special report on that. The variation crops up in many local authority issues. As voluntary hospitals will come under my remit which has been extended in the health area, and as the statutory complaints mechanism is kicking in, I hope to meet the Health Service Executive before the end of the year and will present it with a report on the office's experience of health care, former health boards, hospitals and so on. I would hope that together we would draw lessons, one of which is that there must be the same entitlement across the board and that people should not be discriminated against or treated differently because they are in another area. The idea of preparing a special report, a rating or an evaluation of the health board will be continued in other areas, including local authorities where there is inconsistency, different regulations being applied and so on.
During the past year a high powered liaison group has been set up between my office and a number of county managers. We have already had one meeting. Some of the bigger issues that come to my office will be dealt with at that level. Many of the issues concern planning inconsistencies, difficulties with the holiday period and so on. I am pleased the liaison group has been set up because it was the previous experience of the office that it was difficult to get in at that level to deal with those who are the ultimate managers of local authorities. It shows a great deal of good will and commitment from the county managers that they are willing to do this.
Many of the issues raised are in regard to non-nationals. My office works from complaints. Obviously I could do own initiative investigations. Every day I see an article in a newspaper that the office could probably investigate. It is important that I get complaints because it is through them that I can get into the innards of the system and begin to see what the problem is and work towards a resolution. If I do not get complaints, it is more difficult for me.
On the matter of some non-nationals, the issue of complaining is a difficult one because there is a degree of discretion in areas such as affordable housing as to how a person is finally adjudicated on to qualify. If a person begins the process of complaining, that itself may have implications for the success or failure of his or her application. I would not advise somebody to complain but rather try to negotiate.
In a significant number of cases, however, I cannot find the baseline ruling in respect of somebody who has been in the country for a significant number of years and is legally entitled to stay but who is processing a citizenship application that will probably be approved but may take two years to process. In the meantime, that person is spending €1,000 or €1,200 a month on rent but cannot successfully process his or her application. He or she does not qualify for social housing because he or she might be earning €30,000 or €35,000 and therefore is above the income limit. He or she might be an ideal candidate for affordable housing but he or she probably does not qualify because there are no defined rules in that respect.
I do not know the position in other local authorities. I am only talking about some of the local authorities in the Dublin area, particularly Fingal, and a general indication from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government that non-nationals do not qualify to purchase a house. I do not know the position countrywide but it is very confusing to deal with these cases. Asking people in those circumstances to complain may go against them in the final analysis. That is the problem.
Ms O’Reilly
I understand that, and that applies to many areas. People do not complain in various areas because they feel vulnerable. Is this something the Deputy has come across regularly?
Yes. I will write to Ms O'Reilly.
Ms O’Reilly
If the Deputy gives me some general detail, it is an issue that I could raise in the grouping to which I referred.
Much of it could be clarified by telling people that if they are not an Irish national, they do not qualify under any circumstances to apply to purchase a house, even if they have been living in the country for a long time. There is a backlog of two to three years for citizenship applications. These families are paying a high amount of rent. If we are talking about integration, it is much better if somebody builds a stake in the country and, if he or she meets the other criteria, that he or she qualifies. It is, however, very difficult to get an administrative ruling in that regard.
Ms O’Reilly
Obviously that has serious and distressing implications for the families involved.
People believe it is to do with race, ethnicity or whatever. I do not know if that is the case.
Ms O’Reilly
I appreciate the reason there may be a reluctance to complain, but that is probably the best way in for me, so to speak. On the other hand, it is open to the Deputy to draw together her observations on the way it has been happening and for me to look into it in that way. It could be through contacting the Department or the Minister directly or through the liaison grouping to which I referred. Obviously it is a situation that is causing distress. I fully appreciate that while they are in that limbo and feel vulnerable in that they do not know what will happen to them, they do not want to do anything that may aggravate their situation.
I join other speakers in welcoming the Ombudsman and her staff to our committee and wish them well in carrying out their very important function. It is a function that is very relevant to members of the public who must tussle with officialdom on daily until they are blue in the face. From that point of view it is important that such an office should be in place. The ideal we would strive for is the day the Ombudsman and her staff could be made redundant when everything would be done in a perfectly transparent manner and the public treated with respect. We must realise, however, that we live in an imperfect society and I would say the Ombudsman's future is guaranteed.
To deal specifically with the report, I refer to the number of complaints. The number of inquiries vis-à-vis the number of complaints are extraordinarily high. Can the Ombudsman indicate the nature of the inquiries? I understand there are in excess of 8,000, which is an enormous amount.
On the constitutional status of the office, what disadvantage is the Ombudsman working under in that regard? What advantages would such a status bestow on her office?
On the extension of the remit in the health area, the Ombudsman said that her jurisdiction would extend to the actions of the major hospitals in the Dublin area. Does that mean that she does not have any jurisdiction in respect of the hospitals in the rest of the country? Why did she highlight the Dublin area?
The Ombudsman's comments on the Disability Bill highlight the rot that is still in the system and the expectation that it will remain into the future. It also highlights the hopelessness of the situation we appear to be in. As the Ombudsman pointed out, the Disability Bill places an obligation on public bodies in respect of accessibility of public buildings and so on. It is a terrible reflection on public bodies that it is the Ombudsman's presumption, even before the Disability Bill is enacted, that those public bodies will not comply with the Act. That is probably an accurate presumption on her part.
As that is the expectation, is there anything the Ombudsman can put forward from her experience to date in dealing with public bodies that do not comply that will improve the situation and avoid the merry-go-round where legislation is brought in, obligations are placed on bodies, they ignore the legislation and do not comply, the public complain to the Ombudsman's office which makes a recommendation and forces the public bodies to comply? Is there some way we can ensure that we do not have that merry-go-round situation on every occasion?
On the feedback to public bodies, it is peculiar to say the least that the Ombudsman feels obliged to issue guidance on principles of best practice in aspects of health service administration to the Health Service Executive. I would have thought the professionals in the health service area were the Health Service Executive. Does the Ombudsman not agree that is a stinging criticism of the Health Service Executive and a vote of no confidence in the level of professionalism within it that she feels obliged to issue guidance on principles of best practice?
Ms O’Reilly
Regarding the type of inquiries we receive, they can range from people experiencing a consumer problem, a problem with a bank or a problem with many areas that are outside my remit. They want to know if the Ombudsman can deal with it and if she cannot, they want to know who should deal with it. We have a list of bodies to which to refer people. That is a common area in that people are not clear to whom they should complain and they think the Ombudsman can do more than is possible. We also get queries from people trying to access disability benefits while others may have a problem with their pensions. We get people with a myriad of problems. In recent months we have been getting many queries on nursing home issues and we have told people to wait and see what happens in terms of the compensation scheme and so on. We will know then the ground on which we are working.
In regard to the advantage constitutional status would bestow on the office, I do not believe that I am particularly disadvantaged at the moment. I am taking my cue from the Constitution Review Group which recommended that the office be put on the same status as, say, the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is particularly relevant now because the Comptroller and Auditor General monitors financial accountability and the Ombudsman's office monitors administrative accountability. The word "money" does not arise although the nursing homes case clearly shows that when the administration goes bad there can be a huge cost involved. If my office were given constitutional status, it would copper-fasten the idea that administrative accountability is as important as financial accountability and that the two are intertwined. It is not the case that I cannot do my job to the best of my ability. It relates to a much wider issue of ensuring there is good administration. By inserting a provision to that effect in the Constitution, it draws attention to the fact that good administration is vital and when it goes wrong, it can involve a huge cost.
Regarding my anticipating that problems will arise in the disability area, there will be obligations on various public bodies to provide access. All manner of issues come into play, including time, resources and availability of contractors. Some people might not be able to provide access as speedily as others. When people expect such provision to be in place and it is not, there will be complaints. Sometimes it may involve putting in place provision that is outside the ability of the body concerned, or it might involve sloppy administration, a body not doing something when it could have done it and so on.
In terms of having a good internal complaints system, reflecting on complaints received in this office over the years, complaints in respect of some bodies have reduced sharply, notwithstanding Deputy Bruton's comments about the Revenue Commissioners. We do not receive as many complaints about them as we used to because they have upped their game in terms of their complaints system. We receive more complaints about planning issues because of the increased level of building construction. I anticipate there will be complaints regarding access in the disability area because some bodies will not get their act together, which in some cases will be their own fault and in other cases owing to some other reason. Either way, people with disabilities will not have access.
In regard to best practice and the HSE, I agree with what the Deputy said. One would consider that health administrators, doctors and other professionals should know how to deal properly with these issues, and in many areas they do know. I issued a report last week, of which the Deputy may have seen some media reports, concerning a man who died in Sligo General Hospital a few years ago where the most basic issues of care were neglected. I refer to such issues as a doctor prescribing that a patient should be given oxygen and that not being written on the patient's chart, and the requirement not to give the patient fluids and a note to that effect not being put up.
: It seems extraordinary that professionals would have to be told to put up a notice to the effect that a patient is not to be given fluids.
Ms O’Reilly
Any of us who have suffered a bereavement following the death of a parent or another person close to us know that if the death happens in a hospital, one is very sensitive to the actions of and the words spoken by the people around. As I said last week, death is a normal occurrence in a hospital but is an extraordinary one for people watching a loved one die. For individuals it is a once-off event. In such circumstances, people look to the staff of the hospital to have the enormity of their loss acknowledged. They are not looking for people to emote because that would be insincere. All they want is basic civility, humanity and decency, such as expressing regret for the person's loss or trouble. I made the point about the case I cited that it was not an issue of resources, rather it was about communication and treating people with dignity.
Deputy Burton said that sometimes charters are not worth the paper on which they are written. It is my intention to draw up principles of best practice on health care, as my predecessor did some years ago in regard to administration. One issue of best practice that would be included in that is patient safety, the issue of MRSA and other such issues. When people go into hospital they need to feel that they are in a safe place. Those of us who have read about or experienced the impact of the incidence of MRSA in recent months have been stunned that the issue in question comes down to basic hygiene, such as people not washing their hands. We thought that people not being aware of such basic needs went out with Florence Nightingale. I accept the Deputy's point that it is extraordinary when something as basic as that needs to be written down.
What is coming more into play as we liaise more with public bodies is that people must write down protocols. While we may think what is required is not rocket science, some people need to know that when X happens, one does A, B and C and in that order. The requirement to have a statutory complaints mechanism which will come on stream at some point presents a fantastic opportunity to require hospitals and health bodies generally to have a proper complaints mechanism and proper systems in place. It comes down to bodies having proper systems in place.
Provision for access in the disability area is a systems issue and it is the responsibility of management. It is a question of management having to make such provision and considering what it needs to do that. It will note that it requires resources and on providing those, it will need to consider how it manages the process and how it communicates all that is involved to the individuals concerned.
I welcome the Ombudsman, Ms O'Reilly, and her staff. She briefly referred to the area on which I intend to concentrate: best practice in hospitals. There is the issue of hygiene, or, as is now well known, the lack of it. The general opinion among members of the public is that possibly one of the most dangerous places one can be is in a hospital. One is liable to pick up infections in hospitals at a rate that was unheard of in the past. Does Ms O'Reilly's office have a role to play in forcing hospital administration and staff to adhere to best practice?
The fast food outlet, McDonald's, does not allow its members of staff to wear their uniform outside its establishments. They must change into their uniforms when they arrive at work. However, nurses and doctors in hospitals wear their uniforms walking across the road and getting into their cars. A person told me recently that they saw a doctor cross the cross the road to buy an item in a shop and take money out of the white coat he was wearing to pay for it. That doctor was wearing his white coat outside the hospital and had money in the pocket of it. I do not need to explain the lack of hygiene in regard to money. Surely somebody must call a halt to what has been taking place in this regard.
I refer to a case in a well known hospital in the south east to which a gentleman was admitted. He was a diabetic and an ulcer developed on his right leg. He was treated in the hospital but while there, the doctors allowed his left to deteriorate and he contracted MRSA. He has now had his good leg amputated below the knee and his bad leg has improved. That happened in an acute, well established hospital in the south east to which that man was admitted as a private patient. The total bill for his care in the hospital, where he was kept for months, was €90,000 to be paid to the VHI. That man is now wheelchair-bound, even though he walked into that hospital when he was admitted.
His family and I are convinced that those types of cases are a result of very bad practice in hospitals. We can pump all the public moneys we like into capital projects in hospitals and the staffing of them but if there is not best practice, we are not providing the care that is necessary and to which Deputy McHugh and Ms O'Reilly referred. It seems that nobody wants to listen to concerns voiced about this issue. I know this is a problem in other countries, but they are addressing it in some way or another. I do not know if we can find out what hospitals have the MRSA bug, although that is not the only bug.
Does the Ombudsman have a role to play in forcing hospitals and staff to comply with best practice in the interests of patient safety? The matter is not being addressed and is not being taken seriously. I have been raising this issue for a long time. I first tabled a motion on this issue in the Seanad in 1994. I have raised it publicly on many occasions since then. This is my 20th time to raise it. However, there does not seem to be any significant response from the management and staff of hospitals. Surely someone should call a halt to what is happening. It seems almost everyone has a horror story about MRSA.
Ms O’Reilly
The MRSA issue has been the subject of major public debate recently. It is only when the light of publicity is put on something like this that action is taken. The Minister for Health and Children, Deputy Harney, spoke on the Marian Finucane show a few weeks ago about the action she proposes to take in this area. There was a suggestion that a name and shame system would be set up whereby the names of hospitals with high MRSA rates would be made public. She or another expert on the programme said that could be a problem because hospitals might not report the true levels. There could be an issue in that hospitals with relatively low levels might appear high vis-à-vis other hospitals which do not fully report.
I cannot force anyone to do anything, but I can make recommendations. As in the nursing homes cases, many people who have been damaged, such as the gentleman mentioned, will probably take action against the hospitals. Other people can complain to me if the administrative actions of hospitals, namely, hygiene and lack of cleanliness, have not been adhered to and then I can make recommendations. The office is primarily complaints driven, as I said earlier. I could examine that area and make recommendations, as I did in the Sligo General Hospital case.
I said before when I spoke about the principles of good administration as they relate to hospitals and which I am drawing up that patient safety is a major issue. When I get together with the HSE to discuss the way in which internal complaints mechanisms should be devised and the principles of good administration in health practice should be affected, that will be the best way to deal with and explore that area because the hospitals can put together their own guidelines and protocols on cleanliness and basic hygiene. I heard recently of a project in the south west in relation to doctors and hand washing which was looking for funding. It is as basic as that.
Perhaps I am a player in this regard, but the Department of Health and Children and the HSE must be the major players. It is only a combination of forces which will change this area. The publicity alone will force people to act. Complaints to me on foot of which I make recommendations are another part of it. The HSE and the individual hospitals must get their act together and deal with this crisis. The role I play is to respond to complaints and to make recommendations which have value not only for the individual hospital but also for the other hospitals.
The likelihood of the Ombudsman becoming redundant is as great as the withering away of the State. It is useful for those of us who deal with complaints and representations from the public vis-à-vis certain public authorities to know that the Ombudsman is there as a last resort. However, it is preferable in the majority of instances if appeal mechanisms appropriate to the sector under discussion are capable of handling and resolving the majority of issues.
There is strength in the point made by the Ombudsman in her presentation that 20 years later her office should be given constitutional status, as local government was some years ago. It is clear that the office has established itself, that there is a need for it and that it will be a permanent part of our Administration. I cannot conceive of any Government seeking to abolish or rationalise the office. There is a strong point to be made that it should be given formal recognition in our system of government, as it is in most other systems of government. It was part of the draft European constitutional treaty.
I am satisfied with the section of her report which deals with Tipperary Town Council's policy on housing applications and the complimentary remarks she made about how it handled the complaints vis-à-vis her office.
Ms O’Reilly
As regards the Tipperary case, a single man applied but did not get it. That shows the value of the manner in which the Ombudsman's office carries out its business. It makes a rational argument. It does not force or direct the public body to do anything. It sees the rationale behind it and then it seeks to implement that in a co-operative way, as I outlined in the report.
The Ombudsman's office deals with public bodies and cases. Sometimes it upholds a case, while in others it provides assistance or partially resolves the issue. Some cases are discontinued. Perhaps the Ombudsman could clarify that. Some public bodies told me that nothing was heard about complaints which were made to the Office of the Ombudsman and which could be there for six or eight months. Does the Ombudsman tell the public body the case has been discontinued? What does the office do when it provides assistance? Does that mean providing information?
Ms O’Reilly
Yes.
Perhaps the Ombudsman could explain the different categories. Is there a mechanism for closing cases related to public bodies? Do public bodies know when a case has been closed?
Ms O’Reilly
They should know that. I know there was an issue some time ago in that public bodies did not feel they were given sufficient information. That has been rectified. We now inform them fully of the fact that a case is closed.
As public representatives, we often follow cases with the local authority because people first come to us and then the case is referred to Ombudsman's office. The public authority may not always be sure where the case stands because it has not heard anything.
Ms O’Reilly
I am aware of that and measures have been put in place to ensure everyone is clear about matters.
If cases are closed.
Ms O’Reilly
Yes, and how they have been closed and so on. There are different categories. People are sometimes confused about why a public body did something. When we approach the public bodies, they explain the issue to us, which is fine, and we explain the matter to the member of the public. If we feel we are not the best people to deal with the issue, we will pass the matter on to an internal body. One could deal with an investigation in the manner I described. One could deal with the public body where confusion arises and then get back to the member of the public.
In regard to the family in the hospital in Sligo, according to media reports, the Ombudsman said something about there being no provision for last rites. What was that point about?
Ms O’Reilly
What happened was that when the family arrived at the hospital, they did not expect the man would die so quickly. By the time they arrived at the hospital, their father was already dead. As the man was a Roman Catholic, his family asked whether he had received the last rites but no one knew whether this was the case. Another priest was brought in and the last rites were administered. When the matter was investigated subsequently, it was discovered that the man had been given the last rites before the family arrived. However, it added to the family's distress that they did not know. It was only when we contacted the priest, who was able to look up his diary, that we found out he had visited the hospital. There is provision for someone to be given the last rites, but no one knew whether this had been provided. One can imagine it caused a lot of upset to the family.
It was a lack of information.
Ms O’Reilly
It was a matter of communications.
I want to go over some points that were raised already, and I have a few points about which I am curious. On the call to give the Office of Ombudsman constitutional status, I am curious to know whether the Ombudsman believes this proposal will progress. Given that she made the argument in the annual report, is she now depending on the kindness of the political system to advance it or will she have an opportunity to make a formal submission to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution to ensure it is put on the political agenda sooner than might otherwise be the case? Given that the Constitution Review Group was an outside body, I presume the House will get a report from the all-party committee soon.
On the question of secondary legislation, I re-echo what Deputy Bruton said earlier about the need for a trawl to discover the effects of this legislation. At least three pieces of emergency legislation have been introduced in the past 18 months in connection with the wrongful application of ministerial orders. There needs to be a wider debate on the issue. The Ombudsman already spoke about the previous existence of an Oireachtas committee.
The current system allows for ministerial orders to be laid in the Library of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Action cannot be taken unless the Opposition chooses to bring the matter before the House. Given that Opposition time is very rare, there should be an obligation on the Government to bring before the House secondary legislation in the form of ministerial orders. It exists in limited circumstances where the initial legislation insists the matter must be brought before the House. The renewal of the Offences Against the State Act is an example of this. Some 99% of ministerial orders are published, left to languish, and members of the Opposition do not have an opportunity to question whether they are valid or should be changed.
On the question of the lack of a common system in regard to social housing lists, is there a variation in terms of priorities between different local authorities and the fact that some have open systems and others have closed systems? Many citizens who seek social housing from local authorities have no right to know where they are on a particular list or where the process will go in terms of making an allocation. Can recommendations be made to ensure a common system is in place?
On the Health Act and the Ombudsman's increased remit, Deputy Finneran has covered sufficiently the area of MRSA. Is the Ombudsman in a position to make recommendations on the standard of cleaning in hospitals and on how decisions should be made on budgets given that these may have compromised the standard of the cleaning service in that it may have had to be outsourced in particular health regions or hospitals? This may have brought about a higher risk of MRSA.
In the past week, I was informed by a constituent that her husband contracted the MRSA bug. As he has restricted movement, he should be entitled to assistance to modify their house to meet their new circumstances. However, because his condition was acquired medically and they do not meet the financial criteria in terms of house renovation grants for the disabled, they are left in a limbo. Does the Ombudsman envisage such situations occurring more often in future?
I note the Ombudsman had several meetings with the ombudsmen who were appointed in the past few years, including the children's ombudsman and the pensions ombudsman. Following their appointment, both expressed dissatisfaction at not being able to achieve what they otherwise might have expected because of limitations under the legislation which established their office. Does the Ombudsman envisage a role for a plethora of individualised ombudsmen? If this happens, should her role have a more co-ordinating role with the various offices established? She spoke about the increasing workload in the health area. Should there be a health ombudsman and an environment ombudsman? If the workload is divided, how should it be co-ordinated? Will her office develop along these lines?
Ms O’Reilly
As regards the constitutional argument, I am limited in how I can progress this. I can make my thoughts known and hope they are embraced at political and community level. At the time, the committee agreed with the review group's recommendations. It can be difficult to push for something when there appears to be no pressing need for it and the reasons given for it are somewhat abstract. I find it an advantage to be able to talk about the nursing homes issue because people can see what happens when administration does not perform properly.
The European ombudsman is referred to in the European constitution. This might provide an opportunity to put the office on a par with the European ombudsman while acknowledging the status of the European ombudsman within the constitution. Most western democracies, including the new emerging democracies, are not just creating ombudsman offices, they are doing so within the constitution, which indicates the status they give it. I would have thought the same status should be given to this. However, it is for the political system to deal with the matter.
I note the points made on secondary legislation and it is a question of managing it. The Deputy referred to the amount of Dáil work which might not allow time to deal with the regulations, but this is where the committee system comes into its own by providing a dedicated space.
On the question of the county councils and housing lists, this is an issue my office has pursued for many years. The most frustrating aspect for people is not knowing where they are on the list or what the criteria are. It would be helpful if people were given certainty and were sure the system was fair. A person might still have to wait three to five years for a place but at least he or she would know he or she was creeping up the list and would know what was needed for him or her to achieve the house he or she wanted.
A few years ago, Kildare County Council — and it may have been as a result of a court case — agreed to a points-based system. We are encouraging other county councils to look at that system. This is an issue for discussion with the liaison group.
On the issue of MRSA, it is clear people have been disabled as a result of this infection and other issues then arise about benefits or house improvements. I imagine my office will receive complaints in respect of these matters. The office is a good channel of resort for people.
On the question of the Office of the Ombudsman in other jurisdictions, we follow the pattern of Great Britain and other countries by beginning with a single ombudsman. The office possibly becomes a victim of its own success. The office is seen to be working well and when issues arise in other areas of the Administration, an ombudsman is created. This does not cause a problem so long as the ombudsman is working according to the general ground rules for an ombudsman. The only difficulty can be that it becomes very bitty and there may be differences in the approach taken by various offices towards even the same public bodies and problems can then arise.
I attend conferences in England attended by the Ombudsman and the various ombudsman-type personages. The situation there seems to have become a bit of a mess with overlapping jurisdictions and people not knowing where their jurisdiction ends and someone else's begins. There seem to be different quality standards and different approaches and this is an issue. Much of the discussion at conferences is not about the business of ombudsman but the business of disentangling the various remits. While the general ombudsman system and the sectoral ombudsman system tend to work well, care must be taken to avoid too many ombudsman offices with different standards applying. It must be ensured that the public, which is the core of this system, does not become completely confused as to who does what.
It is now 1.15 p.m. I propose a suspension for 15 minutes. Two Deputies have indicated their desire to speak upon resumption. The committee will then continue consideration of the report of the Information Commissioner.
Sitting suspended at 1. 14 p.m. and resumed at 1.40 p.m.
We will resume our discussion on the Annual Report of the Ombudsman 2004.
I welcome the opportunity to pose some questions and make some comments on the Ombudsman's report. The Ombudsman referred to the extension of her remit to include the Health Service Executive and the Disability Act 2005. I was struck by her assertion that this change will have "resource implications" because this phrase cropped up repeatedly during the debate on the Disability Bill. It will be important to prioritise the Ombudsman's function in monitoring complaints and for this reason I am concerned by the inclusion of the term "resource implications". Will the Ombudsman expand on the issue, given that disability and the Health Service Executive are both significant areas?
Health care is a prominent news item and this has been particularly the case since the change-over from the health boards to the Health Service Executive, a process which requires bedding in.
The Ombudsman also referred to engaging in a dialogue with local authorities, the health service and other bodies. I am concerned about this in certain respects. Each administrative body has a culture and structure and the HSE has, by and large, adopted the structure of that which preceded it, namely, the health boards. For example, the embargo on increasing the number of public servants impacted differently on the provision of services in different regions. A person seeking speech therapy in Cork will probably secure services relatively easily, whereas, as Deputy Burton noted, applicants in other areas, particularly where considerable development is taking place, are likely to be placed at the bottom of a long waiting list. I presume part of the Ombudsman's remit will be to respond to the issue of equal access to services.
The embargo in force on public service numbers requires that before one can employ an additional speech therapist, an administrator or other employee must leave the service. It is for this reason that specific speech therapy positions have not been filled and this will have a bearing on the Health Service Executive and the provision of services under the Disability Act. Will the Ombudsman make recommendations to change structures if she finds they are not capable of responding? I have concerns about this issue because it crops up repeatedly when one is unable to make proper comparisons in terms of the experience of services in different areas because they are so varied.
One has similar experiences in terms of structure. I refer, for example, to the disabled person's grant. The rules governing the provision of a grant stipulate that a local authority must provide one third of the grant before the remaining two thirds will be released. As a result, a significant amount of the Exchequer allocation for the disabled person's grant is returned despite the fact that people are unable to access services either because their local authority has closed its lists or for other reasons. Complaints will, therefore, arise on the basis of current structures.
The Ombudsman drew attention to changes made to the primary medical certificate on foot of a previous annual report. This is evident from the increased number of staff employed to deal with appeals. The Ombudsman noted the restrictive criteria for qualification in respect of the scheme which, we have been informed, will be monitored by the Department of Finance. Does she have a function in drawing attention to this issue in future because the problem of restrictions has clearly not been addressed and is part of the reason for the large number of appeals.
I agree with Deputy Burton's comments on the dates on which many planning applications are submitted. I am certain that the most difficult applications will be submitted during the August bank holiday weekend and Christmas week in an effort to overcome the possibility of objections being made. Objectors are caught out by the imposition of a €20 charge for making an objection in that appeals to An Bord Pleanála are frequently deemed invalid because the objector has not produced a document from the local authority acknowledging payment. This may be a simple problem for those who understand the planning system but the procedures on dates and fees must be simplified because they cause specific problems.
In terms of honouring commitments, the Ombudsman drew attention to a case concerning the points system for housing allocation in County Kildare, with which I am familiar. While it has become possible to find out how many points one has, it is of no benefit to learn one has 75 points if one does not know how many points are required to be housed. This part of the process has not kicked in yet. An application form has been issued as part of the statutory three-year process. We have made authors out of many housing applicants because the form is 22 pages long. I have helped several people, particularly those with literacy problems, to complete it. The form needs to be simplified.
I also have concerns about the manner in which the scheme is administered. From what I can gather, more time is spent inputting the information included on the forms than on examining the needs of applicants. The procedure has more to do with process than the potential outcome for the applicant and the form is a complicating factor.
Ms O’Reilly
Regarding the resources the Office of the Ombudsman will require when the voluntary hospitals come under my remit and when it begins to deal with the part of the disability legislation — in terms of sectoral plans, access and so on — that comes under its remit, we naturally expect a number of complaints to arise. Traditionally, even though the health board hospitals have been under our remit for a considerable period, few complaints have been made about hospitals. Last year, I understand 18 complaints were made. That is a relatively high number in light of the fact that in most other years only a handful of complaints, perhaps six or seven, have been made.
We have often wondered about this. People in hospital are vulnerable by definition and once they are out they may not want to revisit what happened to them so they do not complain. Sometimes it is as simple as not knowing they can complain — some older people simply think that the hospital can do what it likes and they do not have a right to complain or that what has happened is worthy of complaint. Sometimes people accept all sorts of bad things and think that is just the way the system is. Last year we had more complaints but because there is a statutory complaints mechanism now under the Health Act and because all hospitals must have internal procedures, the public are more aware that they can complain.
Ultimately that will affect us in the same way disability legislation has affected my role. Some public bodies will not have systems in place in time and people will not be able to make use of their legitimate right of access and will come to me. I have not yet spoken to the Department of Finance about this, but I expect there will be discussions in the near future and I will make a strong case. I must fulfil my remit and if the Government or Oireachtas has decided my remit is to be expanded, I must be facilitated by getting the resources I need. It is as simple as that.
Speech therapy and orthodontic treatment is a huge issue for many people. They require all sorts of therapies, particularly for children, that people find difficult to access. Services are patchy across the country; no one knows what to expect and can see greater provision in other HSE areas. I cannot dictate HSE policy but I can urge it to be consistent in its policies and even if they are minimal, they should be minimal across all areas and no area should be discriminated against, certainly in terms of the principles of good practice in health care that I will be talking about.
It is a source of wonder that so many people cannot access basic services. I was interviewed recently on radio and I noted how when I was a small child in Tullamore in the early 1960s, I needed speech therapy but no one could do it and I had to spend three months in residential care in Dublin receiving it. I still read nowadays about similar cases, an extraordinary state of affairs. There are resource and policy issues in which I do not have a role but the least I can do is to recommend consistency across the HSE areas.
There is an invalid complaint mentioned in the report, where a person had to get a receipt given by the local authority because An Bord Pleanála needs it as proof of an initial complaint. It is a requirement under the planning laws but in that case it was not made clear enough to the individual that it was necessary to do that. I recommended redress in that case.
One part of the equation regarding the case referred to involving Kildare County Council is still not in place. It is fine to know one has 75 points but if a person needs 1,000 points that is not much use. That is an area I will revisit and monitor because it is important. We were pleased that the county council, partly as a result of our intervention, took that on. These days people have higher expectations of transparency and openness. They must know where they stand so they can plan accordingly. If a person has to rent for the next few years, he or she can plan for it. If there is a particular waiting time after which a person will get a house, it is easier to wait.
Quite a few people have raised planning issues that are clearly causing much frustration and difficulty. I will raise these issues as a bloc with the liaison group I mentioned earlier.
I welcome the Ombudsman to the committee and commend her work and that of her staff. There will always be a need for the Office of the Ombudsman because we have a long way to go to reach the quality of service that people deserve.
The report mentions the association of the Ombudsman with a healthy functioning democracy and that this is noted by the Constitution Review Group. For many poor, elderly and disabled people and victims, however, this is not the case; they are totally excluded from mainstream society.
There were 2,064 complaints but having been in the Oireachtas for three years, my experience is that this is the tip of the iceberg. Most Irish people complain more often to councillors and Deputies than to the Ombudsman. How many complaints would public representatives make to the office?
This week, in my office I have dealt with three issues that fall within the remit of the Ombudsman. A child with Down's syndrome was refused teaching hours in a school from September. Public servants made that decision. A 93 year old woman was refused home help because of a lack of HSE funds. Yesterday, and this infuriated me, a victim of the Dublin and Monaghan bombings whose father was killed in Parnell Street and who himself suffered shrapnel wounds was given the run around by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform when trying to claim his medical expenses. This is the reality for many people and it is important that we put that on the record. How can the Ombudsman convince those people to have confidence in a system when they tell us privately that they have no confidence and feel let down by the entire system? It is amazing that there was a 7% decrease in complaints when the opposite is the case in my clinic.
I welcome the section of the report that challenges society's negative attitude to the elderly and the use of the phrase "bed blocker". It is a terrible term and it is up to all of us to end this nonsense where such terms are used about elderly Irish citizens who have served the State and paid their taxes. I commend the office for highlighting that negative attitude.
The report also mentions the case of a carer's allowance in November 2002 where the person involved received arrears of €5,225. Has the office discovered any reason why these people are being put through the hoops to secure services they should have as of right? The person involved in the case in the report was on a low income and eventually won his case but why did he have to jump through the hoops when he was entitled to the services?
The Ombudsman was involved in the Constituency Commission which redrew the electoral boundaries. Was that on a personal basis or on behalf of the Office of the Ombudsman? Many constituencies were reduced to three seats. I ask because I am interested in inclusive, democratic politics in the State. Many people, particularly those on the north side of Dublin, are concerned that all the five-seaters are on the south side of the city and that the north side constituencies were turned into three-seaters. We feel somewhat excluded and annoyed that the views of those in our communities were not represented on this commission.
On page 27 of her report, the Ombudsman refers to her role in respect of the Disability Act and states that public buildings and services are accessible to people with disabilities. That is part of her brief and I welcome the extension of her remit in this respect because it is very important. There are many people with physical and intellectual disabilities on waiting lists. Will the Ombudsman include that in her remit? These people need many services such as day care, respite and speech therapy. This is a serious problem, despite the legislation and the discussion relating to it in recent months.
The Ombudsman states on page 31 of her report that she convinced the Department to streamline the appeals process for tax reliefs in respect of drivers with disabilities. I welcome that. This issue arises in my clinics. Did the person mentioned in the report win the appeal on that issue?
The Ombudsman said earlier that she does not see herself playing an adversarial role but that, referring to the French ombudsman, perceives herself as a médiateur. Surely it is her role to fight on behalf of the citizen. The Ombudsman also mentioned that she might not get co-operation if her report was more aggressive.
It is a matter of concern, that the public service might not co-operate with the Office of the Ombudsman. That is not acceptable. A public servant — whether a teacher, garda or nurse — serves the public, is paid by the taxpayers and is accountable. Surely the Ombudsman's job is to represent the taxpayer and vulnerable citizens, in particular. On the issue of the mediator, I hope the Ombudsman is not going to go soft on people's rights. We get it in the neck regularly from people expressing their hurt and anger. I want to ensure that this view is represented.
Has the Ombudsman's office found, in regard to public service in the health and disability sector, that if people did the job they were supposed to do, there would be fewer complaints and better services? Does she accept that members of a certain sector of society do not accept personal responsibility for their actions?
I heard of a case yesterday in which a baby with Down's syndrome was born in a well-known Dublin hospital. The parents left the hospital with no information, contact numbers, addresses or the parent packs provided to hospitals five or six years ago by Down's Syndrome Ireland. I am aware that these packs were distributed because I was on the parents' committee at the time. I am concerned that a public hospital did not advise or support the family to which I refer when its members were going home. It is all very well to blame the politicians, the media, etc., but there is an issue of personal responsibility in providing services.
I would also include in this the sector in which I was involved, namely, education. When teaching, one might discover a child in fourth class who could not read. I could never accept that in the inner city school where I worked. We assessed the children every year to ensure they were identified as having reading problems. That was a good practice. Is this kind of personal responsibility going out of the public service? Is the old-fashioned principle of public service dying out? We seem to have moved in a very selfish direction. Has the Ombudsman noticed this when she challenges people in regard to their services?
Do most Irish people avoid complaining to the authorities about their grievances? For example, the Ombudsman said that 18 complaints were made against hospitals. I receive 18 complaints relating to hospitals — involving issues relating to wards, beds, hygiene or dirty toilets — in a two-week period in my clinic. Deputy Finneran mentioned some of the situations he encounters. I hear the same complaints. Are some members of the public not inclined to complain? People might complain to Deputies or local councillors but they might not write to the Ombudsman about the issues.
I urge the Ombudsman's office to ensure that services for people with disabilities and the elderly, those relating to speech therapy, etc., are child and community-centred, rather than service-centred. As the Ombudsman stated, in the past people had to leave their communities to access services. That was traumatic for families with members who suffered with disabilities. I encourage the service providers — perhaps the Office of the Ombudsman would also encourage them — to plan services around the people who use them rather than around the staff. This is the mistake that was made in the past. They should be child and family-based and be located in the community. This system is also more cost-effective.
It is not acceptable for children with disabilities to be obliged to travel from the west in order to access services in Dublin. Would the Ombudsman accept that a child of hers without a disability be obliged to travel to a primary school in Dublin? She would not accept that imposition, so why should families of children with disabilities accept it? I urge her to use whatever clout her office carries to ensure that services for children and adults with disabilities are centred on the community and on the family. I also urger her to inform the Department of Finance that this is more cost-effective than the current system.
Ms O’Reilly
The Deputy raised several issues. I thank him for his positive comments about the office. In regard to my role on the Constituency Commission, as a northsider in a three-seat constituency, clearly I was there as Ombudsman and not in my personal capacity.
I used the word mediator to illustrate that I do not go into a situation all guns blazing in a hostile fashion towards the public body. In Spanish-speaking countries, the word for ombudsman is defensor del pueblo, public defender, which equates to the Deputy’s view of my role. One need only look at the reports of the cases to see that I fight for the individual’s rights, once I establish what those rights are and the relevant legislation in the case. A public body, by definition, is very powerful, whereas the individual who comes to me is not. The office balances that power by putting its weight behind the complainant.
When reading past reports of the office and working with the officials there, I have always been struck by the pains taken to find solutions to tricky situations. When one sees a person disadvantaged by a public body, even though the action might be legal but seems unfair, we do our dhícheall — to use an Irish expression — to make sure we do everything in our power to achieve a fair result.
We do not take the role of a solicitor who acts on behalf of a client, regardless of the merits of the case. One of my colleagues said one lets the facts speak for themselves. We put good cases together, particularly in respect of vulnerable people, those with disabilities, elderly people, children, etc. In essence, one fights for their rights. I would not like to leave the committee with the impression that I or the office are in some way weak in that regard. That is evident from the results we achieve.
The three cases to which the Deputy referred would have been worthy of complaint to the Office of the Ombudsman. Other Deputies and public representatives have said they receive more complaints than I do. Of course that is the case but while public representatives can do significant work on behalf of their constituents, the Office of the Ombudsman has the power to get officials to explain matters to it. They must produce all the documents and records for us. I do not believe public representatives can obtain these because they do not have a specific entitlement in that regard. Public representatives are able, in that sense, to resolve certain cases but others are not amenable to such intervention and that is where the Office of the Ombudsman comes in.
Regarding the Down's syndrome case to which the Deputy referred, where a hospital sent a family out without any documentation or telephone numbers, that would seem, prima facie, to be maladministration. Hospitals are there to support their patients, namely, the woman giving birth, the child and, by extension, the entire family. To allow them to return home in a state of distress and without support seems quite wrong. I have personal experience of people who have thought that they would give birth to a perfectly healthy baby but who left hospital not knowing what they were supposed to do or where they were supposed to go. As I emphasised, that is not a question of resources, generally speaking; it is plain and simple humanity and empathy. One must ask what people need and how they can be helped. They should be given booklets and telephone numbers, which does not cost too much.
Something that has concerned me since I entered the office is whether people are sufficiently aware of it. We deal with all ages and classes of people, both high and low. Everyone approaches our office but those whom we really need to get are the most vulnerable. They tend to be poorer or elderly people with disabilities and so on. It is part of our ongoing plan of work to ensure that greater access is afforded. The citizens' information centres have a great role to play in collecting complaints and filtering people through to our office. We carry out liaison visits and are in the process of updating websites and so on. I know that not everyone can access the Internet but I assure members that I am extremely conscious of the access issue.
Relatively few Deputies approach the office. It is hard to be categoric about this, since some people send a representation with their name on it. Others might simply encourage someone to go to the Ombudsman so that we do not receive a letter directly from the public representative. On the face of it, the figure seems quite low, although it might be different. I am also involved in an initiative to liaise with Members of the Oireachtas in a structured fashion to encourage more public representatives to use the office. If one considers the debates that heralded the establishment of the office in the 1960s and 1970s, when people were generally against introducing an ombudsman, one sees that, traditionally, public representatives felt that an ombudsman would be in opposition to them. I believe Charles Haughey asked why we needed another public representative, since there were already so many in the Oireachtas. However, there is a big difference regarding the powers and capacities of the Ombudsman. I also know that it is a good situation for Deputies and others who have used the office and obtained good results for their constituents.
I will be brief and make only two points. I welcome the Ombudsman and congratulate her and her staff on the job they are doing. I also welcome what she said regarding putting a new structure in place to liaise with Members of the Oireachtas.
I do not wish to be repetitive but I would like to return briefly to nursing home charges. I take a different view on this issue from most of my colleagues in the House. While I believe that the said charges were illegal, I personally do not believe that they were wrong. I have said publicly that in my opinion most families in this country endeavour to have their elderly relatives cared for in public geriatric hospitals where they receive the best of care. They were asked to pay a contribution of 80% of their pension. I consider those people the lucky ones. On the other hand, we have a criterion in our local public hospitals of looking at social and economic circumstances to decide who goes to the public hospital or the nursing home. Going to the public hospital, one was asked to pay 80% of one's pension and one received top quality professional care.
If one was unlucky and asked to go to a nursing home, however, the charge was automatically quadrupled and one was given a subvention. I find it difficult to understand why someone is not saying that it is discrimination if one has two people in the same circumstances, one of whom will access a contracted bed in a private nursing home. From what I have seen recently, the level of care there would not be anywhere near that in a public hospital. The person would probably be charged €1,000 a week for his or her care. It is their families who pay for that care, perhaps a husband and wife who work every day, pay their taxes and try to rear their own family. At the end of the week or month, they are saddled with exorbitant charges. Their parents could easily have been placed in a public hospital.
There are great discrepancies. I have no sympathy for the person applying for the refund because his great grandmother spent a few months in a public hospital, during which time he may have visited her once or not at all. However, I have the utmost sympathy for the families of those people who are placed in private nursing home care and to whom this State does not give adequate support. On a few occasions where nursing home subventions have been increased, nursing home charges have also increased the following week. This wipes out any benefit and I am extremely concerned about it.
I am aware that we are dealing with those in public hospitals and the refunds to them. I appreciate that the Ombudsman has mentioned that there will be court proceedings from others claiming for people in private nursing home care in contracted beds. To me, a contracted bed means a subvention that is a very small part of the overall cost. I ask the Ombudsman, if she gets the opportunity, to make the case in future reports for those people in order to eliminate what I believe to be discrimination. In her own words, we should also recommend consistency in that line.
I support the views expressed by Deputy Catherine Murphy regarding the primary medical certificate. That criterion is ridiculously restrictive. If we look across the Border to the nearest neighbouring jurisdiction, we see that they are at the other extreme, since it is much easier to get a primary medical certificate. Anyone presenting with diabetes can qualify for a primary medical certificate. I am interested in this issue. I am a member of a sub-committee of my own parliamentary party which is examining this matter with a view to making recommendations to it. I hope the situation can be improved for a vulnerable section of society.
Ms O’Reilly
I will make a brief comment on charges. The Deputy commented that he thought they were illegal but not wrong. In the Travers report, it clearly comes across that it was never the intention of the Legislature that people not make some contribution towards their care. The matter was that the interpretation of the regulations was incorrect.
I accept that.
Ms O’Reilly
Part of the reason that people stuck their heads in the sand on this issue for so long was that they genuinely believed that they had been correctly following the legislation's intent. The problem was that the interpretation of the regulations was illegal.
Before we proceed and having listened to the proceedings and examined the annual report, I wish to make a few comments.
Some members might take a different view on this; I am making a personal observation. I would caution against standard procedures in place across local authorities in respect, for example, of housing. If the Government wished to have a standard procedure, we would not have 30 or so local authorities making decisions at local level which are based on local needs. Even within individual local authority areas, local needs differ. Every public representative knows that a house may come up in a town where there is no strong demand and that people with relatively low points scores will qualify. However, owing to the demand and the number wishing to live in another town, they might have to have far higher points scores in the same local authority. They may not want to live in the other town. Inevitably there are local factors which may not be provided for under one overall national policy.
I caution against providing people with information relating to the time they are likely to spend on the list. People may be assessed today but worse cases may present next year. A local authority could say that, based on current lists, a person will get a house in two years' time. It can only make such an indication if it is in a position to predict its building programme, which it is not always in a position to do. However, other cases could then present themselves. The Ombudsman and I may have a difference of opinion on this. It is not a question of telling someone that he or she may have a house in three years' time or whatever. Matters are not as simple as that. However, this is just a simple observation.
I want to make a second point about local authorities since there is so much in the Ombudsman's report about planning. The issue of local authorities not notifying people that they had to send the actual receipt to An Bord Pleanála was widespread across the country. They all made a mess of that. I do not know who drafted the circulars. It was probably done in the Department but, in general, those circulars were wrong. I saw several instances of this. The problem was exacerbated and the Ombudsman, because of the regulations, is probably not in a position to take action.
An Bord Pleanála now requires sight of the original receipt of complaint, even in areas where the corrected literature is sent out with a notification of a decision specifying how to appeal and the information to be supplied. Sometimes people do not see this because there is quite a good deal of information in the document that is furnished. I am familiar with cases where applicants might have sent the wrong fee, within two weeks of the four-week period, and An Bord Pleanála does not give them an opportunity to correct this. Officials sit on it and when the date for appealing has expired, the material is returned a week later with a note saying that one item has not been included. This is despite the fact that there was still time to correct the position. I have seen cases of this happening.
I was reminded of this recently when reading the most recent annual report of An Bord Pleanála, which shows that 300 cases were rejected on foot of non-compliance with the proper procedures. I was horrified to see this. The board will probably say that it was complying with the statutory requirements but it was not assisting the public in helping to access the appeals system. That is underlined in the report. I have asked for information on this and I am still waiting to receive it.
I have one further observation on planning. Let us examine the Galway case, where the place was closed for the week of the race meeting, or that relating to Wexford County Council, where the planning procedures were amended. The Ombudsman was able to get a few hundred euro as an ex gratia payment but that does not resolve the problem. If a person said that he or she missed the date because there was an incorrect notice and sought a judicial review, the local authority, as I have seen in Laois, will have to review the process. By going to the Ombudsman, however, the person might only get a couple of hundred euro as an ex gratia payment, although the mistake might not be repeated in future by the planning authority. It is a pity that when the Ombudsman discovers that something is wrong, she cannot make the local authority concerned recommence the process. Ultimately, that would be the proper redress. However, she does not have the power to do that. However, if a person has to go to court, he or she may get satisfaction and have the case restarted. These are only observations. I would like the Ombudsman to take them on board as best she can.
I have a few observations to make on the boring part of the report, namely, the statistics. The main categories dealt with are local authorities, health boards, the Civil Service and An Post. Perhaps the Ombudsman can explain this or at least comment. In terms of the number of cases that have been discontinued, withdrawn or not upheld, there were 703 out of 997 as regards the Civil Service. The latter is equivalent to 71%. In terms of the health boards, 72% of cases were discontinued, withdrawn or not upheld. This means that the vast majority of people who went to the Ombudsman were unable to obtain satisfaction. The implication is that perhaps they were not entitled to it.
The public bodies probably dealt with the cases fairly. I notice, however, that with local authorities the corresponding figure is only 330 out of 690, or 47%, of cases that were discontinued, withdrawn or upheld. In over 50% of the local authority cases, some type of resolution was achieved when people approached the Ombudsman. The implication, on reading the report, is that administration in local authorities is significantly worse than in the Civil Service or the health boards. I am basing that comment on the Ombudsman's figures. Perhaps she has not analysed them in that way but she can appreciate the point I am making.
Ms O’Reilly
Yes, absolutely.
She will probably find from experience — the statistics bear this out — that, more often than not, some degree of satisfaction is to be derived from dealing with local authorities. As regards the Civil Service, however, it is indicated on page 45 of the report that far more cases are upheld than have been resolved. Perhaps, as the statistics seem to indicate, those public bodies are doing their work more satisfactorily than they were in the past. Have those figures changed over time? Have the public bodies got better or are there aspects of the statistics that the Ombudsman could perhaps examine and comment further on at a later date?
Ms O’Reilly
We have not analysed the figures in this way. The figures in general have not changed. I referred earlier to the Revenue Commissioners' figures being down because it has set up its own internal complaints mechanism.
The local authorities, as a group, seem to be a long way behind at present. A much higher proportion of people appear to obtain satisfaction by referring their cases to the Ombudsman. If the Ombudsman has an observation to make on these comments, well and good. If not, then it is just my reading of the statistics.
Ms O’Reilly
No, I have not analysed the figures in that way. It would, however, be worth doing so.
At this stage, we will conclude our discussions on the Ombudsman's report and ask Ms O'Reilly to put on her other hat, as Information Commissioner. She has a short opening statement to make. I am sure there will be some questions from members at that stage. I thank Ms O'Reilly.