Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions debate -
Thursday, 26 Sep 2013

Office of the Ombudsman Annual Report 2012: Discussion with Ombudsman

Is it agreed to deal with private business at the conclusion of the public session? Agreed. Apologies have been received from Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh and Deputy Charles Flanagan.

Perhaps Deputy Flanagan wishes to apologise for the referendum posters.

The committee is sitting in its capacity as the Joint Sub-Committee on the Ombudsman to consider the 2012 annual report of the Office of the Ombudsman. I remind all present, including members, the media and those in the Public Gallery that mobile phones and BlackBerry devices must be turned off completely because they interfere with the sound system even when in silent mode.

I welcome the delegation from the Office of the Ombudsman. We are pleased to welcome Ms Emily O'Reilly, Ombudsman, who will present the annual report of the Office of the Ombudsman for the last time in her current role. On behalf of the committee members I wish to congratulate Ms O'Reilly on her new appointment to the position of European Ombudsman and to wish her every success. We are very proud that an Irish person has been elected to that position and it is a tribute to the fantastic work of the Office of the Ombudsman. It is hoped Ireland can continue the good work.

I welcome Ms Bernie McNally, director general, and Mr. Fintan Butler, senior investigator, Office of the Ombudsman. I thank the Ombudsman for forwarding her presentation which has been circulated to members.

I advise the witnesses that, by virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, witnesses are protected by absolute privilege in respect of their evidence to this committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given. They are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members are reminded of the long-standing ruling of the Chair to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or any official by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

I thank the Chairman for those very kind words. Members will be aware that I published my 2012 annual report yesterday. This is my tenth and final annual report since taking up the position of Ombudsman in 2003. During that period my office has dealt with over 25,000 complaints against public sector bodies and carried out several key investigations into various aspects of public administration.

My office continued to receive high numbers of complaints in 2012. While there had been a drop in the numbers of complaints, from a record 3,727 in 2010 to 3,412 in 2012, the number was still 25% higher than the ten-year average of 2,774. The largest number of complaints received involved the Department of Social Protection. Complaints relating to local authorities represented just under one third of complaints and one fifth were in respect of the Health Service Executive. A total of 11,178 inquiries were dealt with by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2012. It is very likely that following the extension of the remit of the office, the continuing pressure on public services to do more with less and with increasing numbers of people seeking State supports of various kinds, the complaint intake will continue to be significant.

I have attached as Appendix 1 to this presentation a brief summary of four cases in my annual report which I wish to highlight. This information has been circulated to members so my remarks will be brief.

In case No. 1, my complainant was granted arrears of survivor's contributory pension amounting to €68,000 because I discovered that the Department of Social Protection had sufficient information available to it in 1999 to be aware of his entitlement but failed to notify him at the time. Case No. 2 involved Letterkenny General Hospital which gave my complainant a number of conflicting diagnoses in relation to a serious genetic abnormality. Following my office's intervention, the hospital's clinical director met the complainant and arranged for a further definitive medical review by another specialist which confirmed that she did not have the condition. The cost of the review was covered by the HSE and it also refunded her the cost of her private consultation which amounted to €1,000.

In case No. 3, due to incorrect information from the Department of Social Protection, my complainant moved to Guernsey with his family in the belief that he would continue to be paid jobseeker's benefit for a period. The Department apologised for its handling of the matter and offered an ex gratia payment of €1,000 as redress, which the complainant was happy to accept. In case No. 4, a married couple applied for medical cards to the HSE but suffered considerable delay in having the applications processed, despite the fact that their circumstances were such that it should have been apparent at an early stage that they were eligible. The HSE awarded the medical cards backdated to 15 working days from receipt of the application and agreed to refund all medical, dental and optical expenses for the 20-month period of delay. I also contacted the Revenue Commissioners, which agreed to refund the income levy paid by the couple while the application was being processed, on the basis that individuals who hold full medical cards are exempt from the income levy and any overpayments of the universal social charge due to the delay on the part of the HSE. Members have also been provided with copies of the 2012 annual report which provides details of a number of other cases highlighting the type of case handled by my office in 2012.

Over my ten years in office, I have constantly urged various Governments to extend independent oversight to all public bodies. In May this year the remit of my office was extended to over 180 additional organisations, including all publicly-funded third level education bodies. On the passing of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act in 2012, I described it as a historic day for the Office of the Ombudsman and Irish public administration generally. Since 1 May 2013, all public bodies with significant interactions with the public are subject to independent and impartial oversight by the Office of the Ombudsman.

However, I feel I must once again draw attention to some very important areas of activity of the Department of Justice and Equality relating to immigration, naturalisation and prisons, which continue to remain outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This anomalous situation is virtually unique in terms of the jurisdiction of national ombudsmen in other countries and I know that members of this committee raised their concerns about the matter during the debates on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. This concern is much appreciated. These areas were not placed within my remit in the Bill as I was told that other measures were being actively progressed by the Department of Justice and Equality. The Minister for Justice and Equality announced in 2012, before the enactment of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, that a new complaints system was planned for prisoners. He stated this system would be open, transparent and independent and would provide an immediate mechanism to deal with such complaints on the ground. The new procedures for the investigation of complaints went live on 1 November 2012.

In May 2013, Judge Michael Kelly, Inspector of Prisons, presented his report, An Assessment of the Irish Prison System, to the Minister for Justice and Equality. Chapter 8 of the report gives a detailed description of the new procedures. However, he declined to comment on investigations commenced under the new procedures since 1 November 2012 as they were then in their infancy. However, he voiced concerns in the report about the fact that the new complaint procedures provide only a process for the investigation of category A complaints, which are complaints of the most serious nature, including assaults, serious intimidation, etc.

He called for a robust complaints procedure to be brought in for category B and C complaints and also asked, as a matter of urgency, that section 31 of the Prisons Act 2007 be amended to strengthen his own investigatory powers in certain areas. This suggests to me that there is much work to be done in terms of establishing a fully effective and comprehensive prisoner complaints system.

In regard to immigration, residency and asylum, the Minister has indicated that a new statutory appeals system will be established through the enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010. We await the enactment of that legislation. Until we see the final shape and substance of the new complaint processes in the immigration area, it would be premature of me to judge how effective they will be. I take this opportunity, however, to express concern regarding the delay in advancing the Bill. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform indicated a willingness, during the debate on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012, to revisit that legislation if it was found to require fine-tuning. In that context, prisons and asylum matters may be the subject of further consideration at some time in the future. I expect the new Ombudsman may wish to monitor progress in both these areas.

The consequential increase in complaint numbers arising from the expansion of the office's remit will be managed within existing resources and supported by the significant operational reforms we have implemented in the past two years. The office's strategic plan for 2013 to 2015 sets out our plans for greater engagement with public bodies under our remit to encourage effective systems of complaint resolution locally, thus improving satisfaction with the service at point of contact and preventing the need for escalation to the office. It is early days to seek to quantify the likely number and types of additional complaints the office will receive annually from the new bodies under its remit. However, I will give members a general overview of the most recently available figures relating to valid complaints received against the new bodies in 2013.

As provided under the amending Act, I can examine only actions that occur on or after 1 May 2013, with complainants normally required to exhaust local appeal processes before coming to my office. In total, we have received 78 valid - by which I mean admissible - complaints against the new bodies. I have divided the breakdown of the figures into four broad sectoral categories and attached them in appendix 2, which has been circulated to members. Aside from the valid complaints being dealt with, my office has received a considerable number of telephone queries in regard to a wide range of the new public bodies, as well as complaints that were invalid or premature because they were not taken up with the public body concerned or the actions complained of predated 1 May 2013 or were otherwise outside our remit for whatever reason. Adding the valid, invalid and premature figures together, my office has received more than 200 complaints against the new bodies to date.

I will now make some general comments on our experience in dealing with the new bodies. My office has appointed sectoral leads to deal closely with the organisations in question in the four sectors and to monitor, analyse and process the initial complaints received in each sector. These sectoral leads have had a high level of direct engagement, including face-to-face meetings with a number of bodies, to establish a clear understanding of their processes and procedures and the challenges they face. The engagement also serves to give the new bodies a better understanding of my office's approach to complaint handling and the level of co-operation we need to investigate and evaluate complaints fully.

The sectoral leads report that the co-operation and engagement from the new bodies has been positive and open. In regard to Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, it is perhaps not surprising that we have had quite a number of valid complaints - a total to date of 55, or 140 if one includes invalid and premature complaints - given that SUSI has recently processed a very high volume of grant applications in the run-up to the current academic year. In fact, quite a number of SUSI cases taken on by my office relate back to the 2012-13 academic year, as some appeals took a significant length of time to process in SUSI. I can also deal with complaints about undue delay in dealing with grant applications going back to 2012-13 which were not resolved by May 2013.

As it commenced the new centralised grant processing system last year, SUSI was faced with considerable challenges and a very high volume of complaints. In the meantime, however, it has been refining its processing systems to make them more efficient and effective. SUSI has met officials from my office on a number of occasions and I am entirely satisfied with the level of co-operation it is providing. Needless to say, if the individual complaints my office is dealing with suggest further ways to improve the system, we will communicate that information to SUSI.

I have repeatedly welcomed the establishment of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. The Ombudsman has a duty to report to Parliament, and any broad concerns or issues identified by any Ombudsman relating to the public administration system must provoke the interest of, and a response from, Members of Parliament. This committee is a pivotal bridge between elected representatives, the Office of the Ombudsman and members of the public who may have suffered harm at the hands of public bodies. Its petitions function enables members of the public to complain to the committee on a wide range of matters relating to the provision of public services. In recognition of the statutory independence of my office and to avoid any overlap or duplication, the committee's terms of reference provide, among other things, that the committee will not accept complaints which have been the subject of a decision by my office or are under active consideration by my office. This is a practical and sensible approach to take and the office will continue to liaise with the clerk to the committee on such issues. I am aware that Standing Orders cannot provide for the non-application of party whips to members of the committee. When I appeared before the committee in July 2011, however, members seemed to take on board my pleas that they seek to act on a non-party political basis when considering my annual report and other reports. I do not want to put particular members on the spot on this issue, but I noted Deputy Charles Flanagan's contribution on this point. It summed the issue up very neatly and courageously when he said:

I am conscious that I speak as a member of a Government party with a large majority. However, if the committee is to work to its potential - and supporting the Chairman will be vital in that regard - we should be less swayed by the rigorous application of the party whip. If there was ever an opportunity for any Oireachtas committee to be less dependent on the rigours of the whip, this committee may most appropriately take that approach. I welcome the Ombudsman’s observations in this regard, as contained in a report published earlier this year. I hope we will work together on an all-party basis, arriving at decisions by way of consensus rather than taking positions along narrow, partisan and party political lines.

I attached particular importance to this issue because of my decidedly painful experience in dealing with the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the aftermath of my special report on the Lost at Sea scheme. I do not propose to rehash that battle today, but if I had to give an example of how an Oireachtas committee should not deal with an Ombudsman's report, it is as good an example as one could find. As I leave office, one of my great regrets is that I did not manage to achieve redress for the Byrne family. I remain utterly convinced as to the merits of the case I presented at the time. It is only fair to say, however, that my experience with the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions has been nothing but positive. Although I await members' report to the Dáil on the two special reports I brought before them, I have confidence in their commitment to good public service, fairness, accountability and openness. I very much hope the next Ombudsman will continue to receive the same level of interest as I have done and that there will be a continued constructive engagement with the committee and a strong and courageous mutual commitment to good public administration.

I will now give the committee an update on the special reports to which I referred, in which I found that the mobility allowance, MA, and motorised transport grant, MTG, schemes were in breach of the Equal Status Acts. In the case of the former, the breach related to age grounds, whereas in the case of the MTG scheme it related to the way in which "severe disability" was being defined by the Health Service Executive in the Donegal area for the purposes of eligibility criteria. The HSE accepted the recommendations of my report on the MTG scheme. Since its publication, the applicant who was the subject of the investigation was approved for the grant following the review. An additional 50 people who had been refused the grant, having been deemed eligible on previous occasions, had the recent decision overturned and were also awarded the grant. I made a separate recommendation to the Department of Health that it issue a circular to the HSE in regard to eligibility criteria around the issue of "severe disability" and to ensure the definition of the term was not in breach of the Equal Status Acts. This recommendation was rejected, leading to one of my special reports to the Oireachtas.

The second report related to the mobility allowance scheme. The Department of Health had originally accepted my recommendations to make the scheme compliant with equal status legislation. However, when the recommendations were not implemented and I pursued the matter, I was informed that it must belatedly reject them. Following my appearance before this committee in regard to the special reports, members held separate hearings with the Minister for Health, the Minister of State with responsibility in this area and the Secretary General of the Department and other senior officials on 6 February 2013. On 25 February 2013, the Government announced its decision to abolish both the MA and the MTG schemes with immediate effect. Existing recipients of the MA were to continue in payment until June, and this cut-off point was subsequently further extended. On 11 June 2013, the Government announced that new statutory provisions would be established in regard to financial supports for disabled persons with mobility needs. The Government has established an interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, to develop proposals for a new scheme or schemes, and the group has been asked to report back to Government by October.

The closure of the schemes shocked me. Such decisive action contrasted sharply with the inaction of the Department during the period since 2000 when the Equal Status Act was first enacted and, in particular, with its inaction since 2008 and 2009 when it was on notice from my office, and from the Equality Tribunal, that the MA scheme contravened equality legislation.

The law is the law. If the law is unaffordable, as the Department claimed, then the Oireachtas has the power to change it. In fact, it has a duty to do so even if some of the options available will be unpopular. I saw no evidence of serious effort in the period from 2008 to address the issue and thus prevent the ultimate devastation caused to many people with disabilities when the shock announcement was made that the schemes would be abolished.

At the launch of my annual report for 2012 yesterday, I gave a cautious welcome to the announcement by the Government that payments are to continue to be made temporarily by the HSE to those persons currently in receipt of the mobility allowance. I very much hope that the interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, will resolve the situation regarding the two schemes in an urgent and equitable manner. I also understand that this committee plans to report in due course to the Dáil, as provided for in its Standing Orders, on the outcome of its various deliberations on the matter. I appreciate that this may pose some difficulty for the committee and will, to a certain extent, be a test of its stated commitment to seek to act in a consensual manner. It is important that the committee would comment on the findings of my report and on how such maladministration can be prevented in the future.

My office has recently completed a number of investigations which, if time allowed, I would mention briefly. However, I need to note serious concerns with yet another report which just last week was rejected by the Health Service Executive with, I have to presume, the backing of the Department of Health. The rejection of my recommendations must now be a matter for my successor in his or her first weeks in office and I do not wish in any way to dictate how he or she should respond. However, as the investigation was initiated and completed on my watch, I feel duty bound to report briefly on it now. The investigation involved 17 cases where claims for repayments under the health repayment scheme had been refused. This scheme was introduced in 2006 to refund charges which had been levied illegally by health boards in respect of long-stay care over a period of many years. In the cases to which I refer, repayment claims were refused on the grounds that the applicants had not paid what are termed in the legislation as "recoverable charges". These negative decisions were upheld by the health repayment scheme appeals officer.

Following my investigation, I recommended that repayments should be made in all but one of the 17 cases. I also recommended that the HSE should examine the remaining case further. The HSE very recently sent me a detailed statement of the reasons it has decided to reject my recommendations. All of these reasons were, in fact, matters already raised by the HSE in the course of the investigation and matters on which I had reflected carefully before completing it. Among the HSE's reasons for rejecting the recommendations is a claim that I did not have jurisdiction to conduct the investigation in the first instance. This, unfortunately, appears to be the continuation of a pattern of behaviour on the part of the HSE and, more particularly, the Department of Health in respect of Ombudsman investigations. It will be a matter for my successor to decide how best to deal with the situation which has now arisen. Among my successor's options will be that of sending a special report to the Dáil and Seanad. In the event of my successor making such a special report, the involvement of this committee will be pivotal in determining the eventual outcome. I think it appropriate that I should, at this stage, inform this committee of the situation which has arisen.

Another issue of great importance raised by me over the years as well as by my immediate predecessor, the late Kevin Murphy, was the need to give constitutional status to the Office of the Ombudsman. As far back as 1996, the Constitution Review Group recommended that the Office of the Ombudsman should be given constitutional status. The review group pointed out that in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General monitors financial accountability, the Ombudsman monitors administrative accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General's office has constitutional status. It seems somewhat anomalous that the local government system, which is subject to my jurisdiction, also has constitutional status whereas my office does not. I spelled out the arguments in favour of such status in my office's publication on developing and optimising the Office of the Ombudsman which was issued to all political parties in February 2011 in the run-up to the general election. My office has made a detailed submission on the matter to the Convention on the Constitution and it will await with interest the proposals that emerge from that forum.

Earlier in the year, when I presented my 2012 Office of the Information Commissioner annual report, I highlighted a growing concern with regard to the failure of some public bodies to meet timeframes for compliance with requests by my office for information relating to review applications. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that many public bodies do not have adequately resourced freedom of information functions and that the priority afforded to the administration of freedom of information matters by many such bodies appears to be deteriorating as resources diminish and demands for greater efficiencies naturally increase. This is a worrying trend which requires immediate action, particularly in light of the Government's commitment to reforming and extending the freedom of information legislation. As I stated in my 2012 report, public bodies must recognise that the administration of the freedom of information process, as a statutory function, should be afforded as much weight as any other such function. The administration of freedom of information should not be seen as an optional function from which resources may be diverted as other priorities arise.

I want to wish my successor, whoever he or she may be, all the very best in his or her work as Information Commissioner and Ombudsman and in the other statutory roles which come with the office. As the remit of the office expands and the public service comes under further pressure, the job will continue to be challenging. However, as the challenge grows, so too should the perceived importance of the offices in seeking to ensure a public service that acts in a fair, proper and open manner towards the public.

I again wish to thank the committee for its time and attention and for all the consideration it has given to me, my officials and the office during recent years.

I thank Ms O'Reilly. Before I open the floor to members, I wish to inform her that the committee will be completing its report on the mobility allowance and motorised transport grant schemes fairly soon. When she submitted her report on this matter, we wrote to the Department of Health seeking an explanation. We then brought the Minister for Health, one of his Ministers of State and the Secretary General of his Department before us in order that they might explain what they intended to do about Ms O'Reilly's recommendations. As she is aware and as she informed the committee just now, they announced, after our meeting with them, the cessation of the schemes. We then demanded that they come back before us and we brought in the Secretary General. That meeting was quite emotional because representatives from the Centre for Independent Living and the Disability Federation of Ireland also took part and indicated their deep alarm at the implications of what is involved. Our focus was to ensure those groups would be at the heart of any revised scheme and that they would be fully consulted. We ensured they would be part of the process. The committee is extremely concerned with regard to the implications of what is involved.

We brought the Secretary General of the Department back before us again to deal with the legacy issues the Ombudsman raised in the context of why lessons were not learned from previous occurrences which cost the taxpayer considerable sums of money. We were also concerned with regard to the application of the law, which is a key issue when any scheme is being devised. We have had a considerable and lengthy engagement with the Department on this matter and we intend to complete our report fairly soon. We will, of course, submit the report to the Ombudsman's office. However, it is important at this public forum to provide her with a clear indication that we intend to respond to and work vigorously in respect of any reports of this nature that are submitted by her office.

I echo the Chair's thanks to the Ombudsman and I wish her the very best in her new role. I am sure all members share the Chair's pride that Ms O'Reilly will be our representative in Europe.

In the context of her most recent report, Ms O'Reilly stated that the HSE and the Department indicated their view that she did not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into issues relating to the health repayment scheme in the first instance. It is my recollection that this is not the first occasion on which those two entities have made such an observation regarding the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. How is it that arguments remain about said jurisdiction? Surely it is clearly defined. Why do the Department and the HSE continue to make observations of this nature? If I recall correctly, there was an argument between Ms O'Reilly and the two entities in question regarding whether the matter to which I refer falls within her jurisdiction. That argument obfuscated the position with regard to the actual case involved. I am confounded that this is the case.

On freedom of information compliance, Ms O'Reilly referred to public bodies not being adequately resourced and stated that the priority afforded to freedom of information requests seems to be deteriorating as resources are diminishing. Is that Ms O'Reilly's observation or is it their observation to her? Have the bodies in question indicated that they are very concerned with regard to diminishing resources or is it the case that they are saying nothing at all and that this Ms O'Reilly's observation about them? Ms O'Reilly also stated that the statutory function of administering freedom of information should be afforded as much weight as any other such function.

Is Ms O'Reilly saying that public bodies are setting aside their statutory function in this respect or not treating it with the seriousness it deserves, or are they saying they cannot cope? That is an important issue because the Government is intent on expanding the application of the freedom of information legislation and on giving the office more powers. If organisations cannot cope with such requests on a practical level, this committee, or whatever version of it will be in place, will end up in a few years time dealing with complaints that such organisations were not able to respond to freedom of information applications. I think that is what Ms O'Reilly is suggesting.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Regarding the health repayment scheme and the jurisdiction issue, I suspect the Department, in rejecting my investigation recommendations, was taking a belt and braces approach to it. In any argument that it could put out in that respect, it was taking that approach. Regarding the question of the remit, it was raising an issue that had been dealt with fairly comprehensively almost 30 years ago when the Ombudsman's office was set up. I will ask my colleague, Fintan Butler, who has the detail on that, to comment further on that.

Mr. Fintan Butler

The main point in the jurisdictional challenge from the HSE was that the Ombudsman does not have jurisdiction to deal with the decisions of appeals officers. It argued that the decisions of appeals officers are not administrative actions and that administrative actions are what the Ombudsman is empowered to deal with. That jurisdictional issue was raised back in 1985 or 1986, particularly in the area of social welfare where, by definition, 95% of the complaints that came to the Ombudsman would have gone through the social welfare appeals process, which is a statutory appeals process. An argument was made at the time that the Ombudsman should not be dealing with decisions of appeals officers statutorily appointed and that the Ombudsman should confine his or her activities to looking at administration in the very small narrow sense of sending out letters, communications and so on but not substantive issues. That argument about jurisdiction was despatched fairly rapidly back in 1985 or 1986.

The consequences of accepting the HSE's argument now would be that virtually all social welfare cases would not be within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction and a great deal of the health service activity would be outside the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as would the decisions of agricultural appeals officers. The issue is not only the appalling vista of those areas being taken outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman but also a legal one about what is an administrative action. We are very confident from advice we have got over the years that the actions of appeals officers are actions which are administrative actions. They are not legislative actions or judicial actions and there is only one other box into which they can fall, which is that of administrative actions. That question has been thoroughly deal with. As to why this issue is being raised now, we can all wonder about that but it is something that has long since been despatched.

It goes to the core of what the Ombudsman's office can do if a Department were to come back with a response that a matter does not come within the office's jurisdiction, bearing in mind that the issue has already been despatched by the office.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

It would be setting at nought about three decades of work that we have done. Many of the complaints with which I would deal personally, which are the slightly more complex ones, would involve examining how a decision had been made in an appeal. It is our bread and butter work. The suggestion made is a legal nonsense given what has been the universally accepted practice of the office for the past number of decades.

The core issue in the health repayments scheme in regard to those particular institutions was that they were arguing that what patients had been in receipt of were inpatient services and they are the services that lend themselves to the charges and, in effect, they were saying that all they were getting was bed and board, but we do not accept that. It has been widely accepted in cases dealt with through the courts and in other ways that similar institutions are giving inpatient services. The Cheshire Homes was involved and so on. A settlement was made in respect of institutions on a par with that a year or so ago and the Department of Health paid out a significant sum of money. As far as we are concerned, these institutions are absolutely similar to institutions in respect of which the Department has paid up. This is an issue with which my successor, and ultimately perhaps this committee, will have to deal, and I thought it was important to flag it.

In regard to the freedom of information requests,obviously on a daily basis officials in the Information Commissioner's office engage with officials dealing with reviews and applications for records and, largely, we hear from them about what is going on. When the freedom of information legislation was introduced in the late 1990s, very high end infrastructure was put in place within the Department of Finance through the central policy unit and various user groups. It was a well-functioning machine at the beginning and many of the officials dealing with freedom of information requests in the various public bodies were trained to quite a high level, but as disenchantment with freedom of information requests set in within the public administration, that level of support fell away. It was no longer seen as an elite function and therefore the supports that were given to it initially were no longer there. When times are tough and people are looking for areas in which to cut back, there may be a temptation to cut back in an area that certain public bodies have never accepted as being a core and critical function. We would take a different view, obviously.

I welcomed the freedom of information reform and congratulated the Minister, Deputy Howlin, and his Department on pushing it though despite some quite robust opposition to it in certain areas. However, it will be pointless if the resources are not put in place to support it because information delayed is information denied.

Ar dtús báire, déanaim comghairdeas le Ms O'Reilly as ucht an post nua. Céim íontach í di agus don tír. The Ombudsman has set the bar quite high for the next fear an phobail, which is the title the late Michael Mills gave the position, which is an appropriate term. A people's champion is what the Ombudsman is meant to be.

I note from Ms O'Reilly's presentation the support she has for the remit to be extended to areas and I support the call for areas such as justice, immigration, prisons and the naturalisation process to be brought under the remit, and one hopes progress can be made on that in future.

I had intended to raise an issue which, interestingly, the Ombudsman raised, that of the outstanding recommendation in the case of the Byrne family in County Donegal. She probably would not want to rehash it here but I hope this committee will address it because what happened in that case was wrong and it needs to be examined and put right. That issue was raised when this committee was set up by a Labour Party Deputy who is originally from County Donegal but is now in my constituency. Addressing this is part of our work programme and at some stage we will get to it. It is to be hoped we will be able to deliver on the recommendation made by the Ombudsman many years ago.

Ms O'Reilly referred to the provision of additional resources. The more work that is passed on to the Ombudsman's office and the Freedom of Information Commissioner, the longer the delays there will be in dealing with cases unless the necessary resources are put in place in that office. What is the extent of the delay in dealing with complaints made to the Ombudsman or how long, on average, does it take to process them? I accept that will vary depending on the nature of the complaints. What additional resources in terms of staff and equipment are required for the Ombudsman's office to function at a reasonable level?

Regarding hostility shown by some Departments to investigations or questions from the Ombudsman's office, the HSE and the Department of Health seem to be hostile in that respect. How do we start to overcome that culture of secrecy or closed shop that still abounds in some Departments? Is there something we as a committee or as legislators can highlight to ensure clarity is brought to those Departments and that they fully understand that they must comply with the Ombudsman's requests?

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Go raibh maith agat. I am glad Deputy Ó Snodaigh raised the lost at sea issue because it is something that has continued to trouble me. It was the first, and at that time the only, recommendation that had ever been rejected by the Oireachtas. I had to battle hard to get it to the committee in the first place. The committee at the time split along party political lines, which was very unwelcome. When I was at the McGill summer school some time ago, Francis Byrne, who is one of the family members who made the complaint originally came up to me and asked me if I would intervene one more time. Whenever I have been asked about this case over the last while I have taken a purist approach in that I have said I did my statutory duty and brought the matter to the attention of the Oireachtas which made its decision and that was it. However, I did make a commitment to Francis that I would make one more attempt at it. Perhaps my director general might not be too thrilled but I have discussed the matter with her and with some of the officials. Perhaps in my final act as Ombudsman I will write to the Taoiseach and raise this case again and see if something could be done for the family because it should not be forgotten that while certain parties opposed the recommendation, other parties supported it at the time. It is something that has continued to haunt that family. I used to talk about the case in Europe when I was on the election campaign. When people asked me what was the most difficult thing I had to do I mentioned it as it was difficult at the time. I am very glad that the committee might raise the issue again and that I will fulfil the commitment I made to the Byrne family.

I will ask my director general, Ms Bernadette McNally, to talk about the resource issue. I appreciate the difficulty every public body has at this point in time. I said a few times yesterday that everybody is under the cosh. They have austerity measures in effect and they have to shave huge amounts of money off their bills while still providing adequate services to the people. Inevitably the Department of Health and the HSE are going to be at the centre of the issue because they are making literally life and death decisions and they are trying to husband their resources in particular ways. My point is not that I am in an ivory tower and I can just make a recommendation and that I am not the one who has to find the money for it but history has shown us how health has sometimes evaded its responsibilities and the legal imperatives on it that ultimately catch up with the Department. Ultimately, we are all the losers in that regard. The Department, understandably, acts in a fearful way. It sees my recommendations and expect that it will cost money. There is no black and white solution to any problem. If people come and talk in a frank, open and honest way and find ways through particular issues, that seek to address the resource issue but also seek to address people’s real needs and rights then I am confident that ways can be found to a solution. In terms of the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant, the Department knew for years that it was out of kilter with the equal status legislation and it knew during the boom years as well so there was absolutely no excuse for it not to get its act together in that regard. I welcome the fact that the Taoiseach’s office and the group set up under Sylda Langford are looking at the difficulties experienced by people with disabilities and trying to devise a more modern scheme.

I also welcome the fact, as the Chairman said, that people who are living through this rightly demand to be actively involved. Their mantra is something like not without us, about us. Despite the economic difficulties we have we are still a wealthy country even compared with some of our colleagues in the rest of Europe. It should not be beyond either our resources, wit or capacity to make rational decisions and be creative in order to devise a scheme for the relatively small amount of people who are in need in that respect. That is why I said yesterday at the press conference that it is time for all of us to have grown up discussions about this. If you will forgive me Chairman, that is the role of the committee to facilitate those discussions. When people come in with barriers up already it can be difficult to get through to them. One of the great things the committee can do is attempt to break down the barriers. I will ask the person who is in charge of all these resources to account for herself.

Ms Bernadette McNally

I thank Deputy Ó Snodaigh for the question and I am delighted to be able to answer. As regards resources, like every other public body we have been squeezed. We are down about 16% on the staffing that was sanctioned for us in 2006. However, we accept that is a requirement in these times and like every other public body we look at how we can provide our service more efficiently. Despite the fact that we have doubled the number of bodies over which the Ombudsman has jurisdiction, we did not seek additional resources, we simply asked that we would maintain our existing resources and not receive further cuts. As I speak we continue to negotiate. We have a very good relationship with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform and it has very much honoured the commitment to date.

The service we provide to members of the public is good but it could be better. In terms of waiting times, we close 60% of our Ombudsman cases within three months, 77% within six months and 90% within one year. That is good but there is definitely room for improvement. The cases that are slow tend to be very complex ones that might involve a death in the health system. Such cases take a lot of time. Planning cases, unfortunately, also take a significant amount of time. We have weekly operational meetings to try to improve the efficiency and get faster response times within existing resources.

We are a multifunctional office and there are many benefits to that in terms of moving resources around. If we see a little bit of a lull in the Office of the Information Commissioner, OIC, activity we move staff across to the Ombudsman and vice versa. Our biggest resource expenditure is on the Office of the Information Commissioner side. We are happy to say that when we approached the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform earlier this year for additional resources we got sanction for that. The recruitment process takes time but we hope to recruit six additional staff for the OIC in the next six months.

I echo what the Chairman has said. I welcome the Ombudsman, thank her for the work she has done and wish her the best of luck and every good wish in her new role. It is significant and well deserved that she got the position through election.

I heard about the mobility grant and transport grant issues at my first meeting. It was a bolt from the blue. Since then we have had several meetings and discussions and the matter has been in the media. At a constituency level one has to deal with people who are terrified.

The Ombudsman referred this morning to how the scheme affected a small amount of people in need but in the context of the equality legislation those in need would not get anything given the resources available which would render the schemes completely useless. Sometimes equality legislation and fairness are not the same thing. Women drivers are penalised under equality legislation. They are paying more now because they are treated the same as men in terms of risk.

They are treated equally but one could argue it is hardly fair. It does not always work effectively because sometimes the equality legislation and fairness do not go hand in hand.

On the freedom of information issue the Ombudsman mentioned in her annual report, I suggest that could be a fundamental piece of work this committee should be doing in terms of being more proactive and fleshing out the point she made about FOI resources in public bodies to determine, as a public oversight committee, the way public bodies are resourcing their FOI requests or even directly engaging with FOI officers to get some feedback and see if this is an issue that should be taken further.

I was very interested to read Ms O'Reilly's comments on the justice, immigration and naturalisation issues. Does she have any opinion or comment on the direct provision elements within that Department, which is something that arises often in media? I have a concern, particularly for families and children in that system, and I believe there should be a role in that regard.

I was not a Member of the Oireachtas when the lost at sea scheme was being debated but I come from a sea fisheries community in Castletownbere, west Cork, and I can tell the Ombudsman that the people in my community followed very closely the struggle she had personally, and her office, and they empathised with that. Without going into the details of it I welcome the Ombudsman's comments today. It was one of those issues that was publicly debated in my community while it was ongoing and we look forward to a further debate on that.

On the Whip system, I entirely agree that committees such as this one should not be under a Whip system. I believe in the Whip system for fundamental policy decisions in the Dáil and Seanad Chambers but in committee we should deal with reform adequately. I agree with Ms O'Reilly's comments on the Whip system, particularly for this committee. We should not be shackled. We should be able to deal with consensus and be big enough to do it and make those decisions.

I thank Deputy Harrington. I go along with those comments. As Chairman I am pleased to report that often it is the Government members of this committee who are more vociferous in challenging the negative implications of Government policy. It has been my experience that the committee has responded to the Ombudsman's appeals and approached the issue in that way. It is also a new dispensation in terms of this committee and this Dáil term, which is vital to support the role of her office and to allow the public access our services. I call the Ombudsman.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

I thank the Deputy. I agree that sometimes strange outcomes can emerge when people are trying to be equal.

Regarding the mobility allowance, the issue was that people could not apply for it if they were over the age of 66 when they applied but if they applied for it under the age of 65 they could keep it. We had the anomalous situation where we might have had two 68 year olds with similar disabilities, backgrounds, conditions and so on but only one of whom had the allowance and the other had not. Obviously, that would be deemed to be unfair.

Regarding the direct provision, I wrote quite a lengthy article for Studies magazine during the summer, a copy of which is on my website, in which I explored the direct provision issue. This arose from a complaint I had handled in regard to a woman and her family who had been in direct provision but then one of her young children developed mental health problems. She left direct provision. Unusually, she was granted supplementary welfare allowance, SWA. Normally, people in direct provision get nothing; they are not entitled to anything. She was given that. She applied for it but did not get it. An appeals officer allowed it and that was then overturned. Was it overturned on appeal?

Mr. Fintan Butler

The Health Service Executive which ran SWA at the time did not implement the appeals officer's decision.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

That is right.

Mr. Fintan Butler

That was the point at which the Ombudsman became engaged.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

That is right, and this was highly unusual because normally an appeals officer's decision is accepted. If it has been challenged it would have to be through the courts, therefore, this was very unusual. In the end we managed to sort that for the woman but by this stage so much time had moved on, her daughter had been placed in voluntary foster care and the entire family split apart.

There is an increasing public consciousness about direct provision, and particularly as it relates to children, because at our relative stages in life four or five years is not a big deal but for a child it is an entire part of childhood or adolescence and there are children who spend between three and seven years in direct provision. I may have quoted here previously Ms Justice Catherine McGuinness who talked about how children can grow up in those units without ever once experiencing a mother or father cooking a meal for them. I believe it was Michael McDowell, when the direct provision system was brought in, who said that nobody would stay there for longer than six months and that is not the case. If the Government decides on a particular policy, so be it. It can be accountable for that policy to the Oireachtas or to the electorate but we all have a duty, as human beings, to see that when that policy goes wrong or is ineffectively operating that children particularly do not suffer.

I thank the Deputy for his comments on the lost at sea scheme. One of my good friends in Howth is a fisherman formerly from Castletownbere and I had many conversations with him during that time. There was a lot of sympathy for the family within the fishing community which, even though it stretches around the coast, is quite close-knit.

I welcome the Chairman's comments on the Whip system. I am aware of the difficulties. We witnessed it during the debate on the abortion legislation and all of that and as I noted the other day, the Whip system can sometimes be a protection for members also because it protects them from undue pressure. At the same time I have always had a strong sense in this committee that there is a feeling that if it is going to work it has to work together. It does not have executive power as such. It will be making recommendations and ultimately the Government will decide on certain things, therefore, it has that freedom to make recommendations in a unified way, assuming all the members agree, but if at all possible it should not be split on party political lines.

I welcome the Ombudsman and thank her, and particularly her staff, for all their help. I have raised many issues with the office over the years. I recall particularly a change made to the carer's allowance, which was a very restrictive scheme when it was introduced, and also issues relating to local authorities such as raising a road which was perhaps desirable but caused flooding in individual houses or a number of houses.

I apologise that I must leave to go to the Dáil to chair a session but my brief question is on resources. This is my first meeting of this committee, therefore, this question is for the Chairman as well as for the director. Regarding engaging with people, whether it is this committee meeting with groups in regional meetings - the Ombudsman's office has had regional meetings also in the past and it is something I would welcome for the future - with all the technology available it is still important to meet people who have an issue. There is a host of issues which I will not raise now but some of them have been raised by my colleagues and by the Ombudsman. Does the Ombudsman envisage that this consultation will continue? Information meetings have been very useful in the past and I hope they will be useful in the future.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Yes, I agree. I thank the Deputy for noting the personal element in any of these issues and it is something I have always taken on board in my work. Sometimes we can get blinded by technology and many people, particularly older people, have felt further ostracised from the apparatus of the State by having to negotiate IT to get through to it.

Staff from my office continue to conduct regional visits around the country. We think this is very important and that they should continue, even if increasing numbers of people are contacting us through e-mail, the Internet and so on. As for the purpose of this office, one of its functions is to continue to show a human face, that is, for someone to actually sit down and listen to people. That is still a vital function. We also try to make our services as accessible as possible. People can write to us on the back of an envelope, ring us or come in to us. We try not to be bureaucratic in this regard. Thereafter, once an investigator is working on a case, they can communicate with him or her freely also.

I join the Chairman and the other members in congratulating the Ombudsman on her appointment to the European office. It is prestigious for herself and the country and members wish her well.

Although I will be obliged to leave to attend another meeting, I seek clarification on a couple of points on the general operation of the office. In respect of investigative officers in the community, does the office have an outreach facility whereby in the case of individual difficult cases that require further clarification or elucidation, there is provision for staff to go out and meet people in the community?

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Yes, absolutely and we very often do this. Sometimes we might be involved in a planning case in which someone has tried to describe a particular issue, for example, about a road. I recall one of the most intractable issues we ever dealt with pertained to Uggool beach in County Mayo. Sometimes we receive enough information through photographs, descriptions and so on, but very often we simply go down, put on the Wellington boots and actually meet people. Consequently, we are very free in that sense.

It takes a hands-on approach.

I will turn to emergency cases. I was recently obliged to deal with a case involving a child from my constituency who was in hospital in Dublin. The cost of transportation and daily visits was imposing severe financial hardship on the family. Does the office have a fast-track system in place to deal with what might fall under the general umbrella of emergency cases?

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Obviously, we see cases that are more urgent than others and would be alive to them. However, in such a case, I imagine we would direct the applicants to another authority such as those responsible for supplementary welfare payments.

The funding would be provided via supplementary welfare payments.

Mr. Fintan Butler

Yes, that would be the most obvious port of call.

What if such persons were coming up against a brick wall?

Mr. Fintan Butler

In that case, they would probably be obliged to appeal. In the case of a refusal of supplementary welfare allowance, there is an appeals process. However, the fact of the matter is that such an appeals process is likely to be slow and it is difficult for the Ombudsman to intervene until-----

The appeals process has been exhausted.

I will conclude with the issue of local authorities and rehousing. I refer to disappointed applicants for rehousing and the old allegation of favouritism, whereby split decisions are made in which A gets a house but B does not and so on. Does this fall within the remit of the Ombudsman?

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Yes, absolutely. We have looked at many issues pertaining to the allocation of housing during the years and noticed the different approaches that tend to be taken in different areas. We have always sought to have these systems rationalised and made clear in order that people know exactly where they are on a list, the reason they are on that list and what are the criteria. I am sure it is the Deputy's experience that people are often confused as to the reason such and such a person got a house and they did not. Policy is policy and while Members of the Oireachtas decide on it, we deal with its implementation and it must be clear. We dealt with a case which has been included in the annual report in which a woman sought to move house. She had particular social problems and needed to move. We dealt with that case by asking for reports from the particular local authority and on seeing them, discerned that the authority really had indulged in a box-ticking exercise. It had not looked at her particular circumstances and made its decision based thereon. As a result of that single case, however, the local authority in question has changed its processes to make them more clear and fairer. In addition, the complainant did get onto the transfer list and was rehoused. That is quite a significant part of our work.

While I apologise for holding up proceedings, I have one final question on the capital sports grant scheme. It has always been alleged that there was a vagueness about the criteria for the allocation of such grants. Is this issue contemplated by the Ombudsman's office?

Mr. Fintan Butler

There have been a small number of complaints within that area which is within the Ombudsman's remit.

The office's brief extends that far.

Mr. Fintan Butler

Yes, decisions on the allocation of grants are within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. I do not offhand recall the outcome in any particular case. While there have been very few such cases, there have been some, particularly in respect of the capital sports grant.

Yes, that is the scheme in which I am particularly interested.

I express my disappointment that Ms O'Reilly is departing. While I am glad for her, it is a loss for us that she is leaving. In my experience and observations of the Ombudsman, she has been a fearless champion of people's rights. She has done exemplary work and certainly will be a hard act to follow. I hope whoever succeeds her will live up to the standards she has set.

I seek the Ombudsman's comments on the relationship between rights and resources, which is at the heart of the issues she has highlighted regarding the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant. If one establishes there are certain rights or a set of rights, possibly on foot of considering the circumstances of one group of people, and it then turns out that many others, in fact, have that entitlement, they actually do have it. For example, while they might not have been lifelong sufferers of a disability, they become disabled as they get older and, therefore, qualify for such entitlements. They have that right because one has established it as a legal right and there are two ways in which one can deal with it. One can either level down the rights or level up the resources. If we establish a set of rights, our absolute duty and obligation - unless we think we made a mistake in asserting that something was a right in the first place - is to find a way to match resources with the rights we have established. I believe the Ombudsman has exposed this challenge for Members of the Oireachtas on an issue that is very important for those who are involved but also more generally. This is something Members must do. If something is a right, it must be a priority and Members must find the resources.

I also believe the Ombudsman's point on the human face of the State, politics and public bodies is of huge importance. As she is leaving, the Ombudsman may be in a position to comment on the ongoing debate about parish pump politics, clientelism and so on. There is a debate on whether Deputies should simply become legislators who are up on high making laws and should not bother with the stuff that comes in through the clinic door. The Ombudsman's experience and the subjects about which she is talking are proof that this is not the case. This is not to suggest there is not a problem and there is not a tension between these two issues. However, it appears that one must begin with the human reality because were one to ignore it, one would get oneself into serious bother. It is human beings encountering the legal system, the structures, the procedures and so on that exposes the anomalies, the contradictions, the shortcomings and the challenges for legislators. However, I am interested in the Ombudsman's views in this regard because this is a big philosophical debate about which way politics should go. I certainly am of the view that Members should not abandon human beings because it is their experiences that point us in the right direction. While one does not want to have clientelism and one should not be doing favours for some people and not others, one absolutely should be championing people's rights.

As this is the issue or human reality that most often comes through my door and I see reference to quite a high number of complaints in the area of local authorities, I wonder whether they could say a little more about that. The biggest issue that comes through my door is housing. I do not know whether that is the Ombudsman's experience. In so far as citizens have problems with local authorities, the biggest issue is housing. Of course, much of it is merely to do with resources and officials who are managing a completely inadequate stock of housing and under resourced at every level, but then they are at the front line of the anger and frustration of citizens. I would be interested to hear whether that is a big feature of the complaints.

One aspect of that is the anti-social behaviour issue. That is a complex issue because the victims of anti-social behaviour must be looked after, protected, etc., but would the Ombudsman have concerns about the Housing (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2009? Even an anti-social officer in my local authority area of Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown described the powers he held as draconian. I am not a legal expert but looking at some of the powers that these officers hold, I would have thought that in some cases they run counter to international human rights in that there seems anti-social officers have the ability to make judgments where there is no recourse for those against whom judgments are made as to their anti-social status. I wonder whether that is an issue that needs to be looked at in terms of asserting citizen's rights in local authority housing.

I commend the Ombudsman on raising the issue of the need to extend the ambit of the Ombudsman's office but, more generally, to extend rights to the area of direct provision, asylum and prisoners. I believe that in a few years' time the scandal that will emerge from what is going on in direct provision will be on a par with the Magdalen laundries. What is happening is shocking. The more I hear about it, I believe there is a category of people in this country who, essentially, have been put outside the normal standards of civilisation and rights. It is appalling. Consigning children to a childhood in a hostel is shocking. I commend the Ombudsman in that regard. I wonder has she anything to say to us about what we should be doing on that issue.

As she is leaving, is there anything else Ms O'Reilly wants to say to us about what our priorities should be? She highlighted quite a few. Is there anything else she wishes to say to us about issues that have emerged that need to be addressed urgently?

Ms Emily O'Reilly

I thank Deputy Boyd Barrett for his nice comments at the start.

I agree with the Deputy on direct provision. There is an expression, "hiding in plain sight", and direct provision is one of those issues that is hiding in plain sight. He has probably read - I mentioned this here previously - a number of articles about what happens in those areas, which, as he probably will be aware, are not subject to inspection. All nursing homes and crèches are subject to inspection but these direct provision centres are not, and one must wonder why not.

Interestingly, I was doing some more research on this because RTE is doing a piece on it in the not too distant future and a particular court case in Northern Ireland recently was brought to my attention. I believe it was earlier this year but Mr. Butler can clarify this.

Mr. Fintan Butler

It was just a few months ago, in mid-July.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

A family from Somalia had come to Ireland seeking asylum and they had been placed in direct provision. They had been denied asylum and they went to the North of Ireland to take their chances there. One is supposed to have one's asylum application heard in the first country that one comes to. What is it?

Mr. Fintan Butler

The Dublin II regulation.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Exactly. In any case this went to court. The family argued that they did not want to go back to Dublin, or back to direct provision, because they did not think it was in line with the proper standards that should be applied.

Mr. Fintan Butler

The argument which prevailed in the Northern Ireland High Court was that the family should not be returned to Ireland, which would be the usual rule following the EU rules on asylum, because the court was not satisfied that the best interests of the children in this case would be served by returning them to the kind of circumstances to which they would be returning if that were to happen. Essentially, it was a comment on the inadequacy of the circumstances and facilities for asylum seekers in Ireland.

Ms Emily O'Reilly

Which, in itself, is telling. Deputy Boyd Barrett spoke of rights and resources and, of course, that is the issue with which everybody is wrestling at present. I am sure the Government, no more than anybody else, would love to give everybody the full expression of their rights, whether in relation to disability, education, housing or anything else, but there are limited resources. However, governments do make choices and I imagine that is the rows behind closed door going on about the budget are about what choices one makes.

I expressed concern about the mobility allowance. I raised an issue that it was illegal and the response was that it was okay, they would get rid of it. It was not a great outcome. Recently, we became aware - I have spoken about this in the past couple of days - that up until now children with a diagnosis of ADHD or autism were being given the long-term illness card, which entitles one to certain services, medications, etc., and on which there is not an income limit. Then we received a complaint from somebody who stated that they had sought to have the card and it was denied to them, and they stated that applicants are getting the card in other areas. We looked at this and we saw that in most areas this card was virtually automatically being given out to the parents of children with this diagnosis. When we pointed this out to the Department and asked it to rationalise the system, it rationalised it by deciding that it would not give the long-term illness card to anybody else. Obviously, that was a fairly difficult response to deal with as well. On a personal human level, one thinks one is doing right and then discovers doing so has inflicted damage on others. I suppose, if I am comforting myself about it, I say that these are policy choices that are not made by me but, obviously, there were actions that were provoked by that. That is perhaps something the committee, if it so decides, could look into.

We also had the issue around so-called discretionary medical cards. One will have heard much talk anecdotally about this in the Oireachtas and elsewhere. It is elected representatives who find out what is really happening on the ground as opposed to what we are told is what is happening. Persons are not getting medical cards when before they had got them or their medical cards are being taken from them. We heard one set of statistics in the Dáil the other day. We heard another Deputy spoke of what he had been hearing and experiencing on the ground. Our experience in the Office of the Ombudsman is definitely that there are cutbacks, that there is rationing taking place. The rationing is not that the eligibility criteria have been changed but that now they are applied rigorously. Let us say, beforehand, if the income threshold was €300 and one was over that, they might look at the other elements of one's profile and the cost of one's illness, such as the amount of medication one had to take, or disability and then use their discretion and give one the card. That appears to have not completely gone, but certainly been curtailed. My point is - I am aware I am like a broken record on this - that the Government can choose to do what it chooses to do and it then takes its changes to the Oireachtas or the people, but what it should not do is dissemble or pretend that schemes have not changed when clearly they have.

They should be open with people because, as I am sure all members have experienced in their constituency work, the stress that is added to already-existing stress by not knowing or not understanding and the time that is wasted by people writing, ringing or e-mailing while trying to get explanations for this, are awful. Moreover, it does not have to be imposed on people; it is as simple as that. It very often is political spin, which is deeply unfair to people and that is the issue.

On clientelism, I think Deputy Harrington did not realise I was obliged to go through an election campaign to become European Ombudsman. Yes I did, and hats off to anyone who does it for a living because it was the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life. Obviously, the way in which the system operates in Ireland is that those who are not good local representatives will not stay to legislate. It is absolutely up to the Oireachtas to change the balance. As to how it should go about it, I do not know and it would not be right for me to do it. However, right from my early days in office, I always have appreciated how important are the people in these Houses for the work of my office. One of my first initiatives was to work on a piece of work with Oireachtas Members. I brought out a booklet to show cases that Oireachtas Members had brought directly to my office to encourage them because whatever about e-mail, regional visits and so on, the best communicators of what my office does are the Members of Parliament. However, it will be a while before the Irish political system changes to allow pure legislators or whatever.

As for anti-social behaviour, Deputy Boyd Barrett made an interesting point. Earlier this year, we had a discussion in the office about the number of complaints we were receiving with regard to that. Obviously, people are the victims of anti-social behaviour but the Deputy raised a very good point about people who effectively are told to sling their hook because of the powers of those particular officers. While I am unsure whether we have received such cases, were we to so do we obviously would consider what criteria these officials use to decide, as well as whether these people had a right to be heard, were they told about what they were doing or whether they had a right to state their case. The right to be heard is a fundamental human right and if they did not, that would be a serious breach. Obviously it can be difficult, given the nature of these issues, which can lead to huge tensions within a community, a street or between a few houses. However, it is interesting that the Deputy indicated that the official in question felt his powers were almost draconian. This may be something for my successor to investigate.

As we have discussed over recent meetings, the best thing this joint committee can do is to give real support to the Ombudsman. That does not mean blind allegiance to or agreement with me but the most I can hope for is that whatever decisions are made by the joint committee will come about as a result of a consensus and not along party political lines. In addition, I appreciate it sometimes can be hard because all the members have exceptionally busy lives. They are pulled this way and that and sometimes might not get much political credit for the work they do in this joint committee. However, it is really important that they see things through to the end and that they continue to exert pressure. I was very pleased when the Chairman recounted how the joint committee has brought in a Secretary General again and how it has persisted in pursuing the matter because it can be easy for such things to tail off and be lost. When the Ombudsman presents a report to the members present, it is an enormous deal for us because if it does not work here it has huge implications both for the particular investigation and in respect of the trickle-down effect. This is because public bodies watch what happens here and if they see there was a ho-hum result or if someone was not made accountable, then really the question will be why should they bother respecting our recommendations in future. This is the reason it is so important.

I thank the Ombudsman. Before I bring the meeting to a conclusion, I ask members to stay on for a couple of minutes in private session to deal with some correspondence. The joint committee is very grateful for the attendance of all three witnesses today and I reiterate we are very proud of the Ombudsman's achievement in being elected to that office. We look forward to watching her deliberations in the future and to working with the incoming Ombudsman. Is it agreed to adjourn the joint committee's sitting in public session until next Wednesday, 2 October, when members will meet the Minister for Social Protection to continue their work in that regard? Agreed.

The joint committee went into private session at 11.35 a.m. and adjourned at 11.40 a.m. until 4 p.m. on Wednesday, 2 October 2013.
Top
Share