Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 2 Nov 1983

Vol. 102 No. 3

Appointment of Ombudsman: Motion.

Professor Dooge

I move:

That Seanad Éireann recommends Michael Mills for appointment by the President to be the Ombudsman.

It is customary in regard to such a motion that the Leader of the House should merely move formally the motion without making a speech on the subject. However, I think it is appropriate in this instance that I should say a few words in moving the motion, but so that I will not unduly damage precedent my contribution will be brief.

I welcome very much this motion for two reasons. One is that down through the years in this House I have advocated on a number of occasions the development of more open Government from many a point of view, and I have advocated repeatedly that the right to information is one of the rights of the citizen of the democratic State.

I would not like this occasion to pass without welcoming specifically this development which is now being carried to fruition. Secondly, I wish to speak because of the particular name that is before us today. I think those of us who have served in this House over the years have a great respect for the perception and integrity of Michael Mills. I wish to congratulate the Minister and the Government on what is particularly a happy choice, and to wish Michael Mills well in his appointment.

Mr. Ferris

I second the motion before the House.

An Cathaoirleach

This is not usual. It is not necessary to second the motion.

Mr. Ferris

I just want to be associated with the Leader of the House in this formal proposal before us. First of all, it is part of our Joint Programme for Government to have such an office as an Ombudsman. The person chosen by the Minister has been acclaimed throughout the country as being a very special person in the area of journalism, in his integrity, his ability and his sincerity. I do not think a better person could have been chosen to fulfil the very onerous task that an Ombudsman will have to undertake. I hope, with the terms of reference, that he will find it possible to carry out all that the public will perceive his functions will require him to do. I also welcome the fact that this will extend to other areas of the public service, health boards and county councils at some future date.

I would like to think that in his first report to the Houses of the Oireachtas, if the Ombudsman feels that his terms of reference are not broad enough, he should be prepared to tell us that so that we as legislators can give him all the powers that he would consider would be necessary for the carrying out of his proper functions in this very important role as a buffer between bureaucracy as the public perceive it and the public themselves. I think it is a welcome move towards open Government, and I welcome it.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

The fact that the Leader of the House and Senator Ferris have chosen to speak in what you yourself described as an unusual move is perhaps an indication of the response which they felt was necessary to the recommended appointment. I am very pleased to be back in this House to participate in an unusual measure — I rather like doing unusual things.

The motion before the House proposes that Seanad Éireann should recommend Michael Mills for appointment by the President to be the Ombudsman. Senators will be aware that I announced in the Dáil on 8 July last that arrangements were being made for the appointment of the Ombudsman from 3 January next, the first working day of 1984.

This House will also be aware that the Ombudsman Act of 1980 provides that the Ombudsman is to be appointed by the President upon a resolution passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann recommending the appointment of the person concerned.

The 1980 Act was based largely on the recommendations of the All-Party Informal Committee on Administrative Justice. The committee was established in 1975 to formulate proposals to meet the needs of citizens aggrieved by administrative actions posed by the continually expanding activities of Government across the whole area of the public sector. The committee had in its membership at that time several Senators including myself as one of the representatives from the Seanad.

The committee's recommendations, published in May 1977, had the backing of all parties and although these recommendations were subsequently refined and modified by the 1980 Act I think it can safely be said that the institution of Ombudsman which we now have has the support of all parties. I am sure therefore that the motion at present before this House will be welcomed by all sides.

The motion deals only with the appointment of Michael Mills. I do not think that it is appropriate today to rerun the debates on the merits of the Bill which we had in this House and in the other House during the passage of the legislation in 1980. However, I acknowledge that the Irish Act may not be perfect. Only experience of its operations over a period of a year or so will reveal any loopholes that may exist. I intend to review the Act after a period of about a year, in consultation with the Ombudsman. I will not hesitate at that stage to introduce any amendments to the Act that are considered necessary in the light of the experience of the Ombudsman.

The appointment of the Ombudsman will undoubtedly be of major significance for politicians, administrators and the general public. The Ombudsman will indeed provide a direct link between the people and the Legislature. Not only will he provide a means for the remedy of grievances about administrative actions but he will also help us as legislators to become more aware of the effects of the legislation which we enact. The provision of a means of redress for citizens in respect of administrative decisions will indeed be a significant step in the development of our democratic State.

The Ombudsman will have the onerous duty of speaking and acting on behalf of the individual citizen in his everyday contact with the administration. He is empowered to investigate the actions of administrators either following complaints from the public or on his own initiative. The Ombudsman will examine the actions and decisions of public officials in their handling of particular cases and he may seek a satisfactory remedy in those instances where he finds that a citizen has a genuine grievance. The Ombudsman's work should therefore bring him into contact with the day-to-day problems of thousands of citizens.

The Ombudsman will be independent in the performance of his duties and will be able to decide his own procedures for investigation. He will report to the Houses of the Oireachtas on an annual basis and will also be able to make additional special reports from time to time should the need arise. This is sufficient evidence, I think, of the importance of the office in our administrative machinery. In this respect the Ombudsman will have a status somewhat similar to that of the Comptroller and Auditor General.

When the Ombudsman Bill was being debated in the Séanad in 1980 several Senators referred to the possibility of a regional presence for the Ombudsman. While the Ombudsman will be located in Dublin he will have the authority, from the start, to hear cases outside Dublin. Furthermore, the question of the need for small regional offices in large centres of population outside Dublin will be considered when we have experience of the operation of the Act.

Indeed the question of extending the Ombudsman's remit to local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies will be a significant factor in any decision on regional offices. I indicated in the Dáil last week that the extension of the Act to local authorities and health boards should take place preferably within the first year of the operation of the office. I will also review at an early date the question of the extension of the Act to State-sponsored bodies.

It is, however, important to allow the Ombudsman some time to assess the volume of complaints and judge the time needed to investigate them. I will, of course, be guided by the advice of the Ombudsman in considering any extension of his remit.

I should like to take this opportunity to give some information to the House about the location and staffing of the Ombudsman's office.

First, as to location, the Ombudsman, for the first two or three months, will have temporary offices in a modern office block at 4-5 Harcourt Road. After that, he will move to permanent premises in a Georgian house at 52 St. Stephen's Green. It would have been preferable if the office could have been located from the first day in a permanent headquarters. In order to ensure that the premises were the best available it was, unfortunately, necessary to occupy temporary premises for a very short period.

Second, the staff of the Ombudsman will be civil servants of the State. This means that they will come under an independent office-holder, rather like the staff of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The senior staff will be recruited by means of open Civil Service Commission competitions and it is hoped to have the first advertisement in the newspapers in the next week or so. Other staff will be secured by means of re-deployment from elsewhere in the Civil Service.

In order to get the office "off the ground" some staff are being seconded immediately to ensure that the office will be operational from 3 January 1984.

I spoke earlier of the Ombudsman's influential position and his wide range of contacts. For these reasons alone, it is important to choose a person of the right calibre. I must admit that it has not been an easy task to find someone with all the requisite qualities. I would like to assure this House that I, and my colleagues in Government, gave very full consideration to the matter before deciding to recommend Mr. Michael Mills. As I mentioned in Dáil last week, during the summer recess I looked at eight different areas from which suitable persons might be selected. Speaking from memory, they were: the Civil Service, the wider private sector, the trade union area, the media, the academic sphere, the political area and the Law Library.

Mrs. Robinson

The last resort.

Mr. Boland

How I could have forgotten it momentarily escapes me. Following careful assessment of these areas I came to the conclusion that Michael Mills would be the most suitable and best qualified of the many names which I considered.

I believe that Mr. Mills has all the qualities necessary for the post. These include, tact, diligence and a commonsense approach together with a commitment to the rights of the individual. I also believe that he will bring considerable distinction to the office and help in the initial years to establish very firmly the office of Ombudsman as having a central role in the conduct and improvement of public administration in this country.

Following on the commitments made during the passage of the Ombudsman Bill through the Dáil and Seanad in 1980, and specifically my own commitment in the Dáil on 8 July last, I consulted with the Leader of the Opposition about the choice of a nominee.

Michael Mills has been a journalist for 30 years and he has been a prominent political writer and commentator for the last two decades. He has written extensively on matters relating to Government, politics and administration and he is a national figure as a current affairs commentator on both radio and television.

I am satisfied, therefore, that he will prove to be a worthy Ombudsman and, accordingly, I can confidently recommend his appointment by the President to that office.

Mrs. Honan

I think this is the Minister's first time in the House and I welcome him. If one were to take a course on how to become an Ombudsman the best place would be to have served in one of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Michael Mills was lucky because he has served both Houses as a political correspondent for more than 20 years. He has ten years added, so he did not have the awful task of having to get elected every six months or 12 months, and yet he has had the years of experience in watching how this job might be done.

This will be a much tougher job than many of us in the Chamber think. It is a mighty step for Michael Mills to take when he could have sat back, now that he is at the top in the career he has followed for a long number of years, and I sincerely wish him well. I always admire people who have courage no matter in what fields they are serving, and I would put Michael Mills down as having courage to take on this new post.

I am happy with his appointment because I firmly believe that only Michael Mills will make up his mind on any matter, no matter what the subject, before he will make a decision. Indeed, the Minister indicated to us how hard he found it with the help of the Government to make this appointment and to select the right person. I know Michael Mills for quite a few years and he will make up his own mind. That is one of the rare qualities today and it is certainly needed for this post. I will quote somebody who is delighted with Michael Mills' appointment and who served in this House before me. When the proposal was announced the other day a former Senator said: "He has commonsense, tact, years of experience. Always when dealing with Michael Mills during my years in the House I found that one and one had to make two. One and one never make three to Mills". If Michael Mills carries what is quoted of him into the job he is now being given he certainly will be successful. That former Senator wishes Michael Mills, through me, his personal good wishes and indeed I offer them too. I do not have to name the former Senator.

Most people may give out like hell when they come to our homes with problems. First of all we hear their problems, then the chat goes on and then we try to pacify or quieten them down with a cup of tea. Yes, they have grievances and this is when I sense the enormous size of the job that the Ombudsman has on his plate. These people find themselves with an independent person to investigate their cases, so perhaps the end results may be better for them.

All of us here today will talk about the man who has got the appointment, and I heartily agree with the remarks that have been made, but I wonder if in two years' time he will find himself with a whole pile of problems that just cannot be solved, but I suppose that is something we will determine as time goes on. I note the Minister at a later stage may spread the office of Ombudsman to cover local authorities and health boards. I am not too sure if that is good or bad. I would worry about appointing a whole pile of mini-ombudsmen because eventually we might have them in constituencies trying to replace us and certainly that is something I would not be in favour of.

I wonder would the Minister, in his reply, tell me if the Ombudsman will have complete power to investigate complaints of people against the actions of administrators. Perhaps the Minister has already answered that in his speech. Does the Minister see problems here? Does he see a clash, or has the Ombudsman complete power to dictate to senior officials and in that way have ability to get information that sometimes we fail to get? Can he bring a report before the Oireachtas at any time that he sees fit or is there another rule that he is not free to do so?

I think I have made myself quite clear on this. I congratulate Michael Mills on his appointment, I think he has the qualities for the job and it is an enormous task that he has taken on.

Mrs. Robinson

I, too, extend a warm welcome both to the man and to the appointment of an Ombudsman. I agree with Senators who have already spoken that Michael Mills is a person who is held in the highest esteem by a very broad section of Irish life and that he is particularly known to be fair-minded and concerned about the preservation of individual civil liberties, the position of the more deprived citizens, particularly the more deprived children in the country. These are matters of great importance which he will be taking on and discharging in the office of Ombudsman.

I accept that we are discussing the appointment of the individual this afternoon and not reopening a debate on the Act which established the Ombudsman in 1980. Nevertheless, there are a number of issues on which it would be helpful to have further comment and clarification from the Minister. One of these relates to the staffing and resources which will be placed at the disposal of the Ombudsman. The Minister clarified some aspects of that this afternoon. He referred to the location in temporary premises and to the office which will be opened in a few months time in 52 St. Stephen's Green. It would be of some assistance to know the kind of staff and the kind of expertise which the Ombudsman will have or that it is envisaged he will have at his disposal from the beginning.

I have to say that I am deeply concerned about this and feel that instead of wasting our time simply by saying that it is great that we have an Ombudsman, we can at least be constructive in the debate by asking very specifically for the details of the budget of the office of the Ombudsman, the level of staffing, the kind of expertise that will be available. The experience that the Oireachtas has had over the last few months since the decision was taken, which I welcome, to establish a range of Joint Committees has been a very unhappy one. I serve on two of those committees, as many Members of the House do, and one of them has been meeting without any staffing. That is the Committee on Marriage Breakdown. Another was mentioned earlier this afternoon on the Order of Business, the Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities. That committee has not come together this parliamentary session despite the fact that the issues it should be considering are perhaps the most important issues on the economic and agricultural fronts facing the country, the whole problem of both the milk super-levy and the future financing of the European Community. The major difficulty facing those committees has been not to have a proper allocation of staff and resources to them. It is important to emphasise the vital necessity for adequate thought to be given to the staffing and resources before the Ombudsman takes up office on 3 January next. I would welcome as much detail on this as the Minister is in a position to give us in his reply. It would be good to have that on the record at this stage.

I was also interested, and a little concerned, by what appeared to be some confusion or contradiction in the Minister's approach to how the Ombudsman will discharge his responsibilities. The Minister said he would review the operation of the Act within approximately a year. He also said he hoped, in approximately one year, to extend the powers of the Ombudsman to cover local authorities, health boards and certain State-sponsored bodies, a power which he can give by ministerial order. I am not clear why he is not prepared to extend at this stage the powers of the Ombudsman to examine allegations of maladministration in local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies. I know the Minister has referred to the possibility of the workload of the Ombudsman being very heavy but I would submit that that is a matter for the Ombudsman, to decide on his priorities, to use his judgment — his judgment is not in question on this — to determine the most serious cases on an individual basis and the most serious areas which he should investigate. It seems that the Minister is to a certain extent pre-empting examination of maladministration in those areas without clearly spelling out why this is being done. We have waited so long in Ireland for the establishment of this important facility of examining bad, unfair and harsh administration affecting the ordinary citizen that we should, if possible, extend the powers of the Ombudsman as widely as possible and let him, with adequate staffing, determine the proper priorities on the basis of the merits of the individual cases and the kinds of issues they raise. It would be helpful if the Minister could give the House a little more information about when he intends to extend the powers of the Ombudsman to examine allegations of maladministration in local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies. Is it to be before the review or after he has had an initial review of the way in which the Ombudsman exercises his powers?

Another matter which will be of considerable interest and importance in the way in which the Ombudsman may approach his work will be the capacity to look at patterns of behaviour. The emphasis has been placed to some extent on individual citizens having access to the Ombudsman. It is a merit of the legislation that there is direct access by the individual citizen to the Ombudsman, that access does not have to come through public representatives as it does in the legislation of some other countries. The major part of the work load and the role of the Ombudsman is to examine, consider, investigate and report on the individual complaints. I hope that the Ombudsman will also be able through his work load and unique knowledge of administration at different levels to look at patterns of behaviour, particularly in the area of the administration of social welfare benefits. There are some consistent practices there that obtain when the individual goes in on his or her own looking for advice or assistance. Very often the individuals on their own are turned away — sometimes not too politely, but certainly not given the benefit. If that individual goes back with a social worker or, more rarely, with a lawyer, with exactly the same case to make the individual will get the benefit either from the same community care officer, the person in first instance or through the appeal system. There are patterns of behaviour there which may not come within a formal characterisation as being maladministration or an abuse of administration but if consistently ordinary individuals, deserted wives, unemployed or young people are being refused on their own but get the benefit to which they are entitled if they go with somebody with some professional qualification that is a very important area which might be examined and eliminated by the Ombudsman.

I welcome the fact that both Houses will have an opportunity to examine and debate the report of the Ombudsman. I look forward to the first report and the first occasion when we will have that opportunity. Hopefully, apart from an examination and a report on individual cases, where there are patterns of behaviour which are themselves evidence of a lack of a standard of administration or raise prima facia evidence that individuals are not being properly treated, do not have their claims assessed in the first instance on their merits and with the care and consideration which they warrant, this will be a matter which the Ombudsman can investigate.

The Minister emphasised that one of the qualities which he welcomed in the Ombudsman was his sense of humour. That is something which would appeal to most of us in this House. Indeed, I was amused at a passage in the Minister's speech in the other House which I would like to put on the record. In relation to the office of Ombudsman — this quotation is from the Dáil Official Report of 25 October 1983, column 658 — the Minister said:

It is, as a matter of interest, not a sexist word and means a person charged with authority to investigate on behalf of Parliament. The person may be of neither sex

It is a very serious situation that the Minister in referring to the Ombudsman is prepared to commit himself to the proposition that the Ombudsman may be of neither sex. I take it that that has no relevance or significance in relation to the individual nominated for this office.

Dr. O'Donoghue

I should like to add my words of support for the motion before the House. I recognise that the motion is on the appointment of a specific individual. Of course, we do not wish to reopen the debate on the background legislation and so forth but it is no harm to remind ourselves that as this is a new departure in that rather grey area of administration, somewhere between the direct administration and the semi-political process, it has become necessary, because of the extraordinarily rapid development of all areas of Government, central and local, during recent decades. In so many different ways, nowadays people find their circumstances affected either by personal decisions or by general legislation enacted by the Oireachtas. We all agree that this is a necessary type of development to provide citizens with some feeling that there is an independent source of appeal in cases where they, rightly or wrongly, believe there has been an unfair action or decision taken in relation to them.

I was interested in Senator Robinson's remarks that the Ombudsman in undertaking his tasks might also look at patterns of behaviour. This illustrates the point that we are going into a rather nebulous or grey area. At first sight one might say, "For Heaven's sake, do not go in that direction at first because after all there are other people who are supposed to be responsible for ensuring the efficient administration at various levels, whether of central or local government or, indeed, the various semi-governmental or semi-official organisations such as health boards." I would have thought that, in the first instance, it would be preferable to allow the Ombudsman to be up and running so to speak, to build up some experience and to gain some insights into the various types of case which come before him and then it may well emerge that he can make a valuable contribution in this more general area of improving the way in which services are provided. I would be a little cautious in the first instance about encouraging him to move in that direction.

That touches also on the whole question of how he should begin. I would not be too interested in having publicised details of the number of staff the Minister is going to provide for him because if one does that, one almost creates the situation where there are so many people who have to be employed and, therefore, a feeling one has to generate so many cases for the Ombudsman. Why not, in effect, say there will be an Ombudsman operating from such a date and he will have staff and other resources available to him — whatever is appropriate to investigate claims or cases — and then allow him to draw on resources as needed. It may be that there will be a large number of cases and, equally, that there will be a small number of cases. I do not think we want to imprison or cocoon the Ombudsman almost before he starts with a particular layer of administration whether he needs it or not.

Looking at the other side of that coin, suppose it transpires that a large number of cases are put before him that might well turn out to be an area where some review would be needed in the sense of trying to decide what constitutes a genuine grievance worthy of investigation and what simply constitutes people who, understandably if the verdict goes against them, feel it is worth appealing if an appeal is open to them but in fact there may be no real substance to their feeling of grievance. The Ombudsman may have to develop some operating procedures to screen rather quickly what we might term frivolous cases. I do not think many people would frivilously appeal to him but I mean frivolous in the sense of not having any substantive content to the claim put. Since it is a new departure and one which has become necessary through the new environment created by the growth of modern Government we should be willing to view it as a learning process during the early months and years. For that reason I welcome the commitment to review the actual experience of the Ombudsman at an early date and also either to amend the legislation if necessary or, as the Minister said, to make orders extending the range of the Ombudsman's activities to local bodies, health boards and so on.

At this stage we should simply restate our commitments to the general principles enshrined in the appointment of an Ombudsman. We have already had the debate on that and I do not think it is appropriate today to reopen the various pros and cons, or the complications which might emerge. What we are doing today is moving on to the specific appointment of a person to discharge the office of Ombudsman. I should like to make a quick comment on the Minister's categories. I was interested in the classification he gave and, speaking in terms of categories it was a good idea not to select somebody either from the public service or the ranks of the politicians. While they may have many excellent qualities I fear——

An Cathaoirleach

The Minister is required in the Dáil for Question Time. He will be sending in a replacement.

Dr. O'Donoghue

——they might have greater difficulty in gaining sufficient public acceptability. Rightly or wrongly, people would say that as part of the system they would support their own or tend to back up whatever decisions were originally made. There is a very strong case for having the appointments drawn from the other categories mentioned which were more readily acceptable publicly as being in some sense independent of the initial decisions. This brings me to the name of the person before us today. I want to add my word of endorsement to what has been said. It is an excellent choice. Mr. Mills, by his record of service in the journalistic and other spheres and through the reputation he has acquired, has shown he possesses the various qualities which should lead to a very successful career in the role of Ombudsman. We wish him every possible success in that task and recognise that in discharging that office he will, hopefully, be strengthening the acceptability of the many democratic institutions within our State.

Mr. Daly

I should like to endorse what has been said already about Mr. Michael Mills. I have known him for about 20 years and I have found him to be a man of undoubted integrity. It is also a nice gesture that journalism has got recognition in the appointment of Mr. Michael Mills. I wish him well.

Mr. Harte

I welcome the appointment of Mr. Mills. My first reaction might have been that the idea of an Ombudsman, his terms of reference and so on, did not go far enough but having heard the Minister's view, I am satisfied that in the future there will be room for development. I have no doubt that the duties and the results will be well monitored. I hope the office will be allowed to grow and not stagnate and will prove itself as the examinations or reviews take place. The appointment of the person concerned is welcome. Those of us who have been in politics for any length of time know from reading the papers and seeing this person on television that he has the ability and intelligence to carry out the task. He has a neutral tone which is necessary to ensure the office is run well and efficiently. He will make sure that he is presented with all the details by the people responsible for reporting to him. He is a very good choice.

The success or failure of the office will, as in many administrations, depend on delegating duties at the right time to the right people. I have no doubt that it is well within the capacity of this man to do that in a most effective way. There is a complaint which I describe as defective listening. Listening to a radio programme one can take up a wrong meaning. In this case it is important that the Ombudsman should have the ability to read between the lines. Mr. Mills can bring this quality to the job. I am sure he is aware of the pitfalls. He has the ability and experience to know and consider the source of complaints and where the facts have been dug up to support an argument. He will be able to judge whether the source is a good one and will stand the test or not. Those qualities are necessary for the job. Once the occupant of the position applies himself in this direction I have no doubt his reviews will show that it was a good idea to make the appointment and that there is scope for developing and growing.

Any villainous activity will be exposed and that will do a great service to the nation. Based on the application of those principles which the person appointed possesses we will see a very successful outcome. We will then be in a position to widen the scope of the office to, as Senator O'Donoghue mentioned, deal with local authorities. The scope exists although I agree we cannot cover every aspect at the outset. My first reaction was that the terms of reference are not wide enough, but on reflection I can understand the reasons for that. The reviews will reveal how far we can go if further power and authority are given to the Ombudsman. I agree with the idea of starting on this basis and I wish the person appointed the best of luck. If he carries out his duties as an Ombudsman as he did as a journalist we will be proud that we selected him.

Mr. Fitzsimons

I should like warmly to welcome the selection of Mr. Michael Mills to the position of Ombudsman. I remember in my school days reading in the New Testament a description of one of the Apostles as a man in whom there is no guile. That description has always intrigued me. As a new Member to this House I have not met Michael Mills personally except to pass him in the corridors, but I have enjoyed his writings and commentaries on radio and television for many years. He has always been fair, interesting and accurate. The greatest tribute I can pay him is to say he is a man who can accurately be described as one in whom there is no guile. I wish him well in this position and I look forward to reading his reviews. I know he will carry out his work with distinction.

Mr. Robb

It seems to me that there are two matters being discussed today, the office of Ombudsman and the man who is about to be appointed. I am sorry that my fellow Northern Senator, Senator Stephen McGonagle, is not here because as the House will doubtless know he has had considerable experience in a similar office in a very trying situation over a number of years. From what we have heard, and from what we know, no better man could have been chosen for this job. As Senator Fitzsimons has said, his great asset is that he is a man without guile. However, we need to be careful. Although it is refreshing that this part of Ireland is to have an Ombudsman who will look into the grievances of the citizen in relation to the abuses of administration we should not assume that all such abuses and grievances can possibly be met in any sort of reasonable timescale by the setting up of a new State-sponsored person even with the best possible secretariat available to him. There is a slight danger, if we were to take up Senator Robinson's concept that he should deal with the most serious cases, that in not dealing with those who feel that their case is serious we may, in fact, be increasing a sense of grievance rather than reducing it among many people who will not have access to the single man who cannot possibly cope with the enormous amount of frustration and sense of protest which we have in the country at this time and which we have all too audibly heard this afternoon. I wonder, therefore, if the Ombudsman will be encouraged to see how he can in turn work with those agencies which already exist and are concerned, on the one hand, with making advice available to the citizen in relation to the legislation that already exists and, on the other hand, are articulately dealing with their grievances when they feel aggrieved. I speak of the fledgeling development of citizen advice bureaux on the one side and of the need for a very positive and constructive liaison with social workers on the other.

I am well aware that the institutions in the State have felt threatened by the emergence of the new profession of social worker but it is a very healthy thing that they should. A social worker is trained to look at legislation, trained to be aware of citizens needs at community level and is also trained to help the citizen articulate his need and challenge the institutions. I would beg of the legislators and, indeed, of the Ombudsman to search early in the development of his office for a very positive relationship and, indeed, to encourage the development of citizens' advice bureaux throughout the country on the one hand and also to develop a positive ongoing working relationship with social workers on the other. If this is done a further spin-off will occur. We will become aware that in a very over-centralised society with more and more extensively educated people being absorbed into work as planners and administrators there will be a need to look at society at local community level as well as national level. Perhaps out of this debate between Ombudsman, citizens' advice bureaux and those who are interested in the implications of social work, we may develop in time in every community in Ireland the concept of a community forum where matters which are contentious and important will be debated openly and freely where they are not today. We might also look at another aspect which I have mentioned before in this House—the idea of re-establishing the old guild concept so that we will have health guilds, educational guilds, guilds to do with work, use of resources and so on in the communities in which we live and where we will be able to bring together the network of agencies that exist in any community to become aware of each other and to develop in a cohesive way for the benefit of the people as a whole.

I wish the Ombudsman well. I am heartened to know that there is to be one but I think it will depend on how the office communicates with the rest of society that will ensure it will be a success or otherwise. I just add my good wishes to what has already been said.

Mr. Durcan

I would like to join with other Senators in supporting the motion in the name of the Leader of the House that Seanad Éireann recommends Mr. Michael Mills for appointment by the President to be Ombudsman. I do so with pleasure from a number of points of view. First, enabling legislation was passed three and a half years ago and as a Government we gave a commitment to give effect to its provisions. I am glad to see that has been done and I congratulate and compliment the Minister for doing that.

Secondly, I congratulate Michael Mills on his appointment. I think the first appointment to this position is an extremely important one because if the Ombudsman is to achieve national acceptance then the first Ombudsman must be somebody who already has national acceptance and I think Michael Mills has that. He is somebody who is known by the entire community, through television and the newspapers. He is somebody whose perception, judgment and impartial journalistic writing are noted and known by the entire community. He is somebody with tremendous experience of political life and of public administration. I think he really brings together in one person those qualities which are essential to see to the effective discharge of his duties of Ombudsman and furthermore, to see that those duties are discharged in a way that will win public acceptance. I wish him well.

The Minister in his opening remarks mentioned the ranks of Irish society he considered before making this appointment. I was a little disappointed when he referred to the final rank, when he mentioned our brethren in the Law Library. I am a little surprised that the Minister did not widen the scope to the legal profession generally. It seems to be that the legal animal that resides in the Law Library, namely, the barrister, is the person in the legal profession who has least experience of public administration and least experience of dealing with the public. If the Minister were to look at the legal profession as a whole he would probably find in the other branch of the legal profession people with far more experience in these areas which are vital for the post of Ombudsman.

Other Senators have mentioned that we should not have a re-hash of the debate on the Ombudsman Bill and I agree with that. Nevertheless I think we must accept that the position of the Ombudsman is, in the life of this country now, an extremely important position. He ranks with the great constitutional officers of State and he is given the privileges, the powers and indeed the legal acceptance of some of the great office holders. The fact that he requires appointment by the President, on recommendation of both Houses of the Oireachtas, is indicative of that. It is extremely important that this House and the Government in particular, give full support to the Ombudsman. His position can be successful only if he receives that support. The Act makes specific reference to the fact that the staffing of the Ombudsman's office is something which lies in the hands of the Minister. I would like to see the Minister and his successors taking steps to ensure that the Ombudsman's office is adequately staffed to ensure that his duties can be adequately discharged.

We must also see the Ombudsman perhaps a little bit like the medieval chancellor, as somebody who has to intervene here and there in the interests of justice. We must accept that we are now living in a society that is extremely complex and is becoming more complicated. The division between those in our society who have power and those who do not have power is becoming increasingly broad and wide. It is becoming more difficult for the citizen to deal with bureaucracy and red tape. I was very glad to hear the Minister make comments recently which suggested that procedures would shortly be introduced to try to ensure that practices that exist in the public service, in so far as the public service have to deal with the public, will be discontinued and that steps will be taken to ensure that it will be easier for the public to deal with the public service.

I think, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, in your comments on this Bill you made reference to the fact that when a constituent approaches a Senator, a Deputy or a public representative often the problem is only really understood and really resolved over a cup of tea. I think we have to examine what is the acceptable face of bureaucracy. If that is done by the Department of the Public Service and by the Ombudsman's office, then the Ombudsman might find himself less troubled with applications for assistance from his office.

Senator Robinson also made reference to practices which may be of an unsatisfactory nature and I agree with her in that regard. There are many practices which are of an unsatisfactory nature but which of themselves in individual cases may not seem to be altogether wrong. However, when one examines them as a total practice in dealing with particular problems one can see how they can inhibit the citizen from seeking help from the public service in particular cases.

I would like to see on a broad front the Ombudsman examining practices of that nature and ensuring that the Public Service can operate in a way that is more acceptable to the individual. That it has become more difficult for the individual to deal with the public service has been proven by the growth of social service councils and citizens advice bureaux in this country in recent years. If it were easier for the citizen to have his problem resolved by direct access to the public service, then these bodies might not have developed of necessity.

Reference has also been made to the fact that the Ombudsman will not have power initially in relation to local authorities and health boards. I would certainly like to see his functions being extended to cover these bodies as speedily as possible because the ordinary citizen has to deal with the health board and with the local authority perhaps far more frequently than with Departments of State. I would like to see the Minister taking steps to ensure that the function of the Ombudsman is extended as soon as possible in relation to these areas.

I also note with regret that section 8 of the Act gives a certain discretionary power to the Ombudsman. Subsection (4) states:

The Ombudsman may determine whether any person may be represented by counsel, solicitor or otherwise in an investigation by him under this Act.

I would like the Ombudsman to ensure that any citizen in having any problem determined by him would as of practice have the right to be represented. That is a discretion which the Ombudsman must determine how to exercise and I would like to see it being exercised in the broadest possible way.

I would also like to refer briefly to some of the exclusions which are in the Act. Údarás na Gaeltachta is specifically excluded. I also think that the First Schedule excludes the Lay Commissioners of the Land Commission in the exercise of their statutory functions. One runs into a certain amount of difficulty here. It seems to me that the Lay Commissioners exercise their statutory and judicial functions on the advice of officials of the Irish Land Commission. The advice which officials of the Land Commission at local level, having investigated a particular case, give to the commissioners is something which frequently give rise to divided opinions. I am not altogether happy that officials of the Irish Land Commission in proffering that advice would apparently be excluded from the ambit of the Ombudsman. It is one area which should be included but it would appear to me that it is excluded and that is something about which I am a little unhappy.

I would like to join with other Senators in wishing the new Ombudsman well when he takes up office. The success of the new Ombudsman will depend upon himself and I think he has the qualities to make the office successful. Secondly, success will depend on the commitment given to him by this Government and successive Governments in ensuring that his office is properly staffed. I sincerely hope that the office does not end up as a kind of Flurry Knox creature in the Irish administration structure, neither one thing nor the other, being caught between the administration on the one hand and the politicians on the other hand. I hope the office is allowed to develop in the way that was originally intended and I wish Mr. Mills well.

Minister for the Public Service (Mr. Boland)

I should like to thank Members of the House for the warm words of welcome they have given to the recommendation that Michael Mills be appointed by the President to the office of Ombudsman and to apologise to the House for the fact that I was rather unexpectedly called away to the other House.

A number of Senators contributed.

They were unanimous in their agreement as to the choice of person to fill the office of Ombudsman which in fact, strictly speaking, is the purpose of the motion which is before the House this afternoon. Senator Honan, in expressing her views as to the nominee's particular attributes summed it up best when she said in effect that he was his own man. That is very much a description that fits Michael Mills and it is a description which I would suggest should be used to fit the ideal candidate for the occupation of the office of Ombudsman.

Senator Honan asked specifically about the powers which the Ombudsman would have in relation to investigations when a complaint is made to him. The powers of the Ombudsman for the sending for persons or papers is contained specifically in section 7 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980. I will just quote from section 7(1) (a):

the Ombudsman may, for the purpose of a preliminary investigation or an investigation by him under this Act, require any person who in the opinion of the Ombudsman is in possession of information or has a document or a thing in his power or control that is relevant to the examination or investigation to furnish that information, document or thing to the Ombudsman and where appropriate may require the person to attend before him for that purpose and the person shall comply with the requirements.

The Senator and the House generally may rest assured that the Ombudsman has very wide powers to investigate, to examine papers, documents and to conduct oral examinations of administrators in relation to cases where complaints have been made to him.

Senator Honan also wondered whether the Ombudsman might from time to time be free to make a report on any particular item or matter. The Act provides that the Ombudsman is obliged to make an annual report to both Houses which, I feel sure and would hope, will be discussed in each of the Houses. He may also at any time he chooses or sees fit make a special report on any matter to the Houses. I think that adequately answers the point which the Senator made.

There was some divergence between the views expressed by Senator O'Donoghue and Senator Robinson. On the one hand, Senator Robinson was anxious that the specific details regarding the type, the numbers and extent of the staff and resources available to the Ombudsman should be detailed here in the House. On the other hand, Senator O'Donoghue appeared to suggest that it might be better, rather than outlining the resources available to the Ombudsman and perhaps encouraging on that basis an inordinate number of initial queries, if it were said that the office would be adequately staffed. On the basis of the good principle of political survival I will try to adopt a compromise between the two points of view.

It is our intention that when the Ombudsman's office is operating as it were at full-steam after the remit has been extended to include the areas of local authorities and health boards and perhaps some others that the total number of staff will probably be in the order of 30. Initially the staff to be provided will, I feel confident, be quite sufficient to carry out satisfactorily investigations on the Ombudsmans' behalf in relation to the Civil Service which is the initial area covered by his remit as from the order bringing the office into operation. Our intention would be that as the remit might be extended to take in local authorities or health boards an additional team of investigators would then be appointed, commensurate with the perceived need and based upon the experience of the office in operation in relation to the initial area of the Civil Service.

Quite naturally, Senator Robinson was anxious to obtain some details as to size of the proposed budget for the office of Ombudsman for 1984. Unfortunately, the Government, as the House will know, are at the moment in the course of examination of the Estimates generally for the Public Service for next year. The office of Ombudsman will, in fact, be a new Vote contained within the Book of Estimates. It would, for that reason, be inappropriate for me to indicate to the House the intended level or exact size of the proposed Estimate for the Vote of the office of Ombudsman. However, I hope it suffices to say that I am quite satisfied that the amount which the Government propose to allocate to the Vote of the office of Ombudsman will be sufficient both to allow the initial establishment of the office and its satisfactory operation during its initial year. I want to give an assurance to the House that the hoped-for success of the office will not, in any way, be inhibited by a lack of resources, whether they be staff or otherwise. It is the firm intention of the Government that the Ombudsman should have available to him whatever resources he feels are reasonable and necessary for the conduct of his office.

Senator Robinson in the course of making those remarks availed of the opportunity to put on the record of the House her personal views regarding the adequacy or otherwise of the staffing of some of the Oireachtas Committees. It would be neither appropriate nor correct for me to go into that matter in any great detail in the course of replying to this motion. Perhaps it will suffice if I were to say that the staff which have been allocated to the committees of the Houses of the Oireachtas are in numbers exactly in line with the official request made by the Clerk of the Dáil.

Senator Robinson was also anxious that the Ombudsman's initial remit would allow him full rein over the entire public sector rather than starting on the gradual base which is what is outlined in the Act. It was the intention in 1980 that he should be allowed to investigate any matter complained of to him throughout the public sector. She suggested that the Ombudsman should be allowed "to decide his priorities" and that he could establish which complaint he might investigate initially. That is a rather dangerous approach to adopt. It is of paramount importance that in the initial period the Ombudsman and his office are seen to act effectively, promptly and efficiently and that they treat all complaints made to them on an equal basis. If the Oireachtas or the Executive were to decide to bestow on the Ombudsman powers which were so wide that he would have to, as the Senator suggested, decide his priorities between one complaint and another, there would be very good cause for legitimate complaint from people who might have addressed a complaint to him which he might feel might have a low priority and had to put to one side.

I think that the approach that is being adopted is a fairer and a more realistic one, namely, that the Ombudsman would initially investigate the Civil Service proper. Once the office is established and operating satisfactorily in the opinion of the Ombudsman and once he gives that indication to me, it would be my intention to extend his remit to include the local authorities and the health boards. When that happens the volume of queries or representations to him will probably double if not, in fact, increase and then the resources in terms of investigators will need to be improved quite radically as well. It is my personal belief that as soon as possible thereafter a number of State bodies should be included within the remit of the Ombudsman. That is a realistic way to approach the office.

Because the question of the establishment of the office of Ombudsman had been under discussion for over 20 years in this country, in our enthusiasm now to see it launched it would be a pity if we overburdened the initial appointee to such a degree that public confidence in the operation of the office were to break down. I do not want to quote specific examples. However, there has been in recent times in one particular country a situation where the first Ombudsman was so snowed under with complaints that the operation of the office purely on an office base broke down completely and the office was not in a position even apparently to acknowledge any complaints on a realistic or a reasonable basis much less to investigate them. It would be very regrettable if that happened here and it would bring the entire office and the concept of the Ombudsman into disrepute. For that reason, it is much better that we establish quite clearly that the Ombudsman himself is satisfied that he is capable of taking on board an additional area.

When he indicates that, it will be my intention immediately to extend his remit to the areas I have mentioned.

Senator Robinson spoke about what she perceived as being "confusion" in my speech when I said that I intended to review the Act after a period of about a year in consultation with the Ombudsman. Then I indicated in the Dáil last week that the extension of the Act to local authorities and health boards should take place preferably within the first year of the operation of the office, and that I would also review at an early date the question of the extension of the Act to State-sponsored bodies. The Senator seemed worried that both the extension of the remit and the review of the Act itself in its operation might take place simultaneously and said that would not be correct. However, if I could just remind the House, I said I intended to review the Act after a period of about a year and I indicated later on that I intended to extend the Act within the first year. Unless the Ombudsman indicates that he does not feel, because of the volume of complaints that he will deal with in relation to the Civil Service, capable of having the remit extended in a period of less than a year, it would certainly be my intention, subject to the agreement of the Ombudsman, that the remit should be extended to include local authorities and health boards within the first year. At the end of approximately a year the experience gained by the Ombudsman and his staff in their investigations into the Civil Service proper and later on the wider Public Service to include the local authorities and the health boards would then give both the Ombudsman and the Executive an opportunity to establish what, if any, are the weaknesses in the Act and what areas might need improvement. This is a realistic method of approach and one which I hope will commend itself to the House.

Senator O'Donoghue also referred to the necessity for the Ombudsman to set up some type of screening procedure in order to be able to identify and establish what he described as "frivolous" complaints. This matter was referred to in the other House also. All public representatives will realise that from time to time there is a small volume of the representations to any public representatives from people who are either regular complainants or have a particular and unjustifiable interest in one item or another and who contact a public representative, or more likely a series of public representatives on a regular and on-going basis. There is probably nothing that will effectively identify such complainants beyond the gaining of a sufficient amount of nous to understand after some time what complaint is more likely to be genuine and what complaint is perhaps based on frivolity or perhaps even from time to time has a malicious aspect to it.

The operation of the Ombudsman's office will be important in this respect also. Whilst the Ombudsman will obviously from time to time find that the complaints made to him are justified and will have the maladministration remedied or report upon areas where he perceives maladministration to exist, probably in the majority of cases, certainly if the experience of other countries is anything to go by, he will find that the proper administration procedures have been adopted. In relation to those cases, I think it is fair to say that the Ombudsman has a particular responsibility and a role to play with regard to the Civil Service and public service employees. In each case where there is an area of maladministration or where a defect has been identified or a mistake made by an individual, where a public servant has been identified, there will probably be at least an equal number of cases where it will be shown to the satisfaction of the impartial investigator that the public servant involved acted correctly and within the terms and brief laid down for him. It will be important for us after the Ombudsman makes his initial or several reports to realise in many respects the Ombudsman will also have a role to play in identifying where public servants have acted correctly despite a complaint or a continuing complaint made by an individual member of the public or a group of members of the public, that the proper and correct course of action and decisions by public servants will also be identified.

I was obliged to attend in the other House for some minutes to answer parliamentary questions. While I was away I understand that Senator Durcan asked if in relation to the various areas mentioned at the outset I had considered choosing a nominee and if this included all branches of the law and not just barristers. Whilst I said one of the areas which I considered was the Law Library, this was in the loosest possible way and I wish to assure the House that all those with legal qualifications were considered.

With all due respect to those distinguished Members of the House who are also distinguished members of the Bar, I approached this area with a slight prejudice. Irish lawyers, by their training and disposition, as well as the conduct of the courts, are more inclined to be legalistic and to pursue a point of law to its logical conclusion, sometimes without applying the more direct approach that a now legal mind might adopt. In addition, it has been a rather strange aspect of our system of appointment that because those members of the Bar who are so very well qualified have served the State so well in so many public appointments over the years and have given sterling service in those appointments, there has sometimes been a tendency to automatically look to the Law Library and to the law generally in relation to the filling of virtually every public appointment. I do not think that is a good thing either from the point of view of the Law Library or from the point of view of achieving a range of people from different backgrounds and experiences in filling public offices. I believe the possession of commonsense and an experience and understanding of public administration together with a well honed experience and understanding of the Irish character and nature are qualifications which will stand any Ombudsman in Ireland in as good a stead as would a professional qualification.

Senator Robinson asked whether the Ombudsman might be able to investigate, as well as individual actions or decisions taken by a public servant, patterns which might appear to have emerged. The example she gave was where a particular basis was being used upon which decisions in the area of social welfare were being progressively taken with individual members of the public that they might afterwards be changed or amended if that member of the public returned in the company of a social worker or, on rarer occasions, a lawyer, accompanied by somebody better versed in the statute, in the legal instrument or in the entitlement of the individual. Section 4 (2) (b) of the Act states that any action which is based on an undesirable administrative practice can be examined. Consequently, a recurring pattern of administrative practice could most definitely be investigated.

Senator Robb, in referring to the difficulties which will be faced by the first Ombudsman, advised that the Ombudsman might make contact with social workers, citizens' advice bureaux or other individuals or bodies who are working or have worked in a field similar to the one which the Ombudsman will participate in. I am sure that the Ombudsman will take very careful note of all the suggestions and contributions which have been made both in this House and in the other House. I imagine that it will be his intention to look at all the possible areas where people have advice, expertise or experience to offer to him to enable him to carry out his functions in the best possible manner. In that respect I might mention that Senator McGonagle, a Member of this House, has particular experience as he served for a number of years as Ombudsman in Northern Ireland. From that point of view, there is a benefit to be gained by our Ombudsman having at first hand the benefit of advice based on experience from a very worthy Member of this House.

I am grateful to the House for the very fulsome tributes Seantors have paid to Michael Mills. I am quite sure that he will be a very worthy first occupant of the office of Ombudsman. The filling of the office and its coming into operation will be of a particular benefit to the Members of this and the other House. When Senator Honan spoke she suggested that the question of allowing the Ombudsman to operate on a regional basis or perhaps in years to come to have regional offices might be approached with an element of caution lest — I suspect that she was speaking a trifle facetiously — in years to come we had a series of mini Ombudsmen running around the countryside to such an extent that they might detract from the duties and responsibilities of public representatives.

One of the things which I think will happen, perhaps not immediately but over a short passage of time, is that the more complicated individual queries from members of the public which are addressed to public representatives and which public representatives often find difficulty in pursuing to what they feel ought to be the logical or equitable solution or conclusion, will be referred either by Deputies and Senators or by the individuals themselves to the Ombudsman. It is quite within the right of any Members of the House to refer to the Ombudsman any queries which they have and in relation to which they are not getting satisfaction. I do not think that should represent any threat to the public representative or the politician. It will allow Members of both Chambers more time to devote to the legislative and other matters which are of prime and fundamental importance to us as parliamentarians. In that way the introduction of the Office of Ombudsman will play an important part also in parliamentary reform. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.