Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 14 Nov 1984

Vol. 106 No. 1

Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, 1984: Second and Subsequent Stages.

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

During the debate on this Bill in the Dáil last week, a Chathaoirligh, I indicated that the Ombudsman had already received approximately 1,300 complaints and had dealt with over 1,000 of them.

These figures reflect, in my view, the major impact which the Ombudsman has made in his comparatively short period in office. They also underline the efficient way in which he has been discharging his responsibilities. It is clear, therefore, that the all-party agreement to establish the office of the Ombudsman was fully justified.

I was pleased to note that Deputies on all sides shared this view. Indeed, to my mind, the general tenor of their comments amounted to a vote of confidence in the office itself and in its present incumbent. I think that a very wise choice was made in having Mr. Mills as our first Ombudsman.

A number of very interesting points were raised during the course of the Dáil debate. One which struck me in particular was the suggestion that the Ombudsman should highlight those areas, such as social welfare, for example, where grievances can only be remedied by reforming legislation. This, to my mind, was a point well made. I believe that the Ombudsman has an important role to play, not merely in investigating individual complaints, but also in pointing to areas where general remedial action is needed through changes in legislation. In doing this, of course, he would be of considerable help to the Oireachtas which, because of pressure of business, has not always the time to review the impact of legislation on an on-going basis. No matter how slight the anomalies identified might be, they could still give rise to very serious problems for large sections of the community.

In this connection, I was glad to note that earlier this week the Ombudsman had highlighted anomalies which he felt existed in relation to the social insurance system. In fact, the Ombudsman has already made a submission to the Commission on Social Welfare on this very matter. This is precisely the kind of role for the Ombudsman that I have in mind.

Reference was also made to the importance of ensuring that the public at large gained an appreciation of the role of the Ombudsman. I think that the figures I have quoted in relation to complaints to the Ombudsman's office speak for themselves. It is clear that the Ombudsman has, in his comparatively short time of operation, made a considerable public impact. I know that the Ombudsman himself has taken important steps to advertise his services through participation in debates and discussions throughout the country. He has also taken other measures to publicise the work of his office. Nevertheless, I think that the point made during the course of the Dáil debate relating to the need for widespread publicity for the office was well made. It is vital that all citizens be made fully aware of the part the Ombudsman can play on their behalf. For this reason, I provided £20,000 in this year's budget for the Ombudsman's office, specifically for the purposes of advertising and publicity. I will continue to ensure that, in future years the office is provided with the necessary financial means in this area.

It is clear that the Ombudsman has a major role to play in relations between citizens and bureaucracy. In essence, he is the focus for citizens in seeking remedies against administrative malpractice. He must, accordingly, be able to respond quickly to situations where the need for urgent action on his part is clearly demonstrated.

This is one of the main purposes of the present Bill before the House. The two schedules to the Ombudsman Act, 1980 determine, effectively, the extent of the Ombudsman's remit. Amendment of the schedules is at present made by order. At present, under section 4 (10) (c) of the Act, a draft order must be laid before each House of the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days. The order can then be made if a resolution disapproving the draft is not passed within that period. This procedure can, however, lead to delays. Because of the 21 days sitting requirement, it can take up to five months — due to frequency of House sittings, holidays, timing of the Order etc. — to effect changes to the schedules. These, however, in many cases would be changes on which there was widespread agreement. In some cases, the public interest would require urgent action. I am sure that nobody in this House would want to see a situation where such action was inhibited because of procedures. The Bill, therefore, proposes to change the present arrangements to speed up the procedures which govern changes in the Ombudsman's remit.

There is one other very important aspect to the Bill. Under it, all future changes would require a positive motion of approval of the relevant order by both Houses. There would thus be a full debate, where the need arose, and all Members would have the opportunity of making their views known. The Houses, therefore, would be fully involved in all decisions affecting the Ombudsman's remit. This is a major contrast to present arrangements which, essentially, assign a somewhat passive role to the Oireachtas. They put the onus on it to take the initiative in deciding whether to take action in disapproving the terms of draft orders.

Under the Bill, I, as Minister for the Public Service, would have to submit myself to the scrutiny of the Oireachtas each time that changes to the schedules arose. This is a task which I would gladly assume. As I have said, I think it is only right that the Oireachtas should be fully and actively involved in all major decisions affecting the Ombudsman. Indeed, as I mentioned in the Dáil, some committees of the House might with profit look at the system which pertains in much of our legislation whereby a similar order procedure is adopted very often resulting in delays in implementing what are worthwhile changes. Perhaps a more positive motion of approval might be sought in many cases to the improvement, not only of the system but of the relevance of participation of the Houses of the Oireachtas in the affairs of State.

I was very gratified at the response of Dáil Deputies on all sides to the Bill. They, too, accepted that the Ombudsman must be permitted to take urgent action where the need arose. They also accepted that the Oireachtas must play an active role in this area. I think, therefore, that the Bill will have a major impact in achieving these twin purposes. For this reason, I strongly recommend it to the Seanad.

I welcome the Bill. Since the establishment of the office of Ombudsman over 1,000 complaints have been finalised, as was pointed out by the Minister. I wish to join in congratulating Mr. Michael Mills, who was an inspired choice as Ombudsman, and his able staff on the successful completion of such a heavy workload to date. Now that we have an Ombudsman, with his office fully operational, there is a compelling case to have his jurisdiction extended without any further delay. The administrative injustices that the citizen suffers at the hands of local authorities, health boards or State-sponsored bodies are no less because they occur outside the Departments of State.

The principle that we should adopt is that where there exists any chance that a powerless citizen may be injured by his or her dealings with the administration, then that area of the administration not only should but must be brought within the Ombudsman's remit. I must, therefore, record my disappointment that the Minister is not using this, the first instance on which we had an opportunity to refer to the operation of the office of Ombudsman, to do something meaningful to extend the jurisdiction of that office.

When the Ombudsman legislation was passing through the Oireachtas in 1980, the Minister of State who steered the legislation through at that time took a great deal of stick about the exclusion from the Ombudsman's remit of specific areas of public administration. In particular, the Minister of State was criticised harshly by Members of the present Minister's party, Fine Gael, for failing to include local authorities and health boards within the Ombudsman's purview from the outset.

It was explained by the then Minister that an extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction to those areas could not take place until the elected representatives had been consulted. The Minister, who indicated that his personal preference was for inclusion at that time, promised that there would be immediate consultation with the local authorities and that within three months of the Ombudsman's office coming into operation, jurisdiction would be extended. Consultations with the local authorities as promised by the Fianna Fáil Minister took place in 1981. The response in the great majority of cases was positive. Very few local authorities opposed giving the Ombudsman jurisdiction.

A series of elections, coupled with the cancellation by the then Coalition Government of the 1981 budget provision for the Ombudsman, delayed an appointment to this important office until 1983. At that stage there was no impediment to giving the Ombudsman jurisdiction over local authorities. Yet the office was created, in spite of all that had been said, without granting jurisdiction over this vital area of administration. I am disappointed that the Minister has not found it possible to bring local authorities and health boards into the Ombudsman's jurisdiction before now.

There is another area of public administration that we could consider bringing within the Ombudsman's scrutiny which is the area of State-sponsored bodies. The citizens can count on the protection of the Dáil through parliamentary questions in dealings with central Government but it could be argued that the injustices which occur in other areas of public administration are greater because there is less accountability. This observation is particularly true in the case of noncommercial State enterprises where the citizen does not have the benefit of registering a protest by taking his business elsewhere. In the case of commercial State-sponsored bodies like the ESB and An Bord Telecom Éireann, the citizen is a customer of monopoly utilities. The aggrieved citizen has little comeback. He cannot depend on political intervention nor can he readily take his business elsewhere. The solution in the case of those commercial State-sponsored bodies which are monopoly utilities is to extend the Ombudsman's jurisdiction there as well. With regard to precedent, Ombudsmen in various Canadian provinces investigate complaints from citizens in the Canadian provinces in respect of electricity supply and also telephone bills in the case of telephone authorities. I am not interested in the actual number of complaints, but there is a serious complaint problem in relation to Telecom. The extension of the Ombudsman's remit to include An Bord Telecom and the ESB would be very much a step in the right direction.

The Minister has made the point that the purpose of this Bill is to speed up the procedural arrangements for amending the schedules to the Ombudsman's Act, 1980 and he has stressed the importance of speed in the context of making changes in the scope of the Ombudsman's remit. The primary aim of this Bill, presumably, is to speed up the extension of the Ombudsman's jurisdiction and I heartily welcome this development. It is appropriate, however, to draw attention to a provision in the 1980 Act under which public service personnel issues are excluded from the Ombudsman's examination. I find it difficult to accept the continuation of this exclusion because public servants in the main, do not have the right to bring their cases to the Labour Court or to a Rights Commissioner. Unless there is some immediate intention to extend to all public servants the rights enjoyed by other workers I would propose that those public servants who are excluded from the Labour Court and the Rights Commissioner service should be permitted to refer their cases to the Ombudsman.

The practical experience of the Ombudsman was brought into sharp focus on Monday of this week, something to which the Minister referred to in his speech. Mr. Michael Mills highlighted serious anomalies in the contributory old age pension scheme which are a source of complaint. It is worthwhile recapping what Mr. Mills said. His view was that old age pensioners had found that on reaching the age of 66 they had not the required average stamps each year to meet the social welfare regulations. Changes in these regulations between 1953 and 1974 meant, in effect, that contributors who had paid more social insurance contributions are being treated less favourably than those who had paid less contributions over a shorter period. I realise this is not a functional matter for the Minister for the Public Service, but I take this opportunity to ask him to use his influence with his Cabinet colleagues, namely, the Minister for Finance and the Minister for Social Welfare, to end this inequity.

Most of what I have said has focused on the urgent need to expand the remit of the Ombudsman. This, inevitably, raises the question of an increased workload for the office of the Ombudsman when the extension takes place. With a small staff a very substantial workload has been tackled successfully to date. The co-operation of Government Departments — I know the Minister is very keen that such co-operation should at all times be forthcoming — is vital to the work of the Ombudsman. Clearly, if Government Departments were prepared to review their decisions before the investigation — there is an opportunity for them to do so — or even during the investigation, it would help to speed up solutions to the problems at issue and also allow the small number of staff in the office to process more complaints. The natural inclination of public servants is to defend decisions already taken. Public servants are now faced with a new situation. There is now an independent office which has access to files and to a range of information about departmental decisions which the Ombudsman wants reviewed by public servants. This process, of course, is unprecedented in Civil Service experience. This is totally foreign to public servants. The natural inclination is to defend decisions already taken. However, the co-operation of public servants is essential and may well require a rapid change in attitude on their part.

Precisely because the office of Ombudsman is new, many public servants do not know what exactly it deals with. The Ombudsman is not a public representative. He is not a court of appeal. It will take all concerned, including public servants, some time to adjust fully to this new office. Such adjustment must be speedy in order to get the greatest benefit and justice for citizens who have complaints.

The recruitment of staff through the Civil Service procedures is a very slow process. The Minister indicated that he proposes to expand the remit of the Ombudsman's office. I put it to the Minister, therefore, that the actual process for the recruitment and selection of additional staff to meet this new demand should be put in train and completed before the extensions in the remit actually take place.

I want to make the point that the greatest weapon the Ombudsman holds in the promotion of his work is publicity. I am happy to note the Minister's allocation to the office to improve the opportunity to publicise his activities. In that context, however, we will have an opportunity to help with the publicity in the Houses of the Oireachtas. As I understand it, the first report of the Ombudsman should be available early in 1985. I would urge that as soon as the report is published, that it be thoroughly debated and analysed in both Houses of the Oireachtas. Time should be set aside for the debates as a matter of priority. I welcome the Bill and congratulate the Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills, and his staff, for a job well done, to date.

I wish to join with Senator Hillery in his comments about the Ombudsman. I congratulate the Minister for the Public Service for having made the appointment and I also associate myself with the compliments paid to Mr. Mills. All of us have heard much about him from people who have been aggrieved and have approached him. They have said how genuinely concerned he was in ensuring that their cases were heard efficiently and quickly. For that reason, any amendment that the Minister considers necessary to speed up this process should be welcomed by all sides of the House.

The extension of his remit to cover other areas of the public service, whether it is the Civil Service, semi-State bodies, local authorities or health boards, will also be welcome. I have no doubt that in those areas the demands that will be made on him will be so great that the staff Mr. Mills will require will be somewhat greater than what he has now available to him. Would the Minister confirm that if and when he extends the remit of the Ombudsman into these areas he will look favourably on the deployment of staff?

All of us are confronted each week with many problems that should never arise if the matters were dealt with in a fair and favourable manner.

Senator Hillery referred to An Bord Telecom Éireann. Many of us get repeated complaints about An Bord Telecom. It is obvious that the Minister should address himself specifically to this board because it is new. It was set up only last year. There is no doubt that those of us who have had communications with them know, that the level of response is, first of all, cold and the efforts they make to rectify matters seem to be almost negligible. I ask the Minister if there are specific areas of complaint in the semi-State sector, particularly in the area of Telecom Éireann in regard to which approximately 150,000 complaints are being lodged, to indicate whether he or the Minister for Communications would be prepared to accept complaints either directly from us or through the Ombudsman, if his remit is extended into that particular field.

I am also concerned in regard to the Department of Social Welfare, which should be covered by his remit, that people suffering from diseases which are medically recognised as being terminal, probably are being subjected to medical examinations. There is no doubt, from the evidence available to me, that in some cases the prognosis, to say the least, is extremely poor. I am concerned that people who are in and out of hospital are suddenly being certified, in the opinion of the medical examiner, as being fit for work, without recourse to any medical evidence on the date of the examination.

The Social Welfare Acts are worded in such a way that people at this level can give an opinion that the person is fit to go back to work. If the person feels aggrieved, he has the right to appeal. A further process of examination then goes ahead. If the person is still dissatisfied and if further medical evidence is available a referee comes into the situation. I have a particular case with which I am dealing with the Minister. I am beginning to lose faith in the process of democratic represenations. I cannot understand how a medical referee can give an opinion on lung diseases without X-rays available to him.

I had one such case recently. In spite of submitting the results of medical examinations to the Department the medical people there still considered that their original opinion should stand. Shortly afterwards the person was re-admitted to hospital, was then transmitted to Peamount sanatorium from where he was transferred to Steevens Hospital. There they certified, on the medical evidence available to them that the man would need medical certification over an unlimited period. I still have a decision from the medical referee that in his opinion that man is fit to work. I have no time for people who play the system, who get certified as being unfit to work and are able to work, but I am worried about the rights of people who have medical evidence available that they are unable to work and when these referees come to visit them they look at them and ask what are their names, how many children they have, do they go to bed early, what do they drink and eat and then say they are fit to work, without having recourse to medical examinations that would be necessary, particularly in regard to lung diseases. It is in these areas that the public feel frustrated and feel that the political system has let them down.

The Minister has taken the courageous step of appointing somebody to look into cases like this. A typical example was a recent case which was looked at in relation to social welfare payments. I am concerned that, for some reason, we seem to be setting up widespread areas of bureaucracy almost to ensure that people who are entitled to things do not get them. As a legislator that would worry me because we would like to have order in our society. We would like to see people who are genuinely entitled to things and who do not have financial facilities available to them to take either the Department, the Minister or a health board to court, having the office of the Ombudsman readily available to ensure that justice is done.

I put these facts on the record because I have been slightly frustrated, to say the least, about some developments in these areas. I have continued to make representations and eventually I may have to call in the Ombudsman to do the job for me. A legislator, whose sole remit is to try to represent the public who elected him should not have to do that.

I compliment Mr. Mills on what he has done to date. I hope his terms of reference will be extended into all the other areas of delivery of service to people, whether at local authority level, county council level, health boards or whatever. By law people are entitled to certain things when they are ill or out of work. They have contributed to them and they are their entitlement. They should not have to go cap in hand to a politician or the Ombudsman. I hope that the Civil Service will look particularly at the areas of social welfare, health, medical certification and all the other areas I have just mentioned. I welcome the Bill that will facilitate Mr. Mills to function as speedily as possible. He certainly will have the support of the Members of this House in doing so.

I, too, would like to welcome this Bill. The only regret we have is that it is not widening the scope of the work of the Ombudsman still further to cater for local authorities, health boards and the semi-State non-commercial sector. Tribute has been paid to Mr. Mills and his staff for the work they are doing and I would like to be associated with that tribute. However, I do not take the same consolation from the figures and I would be inclined to support Senator Ferris.

We are inclined to congratulate ourselves over the developments that have taken place arising from the appointment of the Ombudsman but what is it showing? For many years people in public life at all levels have been making representations. I could not go into figures but they run into hundreds of thousands of pounds each year. At Question Time in the Dáil details are elicited with regard to various constituency problems all over the country. It is fairly clear from all our experience that we have an over-centralised, entangled and too bureaucratic system. There are a number of things that we need to do apart altogether from strengthening the hand of the Ombudsman, which is a very important office and one which has undoubtedly done a lot of good since its establishment. More needs to be done.

Unless we try to dismantle the layers of bureaucracy that we have established over the years all we will be doing is coming into this House each year extending the scope of the Ombudsman and giving him a remit for a wider area and not doing anything fundamental about the problems that affect individuals, particularly the poorer sections of the community. The application forms which are required for a variety of schemes, particularly in relation to health boards, social welfare and environment need to be simplified. We have a doctrinaire classified system which does not help the ordinary individual to understand what he has to do. Therefore, he is inclined to use public representatives and take up their time. We do not complain about that but it militates against the opportunity for people in public life to address themselves to policy matters and deeper questions. They should not be embroiled to such a degree in the day to day working of the Civil Service and the administration of schemes that affect people.

One could give a number of examples. Thousands of people are applying for unemployment assistance. A person completes an application form. It is sent into the local office, and is then sent on to Dublin; it is referred back to the social welfare officer who in turn cannot report to the local office. He sends his report back to Dublin who in turn sends it back to the local office and they implement the decision. That kind of thing is happening all the time. It may be a question of decentralising power, or a question of transferring sections of the Civil Service into different regions. People in the rural areas suffer very considerably and I am sure people in this city with the same kind of problems suffer similarly. No. matter how much power we give to an Ombudsman or how we widen the scope of his activities as long as we have those continual unnecessary layers of bureaucracy the ordinary individual is unable to penetrate them so there will be more complaints and in a few years the Ombudsman will not be able to cope with the variety of problems presented to him.

In the context of overall cutbacks in health services and social welfare, obviously there will be very tragic situations. Senator Ferris referred to one particular case. I am quite certain that if you are a VHI patient, if you can afford top class health services and if you have a heart disease you will get every test that there is to find out what is wrong with you and you will probably survive. I am equally certain that many medical card holders will not get all those tests, and they will not have made available to them the wide array of facilities that are available in our top heart hospitals. I am following up one particular instance. In those kinds of cases we can inflict lethal damage on people by not allowing freedom to the individual to avail of the best services there are.

Recently I had a problem relating to the regional technical college in Waterford where a young girl qualified for a higher education course. She became ill and when she reported the following day she was told that her place was taken the previous day. Following representations from me she was invited down the following week at a particular time but there was nobody available to meet her. She was told to come back the following morning. She comes from a family of eight. They are very poor people. She had to get lodgings in Waterford that night. We could mention hundreds of cases like this. There are people in the Civil Service who give sterling service and who are very compassionate but undoubtedly we have small groups who, for one reason or another, are not taking into account the overall family situation of people. They can create untold hardship and psychological damage by not trying to have a more compassionate, more understanding and more flexible attitude to people's circumstances.

This Bill is a step in the right direction and we would like to see it extended further. The fundamental point that I have to make to the Minister is that as long as we continue on the road that we are on at present, and have been for years, as long as we do not try to dismantle some of the systems that we have, that are outdated, cumbersome and contain delaying aspects, we will be continually coming before the House with Bills of this kind. The parliamentary time of this and the other House, and thousands of pounds will be spent trying to do the job which could be done more simply if we had a more simplified, more decentralised system.

I welcome the Minister's very clear statement on the necessity for the amendment which will eliminate undue delay. I also welcome his statement on the work that Mr. Michael Mills has done to date. As a retired Ombudsman from Northern Ireland I can say that the figure — 1,000 — is quite remarkable. I could never conceive in my office dealing with 1,000 cases in the number of months that Mr. Michael Mills has been operating. I would like my congratulations to be conveyed to him in some manner.

I deem it as a retired Ombudsman a great privilege and honour to address Seanad Éireann on the occasion of this debate, on the Bill affecting the Ombudsman, Mr. Mills. Unfortunately, because of illness I was not present when the original Bill was being debated. I had put a few notes on paper at the time, trying to set out what I should say. I was endeavouring to say something about the Ombudsman. Why did this happen? What kind of animal would he turn out to be? What would he do? What would be his relationship to Parliament? Where was democracy? All these questions kept floating through my head so I will address the Seanad now on that historical survey of how and why.

The concept of Ombudsman is not new. I am not talking about developments in the 19th century. I am talking about the Roman republic in 200 to 80 B.C. They had a censor. He was an official to overlook other officials and their decisions. We had a similar development about the same time in China, the Control Yuan. They, too, had the responsibility of overlooking the work and the performances for the previous five years of officials and officialdom. Some people call it bureaucracy. This is what they had and that was the development of the system that they found necessary.

The effectiveness of these institutions must remain speculative. It is worth noting that it was found necessary to have them set up to deal with individual citizens' complaints against the Government and the rulers. Many kinds of individual grievances may be remedied by legal process in the courts. In the case of other grievances the individual did what he could to ventilate his grievance, using public representatives, parliamentary and local, but, for quite a number of years, there has been a growing body of opinion in democratic countries that the democratic process and the law between them are inadequate to deal with many of the grievances of the citizens.

Here was the first indication that the democratic process, the parliamentary system and even the legal process, the law, were found to be inadequate so the search was on for the Ombudsmen. That dissatisfaction is more widespread and it is usually regarded as one of the consequences of the expansion of governmental activity. Alongside this expansion you get this dissatisfaction and it becomes more widespread. In complex modern societies with democratic Government there is an insistent demand for governmental activity accompanied inevitably with the broadening of the ground for grievances.

The Welfare State has, quite clearly, multiplied the opportunities for individual grievances. The political remedies inside the traditional function of parliament and the efforts of the parliamentary representatives to seek remedies for individual grievances has become less and less effective. This may not be apparent to too many people but it is a fact. It is one of the reasons that we have Ombudsmen all over the world. The results can very well be injurious to the image of the administration in the eyes of the citizen and this is not a good thing. This is unhealthy. Widespread cynicism towards the system follows and this is bad for democracy. It is very bad if the administration is felt by the citizens not to be just, fair and efficient. Recourse to parliament is and remains very important, and could be more effective given the taking of certain measures towards administrative efficiency and fairness. Nevertheless, it is felt widely that remedies should be sought in a way which is less affected by the vagories of politics and of current political personalities.

To Sweden goes the honour of coming up with a distinctive grievance procedure neither legal on the one hand nor political on the other, in the usual sense that we understand these terms. In 1809 they provided for the office of Justitiekansler, in English, procurator for Civil Affairs. Ombudsman in Swedish means agent or attorney. My own choice is simply a justice man, much like the Swedish word. The Swedish Parliament in 1809 appointed an Ombudsman whose function would be to hear complaints against Government Departments. His duties were to supervise the observance of laws and statutes as applied by the courts and by public officials and employees. I may point out that the Swedish Ombudsmen have the power to prosecute. The Ombudsmen across the water, in Northern Ireland and the local commissioners, do not have that power.

We are coming to distinctive details which are all over the world, each administration producing its own ideas. His main function has, over the years, come to be the recipient from citizens of complaints of maladministration, and the investigation of such complaints with full access to officials and their files. That is the beginning of the power. He has the power to meet with officials, have discussions with them about the complaint and have their files — that is very important — and, if he thinks the complaint is justified, the making of representations to the official and the Department concerned with a view to righting the wrong. I may say that today the Swedish Ombudsman rarely prosecutes. The idea of prosecution has withered away in Sweden.

The concept of Ombudsman is currently accepted over the world in civilised and democratic countries with some differences in detail — I have mentioned that — as to powers and responsibilities. Here and there you will get these differences. It is necessary to recognise the importance of the Ombudsman and I welcome what the Minister said about publicity. This is vital. The public should know what the Ombudsman is and what he has the power to do. I was very pleased when I read that Michael Mills had talked to a Rotary Club in Mullingar and painted the picture of the anomalous situation inside the pension field. This is all to the good. I congratulate the Minister for allocating funds for the purpose of letting the people know what the Ombudsman is about. Television, radio and press should be used. I used these in Northern Ireland and it worked. The people have to know the powers of the office and the remedies successfully obtained in selected cases. He should be able to go to the press with selected cases as examples of how he did his work, when he received the complaint and how long it took to process it.

New Zealand was the first English speaking country to enact the appropriate legislation and the Ombudsman was set up by Act of Parliament in 1962. Initially it was felt by the parliamentarians that the Ombudsman would, to some extent, usurp the function of parliamentary representatives. That view is not only unfounded but in fact it was discovered that the Ombudsman supplements the work of parliamentary representatives. He supplements their operations in so far as he relieves them of the tediousness and the time wasting effort in getting questions asked, in investigating Departments and in trying to right a wrong. The Ombudsman does this, therefore he supplements the work of the parliamentary representative. Note also that he is an officer of Parliament although we know — and the whole concept is useless unless we recognise this — that he is completely and totally independent of Government.

This Ombudsman legislation can be seen, therefore, as an extension of parliamentary democracy, an extension of the idea of fair play and justice. But again I say he is a parliamentary officer, appointed by Parliament and can only be dismissed by Parliament. This is part of the idea that the function of democratic Government is to serve the people in the interests of efficiency and fairness. The Ombudsman, who is an officer of Parliament, fills the position admirably.

In 1967 a parliamentary commissioner for administration, an Ombudsman, was appointed in London. Following that in 1969 a similar post was set up in Northern Ireland and in addition — this brings me to the question of extending the powers of the Ombudsman in the Republic — there was set up a commissioner for complaints. I held both posts. I am going to advocate an extension of the remit in the Republic into the whole local authority area and all public bodies. It may well be, therefore, that you would keep the Ombudsman's office as a separate entity and formulate a new office similar to the Northern Ireland commissioner for complaints. I was able to do both in Northern Ireland. You may not be able to meet that situation in the Republic, from a purely arithmetical point of view, population-wise and staff wise for the commissioner, and so on. The purpose of the latter post — commissioner for complaints — was to investigate complaints by citizens against local authorities and other public bodies. This was an extension of the Ombudsman concept into the local field.

In the course of my work as parliamentary commissioner for administration — that is Ombudsman in the North — obviously I had to deal with civil servants, particularly up to ministerial level. Without the unstinted co-operation I received my job would have been made much more difficult. The same applies to the local authorities and the public bodies from whom I received full co-operation and I understand that my predecessors have received the same kind of co-operation.

No body or bodies equivalent to commissioner for complaints in Northern Ireland was set up in England, Scotland or Wales until 1974. The men who were to operate as commissioners for local administration came to my office in Belfast to see how the commissioner for complaints worked at local level. Indeed, it worked out that they were given less power than I had in Northern Ireland. Here I am coming to the idea of the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman. I have already spoken about that and I think I have said enough. It should be extended. The picture of fairness and justice in the administration and in the administrative field in the Republic will not be complete until you extend the remit to cover local authorities and other public bodies. I believe there is much work to be done hearing complaints against local authorities. That is my personal experience. I can interpret what is in this document which was passed around. I believe it will not be long before the extension is a fact. I see the Minister smiling when I say that. I would urge him to proceed quickly. The idea of eliminating the 21 day stay is an indication to me that something is intended.

Ar dtús is mian liom fáilte a chur roimh an mBille seo agus comhgháirdeas a dhéanamh leis an Aire as ucht an Bille a thabhairt os comhair an tSeanaid.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome this Bill the main purpose of which is to speed up the procedural arrangements for amending the two schedules to the Ombudsman Act, 1980. I believe it is vital and essential that the Ombudsman — because of the unique role and position which he has as a means of redress for the citizen — should be able to deal quickly and effectively with complaints which are made to him from the public at large. I agree with Senator McGonagle that we owe a lot to the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden, for example, the institution was in existence in a particular way for well over one and a half centuries. We owe a lot also to the pioneering spirit of a great Danish parliamentary commissioner, Professor Stephen Hurwitz.

It was as far back as 1644 when the poet and sometime parliamentarian, John Milton wrote:

When complaints are freely heard, deeply considered and speedily reformed, then is the utmost bond of civil liberty attained that wise men look for.

It is in that context that I would like to pay tribute to the present Minister for the Public Service, Deputy John Boland, for the enthusiasm and the endeavour he has shown in promoting this concept of the parliamentary commissioner. I join with the other speakers in paying tribute to our first Ombudsman in this country, Michael Mills, for the dedication and commitment which he has shown in dealing with the complaints of maladministration which he has received from the public at large, thereby — as has been said — supplementing the citizens' classical constitutional remedy whereby he approached his local TD, requesting that a parliamentary question should be tabled to the appropriate Minister. As has already been said, the success of Michael Mills as our first Ombudsman can be seen from the fact that of the 1,300 complaints he has received he has finalised over 1,000 of them, that is a success rate of 77 per cent. Also he has proved himself to be very vigilant and conscientious. Also, because of the way he is handling his post, he is performing a very important extra role in explaining the difficulties that public bodies face in performing their public duties. He is helping to improve the morale, the standing and the status of our public servants. It is for these reasons, therefore, that I welcome the extension of the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to local authorities, health boards and indeed to the commercial semi-State agencies. I have no doubt that the Minister will be back to this House with appropriate proposals in the near future in this regard.

I advocate that extension as a member of a local authority and as a member of a health board because I believe that the citizen who feels that he or she is a victim of maladministration at the hands of local authorities, or at the hands of health boards, should enjoy the same right to have his or her complaint independently scrutinised as that citizen already enjoys in respect of maladministration or alleged maladministration at the hands of central Government.

It is interesting to note that the UK Commissioner for Health Services in his Report of 1983, when dealing with the response to the remedies that he had advocated makes the following statement:

I am pleased to record that the remedy which I regarded as appropriate was agreed in every case before the year's end.

That kind of statement from a health commissioner in the United Kingdom — that all the remedies he advocated were agreed by the health boards — is an indication of how beneficial the extension of this jurisdiction to health boards and to local authorities would be. It is for that reason that I have pleasure in supporting this Bill and also urging upon the Minister the need to have the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman extended in the future. I have no doubt that he will be back to the House very quickly indeed.

I welcome this Bill and I also welcome the opportunity to review briefly the operations to date of the office of the Ombudsman. With 1,300 complaints received 1,000 of them have been finalised.

The Minister is aware that when the proposals for the setting up of the Ombudsman were being discussed by an all-party informal committee chaired by the then Deputy Richie Ryan, the view was expressed strongly that the office should cover not only central Government administration but should be permitted to accept complaints against local authorities, health boards and non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. I would like to add to this list the commercial State-sponsored bodies such as the PMPA. It may well be that it is not possible to do that at present. I would ask the Minister to consider it in future reviews.

I agree with the Minister that the changes which the Bill will bring about will make a positive contribution to the effective operation of the Ombudsman and that it will also fully involve the Oireachtas in relevant decision making in this area. I join with the other speakers in the tributes paid to the Minister for bringing this Bill to fruition. He introduced the original Bill, he is now back as promised with a review and I am sure he will be back in the near future when he sees the need for further reviews. I join in the tribute paid to Mr. Michael Mills for the efficient and impartial manner in which he has carried out his duties.

I welcome the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the Ombudsman over the past 12 months. I would like also to congratulate the Minister on the speed with which an Ombudsman was appointed. I have waited here this afternoon to suggest to the Minister the he should act with equal speed in extending the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman into areas which have been mentioned here. However, the Minister has got the opinion of this House over the past hour because most speakers — if not every speaker — urged the Minister to extend the activities of the Ombudsman into the area of the local authorities and the health authorities.

I do not have to give instances of how the Ombudsman could operate in these areas because I have worked for a considerable number of years with the Minister on the local authority and I know only too well of his anxiety not only to have justice done but also to have justice seen to be done. One could not have the office of Ombudsman cover all the fields in which it is desired to have him operate. Mr. Mills has excelled himself in that office. May I say, in congratulating Mr. Mills on his activities to-date, that today must be a sad day for him. I would also extend to him our sympathy on the loss of many of his colleagues with whom he worked in the past. There is no doubt he has handled his work with speed and efficiency and he has proved that his selection by the Minister leaves nothing to be desired. The Minister could not have chosen a more worthy person to fill this office.

I have no doubt the Minister is considering extending his activities into further areas. I hope that having extended them to the local authorities and the health boards, and let us hope that that will come in the very near future, the Minister will go on to consider extending his activities into private areas. Telephones have been mentioned here and indeed I am sure there is not a public representative in the country who has not had a list of complaints regarding telephone charges. The opinion is widespread that everybody gets a telephone bill in excess of the number of calls made. If the Ombudsman were dealing with complaints in this area I believe that many of the complaints we get would turn out to be without foundation and that many of the bills people get are the correct bills, but I have no doubt many of them are in excess of what they should be. It is extremely difficult for anybody, no matter how vigilant, to record, as some of us do, the calls made over a period. We still doubt that we could have made a mistake.

I have no doubt that if the activities of the Ombudsman were extended into many other areas many of the complaints that are now floating around would dwindle away. There are several reasons for this. People would have the security of knowing that if they have a complaint there is somebody to whom they can turn. I have evidence in the recent past of people who have taken their complaint to their TD, have had questions asked in the House and have carried it to the full length and have eventually ended up in suicide. That is not an exaggeration. A certain broadcaster in the last couple of days has highlighted how we Irish tend to take the service as we get it and solve the problem ourselves, and do not make the complaints in the proper manner. In other words, we complain to a public representative and if we get no satisfaction there there is little or no publicity given to it or no effort made by the individuals themselves. They accept it as part of life. I have no doubt that the appointment of Mr. Mills as Ombudsman has made a significant change in the attitude of people now making decisions at Government level, at departmental level. As his powers are extended to cover other fields it will affect areas in the health boards, local authorities and semi-State bodies. It would be my wish to see his powers extended into the private areas as well.

To highlight the great need for it in the health boards and local authority areas, I would like just to give one example that I have handled recently. The local authority — my own local authority, on which the Minister himself served for many years — gave a planning permission which was eventually appealed to An Bord Pleanála by a neighbouring local authority because that local authority was receiving a water supply from the area in which the planning permission was given and because of the likelihood of pollution of that water supply. It was a very justifiable reason for appealing a planning permission. That planning permission was given to a person who had lived all his life, and his father before him and his father's father before him, in this area. He was a person who lived mainly from farming but had reason to take employment elsewhere.

Many small farmers in my area have to supplement their income by taking a part time job for six months or three months of the year. He was such a person. A further planning permission was given some months later to another person who had fallen in for the land — the land was left to him by his uncle but he had never lived in the area — a piece of ground not 200 yards from where the first planning permission was granted. In other words, it was a new family coming into the area. Despite that and despite the fact that it was even nearer to the water reservoir the second local authority did not appeal that to An Bord Pleanala. There was a glaring case of injustice. I could repeat these instances, not only in planning permissions but in other areas as well, over and over again. I do not want to delay the Minister here. I want to see him get on with this job and extend the activities of the Ombudsman into these other areas.

I welcome the opportunity of congratulating Mr. Mills on the efficient job that he has done to date and the Minister for his foresight in selecting Mr. Mills to fill the position.

I would like to thank the Senators for the welcome which they have extended to this measure. The House is fortunate in having amongst its Members Senator McGonagle, who has served in an analogous position to that of Ombudsman in this country. The exposition that he gave regarding the development of the role of Ombudsman, even before it was called by that title, was particularly interesting. The House has not only debated the Bill quite fully but has taken a long and detailed look at the procedures whereby the grievances of citizens were dealt with back to the time of Caesar's Rome.

In the context of Senator McGonagle's remarks it is interesting to reflect that when the Swedish Ombudsman was first appointed one of the main purposes in that appointment was also — apart from those outlined by the Senators — to act as a policeman upon the elected Parliament and the Government of the day so as to ensure that there were neither excesses engaged in by the administration nor the wasteful spending of public moneys.

That is a role which has not generally been assigned to latter day Ombudsmen or parliamentary commissioners. In that respect I think the Swedish model probably still stands relatively alone or unusual in that aspect of its operation. Its near neighbour, Denmark, probably more closely reflects the activities of Ombudsmen in this part of the world and indeed Ombudsmen in the southern hemisphere.

The right to prosecute which also is available to the Ombudsman under the Swedish system or, indeed, as the Senator pointed out the Ombudsmen, because there are now a variety of Ombudsmen who investigate in various aspects, including the question of the defence forces in Sweden, that right to prosecute is not a right that has in general been assigned to Ombudsmen whose offices have been created in the last 30 or 40 years. Generally speaking, particularly in relation to this country, it was right and appropriate that that assignment of the power to prosecute should not have been given to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman essentially operates on the basis of his moral authority and on the basis of his appointment by parliament and his reporting obligations to the parliament. In that respect he is an integral part and an important extension of the concept of parliamentary democracy. Senator McGonagle outlined and developed that point very well and very thoroughly in his explanation of the Ombudsman's role. It is, of course, central to the operation of the Ombudsman that he should have the right of access, not only to decisions made by officials and officialdom but also to that which they hold most dear, their files. If the papers relating to cases are not made available to an Ombudsman, he would of course be very severely restricted in his ability to pursue adequately grievances advanced to him. The Irish Ombudsman does have that right and it is a right which when he is unable to resolve cases immediately or in an informal basis can be, and is, I believe, exercised by him.

We have in relation to the Civil Service instructed each Department to assign a particular officer within that Department at a senior level who acts as the liaison officer between that Department and the Ombudsman and in that respect I think the remarks made by Senator McGonagle and by other Senators are also germane to those which relate to the success of the Ombudsman's role to date.

I gather that, with very little exception, the willing participation and active support of these liaison officers in each of the Departments of State have been quite marked and have contributed in no small way to the speedy resolution of many of the cases which the Ombudsman has advanced for initial examination. Long may it be so. I think it is important too, to public servants that they should realise that the establishment and operation of an office of Ombudsman serves in a particular way to protect them too in the proper discharge of their duties and in the image which they themselves have, that it serves as a sort of consolation to the citizen to realise that there is a court of last appeal, as it were, available and not only will complaints be fairly and impartially investigated but that when decisions are proven to have been made correctly and on good grounds the Ombudsman is in a position to verify and uphold the action of public servants in those cases also. In general, I think it has been accepted by the Civil Service that there is nothing for public servants to fear in the establishment or operation of an office of Ombudsman.

Senator McGonagle and other Senators spoke about the need for the Ombudsman to advertise the existence and operation of his office extensively. I share that concern. I think to some extent the Ombudsman has been somewhat inhibited in this the first year of his operation in that he initially carried out his duties from temporary accommodation and he was rather anxious not to advertise that office too extensively lest the location of it became so firmly embedded in the minds of the public that they would become totally confused to discover that within two months he had departed from there.

There is quite an amount of the advertising budget for this year as yet unspent but I would like to think that the Ombudsman — and I understand there are plans in train for the Ombudsman to expand on the level of advertising principally in the media now employed by him — would also begin to develop what might be called point of sale material by the production of posters and information leaflets which might be made available to community information centres and community councils and such other areas frequented by the public, such as schools, libraries and other public buildings. That would be an important part of the development of the consciousness of the general public regarding the existence of the Ombudsman office. It is for that reason that we have established quite a reasonable budget for advertising during 1985 also. It is in consequence of that that I gave the commitment in my introductory remarks to ensuring that in subsequent years there would be adequate moneys made available for the advertising of the existence of the Ombudsman role.

I was a little taken aback at the response of one or two Senators regarding their perception of what this Bill is about, though in general I would have to say that the remarks made about the Ombudsman were generous in nature. The fact is that in order to change the remit of the Ombudsman and, as most Senators would urge, to extend that remit, it is necessary, as I explained at the outset, to make a draft order which would be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and could not come into effect until 21 sitting days of both Houses have elapsed. That, in turn, can lead to an inordinate delay before the order can be implemented and it prevents the carrying out of the function of the recruitment of additional staff and that staff being identified and having to leave their existing employment before they can take up duty. So, from the time of decision to extend a remit until the Ombudsman would actually be in a position to go ahead can take a considerable length of time.

This Bill is designed to set that procedure aside and to allow instead, indeed to oblige instead, the sponsoring Minister to come before each of the Houses so that each House of the Oireachtas will not only have the opportunity but the obligation, as would be happening if we were debating an extension of the remit now, to discuss and put on record their views regarding the correctness or otherwise of the extension, the size of the extension of the remit and to make a positive declaration by their acceptance or otherwise — or indeed a negative declaration — of their attitude regarding that extension of the remit. The Houses in general do not do that at present because it is most unusual for a motion to be tabled rejecting an order laid before the House. In that way I think the Bill represents a very positive improvement in the involvement of the Oireachtas in deciding on the extent of the Ombudsman remit.

That does not alter the fact, however, that as the legislation now stands I cannot extend the remit without making an order which I would have to lay before this and the other House for 21 sitting days. I cannot provide in a Bill which has not yet become law to extend the remit in a different fashion to what the law is at present but what I am doing now is inviting the House to agree with the Government's decision to amend the law so that I may come back to this House and the other House within the next few weeks to put positively to the Houses a motion to extend the remit of the Ombudsman into particular areas. This is the reason for the Bill — to enable that to happen — and it appeared, if I may say so, as gently as possible, to have been lost on Senator Hillery and to some extent Senator Smith because they both regretted the fact that within the proposed legislation an extension of remit was not advanced. It cannot be. What the Bill is doing is to set aside the cumbersome procedure regarding the extension of the remit so as to enable a positive procedure to take place within the next few weeks and progressively, I hope, over the years to come.

Senators have in general concentrated on the concept of the extension of remit to the areas of, initially, local authorities and secondly, health boards. There have been a number of other and some quite novel as well as interesting suggestions. I am not in a position at this stage to inform the House categorically as to the Government's decision regarding the extent of the extension of the remit but I can say that there are specific proposals before the Government at present which will be dealt with either later this week or during next week. Assuming the enactment of this proposed measure I would hope then to be in a position to return to both Houses within several weeks of that date and certainly well in advance of the Christmas recess.

It was reasonable and correct for Senator Hillery to suggest that when the Bill was being put through the Houses in 1980 the then Minister of State gave a form of commitment that the Ombudsman's remit would be extended to the areas of local authorities and health boards within three months of his taking up office. When I was establishing the office I felt it was unrealistic to expect the office to move so quickly into a wider area within such a short period of time. One of the very important aspects of the initial office of Ombudsman is to ensure that it gains public respect and acceptability. If the office became so overworked that its administrative procedures broke down within its first year of office it could take a considerable number of years to reestablish the confidence of the public in the operation of the office of Ombudsman. It was for that reason that when the motion to appoint Michael Mills was being moved in this House and the other House I explained that I intended to delay the extension for the better part of the first year and come back and seek the approval of Government and both Houses to the extension at a stage when the Ombudsman indicated that he felt his office procedure had been well enough established and that he had enough grasp of the nuances of his role to be able to take on the extra work without the efficiency of the operation being called into question. This measure before the House is the first stage in allowing that procedure to take place.

I take the point that has been made by a number of Senators regarding the possibility of a wider extension of remit to the non-commercial State bodies and in certain cases — as was suggested by a number of Senators — to some of the commercial bodies, in particular the utility companies. I am interested in the complaints voiced in this House and the other House regarding the standard of servicing provided to customers by An Bord Telecom. In response to some of the complaints made in the other House last week I outlined the degree of complaint which I knew existed in relation to An Bord Telecom. I did that not to single out An Bord Telecom but merely in response to the reasonable criticism that had been made by Deputies and which was reechoed here today by Senators. I was more than taken aback by the hysterical response from somebody who is apparently a public relations officer for An Bord Telecom which was reported in The Irish Times the following day. I had suggested that in a one year period complaints regarding the telephone subscribers list amounted to some 150,000. That is a lot of complaints. My understanding was that only 12,000 of those had been resolved to the customers' satisfaction. That is not a lot of satisfaction. This figure was very vigorously disputed by the Bord Telecom un-named spokesman who said “I feel that Mr. Boland is some distance away from the truth on that”. I want to reiterate the figures and tell the House that I am not any distance away from the truth and that I did not attempt to mislead the other House or this House. In a recent 12 month period 150,000 complaints were made by subscribers regarding the telephone billing system, of which 12,000 were resolved to the subscribers' satisfaction. That is not taking into account all the complaints regarding those who would aspire to become subscribers, were telephones to be made available to them, or those who would aspire to have the telephone service provided restored to working order.

According to The Irish Times article the Bord Telecom spokesman conceded that they had received only 137,000 complaints in the past ten months. One need not be a mathematical genuis to establish that 137,000 complaints in a ten month period amounted to substantially more than 150,000 complaints in a 12 month period as outlined by me. I am taken also aback to discover An Bord Telecom's suggestion that there were telephones made available on demand to everyone except those in the greater Dublin area and in Donegal and Sligo. I would have thought that exemption entails a lot of people.

An Bord Telecom are in their first year of operation and have teething problems also, but if they have, they have to understand that the public when they feel aggrieved have the right to expect a fair complaint against bureaucracy, to whatever public body or authority it is, is dealt with courteously, efficiently and in the knowledge that those who receive the complaint are operating in the service of the public. If that standard were adhered to on all occasions then perhaps the level of complaints and the degree of customer satisfaction might improve in a marked way.

There is provision in the legislation establishing An Bord Telecom for the appointment of a users council to whom complaints regarding the firm's operation could be addressed. It is reasonable for the Government to examine and decide whether the users' council can adequately deal with the type of complaints which are being advanced by the public and which all public representatives are aware of. Complaints have been referred to them in large measure. There has been — not only in the Houses but in the precincts of the Houses — considerable unhappiness expressed by the Members of the Dáil and Seanad regarding the manner in which legitimate complaints and representations made by public representatives on behalf of their constituents have been handled by a certain public body. Any procedure that improves that situation and reminds those employed in a particular body that they are there to provide a service to the public can only be an improvement.

Senator Hillery suggested that when the first annual report of the Ombudsman is made no time should be lost in taking steps to see that the report is fully debated in both Houses of Parliament. I want to assure the House that it is my intention to do that. That will provide a very useful opportunity for Deputies and Senators to examine the contents of that report and make contributions in the light of it which are more relevant to the concept of the operation of the office of Ombudsman.

Senator Ferris had particular complaints regarding the operation of the medical referee system under the social welfare procedure. I would like to remind the House that as the Ombudsman's remit stands at present, as they are civil servants and carrying out basically administrative tasks the Ombudsman has the right to investigate complaints made by aggrieved parties in relation to that system. It is well that point should be emphasised. I would cavil with the Senator slightly when he suggests that he does not feel it correct that he as a legislator and a Member of the Oireachtas should feel obliged to refer cases to the Ombudsman in the hope that he might be able to get greater satisfaction than the Member of Parliament. Over a period of time the office of Ombudsman will have a positive spin-off effect on the Legislature in that an increasing number of people will take their grievances directly to the Ombudsman's office and that a greater number of members of the Oireachtas will address some of the more difficult and intractable problems of their constituents to the Ombudsman also, resulting in a greater amount of time being made available to Members of the Legislature to devote to matters of legislation.

Many Senators made points regarding the need for adequate staff and facilities to be made available to the Ombudsman in the event of his remit being extended. I will deal with those points in greater detail on my return to the House in the near future. It is not unfair to say that the imminent publication of the Public Estimates for 1985 will, if my memory does not fail me, show a percentage increase in the Vote for the Office of Ombudsman greater than that applying to any other Vote.

Question put and agreed to.
Agreed to take remaining Stages today.
Bill put through Committee, reported without amendment received for final consideration, and passed.
Top
Share