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.