Vol. 106 No. 3
Earlier today it was agreed that we would take Nos. 1 and 3 together because the subjects are cognate with, of course, separate decisions if necessary. I now formally move:
That Seanad Éireann approves the following Order in draft:—
Ombudsman Act (First Schedule) (Amendment) Order, 1984
a copy of which Order in draft was laid before the House on 23 November, 1984.
I second that.
During the recent debate which took place in this House on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, a Cathaoirligh, there was a very favourable response on all sides to the work of the Ombudsman. That is a view I share fully. There is no doubt that, in his comparatively short existence, the Ombudsman has made a major impact. He has completely justified the all-party agreement to set up the office. He has shown how effective an instrument he can be in acting on behalf of citizens in their dealings with the bureaucracy. Indeed, as I recall, he was described during the debate as a "Tribune of the People". To my mind, the sentiments underlying that description captured the essential features of his role.
The establishment of the office of Ombudsman did not, however, imply that the public service was some ogre which needed a stick to be beaten with. It was rather a recognition that, with so large an organisation as the public service, whose actions touch the daily lives of citizens, independent and impartial machinery was needed to ensure fair play. And fair play can work both ways — both for the bureaucracy as well as the citizen.
The Ombudsman, therefore, is essentially an impartial and independent referee. He acts on behalf of the citizen but he is not an enemy of the bureaucracy.
I have thought it important to underline the role of the Ombudsman as a prelude to a consideration of the major expansion of his remit which is envisaged in the draft order before the House. And I am glad to fulfil my promise, which I made during the earlier debate mentioned, that I would fully involve the House in all decisions affecting this remit.
I think it would be helpful if, at the outset, I outlined generally the basis of the Government's approach to the extension proposed.
In deciding on the framework for the extended remit, the Government had to take account of a number of relevant issues. The most important of these were timing, resources, and areas of need for action by the Ombudsman. It is proposed that the extension of the Ombudsman's remit to each of the bodies indicated in the draft order would become effective from 1 April 1985. As I indicated in the recent debate on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, the Ombudsman had already received by then about 1,300 complaints. Since then, I understand that he has received a further 250 complaints approximately. It is clear, therefore, that the Ombudsman is very actively involved in the discharge of his existing responsibilities. He must be allowed a certain breathing space, and time to recruit and train the additional staff required, before he can take on additional responsibilities.
This brings me to the second issue — the question of resources. To discharge the major expansion envisaged in the remit will require a substantial increase in the existing staff resources of the Ombudsman's office. To this end, the Government have provided some £300,000 for extra staff in the 1985 provision for the office. While I have not checked the corresponding provisions for every other Vote, I can confidently say that this is one of the largest, if not the largest, increase in the 1985 Estimates. It underlines the Government's commitment, in a time of stringent economies, to ensure that the redress of citizens' grievances is treated as a major priority.
In deciding the optimum use of these additional resources, it was clear to the Government that health boards and local authorities should come within the Ombudsman's remit. That was the unanimous view of the 1977 informal all-party committee, whose work did so much to provide the impetus for the establishment of the office of Ombudsman. It is a view to which I fully subscribe and on which I had given an earlier commitment to the House. The basic question facing the Government was, however, what other areas should be covered with the resources available.
During the earlier debate on the Bill to which I have referred, a number of Senators on all sides of the House commented on the position of Bord Telecom Éireann. Reference was made to the large volume of complaints in this area and, indeed, some criticism was made of the reaction of the company to representations made in this regard. These views were echoed in the debate in the other House. It was clear to me, therefore, that many public representatives were unhappy with the position here. In fact, the points made endorsed my own position which I made clear during the debate.
The views of the Houses, and indeed my own views, were therefore an important input into the Government's decision to extend the Ombudsman's remit to Bord Telecom Éireann. I want to emphasise that this decision did not imply any wish on their part to single out this body among all State-sponsored bodies. In fact, they recognise that, since their establishment, Bord Telecom Éireann have made major advances, many as a result of the large scale capital investment over the past number of years, in the development of the telephone service. But it is also a fact that, side by side with these advances, there seems to exist a serious level of public dissatisfaction in the area of complaints. The Government would be entirely remiss if they did not utilise the Ombudsman, whose primary role it is to seek redress on behalf of citizens, in a situation where such a large volume of public complaints exist.
The proposed extension of the Ombudsman's remit also embraces An Post. Here, I think it is only fair to say that the level of complaints in this area does not seem to compare with that in the telecommunications area. However, since both An Post and Bord Telecom Éireann were established at the same time, and since both have such a wide impact on the public at large in the whole postal and telecommunications area, it is appropriate that the Ombudsman's remit should embrace the two bodies. Indeed, his investigations of both bodies should also help to compare their respective approaches and responses to complaints.
The Government, therefore, have decided that the proposed extended remit for the Ombudsman is the most appropriate one by reference to the resources available, the needs arising, and the time scale involved. The remit envisaged represents by any reasonable standards a major addition to the responsibilities of the Ombudsman and to his coverage of public service operations. That is not to say, however, that further additions cannot be made to his remit as appropriate. This is a matter which I intend to keep under review and to which I will return later.
I would like now to comment briefly on specific aspects relevant to each of the areas embraced by the proposed extended remit. In the health area, actions involving the exercise of clinical judgment would be excluded from the extended remit. This is in line with the clear view of the all-party committee to which I referred earlier. The basis for this view, with which I fully agree, is that the primary purpose of the Ombudsman is to investigate administrative malpractice, not clinical judgments reached by doctors, etc., as a result of their professional medical expertise.
The reserved functions of elected members would similarly be excluded from the Ombudsman's remit in the local authority area. These functions are essentially policy matters and would not be appropriate for investigation by the Ombudsman. The exclusion of reserved functions is in line with the position in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, where the counterparts of the Irish Ombudsman do not examine the discretionary powers of local authorities. It is also understood that the practice in other administrations follows a similar course.
With these exceptions, the whole area of health board and local authority administration, which impacts so much on the public at large, will be open to investigation by the Ombudsman.
I have already spoken at some length about the postal and telecommunications area. The extension of the Ombudsman's remit here, coupled with the work of the existing Users' Councils, will provide the public with a major focus for the remedy of complaints arising.
Before I conclude, I would like to make some general comments. As I have said, I intend to keep the framework of the Ombudsman's remit under review. I also intend to review the underlying legislation under which he operates. If the Ombudsman's remit is extended as now proposed, he will be undertaking responsibilities in relation to a vast area of the public service. While I have no reason to anticipate it, experience of operation in these areas might indicate some necessary changes in the relevant legislation. It would probably be best to review together the legislation and any necessary further changes in the remit.
I consider it would be wrong now to give any specific commitment on the timescale for such a general review. It can only be based on experience of the Ombudsman's expanded role. I would think, however, that it could be started in about 18 months' time. If, however, any specific matter arises which requires urgent attention, I will of course deal with it immediately. I intend to come back to the House in the new year with proposals for some further changes in the Schedules to the Ombudsman Act, 1980. Basically, these changes will be aimed at bringing the Schedules up to date — to take account of the establishment of new bodies, etc. since the original 1980 Act. I have thought it better to treat these separately from the change proposed now under the draft Order before the Seanad. This change envisages a major extension of the Ombudsman's remit and is one deserving the full consideration of the House in its own right.
If the House approves the draft Order, it is vital that the public become fully aware of the Ombudsman's expanded role and, indeed, of his important work under his existing remit. I have had discussions on these matters with the Ombudsman, and I am glad to inform the House that he intends to launch a major publicity campaign to these ends.
The efficient discharge of the Ombudsman's role depends, to a large extent, on the co-operation he receives from the bureaucracy. I have no reason to believe that such co-operation has not been forthcoming to date, nor do I have any doubts that it will not freely be given by the bodies covered by the proposed extended remit. I would highlight, however, the importance which every relevant public organisation, and indeed their individual staffs, should attach to this matter. I need hardly say that any absence of co-operation would be tantamount to frustrating the intentions of the Government and will not be tolerated.
To conclude, let me again emphasise the major expansion of the Ombudsman's remit which is envisaged in the draft Order before the House. Its effect will be to increase still further the protection of citizens against administrative malpractice. The interests of our citizens is something I have always passionately believed in as a public representative. I know that my fellow public representatives also share this view, and I look forward to the approval of the House for the draft Order.
We, on this side of the House, are happy to lend our support to the draft Order. The Minister when speaking here two weeks ago indicated his intention to expand the remit.
I am glad to note that substantial additional resources will be made available to the office of the Ombudsman but I would ask the Minister to indicate if he is satisfied that this sum will be adequate to meet the demands on the office of the Ombudsman following this extension. It is one thing to have adequate resources, and I look to the Minister for confirmation that resources will be adequate for the additional staff required to meet the two new categories now covered. The recruitment procedure through the Civil Service, however, is a very slow process. I would like the Minister to give us an assurance that the recruitment and selection procedure will be activated straight away so that the additional staff with the relevant expertise will be available at the actual time that new categories will come under the purview of the Ombudsman.
The Minister, in his reply to the debate two weeks ago covered most of the points raised by Senators, but I want to return to a point I made at that time. It refers to the exclusion of public servants from the Ombudsman's remit. I find it difficult to accept the continuation of this exclusion, because most public servants do not have the right to bring their cases to the Labour Court or to the Rights Commissioner. The Minister did not respond to that particular point, and perhaps he would be good enough to do so this evening. Public servants who are excluded from the Labour Court and the Rights Commissioner service should be permitted to refer their cases to the Ombudsman.
In conjunction with item 1 on the Order of Business, which relates specifically to the Ombudsman, we are also taking No. 3. In relation to No. 3 I would like to make a few comments, especially since I am a member of the Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies. I want to welcome the addition of An Bord Telecom and An Post to the list of designated bodies which we will examine. I want to make one specific point here, and I am glad to have the opportunity to do so.
The work of the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies is not a witchhunt. Rather are we concerned with an objective analysis of the operation of these undertakings. Following a thorough examination and analysis of these bodies we make recommendations which we regard as a considered input into policy making. One of our primary considerations in drawing up these reports is to try to ensure that the taxpayer gets value for his money. The members of the committee invest a considerable amount of time and effort in the proceedings of the committee and we expect our reports to be debated by the Seanad and Dáil, and we also expect the Government to take careful note of them.
Our first report, on CIE, has been debated by the Seanad and I am happy to record that the Minister for Labour, who took that debate, said that he accepted all our recommendations in principle. I have no such favourable comment to make in regard to Irish Shipping. While admitting that we were not in a position to produce our report before the actual date of liquidation, even though it was virtually ready, we had made a thorough analysis of the problems facing that company and we had invested many man hours in preparing that report. What we found particularly frustrating was the fact that we were never consulted. Admitedly our report was not published, but before the decision to liquidate was taken, it would have been a very valuable exercise and a valuable contribution to a policy decision for the Minister and the Government to consult us about the contents of the report. We would have been only too happy to indicate our findings at that point in time.
Liquidation was obviously one option. I remain to be convinced that there were not other options. The chartering people in Hong Kong and in Japan are hardheaded businessmen who should have been more than willing to re-negotiate the terms of the charter agreements if the liquidation option was properly spelled out to them. At this very time representatives from the chartering people both in Hong Kong and in Japan are in Dublin.
I must interrupt the Senator. He can make a passing reference to this but he cannot develop it into a debate.
I accept your ruling but I wanted to make the point and to stitch it into the record.
You have it stitched in now.
The Joint Committee on State-Sponsored Bodies is a particularly valuable instrument for the examination of State-sponsored bodies. Its reports are comprehensive and constructive and they provide a valuable aid to policy decisions. It is my continuing hope that our future deliberations and reports will be taken with the utmost seriousness and that no premature liquidation will occur in the future.
I just want to thank the Minister for coming back so speedily to us with this order which reflects the wishes and views of this House expressed recently in trying to ensure the extension of the Ombudsman's remit to areas in which we as public representatives were involved, where we could see a need for the Ombudsman's role, areas that all of us, individually or as party groups, have had dealings with in the past, that is, the area of local authorities, health boards and of course the area of An Bord Telecom and An Bord Poist. I am glad the Minister has confirmed that there have been relatively few complaints about An Post. They seem to give a magnificient service under most extraordinary conditions at times. The vast majority of people — I put this on the record of the House during the passage of the legislation — are most complimentary to An Post particularly, and I should like to reiterate that compliment today. From the postman upwards they are a magnificent organisation. I have relatively little complaint about them.
The same cannot be said of Bord Telecom Éireann. It is appropriate that this order should be forthcoming so quickly from the Minister in response to the amount of complaints that were documented and listed as having been made. I am glad that by bringing these two boards within the remit of the Ombudsman it might reduce the workload of Gay Byrne, who seems at the moment to be the only ombudsman available to people when they have a complaint to make against An Bord Telecom. He has been very active in recent weeks in this area. It is an indication of the frustration of people that they have to turn to people who are well known in the media to express their views and consternation about some of their complaints. It is appropriate that we would set down formally a remit that will give statutory power to somebody to investigate complaints.
I am also pleased that the Minister for Finance has agreed, in consultation with the Joint Committee on Commercial State-Sponsored Bodies which has looked for the facility, to investigate the accounts of these two boards. That is also appropriate in view of the fact that shortly after the boards were set up a desire was expressed by this committee to visit them. To say the least, discourtesy was shown to the members of the committee on that occasion. The matter was rectified afterwards in the interests of good public relations. It is not enough just to be able to put "our good public relations" on the record; there should be a formula there. This motion will give effect to the committee's power to call in the people representing these two boards, to make them accountable to the committee which, in turn, will report to us. That is how democracy should work.
No person, whether in Irish Shipping or in any other semi-State body, should be allowed to make decisions without his board's knowledge or permission or without the permission of the Minister. It is appropriate that a specific committee of the House would have the power to investigate them. We realise that Ministers in their various Departments have a continuing consultation process going on with the various semi-State bodies. All of us have to answer to the public, about complaints in the semi-State sector, which I usually defend. I agree with the system; as a matter of fact, there should be a further extension of it but only if these bodies can prove themselves to be efficient. That is what all of us are looking for, because money is so scarce now that unless we deploy it correctly and efficiently the service we would hope to give the people from taxpayers' funds would not be readily forthcoming. It is a welcome move that these two motions which were taken together should receive the widespread approval of the House.
I accept, as a member of a health board, that the remit would be in the area of administration only, but let us not interpret the area of administration as purely administrative decisions. Administrative decisions can be made at community care level where somebody can decide whether they will visit an old person or not, and if they do not, somebody should have regard to the fact that because they are in need of the service and deserve it they should have it. If there is a problem about staffing in the community care service — and I know there is: I disagree with the blanket embargo in the health services, particularly in the community care section — it is appropriate that the people who feel they are not being served at that level should have some means by which they can lodge a formal complaint to have their case investigated.
I think the Ombudsman is the appropriate one to do so, because while as a member of a board you can make a policy decision how it is administered at any level is then a matter for administrators, and the administrator of the community care service could be a professional person such as a nurse or community care director, it may not necessarily involve medical opinion which the Minister referred to and which would arise in a hospital situation. I should like to differentiate between administration at community care level which could be provided by a medical professional person and the medical ethics of a decision which would be based within a hospital complex.
We have to have regard for the ordinary common rights of people who already have recourse in law if any decisions of a clinical level in a hospital adversely affect them. One should not take away the rights of people, and if anything I think the Minister is substantiating their rights. As a public representative I should like to commend him for the excellent way he has dealt with this matter so speedily at the request of this House. It is an indication of his concern as a public representative that the public at all times will have means of ensuring that their rights are protected and vindicated. It is a matter for this House to substantiate the belief the Minister has in that form of democracy.
I, too, like Senator Hillery wish to compliment the performance of the Ombudsman and particularly to support this order. At the same time I have a certain reservation about lending what one would call blanket support. I fear that sometimes we are creating a new bureaucracy and I would fear that the role of the Ombudsman might fall into that line. For example, in the length of time he has been in operation — he is obviously a most admirable man — I think he has come up with only one problem which he has brought to public attention, and that was in the case of social welfare, one specific case where he felt that a new order should be made by the Government where a certain section of the community were not getting fair play from the Department of Social Welfare. I forget the details of that case but I listened to him outlining it on radio one morning and I thought it was fair. Apart from that he has not come up with any sensational news.
As regards the health boards, like the leader of the Labour Party in the House, I believe there may be room for him there but basically what is wrong with the health boards today is not that the administration is not working well, it is that they have no money. I would not like to see the Ombudsman being used as a shelter by the Government or by any members of the Government to protect what is really wrong in the health board districts. I cannot see anything wrong with the administration of the Western Health Board from the point of view of people who have complaints to make. They have made them through the normal process of direct letter or direct communication, and I suppose there were thousands of them. The few who did not get satisfaction went to the public representatives and if they did not resolve the matter it was often brought to the attention of a health board member, who highlighted the case. I do not see anything wrong with that system. It would be a waste of money at this stage to dip too deeply into it.
I listened patiently to the Minister making his arguments regarding the need for the Ombudsman in An Bord Telecom. I was Minister of State at the Department of Posts and Telegraphs from 1979 to 1981. We are talking about a vast Department which, at that time, was dealing with more than half of the public service. During that time we set in train, as regards complaints, particularly on the telecommunications side which seems to be an eternal source of complaints, certain methods by which complaints could be dealt with quickly. It was successful. The Minister will acknowledge that he was the recipient on many occasions of rapid diagnosis of problems. Whether the results given to him were accepted by the public is another question. Whether they will be accepted by the report given to the Ombudsman is also another question. An Bord Telecom were faced with a difficult task and it will continue to be a difficult task because most complaints are about bills. A few weeks ago it was found out for the first time that the biggest offenders were the Government headed by the King Kong boss himself, the Taoiseach, who owed £55,000 to the board. He was described as the person, who as leader of the Government, should have shown better example.
On a point of order——
I have to ask Senator Killilea to withdraw the prefix to the Taoiseach.
Sorry, I will. But the point is that the Taoiseach and his Department showed bad example to the nation. What is the Ombudsman going to do about it? The Taoiseach is the Leader of the present Government. I do not know how long they will last: they seem to be shaky. I would like to know how much the Department of Social Welfare, for example, owe Bord Telecom Éireann. I would also like to know how much the Department of Health owe. I would ask the Minister to inform us how much his Department owe An Bord Telecom. The Department of Foreign Affairs owe in excess of £1,000. We did not find out what date they paid the bill. The Minister might tell us on what date his bill was brought up to date. Has it lapsed for the last 11 or 12 months? How much was owed by the Government to An Bord Telecom? What can the Ombudsman do about that? The bad example is being shown by the Government themselves, by the Taoiseach, who still owes £55,000 to An Bord Telecom. That is a nice example to an ordinary poor person in the country who finds his telephone bill is more than he thought it should be. He complains about the bill and he says: The Taoiseach did not pay his bill; why should I pay mine? That is a simple conclusion that anybody would come to.
What about the phone tapping?
Does the Senator want to say something?
Senator Killilea, we cannot have a discussion in the Chamber between yourself and Senator McMahon.
I always pay respect to the Chair. In reply to what Senator McMahon said, I asked a very simple question about phone tapping — because the Ombudsman will probably have a role to play in that connection — concerning the phone tapping in the Moyna case. Was it true that the two modes of transport used in that bugging escapade were traced back today to the headquarters of the police force in this city? Senator McMahon did not reply. That might bring home the facts to him. In the reign of his present Minister, the man with all the checks and balances — did he work out the checks and balance on that one? Had he the courtesy to answer my question today?
The Minister to whom you addressed that question has now left the Chamber.
Thank you. I just wanted to make the point in answer to Senator McMahon's allegation. As a public representative I know it is easy for us to take on An Bord Telecom because of the quantity and volume of the inquiries that are made concerning particularly telephone bills. The problem lay, not in getting the response, but in accepting the reply that An Bord Telecom could give them. If people do not want to accept that response what can the Ombudsman do about it? I would almost assume that 80 per cent of all complaints concerned the accounts of An Bord Telecom. As I have pointed out the Government have not given a good example on this matter. In actual fact, they should be ashamed of themselves, and the Taoiseach in particular, when his own Department is the trend-setter in this particular matter. Obviously, his Department and himself do not accept what An Bord Telecom said the charges were. He may be right or wrong. The equipment in the exchanges cannot be relied upon to be giving exact and proper accounts. Even experienced people within the Department could not stand over them because of the size and complication of that equipment. I would go so far as to say that it will be very difficult for the Ombudsman to resolve the problem. I await with anxiety and a keen eye to see if he will be able to come up with a new solution or if he finds any abnormal performance that cannot be responded to by either side.
On the other hand, the Minister in his speech said the Ombudsman has a right to defend semi-State bodies on their actions. I agree with that. They need defending when wild allegations may be made against them, and in particular with regard to accounts. I would hope that the Ombudsman will shoulder that responsibility. I am sure he will because he is a very responsible man. He will see the difference between what is true and factual and what is alleged to be true and factual.
With regard to An Post, this is a very well run organisation. It always was very well run even in the time of the Department. It is going from strength to strength. There are less confused moments in the Post Office. Any new ideas emanating from it are good ones. I welcome the special rate postage stamp for Christmas. It is a very good idea. It is expected to sell an extra two million Christmas cards this year. That generates business for everybody. It spreads right down along the line in this industry. The same applied to the St. Patrick's Day operation.
When it goes into the banking facilities, there would be a very important role for the Ombudsman. That is a place where the Ombudsman can really play a very important role, because he will be a strong balancing factor in the privacy of a person's account in any bank if there is something wrong with it. Some £300,000 has been made available for this expansion. I would like to see the position reviewed in six or eight months' time in this House to see what progress the Ombudsman can make in this alleged area of confusion and complaints in An Bord Telecom. We can judge what his capability is in that particular field after a certain period.
I am sure the Minister will agree with me that if the number of complaints that were listed by the Minister at the last sitting of the House are still in existence after seven or eight or ten months or 12 months then we will know there is some other reason why those complaints continue. I hope in order to give help and assistance to the Ombudsman that the present Minister in our company this evening, a man I hold in high respect and esteem, would tell the next Government meeting that they should show example and pay their bills first so as to let the nation know that they have a responsibility to An Bord Telecom and get this matter cleared up and explain to the people that it is cleared up. By that example an enormous amount of those problems would evaporate. He should bring it to the Government's attention that this nonsense of the Taoiseach's office owing £55,000 to An Bord Telecom should be brought to an immediate end.
There are other matters which I will not delay with because I have gone too far already with Senator McMahon interrupting me. If he believes in trying to annoy me about matters he believes to be relevant it can be understood that it takes me five minutes to answer him in the most appropriate way that I can. It seems to have dumbfounded him.
The Chair ruled for both of you.
I look forward to the continued role the Ombudsman will play and I wish him well in it and hope that he will show — and I know he will — to the nation that his job is a dual job. His responsibility is not alone to protect the people but also to protect the private and public sectors so that they will not be maligned or misinterpreted in any way, I look forward to continuing success by him.
Speaking two weeks ago to the Ombudsman amendment moved by the Minister here I made the point that the picture would be incomplete if the remit of the Ombudsman were not to be extended. I got the impression — I said so that day; as a matter of fact we were told — that it would be extended. I expected that it would be extended. What I did not expect was that it would be done so quickly, and I must congratulate the Minister for such speed and efficiency. This must be one of the fastest times for any piece of legislation to come before the Dáil and Seanad. I congratulate the Minister on that.
The extension into the local authority and public bodies areas is a larger extension than the people here might think. As Parliamentary Commissioner in Northern Ireland and Commissioner for Complaints I dealt in the former body with say X number of complaints per year. As Commissioner for Complaints I dealt with four times that number. If we take the 1,300 that Michael Mills has handled up to date in the months that he is there and multiply it by four we get between 5,000 and 5,500. The staff, therefore, would have to be aimed at dealing with complaints of that volume — something like that, possibly more.
The Ombudsman, properly speaking, in his work is not in competition with the courts. He is not, and should not be seen to be in competition with trade unionism, trade union contracts as such and freely negotiated arrangements. He is not an Ombudsman to do the work of trade unionists or trade union officials. That he will have to be warned about, because there is an unhappy tendency for people to pass the buck and in my case it happened that the buck stopped quickly because I happened to be a trade union official as well and I knew how to stop that buck. It is a dangerous one. The trade union field is most dangerous for an Ombudsman.
The picture is now complete. The democratic picture is absolutely complete; there is no doubt about that. The State will now in all its instruments be seen to be actually serving the citizen. This is not only an extension of the Ombudsman idea; it is an extension of democracy, the idea of fairly quick and efficient justice. I am glad to hear the Minister say that he expects the fullest co-operation from all the people involved, the representatives of the public bodies, civil servants and the rest. I got this in the North and I have no doubt that Michael Mills will get the same co-operation in the Republic. I feel that he will get it; he deserves it. In my own experience as a trade union official operating in the Republic as well as the North at that time, I got the fullest co-operation from local authorities and any bodies that I had to deal with and I am sure he will get it too. There was only one occasion in the North when I felt obstructed — or two rather. One was a doctor, and I was not interfering with his clinical record. We got over the hurdle. The other one was an ordinary case of obstruction. We dealt with that quickly. There were only two such cases. I am happy to record that. Again, let me reiterate that the Minister is to be commended on his circularised statement. He is to be commended on the speed and efficiency with which he extended the remit of the Ombudsman and therefore the extension of the democratic ideal of justice and fair play.
It is now one minute to 6.30. We are taking item No. 6 at 6.30. Will we move the adjournment of this debate now?
I doubt if any Senator wishes to talk for fewer than 60 seconds on the topic. This debate will be resumed tomorrow.
