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.