I would like to make a brief contribution on this motion regarding the Report of the Ombudsman. I should start like other Senators in paying a great tribute to Mr. Mills. When the Bill came before this House to appoint Mr. Mills it was received with great enthusiasm. The feelings of Members of that time could be expressed in the title of one of Charles Dickens great novels Great Expectations both with regard to the Ombudsman and to the person who was selected to fill the position of the Ombudsman. Often our expectations are dashed or things may not reach the heights we would hope for but in this case there is no question but that our greatest expectations have been fulfilled by Mr. Mills. He is a man of great enthusiasm, ability and concern.
The authorised investigative staff in 1984 comprised of one director, one senior investigator and four investigators. The full complement of four investigators have only been appointed since August. Taking that into consideration the report is a very full one. In terms of reports as they come before the House the volume is rather slim. Indeed it would be much slimmer if it were not for the selected cases which were included. I have no doubt that in future years we will have much larger volumes. It would be nice to think that they will get smaller and that the work of the Ombudsman will decrease but I am afraid the situation in other countries and the situation as it is here points to the fact that the Ombudsman will have a very difficult job and an increasing role. Indeed, placed in a central position as he is, I think representations could be made to have officers distributed around the country and make accessibility easier. Perhaps officers of this type could be members of local authorities or other bodies who would fulfil this function part time.
In the report the Ombudsman referred to delays on page 22. He said that these were a matter of serious complaint. It is heartening to see from the report that the major concern of the Ombudsman is to ensure that complaints will be dealt with in his office as expeditiously as possible.
The Minister in his introductory speech stated:
Going on the experience of ombudsmen abroad it can be expected that a fair proportion of investigations will show that the administrative actions complained about were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This is borne out by the statistics in the report which show that quite a number of complaints were not upheld.
This may very well be so, but a considerable number of complaints were upheld. I think the emphasis could equally be placed on this. The number of complaints received was 2,267. Within the jurisdiction there were 1,544 leaving 723 outside the jurisdiction. It would be proper to make a plea that the jurisdication of the Ombudsman should be extended into other areas. The Minister has referred to this and he has referred to the financial position which makes it difficult. Nevertheless, it is unfortunate that people in other areas which are not included within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman should have to suffer because of this. I can think of other areas. One of them is the vocational education area. This is not an area that is included within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. It is a very important area and it should be considered as well as many other areas.
The number of complaints completed amounted to 1,013; 400 of these were resolved; assistance was provided in 148 cases; 294 were not upheld and 171 were discontinued or withdrawn. The Minister has given us reasons why some of these were discontinued or withdrawn. They may have been dealt with or people may have been made to realise that they had not a legitimate complaint.
It is very important that we discuss the Ombudsman's report in this House because while the Ombudsman cannot impose his findings on the public service he has the authority and the duty to bring his findings and recommendations to the Oireachtas. In this area it is most important and particularly in the area where the Ombudsman might not be able to get satisfaction because, as has been pointed out by the Minister, no authority would care to have its case in that situation discussed in this House. It is interesting to see the reference to the complaints from former civil servants and to see the situation where they are on the other side of the counter so to speak. By and large we cannot complain about the way we are treated by our civil servants. We are proud of them. Perhaps in some instances there may be cause for complaint but it is interesting to see that reference.
Another important area of the report is the suggested review of legislation in particular areas. On page 13 the report states under social insurance:
It is inequitable that persons who had paid more for social insurance stamps should get less benefits then those who paid less because the deciding factor was the number of years from their first contribution after 1953.
This is further developed on page 18 where it states:
. . . how frustrating it must have been for certain applicants for Old Age Contributory Pension to learn that if they had paid less contributions during their working lives they would have qualified. There is an inherent inequity in any system which treats those who have paid fewer contributions more favourably than those who have paid more.
This is self-evident. It is extraordinary that it has taken the Ombudsman to point out this anomaly and to have it corrected. Surely it is something that should have been obvious and must have been the subject of many complaints over the years. It is extraordinary that it is only when the complaints have been taken up by the Ombudsman and recommendations made for review that this matter will be considered.
The law of domicile is something about which I have heard complaints many times in this House. The domicile of a wife is that of her husband even where they are estranged or living apart and even perhaps where the husband is living in a different country. This is wrong and surely should have been attended to before now. Also with regard to the deserted husband there is the anomaly whereby a deserted wife in particular circumstances would receive about £20 per week more than a husband under the same conditions. This is an anomaly which should have been obvious. It should have been corrected without having to be brought forward by the Ombudsman.
There is the tax anomaly where a widow with a child is receiving an annual income above a comparatively low level from an insurance company and the mother is not able to claim from the Revenue Commissioners either the child allowance of £100 or the personal allowance of £1,300 as a single parent. This is an area about which many complaints were made. Something should have been done before now.
In relation to trade disputes the report states that under the provisions of social welfare legislation persons who do not stand to gain materially from a strike by fellow workers can still be prevented from obtaining unemployment benefits if they are regarded as being members of the same grade or class. Complaints have been made in this regard and nothing has been done. I am glad to see from the Minister's report that in all these areas something will be done.
It also seems inequitable and wrong that payment is delayed particularly for a long time and that no allowance is made for increases in costs or devaluation in currency. I was very interested in Senator McGonagle's contribution where he pointed out that the Ombudsman had the power to make a recommendation for an ex gratia payment in those circumstances. I am sure this will be done. It was one of the many interesting facets of Senator McGonagle's contribution and the fact that he has been an Ombudsman in the North made it all the more interesting.
The valuation of property, where this could take place when a person was abroad, for example, is another area where something should have been done before now. I presume that antiquated law referred to is the 1898 Local Government Act. It seems extraordinary that an Act that is almost a century old should still be enforced when such developments have taken place with regard to the materials that are used. In those days, for example, lead and copper pipes were the norm and a soldered joint was a work of art on a lead or copper pipe. Nowadays I am sure there are many skilled craftsmen who are unable to do a soldered joint and yet those conditions apply with regard to drains, for example, as opposed to sewers. This is an area where it is important that review of the legislation would be carried out without any greater delay.
There are other areas which were mentioned by previous speakers. Senator Lanigan referred to the position in the area of social welfare where people receiving benefit did not receive their cheque in the post. On telephoning the particular Department which dealt with their problem they were told that there was an industrial dispute and the information could not be given. This is most unfortunate. I am sure the Minister would understand the special problem of people on low incomes like that, people with families. I know a number of cases of people coming to me who had to spend 50p to £1 on the phone and more if the call did not run smoothly, maybe another 50p. Those people could not afford this expense. I feel that it was not good enough. Something should have been done such as providing a freephone service for those people. Recently, as Members of the Oireachtas, we were circulated with numbers we can phone to get early information on problems regarding old age pensions and so on. This is most important, I welcome very much that we have that facility where we can phone without the delay of waiting for a reply to a letter. This is to be commended. I cannot see why some similar arrangement could not have been made for people who had these problems, people who did not receive their benefit in the post. Surely it would have been possible to provide a free service or that the Department would undertake the responsibility for payment. I ask the Minister if this could be done.
Another area which was discussed in regard to An Bord Telecom is in regard to disputes in relation to telephone accounts. It is dealt with on page 20 under "Telephone Accounts." The report states:
As I have explained early in this Report I am empowered by law to carry out investigations into complaints about disputed telephone accounts as well as unsatisfactory or faulty telephone service which arose only during the period between 7 July 1983, the effective commencement date of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, and 31 December, 1983, the date on which certain functions of the former Department of Posts and Telegraphs were transferred to Bord Telecom Éireann.
The position with regard to telephone accounts is most unsatisfactory. Many people have complained that phone bills are too high. I made representations for a number of people who told me that there was no way that they could have made the phone calls that they were charged for in their accounts.
There is no way of checking this out. There is no way, for example, of proving that somebody did not use the phone when the people of the house were away or when somebody was out of the office. A few years back, before this sophisticated arrangement we have now came into operation, by payment of a small extra fee it was possible to get a list of the trunk calls that were made during the period chargeable. That was very helpful. The trunk calls, of course, in all cases make up the larger part of the account It is impossible to get that list now. In effect, we are going backwards. I cannot see why, with all the sophisticated equipment it is possible to get, that some simple arrangement cannot be included to monitor the calls. I know it is possible to get equipment to lock up a phone to take only incoming calls, but that is not satisfactory. When a person in business is presenting a bill charges are itemised. I see no reason why Bord Telecom Éireann should not have to itemise the phone calls that are made, their duration, the dates on which they were made and so on. I believe it would cost a little extra, but I also believe that people would not object to paying the extra cost if they were presented with an account they could check.
