As Minister of State for the Public Service I welcome the opportunity of discussing the second annual report of the Ombudsman. The report was presented to the Oireachtas on 25 March last. As Senators are all very well aware, the intervening period has been an extremely busy one for the House with the result that it has not, unfortunately, been possible to have the report discussed in the House until now.
The existence of the Ombudsman helps to boost the confidence of the public in the institutions of the State. It puts a human face on bureaucracy and lets the ordinary individual know that he or she counts and that they are not just another statistic in the working of a large, faceless and uncaring machine. The public can be assured that there is an independent and impartial referee to whom they can refer complaints of unfair treatment and have them thoroughly investigated.
By the same token, public servants have nothing to fear from the Ombudsman. His job is not to witch-hunt but to investigate and report on complaints to the Oireachtas. Later I will touch on the improvements that have occurred in the co-operation between public servants and the Ombudsman's office but at this point I see as my duty to continually remind public servants that I expect nothing short of willing, wholehearted co-operation with the Ombudsman. I direct these comments particularly to senior management who must at all times give to their staff the clear example of unequivocal co-operation with the Ombudsman and his staff.
There was a considerable increase in the number of complaints received by the Ombudsman in his second year of operation; over 5,000 complaints were received compared with a little over 2,000 in 1984. The increase in the total number of complaints in 1985 was mainly due to the extension of his remit but I am glad that it also reflects an increasing awareness on the part of the general public of the usefulness of the service provided by the Ombudsman. If we compare the situation here with countries abroad, including Britain and France we can see that the Ombudsman function is used much more in Ireland than elsewhere. All of these factors clearly underline the need for the office in this country.
As the House will be aware, the remit of the Ombudsman was extended on 1 April 1985 to include health boards, local authorities, Telecom Éireann and An Post. This increased the number of people employed in the bodies subject to investigation by the Ombudsman from 30,000 to 130,000 — an increase of over 300 per cent. Indeed, nearly half of all complaints under examination by the Ombudsman in 1985 were against the new bodies. I was interested to note that a fraction less than one-third of all complaints concerned the Department of Social Welfare; 10 per cent were received in respect of the Revenue Commissioners while all of the other Civil Service Departments attracted only 13 per cent of the total number of complaints on hands.
The report identifies a number of major policy issues for consideration by Government and the Oireachtas. Some of these issues were originally highlighted in the Ombudsman's Report for 1984. Members of the House may recall that in his 1984 Report the Ombudsman indicated areas where he considered reviews of legislation were necessary. I am happy to report that some of these issues have since been resolved satisfactorily.
One of those resolved was the law of domicile which affected claims for widows' pensions under the Social Welfare Acts. Following recommendations of the Law Reform Commission the Minister for Justice introduced legislation to abolish the domicile of dependency of married women.
The provisions of the Domicile and Recognition of Foreign Divorces Act, 1986, has ensured that this anomaly no longer exists. Remedial action has also been taken in the tax anomaly which deprived some single parents of the single parent tax allowances. This problem has been removed by section 4 of the Finance Act 1985. Recommendations for changes in certain statutory dates affecting the valuation of property have been implemented and arrangements have been made to inform all persons affected by the proposed revisions.
In his current report the Ombudsman again raises the matter of "antiquated law". The Minister for the Environment has informed me that provision is being made in legislation relating to local government re-organisation to enable all local authorities to assume responsibility for branch water and sewerage pipes up to the boundary of private property. I understand that a Bill which will include such a provision is expected to be published before the end of this year.
One of the problems mentioned in the last report and referred to again is in the area of social insurance and entitlement to old age contributory pensions. This issue was examined by the Commission on Social Welfare in the context of their review of the contribution conditions for pensions generally. The commission in their report issued earlier this year, considered that it was inequitable that a person who became a social insurance contributor for the first time in 1974 could qualify for a pension while a person with a similar post-1974 insurance record might not qualify by reason of having made earlier social insurance contributions before 1974. To redress this situation the commission recommended that pro-rata pensions be paid to the persons concerned. They tentatively estimated that the cost of this proposal at July, 1986 rates over the period 1986 to 2017 would be £24 million. This proposal, along with the others of the commission, are currently under examination in the Department of Social Welfare.
Another issue raised by the Ombudsman which concerns the Department of Social Welfare is the question of the payment of unemployment benefit during trade disputes. The general rule that unemployment benefit should not be paid to persons involved in a trade dispute is based on the internationally accepted principle that the funds of the unemployment insurance system should not be used to support one side or the other in such a dispute. The Ombudsman, however, considers that the system can operate unfairly against workers in certain instances, in particular against workers not directly involved in a dispute. Proposals for amendment of the trade disputes provisions to resolve the issue are now to be considered by the Department of Social Welfare in the context of the 1987 Social Welfare Bill.
In his first report in 1984 the Ombudsman referred to the apparent inequity of not compensating citizens for delays in payments made by the State. He reiterated his concerns in this regard in his 1985 report with particular reference to the claim by a widow for compensation for the reduced purchasing power of social welfare pension arrears — a claim which I am glad to say has since been resolved satisfactorily on an ad hoc basis.
While it may seem relatively straightforward to formulate principles for compensating welfare recipients for excessive delays in payments, any such principles might not be so readily applicable in the case of other Departments dealing with the public, for example, in relation to housing on agricultural grants or subsidies. In short, circumstances can vary widely and may not be susceptible to standard treatment.
The Minister for Finance has informed me that the issue of delayed payments, in general, is at present under active consideration in his Department. I am happy to say that in the case of social welfare payments, however, the principle of compensation for exceptional delays is acknowledged and claimants who are affected by such delays in the future can expect sympathetic consideration.
In his 1985 report the Ombudsman suggests two areas where existing legislation should be reviewed. The Ombudsman suggests a revision of the social welfare regulations so that the period of retrospective payment of disability benefit be further extended. He also highlights an inconsistency in the method of means assessment for old age non-contributory pension. I am assured by my colleague, the Minister for Social Welfare, that these issues are both receiving urgent attention by her department.
I was interested in the other general issues in the report which arose from specific complaints and which were the subject of comment by the Ombudsman. These were mainly problems of an administrative nature which can be resolved through improved practices and procedures. The issues which were of particular concern to me were, first, the delays in the hearing of oral appeals by appeals officers in the Department of Social Welfare. The Ombudsman draws attention to the public dissatisfaction with delays in the appeals system in the Department of Social Welfare. He wishes to record, however, that he is satisfied at the same time that the staff of the appeals branch are doing their best in a very difficult situation within the resources available to them.
Second, there is the problem of late applications for contributory pensions. The Ombudsman recommends that people approaching pension age should be informed in advance of their contributory pension entitlements and they should be invited to claim. Alternatively, he suggests the law might be amended to relax the time limits applying to contributory pension claims. The Department of Social Welfare have pointed out that every effort is made through leaflets and other sources of information to ensure that people are aware of their entitlements and of the necessity to claim within the required time limits. They have also indicated that the question of amending the time limits for contributory pension claims is under examination in that Department.
A third issue which caught my attention in the report was the public dissatisfaction and confusion with the existence of two distinct fuel schemes, with differing eligibility criteria. The Ombudsman suggests that in the interest of equity and sound administration there should be only one winter fuel scheme covering the whole country. I am glad to say that the Department of Social Welfare are currently considering proposals for rationalising both fuel schemes.
A particular case in the report which came to my notice concerned the Housing Finance Agency loan scheme, where a local authority's valuation was much lower than the agreed sale price. The loan available on foot of this valuation was not sufficient and the sale fell through. While the conditions applicable to house purchase loans under the Housing Finance Agency scheme are matters for the board of the agency in the first instance, I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister for the Environment who in turn has referred it to the board. However housing authorities have recently been given more direct responsibility for the administration of income-related loans, formerly administered by them as agents for the Housing Finance Agency. It is anticipated that, in this new context, the conditions in relation to appeals on valuation will be extended to cover all loans advanced by local authorities.
Finally, I have taken note of the issue of complaints from students at a particular university who had been refused scholarships under the higher education scholarship scheme. I have drawn the Ombudsman's comments on the matter to the attention of the Minister for Education who has informed me that following a meeting with the Ombudsman the problem will be examined in the context of the specimen scholarship scheme which is to issue to vocational education committees for the 1986-87 academic year.
As I mentioned earlier, the remit of the Ombudsman was extended on 1 April 1985 to include health boards, local authorities, Telecom Éireann and An Post. Almost 400 complaints were received against the health boards. The majority of these complaints related to the community care programme. Most of these concerned entitlement under the Health Acts, i.e. medical cards, disabled person's maintenance allowance, domiciliary care allowance, rent allowance, free fuel allowance and supplementary welfare allowance.
The Ombudsman states that he received wholehearted support and co-operation from the chief executive offcers of the health boards. He did, however, receive a number of challenges from medical officers regarding his right to examine medical records. This, of course, is a particularly delicate issue and requires to be handled with great care and sensitivity. I am pleased to note that a modus vivendi has been worked out between the Ombudsman's office and the relevant medical organisations whereby they recognised the Ombudsman's unconditional right to all records, medical or otherwise. Notwithstanding this, the Ombudsman was happy to assure them that he would request medical records only when he considered it absolutely necessary and that, in all such cases, he would secure that permission of complainants before examining these records.
Over 500 complaints concerning local authorities were received; most of these were on an informal basis. Over half of the complaints related to housing, planning, rates, charges and sanitation. Although the Ombudsman reports that he received an encourging degree of co-operation from the local authorities a number of difficulties were encountered. Some managers considered that the Ombudsman was interfering with the traditional role of public representatives.
I would like to point out that the office of the Ombudsman is not involved in making representations. Its statutory function is to investigate complaints concerning the administrative actions of public bodies, which now include local authorities and, where appropriate, to secure redress for those adversely affected. Following discussions between the Ombudsman and a sub-committee of the County and City Managers' Association, procedures for processing complaints have now been established.
I also noted the relatively high number of complaints against Telecom Éireann. Over 1,400 complaints were on hands of which over 1,200 concerned disputed telephone accounts. I was disappointed, however, that only 200 of these complaints had been finalised by the end of the year. I understand that the reason for this was that the Ombudsman was having difficulty in receiving completed reports and recommendations from Bord Telecom. I anticipate considerable improvements in this area following special measures to clear the arrears which have been taken by Telecom Éireann.
It is heartening to learn that no difficulties were reported by the Ombudsman in his dealings with the other State body under his remit namely, An Post, bearing in mind the size of the company and the extent of its operations. About 60 complaints concerning the postal service were received, most of which were completed satisfactorily. These complaints mainly concerned compensation for losses and delivery of correspondence.
The large number of complaints received from the new bodies certainly provides ample justification for the extension of the remit. This is particularly so in the case of Telecom Éireann. I have no plans at present to include other State bodies in the Ombudsman's remit. I intend, however, to keep the legislation under review and I certainly have an open mind about the question of possible future extensions of the Ombudsman's remit.
Turning then to other aspects of the report, in 1985 staff of the Ombudsman's office began a series of visits to towns in various parts of Ireland. In all they visited ten centres in 1985 and I understand already this year they have visited additional centres which covered the counties Mayo, Galway, Kerry, Tipperary, Carlow, Kilkenny, Laois, Wicklow and Wexford. Plans have been made for further such visits, paying particular attention to those areas not yet visited. Experience to date has shown that these visits are well worthwhile and of benefit to all concerned. I regard this as an essential feature of the service provided by the Ombudsman. It ensures that he is constantly in touch with the real and sometimes complex problems encountered by people in their dealings with the public service.
It goes without saying that the Ombudsman requires the fullest degree of co-operation if he is to discharge his functions to the Oireachtas. I would be most concerned if public officials were to impede the Ombudsman in carrying out his duties. Members of the House will recall that in his first report the Ombudsman complained that some senior civil servants resented his intrusion, particularly when their decisions were under scrutiny. He also reported that there were legal challenges to his authority which seemed to be more concerned with preventing an investigation into particular complaints than the question of whether the complaints were justified. The Ombudsman pays tribute in his latest report to the very large number of civil servants in all Departments who co-operated fully with his office during the year. He does however draw attention to the residue of suspicion about his office which still exists in some areas of the Civil Service.
While I have been particularly heartened by the significant improvements recorded in the level of co-operation with the Ombudsman's office, I shall not be totally satisfied until this residue of suspicion — which only exists among a small number of civil servants — is swept away. As I said at the start of this speech I expect from civil servants nothing short of willing, wholehearted co-operation with the Ombudsman.
The Members of the House may be aware of the Government's continuing programme of reform in the public service. The White Paper on the public service entitled "Serving the Country Better" published last year outlines the Government's plans for greater efficiency, better service to the public and improved management methods within the Civil Service. That programme aims to make civil servants more accountable for their actions by improving systems and methods of management. I expect to publish legislation shortly which will give an added impetus to the programme of reform and, in particular, will provide the statutory framework for the formulation and discharge of Government policy. As these new systems and arrangements are put in place, the role of the Ombudsman in investigating the effects of policy decisions and actions of civil servants will become an even more important indicator of the performance of both Civil Service managers themselves and of the quality of the services they manage.
As the office of the Ombudsman completes another year of operation I am satisfied that it continues to perform a vital role in Irish public administration. The Ombudsman is making a major contribution towards solving the problems of the ordinary citizen who at times feels frustrated and disillusioned with the way he is treated by the bureaucracy. He is also successfully contributing to our efforts to reform the public service by ensuring that Departments and other State agencies give the people the service they deserve.
I should like to conclude by also complimenting the staff of an Ombudsman's office. We knew the Ombudsman here in the past and we recognise and respect his talent and commitment but his staff also deserve a word of compliment and praise for the dedication they bring to the job they are performing so effectively.