Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Oct 1986

Vol. 114 No. 2

Annual Report of Ombudsman, 1985: Motion.

Professor Dooge

I move.

That Seanad Éireann takes note of the Annual Report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 31st December, 1985.

I have no intention of making a speech on this topic but there are just a few comments I would make. This report of the Ombudsmen is welcome. I hope many Senators will comment on it. There are a couple of features of it that we should note. For example, the manner in which the report is written reflects at times a degree of colloquialism that one does not often find in a report such as this which is formally laid before both Houses of the Oireachtas. This is an excellent thing. Perhaps it should not be carried too far, but it does recommend both the common sense of the individual who is the Ombudsman, whom we all knew for many years around this House, and it also reflects his aproach to his task. On that account, we have in the report a very clear reflection not only of what has been done but the manner in which the work has been carried out. In general, we can express satisfaction and I have pleasure in moving that we take note of the report.

Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

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.

Professor Hillery

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the second annual report of the Ombudsman for the year ended 31 December 1985. I want to confine myself to some points that interested me particularly in the course of reading the report. The first point to note is the very substantial increase in the number of cases coming to the Ombudsman, moving to a figure of 5,496 which is more than double the number of complaints for the previous year. By any standards, this is a very substantial increase and it naturally raises the question as to whether such an increase is justified. The record of completed cases during the year under consideration at 3,411 suggests that for the most part complaints were justified. The Ombudsman's office resolved approximately one-third of the cases completed and provided assistance for approximately a further one-third while the remaining cases were either not upheld, discontinued or withdrawn. Clearly, the office is doing a very good job in lifting the level of public awareness which the Minister of State has already referred to. To an extent, that has contributed to the number of cases coming before the Ombudsman.

I, too would like to welcome the regional visits that were undertaken during 1985. Not alone have these visits also lifted the level of awareness but they have brought this important service to the people outside the Dublin area in particular. As the Ombudsman pointed out in the course of this report, many of these complaints would be difficult to describe or articulate by letter or by phone. It was so much easier to process and discuss them by meeting the Ombudsman and his officers in various parts of the country. I am very glad to note that these regional visits dealing with local issues on the spot will be continued in the future.

The Minister of State has referred, generally speaking, to the very good response to the office of the Ombudsman but there is this lingering suspicion and residual lack of co-operation in a minority of cases. The view had been expressed that the Ombudsman's office is seen as something of a nuisance in some quarters. There is also a viewpoint that much of the work referred to him is rather pointless. The statutory reality, however, and the record of the Ombudsman to date disprove these criticisms. It must be clearly understood by all public servants, including that minority at a senior level who come under the remit of the office, that the Ombudsman was established under an Act of the Oireachtas with the same powers as a High Court judge. It is important that all public servants realise that since the establishment and operation of this office things have changed and it must be seen to have changed. The Ombudsman and his officials are empowered under law to investigate disputes by individuals against acts of public servants in designated areas. There needs to be a more widespread understanding of the statutory requirement for the Ombudsman to conduct a preliminary examination of what he deems to be valid cases. In other words, that is an integral requirement of the office itself. All public servants must understand that fact.

It is true that some of the complaints which have been made are trivial. They may be trivial to the civil servants concerned and, perhaps, even trivial to the Ombudsman but it should be remembered that the typical case is viewed as anything but trivial by the complainant. So long as the Ombudsman considers a case within his remit he is then, as I have said, required to conduct a preliminary examination of the case and that reality must be understood by all. Indeed, the case work of the Ombudsman to date shows evidence of the fact that on the face of it a seemingly trivial case can, following investigation, turn into a serious one requiring a substantial and urgent remedy.

The very existence of the office may invite invitations. If I could draw a parallel from the industrial relations field with which I am particularly familiar, it is well known that the existence of third party disputes settling machinery can lead to a situation where problems are not always resolved between the parties directly in negotiation and, therefore, there is probably the temptation to jump the gun and go to the third party machinery. However — and this is an important point in relation to the Ombudsman experience in Ireland — it is very well worth nothing that only about one in six of the complaints made to the Ombudsman were deemed to be invalid. In other countries about one-third of all complaints made to the Ombudsman are deemed invalid. On the basis therefore of international comparision the Irish experience shows that the public are more discriminating between valid and invalid complaints. A further point I would like to make, and it is really to pick up a point the Minister of State made, is that it seems that the existence and operation of the office is leading to some very worthwhile and necessary amendments to the law and practices. To the extent that antiquated law or other irregularities are highlighted, this is a very important service in its own way.

The breakdown of the complaints within the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman shows that social welfare is top of the list with 1,677 complaints and this is followed rather closely by Telecom Éireann with 1,419 complaints of which, as the Minister of State has pointed out, 1,200 had to do with telephone accounts. It seems that the flood of these complaints the Ombudsman receives leads to a very time consuming process. I wonder whether the Ombudsman's office might not be more usefully used in correcting problems in other areas rather than in telephone accounts. While the complaints made in respect of telephone bills are usually genuine there is some evidence that the Ombudsman's office is being misused for this purpose. The number of complaints from telephone customers will continue to be high unless another reform takes place, that is, within Telecom Éireann itself. The time is overdue when telephone customers should receive a print out of all long distance direct dial calls.

There has been considerable progress in relation to Telecom Éireann as evidenced by their most recent report which states that they have reached a breakeven situation. We can feel reasonably optimistic about the future of our telecommunications service. In relation to print outs, which would greatly cut down on the number of cases coming to the Ombudsman, the projected date for the availability and distribution of such print outs is 1988-89 according to their most recent report, but it would be of considerable help all round if they could bring that date forward in relation to long distance direct dial calls.

In conclusion, I should like to commend the Ombudsman, Mr. Mills, and his staff for a job well done. The report is comprehensive and lucid and quite easy to follow. This is only the second annual report and clearly, the office and staff have made great progress in dealing with genuine complaints made by individual citizens against acts of public servants. Again, I echo what the Minister has said, that their contribution is an important step forward in the context of public service reform.

Mr. McGonagle

I want to pay tribute to Mr. Mills and his staff for a remarkable job done in the second year of the existence of the Ombudsman's office. I am interested from two points of view, one as a Senator and therefore a legislator and, secondly, as a former Ombudsman having some experience in this field. Before I go on to the report, I would like to refer to some points made by the Minister.

The Ombudsman is a just man; he is a fair man. He has to set up just rules and regulations and deal with those which deviate from the norms of justice. He was bound to come across the problem in the industrial relations field about unemployment benefit not being paid to people actively involved in a trade dispute. He did come across it; he has pointed it out and I welcome the Minister saying that proposals for the amendment of trade disputes provisions to resolve the issue are now being considered. That is a good thing and that is due to the work, observation and scrutiny of the Ombudsman and I congratulate the people who are going to amend the trades dispute provisions.

The last time I was speaking here the Minister referred to the delayed payments for social welfare beneficiaries. he said:

The Minister for Finance has informed me that the issue of delayed payments in general is at present under active consideration.

I am pleased about that. I raised this matter at the time of the 1984 report. I was very concerned that no compensatory financial adjustments were made to the people who had suffered such substantial arrears in the payment of their benefits. The Minister said here today that he is happy to say that in the case of social welfare payments the principle of compensation for exceptional delays is acknowledged and claimants who are affected by such delays in the future can expect sympathetic consideration. There was a reservation prior to that would have an effect of a serious nature on other Departments faced with this kind of precedent.

I am bound to ask as a result of that vague language: what does this mean? Does it mean that each case will be viewed on its merits? Does it mean that the Department will use their discretionary powers, or does it mean that they will insist that the law as they say, prohibits the payment of such moneys. I thought last year that they were afraid of establishing a dangerous precedent. They may well be, but they are offering against justice if they do not compensate people who are three, four, five, six and seven years in arrears for benefits. I am not interested in arithmetic. It may well be an equivalent sum of money totted up on the basis of interest or inflation. I am not concerned about this, but there has to be an admitted principle of compensation. The question of interest on money overdue and not paid is a business principle. Apparently, it does not apply to old age pensioners; it applies to big business. That will have to be changed. I want that matter clarified.

I want to make an observation on the medical position. I am delighted that Mr. Mills has resolved the situation relative to the relationship with the medical people. There was confusion in the North for some time. The Ombudsman cannot do or say anything about clinical records or clinical matters, but he is entitled to see records. Some of the medical people in the North did not understand when I insisted that I had to see them. We eventually resolved that. I am pleased that Mr. Mills had got a modus vivendi and will be able to operate in that field.

On the report itself, the 5,500 complaints made in 1985 were bound to have been made for two reasons, one being the extension of the remit to four bodies, with particular emphasis on Telecom Éireann. The difficulty I saw with Telecom Éireann was that they are outside the normal scope of the Ombudsman's office. It is very difficult. All the Ombudsman can do and hope to do in the Telecom context and on the question of the accounts is to seek some kind of a compromise arrangement. The nature of the complaints inside the Telecom concept was such that it is very difficult to point precisely at evidence that a person was over-charged. So compromise is the lesson of the day in the Telecom remit. As Senator Hillery has said, obviously this problem will disappear. My information is the same as his, that the Telecom people will introduce efficiency measures and the numbers complaining about Telecom will gradually be reduced. That will be a good thing.

There is a terrific amount of work, research and investigation to be carried out. The number of complaints is higher on a pro rata basis than in any of the Ombudsmen's reports which I get from anywhere. It may well be that numbers will go back to normal when the Telecom problems are resolved. I want to compliment Mr. Mills and his staff on the speed and efficiency with which they approached the increase in the number of complaints. I am talking now about the informal method. It is fast, efficient and time-saving. It is not time-consuming and that is good. Even on a casual reading of the report you will find that the language is informal and not stilted or technical. The average person can read that report. The average person cannot read some other reports. He or she puts it away when about one-third of the way through it. Even I do that. This report is readable. It gets to the point quickly. You know the kind of case he was handling and there is a human element all the time in the use of language.

The Ombudsman said in his report that he cannot find in favour of everybody. We understand that but he should not be unduly concerned in that regard. There are bound to be situations where he cannot, on the evidence, find in favour of a number of complainants. This is not to say that all the people for whom the Ombudsman cannot find in their favour are dissatisfied. That is not true. The great proportion of the number for whom the Ombudsman cannot find in favour are satisfied that their complaint was thoroughly investigated by an independent mind. He cannot satisfy all the people all the time but the greater proportion are satisfied that their complaint is ventilated and examined by an independent mind. That is my experience and I think Michael Mills will find that to be his experience also.

It is very pleasing to note that the complaints outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman reduced from 32 per cent to 14 per cent. That is the lowest and this means, as Senator Hillary said, that the people are aware of what the Ombudsman can do and what he cannot do. This is because of the promotional efforts of the Ombudsman's office and staff. It is also due to the regional visits in ten centres which is a good thing. That brings the Ombudsman's operations close to the public and that is the essence of his operations. In that context the Ombudsman does not usurp the function of public representations. The Ombudsman is an officer of Parliament. He supplements the work of public representatives and he saves a lot of their time. He does not make representations, as the Minister said. The time he saves for public representatives means they can devote their efforts to other constructive and positive work and operations in Parliament. I confess that initially, especially in New Zealand and to a greater extent in Britain, the members of the Parliament were afraid of the office of Ombudsman and they stopped it. I was very concerned to find out that the Labour Party there stopped it for many years and I am sure the Minister can understand my concern in this regard. However, that does not really matter. The Ombudsman does not usurp the function of public representatives, he supplements their work because he operates in a grey area, the law and the courts on the one side and on the other, the Ministers' Departments and the public representatives asking questions but not doing as through a job as the Ombudsman. Therefore, inside the grey area it was felt in civilised communities that this office had to be established. It was established and is working very successfully.

I want to introduce a little jarring note; co-operation by civil servants. In reading this report one finds that the Ombudsman has reservations about the co-operation at certain levels by civil servants. He will have to do his best to overcome these inhibitions and despite the jaundiced views of some people in relation to his operations I wish him every success. Nevertheless, there are reservations in his report and we must try to change these views in regard to the Ombudsman's job. In Northern Ireland in the years 1974 to 1979 not one civil servant and not one single department in the North — and that includes the local authorities — obstructed the Ombudsman in his work. My message to the civil servants in the Republic is "please co-operate with the Ombudsman".

In the North and in Britain all the bodies against whom the complaints were made advised the complainants to go to the Ombudsman. They did not want to discontent at their front door every day with people knocking with complaints, they wanted to have the situation relieved. There was a method for doing this and they told people to go to the Ombudsman if they had complaints. That is intelligent and positive, not negative. I want the civil servants here to welcome the idea that an Ombudsman's investigation is right because people think they are being unfairly treated. These complaints can seem very small to some people but to the person involved they are very large. Therefore, I trust that the Minister might do more for us in that respect. There surely must be some discretion inside any Department in regard to certain cases. The Minister has said that these cases will be dealt with sympathetically and there is the danger of the precedent that he has quoted. Are they bound by legislation? Is the Minister fully aware of the facts or is a civil servant at a certain level insisting that the law is there or that the Ministers have no discretionary powers? This will have to be clarified and if it is not I advise the Ombudsman — and this is within his authority — to take out the cases where the compensation was not paid and to make a special approach to both Houses. He is entitled to do that. The matter then must be discussed openly and publicly. The Minister and the Department must make their minds up at that stage either to support the Civil Service or to agree to pay. If they agree to pay, obviously it will not be discussed in the Dáil or the Seanad. Michael Mills says he has no alternative but to carry on making recommendations in favour of the complainant. He has another alternative, special reports to both Houses of Parliament, opening a public debate and letting the Minister defend the reason for these old age pensioners not getting their compensatory sums of money. I realise that this does establish a precedent but in the face of justice the balance is on the side of the old age pensioner and compensation to him.

Mr. J. Higgins

There is very little I can add to the remarks of the Minister. Senators Hillery and McGonagle because they have fleshed out in considerable detail the minutiae of the report, its merits etc. Seldom, however, has a report or indeed any other item come before the Houses of the Oireachtas that has drawn such favourable, unanimous and unambiguous praise from all sides of the House. It reiterates and consolidates the impression that if ever there was a worthy institution established it was that of the office of Ombudsman. Recently on looking through some documents I found an article written as a preliminary to the establishment of the office of Ombudsman in 1984 by Dermot Curran in the Department of the Public Service, who I understand has found his way into the office of Ombudsman as a very senior official. In it he sets out the background, the purpose, the hopes and the aspirations for the office of Ombudsman. In his introduction he said:

The apparent helplessness of the individual in the face of the remote and powerful institutions which to a large extent govern his destiny, and the resultant experience of alienation, has been a classic theme of art and literature in our time.

If ever an office has discharged its functions, it has been the office of the Ombudsman in undertaking the role of providing a service which one might equate to providing a referee service between John Citizen and the awesome institutions of the State.

A number of reservations were expressed by the Ombudsman last year in relation to suspicions about members of the public service, particularly people in the Department of Social Welfare who were singled our last year for special mention. I am delighted that these have been eliminated. As has been referred to by the Minister and by Senator McGonagle and Senator Hillery, this residue seems to have been transferred to Telecom Éireann. I concur entirely with the sentiments expressed by the Minister that public servants will have to give maximum co-operation and that it is in their interest, as has been said by Senator McGonagle, to give maximum and full co-operation to the Ombudsman and his officials in the discharge of their duties.

The number of complaints has escalated — in fact it has doubled. Looking at the figures for individual countries I notice that in my county the number has actually trebled, from something in the region of 75 to 170. I can take a certain amount of credit or blame for some of the statistics which relate to Mayo. It is recorded in the Ombudsman's report, which is now before us, that increasingly public representatives have had to have recourse to the Ombudsman in order to disentangle some of the problems which they have failed to resolve through the normal channels. I want to record my satisfaction and my gratitude to the Ombudsman and to the members of his staff for the courteous and highly efficient manner in which they have dealt with the problems of the citizery of Mayo and public representatives such as myself. We do not like having to use the office of the Ombudsman. As a public representative I think it is, to an extent, a reflection on our own inability to convince the powers-that-be of the rectitude or the merits of a particular case we have been pursuing. But it has been incumbent on us from time to time to ask the Ombudsman to intervene. I have in front of me a random sample of ten items which have been successfully resolved by the Ombudsman in relation to medical cards, in relation to disabled persons maintenance allowance and so on, all in a relatively short period.

I believe that the office of the Ombudsman is a very worthwhile institution. As Senator Dooge has said, it is a refreshing change from the normal type of report to which we have become used. The colloquial language and the manner in which the report has been presented reflect the freshness of approach which has been adopted by the Ombudsman and his staff.

The problem I have had greatest difficulty with — which I understand is virtually at the stage of resolution thanks to the intervention of the Ombudsman — has been the application of the guidelines set down by the Western Health Board for medical cards. Time and time again I have asked the Minister and the health board to try to get their relative acts together in this regard. If ever a system was destined to leave the citizen bewildered and sometimes sullen and disgruntled, it is the total contradiction of the method of assessment used by the Western Health Board in determining people's eligibility (a) for medical cards and (b) for disabled persons' maintenance allowances. We recall that in 1982 the Department of Social Welfare changed the regulations in relation to the guidelines for eligibility for small farmers' dole. As a result of a High Court action taken by farmers in County Wexford, the system of determining people's eligibility for smallholders' assistance was deemed to be unconstitutional and it was replaced by a method called factual assessment.

We then had a ludicrous situation whereby a farmer was deemed eligible for small farmers' assistance one week on the basis that his means were X, Y or Z. The following week an official from the health board determined his eligibility for a medical card on a notional system of rounding up the amount of income which accrued from X amount of cows, Y amount of bullocks and Z amount of sheep, and arrived at a totally different conclusion, the result being that in two consecutive weeks the farmer can be told different things. One week he is told that the Department of Social Welfare have assessed his means at £80 a week and the following week the community welfare officer of the superintendent community welfare officer informs the same farmer that his income is £140 a week. I have discovered disparities of £60, £70 and £80 per week. I understand that as a result of a number of classic cross-samples and examples submitted to the Ombudsman, we can look forward to a successful and favourable resolution to this problem and a synchronisation of the methods used. Furthermore, apart from the obvious logic behind it, it will prove cost saving to the Exchequer, the health boards and the various Departments involved in the long term.

The Ombudsman has done invaluable work in relation to the speeding up of oral appeals, something referred to in his report. There is no question about it. While it is a cumbersome, tedious and painstaking business which requires meticulous application to detail, there has been gross tardiness on the part of the Department of Social Welfare in relation to the speeding up and efficiency of the oral appeals system. The oral appeals system was greeted with a lot of relief by people in that it brought the applicant face to face with the appeals officer who actually makes the decision. At the same time it is intolerable and it is inexplicable that delays of six, seven and eight months are still being encountered by people in relation to the determination of their eligibility.

I found the Ombudsman and his office particularly helpful in the grey area of the floor specifications for new house grants. There is a maximum limit of 1,346 square feet as the threshold, beyond which somebody does not qualify for a new house grant; there is the whole area of whether or not an attic space is convertible from the point of view of providing further domestic space. Again we have the problem that if somebody is caught by the virtue of the fact that the plans were not carried out in detail and the space is two, three or four square feet over the limit, he loses the entire entitlement. I would like to see the legislators taking on board some of the recommendations which have been made whereby if somebody is a minuscule amount over the statutory limit, rather than penalising the person so that they lose their £2,000 new house grant and their £3,000 mortgage subsidy, there would be a pro rata reduction for the amount of offending space.

One area where the Ombudsman could usefully intervene — I know that I, as a legislator have failed to impress upon my colleagues in the Department of Social Welfare that they should do so — is in the area of disability benefit re-examinations. None of us holds any brief for people who rip off the system or people who find themselves on disability benefit by the virtue of the fact that they are sending in weekly medical certificates for years. We endorse the right of the Department of Social Welfare and the Minister for Social Welfare to ask people to have themselves subjected to regular medical examinations in order to determine the merits of their case. At the same time there seems to be victimisation of some people whose medical evidence is quite strong, quite irrefutable and who have gone to eminent specialists in order to prove that their ailment is one which confines them to their homes and leaves them unable to carry out their employment. It is inexcusable that people who have been restored to benefit are being called within a matter of months before a medical referee in order to determine their entitlement. Once a person is determined as being unfit for work on medical grounds, and once the medical evidence is sufficiently strong and has come from a reputable medical source, there should be some moratorium or some period within which the Department of Social Welfare will not call that person back and subject him or her to medical examination.

I endorse the report, the sentiments of my fellow Senators and the remarks of the Minister about it. I wish the Ombudsman and his staff well in their work in the coming year. As public representatives we appreciate the daunting task with which they are confronted. In our daily, routine of dealing with constituents' problems we get to understand the nature of their complaints but the Ombudsman deals with problems that others have failed to solve. It may be a citizen or a public representative. The case may require a major thrust, a lot of meticulous detail, a lot of analytical work or an enormous amount of backroom work. The degree of success of the Ombudsman has made the office a unique and worthwhile establishment.

Mr. Fitzsimons

Before I make some comments on the report, I should like to refer to the renovations that were carried out here during the summer recess. Yesterday when this matter was raised — I trust that I am not out of order in making these passing comments — I had not had the time to look over the place. Since then I have inspected, in a superficial way, the works carried out and I want to express my total admiration of the Office of Public Works, the architect and the skilled craftsmen who carried out the renovations. I would award 100 per cent marks to all involved. The fact that this Chamber is rather small is something over which they had no control but otherwise the work is perfect.

I should like to join the other Senators, and the Minister, in paying a tribute to the Ombudsman and his staff. When the office of Ombudsman was being created Members of this House spoke in very high and glowing terms about Mr. Mills. As Dickens said in one of his novels, adjectives are used in the superlative degree of comparison only. I recalled at that time the words of Christ to Mathias, "a man in whom there is no guile". That is the way Mr. Mills had come across to me from meeting him around this House and seeing him on television. Everything that has happened since then has enhanced his reputation.

Senator Dooge referred to the colloquial style in which the report was written and in a sense I felt he was implying that, perhaps, future reports should withdraw somewhat into a more formal presentation. However, like Senator McGonagle, and the other Members who spoke about the style, I must say that it impressed me very much. It is a headline in the way reports should be written as, indeed, one would expect from a journalist of the calibre of Mr. Mills. I must confess that when reading the report I did not have enough time to concentrate on its contents in the way I would have liked but the colloquial style did not strike me. The document was easily understood, lucid and well presented.

It is difficult in a sense coming after a person like Senator McGonagle, who was Ombudsman in the Six Counties, and who has such a reputation. The points I want to raise will not be in the same class as those raised by Senator McGonagle. In the introduction to the report of the Ombudsman points out, as he has in the past two years, that only the Oireachtas has the power to change the law. For that reason it is most important that these reports are considered and debated in both Houses of the Oireachtas. From that point of view I am somewhat disappointed that more Members were not prepared to come in here and make a contribution which in every instance could only be helpful with regard to the work of the Ombudsman, the direction he should go and the way he should carry out his investigations.

In his introduction to the report the Ombudsman expresses confidence that the office appears to have been recognised by a wide section of the community. The large increase in the number of complaints during the past year is an obvious sign of that. The total number of complaints now surpasses the level of most other countries of similar population. In one sense this is very satisfactory but in another we should ask ourselves what is the reason for all these complaints. Looking back further I would ask myself the question, what about all those who suffered and had complaints before the office of the Ombudsman was created? Obviously, there was a miscarriage of justice in instances. There was some essential justice lost out by many people over these years. That is a logical conclusion to come to. When we look at the people who make the complaints, at least in the social welfare area, they are the poorest section of the community, the people who can least afford to suffer, but, evidently, up to last year a considerable number of people suffered.

As the Minister and the other Members said, the main cause of the rise in the volume of complaints was the extension of the jurisdiction to the local authorities, the health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post from 1 April 1985. An additional source was the initiation of visits to regional centres by members of the Ombudsman's staff. I too pay tribute to the decision to go through out the country to the different towns. Unfortunately, large areas have not been visited by the Ombudsman and his staff. On the last occasion I said some arrangement should be made, at least in the larger centres, so that the people could call to some key individual who would contact the Ombudsman. There should at least be an annual visit to most of the large centres and people should know the dates and times when they could call to those centres to contact the staff of the Ombudsman's office. This could easily be done, and perhaps not on as widespread a scale as would be necessary in the early stages. We should at least make a start by deciding on centres that could be visited annually. Perhaps other areas could be looked at which might help people in remote rural sections to contact the Ombudsman's office easily.

Many of the issues involving the Ombudsman are very complex but the organisation has proved that they are well able to deal with those problems in a short space of time. That is another tribute to the whole set up of the office. The number of complaints the office can handle properly in a year is limited and jone of us would like to see a large number of complaints left in abeyance over a long period. In time the staff in the Ombudsman's office will have to be increased to deal with complaints. Perhaps too, some dexterity will be built up through experience in dealing more expeditiously with these problems.

Complaints about telephone bills have been referred to. I made the point on the last occasion that all telephone accounts should be monitored. It should be possible to break down an account and identify when calls were made, their duration and their cost. I was told then by Senator Daly that it is possible to get a meter at a small nominal charge. Unfortunately, I did not follow up that suggestion, but if it is possible to provide meters at a nominal cost, this should be done and there is no excuse for not doing it. The duration of time to deal with complaints varied from three to nine months. The point was made that it would be very unfair if, in the interest of speeding up the process, an injustice were done. Thorough as the Ombudsman may be, quite possibly there might be the very odd occasion when, perhaps, through disclosure of further information, or through some other process, something might come to light which would change the decision. Unlike the system with the planning appeals board, nothing further can be done when a decision is made. That seems to be the end of the road. That might be looked at.

The report states that the number of complaints submitted by Members of the Dáil and Seanad were dealt with expeditiously. I had occasion to make one complaint to the Ombudsman in relation to a lady who had been refused a disabled person's allowance. That was about nine months ago and in the meantime. I have had no further communication from the Ombudsman's office. Perhaps that is the procedure. I am not sure if the lady in question has been kept in touch with the procedures. If that is not done I suggest that it should be done. People who make complaints should be informed of whatever progress is made. I do not say that in any critical sense. People living in remote areas might get impatient and they should be entitled to get periodic reports on the processing of a complaint.

One letter of the many letters received thanking the Ombudsman is included in this report. It relates to an invalidity pension. It starts off:

"This week I received my first payment of Invalidity Pension and became entitled to free travel and other benefits which are entailed. To many this would seem to be an insignificant thing. To me it is the end of over three years of worry and the conviction of being unfairly treated, without hope of redress.

The letter goes on to refer to the disability benefit, unemployment assistance, and supplementary welfare allowances. The writer was paid in full the difference between the disability benefit and unemployment assistance and awarded an invalidity pension. Of course it is a letter of gratitude.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Harte)

Could the Senator give the page of the report?

Mr. Fitzsimons

It is on page 4. I am sure the Ombudsman does not look for gratitude. He and his office have the satisfaction of a job well done. That is sufficient. However, that highlights the point I made earlier that up to the recent past many would have been deprived for three years of their invalidity pensions. There was no justification for that.

A number of those who approached the Ombudsman expecting a recommendation in their favour have been disappointed. This is to be expected. While they may be disappointed in the process of the investigation, many people might very well be satisfied that their case was not as it seemed to them initially. Even in those cases, while the Ombudsman might quite rightly feel happier if more people were satisfied, the fact that their grievances were fully investigated would be enough for many people. It is underlined in the report that in particular cases the law operates unfairly against individuals. This is referred to subsequently in different areas in the report. I would like to see that case developed. I am quite sure with the experience of the Ombudsman that he could very well produce a report on that item alone. It would be well worthwhile.

With regard to the general issues raised in the 1984 report there is reference to one of the greatest anomalies which the Ombudsman dealt with. This is the legal requirement which prevents people who have many years of social insurance contributions from qualifying for contributory old age pensions. We are told that the office got scores of complaints about the problem during 1985. Many of us in public life are aware of the great problem in this area. The contributory old age pension is not means tested. This is the greatest bone of contention. I would make a plea in passing that the non-contributory old age pension should not be means tested because when people get to that age in life they try to retain the little savings they have built up for a proper burial. Many of us know people who are simply concerned about having enough money to bury themselves. I am glad that the Ombudsman highlights that problem. He admits that it is a complex problem, one which has been with us for quite a long time and which has engaged the attention of many other organisations in the social welfare area. The report expresses disappointment that there appears to have been no movement towards a solution to the anomaly.

The cost per annum has been mentioned. It is pointed out that from 1987 onwards people claiming should have sufficient stamps. The cost up to then has been estimated at between £35 million and £50 million. That is not a very considerable sum in the context of the whole social welfare system. In any event with regard to the case which the Ombudsman makes here, clearly this is something which is highlighted and which should get immediate priority. The report tells us the impression has been created by the Department of Social Welfare that all of those people could have become voluntary contributors when they ceased to be compulsorily insured between 1953 and 1974. It is pointed out that this is not so. I think this is something which is well worthwhile highlighting.

The Minister has referred to the situation with regard to trade disputes and social welfare entitlements. I am glad that that is being taken care of. This is an anomaly whereby people who are out of work because of a trade dispute at their place of employment may be, and invariably are, being refused unemployment payments, even though they are not directly involved in the dispute and do not stand to benefit materially from the outcome. The report clearly states that when the particular provision was included in legislation in 1967 it had been agreed that its operation would be reviewed lest it operate unfairly against certain workers. It seems strange when it has clearly operated unfairly against certain workers that it has not been reviewed. I am not sure what pressures were applied or what representations were made at Government level all along but it seems rather strange that when this was the spirit of the 1967 legislation it was lost sight of. I am glad the Minister has taken a positive approach with regard to this matter. The report tells us that in the course of this year the Ombudsman received a complaint on behalf of a group of workers who had been refused unemployment payment and supplementary welfare allowance even though they were not supporting the strike action and indeed were actively opposing it. Everybody would agree that this is unacceptable.

The Minister has again referred in some detail to the antiquated law situation. The report highlights the inequitable situation whereby some householders are liable for the cost of repairing water services pipes outside their homes. This comes under the 1898 Local Government Act which clearly is out of touch with modern technology, materials used and developments. The report tells us that the law stands, certain local authorities can and do accept responsibility for service pipes. Another local authority concerned with complaints would be prepared to accept responsibility for maintenance of these pipes but it is not permitted to do so under the law as it stands. I am glad of the Minister's positive approach in this area. It is only proper that the local authority should take responsibility with regard to service pipes as far as the boundary fence. It seems difficult to understand how some local authorities at present can take responsibility right out to the water mains and others are precluded from doing so. It is an area which creates many problems for the reason that in many instances the service pipes are old and there is a buildup of lime and so on in the pipework. It is the responsibility of the local authority. I cannot see any great problem, even with the law as it stands, for any local authority in accepting responsibility, except in a situation where a householder might inadvertently or otherwise, through excavation works or the like, be responsible for damage to a pipe. In the ordinary course of events I think it might be possible to look at the situation. Perhaps it would not be necessary to bring in new legislation to deal with that problem.

Interest on late payments has been referred to by the Minister and by Senator McGonagle. The report refers to a case where a widow's pension was not granted over a period of seven years. There was difficulty with regard to the interest. It states that the lady should be entitled to the money at current rates. The last report also dealt with the unfairness of paying long time arrears or benefits at anything other than current values. It suggested that remedial steps might be taken on the general issue of compensation in cases of this kind.

The Minister of State's reassurance and very positive response in this area is welcomed. The report stated that no change in the procedures has taken place. The Ombudsman proceeded towards finalising his investigation and making a recommendation in favour of this lady. It is not clear to me—perhaps, it should be — whether he made a recommendation in favour of paying the interest on the money over that length of time. That would be the proper procedure. I am not sure if the Ombudsman was inhibited in doing so. In any event the Minister of State has said that it will receive sympathetic consideration. This seems to be rather ambiguous. Clearly a decision should be made one way or the other. This sympathetic consideration I am sure is being administered at present but what people really want is the interest they are entitled to. Again, I do not want to bandy words with the Minister of State but I would be more satisfied if he stated quite clearly and categorically that in future back payments of this kind will include interest rates or some means of making up for the loss in the value of money over the time that it was denied. Again, in these cases, I am sure with regard to social welfare payments and with regard to old age pensions, great hardship has been endured by these people. While I welcome the Minister of State's approach I would be much happier when he is replying at the end of the debate if he took the course I stated.

The year's work is given in great detail, statistically and otherwise, in the report. It has been referred to already so I am not going to spend any time going into details. In one brief paragraph it sets out the important statistic that 5,496 complaints were made, which was more than double the total of 2,267 for the previous year. Five hundred and thirty-one complaints were carried over from 1984 making a grant total of 6,027 to be dealt with in 1985. Out of this total, 5,277 cases came within the remit of the Ombudsman and 3,411 of these were finalised. A successful outcome was achieved for the complainant in 1,086 cases. About one in six people were completely satisfied which, I think, is quite a high number. Advice was given in a further 1,161 cases. Complainants were helped in the direction of other courses of action that were open to them and from which they were likely to benefit. Those statistics would be most encouraging for any individual, not alone the Ombudsman.

The greatest number of complaints were in the area of social welfare— 1,677. I mentioned yesterday evening in my brief contribution on the legal aid scheme that I felt this scheme was not geared towards social welfare, and it should be, with the result that people who have serious grievances in that area have recourse only to the Ombudsman. It seems that if people had that facility with regard to free legal aid that not alone would it reduce the workload of the Ombudsman but those cases could possibly be dealt with more expeditiously because many of them would not go as far as court and they would be settled at an early stage. This is an area that could be looked at. An extension of the free legal aid system would very positively in my estimation reduce the number of complaints to the Ombudsman.

The next highest number of complaints was 1,419 with regard to Telecom Éireann. Over 1,200 of these were in relation to telephone bills. I have referred to that already. It is a rather unsatisfactory situation. Perhaps it might be possible to have a system of metering telephone calls.

There is a section dealing with comments and general issues arising from specific complaints. I do not intend to deal with them. They cover the Department of Social Welfare, the Department of Education, the Department of the Environment, Land Registry, Revenue Commissioners, health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post. Some of these have already been referred to. I do not intend to repeat them but they cover quite a comprehensive area.

With regard to suggestions for a review of existing legislation, this has been referred to by the Minister of State. This is a very important section. Two important matters are referred to. One is retrospection of disability benefit. The case is given of where a man who had worked for over 30 years in insurable employment without ever making a claim against the Department of Social Welfare became seriously ill and treatment of his illness required hospitalisation and major surgery. Due to the serious nature of the illness it took the man just over a year to recover. Because of this and his lack of knowledge of the social welfare system he did not make an application for payment of disability benefit until over 12 months after his illness. His application was refused by the Department. One would expect that where a man had a serious illness requiring hospitalisation and major surgery, and where it is a situation of life and death, the last thing that would be on his mind would be to complete a form for disability benefit. The report quite rightly states that the intention must have been that any seriously ill person who was otherwise eligible would be entitled to disability benefit from the date of commencement of his illness and should not lose out as a consequence of that very illness. That is a statement with which I think everybody would agree. Surely the legislation was intended for that specific purpose and it seems a bureaucratic way of preventing somebody from benefiting in that situation. Again, clearly this does not need any particular legislation. Regulations or statutory instruments could be provided by the Minister to cater for this problem.

I have already referred to the regional visits which are covered in one page. Senator Higgins spoke at some length about the importance of these visits. It is very important that as many as possible with grievances would meet the staff of the Ombudsman and convey their problems directly to them because, in many instances, it is not easy to convey the problem on paper. In any event, people would be far more satisfied if they had an opportunity — Dickens wrote — of ocularly perusing the lineaments now familiar to the imagination of a considerable portion of the civilised world, in other words, of actually seeing the individual and speaking to him.

Staff resources are an important area. The report states on page 40:

I was somewhat surprised to learn during the year that the Office is not immune to the effects of the Government's embargo on civil service recruitment. In November 1985, a Receptionist, who had been specially trained for the job, left the Office to take a position in the private sector. Her post could not be filled because of the embargo. Due to the fact that we have only a small number of clerical staff and because of the particular grading requirements of the post, it has not yet been possible to fill the Receptionist post on a permanent basis. With the significant extension of the remit in April 1985 and the ever increasing workload of the Office the effects of the embargo could create very special difficulties for this Office. In my view the staff numbers so recently sanctioned are the very minimum that could satisfactorily deal with the volume of complaints we are now receiving. We simply could not manage if we were to lose posts to the embargo.

It would be most unfortunate if that were to continue. Yesterday evening, in my brief contribution with regard to free legal aid, I mentioned that the Minister had gone out of his way to deal with the question of the embargo in that area, and some concessions were made. This area is just as important. I recall a couple of years ago calling into the Ordnance Survey Office and speaking to the chief place names officer who was held up because he had not a secretary. There you had a unique individual with unique training in a specialised area who could not do his work simply because the State for one reason or another would not provide a typist. The same applies here. The same applies all over and, while being very conscious of the present situation, I do think that in a sense it is a case of losing the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. I do not think anybody could justify that. The Ombudsman has made a plea here with regard to the embargo. He mentioned the receptionist specifically to underline his point. Again, I would like the Minister to respond very positively in that area.

Let me refer very briefly to one or two of the special cases selected, the first regarding accountants acting as professional representatives for farmers. When the Ombudsman took up the matter with the Department they explained to him that the normal policy was to deal directly with farmers or their legal representatives. An accountant acting for a farmer's widow complained to the Ombudsman that the Department of Agriculture had refused to deal with him as her professional representative. It seems extraordinary that the Department would not deal with somebody who was professionally representing this widow. Apparently, they have agreed to extend this recognition to accountants provided the accountants are formally authorised by the farmers to act as their professional representatives. I am sure they would not act if they were not so authorised.

I want to revert to the matter of the telephone bills. I will not give all the details because there is no need to do so. In one case a credit of £2,184.25 was subsequently allowed to the subscriber. A man wrote to the Ombudsman about three telephone accounts which were completely out of line with all his previous accounts; his average had been in the region of £30 for meter call charges. The three accounts in disute were for £1,549, £213 and £505. Telecom Éireann examined his case but refused to reduce the charges. That sum of £2,184.25 was subsequently refunded — an enormous sum in my estimation. In another instance a company complained to the Ombudsman in June 1985 about a bill received in mid-1984 for one of their telephone lines. The disputed bill was five times the average bill on that line. The company's managing director had been disputing the bill with Telecom Éireann for over a year. The outcome was that Telecom Éireann agreed to reduce the disputed charge to the average and a rebate of almost £1,800 was granted to the company in November 1985 — again a very considerable sum.

In another instance, a telephone subscriber complained to the Ombudsman following his failure, and that of his solicitor, to obtain any satisfactory response from Telecom Éireann about a query on his telephone account. Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, Telecom completed their investigations and discovered that an incorrect meter reading had been recorded following the changeover of the subscriber's line from manual to automatic working. This resulted in an overcharge of £1,303.55 on the account. This overcharge was subsequently credited to the subscriber's account and, as a further gesture of goodwill, Telecom agreed to waive all charges for a ten-week period. I am sure we do not hear of any undercharges. The question comes to mind; with so many overcharges, are there undercharges in many instances? In any event, it is not necessary to go into that aspect.

I have dealt with this report in very broad outline. It is a credit to the Ombudsman and his staff. Again, I pay tribute to the way the report is presented. It is legible, lucid and easy to read. It is informative as any report should be and sets out the basic facts. I am sure it is available from the Government Publications Office. This book should be available to secondary schools and third level educational establishments. Would it be possible to have it circulated on a national basis as that would highlight the work being done? It would be an advertisement for the office and an encouragement to people who would feel that they had some place to turn to. I am apprehensive about the growing number of cases coming before the Ombudsman. What is the reason? Clearly there is a breakdown in many areas and perhaps in a future report the Ombudsman might make suggestions as to ways in which problems could be dealt with without having to go through this lengthy process.

Like the Minister and the other Members who contributed, I pay tribute to the Ombudsman and his staff and again express some disappointment that more Members of the House were not prepared to make a contribution in relation to such an important report.

Professor Dooge

A number of distinct questions have been addressed to the Minister and I would ask the House if they could grant the Minister the indulgence of speaking for a second time in this debate.

Acting Chairman

I have already asked the Minister if he intended to say something.

Professor Dooge

It is not for the Minister to say whether he intends to speak, it is for the House to say whether they prefer to—

Acting Chairman

I bow to your superior experience. Is the House agreed?

Agreed.

Minister of State at the Department of the Public Service (Mr. J. O'Keeffe)

I will not delay unduly but a few points were raised in the debate that perhaps I should reply to if given the opportunity. I express my thanks to the Senators present for the interest they have shown in this debate.

Senator Hillery and others referred to the very substantial increase in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman but in comparing the figures for 1984 with 1985 we should put them in perspective. The increase in numbers is largely due to an increase in the remit of the Ombudsman. There are of course other factors, public awareness and a considerable degree attributable to the regional trips of the Ombudsman and his staff. From that point of view I am not at all alarmed by the increasing numbers; they were a natural consequence of the matters I mentioned. Senator Hillery and others referred to the lingering residual lack of co-operation on the part of some public servants. I referred to this in my opening speech and I made it clear — and take the opportunity of doing so again — that I expect absolute wholehearted co-operation from all civil and public servants with the Ombudsman and his staff.

On the question of recommendations from the Ombudsman leading to reforms it is quite clear that the Ombudsman has rightly used his position to focus attention on certain anomalies and has made various recommendations. I am glad to report that a number of these recommendations have been taken on board by colleagues in introducing changes. I can further confirm that in respect of all the recommendations received from the Ombudsman, very serious consideration will be given by all members of the Government to such recommendations.

A number of Senators referred to the very big number of complaints against Bord Telecom and I touched on it in my opening remarks. I am not sure that I agree with the views expressed by Senator Hillery when he suggested that there was evidence that the Ombudsman's office was being misused by telephone customers. In the course of the debate the position became clear. Bord Telecom propose to change the procedures and establish printouts for long distance direct dial calls in a couple of years' time and the probability is that when that is in place many of these complaints will fade away. In the meantime it is likely that the level of complaints will be maintained if not increased and I expect Bord Telecom to co-operate fully with the Ombudsman and his staff in investigating and clearing up these complaints. After initial problems became apparent there, I am glad to say that an improved system of dealing with the inquiries from the Ombudsman is now in place.

Senator McGonagle and others highlighted the question of late payments and asked what an Ombudsman meant in this regard. The problem is complex and is not capable of a simple solution. We were reminded on that score by a colleague on one occasion when he said that for every complex problem there is a simple solution which does not work and that sums up the situation here. The problem of late payments affects quite a number of areas and while Senator McGonagle dwelt on social welfare recipients, one has also to consider the question of housing grants, grants payable in the agricultural area, farm modernisation grants and so on. We need to develop a common set of principles to govern payment of the various benefits involved. That is highly complex because of the nature of such benefits.

At the moment the Department of Finance are attempting to solve this riddle with a view to establishing such principles and I have asked that this work be completed urgently. In the meantime changes have taken place in the Department of Social Welfare. It is important to bear this in mind. Senator McGonagle referred to the specific case highlighted by the Ombudsman in his report. It is important to record that that particular case has been resolved and payment made on an ad hoc basis. In addition the Department of Social Welfare, pending the establishment of broad principle applicable to all Departments, have acknowledged that in exceptional cases interest can be paid and have indicated that in such cases claims will be dealt with sympathetically. That is as far as I can go pending the completion of the overall review. It is a considerable advance in the situation as it was when I was reporting to the House last year.

There is another point in particular that I am anxious to reply to and that is the reference to the staffing of the Ombudsman's office. It is correct that the Ombudsman did lose one junior post as a result of staffing restrictions. It has to be borne in mind however that this was out of a total complement of 41. It therefore represents a drop of 2½ per cent which is very significantly lower than the average Civil Service reduction which in fact is about 10 per cent. Nobody in this House will suggest to me that we are not on the right track in attempting to reduce numbers in the public service generally. At the same time the case has been made in relation to the Ombudsman's office. Again it has to be borne in mind that there was a substantial increase in the numbers in the Ombudsman's office between 1984 and 1985 when the numbers increased from 15 to 41. That coincided with a very substantial extension of the remit of the Ombudsman.

That is the position we are in. That increase from 15 to 41 was made possible despite the severe overall constraints in the Civil Service numbers. It does indicate the very high priority which the Government accord to the Ombudsman's office.

Finally in relation to the Civil Service the embargo no longer applies for 1986. I have replaced that by recommendations in relation to each office and Department which I put before the Government and which were accepted by Government. The embargo referred to by many as a crude instrument does not apply any longer. It has been replaced by a system of staffing target levels to apply at the end of 1986 and within those target levels each Department and office are entitled to make whatever appointments they consider most appropriate to their needs. Even that is academic in so far as the Ombudsman's office is concerned because it is an indication of the priority which I accord to that particular office. The staffing target levels which gave rise to reductions in many Departments and offices does not give rise to any reduction whatever in the Ombudsman's office and the full complement will continue in that office until the end of 1986.

In conclusion I wish to thank Senators who have shown interest in this debate.

Question put and agreed to.