I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes the annual report of the Ombudsman."
I propose, if the House agrees, that the speaking time of each Senator shall not exceed 20 minutes.
Ombudsman's Report: Motion.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the report of the Ombudsman and I am delighted to welcome a report for 1990 so early in the year. We get many reports from various bodies such as those from the European Community which are so much out of date that they are irrelevant to the business in hand. We have not yet debated the second six monthly report of the European Community dated August 1989.
I would like to compliment the Ombudsman on the tremendous amount of work done by him during 1990 and also to commend his staff for the manner in which they handled the complaints made to the office during that period. It appears that because of the setting up of the office of Ombudsman complaints do not seem to be increasing at the rate one would imagine they should. The report states that approximately 3,000 complaints are made to the office of the Ombudsman every year. When one considers the number of transactions through Government offices, semi-State boards, health boards and local authorities it is extraordinary that only 3,000 people put their cases before the Ombudsman. It is equally unbelievable that so few cases merit being sent to the Ombudsman.
The Department of Social Welfare carry out approximately 40 million transactions every year. The total number of complaints received by the Ombudsman in 1990, or carried forward from 1989, was 4,310. When one considers that there were 40 million transactions in 1990 and that there were only 3,000 with a carry forward of 1,310 from 1989, it seems as if that Department are carrying out their job in accordance with the wishes of the people; 137 cases relating to the Department of Social Welfare were carried forward from 1989 and in 1990 they received 675. They finalised 734, therefore, there is a carry forward of only 78 to this year. The cases settled for the complaints in 1990 by the Ombudsman were 113 and for the Department, 237. Clients were helped to get other benefits in 351 cases, two cases were dropped and the Ombudsman saw no merit in 31 claims.
In his report, the Ombudsman mentioned expressly that he is getting more and more co-operation from various Departments and this is to be welcomed. When the Ombudsman's office was first set up there was a fear in many Departments that it would be an anti-Civil Service office and that it was set up to express dissatisfaction with the operation of various Departments. Obviously, this is not the case. I am disappointed that in his report this year the Ombudsman mentions that there are still some authorities who feel they are being got at by the Ombudsman and that claimants who go to the Ombudsman are just trying to jump queues. However, this is patently not true when one reads the statistics.
The report should be studied by everybody in the public service who deals with the public because it covers in detail various investigations in to Telecom Éireann, the health boards, the Department of Social Welfare and An Post. The report goes into the details of certain cases and shows the complexities involved in dealing with some issues. Students of the public service should read the report as it would give them a better insight into the complexity of the cases that can come before the Ombudsman.
There are statistics in the report which should be addressed by people other than public servants. On page 7 it states that there were 2,727 complaints received within his jurisdiction. There were 1,111 direct complaints about civil servants, 282 about local authorities, 249 about health boards, 1,032 about Telecom Éireann and 53 about An Post. Many people would have thought that when the new semi-State bodies of Telecom Éireann and An Post were established the number of complaints would drop as the staff were no longer civil servants but the statistics show that the figure for Telecom Éireann and An Post and that for the Civil Service is almost equal.
The setting up of the office of Ombudsman has given strength in certain Departments to the belief that appeals offices and areas where the public can make complaints should not be forgotten. I am glad the Minister for Social Welfare, Deputy Woods, has opened a new social welfare appeals office in D'Olier House in Dublin. This is a major development in the public service as it gives the public direct access to an appeals office where their complaints can be dealt with in private. This is to be commended because too often people with social welfare or tax problems have them dealt with in full view and in full hearing of other members of the public, something which should not happen. The fact that the social welfare appeals office will act independently of the social welfare office is an indication that the Department of Social Welfare are serious about trying to build up the confidence of the public.
I am glad that other institutions are now beginning to realise that an Ombudsman is a necessary adjunct to many sectors of Irish life and recently two new offices for the Ombudsman have been set up. One office is being set up — I do not know if it is operational yet — for the insurance industry and one for financial institutions. Anybody dealing with either insurance companies or financial institutions will realise that there is just as much need for an office of Ombudsman in those areas as there is in the public service. Instead of having a number of separate Ombudsmen dealing with various problems — financial, insurance, tax or whatever — perhaps it might be better if the office of Ombudsman was extended to deal with all those cases. The insurance Ombudsman's office is being set up by the insurance industry and the Ombudsman's office for financial institutions is being set up by the financial institutions. Unfortunately, all the financial institutions will not be involved, therefore, a full range of services will not be available to the public. Nevertheless, I am glad that those new offices are being set up.
The office of Ombudsman in the past was treated with a certain amount of disdain by public servants. However, they now realise that the Ombudsman is there not to hinder the work of the public service but to ensure that the public have their problems, which arise from the operation of the public service, dealt with to the full legal limits.
I will not detain the House any longer. I again compliment the Ombudsman and his staff. I am glad he found his visits to offices around the country to be of importance and that with sufficient finance, time and staff, he will be able to visit more areas in the coming year. This is an excellent report and it is very welcome. I am also glad it is before the House so soon after its publication.
I, too, welcome the report and commend the Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills, and has staff for an excellent job and for the time limit within which the report has come to us. It is seven years since the office of the Ombudsman opened its doors for the first time and the response from the general public has been enormous and very welcoming. As a nation, though we are small, our system of government and local government because of the nature of funding through block grants and so on from the Exchequer is centralised to a large extent. The power is held centrally and there is, perhaps, a tendency on the part of the Irish public to be a little reticent in filing complaints. We do not crib about a bad meal in a restaurant, a shoddy piece of merchandise or a faulty car. Perhaps that is because we rub shoulders with so many people in the community whom we know. We are shy about raising complaints, unlike our European neighbours, particularly the British, who are extremely insistent on getting value for money and ensuring that they have access to their services.
It appears from the nature of complaints in the report that perhaps we feel incompetent in making our complaints because we are unable to put them succinctly on paper, or because we cannot communciate by telephone to the bodies involved. There is that characteristic in the Irish that we feel guilty about making a complaint. It is really only now that we are beginning to take responsibility for ourselves in realising that it is our duty, if we feel we are not getting service, to ensure that we get it.
The role of the Ombudsman is extremely welcome. The power of the Ombudsman to solve people's problems, as seen in the 1989 and 1990 reports, is enormous considering the resources available to him. Although we do not have enough resources for any area in our society I am surprised at the level of success of this office given the complexities particularly of the social welfare system and various other Departments.
The office of Ombudsman was established in 1983. Prior to that no agency had the power to receive, obtain or seek documentation or information in regard to complaints. Public representatives, both at local and national level are the vehicles though which the general public have filed complaints up to now. I do not know why there should have been any resistence from public representative at either local or national level as we do not have access to the relevant documentation. We should view the Ombudsman and his staff as a complementary role to our ourselves as they certainly take a great deal of the burden from us. There is absolutely no way that we as public representatives would have the time or the resources to go through the tangle of intricacies surrounding many of our Departments. It is right that the files of Government Departments and public bodies should be open to scrutiny by an independent office and that unresolved complaints over the years were found to be justified and settled.
When the office first opened its doors Mr. Mills said that if a person was entitled to a benefit of one kind or another and had failed to obtain it through administrative error, the office of the Ombudsman would ensure that benefit was obtained. At that time, and Senator Lanigan also mentioned this, Mr. Mills instanced resistance he encountered from public bodies. However, he stuck to his guns and even though he is a conciliatory person and neither he nor his office would ever seek confrontation with public officials he has constantly shown he has the courage to pursue and resolve any reasonable case, notwithstanding objections from officials. He obviously welcomes the goodwill and support he has received from the public service and public representatives.
The teething problems experienced by the office during the first six years of its existence were enormous. Obviously, the progress was going to be difficult because there was a backlog of complaints and the office was set up at a time of financial cutbacks and severe reductions of his investigative staff. However, over the seven year period the public have come to realise the assistance the office of Ombudsman can give them. It is interesting to note that there are Ombudspersons — which is, perhaps, what we should be calling Mr. Mills — in more than 40 countries at present.
I believe that more resources should be given to regional visits; we would welcome decentralisation of the office. The Ombudsman will pay a visit to Limerick in two weeks' time. I hope there will not be a large number of complaints but I am sure the people will be aware he is coming to the area. I presume that the feedback from his visits to Sligo, Waterford, Wexford, Tralee, Cavan and Dundalk will be of benefit to us all.
The report states that during 1990, 265 people called to his temporary offices; obviously the news is filtering through. The people who went to the regional offices did so because they may have had doubts about their ability to make a complaint in writing or over the telephone and, also, because of the difficulty and expense of travelling to Dublin. All school children, particularly at second level, should be aware of this office. In the course of their English lessons they should be taught how to set out their complaints and given examples of case studies. It should be part of the school curriculum.
If people felt assured that they could take responsibility for themselves and communicate their problems there would not be as great a need for the office of Ombudsman but, having said that, I do not wish the role of the Ombudsman to be ruled out completely. The Ombudsman could deal with extremely difficult complaints that are beyond the capacity of people to solve themselves. Today I heard of his intended visit to Limerick but I did not realise it was in a fortnight's time and I have not seen any newspaper coverage of this visit. Local newspapers should carry such news items well in advance. Perhaps there is a need for more resources to create a public awareness of those visits.
Reference has already been made and we have only to look at the excellent graphics on pages eight and nine of the report — to the number of complaints received. It is interesting to note, particularly with the controversial discussions over the past few months, that there have been only 75 complaints in relation to An Post. That should be an indication that An Post have a very good record of dealing with complaints. They do not have many problems when one compares 75 complaints to 2,052 in relation to Telecom Éireann, 399 for local authorities and 374 for health boards. Local authorities or health boards should not have any cause for complaint if we had a true local democracy with decentralisation in local areas. One would imagine that people should have access to their local authorities and health boards and, therefore, not really have any complaints at all. I am sure we will be debating this on the Local Government Bill but do we understand local democracy? Do we have local democracy and is it accessible to the people? This will be a big issue running in the local elections because people are dissatisfied with the lack of local input into their local authorities.
The anomalies in the social welfare system were thrashed out when we were debating the Bill and in all the reports of the Commission on Social Welfare. I will not go into that now because it would be too complex. Certainly, those anomalies should be removed in the operation of certain aspects of the Social Welfare Bill.
I will deal with one issue which got media coverage prior to this. This is very important, particularly as when we will be debating the Adoption Bill later; it relates to the lack of provision for adoptive mothers. We know there are not enough babies here for parents who wish to adopt. This was evidenced by the steady stream to Romania by Irish parents who wished to adopt children. There is discrimination against some people as there is no provision for adoptive mothers in the area of leave from work, social welfare payments and social insurance credits. It is extraordinary that it was the Ombudsman who highlighted this. I would have imagined that we, as public representatives, should have been very much aware of it. Certainly, there should be a strong lobby to assist Mr. Mills in this because he states that the bodies are acting within the law but that consideration should be given to the statutory provision of adoption leave and adoption benefit, including the granting of social insurance credits in the case of adoptive mothers.
The complainant was a married woman with whom a child had recently been placed for adoption. She was in employment and we know that some years ago if a woman who was interested in adopting was employed she was prevented from doing so. That is no longer the case but it is extraordinary that this anomaly is still there. Obviously, there is no difference between the care a mother gives to an adopted child and her own.
I am reluctant to interrupt the Senator but I am sure she will agree she is straying somewhat into the area of social welfare rather than dealing with the report. I appreciate that the Senator is referring to a specific item in the report but she has made her point in relation to that. I respectfully suggest that she may have an opportunity in another debate to elaborate on that very worthwhile contribution.
I take the point but I sometimes feel that issues, particularly relating to women, are not taken seriously. I am not being sexist but this is 1991 and we are debating a major issue.
Acting Chairman
Yes, but I am sure the Senator will appreciate that while it is a major issue, at present we are addressing the report of the Ombudsman in total. I accept the Senator has been making a passing reference but I have given sufficient latitude specifically on the case she has raised. Perhaps the Senator could take the opportunity at some future time of raising the issue that has been brought to the attention of the House? I am reluctant to have to interrupt the Senator.
I would have liked if you had been more reluctant to interrupt me because I consider that if it is left to the annual report of the Ombudsman to raise this matter it is a reflection on all of us. If I had to spend the 20 minutes debating this I would consider my time well spent. More than likely it may not be taken up by others but at least I have made my point. It is not something the Ombudsman can resolve; it is, as he states here, statutory provision of adoption leave and adoption benefit and it can be taken up again.
The most vulnerable people in society are using the services of the Ombudsman and I can understand the reason. They may be vulnerable in relation to putting pen to paper as I have noticed that they are in the old age category. I have noted references to deserted wives and I am very saddened by this. I would have felt that we have the reputation as a nation of being extremely respectful towards our own people and towards the vulnerable people in our society. Right through the 1990 report and the previous one, it is clear that the people who appealed to the Ombudsman are in great need. They are looking for grants for disabled persons and are finding anomalies there. I mentioned the case of deserted wives and also the matter of disabled person's maintenance allowance. Complaints in relation to Telecom Éireann deal with telephone accounts and so on. There are references to widows' pensions, arrears of old age pension, arrears of retirement pension, pension increases, review of insurance of employment 25 years earlier, the case of a deserted wife being unable for the third time to prove desertion. This is a list of the most vulnerable people of our society and it saddens me that they have to resort to the Ombudsman. I am glad that he and his very hardworking staff raise those issues.
In relation to the Department of Education, higher education grants and the difficulties and anomalies associated with them are the contentious issues. There are complaints about unsuitable local authority housing, water supplies, refusal of a disabled person's grant, hardship cases and calls for recoupment of overpayment of disabled person's maintenance allowance from a handicapped woman and so on. We should ask ourselves whether there is something wrong with our system where the most deserving people of our community who have worked so hard during their lifetimes, seem to have to fight for their benefits. I hope the 1991 report will show a reduction in complaints from those people.
Mr. Farrell
I welcome this report. When the Ombudsman was first talked about I thought it would be just another unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. I extend a hearty congratulations to the Ombudsman. I welcome the report for two reasons. First, it is neat, concise and readable. Very often we receive reports which are so long-winded that one would need back-up services to interpret them. This report is in very simple form and is readable all the way through. I congratulate Michael Mills and his staff in that regard.
The report vindicates public representatives at local and national level. Deputies were often accused by the media and others of wasting time putting unnecessary questions to Ministers in the Dáil. When one sees that 41 per cent of the complaints refer to the Civil Service it clearly vindicates the point that there was a need for us to make representations on behalf of those people, putting the case in a fair and humanitarian manner.
Thirty-eight per cent of the complaints refer to Telecom Éireann, but before dealing with that I pay tribute to our local authorities and health boards. Those two organisations serve the most weak and vulnerable sections of our community. Only 9 per cent of the complaints were against the health boards, and only 10 per cent were against the local authorities. I am very pleased that my own county of Sligo had only two complaints and that Senator Mooney's county also had a low rate of complaint. Only three complaints were made about the health board. That is a great tribute to the people who work in local authorities, in county councils and health boards despite their being castigated by the media. It proves those bodies are doing their job in a very able and efficient manner and I congratulate them.
I noticed one very interesting case in education, where a student had been promised a grant. She failed an examination after completing one year, did a repeat and succeeded, but was then told that she would have to undergo a new means test. Eventually the student got the grant. I was pleased, because I had a similar case in Sligo which did not succeed as I did not take it to the Ombudsman. If it was now, we would certainly win it because the case was exactly similar. The council asked the Department for advice because we felt the case was border line. Thank God, this ultra vires rule is to be abolished shortly. Our officials were afraid of being surcharged and had to take the advice from the Department which meant that a student was treated unfairly. This report is a great reference book for politicians. One is likely to find in it something relating to almost any problem.
I cannot understand why we still have so many problems with Bord Telecom and why they are so dictatorial. I have had several problems with Bord Telecom but I have never succeeded in winning. They have set themselves up as infallible. On reading the reports, it is clear that the Ombudsman had a very tough job and had to initiate many interviews to successfully solve cases. Many of those cases need not have been pursued if Bord Telecom had been a little more in touch with their customers. Unfortunately, Bord Telecom treat all their customers by remote control.
I am disappointed the remit of the Ombudsman is not widened to include CIE and the ESB. There would be few complaints about the ESB because they work with their customers. If accounts are not paid, they send a man out to collect them. The ESB know their customers. There is a link between both parties, but unfortunately this does not exist between Bord Telecom and their customers. If a bill is not paid, the customer is disconnected. Those who were reconnected had to pay up to £4,000 or more in back payments. It is a pity they did not claim for loss of income and inconvenience during the period of disconnection.
I would like to see a more humanitarian approach by Bord Telecom. We have many complaints about them because they do not treat their customers in a personal way. It is all done in a very autocratic manner and it is one reason so many complaints are made to the Ombudsman. Perhaps Bord Telecom will listen to sense, realise the folly of their ways and start talking to their customers.
I was also interested in another case where somebody living outside the State found on return that the customs would not accept that he had owned the car for six months. There are many cases like this which I hope will be highlighted. I know of people who came into the State with cars and who had to pay duty even though they had owned their car for six months. What could they do? They either had to leave the car or pay up. I am glad the Ombudsman has solved this problem which crops up very often in my part of the country, being so near the Border. It is also common in the west where many emigrants are away for the regulation time, and then return. If anyone feels he has been surcharged unfairly by the customs, even at this late stage, he should take it up with the Ombudsman.
I cannot understand why Bord Telecom like the ESB cannot install meters in people's houses. We are totally dependent on somebody reading the meter. A customer cannot see for himself or herself how the system works. Customers get a bill; it is a fait accompli. Customers must pay up or risk being disconnected. Surely, technology should have reached the stage whereby meters could be installed in people's homes, so that they could read their meter, see it being read and have some control over what is happening? Unfortunately this is not the case.
I welcome the report. It will be a great help to all politicians who may have to make a case for people who have been wronged. I am quite satisfied the Ombudsman has done a good job and I wish him well in continuing the good work. The report is efficient, easily read and yet it has great detail.
I welcome the report of the Ombudsman. Despite some reservations and observations on the behaviour of corporations, agencies and so on, made by previous speakers, all public representatives should be very pleased that there is an Ombudsman with an office and staff, who has, over the past seven years, without fear or favour, dealt with and solved many difficult and complex problems. The Ombudsman must often, with tact and understanding deal with people in order not to antagonise or influence them. We should be very grateful for this because, as public representatives, we run into many procedural difficulties with Government Departments and we cannot deal effectively with cases which require the fullest possible re-examination. We all suffered procedural frustrations before the setting up of the Ombudsman's office.
The effectiveness of the office shines through, not only because of its success rate, but because they only push a case if prima facie evidence exists. Evidence of the need for this type of investigative procedure is there in abundance in the report. On the basis of that evidence I welcome the idea of the Ombudsman and what he stands for. Irrespective of which Government are in office we should all ensure that the Ombudsmen's office will never again suffer from lack of resources, particularly with regard to the staffing of the office. I say this not to knock anybody with regard to cutbacks but because, if democracy is not to be eroded, citizens need a fall-back position when they become frustrated in trying to deal with bureaucracy. They must have this facility available to them at a time when normal procedures for dealing with problems have failed them or appear to have been exhausted.
Public representatives must see to it that the backlog of matters causing serious concern which may deny individual rights is eliminated. This is an essential service which has revealed that there are a lot of grievances of a peculiar nature which cannot be dealt with through the normal processes. These problems seem to be growing, and they need attention. It is the essence of democracy that a citizen can have access to the Ombudsman's office. Democracy does not work for the individual citizen if every possible means of having his grievance thoroughly examined is not available to him.
The report clearly shows that a substantial number of cases dealt with by the Ombudsman's office could not be resolved. That is understandable as the Ombudsman's office have their difficulties as well. In the overall context, it has been a very successful seven years, because many of the problems dealt with by the Ombudsman's office could not have been satisfactorily resolved by public representatives acting in their own right.
All the evidence is there to convince us that not only must we support the work undertaken and the results achieved by this office, but we must also ensure that it is allowed to develop its competence to deal with the ever-growing range of complaints. I welcome the idea of regional visits on an ongoing basis. For many reasons many people do not have easy access to an office in Dublin. This represents to some extent, a decentralisation of the office and that will always be welcomed.
It is incumbent on me, on behalf of the Labour Party, not only to congratulate the Ombudsman office on their report and on the way it is set out, but to them for their work in the past seven years. The Ombudsman deserves a special word of appreciation for the leadership and dedication he has displayed since taking up office. He is the first Ombudsman appointed and he had to deal with the difficulties that that entailed. The Ombudsman with his staff, despite many difficulties, has put in place a system that is an example of how fair play and justice can and should be pursued. This work lays a good foundation for any successor in the future. The first Ombudsman has done the groundwork; he has given leadership and encouragement without antagonising Government Departments or public representatives, who in the early stages were a little bit resentful that an Ombudsman's office would take on problems that they might have dealt with. When public representative realised that cases in which they had been unsuccessful could be fully explored through this office on the basis of prima facie evidence, their resentment evaporated. The office helped public representatives in their work and did not hinder them in any way.
Departments might have been resentful at first when the Ombudsman took up problems with them. It is a bit difficult to ask a Department to re-examine a decision, but that has been done very successfully. The Ombudsman's office deserve great credit for that. It is something that all public representatives should applaud. Public representatives should defend the resources of this office, because every citizen has the right to act in his own interests, right up to the highest level possible. When one is frustrated by all the bureaucracy that one can encounter from time to time, this office is available.
I do not suggest that imaginary grievances should be entertained. The Ombudsman quickly rejects any such grievances. I welcome the report which speaks for itself. We could nearly pass it without discussing it.
On reading the report, I found it rather interesting that there were certain coded words and phrases being used by the Ombudsman to indicate to those who read this report that the office of the Ombudsman, in the personage of the very affable Michael Mills, is the iron hand in the velvet glove, in the sense that while Mr. Mills is a very personable and affable gentleman his powers are far reaching and they have reached very far into various Government bodies. In the context of the coded statements and words, I hope I am not doing Mr. Mills an injustice in interpreting the reports in that way, but having listened to him on a very entertaining and informative radio interview, following the publication of the report, I think I can understand to some degree, the nuance of what he was saying then and what he has written here. For example, he says the original intention of the Houses of the Oireachtas in setting up the office of Ombudsman was to solve difficulties that public representatives could not resolve under existing procedures, and that the recognition of the restrictive nature of public representatives work led to the establishment of a similar office in more than 40 countries around the world. He says:
The only reason the Office of the Ombudsman is in a position to resolve complaints is because the Members of the Dáil and Seanad gave the Office powers which the members themselves do not have... With these powers every justified complaint can be remedied.
He says also:
In some cases had my request for a genuine review of the case on the basis of the evidence presented being accepted, the need for an investigation with its attendant findings and recommendations would never have arisen.
Let us take that with the following comment he made in his introduction:
It is a matter for regret that more careful attention is not given, at times, by public bodies to the suggestions by my Office, that, in the light of the evidence presented, they should carry out a genuine review of a case... [and in the same context] ... The attitude of a small number of public bodies, who regard the Office of the Ombudsman as making representations on behalf of complainants, continues to be a matter for concern.
The Ombudsman obviously feels this is a problem. It might be interesting to see if in his report to the House next year this perceived attitude of reluctance among certain public bodies and the officials working in them has improved.
Like Members on both sides of the House, I welcome the decision of the Ombudsman to continue his series of "getting to know you" visits around Ireland. He mentioned in his report that he intends visiting Cork, Leitrim, Donegal, Limerick, and Ennis in the earlier part of the year. To the best of my knowledge, he has not reached County Leitrim yet. Indeed, in one of those radio interviews to which I alluded earlier, Mr. Mills commented that the smallest number of complaints were received from County Leitrim. I am not sure whether that is due to the intelligence of the people of County Leitrim or to the activities of its public representatives, or whether the people do not have complaints that need to be channelled through the Ombudsman's office. As Mr. Mills said, it is an interesting question. Until very recently, I had not used the office of the Ombudsman for queries and representations I received from members of the public. Having listened to Mr. Mills within the last week to ten days, I have remedied that and he now has a number of representations from County Leitrim on his desk. I hope he will be able to solve them in his usual efficient manner.
Senator Farrell commented that Sligo County Council had a very low rate of attrition, if that is the right word to use, and they have indeed. I was pleasantly surprised to note in the statistics the Ombudsman's report gives, that throughout the year under review he received no complaints at all in relation to County Leitrim. It must be a tribute to the efficiency of the Leitrim County Council officials at all levels that not one complaint was issued to the Ombudsman's office not only this year but in 1989. Long may it continue.
In going through the statistics, in relation to local authorities, I was again pleasantly surprised to find that the Ombudsman had been responsible to a large degree for the improvements in the licensing arrangements for motor vehicles. As Senator Farrell quite correctly pointed out, the report is a gem in terms of the information it provides for public representatives and like my colleague, I will be using it as a reference over the coming years.
The question of motor registration now seems to be something that has been consigned to the dim and distant past but at the time the Department of Finance relaxed the laws in relation to the importation of vehicles as a result of our membership of the European Community, an increasing number of vehicles were legally imported into the State and the secondhand car market, and ultimately the consumer, was finding some difficulty in establishing whether these cars were registered in the year stated on the licence plate or if they had been registered many years previously. Sadly, the case was that an increasing number were given a new number when the car had been on the road for some considerable time. It is interesting that the Ombudsman under the heading "Local Authorities", says that his office were active in ensuring changes for the better in that area. The ordinary consumer, and I place myself in that category for the purposes of the argument, would not have known that the Ombudsman's office had been responsible for that matter.
All Members of the House have made references to the fact that Telecom Éireann comes out on top in the Ombudsman's report. The report speaks for itself on that company. Senator Farrell made a contribution with which all of us could agree in relation to Telecom. Let us hope that by this time next year we will see a dramatic reduction in the number of cases referred to the Ombudsman on that subject.
I was particularly interested in the Revenue Commissioners. If the truth were told, everybody in the country is interested in the activities of the Revenue Commissioners because they impact on our lives to such an extraordinary degree. Looking at the statistics on a year-to-year basis, it was interesting to see that the largest single increase in complaints to the Ombudsman's office was on matters which come under the ambit of the Revenue Commissioners. I was a little disappointed therefore, that Mr. Mills in giving his examples under the heading seemed limited somewhat in the two items he included, one on the refusal to grant exemption from stamp duty, which is to do with housing, and the other a refusal to allow duty-free importation of a vehicle. It would seem to me there was an interesting chapter all of its own on the sort of complaints which the Ombudsman's office had received and on which they had been requested to negotiate a solution with the Revenue Commissioners. I say "interesting", because in reading the headings of the items which the Ombudsman cannot investigate, it throws up one where there is a right of appeal to an independent tribunal or appeal bodies such as the appeals commissioner of income tax. One wonders what it was, that the people concerned, some 243 of them, had written to the Ombudsman about, if it was not to do with income tax.
As someone who comes from a Border county, and Senator Farrell will be familiar with this as he comes from Sligo, I know that the question of vehicle importation has been something of a cause célèbre in our area for the past number of years, especially since the relaxation of importation laws as a result of our continuing development towards the completion of the Single Market. I would have liked to have seen more evidence of whether many of the cases the Ombudsman was dealing with were to do with car importation. I am talking about people who are living in the South and working in the North or people who come from the North and have moved to the South temporarily. It is a very confused area.
In the context of the completion of the Single European Market at the beginning of 1993 I am awaiting with great interest to see how it is going to affect residents caught up in this bureaucratic tangle. I have some sympathy with the Revenue Commissioners in attempting to interpret the law as it is currently constituted and as it will presumably be constituted in the future. I am not sure whether it is within the Minister's brief to make any reference to this — although the Ombudsman and his report come within the Department of Finance which, of course, is responsible for the Revenue Commissioners — and whether we can look to any changes in the law that might necessitate the Ombudsman stating at some future time that he is not receiving all that many requests to investigate complaints about the Revenue Commissioners. Those are the general points I wanted to make in relation to this report.
It is important that the Ombudsman should follow through with his promise not only to indulge in his meet-the-people visits, but there is also the question of publicity and the publicising of the Ombudsman's office. Again, I am not sure whether this comes under the office itself or whether it is something for which the Department of Finance would be responsible. I am thinking of the most basic publicity — posters in public offices, for example; that even Members of the Dáil and Seanad and local authority members would be circulated with a short précis of what the Ombudsman's office is all about which they could have in their clinics or in their constituency offices for the benefit of the public.
It seems to me on the basis of this report — and the Ombudsman makes reference to it — that wherever he or his office have had a physical presence on the ground there has been a resultant increase in applications to him. Therefore, the publicity aspect of the Ombudsman's office is something that may have been neglected. The Ombudsman himself, as I said earlier, addresses it to some degree but perhaps this might be something the Department of Finance should address. Perhaps it is a question of funding, but it is something that would be help to all of us. I can only re-echo what speakers on both sides of the House have said, that while there may have been some reluctance and some cynicism about the establishment of the office of Ombudsman some years ago, that has now been eliminated. I, for one — and I know that this has been echoed on both sides of the House — welcome the establishment, the continuing success and the influence of the Office of the Ombudsman in our daily lives.
As an aside, in looking at the applications for an investigation of An Post there were five that related to television licences. The Ombudsman in his report does not go into any other detail, but when I traced it through the graph I discovered that the five had not been resolved. Three of them had been assisted and two had been solved to some degree, but they had not actually been resolved. I am just wondering why would anybody want to complain about paying their television licence. The problem seems to be that there are people out there who are not paying their television licence and perhaps this is as good a chance as any to encourage them to cough up, to be like the rest of us and to help our friends in RTE to get in a little extra money.
I welcome this report. I look forward to further reports and opportunities to discuss on an ongoing basis the workings of this most welcome of offices.
Fáiltím roimh thuairisc an Ombudsman. Is léir ón dtuairisc go bhfuil sárobair déanta aige ó bunaíodh an oifig agus go bhfuil ard-mholadh tuillte ag Michael Mills, an t-ardstiúrthóir, as ucht an tuairisc a chur le chéile agus as ucht an chaoi a ndeachaigh sé i mbun oibre. Tá cur síos leathan déanta aige ann ar réimse mór fadhbanna a bhíonn ag pobal na tíre le institúidí éagsúla.
Tá an-díomá ormsa agus ar dhaoine eile maidir le gearáin a dhéantar leis an Ombudsman i dtaobh na faillí atá á déanamh ar lucht labhartha na Gaeilge. Dúirt Michael Mills ina thuairisc anuraidh go bhfuil sé de cheart ag gach saoránach a gcuid gnó leis an earnáil phoiblí a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge. Bhí fáth leis an ráiteas sin uaidh agus is deas an dearbhú é ach is beag maitheasa atá ann do lucht labhartha na Gaeilge ná do mhuintir na Gaeltachta nuair a dhéanann siad iarracht a gcuid gnó a dheánamh trí mheán na Gaeilge. Deir Michael Mills freisin gur ceart bunreachtúil atá i gceist anseo, agus is eol dúinn uilig an t-ómós atá ag dul don Bhunreacht.
Tá sé ráite sa tuairisc chéanna anuraidh go bhfuil sé de dhualgas ar an earnáil phoiblí socruithe cuí a dhéanamh le go bhféadfaí gnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge. Glactar leis an bprionsabal ach táimid i bhfad uaidh go praiticiúil.
D'éist mé leis na Seanadoirí eile ag plé na casaoidí éagsúla a bhfuil cur síos déanta orthu sa tuairisc. Ní mór a thuiscint go bhfuil na casaoidí céanna ag pobal na Gaeilge. Deir Michael Mills go bhfuil sé sásta gur féidir dul chun cinn a dhéanamh má ghlactar leis go bhfuil cearta bunúsacha i gceist. Dar liomsa tá rud éigin mór mícheart anseo agus caithfidh an Ombudsman tabhairt faoi seo láithreach. Ní leor a rá go bhfuil an Ghaeilge agus an Béarla ó thaobh aitheantais de ar chomhchéim nó go bhfuil sé seo amhlaidh de réir an Bhunreachta agus is beag, is cosúil, gur féidir leis an Ombudsman a dhéanamh chun é sin a chur ina cheart. Fiú amháin bhí cás achomhairc ann a triaileadh san Ardchúirt agus ba é breithiúnas na cúirte sin ná nár chóir go mbeadh aon mhoill thar an ghnáth ann maidir le lucht labhartha na Gaeilge seirbhís trí Ghaeilge a fháil. Tá glactha leis sin freisin, ach cén mhaith dúinn bheith ag caint faoi rud a bhfuil glactha leis nuair ba cheart dúinn bheith ag caint faoina chur i bhfeidhm.
Ní raibh faoi bhráid an Ombudsman an mhí seo caite ach scór casaoid ach tá a fhios agam go pearsanta go bhféadfadh na céadta bheith ann in aghaidh an lae. Léiríonn an figiúr seo, scór, easpa muiníne lucht labhartha na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht agus sa Ghalltacht sa chóras Stáit maidir len a gcearta a thabhairt do dhaoine sna cúrsaí seo. Tá mise, chomh maith le daoine eile, ag plé leis an gceist seo ó lá go chéile, chuile lá den tseachtain agus is é an chasaoid is coitianta a bhí á plé ag an Ombudsman i rith na bliana ná gan foirmeacha i nGaeilge a bheith ar fáil. Tá an fhadhb sin ann ó bunaíodh an Stát, nach dtugtar aon aitheantas san earnáil phoiblí do lucht na Gaeilge mar dá dtabharfaí, bheadh gach cineál foirme ar fáil: foirmeacha cháin ghluaisteáin, faoirmeacha a bhaineann le sláinte, le dlí, le feirmeoireach agus chuile shórt eile. Ach níl siad ar fáil.
Tá rud eile ann atá coitianta go maith. Má scríobhann duine litir i nGaeilge chuig aon cheann de na Ranna Stáit, tarlóidh ceann amháin de dhá rud: freagrófar i mBéarla é nó b'fhéidir go mbeidh ar an duine a scríobh fanacht sé mhí sula bhfaigheann sé freagra i nGaeilge. Is feasach do Michael Mills é seo. Ach tá sé cinntithe agamsa, ar chaoi ar bith, nach féidir leis tada a dhéanamh faoi. Mar sin, cén réiteacht atá ag lucht labhartha na Gaeilge chun an neamhchothroime seo a chur in a ceart. Tá an Ombudsman, Michael Mills, ann lena chinntiú go bhfuil an saoránach in ann na cearta atá dlite dó de réir an Bhunreachta a bhaint amach. Sin é an fáth go bhfuil sé ann. Má tá casaoid agat cuireann tú chuig an Ombudsman é agus déaneann sé é a fhiosrú, agus tugann sé freagra duit. Ach tá rud amháin ann nach bhfuil sé in ann a dhéanamh, os rud é nach bhfuil sé ag fáil aon chúnaimh ón Stát, ná na casaoidí ó lucht labhartha na Gaeilge sa Ghaeltacht nó sa Ghalltacht a réiteach é féin.
Glacaimis, mar shampla, an tseanbhean nó an seanfhear ón Ghaeltacht, atá ar bheagán Béarla, a théann isteach san ospidéal, níl lucht an ospidéil réigiúnaigh i nGailimh, mar shampla, in ann freastal go cuí ar na seandaoine sin agus níl siad in ann a gcuid dualgas bunreachtúil a chomhlíonadh i leith mhuintir úd na Gaeltachta. Is i mBéarla amháin a labhraítear leo, i mBéarla amháin a líontar foirmeacha dóibh agus a cheistnítear iad faoina sláinte. Mar sin, tá easpa uafásach mór ann ó thaobh na Gaeilge de. Tá eisceacht mhór ann ar mhaith liom tagairt a dhéanamh dó agus is é sin Telecom Éireann, dream atá le moladh go hard as an tseirbhís a chuireann siad ar fáil do lucht na Gaeilge. Má scríobhann duine i nGaeilge chuig Telecom Éireann bíonn freagra ar ais aige le casadh an phoist. Má tá do chuid billí ag teastáil uait i nGaeilge, gheobhaidh tú é sin, agus gheobhaidh tú duine a labhróidh Gaeilge leat ar an teileafón más mian leat do ghnó a dhéanamh trí Ghaeilge.
Sin an chaoi a bhfeicfinn an Ombudsman ag feidhmiú freisin, lena chinntiú go bhféadfaimis an tseirbhís ceannann céanna a fháil is atá Telecom Éireann ag cur ar fáil dúinn. Ní rud iontach é sin. Má tá Telecom Éireann in ann é a dhéanamh, cén fáth nach bhféadfadh seirbhisí eile san earnáil phoiblí é a dhéanamh. Tógaimis sampla níos fearr fós, an Roinn Oideachais. Is é an Roinn Oideachais, mar a déarfá, caomhnóir na teanga — níl aon chaomhnóir ná Aire na Gaeltachta againn, mar a dúirt mé ar maidin. Go bunúsach, ó thaobh na Gaeilge de, mhúineadh na Gaeilge agus chur chun cinn na teanga de, agus chuile shórt a bhaineann leis an Ghaeilge, is cúraimí iad seo a mbíonn an Roinn Oideachais ag plé leo. Bhí am ann go bhféadfaí gnó a dhéanamh i nGaeilge leis an Roinn Oideachais, ach cuirfidh mé geall le Seanadóirí anseo anocht, má labhraíonn siad leis an Roinn Oideachais amárach gur in mBéarla amháin gheobhaidh siad freagra ar an malartán. Déarfaidh na hoifigigh seo leat nach bhfuil aon Ghaeilge acu. Ní féidir leis an gcainteoir Gaeilge a gcuid gnó a dhéanamh trí mheán na Gaeilge, ach is gcorrchás. Ba mhaith liomsa dá bhféadfadh Michael Mills, an bhliain seo chugainn, a intinn a dhíriú ar an gceist seo agus iarrachtaí níos treise agus níos iomláine a dhéanamh lena chinntiú go mbeidh feabhas ar an scéal seo, go mbeidh seirbhís trí Ghaeilge le fáil ón earnáil phoiblí faoin am a thiocfaidh an chéad tuarascáil eile uaidh.
Leis sin, a Chathaoirligh, ba mhaith liom Michael Mills a mholadh as an tuarascáil seo a chur os ár gcomhair, agus as an mbeagán Gaeilge atá ann; ar a laghad, tugann sé aitheantas don Ghaeilge, ach tugann sé le fios, mura bhfuil tuiscint ag daoine nó mura dtugann siad aitheantas don rud bunreachtúil, gur beag is féidir leis féin a dhéanamh. Ach, b'fhéidir i gcomhar le chéile amach anseo go n-éireoidh linn.
Ceann de na hathruithe is tábhachtaí, ó thaobh chóras riaracháin an Stáit de, dar cuireadh i bhfeidhm sa tír seo ná oifig an Ombudsman a bhunú. Is iontach an rud é nár leanamar cleachtas na Ríochta Aontaithe, mar is nós linn, agus an córas á chur i bhfeidhm againn maidir le post an Ombudsman. De réir dlí sa tír sin, ar feadh m'eolais, is éigean gach ceist dá gcuirtear faoi bhráid an Ombudsman teacht ón bhfeisire parlaiminte, agus ní bhíonn teagmháil dhíreach idir an Ombudsman, nó an Parliamentary Commissioner mar a thugtar air, agus an ghnáthphobal. Is feabhas iontach an córas s'againne ar an gcóras sa Bhreatain, mar in Eirinn tá ceangal nó teagmháil iontach idir oifig an Ombudsman agus an ghnáthdhuine.
Tá a lán rudaí sa tuarascáil seo a raibh fúm iad a phlé, ceann amháin acu an pointe faoin nGaeilge a ndearna an Seanadór Ó Foighil trácht go cruinn baileach air, agus ba mhaith liom tacú leis. Níl sé éasca é a chur i gcrích, ach tá sé tábhachtach go mbeadh sé de cheart ag gach éinne sa tír, pé gnó a theastaíonn uaidh nó uaithi a dhéanamh as Gaeilge, go mbeadh áiseanna ann chuige sin. Tá sé deacair a leithéid a eagrú, ach tá mionlach réasúnta mór sa chóras Stáit, sa Státseirbhís agus sna comhlachtaí Stáit a bhfuil Gaeilge maith acu. Ach dá mba rud é gur tuigeadh go raibh de dhualgas ar gach aon eagras a chinntiú go mbeadh seirbhís iomlán i nGaeilge ag gach duine den ghnáthphobal ar mhaith leis Gaeilge a úsáid, bheadh ar na húdaráis phoiblí an córas riaracháin a chur i bhfeidhm a chinnteodh a leithéid. Is ábhar scannail go speisialta é, agus níorbh é an Ombudsman a dúirt é seo, go mbeadh míbhuntáiste de shaghas ar bith ag cur as do mhuintir na Gaeltachta os rud é gurb í an Ghaeilge a ngnáth-theanga labhartha.
Tá an cuma ar an scéal, agus bunús leis, go bhfuil an córas Stáit ag dul in olcas. Tá gearáin agam faoi FAS agus eagrais eile atá ag gníomhú sna Gaeltachtaí, nach mbactar mórán le cumas ná líofacht Gaeilge na bhfeidhmeannach ná na múinteoirí a chuirtear ag obair sna Gaeltachtaí; gur beag aird a thugtar ar cháilíochtaí Gaeilge na ndaoine a roghnaítear le cúrsaí oiliúna a reachtáil i measc phobal na Gaeltachta. Is masla é sin do mhuintir na Gaeltachta, agus ní chabhraíonn sé leis an drochstaid ansin. Ní bheidh seans againn an cheist sin a phlé mar gheall ar rudaí a tharla níos luaithe sa lá.
Is é tuairim mhuintir na Gaeltachta anois nach bhfuil ach seafóid i gcaint an Stáit faoi cheist na Gaeilge agus na Gaeltachta, nach bhfuil an Stát féin dáiríre faoi, go léiríonn an Stát féin nach bhfuil tábhacht ar bith leis an Ghaeilge, nach gcabhraíonn an teanga le héinne, gur míbhuntáiste Gaeilge bheith ag duine ó thaobh na seirbhísí poiblí de. Mar a cuireadh i mo leith sa Ghaeltacht, bhí jab maith agam lasmuigh den Ghaeltacht agus teacht isteach mór agam ón dá phost a bhí agam. Dúradh liom go minic go raibh sé éasca agamsa bheith ag caint faoi thábhacht na Gaeilge agus thábhacht na Gaeltachta, ach má tá cónaí ort in áit iargúlta in iarthar na tíre agus míbhuntáistí eile ag cur as duit mar easpa fostaíochta, drochbhóithre agus chuile shórt eile — agus anuas air sin má tá tú féin nó do chlann ag iarraidh Gaeilge a úsáid le córas Stáit gur cuma leo faoina leithéid — is é an rogha is fearr atá agat ná Béarla a úsáid agus do chlann a thógáil le Béarla sa dóigh is nach mbeidh aon deacrachtaí ann leis an gcóras Stáit, mar go bhfuil gach seans ann go mbeidh tú féin agus do chlann mar ábhar magaidh má chloínn tú leis an Ghaeilge. I wanted to make that clear at the very beginning because the Ombudsman's report raises very disturbing questions.
I must remind the Senator that we are dealing with a debate on the Ombudsman, not on the Irish language. He is entitled to make reference to it, but perhaps he could get back to the report on the Ombudsman.
I thought you were going to pull me up for being repetitive in terms of what Senator Ó Foighil had said. I cannot appreciate, I must say, a distinction between what I have said and what Senator Ó Foighil had said. Nevertheless, I have completed what I wish to say about the report of the Ombudsman. May I say, in a brief passing reference that this is totally out of order, that I took the opportunity of listening for the first time to the translation here of Irish to English and it is a credit to those involved. It is fluent and idiomatic. I have reasonable fluency in the language but people like Senator Ó Foighil give others like myself a good impression of what our Irish is really like. The translation staff did a fine job on a particularly colourful and idiomatic brand of Irish that nobody other than an expert would be able to keep up with.
There are a number of themes in the Ombudsman's report that I would like to develop, some of which I have been asked to introduce by my now excluded colleague who was prepared to speak on this subject. In the report's introduction, indications are given that the Ombudsman is regarded as a threat by some people in the public service. The public service should remember that the Ombudsman offers effective protection to them as well as to the public against unfair complaints, misrepresentation or distortion. Where a complaint is made to the Ombudsman about the activities of a State body, if the person concerned has done his or her job conscientiously and according to the law, the Ombudsman will declare, publicly if necessary that he has adjudicated and has decided that the work concerned was done properly and correctly within the law. That is a defence not only of the public but of public servants who do their job properly and 3,000 complaints suggest that the vast majority do.
The Ombudsman's office is underdeveloped, under-resourced and perhaps not as well known as it should be. There is evidence that it has become, like all State services, the preserve of the slightly wealthier classes, of those who can afford, for instance, a telephone since the vast majority of complaints are about telephone bills. I, too, have experienced frustration with telephone bills but they are hardly the most pressing social problem; other areas of public administration have a more critical effect on people's lives. We should not allow our public servants to worry unduly in this regard.
Public representatives are sometimes afraid of appearing incompetent before their constituents when cases referred by them to the Ombudsman are resolved by him, where the public representative has previously failed. The Ombudsman, unlike the public representative, has enormous powers which is why the establishment of the post of Ombudsman was such an enormous step forward. The Ombudsman can demand to see and read the complete file on a case and may adjudicate on it to his satisfaction. He enjoys extraordinary investigative powers. A Member of either House may, in contrast, make a request but cannot exercise similar powers. This powerful office has worked extremely well.
The Ombudsman's capacity to improve the lives of ordinary people is limited only by the extent to which people know of the office and potential exists for further development, if permitted. There is no Member of either House who would not be relieved if the burden of routine representations to various public bodies and Government was reduced; they could then do something other than write hundreds of letters a week which are identical to those of their colleagues from all political parties in the same geographical area, which generate identical responses, one ahead of the other, depending on current party political preferences.
If we could persuade citizens to deal with administrative delays through the Ombudsman's office and if the Ombudsman's office had the resources and was geographically accessible, many routine problems of delay or inconsistencies associated with large organisations could be dealt with efficiently. Perhaps a truce might be called so that agreement might be reached within a constituency that all problems of delay would be referred to the Ombudsman and adequate resources sought to ensure rapid processing of complaints. A parliamentary question produces an even faster response but questions of delay are an abuse of the concept of parliamentary question. However, it often produces a remarkable concentration of the mind in a Government Department when the Minister has to get up in public to defend the issue and even produce a written answer. That does not obscure the fact that the Ombudsman could do this work adequately.
The Ombudsman's office has developed in various directions and I am grateful to my colleague, Senator Murphy, for drawing my attention to the degree to which the Ombudsman has begun to point in the direction of necessary policy changes. In this report the problems of adoptive mothers are mentioned. The law excludes adoptive mothers from many benefits available to natural mothers. He is serving society well and he has contributed already to the alleviation of certain anomalies in the social welfare codes. I hope he will receive a similarly positive response to the welfare problems of adoptive mothers. It would not place an enormous burden on the Exchequer to extend the various provisions available to natural mothers to adoptive mothers. The Ombudsman testifies to the value of openness in public administration at local and national levels which depends on the greatest possible public access to information.
The Ombudsman's office is also tied up with our perpetual problem of centralisation. The Ombudsman is, for instance, allowed to investigate complaints against local authorities and health boards but the procedure for investigating a complaint against, say, the Southern Health Board, must be enormously cumbersome when the office of the Ombudsman has no permanent geographical base outside Dublin. Every investigation of such a complaint would have to be done through a tedious process of correspondence and communication over a distance of 160 miles. There is good case for increasing the funding of the Ombudsman's office and setting up sub-offices of the Ombudsman's office in the major regional centres and extending them throughout the country. This would enable local investigations to be carried out locally through personal contact with the Ombudsman's local office. The independence of the Ombudsman's office would be protected and its accessibility dramatically improved.
The Ombudsman's report indicates that he is concerned about the extent to which ordinary citizens are aware of his office and it powers. The Ombudsman is not some sort of Mr. Nice Guy; he is an extremely powerful figure with extraordinary and justifiable powers which should provide an incentive towards efficiency in the public sector. The knowledge that someone with no axe to grind other than look after public welfare is entitled to see all records on a case and make an independent and fair assessment of how the person is being treated must be a remarkable incentive to a public servant to ensure that procedures operate efficiently and effectively.
The Government should expand the office of the Ombudsman to facilitate public access and to improve relations between State and citizen. An extended and improved Ombudsman's office with more resources, staff and geographical accessibility would guarantee greater sensitivity on the part of public bodies.
The Ombudsman makes clear in his report that public bodies should understand the duties of the Ombudsman. He does not accept cases simply because they land on his desk but assesses the prima facie basis of each case before accepting it. It is pointless and unnecessarily defensive for public bodies when approached by the Ombudsman to resort to bureaucracy rather than complying with his request and facilitating the inquiry. Such bureaucracy impugns the goodwill of the Ombudsman who will not take on gratuitous complaints.
Once prima facie evidence has been established all public bodies should as a matter of policy provide him with the maximum possible co-operation. A good company operating in the market place offers a parallel when it deals with customers complaints without putting them through a series of hoops.
Recently I dealt with a retail shoe business in Cork; it was a model of how to deal with the customer. When there is a problem with a pair of shoes one can be told that the matter will be investigated and that the shop will get in touch with the customer. This shop said: "You have a problem; it is up to us to solve it now." They made three offers of replacement and were extremely helpful. Consequently if anybody in my family wants to buy a pair of shoes this shop would be one of the shops to go back to because they responded satisfactorily.
Public bodies when dealing with the Ombudsman ought to respond to him in the same way. Delaying or obstructing the inquiry causes public frustration but does not conceal the truth because the Ombudsman does not go away. Delaying an Ombudsman investigation consumes scarce resources in that office which could be used otherwise. All public bodies ought to be reminded by their board members or chief executive officers or in bodies such as Telecom by whoever is responsible, that the Ombudsman is entitled to full co-operation. The Ombudsman's judgment will vindicate the company if it is proved right, and if proved wrong the company will learn how to deal with such matters in future.
We should be proud of the office of the Ombudsman, and proud of the man. The present Ombudsman had earned a reputation for integrity long before he took on this job. He has expanded the office imaginatively, while not breaching his statutory position, to relieve the frustration of those who find themselves enmeshed in bureaucracy. In the process he has done wonders to increase both the accountability and the self-confidence of the public sector. Large sections of the public sector must now know that the office work reasonably efficiently and that deal with large numbers of public complaints promptly and rapidly. The report mentions the case of a health board which tried to insist that school-going children between ages 16 an 18 can be refused disabled person's maintenance allowance for some reason thought up by itself. Such cases are spectacular only because they constitute exceptions. It is wonderful to have a non-bureaucratic process not involving recourse to courts or tribunals which can ensure that offending individuals or State bodies can be dealt with efficiently.
The annual report of the Ombudsman is always well-documented and prepared and makes interesting reading for a public representative. Anyone in public life with an interest in local authorities and State bodies should examine the role they play and the complaints made against them.
The report reveals that the number of complaints made in 1990 was 3,099 and that 51 per cent of these were not upheld; 49 per cent of complaints were upheld, emphasising the need for the Ombudsman service. Many investigations proved financially rewarding for complainants. One could argue that these people received what they were genuinely entitled to. Many case histories mentioned in the report revealed sizeable refunds or rebates, particularly in the area of telephone accounts. The following case appears on page 84: a telephone subscriber complained that his bill had increased from £200 or £300 to over £1,200. He had pursued the matter with Telecom Éireann but the company maintained that the charges were correct. The reply of the Ombudsman read as follows:
Telecom Éireann informed me that faults had been discovered on a customer's telephone equipment. With a replacement of defective equipment the fault was cleared.
Telecom Éireann claimed that the fault was intermittent and had not been detected during previous tests. They were unable to indicate the exact duration of the fault and in the circumstances they agreed to rebate the entire arrears totalling over £2,500.
This is a very substantial figure. In page 87 of the report there are references to refunds of £289 and £1,329. These were serious overcharges for the people concerned and the Ombudsman was extremely helpful in those situations.
In his report the Ombudsman suggested that Telecom Éirean should introduce a code of practice to deal with billing complaints. This is a very worthwhile and constructive suggestion which would save much time and effort by Telecom, by the Ombudsman and, indeed, by the general public.
The report also revealed that complaints about Telecom — this is to be welcomed — have dropped slightly from 1,087 in 1989 to 1,032 in 1990. One might believe that Telecom Éireann are getting their billing act together and being helped along the way by very worthwhile promptings from the Ombudsman. I hope that, as the itemised programme of Telecom continues, fewer complaints will be made.
Many county councillors, TDs, Senators and politicians are effective ombudsmen. Even though the number of complaints to various local authorities has increased, they represent a very small percentage of all complaints made to the Ombudsman. This reflects the good work of county councillors and public representatives nationally.
The Ombudsman gives good value for money. He has enjoyed much success and has shown various Government Departments the value of his position. He is an effective protector of public rights and as such is to be congratulated for his work.
I welcome his report and congratulate Mr. Michael Mills and his staff for doing a good job for all of us.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 5.25 p.m. and resumed at 8 p.m.