Item 2, motion on the annual report of the Ombudsman. The time limit for Senators is 15 minutes. I welcome the Minister to the House.
Annual Report of Ombudsman: Motion.
I move:
That Seanad Éireann notes the annual report of the Ombudsman.
A Chathaoirligh agus a Sheanadóirí, is chúis áthas dom teacht anseo i bhur measc chun freastail ar an run tábhachtach seo.
I welcome the fact that the House has found time to discuss the ninth annual report of the Ombudsman covering his work for the year 1992. It is entirely appropriate that this House should examine and discuss this report, which gives us a citizen's view of what our public services are like.
In this sense, I see the report as being an aid to us as politicians in discharging our role as professional public representatives. Page after page, it details in a clear and concise manner the difficulties which the ordinary citizen encounters in his or her dealings with the institutions of State. The report of the Ombudsman, should be on the recommended reading list for all politicians and the general public.
This latest Ombudsman's report gives rise to a number of issues which, I feel, deserve to be highlighted. I was surprised to note the Ombudsman's comment that many public representatives appear to be hesitant about bringing their constituents' complaints to his office. He points out that in the case of those politicians who have availed of the services of the Ombudsman the process has worked to everybody's advantage. The fact that it appears to be the same relatively small number of Deputies, Senators and local councillors, who continually send in complaints should give pause for thought.
The Ombudsman's office has the potential to be a valuable asset to all of us in our work. We should accept his implicit invitation and avail more often of his services. Certainly, the Ombudsman and his staff are doing their utmost to make elected public representatives as well as the general public aware of the services which his Office can provide. The Office has produced information leaflets and posters outlining the services available. Staff are regularly involved in local ratio programmes, explaining the work of the Office, how complaints may be made and how they are handled.
Important initiatives have been taken between the Ombudsman's offices, the National Social Services Board and the Citizen's Information Centres, which are leading to a greater awareness by people of their entitlements. Allied to this new trans-institutional co-operation, the Ombudsman has continued and consolidated his programme of regional visits, where temporary offices, were established. During 1992 staff of the office visited nine regional centres and over 500 called to these offices, to discuss their problems. Before each regional visit, the information leaflets and posters which I mentioned are distributed throughout all public offices and voluntary bodies in the general area. These regional visits have been a feature of the Ombudsman's work for some year's past. The value of such visits is exemplified by the statistics given in this report which indicate that visits by staff of the office, invariably give rise to increases in the number of cases, submitted for consideration in the area visited.
The regional visits concept assumed a new and most welcome dimension in 1992 when a new service was launched in Cork which involves staff of the office being in attendance on the first Wednesday of every month, at the Citizen's Information Centre in Camden Place. Over 200 availed of this new service during its first year of operation. The report mentions that arrangements had been made to extend this type of regular service, through the Citizen's Information Centre, in O'Connell Street in Limerick. I am pleased to say that this facility has been in place in Limerick since the end of April last and plans are being made to operate a similar service in the north-west from next autumn onwards. These initiatives demonstrate a flexibility and adaptability on the part of the office, which could provide a useful inspiration for other public services.
Members may be somewhat alarmed at that fact that the number of complaints, although not increasing, has maintained itself at a steady level of around 3,000 per annum since 1988. It might be felt that the ongoing activities of the office, should have resulted in a reduction in the level of dissatisfaction among the public in respect of ways in which public services are administered. To view the statistics in this light would, I feel, be to misread the situation. I hope I am not being to optimistic in interpreting the combination of a levelling off of the overall number of complaints with the more widespread awareness of the Ombudsman's existence and role, as an indication that there may be a decrease in the level of dissatisfaction felt by members of the public, about the administration of services.
Turning to the details of the work carried out by the Ombudsman during the course of the year, it seems to me that the effects of the Ombudsman, can be observed at two quite distinct levels. In the first instance there are the results of his work where he has played a role in recommending reforms in work practices and procedures, which have given rise to the long term alleviation of difficulties, encountered by the public. The second, and perhaps more typical effect of his activities has been the sorting out of problems on a once-off basis. In many instances, this latter type of case does not have the potential for long term solution which would benefit future users. Such cases may arise from genuine mistakes, misunderstandings or anomalies, which cannot be resolved without doing an injustice to some other genuine interest.
In the category of reforms of systems and procedures, one of the most gratifying features of the report, is the fact that the number of complaints against Telecom Éireann, has continued to drop significantly. In 1992 the number of complaints received was 486 and when one recalls that in 1987 the number was as high as 2,022, one gets some sense of the degree to which customer awareness within Telecom Éireann has been enhanced in recent years. This change has been effected through improved procedures on the part of Telecom Éireann and from the introduction of itemised billing. It would be churlish to suggest that much of this improvement was not initiated by Telecom Éireann's management and staff but I feel confident in saying that the work of the Ombudsman has also played no small role in this most welcome development.
Turning to what is perhaps a less widespread difficulty, attention is also drawn in the report to the fact that Telecom Éireann has agreed to change its procedures so the guarantors will be alerted to difficulties which have arisen with the customer whom they have guaranteed. This change arose from a case referred to the Ombudsman where a woman received a single threatening letter from Telecom Éireann stating that money was owing on her friend's account and that her line would be disconnected if payment was not received. Following representations from the Office of the Ombudsman, Telecom Éireann has changed its practice and now advise the guarantor when the relevant account is overdue and of the fact that should this situation continue, it will call on the guarantor for payment.
A number of other instances where the Ombudsman's intervention has given rise to improvements in procedures and practices are worth mentioning. A local authority had required disabled people who were applying for housing transfers, where their existing accommodation included an extension designed for the disabled person, to sign a particular form of undertaking which, in essence, would have precluded them from seeking another disabled person's extension following the transfer. The Ombudsman considered that this policy could exclude applications for genuinely needed transfers and he approached the local authority in question, and asked it to review its position. The local authority, although reserving its right to have regard to cost factors, gave an undertaking that in future all such transfer applications would be processed in the normal way.
Another case involving a local authority arose where a firm of architects complained that an authority had not responded to its request for information on the procedures for applying for a refund of planning fees. As a result its application for a refund fell outside the statutory period laid down and the refund was refused. The upshot of the Ombudsman's intervention was that he obtained a refund for the firm of architects. More significantly however, the local authority in question has decided to include a note on planning application forms advising applicants of the circumstances in which a refund of fees may be due, together with the procedures and time limits for applying for refunds.
The Department of Social Welfare awarded a woman the minimum rate of maternity benefit, even though her earnings on which the rate was based was high enough to entitle her to the maximum rate. The difficulty arose because the woman had been working in the public sector and paying the modified rate of PRSI which does not provide cover for maternity benefit. She subsequently took up employment in the private sector. However, her reckonable earnings happened to be those in the last year of her employment in the public sector. Following intervention by the Ombudsman, the Department of Social Welfare reviewed the position and concluded that such earnings are reckonable for the purposes of the maternity benefit scheme. The woman in question received the higher payment, together with arrears, and the Department of Social Welfare decided that it would identify similar cases which had arisen in the past and revise its decisions in the same manner as it did in this instance.
A general reform of practice was also achieved in the case of a particular health board. A case arose where the parents of a child believed she would receive orthodontic treatment, but such treatment was disallowed because the child had not achieved a sufficiently high severity rating for her problem. The fundamental problem was that the health board's monitoring of the child's dental condition had not been satisfactorily communicated to the parents. In the final analysis, the health board accepted the view of the Ombudsman that it should be clearly conveyed to parents that referral and ongoing review did not carry an assurance of treatment. As a result, the board introduced a system of notification to parents whose children are referred for orthodontic assessment.
Another case which caught our attention and where the Ombudsman's intervention effected significant long term change arose in relation to procedures for foster care. Here children who had been under the supervision of foster parents for a long time were removed from their charge without advance notification. This occurrence clearly gave rise to considerable distress to all concerned.
The outcome of the investigation of this case has been that the Department of Health has written to the health boards, advising them that written agreements are required in order to remove a child from foster parents or alternatively that the approval of the Minister for Health is required. The Child Care Act, 1991 includes safeguards for foster parents when health boards wish to remove foster children without their consent. Furthermore, the relevant health board is preparing written procedures in this area. It is especially pleasing to note that the Ombudsman considered it worth while to put on record the high level of cooperation he received from the health board in question.
As I have said, many other cases handled by the Office of the Ombudsman may not give rise to long term solutions. Nevertheless for the people concerned and their families, the successful intervention of the Ombudsman on their behalf was clearly of major personal significance. Some of these cases deserve to be mentioned for a variety of reasons including, in some instances, the significant results which the Office of the Ombudsman was able to effect, and others because they highlight in a particularly graphic manner the type of problems which the citizen may encounter in his or her dealings with public administration.
We would all, I am sure, share a deep sympathy for the difficulties experienced by any family which has a handicapped child. One such case involved the parents of a three year old child who complained that they had not been informed that a Domiciliary care allowance existed for parents of children between the ages of two and 16 years and that when they learned of its existence the health board refused to make the payment restrospective to the child's second birthday. The report concluded that health boards have a duty where they are professionally involved in the management of handicapped children to impart information about specific allowances for the handicapped to the parents of such children. In the case in question, the board agreed that the allowance would be paid retrospectively to the child's second birthday.
Another case which particularly interested us involved a tenant of pensionable age who applied to his local authority to purchase the family home under the 1988 tenant purchase scheme. The authority refused his application on the grounds that it was not satisfied that the complainant could afford to meet the payments involved. The gentleman in question was prepared to get his son, who was living in England, to guarantee the payments. The Ombudsman concluded that the local authority's decision was arbitrary and taken without proper authority and that it contravened the terms of the 1988 tenant purchase scheme. The authority finally agreed to reconsider the complainant's application in the context of the Ombudsman's findings.
The report goes into considerable detail about a case where a gentleman claimed that a local authority had failed to respond to his requests for information about their development plan which would have involved the demolition of his house for road improvement purposes. He also claimed that the local authority had failed to act in relation to an unauthorised and hazardous development which was taking place next door. He wished to avail of Government grants to improve his house. However, while he was seeking information over a number of years about the objective of the local authority's plan and while he was in correspondence about the development taking place next door, the house improvement grant scheme was terminated with the result that he was no longer in a position to carry out the intended improvements.
This transpired to be "a most difficult and complex case" in the words of the report. The Ombudsman issued detailed findings which demonstrate meticulous research, as well as a fair-minded approach to all concerned. In certain instances, the complainant's arguments were not considered to be sustainable and in others the local authority were found to have fallen short in their actions. Not all of the findings were accepted by the local authority but, as a gesture of goodwill, the authority agreed to make an ex-gratia payment of £3,000 to the complainant without any admission of liability or fault. The Ombudsman regarded this as a reasonable offer.
Neither the existence of the Ombudsman, nor the contents of his report should be taken as reflecting in an unduly negative way on the public service. The areas of public service covered by the Ombudsman are many and varied, including the entire Civil Service, local authority and health board areas, together with An Post and Telecom Éireann. Numerous schemes and programmes are covered and literally tens of thousands of staff are engaged in the administration of these services. Inevitably, in such a broad canvass problems will arise. Sometimes these difficulties occur because of simple human error. We were particularly pleased to see that on a number of occasions when such error or delay occurred the public body in question was prepared to admit its mistake and to apologise. For example, the old Department of Energy apologised for the delay in processing certain grant applications and admitted that the delay in processing one such application was due to an error on their own part, while the delay in the other case resulted from the time taken to establish technical guidelines arising from a new woodland grant scheme. Both applications were processed without further delay.
A lady who had moved from Britain received a letter from the Revenue Commissioners informing her that she was not required to submit a return of income for the 1990-91 tax year, unless otherwise notified by the inspector of taxes. She later received a notice from the tax office advising her of a tax liability for that year, plus a surcharge. Following an approach from the Ombudsman, the Revenue Commissioners said that the original letter had issued in error. The commissioners expressed their regret for any inconvenience caused to the lady in question.
The Department of Social Welfare also showed itself willing to admit its mistakes when it reviewed the case of a woman who complained that a child benefit payment from the UK was being assessed against her for the purposes of computing her lone parent (widows) allowance. She also complained that she had not received any allowance in respect of her eldest son, who was over 18 years of age, but still attending full-time education. Following their review, the Department of Social Welfare admitted that an error had been made and that the child benefit should not have been assessed. They revised the rate of lone parent allowance retrospectively and her new weekly rate of payment included an increase in respect of her eldest son.
Reading this report, and indeed having read previous reports of the Ombudsman, I am struck by the fact that the difficulties faced by the citizen in his or her dealings with public administration are often paradoxically the result of the diligent and vigilant application on the part of individual public servants of the rules and regulation applying to various schemes. It must be acknowledged that such public servants are often doing their best to carry out their duties within the constraints of prevailing policy. I have no doubt that they too are often touched by the very real problems encountered by their clients and very often would like to be able to do more to alleviate their difficulties.
The Ombudsman is not a blind supporter of all complaints received. It is evident that his Office undertakes the most rigorous examination of all cases submitted and are prepared to reject those which they do not consider to have merit.
Interestingly, of the 2,642 complaints finalised in 1992, 1,014 — or over 38 per cent — were not upheld. In the course of the report, a number of examples of cases where the Ombudsman found in favour of the public body are given. In one instance, a company complained that they had received a demand for additional excise duty resulting from alterations to a van. Having examined the details of the alterations, the Ombudsman considered that the Revenue Commissioners had acted correctly.
Equally in the case of Telecom, the Ombudsman found in their favour in a number of cases. One concerned a complaint against reverse call charges. There were several more about malfunctions in alarm systems which were connected to a central monitoring station and which the complainants claimed resulted in unduly high telephone bills.
This sensible-minded and balanced approach is a fundamental element in the ongoing success of the Ombudsman's Office. It is only because the Office is seen by both administrators and the public alike to act in an entirely impartial manner that the confidence and support of all sides is ensured for the continued successful operation of the Ombudsman's Office.
In the Programme for a Partnership Government, 1993-97, our Government has committed itself to:
restore confidence in the democratic process, by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels, by improving public accountability, transparency and trust and by ensuring the highest standards in public life.
We see the work being done by the Office of the Ombudsman over the past number of years as playing an important role in the creation of the more open and responsive public service which our Government wants and the country needs. The Ombudsman, for all the efficiency and goodwill demonstrated in his report, can only do so much.
The creation of the type of public service outlined in the Programme for a Partnership Government, will only be achieved when several reforms are put in place. Reforms are already underway or are under active consideration in a variety of areas which, taken together, will have the effect of giving the public the quality of public service to which they are entitled — local government reform ethics in Government, freedom of information, Oireachtas reform including the conferring of privilege on witnesses appearing before Oireachtas committees, together with an attendant obligation on witnesses to give evidence and furnish documents.
No matter what reforms are introduced, in an entity as large as the public service which employs such a large number of people and provides such a wide range of services, occasions will inevitably arise when the citizen considers that he or she has not been fairly dealt with. The Ombudsman will, therefore, always have vital and ongoing work to perform. This Government is committed to supporting that work in every practical way possible.
This report deserves the widest possible publicity. The effectiveness of the Ombudsman is dependent, to a large extent on the public being fully aware first, of his existence, secondly of his role and functions and finally of the considerable influence which he and his staff can wield on behalf of the citizen. May I, on your behalf and behalf of the Government and the public at large, sincerely thank the Ombudsman and his excellent staff for their openness, fairness and professionalism in discharging their many duties on behalf of the people of Ireland.
I welcome the Minister to the House. All Members would be at one in praising the Ombudsman and his staff for this, the ninth report. If there has been a success story in recent years, it has been the Office of the Ombudsman. I have found the Ombudsman and his staff helpful and only too willing to assist. The fact that many public representatives have difficulties dealing with unsolved queries from constituents is one good reason for establishing this office. As the Minister rightly said, given the vast number of cases being processed in State bodies, genuine mistakes will be made and the citizen must have the right to have these matters investigated.
I welcome the regional visits mentioned in the report. Members are aware of the Office of the Ombudsman but most people may not know of it until they have a problem. Those who have queries will first try to solve them themselves, and if that does not work, a certain resentment may build up between the individual and the State body in question — Telecom Éireann, An Post, a local authority, a health board or a Department — because maybe the former thinks no adequate response will be forthcoming. It is important that these regional visits continue — there were nine last year — and many hundreds of people visited them and heard about the availability of the Office. The work they have done liaising with citizens' information centres has been beneficial. I know from centres in my constituency that great work was done and many people can have their problems solved at little or no expense. The Ombudsman can cut through red tape when he wants access to files and documents. In many cases it is easy to establish whether there is a case to be investigated. Decisions may vary from one case to another and I will not dwell on individual cases. However, if there is a case to answer, the Ombudsman can approach the relevant body and get the necessary files.
The Minister said that 38 per cent of complaints to the Ombudsman were not deemed worthy of investigation, but 62 per cent of complaints were investigated. It is important that the Ombudsman can get to the nub of a problem. He must have access to information in order to decide whether a case warrants further investigation. The Ombudsman may resolve cases which have been going on for a long time.
Public servants should read this report because it may assist them in their work. We are all familiar with civil servants who are very helpful but others may have an attitude problem when it comes to dealing with public representatives and the public who make inquiries. Where there is a repetition of certain incidents we must learn from them. We must insure that when cases are being processed, mistakes are not to be repeated. Local authorities, the Civil Service, health boards and Telecom Éireann must learn from their mistakes. They must implement suggestions made by the Ombudsman in relation to work practices and procedures. There is no point sorting out one individual's problem but continuing unchanged existing practices and procedures for the rest of the public.
This ninth report is welcome. It is encouraging that the number of complaints relating to Telecom Éireann has dropped considerably. However, when certain individuals get their telephone bill later this year, there will be probably be an increase in the number of complaints to the Ombudsman's Office when the new charges are introduced. It has been said that only one in 25 calls will be charged at a higher rate. I would like Telecom Éireann to inform me before I make my 25th call so that I can avoid making that call.
It is encouraging that the number of complaints relating to Telecom Éireann has declined. Complaints about reverse charge calls, queries about metered accounts etc., make interesting reading and, to be fair, Telecom Éireann admitted their error when the Ombudsman found in favour of the complainant. Everybody makes mistakes from time to time. It is important that bodies and authorities admit error so that mistakes may be rectified. It is crucial that we learn from mistakes and that they are not repeated.
Members of both Houses and councillors who make representations must take on board what the Ombudsman said. The Office of the Ombudsman is another avenue open to the public and their representatives to have their problems solved and a considerable amount of time may be saved if one contacts the Office of the Ombudsman immediately. Cases can often be difficult to resolve if those concerned become entrenched in a position or if, for example, angry telephone calls have been made, and people may feel there is no solution to the problem.
I welcome this report. It is hoped that local authorities and Government Departments will implement recommendations made by the Ombudsman in relation to work practices and procedures. I do not wish to criticise the Civil Service or local authorities, but difficulties do arise, sometimes it is caused by human error or lack of communication and the fault may be on both sides.
I compliment the Ombudsman and his helpful staff. While we do not wish to see them over-worked, we hope expeditious decisions are made in cases which are investigated.
More than most Members, I have a vested interest in the Office of the Ombudsman. I thank and compliment the Minister of State, Deputy N. Treacy, on his contribution. I note and welcome the presence of senior personnel from the Office of the Ombudsman.
My interest in the Office of the Ombudsman encouraged me to come into politics, and I am not sure whether I should be a fan of the Office. In 1978 I was the only Irish member of the International Ombudsman Institution. The idea of an institution to interpose between the powerless citizen and the powerful State is an old and potent idea.
Some 2,000 years ago in Rome, Juvenal posed the question: who should guard the guardians? There were Ombudsmen in the Chinese dynasties. In the Han dynasty, for example, ombudsmen became so powerful that there was one ombudsman for every bureaucrat, bureaucracy ground to a halt and the Han dynasty came to an end.
The modern ombudsman institution comes out of a time of strife too. The history of this institution is interesting. The idea of Ombudsman came to Charles 1 of Sweden when he was at war with Peter the Great of Russia. During one of those wars he had to flee to Constantinople and he became aware in Constantinople that there was an office there called the Caliph. Because law, public morality and religion were interlinked in that city, it was regarded as sinful for public administrators to misbehave. The Caliph, among other things, had the responsibility of examining how public administrators fulfilled their responsibilities. King Charles of Sweden was aware that back home the grand dukes, who were looking after issues in his absence, were misbehaving on a grand scale. He, therefore establised an office, which became known, first as chancellor, then as ombudsman, to look after his affairs but, ultimately, to look after the affairs of the people.
Interestingly, the other protagonist in those wars, the Russian Tsar, Peter, being so engaged in wars and hostilities against the Swedes, became aware also that the dukes and the noblemen back home in St. Petersburg were also misbehaving and were not looking after the Tsar's interests or the interests of the citizens. He appointed an officer, the Procuratora, known to this day as the eye of the Tsar, to look over the shoulder of every administrator to make sure they operated with prudence and justice and in the wider public interest. It is interesting also that after the revolution in Russia, Lenin put forward the idea that there was only one legacy from the old days that was worth retaining and that was the Procuratora. It is interesting, too, that in recent years the Procuratora has been a vigorous exponent of the interests of the individual citizen in the Soviet Union and now in the Commonwealth of Independent States.
The idea of an Ombudsman in our type of administrative setting goes back to the 1960s. We in Ireland were among the first in the common law world to propose the idea of an Ombudsman and this very year marks the 30th anniversary of the first debate on the creation of an Irish Ombudsman. It is appropriate that this House should consider the Office as it enters into its tenth year of service to Irish citizens.
The report we have before us is very important and it is essential that we look at it critically. There is no point in always praising institutions. When the institution of Ombudsman was first mooted it caused a great deal of fear and trepidation among administrators and politicians. I wrote some very critical analyses of the original Ombudsman Act and I am very pleased and flattered that it is on the record of both this House and the other House that contributors in that debate drew on the material I published at that time to criticise the very timid steps we were taking to create a fully developed institution of Ombudsman.
The New Zealanders dealt fully with this matter in 1961 and created an Office of Ombudsman which is the model for our Office. I could see back in the late 1970s and early 1980s no reason why we should be timid; after all the New Zealanders had ten or 15 years experience of the position. It spread very dramatically in the early 1960 and 1970s, first through the Canadian provinces, then in certain of the United States and it became a constitutional element in virtually every one of the British Commonwealth countries as they moved to independence. Ombudsmen in a variety of colourful guises grew up in that 25 to 30 year period. Some of them became friends of mine. One of them, a Jesuit priest, Fr. Ignatius Killage, was appointed Ombudsman in Papua New Guinea. He also became the Ethics Commissioner, to ensure that politicians and administrators behaved ethically. He ran foul of them at one stage, I will come back to that.
The point I was making is that as well as saying good things about the Ombudsman, and there are many good things that could and should be said, we should look continuously to expand the Office. We took a very timid step in this direction initially. We excluded a whole series of public institutions including local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies. Those exclusions rapidly and in a very welcome way were removed. However, we still have some exclusions that merit attention.
The report is a model. It is excellent because it produces case studies in public administration, a very important feature for any of us interested in public administration. In the past 50 years public administration has grown to an extent where public service, which was established to serve the public, can crush the public. By simply observing the letter of the law, public administrators can do great damage to the very citizens they are meant to serve. There is no market for public administration so we do not have any feedback. We are not like shop owners or producers of goods who, if they stock or produce the wrong goods, are informed by the market and can quickly take corrective action. The market is missing from public administration. The citizen has to put up with what he or she gets and frequently misunderstandings about precisely what one is entitled become the basis of complaint. There have been some improvements in recent years but a huge amount still needs to be done. That is why the Ombudsman's report in its current form is so important. As previous speakers have said, it should be compulsory reading for every public servant and every public representative because it is the only textbook we have at the end of a period which gives us a view into public administration.
In a judgment some years ago in Alberta dealing with the prerogatives and powers of the Ombudsman, there was a beautiful phrase by a judge who said that the Ombudsman institution was most important in democracy because it could lift and carry the light of public scrutiny into the otherwise dark places of public administration. He suggested that if it highlighted what was good then good was done but if it highlighted what was bad than corrective action could be taken. That is the light in which we should see the institution of Ombudsman and that is why I believe we should be continuously interested in how we press forward and develop this institution and how we use it to look into public administration and to highlight where our public service goes wrong.
I am a little disappointed in the level of cases being referred to the Ombudsman. I note, for example, that within the jurisdiction there were 2,637 cases in 1992, 2,603 in 1991 and 2,727 in 1990. If my memory serves me correctly, the number of cases is decreasing compared to the early days of the Obudsman. However, that does not necessarily mean that people are more satisfied now with public administration than they were. It could mean a variety of things. One of the things, I fear, it means is the people are not conscious of the valuable role the Ombudsman can and must play in interfacing between citizen and administration. These are relatively low numbers and must be put in context.
Nothwithstanding the fact that we have an Ombudsman and that we have more public representatives now than we had ten years ago, in a survey I did of TDs in 1981 I was able to point out that TDs at that stage were receiving on average 104 representations of one form or another per week. Some of them were simple requests for information and some of them were complaints. From my own experience and that of colleagues in both Houses I am aware that this figure has increased. The volume of complaints against public administration has grown very dramatically over the past ten years and yet there has been a relatively static number of complaints coming into the Ombudsman's Office. This should give us cause for concern and we should deal with it.
The level of complaints received by the Ombudsman in the year compares relatively badly with the number of complaints being handled by active TDs, particularly in four or five seat constituencies. A number of factors may contribute to this, First, although the Ombudsman is still undertaking regional visits and undertook nine such visits in the period in question, this activity of the Ombudsman, which was very adventurous when it was initiated by Mr. Mills, needs to be expanded. I realise this would put pressure on the resources of the Ombudsman but if that is the case we should provide the Ombudsman with a proper budget and with sufficient staff.
Although the Ombudsman has produced excellent leaflets there is now less publicity about his Office because he does not have sufficient funds to publicise it. The Ombudsman in Dominica in Costa Rica has made a special appeal to children. Comics have been distributed outlining the role of the Ombudsman to make them aware the less fortunate have a champion. We need to do something similar. The Ombudsman needs a budget to communicate to citizens about the existence of his Office and what it can do. There should be more publicity and more visits.
The Office of the Ombudsman is an institution of this House, established on the most significant legislative basis. It is perverse that it be treated like a Government Department when looking for its budget; it is also perverse that both Houses of the Oireachtas are treated likewise for their budgets. In other countries the speakers of the Houses of Parliament, together with other senior oficials, form a budget committee. This sets the budget for the Houses of Parliament and institutions closely linked with them, such as the Ombudsman. That should be the case in Ireland also.
The Office of Ombudsman is an institution to oversee administration and it is wrong that it appears to be beholden to Government. The Ombudsman is established on a constitutional basis. For example, the office holder can be removed only after a strict impeachment process. He is appointed in the same way as a High Court judge. If this high and highly-respected official is appointed, why can he not have access to funding? We can trust our Ombudsman. The current incumbent has proved himself and I am sure his successors will prove to be more than cautious in this regard.
Two other areas still provide grounds for complaint. Both are in the law relating to the Ombudsman so they concern not the office holder but the legislature. The prison service remains outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman. I argued strongly against this. If an untoward occurrence happens in any part of public administration it should be subject to scrutiny by the Ombudsman.
Clinical judgment is also not subject to his scrutiny. One can give an example to show why this is facile. A person may go into hospital and have the wrong leg amputated. A form in the administration may be filled out incorrectly. The Ombudsman can investigate why the form was wrongly completed but cannot have any role in investigating why the wrong leg was removed. Some bizarre cases have been reported by ombudsmen in other jurisdictions. I draw the attention of the House to reports of the administrative commissioners in Britain. These illustrate the fallacy of excluding clinical judgment.
For ten years the Ombudsman and his officers have served this country well. We should have every faith in that Office. It should be provided with all the staff and funding needed to fulfil its remit. Money given to the Ombudsman is well spent. The legislation should be critically reviewed occasionally. As we explore the area of ethics in Government we should seek to vest that role in the Ombudsman.
I compliment Michael Mills and his staff for their service to this country and its people. When he was elected I said in the public press it was an inspired choice. Neither he or his office has disappointed us. The prophets of doom were proven wrong. This adventure in public administration has been most worthwhile.
I welcome the Minister. I am sorry more people were not here to hear that wonderful historical and philosophical statement from Senator Roche. The Ombudsman may not be "the eye of the Tsar" or the eye of the Government but he is certainly a seeking ear, a listening eye and a helping hand for the citizen. The Office of Ombudsman has been one of the major successes of the past ten years and it is nice to be able to report a success.
I pay tribute to the personality of the Ombudsman. His attitude and that of his staff has made the difference between that Office being a success or a failure. Those who look for assistance feel that they are dealing with people who are receptive to their problems. This is essential for people who have already had difficulties from other bodies.
Senator Roche's point on the need for greater publicity about the Office of Ombudsman is worth emphasising. The number of complaints about public bodies is not static. Like other public representatives, I receive such complaints. It is appropriate the Ombudsman has made contacts outside Dublin and become more associated with the citizens' advice centres. This has been a major step in making the public more aware of the existence of the Ombudsman.
It would be desirable to see a breakdown of complainants on a sex and age basis. I believe a large number of them are women, many of them elderly. They have lost hope in the system and, as a last resort, have come to the Ombudsman. It is a great pity that some may have spent a long time struggling with bureaucracy before asking the Ombudsman to take up the cudgels on their behalf.
Thankfully, complaints about Telecom Éireann have decreased. They may not have decreased to the extent they have if the Ombudsman had not been so consistenly critical over the past ten years about how Telecom Éireann dealt with complaints. The improvement is directly due to the efforts of the Ombudsman.
Senator Roche's comments on the prison service are important. It is extraordinarily difficult for prisoners to make their complaints known in the public domain. I have received leters from prisoners. They have often been sent by registered post. They ask for replies so they can be sure I have received their letters. That is a rather depressing message to receive through the mail.
Medical cases are at present refered to the Medical Council. That body is under review at the moment. It is a self-regulating body and, as a medical practitioner, I would not consider it unreasonable for the Ombudsman to have some impact on cases sent to the Medical Council.
I have raised the matter of disabled person's maintenance allowance in the House because I am interested in the subject. Disabled people and disabled persons groups have asked me on several occasions about transferring responsibility for the allowance from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Welfare. They feel they would be more ably dealt with there. These people have a continuing condition. Many pages of the Ombudsman's report are spent on representative complaints about the allowance. I quote from the report.
I suggested then (in 1988) that the disabled person's maintenance scheme should be examined with a view to establishing a consistent, coherent and a fair system of assessing the applicant's entitlement because it appeared to me that the regulations governing the operation of the scheme were unsatisfactory in their lack of clarity. This gives rise to difficulties of interpretation and to inconsistency in decisions in relation to income assessment.
That was the position five years ago and exactly the same is true today. People have great difficulty interpreting the different schemes in the various health boards. The Minister should consider transferring responsibility for this allowance to the Department of Social Welfare, because it is a very serious matter for people who are getting the allowance. Some of the cases detailed in the report are terrible. Some people were not advised that they were entitled to benefits under the scheme. People were not advised about the free travel scheme which is administered by the Department of Social Welfare. The Ombudsman has been highlighting this as a serious problem since 1988, and it is still a serious problem. There are no financial implications, this is one of the few allowances still administered by the Department of Health. Perhaps the Minister would consider transferring this allowance to the Department of Social Welfare as the allowances administered by that Department are now more standardised.
In the report discussion of the problems and complaints relating to the administration of the disabled person's maintenance scheme goes on for pages. There is a section on "Entitlements of the handicapped in residential care". An in-patient in an institution is only entitled to the disablement benefit or invalidity pension. They would be much better off if they got the disabled person's maintenance allowance. A young person in residential care is entitled to only about £5 or £8 per week.
I live very near the Cheshire Home in Herbert Street, and the young disabled people in that home are part of the community. In fact when I said to one of the people who was running the home that it was great to see them sitting outside the pubs having a good time, she said they sometimes have such a good time that they are thrown out of the pub. These young people take an active part in the village atmosphere of the Baggot Street area, and £5 to £8 per week is a very small amount for a young adult. If they were allowed to claim the disabled person's maintenance allowance, it would not bankrupt the State. Very few of these people are in residential care. Another important factor is that they would be entitled to claim a travel allowance if they were in receipt of the disabled person's maintenance allowance.
I commend the report and I second everything Senator Roche said about increased publicity and increased funding if it is necessary, because it is the most vulnerable people in society who contact the Ombudsman's Office. I suggest that the Minister use his influence to have the administration of the disabled person's maintenance allowance transferred from the Department of Health to the Department of Social Welfare. It would make a great deal of sense and would be a great help to the recipients of the allowance.
I welcome the Minister and Government Chief Whip, Deputy Dempsey, to the House. I wish to pay Senator Roche a genuine compliment. He told us the history of the Ombudsman, which was an education in itself, and displayed his very obvious knowledge of the subject. It was the most interesting 15 minutes I have spent here in a long time and I compliment him.
In many ways, the Ombudsman provides the small person's day in court. This is essentially about the small person in our society. Reading the report belies the old adage that you will never beat City Hall. Michael Mills and his staff have demonstrated that not alone can people take on City Hall but they very often beat City Hall.
I refuse to believe that in such a centralised State as Ireland, with over 3.5 million people living here, fewer than 4,000 people have something to complain about. I believe there is a lack of public awareness of this Office. Regional visits have been made, leaflets have been published and so on, but today, the most effective way to get the message across is by television. I fail to see why money cannot be provided to produce a television programme, to be shown at peak times, which takes any one of the cases we have seen here and follows it through, from the time the complainant finds out about the existence of the Office, covers the various stages in the process and, hopefully, shows the resolution of the problem, vindicating the rights of the citizen. One television programme, shown at peak time, would do more to highlight the existence and benefits of this Office than all the leaflets in the world.
We can truthfully say that Members of the Oireachtas are probably the worst readers of leaflets in the world, because we get so many. There is a very low tolerance for this kind of literature and political parties are discovering this. If a person prints 50,000 leaflets, they might be read by 5,000 people. People are aware that the medium is the message, and the medium is radio and television. Something should be done to alert people to the existence of this Office.
The other positive thing we could do, and I hope that the Minister takes this suggestion back to his Cabinet colleagues, is to put a notice on the many departmental forms to the effect that if a difference occurs between the claimant and the Department and if it proves impossible to resolve, the Office of the Ombudsman is available to try to resolve the problem. Why is such a notice not printed on the many documents sent to claimants? When a citizen is trying to resolve their problems with a Department, it is recommended that they take all the normal steps to try to settle the query. When they cannot agree, the Department could suggest that the citizen avail of this arbitration mechanism. This service is available, put there by the Oireachtas, and yet, for the majority of the people, a State secret.
We should do two things. A television programme should be made highlighting what I have just outlined, and Departments should publicise the service offered by the Office of the Ombudsman on their literature and the documents they send to clients or claimants. The value of the Office is seen by the people with whom it deals.
Having read this report, I echo what Senator Roche said. This is a model of how reports should be written. Read this report and you will know that Michael Mills was a first-class journalist, because this has his stamp on it. It is about people who have problems with the State and who have had them resolved. The report is a model of its kind. I would like to impress on the Minister of State, Deputy Dempsey, to urge his colleagues in Cabinet to tell the Civil Service that such a standard is required. It tells one precisely what is happening and where there are problems.
The report also fulfils another important function, namely it highlights places where legislative changes are needed, for example, with regard to the law on separated persons. The Ombudsman points to cases he is unable to bring to a satisfactory conclusion in other areas because of lack of legislation or because of existing legislation. Departments should review legislation in the interests of good service and citizenship.
If the Ombudsman brings to the attention of a Department, local authority or health board etc., a regulation that is discriminatory and should be changed, it is not enough to address the specific case. The machinery should be put in place to take corrective action and ensure the anomaly cannot recur. I am sure this is often done, but it should be standard procedure. Where the Ombudsman has brought a case to the attention of an authority and it has accepted there is discrimination, the machinery should then be put in place to amend or remove the regulation or disbarment in question.
We have talked about those in our society without influence or power, the poor, the disadvantaged and the uneducated — the flotsam and jetsam of society, if you like. That cross-section is nowhere more evident than inside the gates of Port Laoise, Mountjoy, Cork and Limerick prisons. The Minister for justice, Deputy Geoghegan-Quinn, was in the House last week and I informed her that, although, I applaud the work of prison officers, a case had come to my attention of a remark made by a prison officer to a prisoner about the prisoner's spouse which was designed to cause grave emotional damage to that prisoner. I said that when the State has total control over people it should use it lightly.
I do not understand why the Ombudsman's writ does not run in the prisons. It has much to do with the timid approach all political parties adopted to the Ombudsman. We were all frightened that somebody might uncover things we should have uncovered ourselves. The fact, however, that his writ does not run in the prisons cannot be defended. Those incarcerated in jails — and I am not making any case against that; they have been duly tried and sentenced — are in the total control of people acting on behalf of the State. There must always be a system of redress.
I know there are visiting committees but they do not have the resources to investigate a prisoner's complaint to the same degree as the Office of the Ombudsman. They have neither the time nor the necessary professional expertise and in many cases they would not adopt the humane approach of the present Ombudsman. On reading this report one knows that the head of the Office is a human being of great sensitivity. His sympathy and consideration for people which was always knows to those of us who knew him as a journalist is evident in his work as Ombudsman.
There is a strong case to be made for extending the Ombudsman's writ to include the prison service. Of all the areas of State administration, local authorities, Departments, etc. I believe the one area where he should have the authority to investigate complaints is within the prison service, because of the distress of those without a voice and without power. The prisons contain many such people and because one is incarcerated slights inflicted and injuries done by the governor or his staff — imagined or real — assume enormous proportions for those with nothing else to think about for 17 hours a day. The Government would do society a service by extending the services of the Ombudsman to the prisons. Everyone in jail has an innocent family outside who will have to try with the State to rehabilitate their husband, son, mother, etc.
I welcome the report. I compliment Mr. Michael Mills and his staff in the Office of the Ombudsman on their work and wish them well. If I could convince the Minister of State and the Government to provide the money to allow RTE and the Ombudsman to make a film about the Office, I would be very happy. It would be welcomed throughout the country and in time it would be one of the most important little films we ever made.
I also welcome this report. The work of the Office of the Ombudsman is related to that of politicians who often receive complaints from the public. It is vital for confidence in any demoracy that people have a place such as the Office of the Ombudsman to bring their complaints and receive a hearing.
It is significant that over half of the complaints investigated upheld the original decisions taken by the authorities in question. That said, the figures highlight the fact that in many cases members of the public are not satisfied; they believe they were wronged or that the relevant authority did not supply them with sufficient information. We are lucky to have had a man of Mr. Michael Mills' calibre as the pioneer of the Office; as a result, everybody has a great regard for it.
I was interested in the section of the report dealing with health boards and orthodontic treatment. As a public representative, I have personal experience of dealing with parents whose children are on a long waiting list for such treatment. It is interesting to see that the Office of the Ombudsman recommended to the health boards that a report should be furnished to such parents on the precise condition of their children. That has eased the problem for parents who were awaiting treatment for their child and previously would have found out perhaps two years later that treatment was not suitable for their child in the first instances. That highlights an area where the Office not only solved a problem but could make a recommendation to the health boards which the health board worked on and which is of benefit to everybody.
An interesting part of the report deals with the fact that the Ombudsman has travelled to various areas and centres. This has to be welcomed. It is something the Minister should encourage and for which he should provide funding because the image at present is that Departments and public bodies are removed from the ordinary people and do not understand the needs of a particular area or person.
I congratulate the Ombudsman and endorse the work he has done. It is interesting to note that many of the complaints were not upheld and that has done the Depatments or local authorities a service when they were exonerated. In many cases, individuals lack knowledge. People form the idea from hearsay that a certain situation exists, and they believe they were wronged. People have a habit of telling others they are entitled to something when they are not and this has often led to believing they have been wronged. This is another area where the Ombudsman and his staff have helped the general public and the administration of services.
I welcome the Minister and I welcome this report. I did not intend to speak this afternoon but this report is one of the most interesting I have read since coming to the Seanad. It is in layman's language. I did not have any knowledge of the duties and role of the Ombudsman and the services performed by his office in the broader scheme of the public service and I welcome the report from that point of view.
As a politican, I always felt a little apprehensive about the Ombudsman. I thought he may have been a knocker of our public services, a watchful eye for everything they did and that he was more interested in promoting the negative aspects of our Departments then in promoting the citizen. I am glad to say that his staff are to be congratulated for the manner in which they perform their duties.
I was going to mention the point Senator Magner raised about the distribution of leaflets. Leaflets distributed through the local authorities or Departments, such as the Department of Health, the Department of Social Welfare or the Department of Education, can get lost. One programme on RTE at peak time would do more to tell the public about the role and activities of the Ombudsman than all the leaflets printed.
The fact that we have made an effort and started to regionalise the Ombudsman's Office and to make it more user friendly by opening offices in various parts of the country is to be welcomed. This is also to be welcomed from the point of view of the politician. The examples highlighted in the report are set out in detail in terms of how they are processed, and even though a politician would attempt to do what he or she can do to solve a problem for a person, this can be time consuming. The Ombudsman is to be congratulated for detailing how one should process problems, how one should be aware of the pitfalls in our bureaucratic system and how these pitfalls need to be carefully scrutinised when a problem arises.
I want to refer particularly to telephone bills. Every day people come to me about their telephone bills and say they have been over-charged. They believed the only solution was to go directly to the department where they would get the bureaucratic answer that the bill had been examined, all calls recorded and the amount was correct. I welcome the fact that in these cases the Ombudsman can take over.
The Ombudsman plays a strong role in relation to local authorities. I was not aware of the role of the Ombudsman in relation to the development plan. There is an example in the report of the demolition of a house where the local authority had not given notice to the resident. There is a big role for us and for the Office of Public Works to make sure that the role and duties of the Ombudsman are widely publicised. The Ombudsman could give a presentation to the local authorities which would help us in our role as public officers.
The Ombudsman is also interested in the reform of work practices and procedures. By highlighting the problem he is suggesting new ways in which the work of local authorities and Departments can be done. We are getting so tied down by rules and regulations that we dare not deviate from them. It appears that rules come first and people second. I believe people must come first. Rules are there to help us; they should not dictate what we must do. Being a pragmastist, I allocate and assess time and judge each case on the information I receive. I do not follow rules absolutely because if we go down that road we will become less sensitive. I entered public office because I would like to see a more caring society. We need to be more caring and I welcome the role of the Ombudsman in that regard.
It is a pity an Ombudsman is necessary. I would hate to think he is there to keep a watchful eye on our Departments and that the Departments need an Ombudsman to monitor what is happening. Maybe a time will come when his position will be redundant because the point that have been highlighted today will definitely be taken on board by the various Departments. The role of the Ombudsman should get wider publicity and all the speakers put great emphasis on that, particularly in relation to public representatives. I think we should make ourselves available to talk and work with the Ombudsman rather than working in isolation. It seems to me that our paths never cross, which is a pity.
It is good to see that we are restoring confidence in our Departments; a sense of openness, accountability and trust is developing. I hope the Ombudsman would not be seen as dictating to the Departments how to conduct their business or solve problems. We should work together rather than dealing with each person separately. I would like to compliment Michael Mills and his staff on their work. I welcome this report. I have become more knowledgeable on the subject. Perhaps the Minister of State would take note of the points that have been highlighted.
I join with the other Members in congratulating the Office of the Ombudsman on its excellent work since it was established. I congratulate the Ombudsman on this report and I hope in so doing it does not sound as if I am being critical of other reports. The report is easy to read and is very interesting. We get huge volumes of post and long reports which are probably important, but they are not as easily read as this report; I suppose the human element makes it interesting.
In the Minister of State's statement to the House he said that in the Programme for a Partnership Government this Government has committed itself to:
Restore confidence in the democratic process, by encouraging greater openness and participation at all levels, by improving public accountability, transparency and trust, and by ensuring the highest standards in public life.
If we were to attain that lofty aspiration, as Senator Ormonde said, the Ombudsman might become redundant. I do not wish him to become redundant but I think this Government is gearing itself towards an open and accessible public service. The reason for the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman was a perceived reluctance on the part of public servants to admit they had made a mistake. I know the Minister of State in his speech to the House and the report pay tribute to the various Departments of the public service who have been dealing with the cases.
There has been a noticeable change in the way which public servants treat members of the public, and I say that not in a critical manner because I was a member of the public service from 1970 to 1975. In those days serving the customer was not seen as the end product. We were told to continue with our work and the customer just got in the way. There has been a huge change and a movement towards seeing the customer as the end product and not a simple moving of paperwork. I think the Minister of State's speech highlighted the fact that this change will continue. Anybody dissatisfied with a decision or a result of an inquiry will feel they have a method of redress and will be received in the proper fashion by the relevant body.
I want to refer briefly to a couple of points which were raised in the report and to which the Minister of State made reference. I am particularly interested in the statement by the Ombudsman that in the case of those politicians who have availed of the service of the Ombudsman, the process has worked to everybody's advantage. I have been involved in public life for the past eight years and there is much criticism by certain elements of people who use politicians and of politicians who run clinics. I freely admit to being such a politician. I have held regular clinics since I was elected in 1975 and will continue to do so.
Those who are critical of this approach to public life view it as parish pump politics and a system of patronage. I have never seen it like that and my involvement with constituents is a most rewarding and fulfilling exercise. One is not suggesting to people that one can deliver what they are not entitled to and I do not think that anybody is stupid enough to believe that the local politician can get them that to which they are not entitled. Those days are long gone.
Members of the public who come to politicians or the Office of the Ombudsman are convinced that their case is valid and has merit and that they are not getting a fair hearing. I would like to put it on the record of this House, and I hope it will filter through, that those people who avail of the service of politicians and the Office of the Ombudsman do so because they believe they have progressed their case as far as they can but that the merit in their case is not being acknowledged by the relevant Department. I take from the report that the Ombudsman recognises the work public representatives do on behalf of the public. I do not view us as being in competition; I think the two are complementary and, while I have not yet availed of the services of the Office of the Ombudsman, if I exhaust all the options, I probably will in future.
In the one-to-one cases, and this is mentioned many times in the report, it often happens that a result is achieved on behalf of an individual. That does not mean that there has been a change in the system but it means a lot to the person who made the representation. Politicans would deal with such issues on a daily basis. Particularly worthy of mention are the cases where the Office of the Ombudsman has succeeded in having policy changes made. I would like to applaud the work which has been done in that respect.
In many of the examples which the Minister of State gave in his speech and which are mentioned in the report, policies have been changed. Senator Ormonde referred to a case where information was not given to a resident by the local authority in relation to a case which was brought to the Office of the Ombudsman. The local authority decided to change their policy as a result of that decision. The Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare are cited in other examples where one-of cases have triggered changes in policy, which is welcome.
It is significant that the number of queries in relation to Telecom Éireann has declined. The Minister of State and the report do not claim that this is directly as a result of the actions of the Ombudsman but I think nobody could doubt that the actions of the Ombudsman seem to have effected a change. I remember on the usual radio chat shows there were daily complaints about the telephone service, bills and so on. I think it is unlikely that complaints in relation to Telecom Éireann will be completely eliminated and perhaps the changes in the billing system may see the Ombudsman faced with many more queries.
Another example which struck me was in relation to foster parents, where children were removed from the care of foster parents without any notice. That seems a particularly heartless way to deal with people who are doing something which is supportive of the State and the families involved. That prompted a policy change and the subsequent Child Care Act, 1991, recognised that people are entitled to the dignity of being told what is happening to them. However, I do not want to labour the issue.
I welcome this report and I think every Member of this Chamber and of the Dáil could probably write their political life history in a similar format. Public representatives meet very interesting people, and hear of cases which tug at the heart strings and which, unfortunately, are not capable of being resolved. This report also acknowledges that the approach of the Office of the Ombudsman has not been to take every case which has been brought to its attention to say that something has gone wrong and that the Office of the Ombudsman will rectify it. The report states that 38 per cent of the cases were not upheld, this suggests that cases are not taken on lightly, but that they are thoroughly investigated. After investigation it is decided rather than waste the resources of the Office of the Ombudsman, and indeed of the public service office concerned, that the case will either be proceeded with or dropped.
I am interested to read in the report that the Office of the Ombudsman is entitled to information, where it is considered it is "necessary to acquire without delay all documents relating to a complaint". I might find myself using the Office of the Ombudsman earlier than I had anticipated, because I understand that the Office of the Data Protection Commissioner is refusing to release that type of information to a constituent who has requested it. It is interesting that the Office of the Ombudsman can request that information.
I welcome the growth of the citizens' information services. People should be empowered to improve their own lifestyles and circumstances, and I think public representations and the Office of the Ombudsman have played an important role in this regard. I wish to pay tribute to the citizens' information centres who provide services on a voluntary basis. They provide training courses and clinics, and they host the regional visits, which are another aspect of the work done by the Office of the Ombudsman. I welcome the report and, like Senator Ormonde, I look forward to the day when the Office of the Ombudsman will be redundant.
Question put and agreed to.
Sitting suspended at 3.40 p.m. and resumed at 4 p.m.