I welcome the opportunity to debate this report. I congratulate the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, and his staff on the excellent service they provide to the State and on their objectivity in handling their duties.
The Ombudsman's Office was established as an independent body by the Dáil and the Seanad. Its role is to examine complaints and to report to the Houses of the Oireachtas, to identify the causes of maladministration and to recommend redress. His independence gives the Ombudsman the public credibility to perform his functions and also leads to various bodies within his remit having confidence in him. It gives citizens the capacity to question the administration and in many instances the office represents an avenue of last resort for citizens aggrieved by actions of the public services.
It is important that the office plays a strong part in rooting out the causes of many complaints encountered, as it is important to identify the underlying causes of maladministration and suggest improvements. It is incumbent on the authorities to examine closely and implement the suggestions of the Office of the Ombudsman. It is obviously a matter for each Department or agency to take whatever steps are necessary to redress and prevent the recurrence of any maladministration reported to them. I note that the Ombudsman has called for increased co-operation and dialogue between his office and the individual organisations on improvements in administration practices and procedures. It is important that this is developed and introduced and that the Government supports this approach.
An effective democracy requires that both elected and non elected public servants should be held accountable for their actions. Politicians are accountable in the democratic system in that they put themselves before the people for reelection. The people are asked to pass judgment on their performance and, if satisfied, to re-elect them. It is important that there is also accountability for non elected officials. It is important to ensure that public service activities and exercises of decision making powers, whether discretionary or otherwise, are carried out not only in a proper legal manner but in a manner consistent with fairness and good administrative practice. This is the area which is policed by the Ombudsman. He is similar to an auditor in that he checks if the audit of the administrative practices is up to standard.
The Ombudsman endeavours to reflect his views on the efficiency and effectiveness of the public administration system in his report, in which he has outlined the principles of good administration, to which I wish to refer directly.
In exercising their powers, including those of decision making, whether discretionary or otherwise, public bodies should ensure that some basic principles are adhered to:
—powers must only be used for the specific purpose for which they are given;
—powers must be applied with objectivity and impartiality — factors not relevant to a particular case must be disregarded;
—unfair discrimination must be avoided — like cases must be treated in like manner;
—public bodies must ensure that an appropriate balance is achieved particularly in relation to any penalties or adverse effect — known as the principle of proportionality; this may be of particular interest where a body must decide between the needs of the common good and the rights of a particular individual;
—public bodies must avoid undue delay — particularly in cases where practical difficulties may arise for the individual as a result of or where uncertainty may be created;
—public bodies must have available good administrative guidelines to which the public at large may refer;
—in addition, where discretionary powers are involved, public bodies must ensure that they are exercised in a reasonable manner having regard to the foregoing principles, all the circumstances of the particular case and without any undue fettering of their actual discretion e.g. by exclusion of classes of persons from eligibility for services or otherwise.
One of the principles outlined as part of the role of the Ombudsman is to strive to persuade public bodies to adhere to such principles. Where they fail to do so, the Ombudsman has a strong role to ensure that they adhere to the principles of good administrative practice.
Citizens' rights are often referred to. I presume that if Senator Quinn was here he would agree that the citizen is a consumer of the facilities of the public service as well as their owner, and should be recognised as such. As with any product, the customer is always right and it is important that I outline the rights of the users of the public service, as outlined by Mr. Murphy in his report. The citizen has a right to be heard, to receive sufficient information, to assistance and representation, to be given reasons and to be told what remedies are available to him.
The customer — that is, the public — must be facilitated in putting his point of view and arguments before the decision is taken. These should include arguments for an exception to be made in the individual circumstances of their case. This is often the most difficult area in which to obtain success, as bureaucracy and the fear of precedent limits the discretion which public servants have or wish to have. Citizens should have information available to them on any general guidelines which apply to the particular scheme or programme involved. Advice and representation must be available, especially for those least able to make their case. The reasons for a decision are particularly important where a decision is an adverse one and they must be told of remedies or avenues of address, especially rights of appeal to independent bodies where they are available to them.
It is important that we promote a greater awareness of these rights among the public bodies. In some other jurisdictions, guidelines on good administration practices are regularly used and should be the overriding principle for all public bodies.
On a few occasions the Ombudsman has been disappointed with the level of cases referred to him by public representatives. In a way, public representatives are a type of Ombudsman in much of their work. Adverse comment is often made on the amount of work done by public representatives in representing their constituents, raising issues of concern to individuals and making representations on their behalf. In Ireland we tend to be overly critical of the work done by public representatives, who have a very important role to play in that area. They also have an overriding role to involve themselves in legislation, the development of society and the implementation of good laws. However, we should not downgrade or overly criticise the work done by politicians in representing their constituents. There is a balance between the legislative and representational roles. We feel that this is more prevalent in Ireland than in other countries, but that is not so; constituency work is the norm for parliamentarians in almost every country.
I read an interesting article on this some years ago which distinguished between a client and a broker. The role of a politician is more that of a broker than client. The term "client" infers that there is an agreement to deliver something for some payment whereas a broker just offers assistance. The work carried out for individual constituencies would be more properly referred to as brokerage rather than clientelism. A broker provides people with access to those who control resources rather than directly to the resources themselves. A situation may exist where someone may wish to obtain something but is unable or unwilling to obtain it from the person in whose possession it rests. The services of a broker or public representative might be useful in such a case. I use the term "public representative" in its broadest sense because Deputies and Senators are not alone in offering assistance to constituents. Urban and county councillors and town commissioners involve themselves in this area.
However, when the service is provided, the brokerage relationship ends. A continuum does not exist. Many politicians would hope that a continuation might occur but no deal has been made that it should be so. Brokerage in politics takes many forms. It can involve advising constituents with regard to the benefits for which they are eligible and how to obtain them. Such benefits might include receipt of a grant or pension or having a hole in the road repaired, which is often the case at present.
Brokerage in politics also involves mediation — with regard to an apparently harsh decision made by the Civil Service — and helping or seeming to help someone obtain local authority housing or a job. People can be assisted in this way. Very often politicians fail because they create an expectation that they can do more than is actually possible. If we were more honest about our role and powers, it would enhance that role and our standing in the public eye. Work carried out by public representatives can involve activity on behalf of a community, village or local association. This could include, for example, persuading central or local government to introduce or improve a water or sewerage scheme in one's area.
It is widely accepted in most democracies that contacting the local or national representative can be of help. The main value of this lies in the fact that it enables people to discover the existence of benefits, grants or rights of which they would otherwise have been unaware. They can also discover how to obtain such entitlements and if they are eligible for them. Politicians should be in a position to inform people how to secure those entitlements. This involves work for politicians but saves time for constituents, many of whom are not used to the bureaucracy which surrounds the obtaining of information.
In all non-urban societies, the capital city and machinery of central government tend to be regarded with some suspicion. This is the case in most post-colonial states where that factor was reinforced by the ruling elite who, at a previous time, were seen to have access to power and influence. An expectation exists that today's democratically elected politicians, who replaced such elites, retain similar power and influence. Historically, this is the reason politicians in post-colonial countries are regarded in this way. However, I understand that MPs in the UK now spend over 50 per cent of their time writing to constituents.
In conclusion, I congratulate Mr. Murphy and his staff for their excellent work. They are carrying on the work of the office so efficiently established by Mr. Michael Mills. Politicians must ensure the development of the office and their role. They must respond to the recommendations in the report.