Dáil Éireann Debate, Tuesday - 8 May 2012
188 Deputy Michael Healy-Rae asked the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform the position regarding a complaint (details supplied) in County Kerry; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [22795/12]
View answerThe Ombudsman Act 1980 established the Office of the Ombudsman and provides that the Ombudsman can delegate authority to her officials to carry out functions on her behalf, that she may act entirely independently in the performance of her statutory functions, and that she may only be removed from Office by the President following resolutions passed by Dáil Éireann and by Seanad Éireann calling for her removal.
I understand from the Office of the Ombudsman that this matter concerns a complaint considered by the Ombudsman against a Planning Authority in relation to its handling of pre-planning consultation meetings with the Complainant. The Complainant was not satisfied with the response received from the Planning Authority and contacted the Ombudsman stating that he had suffered significant losses arising from maladministration on the part of the Planning Authority and asking to be compensated for these losses. Following a lengthy and detailed examination of the complaint involving considerable engagement with the Complainant and his representatives, the Ombudsman concluded that the Planning Authority was not responsible through maladministration for the adverse effect as alleged.
The Complainant did not accept the findings of the Ombudsman's examination of his case and asked that she review her decision. The Office of the Ombudsman informed the Complainant of its appeals process. The Complainant was advised that the case would be re-examined by an officer not previously associated with the complaint and who was at a more senior level than the officer who had carried out the initial examination. Following a second detailed review of the case, which involved intensive engagement with the Complainant and his representatives, the Office of the Ombudsman concluded that there was no basis to overturn the original decision.
The Complainant subsequently complained about the conduct of a number of named individuals in the Office of the Ombudsman as well as the Ombudsman herself and asked that the individuals be investigated. The Office of the Ombudsman outlined to the Complainant its process for dealing with complaints against individual members of staff and also advised him that this process does not provide for a complaint about the Ombudsman herself. The Complainant's allegations against named members of staff are currently under consideration.
In view of the facts of the case and the statutory independence correctly bestowed upon the Ombudsman, it would be inappropriate for me to initiate an investigation into the conduct of the Ombudsman in this instance.
