I do indeed. I very often go to the Departments and I find the officials first class. I think we have a very fine standard of administration. That does not mean that errors do not occur. If one looks at the Order Paper one sees the stupid questions tabled by some members of the Opposition about phones here and phones there and other fiddling things. With all due respect, I do not think the Deputy goes to Departments.
It is also important that the ombudsman should investigate local authorities because they are becoming a very important part of life. They deal with housing, compulsory purchase orders, road traffic and so on. When they make an order it affects many people. The ombudsman should have power to investigate local authorities. I say this without prejudice to any of the officials of local authorities. I think they are first class.
I believe officials will be very happy about the appointment of the ombudsman because in most cases it will be found that the Department took the right decision. This will give a greater status to officials and it will mean a greater public understanding of officials. The findings of investigations will be published and people will become aware of the high standard of administrator we have running our country.
Different countries have different ways of doing things. In Denmark and in Finland the actions of Cabinet Ministers may be examined. I personally would not be too keen on that. I believe that if we have a Government we must give the Government the power to act. In New Zealand the ombudsman cannot criticise actions of the Cabinet. In Germany, Sweden and Norway there is an ombudsman for military matters. I believe that would be superfluous in our situation. We should stick to the ombudsman for the general public and see how that operates.
The ombudsman should furnish reports to the Government and to the public on his activities, on his ideas, on his projections and how he would see Departments operating in the future and he should make representations to the Government. There is no point in having such an office unless it streamlines the system. He should initiate his own investigations without waiting to be prodded and he should be looking for areas which he thinks should be investigated.
It is important that when complaints come in they are dealt with quickly. The big problem with most complaints is that they have been allowed to fester and to generate heat. If a person has to resort to the courts it is both costly and time consuming and for many human problems unsatisfactory. That is another reason why an ombudsman should be appointed as quickly as possible.
It is important that when a complaint is being investigated it is not seen as a witch-hunt to get at some official. That would defeat the whole purpose of the exercise. The whole idea is that constructive proposals for change, if change is necessary, should come from the ombudsman. By being able to report back in this way we could eliminate many of the problems that might arise. One wonders whether in some cases, at any rate, the problems are due to suspicion but problems that appear to be genuine should be dealt with.
It would be interesting to be able to hazard a guess in regard to the number and the types of complaints that would be received by an ombudsman. Perhaps, initially, people would be slow to bring their problems to him because they might be suspicious of the office in the early days. However, it might be worth noting the situation in this regard in Sweden where, with a population of 7,500,000, the office of ombudsman deals each year with 1,000 complaints, while in Denmark, where there is a population of 4,500,000, the number of complaints dealt with each year is approximately the same as in Sweden. It would appear, therefore, that the Swedes, with their social security state, have a fairer system of administration than have the Danes, but I do not know what is the reason for the disparity in the proportion of complaints as between the two countries.
In both these countries the ombudsman discharges his duties efficiently and with the help of a small staff. We need not fear that the appointment of an ombudsman here would create another vast administration. That would not be so.
An ombudsman is necessary because the people need the services of such a person. Those of us who deal with constituents often hear them complain about the way they are treated by the various Departments. Regardless of whether the complaints are well-founded, very often there is a suspicion on their part that they are not getting a fair deal and, consequently, they seek the help of their Deputies. However, there is no need for any Deputy to fear that the appointment of an ombudsman would diminish him in any way. Irish people will always tend to seek the help of their Deputy. If we had an ombudsman, a Deputy who was of the opinion that he was not getting satisfaction from a Department in regard to a constituent would have recourse to the ombudsman. I would not agree, though, with the English system whereby complaints to the ombudsman must go first through a Member of Parliament. However, I understand that there are proposals there to have the complaints submitted direct from the public. This is as it should be. We are elected to legislate and not to act as general factotums on behalf of the people we represent. The availability of an ombudsman would leave us more free to study legislation, to innovate ideas and, in particular, to read the legislation that comes before the House because there are times when we are so involved with constituency work that there is not time available to read all the legislation proposed. To devote more time to legislation would make us better Deputies in that we would be able to serve better those we represent. I am not suggesting that a Deputy should dissociate himself from the problems of his constituents. His communication with them enables him to assess better their needs and their problems. Indeed, at election time our people would reject us if we had not listened to them and tried to do our best for them.
Therefore, Deputies should not resent in any way the appointment of an ombudsman. Rather, we should welcome the change because we could approach him in respect of any difficulties we might have with Departments, with local authorities or with any semi-State body that might hide behind their board of directors. I have the greatest respect for administrators. It is easy to be critical of them but when we have good people we should appreciate them and stand by them.
The appointment of an ombudsman would make for better relations between the administration and the general public and would allay any deep-seated suspicions that people might have. That, in itself, is important. Too often we hear people knocking the establishment. They knock it because they do not know it and they feel there is a wall between them and it. With the appointment of an ombudsman there would be a breaking down of that barrier. Dialogue would be made much easier. There would be a general examination and an opening up of files. People would be able to see for the first time the reason why they did not get X, Y or Z. They would feel there was somewhere they could go to seek justice.
This was the policy of this Government on coming into office two years ago. We are in office now long enough to make a decision to bring a Bill before the House dealing with this matter. I did not go into any of the technical aspects because we can do that on Second Stage and on Committee Stage we can bring in any necessary amendments or proposals which would make it a better Bill. I am just giving the reasons why I think this motion is important and why it is important that this appointment should be made. I earnestly request the Minister to introduce a Bill at an early date and I would ask him to indicate that when he is replying.