I move:
That Dáil Éireann recommends Mr. Michael Mills for appointment by the President to be the Ombudsman."
Reappointment of Ombudsman: Motion.
Deputies
Hear, hear.
The Christmas spirit, thank you. I am pleased to move this motion recommending that the President should reappoint Mr. Michael Mills to be the Ombudsman for a second term from 3 January next.
The Minister certainly took his time.
On 3 January 1984 Mr. Mills took up his appointment as our first Ombudsman. That appointment which was under the terms of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, was for a period of six years and expires on 2 January next. Section 2 (4) of the 1980 Act provides for a term of appointment of six years and section 2 (7) provides that a person shall not be more than 61 years of age upon being first appointed to the office. While Mr. Mill's age exceeds this limit he is eligible for reappointment by virtue of the fact that it will not be his first appointment. However, section 2 (3) (c) of the Act obliges an Ombudsman to retire on reaching the age of 67. Mr. Mill's record term will be limited by virtue of this provision to a term of less than six years.
I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the great work undertaken by Mr. Mills and his staff over the last six years. During that period they have established a record of hard work and diligence——
(Interruptions.)
The Deputies should not make little of the office of Ombudsman. He is a servant of this House. Even if the Deputies want to make little of it, I will not.
The Minister said that with a straight face but he was smiling yesterday.
There is a very strict time limit to this debate. Let us hear the Minister without the erosion of his precious time.
During that period the Ombudsman established a record of hard work and dilegence on behalf of the clientele of our public services. It is a record of which we in the Oireachtas can be justifiably proud.
The existence of the office of the Ombudsman has provided the ordinary citizen with a particularly useful and effective method of having any grievance about administrative actions remedied. I have no doubt that the office has contributed significantly to improvements in the manner in which our public services are delivered. The volume of complaints submitted, totalling 19,000 to date, provide clear evidence both of the need for the office and the public acceptability of its independence and effectiveness.
Because of rumours emanating from some areas of speculation I want to take the opportunity to put on the record of this House that no person, good, bad or indifferent, was approached by me, by any member of the Government or by anybody acting on our behalf, about the filling of this position.
Does that include Michael Mills?
The position in regard to Michael Mills was quite clear; his job does not expire until 2 January. If Deputy Spring wants to sneer about this he can do so but I want to put on the record of this House that despite the rumours which have emanated from some quarters during the past 24 hours nobody was approached about this position.
What had Charlie in the back of his head?
Please, Deputy.
The Taoiseach.
Sorry, the Taoiseach.
Members of this House should be referred to by their appropriate title.
I have no hesitation in commending this motion to the House.
I wonder why the Government did not want to debate this motion in the House. The Minister's remarks just now have not done anything to relieve my suspicions or enligten me as to why the Government did not want to debate this issue. It was not until yesterday the Government came to the conclusion that the right, proper and honourable thing to do was to bring the motion into the House today. It was very clear right up to yesterday that the Government did not have the slightest intention of doing this. Even yesterday when we got the Government to finally and grudgingly agree that there should be a motion in the House, the Government Chief Whip tried to get agreement to take this motion without debate. Again we must wonder why. Is there something the Minister or the Taoiseach want to hide?
Nothing.
If not, why was this motion not ordered last Thursday as part of this week's business?
The Deputy's remarks would be credible if there was no motion on the agenda today.
The Government were caught——
The Opposition were jumping the gun as usual.
They were dragged in here screaming.
I want to refer the House again to the strict time limit of ten minutes for the Deputy in possession. He ought to be allowed to utilise that time without interruption.
Thank you, a Cheann Comhairle. As I told the Minister yesterday, he has been caught and he does not like it. We had the most dis-edifying spectacle yesterday of the Minister wriggling, twisting and turning every which way to avoid giving a simple yes or no to a question. Our suspicions are, of course, deepened and intensified by the fact that it is very much part of this Government's record that they do not like independent agencies who act for or on behalf of the ordinary people.
The Deputy should not be politicising the matter.
There are plenty of examples of this. For example, they abolished An Foras Forbartha. This House spent quite an amount of time successfully preventing the Government from utterly emasculating the National Social Services Board but they managed to get away with doing away with the Curriculum and Examinations Board. Last week the Government objected to another proposal for an independent agency, the Environment Protection Agency. In recent times the Government, by a deliberate act of policy and omission, have strangled the work of the Garda Complaints Board. In every example we have seen the Government try to stifle and restrict the work of independent agencies. In 1988 we saw an attempt by the Government to do the same thing with the Office of the Ombudsman. Again it took a lot of work, heaving and pulling in this House, to get the Minister to finally redress the question of staffing in the Ombudsman's Office. This Government are downright hostile to independent agencies who serve the people.
It took a lot of questioning and probing to get the Taoiseach or the Minister to express any view on this matter. For example, on Wednesday last my colleague and Whip, Deputy Jim Higgins, made two requests of the Government Whip for information as to whether the Government intended to do anything about this appointment. I can only describe the Government Chief Whip's reaction as evasive; there was no response. In the normal course of events, the Government would have indicated their intention to propose a motion in this House at the weekly Whips' meeting on Thursday of last week. Nothing of the kind was done and requests for information about the Government's intention for this week met with no response until yesterday. Yesterday the Taoiseach got very emotional and claimed that the Opposition had tried to politicise this matter. That, of course, is a handy tag but what the Opposition were trying to do, and have now succeeded in doing, was to bring a matter of proper public debate into this House so that the reappointment of the Ombudsman could be made in the proper way.
The Office of the Ombudsman is an inconvenient one from the Administration's point of view but from the citizens' point of view it is essential. I think many Members of this House have gone through all the machinery of the administration in relation to individual problems of constituents or general problems that affect a great many of them and find at the end of it all that they have come up against a blank wall, even though they know an injustice is still being done. The Ombudsman's office has sorted out a great many of those injustices and broken down those walls for a great many people. We need to have this office. No matter how good an Administration or confident a Government — which we do not have now — are, we will always need an independent voice that can question, probe and recommend on behalf of ordinary people. The Ombudsman is one of the people who can do this.
The Government and the Minister tried to make great play this morning of alleged legal difficulties or ambiguities in the legislation in relation to the reappointment of the Ombudsman. That is nonsense. The legislation is perfectly clear and no amount of juggling, as the Minister tried to do earlier with sections 2 (4), (7) and (3) (c), can get around the fact that in relation to the reappointment of the current holder of the office the position is perfectly clear and without the slightest ambiguity. I approve the motion before the House. This should never have been allowed to become the subject of controversy and it would not have been if the Government had not tried to handle the whole thing in this mean, underhand and very reluctant manner. We are going to make the right decision today and the House has done the right thing by debating this and giving its reasons why this reappointment should be made.
It is worth recalling the events which led to us debating this motion and why we are in favour of it. On Tuesday morning last on the Order of Business I requested, within the rules of the House, some information from the Taoiseach, but, unfortunately, I did not get any response. I sought information as to the appointment or the procedures to be adopted by the Government in relation to the reappointment of an Ombudsman. On Wednesday morning I tried, under the guidance of the Chair and within the rules of the House, to get some information. Regrettably, on both occasions the Taoiseach's reaction was rather flippant, and dismissive. The Taoiseach did not take my efforts seriously on either occasion. It was regrettable that the Taoiseach chose to ignore what were reasonable requests within the rules of the House for information in relation to an event that had to take place on 3 January.
This has been a very bad week for the Government. During the week the Taoiseach sought co-operation during the next six months when he will be President of the European Council. I should like to tell the Taoiseach, and his colleagues in Government, that if they want co-operation they should not act the way they did this week. We have entitlements in the House and when we seek information within the rules of the House the Government should be forthcoming and attempt to give us that information. The information sought by me on Tuesday, Wednesday and yesterday, and by other Opposition parties yesterday, was legitimately sought. The information was required in the public interest.
Questions have to be asked as to what the Government were hiding. I do not know why the Taoiseach, or the Minister for Finance who has responsibility for this Office, can simply say they had forgotten about this and that it had not struck them that Mr. Mill's appointment would lapse on 3 January. At least they should have been forthcoming on this issue.
There is no better man in the House than the Minister for Finance, Deputy Reynolds, to come in and bluster and fluster, pretend that this was all a bit of nonsense and accuse us of politicising the office. From my recollection there was no attempt by any Member on the Opposition benches to politicise the Office of the Ombudsman. There was a genuine and legitimate concern expressed about the office. We wanted to ensure that the country would have an Ombudsman on 3 January 1990. One must ask if it was sheer incompetence on the part of the Government, or the Minister for Finance, that they just forgot that Mr. Mills' appointment would lapse on 3 January. We all tend to legitimately have suspicious minds on occasions and on this occasion we must ask if there was more to this. I am inclined to think there was. The Taoiseach's dislike, publicly and privately, of the Ombudsman is well known. He has attempted in the past to humiliate the Ombudsman. Certainly, he has expressed dissatisfaction about him. It is regrettable that, at a time when journalists who seem to be in favour with the Taoiseach are launched into Europe at enormous expense, a former journalist who has been doing a tremendous job for the public, is subjected to public humiliation by the Taoiseach and the Government.
That act by the Government was regrettable and it was a bad one. Of course, it may be that all the blame does not lie with the Fianna Fáil component of the Government. We have heard the Progressive Democrats boasting and telling us about open Government, but they seem to have forgotten the concept and the practical effect of open Government. It is well known that prior to yesterday morning the question of either replacing or reappointing the Ombudsman was not discussed by the Cabinet. Perhaps it was a question of sheer incompetence on this occasion.
I should like to repeat that this was not a good week for the Government who will require co-operation from the Opposition benches in the next six months. I have no doubt that in the national interest that will be forthcoming but I should like to say to the Taoiseach, and to the Tánaiste who is present for the debate, that to get that co-operation they will have to be more forthcoming, more open and more co-operative in regard to the legitimate requests from the Opposition benches.
The Government ran away from every request we made on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and that was unfortunate. They tried to cover things up and that is not good enough. The Office of the Ombudsman is an important office. The appointment of the Ombudsman was considered to be a progressive move. That appointment was made with the agreement of and following consultation with the leaders of the other parties. I do not agree with the throw-away remark by the Taoiseach yesterday that he was told about the appointment. At that time there was genuine consultation and agreement on the appointment of Mr. Mills.
Hear, hear.
In my estimation Mr. Mills has done a tremendous job in relation to the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman. It was a new office and he set his task in a diligent and honest manner. He is worthy of reappointment. There was no attempt on my part to politicise this episode and it is regrettable that we have on the last day of business of the House in 1989 to put this motion through the House.
As I said in the absence of the Minister for Finance it is regrettable that this issue was not handled in a better way. The motion should have been brought forward in the normal way. I do not think there would have been any difficulty about it. There would not have been any bickering and we would not have had to drag the Minister for Finance in yesterday at the eleventh hour to respond to Special Notice Questions on the issue. I am particularly grateful to the Ceann Comhairle for allowing these questions yesterday. That was a proper exercise of the rules of the House. It is regrettable that we had to raise this matter by way of Special Notice Question, having failed on the Order of Business on three days to get any satisfaction. Not only did we not get satisfaction from the Government but they did not show us the courtesy of acknowledging that what we were saying was correct, that our requests were within the rules of the House and that they would have to make the appointment this month.
Given the bureaucratic nature of our society and the increasing bureaucratic nature of our European involvement, it is more important than ever that we should have a strong Office of the Ombudsman. In the context of the motion before the House, I am happy that we will have a continuation in office of a man who is serving us well in the public interest. I should like to point out to the Minister for Finance that what happened in the last week is not the way to do business. If he is looking for the co-operation of the Opposition benches he, or his advisers, should consider changing the system in his Office. Matters for discussion in the House should be discussed with the Whips one week in advance. If the Government are anxious to put through motions after a limited debate they should be discussed with the Whips and agreed with them. In the normal course of events, this motion would warrant a debate lasting a number of hours because we would have to examine the contribution that office has made but that is not possible now.
On behalf of the Labour Party I agree with the motion moved by the Minister for Finance but I regret that the House has to deal with it in this way. I wish the incumbent every success in the continuation of his good service to the public.
On behalf of The Workers' Party I should like to support and welcome the motion seeking to reappoint Mr. Michael Mills as Ombudsman for a further term of six years. In doing so I should like to record the strongest possible criticism of the Government's handling of this whole affair. Responsibility for this affair rests firmly with the Taoiseach. The Government have treated the Office of the Ombudsman with utter contempt by delaying until the last possible moment the introduction of the motion to reappoint Mr. Mills. I do not accept the suggestion now being make by Government sources, and by the Minister for Finance this morning, that the delay was due to a lack of clarity in the Ombudsman's Act regarding retirement age. If anything, they had six years to do their sums, read the Act and come to a decision. The suggestion that we had to wait until the last day of this session to resolve those major and difficult questions is disingenuous in the extreme.
The Government had every intention of letting Mr. Mills's appointment lapse and would not have introduced this motion had it not been for the Opposition parties making such an issue of it during this week.
That is not true and the Deputy knows it but he does not want to believe it.
The facts speak for themselves.
The record of this week and of the previous years, since the appointment of Mr. Mills——
(Interruptions.)
These interruptions must cease. The Deputy in possession to continue without interruption.
The record of this week and of the years, since Mr. Mills established himself as an effective and independent Ombudsman, shows clearly that the Government were waiting for the earliest opportunity to send him on his way and would have been about that this week had it not been for the effective intervention of the Opposition parties in this House.
That is an invention.
The facts are as follows. When Mr. Mills was put forward for nomination by the Coalition Government in 1983 it was recognised that it was an inspired choice and it won the unanimous approval of the House. It is fair to say that Mr. Mills has carried out his duties in an exemplary manner and he has quite properly been acclaimed for that.
I accept that Mr. Mills may from time to time have been a thorn in the side of the Government and of the civil bureaucracy——
Not a bit in the world.
——but this is the purpose of the Ombudsman. It is not the function of the Ombudsman to please the Government. It is his function to defend the rights of the citizen against Government and to act as a court of last resort for those with grievances.
Agreed.
Mr. Mills has been a fine public servant and his treatment at the hands of the Government has been shameful. We have all been told how the Taoiseach has mellowed and has now a much more statesmanlike attitude to matters, but it is hard not to see the old petty and vindictive characteristics behind the treatment of Mr. Mills.
I read with some amusement this morning a suggestion that all things had been put right following the intervention of Deputy O'Malley and the Progressive Democrats. I note for the record of the House——
Deputy O'Malley is a Minister of this House and ought to be referred to as such.
I stand corrected. I note that not one member of the Progressive Democrats, including the Minister, Deputy O'Malley, found it possible to be here to make some contribution to this debate and to outline the fantastic role they had to play in seeking the reappointment of Mr. Mills.
He looks more like a prince every day.
Not a peep was heard from any of them, not a Minister gagged in Government or a member of the party who sits on the backbenches. Where were the Progressive Democrats when all this was happening? We have had nothing but a deafening silence from the supposed advocates of open government and the champions of high standards in high places. It seems that for the progressive Democrats no price is too high to pay for a few seats at the Cabinet table.
Earlier this week a Progressive Democrat Minister introduced a Supplementary Estimate to provide for the payment of £500,000 in so called consultancy fees for a close associate of the Taoiseach.
This debate refers to the appointment of the Ombudsman.
It was printed in Albania.
The Deputy should confine himself to that matter.
I am merely commenting briefly on the role of the Progressive Democrats wing of Government.
The Workers' Party should go into liquidation; they no longer have a role.
This is a payment they strongly criticised when in Opposition and now they are silent on the appalling treatment of the Ombudsman.
The Workers' Party's philosphy has been exploded in Eastern Europe.
This is not the first attack on the Office of the Ombudsman by Fianna Fáil. The Government also tried to emasculate the Office of the Ombudsman by starving it of office staff and resources, forcing Mr. Mills to go public about his plight. The number of investigators in the Ombudsman's office was chopped from 16 at the beginning of 1987 to eight at the beginning of 1988 despite the fact his workload had dramatically increased. Some additional staff have been provided, but there is still a very considerable backlog of cases to be dealt with.
No Government should be able to frustrate the work of the Ombudsman by denying him the staff necessary to carry out his duties. The 1980 Act provides that those staff be regulated by the Minister for Finance. In 1988, we circulated a Bill suggesting that the regulation of staff should be entirely within the ambit of the Ombudsman. Now more than ever that provision should be agreed and Mr. Mills given the independence and security of tenure that he has earned through nothing more than the excellence of his work in the past six years.
Gross hypocrisy. You do not believe in an Ombudsman.
I have listened with interest to the debate. It is gratifying to hear that we are unanimous, even though begrudingly in some quarters, in our support for this motion.
We had to beat you into it.
Perhaps the Deputy would extend to me the courtesy I extended to her leader when he spoke. I recognise that Deputy Spring did not personalise his approach. He was anxious to ensure that the officeholder would be in place throughout January. I must say to those with experience in Government that it has been a long standing accepted courtesy in Government that if someone is not going to be reappointed they are given adequate notice. It is quite clear from the way this matter has been handled that the intention of the Government——
Two week's notice would have been adequate.
——for those who want to believe, should have been quite clear.
(Interruptions.)
There are but five minutes for the Minister to reply. Please let him utilise that five minutes without erosion of his time.
Some credibility has to be achieved.
I have to remind the House that the Fianna Fáil Party did neither oppose nor vote against the appointment of Mr. Mills in the first instance. The question of staff costs was raised by Deputy Dukes and Deputy McCartan, and I would remind the House that staff costs in 1988 amounted to £487,000 and that the Book of Estimates, recently published, show staff costs for 1990 — £655,000. This gets rid of all the nonsense and hypocrisy being perpetrated by certain people in this House. It is quite clear what the score is. We have operated under Statute and I am glad that at the end of the day what some people tried to say will now be seen for what it is, personalisation and politicisation. I am also glad we are unanimous in recommending that this motion be accepted.
Question put and agreed.