I call the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy, to move the motion for the appointment of the Ombudsman. The motion for appointment of the Information Commissioner is being discussed together with this motion, but only the first motion should be moved at this point.
Appointment of Ombudsman: Motion.
I move:
That Dáil Éireann recommends Ms Emily O'Reilly for appointment by the President to be the Ombudsman.
I am pleased to move the resolutions recommending Ms Emily O'Reilly for appointment by the President as Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. The need for these appointments arises following the decision of the present incumbent, Mr. Kevin Murphy, to resign from both offices from 1 June 2003. Mr. Murphy has served as Ombudsman since November 1994 and as Information Commissioner since April 1998.
This House had a sizeable influx of new Deputies at the last election. No one seriously making his or her way in local or national politics can avoid the basic on-the-job training of getting acquainted with the functions of the Ombudsman and the freedom of information commissioner. For this reason, I do not believe that even our newer Members need a whistle-stop tour of the main points of the Acts which set up the two offices and I do not intend to give one. What Deputies need to know is that the separate legislation which governs each of these offices specifies that the appointment is made by the President, but only after this House and the Seanad have passed resolutions recommending that a particular person be appointed. The appointments are for six years. They can be renewed, but only by going through the same resolution and appointment procedure. Retirement is compulsory when the person appointed reaches the age of 67.
Some time ago, when Kevin Murphy mentioned that he would like to leave these two offices, I had to think about the qualities essential to doing the jobs well. It was quite easy to make out a list of those requirements: a familiarity with public administration and a knowledge of how it works; an ability to listen, sometimes with sympathy; the ability to sense when the plausible just is not true or is deliberately incomplete; and that unexpected scarce property, basic common sense and skill in handling the media without being ruled by headlines. However, the fundamental quality has to be independence. This word is much bandied about and, in this context, usually taken to be freedom from interference or influence by the Government of the day. That independence has to be expected from an ombudsman or commissioner, but independence has to mean more than that. It has to comprehend the ability to shake off the shackles of one's own strong feelings, to ignore the assumptions of the crowd one comes from – be it club, party or professional group – and, should righting wrongs in either job require it, a willingness to upset those people.
When Kevin Murphy was appointed Ombudsman, there was a feeling in some quarters that it was asking too much of a top civil servant to go out and do strenuous battle with those who worked in the same corridors he had inhabited for most of a lifetime. Those who were in Government with me when he was appointed did not share those views, for we knew him as a man who called things as he saw them. We knew he had that vital streak of real independence which is without fear, favour or embarrassment. That quality was to be called upon in his dealing as Ombudsman and freedom of information commissioner with former colleagues whenever the interests of those he was chosen to serve required it.
I appreciate that Kevin Murphy has nearly two months to serve in both positions. He may think it slightly premature on my part to pay tribute to him when he is still very much in harness. Never theless, I know that Members of this House will join me in putting on record our deep appreciation of the immense contribution he has made to the development of the Ombudsman, for embedding into our system a desirable freedom of information culture and making both institutions user friendly.
One characteristic of his time as Ombudsman was that he saw his work on behalf of individuals as a tool which could be used to root out bad practices and so protect the health and well-being of public administration. Having probed individual complaints, he distilled the lessons they presented into prescriptions for what I might be forgiven for calling "the body administrative". In one of his reports, he spelled out, very clearly, principles of good administration, warned that this was what he expected public servants to measure up to and provided them and the public with a checklist of best practice. Settling Complaints – the guide to internal complaints systems, which he published, set out, in succinct form, the benefits of such systems and their essential features. Providing annual reports in Irish and on disk were, likewise, simple but helpful innovations.
For most public positions, specific statutory requirements narrow the field from which candidates can be picked. That is not the case in this instance and I am sure each of us knows somebody with the characteristics I listed. Years ago, some civil servant identified a practical restriction on the choice for this position. It was to the effect that if, when one mentions the Ombudsman's name, the automatic response is "who", one has got it very wrong. We will not have that problem with Emily O'Reilly, who is well known to all of us. She has been one of the most widely read journalists of her generation in this country and readers have followed her when she moved from one newspaper to another. She has been a hard-hitting journalist, but those of us who have sometimes taken those painful hits will admit that she has been generally fair, if trenchant. She has never made her columns cheerleaders for the conventional or unthinking partners in fashionable denunciation of the unpopular. One thread that has run through Emily O'Reilly's writings, whether in newspaper columns or the books she has written, is a willingness to say what she sees, even when it involves annoying politicians, colleagues and the power structures of the world of journalism. I do not always like what she writes and I often disagree with what she says but that may be a good sign for the appointment for which she is being proposed.
The Government is not proposing Ms O'Reilly for these posts on the basis that it expects her to give it an easy run. These are two relatively young institutions of the State where the personal credibility of whoever is appointed is vital to the regard in which these offices are held and to their utility. Both are, in their own way, the safety valves of our administrative system and nobody, least of all a Government, a Minister or the head of a public office, wants an ineffective safety valve – an Ombudsman or Information Commissioner who will not make a racket when something seems to be going wrong. We and the leaders of the Opposition, whom I consulted, are confident that Ms O'Reilly will not be silent and will not make noise when none is needed.
That being said, there will be moments in any such office holder's term when sparks will fly between them and public servants and, indeed, between them and Ministers of the Government, for, between an Ombudsman and Ministers or public servants there will always be a degree of tension. There has to be. They have different jobs and different outlooks. What is important is that an Ombudsman or an Information Commissioner forces the decision maker to look with fresh eyes at what her or his organisation has done or left undone. Often, they agree but, when they do not, the interaction between them ensures that all factors are considered, even if, in all honesty, each attaches different weight to those factors.
I have no hesitation in commending the resolutions to the House.
I disagree with the Minister's contention that these positions are a safety valve in the administrative system. This seriously understates their importance and misses the central point of the relationship between citizens and the public service. The public service is there to serve citizens, which is different from citizens' relationships with commercial organisations, and the public service must learn that the relationship is not about finding a safety valve to let off steam or eke out a bit of information where it has to be given. Rather, the relationship between the public service and the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner should increasingly be one of pursuing the same agenda, which is that agreeing to the demands of the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner is central to delivering good public service.
It is crucial that citizens have confidence that their public administration is honest, fair, responsive and inclusive. We increasingly see shortcomings in our systems of accountability, most notably in this House, where the capacity of the House to hold the Executive accountable has been diminished over the years and is not seen as effective. There is growing public cynicism about that and it is important that we underline the independence of this office which we are appointing today. The person who holds the position of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner is an appointee of the President rather than the Government, is only appointed on the resolution of both Houses of the Oireachtas and cannot be removed without such a resolution.
Fine Gael believes that people who hold such high office should come before the House or a committee of the House in public hearing before they are appointed so Members have an opportunity to question those who seek to take up important offices of the State. That policy is in Fine Gael's Democratic Revolution document and we believe it is important, especially for an office such as this which is a gift of the citizens, as represented in the Oireachtas, rather than one of the Government. We have not had that approach to appointments generally or to this office specifically, even though we should have if we are to learn from past lessons. We need to have more accountable systems in the House.
I praise Kevin Murphy's work in what were at times difficult circumstances. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform did himself no credit when he recently slurred the independence of his office. It is important that we are mindful that Senator Maurice Hayes, the former Northern Ireland Ombudsman, said we must "protect the Ombudsman against the Executive's power to muzzle the watchdog or induce torpor through malnutrition" because it is essential we reinforce the independence of the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. The difficulties that have characterised the relationship between the Executive and that office in recent months must lead us to draw the lesson that there must be greater respect for the Ombudsman as we go forward.
The importance of the job of Ombudsman is obvious when one looks at the work that Kevin Murphy, in particular, has done. It is clear that at times the public service overlooks weaker voices and, as the Ombudsman rightly pointed out, there is little correlation between the suffering people may endure at the hands of the public service and the frequency with which they complain. The Ombudsman and Information Commissioner must hold that brief for people who do not have the same opportunities to complain as those who are more articulate or better resourced. That is a solemn duty which the incoming Ombudsman must keep to the fore as she sets about her task.
The outgoing Ombudsman successfully drew our attention to anomalies which continue to prevail, such as his successful prosecution of the case involving nursing homes in which the State went beyond its legal authority to force families to contribute where no contribution was justly payable. He also drew our attention to the fact that, under the Health Acts, there is an obligation on the State to provide for the tens of thousands of people who need nursing home care, but the State has stepped back from that obligation and is not willing to honour it. There is much incomplete business.
The concession proposed in the Ombudsman's report on redress for taxpayers, which came to a successful conclusion in the House with the amendments to the Finance Bill, was made only after an extraordinary struggle between him, the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Finance. We have much more to learn and the Ombudsman's job is far from finished. He recently pointed out in a speech that too often, the reaction of the public service is influenced by a concept that comes from the adversarial tra dition of legal advisers – defences go up and minimum information is offered. There is a tendency not to see the issue of redress as a central obligation of the public service where injustice has occurred. There is still a tendency to see this as defending and perhaps, as the Minister says, having a safety valve in extreme cases, rather than the obligation on the public service to ensure there is appropriate redress when things go wrong.
The Ombudsman rightly pointed out that there is a vast difference between providing redress where the Department thinks it appropriate and appropriate redress – these are different concepts. He pointed out that much of the public service is still steeped in the old view of the nature of redress. He also drew to our attention to the fact that, in the revision of the customer service guidelines in 2000, there was a change when the notion of redress was replaced by the notion of appeals. The Ombudsman pointed out that this undermined the notion of quality customer service because central to that notion is the provision of information to people so they understand how the system works, providing the opportunity to appeal and complain and, the third and most essential pillar, ensuring that appropriate redress is available when things go wrong. We must ensure that as these offices develop, they are seen first and foremost to fearlessly defend those qualities in delivering a service to the people.
I congratulate Kevin Murphy on the tremendous work he has done. I agree with the Minister that he has been fearless in his pursuit of cases, has paid enormous attention to detail and exhibited a willingness to be tenacious and hang on to issues which he believed were right even in the face of much criticism and opposition from time to time. That is the sign and quality of someone who takes his task and responsibilities seriously. I also agree with the Minister that Emily O'Reilly has those qualities in abundance – she has the tenacity, determination and ability to pursue matters relentlessly. I have no doubt that she will fulfil the role of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner to the highest standards. I look forward to her continued pursuance of the issues raised by Mr. Kevin Murphy about the development of our public service as a body which sees its role as serving the citizen first rather than trying to defend the structure of which it is a part. That will be a slow process.
It would be wrong of me not to recognise the progress made in the public service since the creation of this office in 1984. There have been revolutionary changes in the Department of Social and Family Affairs, once an extremely difficult Department with which to deal. It is now the most customer oriented Department of all. Other Departments have lessons to learn and a good deal of road to travel.
Fine Gael supports these appointments and wishes Mr. Kevin Murphy success in his retirement – I am sure it will be an extremely active retirement. I know his skills will be brought to bear for many worthwhile causes. I wish Emily O'Reilly great success in taking on the solemn duties being conferred upon her. Those duties are recognised in an exceptional way in the Act under which she is appointed. This is an appointment made by the President on the recommendation from both Houses of the Oireachtas. We will see her as the defender of the rights of Members of the Oireachtas and the wider citizens of this country in pursuance of her duties.
I wish to share time with Deputy Burton.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I agree with much of what has been said by Deputy Bruton and I join with him in welcoming Emily O'Reilly's appointment. She has the qualities and character necessary to do this important job with distinction. She has, in the past, demonstrated an independence of mind and a tenacity appropriate to this job. She has shown a commitment to public service and has demonstrated a sense of fairness. She has shown a single-minded determination to do whatever job she is doing well.
The Office of the Ombudsman is a unique office nominated by the Oireachtas, appointed by the President and cherished by the people. Those of us who have to deal with constituency work, particularly Members on this side of the House – five or six faithful servants of the State serve each Minister, but the help the Minister promised those of us on this side of the House has not yet materialised – know at first hand the kind of constituent who relies on the Ombudsman for relief when other routes are beyond their reach. It is an important office and Emily O'Reilly has the capacity to discharge the functions of that office with the same distinction as her imminent predecessors.
I agree with everything Deputy Bruton said about Mr. Kevin Murphy's performance in office. I take this opportunity to again record the appreciation of Irish citizens of his predecessor, Mr. Michael Mills. Mr. Mills appeared to do the job with such impartiality and fairness that the Taoiseach of the day did his best to contrive a situation where we would forget his re-appointment. Fortunately, we remembered at the time.
Deputy Bruton referred to the nursing homes and taxpayers cases during Mr. Murphy's tenure in office. I was greatly influenced by his most recent report on the performance of the Freedom of Information Act. It demonstrates in every paragraph how diligently and seriously and with independence of mind he took the task of invigilating the Act and discharging the functions of his office. If I have one regret it is that the new Ombudsman, specifically in her role as Information Commissioner, is now being handed legislation that has effectively been emasculated in so far as it relates to Government decision-making. It is a great pity and will make a qualitative difference in terms of the job she can do that the Government, particularly the Minister responsible, decided to make a substantive change for the worse in that area of the Act without facilitating the taking of public evidence from those who had experience of it.
Whereas on this occasion I am happy to support with enthusiasm the nomination of Emily O'Reilly, it is not desirable that this appointment, made by the President and nominated by this House, is made on the basis of a half hour's notice by the Minister for Finance. I thank him for consulting me, but a half hour's notice after the appointment has been made by Cabinet is not the ideal way to deal with this matter given the importance of the office. There ought to be some process in place where we could hear the merits of prospective candidates or a candidate because that is important. We have all had experience of Ms O'Reilly's ability to write or occasionally to use her stiletto, but she has always done so with impartial precision against and for all parties. While I have no objection to the appointment on this occasion, I think we should look in the future at a more suitable process for the ultimate appointment.
I join in the words of congratulations to Ireland's first ombudswoman. At the risk of sounding politically correct, that is how Emily O'Reilly has chosen to style herself. I welcome that. I have raised with the Minister for Finance on a number of occasions the dearth of appointments by the Government and its predecessors of women to State boards and public positions. There has been a fall-back and roll-back in this area. It is to be welcomed that the third appointee to this office will be an ombudswoman.
Emily O'Reilly brings to the office her skills and reputation as a hard hitting journalist. In her earlier career in journalism, she not only had an established reputation for getting the best stories but had a high calibre of investigative journalism. Her capacity to carry out investigations impartially and with will and serious intent, the hallmark of good journalism and reporting, is desirable in the Office of the Ombudsman.
I was struck by what the current holder of that office had to say when he came before the Committee on Finance and the Public Service on two occasions recently. On the first occasion, he told us of widows who had not been given redress in relation to interest on arrears of tax that had been incorrectly deducted from them. I was struck by the precision and quality of Mr. Murphy's presentation to the committee, a man in full and absolute command of the facts and of the administrative remedies available in relation to the wrong he was seeking to redress. He was part of and in command of a loyal, efficient and co-operative team. That is something on which I wish the incoming Ombudsman good fortune because thousands of representations are made to the Office of the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner.
I noticed in recent weeks that the secretary general of the Association of Higher Civil Servants was at pains to point out, in the context of that association rejecting the Government's proposals to change and effectively destroy the Freedom of Information Act, that despite the thousands of inquiries which had been received under the FOI Act, a good deal of which were appealed to the Information Commissioner's office, it had been possible for the Civil Service to deal with those inquiries.
Similarly, the complaints made to the Ombudsman's office give rise to a significant amount of Civil Service work and it is necessary to have a good team in place. I am sure the same calibre of team will be made available to Ms O'Reilly, although she may wish that some extra people might be made available.
Kevin Murphy has done the State some honourable service. I hope he enjoys many fruitful years in his retirement.
I wish to share time with Deputies Finian McGrath and Boyle.
An Leas-Cheann Comhairle
Agreed.
On behalf of Sinn Féin I support the motions recommending Emily O'Reilly for appointment by the President to the position of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. It is ironic that these motions are before us the day after the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government abused its majority in this House and forced through the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill, which should have been called the restriction of information Bill. These motions recommending the appointment of Emily O'Reilly will probably arrive on the President's desk for signature along with that disgraceful Bill.
The Ombudsman, the Information Commissioner and the 1997 Freedom of Information Act are key components of the architecture of democracy in this State. There are many faults in that architecture, some of them fundamental, but the Government has done enormous damage by gutting the 1997 Freedom of Information Act. That was done against the advice of the outgoing Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Mr. Kevin Murphy, who deserves praise for his role. Along with other Deputies, I wish him well in his retirement. The system of openness and accountability and of protection for citizens has been undermined. The new Bill will certainly make the Government less accountable. It will take away rights from ordinary citizens.
I have two reservations about the motions. First, it is being taken for granted that one person should hold two posts. Why should this be the case? The posts are interrelated. It is desirable that someone such as the Ombudsman, who has an advocacy role for the citizen dealing with the State, should also be a citizen's advocate in terms of freedom of information but I accept there are arguments on the other side also. These are important positions and while the restriction of information Bill has reduced the Information Commissioner's role, it is arguable that it should be a full-time post for one person.
Second, Sinn Féin has repeatedly challenged the system of Government appointments to key posts. In this case, Dáil and presidential approval is required but it is still a Government appointment. A whole range of appointments are purely in the hands of Ministers. We believe there should be a system of advertisement of positions, publication of criteria of qualification and interview of candidates.
I wish Emily O'Reilly well in her new posts, both of which are important elements of democracy and safeguards for our citizens. I have every confidence she will prove to be an effective and efficient office holder and I join with other Deputies in wishing her well in the dual challenges she now undertakes.
I welcome the opportunity of speaking on the appointment of the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. At the outset I want to thank Mr. Kevin Murphy for his great work, dedication and commitment over the past few years. Mr. Murphy was appointed Ombudsman in 1994 and he became Information Commissioner in 1998. His was another classic example of top quality public service and we thank him for his efforts.
Today we are discussing the appointment of the new Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly. I strongly welcome and support this appointment. In examining this position, we have to ask ourselves a number of questions. Does the person have ability, integrity, compassion and understanding? Does the person have a vision for society, warts and all? Does the person have the capability and strength to be a thorn in the side of official Ireland? Having asked myself all these questions and studied Ms O'Reilly's curriculum vitae, I have no doubt she is the person for the job. She has the ability and integrity to do the job and, more importantly, she will have the respect of all citizens. Trust, respect and independence are essential aspects of this office.
On a personal level, I wish Ms O'Reilly and her family well. It is a great honour and privilege for her family as she is selected by this 29th Dáil. To be asked to take up such a high position in the country of her birth is a great honour for her and her family. It will not be easy and difficult decisions will have to be made, but always in the interests of our citizens.
I was not brought up to believe that one has to respect this or that just because somebody comes from a wealthy family or a high profile political family. One has to earn respect in this life and Emily O'Reilly has earned the respect of the people over the past 20 years. That is the reason I support her nomination today on behalf of the Independent group of Deputies. I agree with the Minister for Finance that Ms O'Reilly is hard-hitting and has been a thorn in the side of politicians, media and official Ireland. That is the type of person we need, and I strongly support this resolution. We wish Ms O'Reilly and her family well. We wish her every success in her new position. She will need great courage and honesty but I believe she has these skills.
It appears I have the last word on this appointment and I promise the House I will not sound a discordant note. The Green Party is pleased to accept the Government's recommendation of Ms Emily O'Reilly for the position of Ombudsman and Information Commissioner. The role of Ombudsman in particular is to act as a bulwark against maladministration and a reminder to those in political and administrative systems that they are there to serve the people rather than think of themselves as self-perpetrating entities. Ms O'Reilly has shown in the practice of her journalistic integrity, to be capable of both positions.
The Office of the Ombudsman in particular has been a success since its inception. The Government has promised further legislation which I hope will assist the strengthening of the office. I include that note of caution because in relation to the other role Ms O'Reilly is being asked to take on, Information Commissioner, it is clear that the Government has already tied her hands behind her back before she takes up office. I believe that is a temporary little arrangement because this six-year term will coincide with the next general election and a promise from all Opposition parties, should they have any part in the next Government, that the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Bill will be rescinded and the principal Act brought back into being.
The difficulties regarding the Information Commissioner's office cannot be understated. The changes the Government introduced as of yesterday's Dáil vote mean there will be more appeals made to her office and the Information Commissioner will have reduced power to rule on those appeals in favour of the appellants. I hope the Information Commissioner's role can be strengthened in the future.
All Members of the House have sounded a note of confidence in respect of Ms O'Reilly's appointment and expect of her the ability to not accept on face value all that is presented to her from various Departments and State agencies. The citizens expect the best possible services from all agencies of State and they need a strong office which will protect their interests to ensure that happens.
Question put and agreed to.