Good afternoon Chairman and committee members. I thank you for the opportunity to meet the committee. The Chairman referred to my role as independent Ombudsman for Children. I will not assume that everybody is familiar with the office, so I will give a brief outline of the statutory function of the office.
The Office of the Ombudsman for Children was established under primary legislation, the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002. Following an open competition, I was appointed by President Mary McAleese as Ireland's first Ombudsman for Children in December 2003 for a period of six years and was reappointed for a second term in December 2009. In carrying out my statutory functions I operate independently of Government, as the Chairman said, and account directly to the Oireachtas. The independence of my office has been a critical feature in the development of a credible and independent institution for children.
My principal responsibility is to promote and monitor the rights and welfare of children and young people up to the age of 18 years, including the rights set out in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 confers powers on the Ombudsman for Children that go beyond the functions of the traditional Ombudsman. In addition to providing for a complaints-handling and investigative function, the Act mandates the Ombudsman for Children to advise Ministers on law and policy relating to the rights and welfare of children. It is of note in the context of today's discussion that no legislation has emerged from the Department of Education and Skills relating to children since the office was established in 2004.
The Act also provides that the Ombudsman for Children shall consult children and young people directly and highlight issues that are of concern to them. Direct engagement with children and young people is a core element of the work. I was interviewed for the post by 15 young people, the youngest of whom was 11 years and the eldest was 17 years. The nature of the engagement with children takes place in the context of visits by schools to the Office of the Ombudsman for Children, which is located in Dublin 1. It is a relaxed and friendly environment and if constituents would like to visit, they are welcome. In terms of school visits, two teachers and their pupils come twice weekly from all over the country to hear about our work. Other examples of direct contact with children include our recent project with 35 children under the age of 18 years detained in St. Patrick's Institution and with separated children, living in Ireland without a legal guardian or parent.
In the context of education, I met Professor John Coolahan in 2011, who is chairing the group on pluralism and patronage. We made a submission to the Department of Education and Skills on the regulatory framework for school enrolment. We commissioned research late last year on the education of children who are in care of the State. Education provides an anchoring opportunity for those children. This exploratory research project aims to identify concrete, practicable measures for implementation by relevant services within the education and social care systems that can support attendance and participation by children living in the care of the State.
My office can investigate complaints made directly by children or by adults or by a third party on their behalf. We investigate public bodies, which include schools, public hospitals and the HSE. The key criteria for my intervention is that a child has or may have been affected by the action or inaction of a public body and that there was or may have been maladministration, as described in the Act. I can also initiate investigations, of my own volition, so I do not necessarily need a member of the public to make a complaint to me. We are currently undertaking a number of what we describe as "own volition" investigations.
The Ombudsman for Children Act 2002 provides that in the performance of my complaints and investigations functions, I shall have regard to the best interests of the child and that in so far as is practicable, I must give due consideration, having regard to the age and understanding of the child, as to his or her wishes. These are two key principles that I ask the committee to bear in mind in their work - the application of the best interest principle, when considering a decision about children and also the possibility of engaging directly with a child or family. In carrying out our complaints function people often assume that we advocate for the child. In the context of an investigation, I am bound by the principles, as is any other ombudsman, of impartiality and independence. In that context we are not allowed to assume the role of an advocate.
To date my office has received more than 6,000 complaints. In 2011 the office dealt with 1,491 cases. This represents a 22% increase in the number of complaints received in 2010. The majority of complaints received, and this has been consistent over the seven years, are made by parents. Last year this represented 75% of all cases that came to our office. It is our experience that parents are the principal advocates for children's rights and welfare. This points to the question about children who do not have parents, who are able to advocate on their behalf.
The committee will be interested to know that the proportion of complaints relating to education increased last year from 37% to 47%. In 2012 education complaints related to both schools and the Department of Education and Skills, with the vast majority relating to primary schools.
Like other ombudsmen offices, the Ombudsman for Children provides a free, impartial and independent complaints handling service. It is designed to be an alternative to the courts and is more expeditious than the courts. It is worth noting that in these difficult fiscal times, ombudsmen make significant savings to the State by providing this alternative redress mechanism to the public. In a review of pivotal cases by my office, Professor Ursula Kilkelly, a professor of child law in UCC stated that in her opinion many of the cases in question would have certainly been brought before the courts had they not been investigated by my office.
I would like to acknowledge that in the entire duration of my tenure, a parent has never contacted the office seeking compensation. They generally want the difficulties facing their child alleviated, and in very many cases they repeat a wish to ensure that other children do not have to endure their own experience. The information obtained through the receipt, examination, and investigation of complaints by the office continues to provide valuable insight into the experiences of children and families in dealing with public services. As such it allows my office the opportunity to not only improve the situation for individual children but to also bring about systemic change. While the individual case is important to the child and family, we select cases at our discretion which we think will deliver a greater result for many children. I believe that in addition to securing children's rights, my office plays a critical role is contributing to public sector reform, and on the commentary of public sector reform affecting children and families. Parents often tell us of the difficulties they face when engaging with multiple agencies. We had a mother last year who was engaging with 21 individual people across multiple agencies. This places a major burden not only on the child but on the family. I would like to see better integration across agencies to alleviate this burden for families, in particular the families of children with special needs or chronic illness. It is a dominant feature of investigations, that with few exceptions they highlight a lack of awareness about the impact of public administrative decision-making on the lives and rights of children and their families. Today I published a case on our website to illustrate some of those difficulties that families face.
Decision-making that affects children directly and sometimes indirectly is often not informed by its impact on the child and the family concerned; nor is it informed by children's rights principles. The procedures, and in some cases those applying them, are not aware of or sensitive to the needs or rights of children or their families or the relationship between timely decision-making and good administration. Other considerations appear to dominate over ensuring that the rights and interests of individual children are met. In this respect, the individual children can be largely invisible in the decision-making process. There are examples of an excessively bureaucratic approach to public decision-making, and often a significant distance between the administrative decision-makers and those affected by their decisions. In regard to education, most of the people who come to us have never met the person who makes the decision in their case. I think it is important to draw a distinction between those providing front line services and those making administrative decisions far removed from the reality of children's and families' lives.
There appear to be few checks and balances in administrative decision-making processes, and few mechanisms for challenging that decision. If a parent has a concern, the opportunities and mechanisms for redress are not as consistent as they should be. Repeated requests for information, flexibility or review appeared to fall on deaf ears. This is indicative of excessive bureaucratisation of public and civil administration, particularly the latter.
I specifically wish to raise with the committee, given its members' role as legislators, my concerns about the Education Act and the Teaching Council. As I outlined, education accounted for the highest proportion of complaints received by my office in 2011. It may, to some extent, reflect the fact that statutory arrangements, set down for parents to raise their concerns about the actions of schools, under section 28 of the Education Act 1998, have not yet been commenced. It means that many parents seek help from my office for matters that they should be able to resolve locally. They do not require the intervention of the Ombudsman's office and should be dealt with locally.
The second legislative issue that is of import for the group is the lack of implementation of Part V of the Teaching Council Act 2001 which regulates the conduct of teachers. My office regularly received complaints from parents on the professional conduct but it is not our role to investigate an individual or comment on the professional conduct or misconduct or child protection issues. I ask the committee to legislate for these deficits.
Many of the parents who come to my office with complaints do so because they have nowhere else to go. In 2008 and 2010 I raised the issue, and I continue to do so, with the Secretary General at the Department of Education and Skills. I want to emphasise to the committee the importance of these issues. My office is not a local redress mechanism but a last resort and its resources should be used appropriately.
I thank the committee for its time and I hope this brief outline of our work will prove useful. My colleagues and I will be delighted to answer questions. If members do not have time today to pose questions they are welcome to contact any member of my office and have a further discussion with them. I now hand over to the Chairman to open the discussion.
