Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 17 Feb 1988

Vol. 118 No. 11

Office of Ombudsman: Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:

That Seanad Éireann notes with disquiet the recent special report of the Ombudsman made to both Houses of the Oireachtas on November 6th, 1987 and deplores the savage staff cutbacks imposed on that office at no overall saving to the Exchequer; and rejects any attempt to remove the affairs of Telecom Éireann from the remit of the Ombudsman and calls for a restoration of proper funding to enable the Ombudsman to continue to provide justice and fairness to ordinary citizens.

—(Senator Manning.)

Mr. Mullooly

This motion notes the special report on 6 November 1987 which the Ombudsman submitted to the Dáil and Seanad pursuant to the provisions of section 6 (7) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980. The report in question deals mainly with the staff cutbacks made necessary by the reduced financial allocation to the Ombudsman's office. It also goes on to point out the likelihood that, in the current year, the entire time of the remaining investigators will be taken up examining the existing backlog of some 2,500 cases and that it will not be possible in 1988 to deal with the thousands of new complaints which will arise during the course of the year.

Among the other points made in the report are that when the remit of the Ombudsman's office was extended in 1985 to local authorities, health boards. Telecom Éireann and An Post, it was agreed that additional staff would be appointed to deal with the increase in complaints estimated to arise from the extended remit and also that, because of staff reductions, regional visits by investigators from the Ombudsman's office had to be discontinued and that it would not be possible to resume these visits in the present situation.

Before I go on to comment in detail on these and the other points contained in the report I should like to compliment the Ombudsman and his staff on the manner in which they have performed their duties since the office was established some four years ago. As politicians I am sure that we are all aware of cases of individuals who would not have obtained their just entitlements were it not for the intervention of the Ombudsman's office.

There seems to be a belief, or a perception in some quarters, that the operation and successes of the Ombudsman's office are somehow resented by politicians. As a politician I certainly could not agree that there is any basis whatsoever for that perception. In fact, I believe the opposite to be the case. I have never hesitated to seek the assistance of the Ombudsman at any time I felt that I had come up against a stone wall in my efforts to secure justice and fair play for some individual. In all such cases I was entirely satisfied with the way in which the matters in question were dealt with even when the eventual outcome was not as favourable as I had hoped it would be. What is not generally appreciated is the fact that the role of the politician, on behalf of his or her constituents, and the role of the Ombudsman are two completely different and distinct roles.

The nature of Irish politics and the internal competition generated by the multi-seat constituency arrangement dictate that a public representative, if he or she is to have a chance of surviving, must make representations in relation to each and every matter which is referred to him or her by a constituent. The Ombudsman on the other hand is not to quote himself "in the business of making representation". His role is an investigative one. When he receives a complaint he must first establish if it is justified, or if the individual in question has been wronged. If he decides that this is so, he will then recommend that a certain course of action should be taken to remedy the situation or redress the wrong. In his 1986 annual report the Ombudsman adverted to the difference between his role and that of the public representative and the problems which public representatives sometimes encounter in their dealings with the public service. Page 6 of that report, the chapter headed "The value of independent assessment", states:

The experience of the past three years has made me aware of the difficulties facing any public representative in seeking to secure change in a decision taken by officials at a senior level in the public service. The main reasons for this are that public representatives do not have access to the files and their representations do not result in an independent reassessment of the original decision. The Ombudsman's Office, on the other hand, has access to all documentation, carries out an independent examination of the evidence and has statutory authority to review the equity of the original decision.

Some cases I investigated had involved representations over a number of years from many politicians. The response from the public service each time was that a re-examination of these cases had revealed no grounds for changing the original decision.

I subsequently examined the files in detail, interviewed witnesses and, in some instances, established very good reasons why the original decision should not have been made. Only an independent and detailed examination could have had this effect.

It is clear from that extract that, not alone does the Ombudsman not see himself in competition with public representatives, but he fully appreciates and acknowledges the difficulties which public representatives sometimes are faced with and for that reason his work and his role complement that of the public representative. Therefore, I believe it is in all our interests that the office of the Ombudsman should continue to operate at the greatest possible level of activity and efficiency. Unfortunately, we must accept that in the present economic climate every area of public expenditure has had to be curtailed and it was inevitable that the Ombudsman's office would be asked to carry its share of the spending cuts. However, I am confident that even with reduced staff resources that office will continue to function at a very high level of efficiency. I will be very disappointed if it is not found possible to process and complete a considerably greater number of complaints than the backlog of 2,500 which the special report mentions.

We are also told that the number of cases which the office succeeded in completing in 1986 was something over 5,000 when it would appear from the annual report that the staffing level in that year was four senior investigators and 16 investigators. If we divide 20 into 5,000 cases we find that the average number of cases completed by each of the 20 investigators was 250 or an average of five or six cases each week. I believe that the situation should be looked at from the point of view of seeking ways and means considerably to increase that average and also to reduce the number of complaints taken on board by the Ombudsman's office.

I know how time consuming the type of detailed investigation carried out by the Ombudsman's office is but I still feel that with greater co-operation from the areas within his jurisdiction it should be possible to expedite considerably the processing of cases. In each of the areas covered by the remit of the Ombudsman, namely, the Civil Service, the health boards, the local authorities, An Post and Telecom Éireann, senior officers should be designated to liaise with the Ombudsman's office to carry out investigations requested by the Ombudsman and to provide him with such detailed reports as he might require in connection with any case under investigation.

Such a procedure would appear to have the potential to ease considerably the workload of the Ombudsman's office and to reduce the number of formal investigations which would have to be undertaken. Besides, I consider that people should have access to the service provided by the Ombudsman as a last resort only and after every other avenue has been tried towards achieving this objective. I believe that every complainant should have to satisfy the Ombudsman that every other avenue open to the complainant had been explored and that the Ombudsman's office was being used as a last resort only. If this condition were strictly enforced, it would result in a reduction in the number of cases referred to the Ombudsman. It would also be helpful if the Ombudsman had the authority or the discretion to impose a penalty on an organisation if he was satisfied that the case should never have had to reach his desk in the first instance. In such a case it would be reasonable to expect that the organisation concerned should cover the cost of the entire investigation in question.

The second part of the motion calls for the rejection of any attempt to remove the affairs of Telecom Éireann from the remit of the Ombudsman. I do not know what grounds the sponsors of the motion have for believing such an attempt might be made. Certainly, I would be opposed to any such move but, as of now, I am not aware that there is any such move. It would appear that Telecom Éireann attracts a very high degree of consumer dissatisfaction and the attitude of that organisation to the ordinary customer leaves a lot to be desired. On page 23 of his 1986 annual report the Ombudsman addresses himself to the situation in Telecom Éireann. In the section headed "Customer Relations" he states:

I have already drawn attention to the need for public organisations in general to respond quickly and explain decisions. However, I feel I must emphasise this point in the case of Telecom Éireann. I have received many complaints during the year from people who were unable to get a response from Telecom or who got a response that was unclear and had great difficulty in having it clarified.

He concludes the section on a more hopeful note when he states:

Telecom have assured me that the development of good customer relations receives priority within the company. There is, however, an identifiable trend running through much of the correspondence I see relating to Telecom which forces me to conclude that much more needs to be done. I will continue to monitor the complaints I receive and bring any general problems in this area to the attention of the company.

Indeed, it is very difficult to understand why some of the things that annoy customers of Telecom arise at all. I would like to have time to go into some of these matters but unfortunately I have not got the time to do that.

In conclusion I should like to compliment the Ombudsman on his work to date and on the very informative annual reports which he submits to the Houses of the Oireachtas. I would like sincerely to express the hope that, even with the reduction in the level of funding, it will be possible to maintain a satisfactory level of service to the public in the year ahead.

Mr. Kelleher

Speaking on this very important motion tonight I intend to go back to the time of the appointment of the Ombudsman and go through his record in office and show through certifical data why his office should not be subjected to the cutbacks now being imposed by this Government.

The Ombudsman was first appointed by the President of Ireland on 8 November 1983 and he took up office on 3 June 1984 after resolutions to this effect had been passed in both the Dáil and Seanad. The establishment of the office of Ombudsman in Ireland was the culmination of a process of consideration and debate which had taken place over a number of years previously. This is a very important and highly respected office which is totally independent of the Government in decision making but, of course, dependent on the Government for funding which is why the Fine Gael Party have put down the motion.

The principal aim of the office of Ombudsman is to ensure that the ordinary man or woman in the street gets fair play in dealing with public servants. I am sure some of my colleagues, like myself, have had to contact the Ombudsman's office in trying to resolve constituents' complaints when all other avenues open to us had failed. I was in this House in 1985 when the first annual report of the Ombudsman for 1984 was presented for debate. At that time the need for that office became crystal clear to everyone from the number of complaints which flowed in from every walk of life during that 12 month period. In fact, the remit of the Ombudsman was to be extended to cover local authorities and the health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post from 1 April 1985.

During his first year in operation the office of the Ombudsman received a total of 2,267 complaints of which 1,544 were within his term of reference. Of these 1,013 were completed, leaving a carry forward of 531 cases. The vast majority of complaints received were genuine appeals for help from people who had reached frustration point in their dealings with the public service and who had no avenue of appeal for what they felt were very real grievances. The staff employed at this stage to handle these grievances was made up of one director, one senior investigator and four investigators plus back-up clerical staff. However by the end of 1985 the volume of complaints had more than doubled that of 1984. In 1985, 5,496 complaints were received plus the carry over figure of 531 from the previous year making a total of 6,027; 750 of these were outside the jurisdiction of the office leaving 5,277 cases to be dealt with. Of these 3,411 were completed, leaving a carry over to 1986 of 1,866 cases.

It is no wonder that the Ombudsman in his special report to the Members of the Dáil and Seanad of 6 November 1987 said that the Ombudsman's office has now become part of the problem it was set up to resolve. The main cause of the rise in the volume of complaints was, of course the extension of the remit to cover local authorities, health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post and, as could be expected, Telecom Éireann accounted for the vast majority of these.

To coincide with the additional functions the office was divided into four units for staff purposes. The staff of the office was increased to 16 investigators. In 1985 another new concept was introduced, which I welcomed. Regional visits were undertaken to different centres around the country in order to enable people to discuss their complaints at local level. By the end of 1985 ten centres were visited where more than 750 members of the public were interviewed. This was an excellent idea and I congratulate Michael Mills for recognising that Ireland does exist outside the Pale.

Because of the complexity or nature of their complaints many people would have difficulty in communicating details by letter or by phone and, because of the expenditure involved in going to Dublin, they would not have their complaint heard or examined. There was also an increased publicity campaign associated with these visits which made the public more aware of the existence of the Ombudsman and, as a result, there was a huge increase in the volume of work directed towards his office.

I mentioned earlier that Telecom Éireann accounted for a large proportion of the increase in the volume of work. I am sure we have all experienced, both personally and on behalf of constituents, the irrational billing system used by Telecom. You get your bill and when you make a complaint about the amount you are told: "Sorry, but that is what it is". To date I have failed to get an explanation of my amount or to get a breakdown of the numbers I called. I hope those details will be supplied to us in the near future. I am not surprised that the number of complaints against Telecom Éireann was 1,377 for the nine month period in 1985. This, of course, has risen to 1,775 for the year ending 1986 which obviously means that more and more people are not getting any satisfaction whatsoever from Telecom and, as a result, have no other avenue open to them except the office of the Ombudsman.

It is for this reason that we in the Fine Gael Party have stated in this very important motion that we reject any attempts to remove the affairs of Telecom Éireann from the remit of the Ombudsman. Obviously from the volume of cases which are peculiar to Telecom the Government see that, if they remove Telecom from the remit, there would be a case for reducing the staff. We will oppose this measure in the strongest possible means. As most homes in this country now have a telephone, it is vitally important that subscribers should have another avenue open to them if they do not get satisfaction from Telecom Éireann.

The information published by Telecom Éireann about their complaints procedure is extremely limited. There is an onus on them to ensure that their subscribers know that their complaints have been fully investigated. In contrast, British Telecom publish a code of practice for their subscribers which details their complaints procedure. I note from the Ombudsman's report of 1986 that the question of faults in relation to the metering system was the subject of regular discussions and correspondence with Telecom Éireann. I welcome the announcement that he notified them that he intended to have a formal investigation into the procedures used by them in the detection and prevention of faults.

In 1986 a total of 5,691 complaints were received. This, in a country with a population of 3.5 million people, compares with recent figures in Denmark which has a population of 5.1 million and had 1,651 complaints. Sweden with a population of 8.4 million had 3,374 complaints. New Zealand with a population of 3.1 million had 1,906 complaints and Finland with a population of 4.9 million had 2,027 complaints. The number of complaints here in 1985 and 1986 far exceeded any forecast in volume which was estimated as likely to arise in the early years of the Ombudsman's office. In addition to the 5,691 complaints received during 1986, 1,866 were brought forward from 1985 making a total of 7,557; 6,862 came within the jurisdiction and 5,382 cases were completed.

Looking at these figures one can see a definite trend emerging on an ongoing basis. The number of cases being submitted and dealt with each year is increasing. The most worrying aspect is that a growing number of cases are being carried forward into the next year because of the huge volume of complaints. I understand from the Ombudsman's letter of 5 November 1987 that he predicts that the number of cases which will not be dealt with in 1987 will have risen to 2,500. He is now faced with the position of having lost four investigators since the April budget in 1987, and now a further four, which means that his number of investigators has been reduced from 16 to eight. This is happening at a time when it has been shown that the number of complaints to be dealt with is increasing dramatically every year. It is easy for one to understand his frustration at present and the necessity for him to submit a special report to the Dáil and Seanad highlighting his predicament less than four years after the office of Ombudsman was set up with the full support of all parties in the Dáil and Seanad.

This office has been recognised by the public as one of the most important institutions set up in the history of the State. For the first time people with no other avenue of redress can seek an impartial examination of their complaints. However, with the halving of the staff from 16 to eight it will now be impossible for this office to achieve the desired results for which it was specifically set up under the Ombudsman Act, 1980. The Ombudsman's office has now become part of the problem it was set up to resolve.

To put the work of the Ombudsman's office in context I will list the breakdown of the 6,862 complaints within his jurisdiction for 1986. The number of complaints against the Civil Service was 2,788 or 45 per cent of total. Of this figure the Department of Social Welfare accounted for 1,717, Revenue Commissioners for 440, the Department of the Environment for 218, the Department of Agriculture for 155, the Department of Education for 85, the Land Registry for 59 and other Civil Service Departments for 114. The number of complaints against local authorities was 581 which is 10 per cent; the health boards 519, 8 per cent; Telecom Éireann 2,892, 36 per cent or the Second largest grouping, and An Post had 82, a mere 1 per cent. There is a huge cross-section of the type and nature of the complaints received and if we are serious about the continuation of and the credibility of the office of the Ombudsman we must give him the resources necessary to carry out this function. He cannot fulfil the function assigned to him by the Oireachtas without the restoration of staff to the level of at least 16 which existed at the beginning of last year. I want this House to say to the Government that anything less is not acceptable and is not in the public interest.

I want this House to say to the Government that the need for the Ombudsman was never greater and I think I have shown that in the many examples I have given here tonight. I should like to say to the Minister that the interests of democracy are well served by a vigilant, honest Ombudsman who does a good job on behalf of the ordinary citizen. Instead of cutting back, we should be broadening his remit to cover many other areas and increasing his staff.

In each of the reports published by the Ombudsman there was a growing number of complaints which were not within his jurisdiction. In 1986 his office recorded 695 complaints in that category. These were complaints which were received in writing and for which written replies were issued. In addition, approximately 3,000 complaints which were outside his jurisdiction were made either on the telephone or in persons which were not entered in the record and, as such, are not part of the statistics. This example clearly illustrates that we should be broadening the remit of the Ombudsman and not cutting back as this Government seem to be intent on doing.

The very fact that the Ombudsman should feel obliged to write a special report to place before both Houses of the Oireachtas is the strongest possible indication of the gravity of the situation and of the fight for survival which has been inflicted upon his office by this Government. Earlier in my speech I welcomed the concept of regional visits and noted that every county in Ireland had been visited by the end of 1986. However, because of the cutbacks imposed, these visits have now been dropped which will deprive a great number of people of getting justice and fair play for for their grievances. Cutting back on the office of the Ombudsman is not a product of financial restraint. As Senator Manning pointed out, the people within his office are simply being transferred back into the public service. This is all happening without any saving in the public finances. I call on the Minister to comply with the request made by the Ombudsman in his special report and to grant him a minimum of 16 investigators as I have no doubt that Senators from all sides of the House want to see the office of the Ombudsman restored to its full strength.

Mr. Harte

The ground has been fairly well covered in regard to facts and figures. What I would like to say about it is that in the debate on the Ombudsman it is interesting to take a brief look back. In 1975 Deputy Fergus O'Brien put down a motion calling for the appointment of an Ombudsman and this was accepted by the Dáil in 1975. It was 1979 before anything happened by way of legislation when a Private Members' Bill was introduced by the same Deputy.

The reasons for rejecting the Bill on that occasion, given by the Government of the day, were that it was not strong enough and that it was not consistent with a report by an all-party committee set up to investigate what areas would be covered by the activities of the Ombudsman. This all-party committee met on nine occasions and they were unanimous on the question as to whether an Ombudsman should be appointed. When the Private Members' Bill was eventually well under way it covered all the Government services and the local authorities. The idea was to have an Ombudsman who would have the power to investigate all areas of discontent. Most people would agree that was a very good move in any democracy.

Certainly it was recognised by the Government of the day as a good move but from the Government's point of view it was not strong enough. It could not be accepted because it did not have the strength, the scope or the depth which was required and, consequently, it did not get off the ground. The Minister for the Public Service of the day, despite the fact that there were internal problems in Government, recognised that it was impossible for anyone other than an Ombudsman to get to the nitty-gritty of the problems that were likely to crop up, which had been cropping up over the years and which needed attention.

It was also recognised that in almost all democratic countries some type of Ombudsman's office existed largely because of their commitment to democracy — similar to our own commitment — and their commitment to the extension of democracy. It was further recognised during the course of that debate that people's rights could not be usurped or eroded. Given that the pressures on the Government were so strong and given that the complexities of the problems which were likely to arise under the umbrella of an Ombudsman would need individual attention, research and investigation it was felt it would be outside the scope of the Bill to deal with them. Therefore, the Minister was quite correct in saying on that occasion that the Private Members' Bill was not strong enough or good enough.

The strange thing about this for me, as a layman, having listened to the debate down through the years, is discovering that nine years after the legislation was brought in we now find ourselves discussing the question of a diminution of the responsibilities of the Ombudsman in the name of cutbacks. That legislation was brought in for the very good reason that the then Minister said it should be brought in, and he rejected the Private Members' Bill as being too weak. Diminishing a person's right to seek redress is a backward step in any democracy. Consequently, this move has to be opposed and it has to be seen to be opposed.

Cutbacks are taking place and we all recognised that everybody has to accept his share, but if I am correct the savings in this case will be negligible. Taking into account that the Ombudsman's office provides a service for those people who cannot seek redress in a proper way from large corporations and Government agencies, it is only right that we should have regard to the cost and whether it is worth the bother. Frankly, you cannot adopt the attitude that the system itself will provide what is necessary as is evidenced by the figures given by Senator Kelleher who dealt extensively with the facts and figures. It is correct for me to say that the system is inadequate having regard to the Ombudsman's remarks that he would not be in a position to carry out his job to the full if the cutbacks were to take place.

Nowadays people are not easily fobbed off. They now think for themselves and want answers that come from an independent investigation. The Fianna Fáil Minister of the day thought the Private Members' Bill, as I have already said, as introduced by a Fine Gael Deputy, was not strong enough and claimed that he wanted to strengthen it. He did so. He did not do so in 1979 and was criticised for taking too long in introducing a Bill but in 1983 he brought in a very good Bill. In relation to the comments that I made regarding the Minister's desire to strengthen the Private Members' Bill and pointing out the weaknesses in the Bill, I am referring to the Official Report of 20 November 1979, columns 2064 to 2072.

Two broad areas were then a source of concern and are still very important. The first is the public service and all the bureaucracy that goes with it. You cannot introduce cutbacks and then fob people back into a service they cannot cope with. The function of the Ombudsman is to take his place at the intersection, between the role of the public servant and that of the public representative. It is a very important role. If people go to a public servant and fail to get satisfaction they go to their public representative and if they fail to get satisfaction the only place left for them to go is the Ombudsman's office. If the role of the Ombudsman is diminished in any way by the cutbacks and a reduction in staff, there will not be the extension of democracy to which people are entitled and they will not be able to seek the redress they deserve.

Senator Mullooly mentioned that the staff in the Ombudsman's office have to clear a backlog of cases. Surely, this is an indication that not only should there be no cutbacks but that the staff to some extent could make the case that an increase in the number of staff would be absolutely necessary to do the job right. The role and scope of public administration have changed enormously over the past 40 to 50 years. There is no way that families and individuals can be protected through this development and they must be protected from deceit, manipulation and downright arrogance on the part of the public service. On the other hand, the public service must be assisted through the deeds of the Ombudsman and this has happened. He has taken much of the burden from them. Departments and agencies, such as An Bord Telecom, read his reports and get some benefit from doing so. It cuts both ways; while helping to settle a problem he also helps the Government agencies and public servants. As I have said, this work needs to be done.

If it is a fact that it is intended to remove Bord Telecom from the Ombudsman's remit, very serious thought will have to be given to it. While Telecom Eireann are doing very well and are becoming more efficient they cannot become arrogant. It must be open to the public to seek redress. Many of the cases against Bord Telecom which have been submitted to the Ombudsman have been substantially proved. Therefore, you cannot let a company such as this escape. They are there to do a job and to answer to the public. They should work for the community and not against it. By removing them from the Ombudsman's remit we will not only erode people's rights but also, as I stated earlier, usurp their rights. By and large they will be the biggest sufferers and, as far as we are concerned, they are the most vulnerable group in society. Therefore, to remove anyone from the remit of the Ombudsman would be a disastrous development. The debate in regard to that Bill went on for nine years. Eventually the present Government, who brought in the Bill, did a good job. They brought in very strong legislation. It now appears that what we are witnessing on their part is a U-turn on some of the arguments which they themselves made against the Private Members' Bill, which they regarded as being not strong enough.

Mrs. Robinson

I am glad the Ombudsman, Michael Mills, was prepared to report to the Oireachtas and alert us to the very serious situation in his office. The reason for the special report from the Ombudsman was not, as I understand it, that his task and that of the staff had become more difficult; it was that he was unable to fulfil the functions assigned to him and his staff by the Oireachtas. That is why he reported. I am sure that, when he decided to communicate by way of a special report to the Oireachtas, he thought carefully about the precise wording he would use in the report. He is a careful man. He is well known to most of us in this House for his previous existence as a political correspondent. He is not somebody who uses words rashly. The expression he has used was that it was statutorily necessary for him under the provisions of the Act to communicate with the Oireachtas and to report that he was unable, due to staff cutbacks, to fulfil the functions assigned to him by the Oireachtas. That puts the ball straight back in our camp.

The Oireachtas established the office of the Ombudsman and the Ombudsman has now said he is unable to fulfil his functions under the Act. The report was made last November and I am glad we have an opportunity on foot of this motion to debate the issue because I think it is a very serious issue. As Senator Harte outlined in looking at the background to the moves made to establish an Ombudsman's office, it was discussed a number of times in motions and it was the subject of a Private Members' Bill before a Government Bill was introduced. When that Government measure came forward it received a wide measure to support from the Oireachtas because elected representatives recognised the necessity for an office such as that of the Ombudsman of which there was experience in a great many other countries. We knew this was needed in the Irish context. That recognition was borne out by what happened. The Ombudsman's office has been a success story up to now in terms of addressing problems and in providing recourse for the citizen. Because of the successful manner in which the Ombudsman's office was tackling the problems the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman and his staff was increased by the Oireachtas and in April 1985 it was extended to local authorities, health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post.

If the Ombudsman and his staff are unable to fulfil their statutory functions — that is what they say and that is what I hope the Minister will address at 7.30 p.m. when he has the floor — that means those functions are not being fulfilled, notwithstanding the need which the Oireachtas saw, notwithstanding the fact that we identified those functions and said that the Ombudsman should be fulfilling them. He cannot. The reasons why are very clearly set out in his report. It is a very eloquent report and all the better for its brevity. It puts its case well enough not to have to repeat that case. It is clear that the backlog is such that new cases cannot be investigated. Therefore, the staff are not doing their job. They have the guts and courage to recognise that they are not doing their job and to report on it. They are not just pretending or making do, which is very often the case in similar circumstances. As I have said, having alerted the Houses of the Oireachtas to the fact that they are unable to do their job, it is now our responsibility to respond to the special report.

One thing which I would say if the Ombudsman and his staff are unable to fulfil their statutory functions and tasks is that there will be a number of consequences. One consequence, of course, is that people are not going to have redress, injustices will continue, mal-administration will no longer be properly pursued and detected and there will be a drop in the quality of what we thought was necessary to provide for citizens.

Another consequence that might not occur so readily to Members of this House is that a certain number of people who might have gone to the Ombudsman will be able to go elsewhere. They will go to the courts and we will see an increase in applications for judicial review in the High Court — judicial review of health boards, judicial review of local authorities, judicial review of the Minister for Social Welfare and other Departments of State. That might be good for the pockets of the legal profession, but it can hardly be a desirable objective to have expensive litigation in the High Court on behalf of citizens whose problems could be resolved more speedily, more appropriately and, certainly, less expensively by enabling the Ombudsman and his staff to carry out those functions. There are very serious consequences and in that regard I am only adding to the list other Senators have mentioned.

There is another worrying aspect of the matter which must cause us concern. It seems at present that there is a conscious policy to cut down on independent boards and bodies and a conscious policy to cut down on any independent investigation, independent assessment or independent examination in various walks of life. We have seen a number of examples this. We saw the attempt to abolish the National Social Service Board. It was only when the Dáil resisted that in a vote that there was a second think. There has been the abolition of the Health Education Bureau. There has been the abolition of An Foras Forbartha. There has been a very notable pruning of any independent investigation or examination which is not coming from within Departments.

What we are having instead is a tendency to have units in Departments carrying out certain functions. I can only hope, since I am speaking before the Minister and not after him, that the Minister is not going to propose in some mad moment an Ombudsman's unit in some Department of the Public Service to do the job of the Ombudsman because that would be in line with the kind of approach taken to date. It would be an entirely inadequate response to this very serious problem because it is precisely the independence and objectivity of the Ombudsman which enable him and his staff to fulfil their statutory functions.

The need for that independence and objectivity was recognised by the Oireachtas when the office was established with, as I have said, very broad unanimous support and enthusiasm on all sides of the House. The fact that there was need for an office such as that of the Ombudsman is validated or proved by the very significant number of complaints which have been processed by the Ombudsman's office and this, of course, has led to the log jam and the delays which have prevented the Ombudsman from being able to carry out his statutory functions. As I have said that is the nature of the problem. It is a problem that can be resolved by redeploying the personnel back to the Ombudsman's office.

The point has been well made by a number of Senators that it is not a question of laying off staff and making economies at the expense of people's jobs; it is a question of redeploying people. Therefore, it is a question of priorities and a question of values. The contributions from both sides of this House have valued the Office of the Ombudsman sufficiently to point out the need for redeployment of sufficient staff to ensure that we do not have a further report from the Ombudsman that he is unable, due to staff cutbacks, to fulfil his functions.

My last point is, having said that I very much welcome this report furnished to us last November, that I hope that the Ombudsman will report to us again — perhaps in a month — on the current situation and go on reporting to us on a three monthly or at most a six monthly basis, and, if necessary, to go on saying to us, as he said in his report of last November: "I am unable to do my job." If we get a report like that within the next month it will be a bit embarrassing because it is the Oireachtas which established the office of the Ombudsman and the only step the Ombudsman and his office can take is to go on reporting. Having reported that he is unable to do his job does not prevent him from so reporting again and so alerting both Houses of the Oireachtas again of this continuing sorry tale, if that is the case. Of course, it may be that I completely underestimate the capacity and powers of the Minister of State who is about to speak. Perhaps he is the bearer of good news. In that hope I am prepared to give way and listen carefully to what that good news might be.

Mr. Ferris

I have seven minutes left before the Minister gives us his good news. In anticipation of the good news I am almost tempted to resume my seat but——

Acting Chairman (Mr. Cregan)

The Minister is prepared to listen to you for 15 minutes if you so wish.

Mr. Ferris

First of all, I would like to be associated with everything Senator Robinson said because it summed up how people on both sides of the House feel in regard to this matter. When the office of the Ombudsman was set up all of us and people throughout the country welcomed the fact that the Government of the day were prepared to set up an autonomous body which would investigate us, the Civil Service and semi-State bodies throughout the country which deliver a service to those who were entitled to it. As public representatives, we have used the Ombudsman's office sparingly because many of us feel that, as local elected representatives or as representatives in the Houses of the Oireachtas, we have all the power we want. Occasionally, because of various sections and limitations in legislation, we have to have recourse to some neutral agency and this void is filled admirably by the present Ombudsman. I must be associated with the congratulations which have been paid to him and his staff on the way in which they have fulfilled their functions since the office was set up by us.

The Ombudsman has the power, which is an excellent power, to send for files and papers and this power is confined to him alone. Even a Minister may not send for all the papers, documents or files in a particular case. Certainly, councillors and members of the Oireachtas do not have that privilege or power. The Ombudsman has the power to send for files to enable him to make an impartial judgment on the validity of a complaint which has been sent directly to him by either a constituent, an aggrieved person or a public representative. I found him to be most dedicated and very impartial. I have been successful in some cases which justified my bringing those cases to him.

I brought cases to him during the period of the last Government in areas in which Ministers admitted that they could not interfere with decisions which had been made, particularly in the area of social welfare, for example, disablement benefits. On numerous occasions I criticised in this House the facilities which were available to us. Under certain Acts, such as the Social Welfare Act, medical referees and examiners are entitled to give their opinion. Their opinion could be wrong but they still have the power to give that opinion. Very often we have no opportunity to prove that an opinion could be wrong. The Department of Social Welfare will say that their investigator is entitled to give his opinion. The Ombudsman has used his ingenuity and offered independent medical opinion to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that an aggrieved person did have a genuine case. Government Departments answered the call and refunded various moneys.

The extension of the remit of the Ombudsman's office to other areas in which I have been involved, such as the health boards and local authorities, was also a welcome step. As public representatives we feel that there is no case which we could not come to grips with. The reality is that within all Government Departments and semi-State bodies there are certain files which are confidential by their very nature. The extension of the Ombudsman's remit to cover some of these areas was a welcome step and I am aware of how valid that extension of his remit was. He has only been successful in cases where the applicant had a legitimate grievance and a genuine case. He has not been successful in all cases because on investigation he discovered that the applicant did not have a legitimate complaint. The most important point for us to remember is that, if justice is to be done, it must be seen to be done and the only person who has the power to ensure that justice is done, and without interference from any of us, is the Ombudsman.

The Houses of the Oireachtas set up this office with an adequate number of staff, proper financing and with a specific remit. Now the holder of that office has reported publicly that he is unable to carry out his functions because of the lack of funding and staff and because of a possible reduction in his remit. That is a backward step in any democracy. We tend to criticise other jurisdictions for what they have done in the area of legislation. We have the power to ensure that power remains where it was legislated to be. We also have the power to ensure that the Government do not fall down on their responsibility to ensure that sufficient funds are made available.

Like other contributors, I hope the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Treacy, will see the validity of our argument and will also be able to join in the congratulations to the present holder of the office, Mr. Michael Mills, and all his staff on the way in which they have dealt with problems from us and from the public in the past. We sincerely hope, in the terms of this motion, that the Government will see the folly of their ways if they make his task impossible. Having listened to the debate in this House tonight I hope the Minister will agree that the Ombudsman's office is a valuable office for all of us and needs to be maintained and strengthened. Any diminution in his powers, functions or funding is a diminution of democracy. I plead with the Minister to listen to what is, in fact, a reasonable motion reflecting the views of many people in the country who have expressed the deepest concern following what the Ombudsman had to report to us. I hope he will continue to report, while his office remains, at any time he so wishes, because the Act allowed him the facility to do that. Only this House and the other House have the power to actually listen to his report, discuss it and make recommendations to Government on it.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. N. Treacy)

First of all I would like to say I think it is highly appropriate that I should have the honour to reply to this debate on behalf of the Government not only as Minister of State in the responsible Department but also as the Ombudsman's official next door neighbour in No. 51 St. Stephen's Green. In fact, both myself and a substantial number of my staff at the Office of Public Works share the same car park and facilities with the Ombudsman. I am pleased to state that the occupants of No. 51 and 52 have established good neighbourly relationships, which I have no doubt will continue into the future.

The Government ask the House to reject this motion. This Government, could not be more aware of the contribution of the Ombudsman to the promotion of fair and sound administration in the public service, and join the House in paying tribute to his work. In their first few years of operation, the Ombudsman and his staff have established a record of hard work and diligence on behalf of the clientele of our public services. It is a record of which we, in the Oireachtas, can be justifiably proud.

The Government are satisfied that the office of the Ombudsman has contributed significantly to improvements in the manner in which our public services are delivered. Above all, there is ample evidence of the success of the Ombudsman and his staff in securing redress for aggrieved citizens and taxpayers. The degree of achievement, as well as the effectiveness of operation of the Ombudsman is reflected in his report for the years 1986 — Report Number 3 — of which, I feel the House should take note at this point.

The number of complaints within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction received in 1986 — 4,996 — is only slightly up on 1985, when the figure was 4,746. I attribute this levelling out in large measure to an increased awareness on the part of public servants of the need for fair and sound administration. The Government trust that this process will continue and remain committed to ensuring that the highest standards of service continue to be given by the public servants. I shall comment in more detail later on the question of the relationship between public servants and the Ombudsman.

Since he took up office in 1983, the Ombudsman has highlighted many issues and anomalies of major importance to us all. One of these is the question of compensation for delayed payments. I am pleased to say the Department of Finance have delegated sanction to the Department of Social Welfare to pay such compensation for all future claims arising from excessive delays in the payment of social welfare entitlements. Following a detailed examination of this issue by the Department of Finance, it is evident that the incidence of this problem in areas other than social welfare is relatively small. The Department of Finance will be prepared to examine any such cases on their merits.

The Ombudsman also brought our attention to the anomaly in the social welfare system which prevents a great number of people who have paid insurance contributions for many years from qualifying for old age contributory pensions or causes them to qualify for a reduced rate of pension while others with a less number of contributions may qualify for the maximum rate of pension. This anomaly arises in the case of persons who have intermittent insurance records. It has been estimated that the total cost of redressing this anomaly would be of the order of £24 million. The complexity of this issue makes a neatly tailored solution extremely difficult. Aside from such recurrent, general issues, the Ombudsman also drew our notice to several issues more limited in their nature. I should like to comment briefly on some of these.

In the local authority area, he highlighted several matters relating to the handling of planning where, he felt there was room for improvement. These included the need for planning authorities to ensure that members of the public are kept fully informed on issues about which they complain in relation to planning enforcement; and the necessity to take full account of the views of members of the public who may be suffering from unauthorised development.

He also made reference to unreasonable delays or apparent lack of effort on the part of some authorities in dealing with planning matters. The Minister for the Environment has brought the Ombudsman's comments to the attention of the local authorities with a view to effecting improvements.

The Ombudsman also voiced concern about the delays caused in the purchasing of local authority houses by tenants as a result of the Landlord and Tenant (Ground Rents) Act, 1978. The problem arises in cases where the local authority do not themselves hold the fee simple of a House. Before the sale can proceed the local authority must first acquire the fee simple.

In order to establish the extent and nature of the problem, the Minister for the Environment has issued a circular to local authorities seeking details of the problems being experienced by them in transferring the fee simple.

Mrs. Robinson

Is this an obituary? It is all in the past tense.

Mr. N. Treacy

I did not interrupt you. At least I am entitled to be heard.

Mrs. Robinson

I am puzzled.

Mr. N. Treacy

The Ombudsman has also drawn attention to several cases in the social welfare area where, he felt, existing practices gave rise to difficulties. He remarked on the unequal treatment for widowers and their children under the social welfare system, compared with widows. While I have every sympathy with widowers who may appear to be faring worse than widows, it must be remarked that the provision of pensions to widowers on the same lines as the existing schemes for widows would impose a very significant financial burden on the Exchequer. There are no plans at present for the introduction of a widower's pension scheme.

The Ombudsman considers that the overall situation in relation to means assessment of free board and lodging for unemployment assistance should be reviewed. He has noted that, while existing legislative provisions require that means assessment for unemployment assistance take into account the yearly value of any benefit or privilege — which would include the estimated value of free board and lodging — enjoyed by the claimant, there are no statutory criteria for the assessment of the value of board and lodging.

The Minister for Social Welfare informs me, however, that certain formulae have been devised by his Department in the light of experience to deal with the various circumstances which arise. The whole area of means testing is currently under examination, with a view to achieving better harmonisation and coordination of the present arrangements. The views expressed by the Ombudsman are being taken into account in the context of that review.

The Ombudsman also has some comments to make about the Revenue area. He referred to a case where a husband and wife experienced a delay of eight months in receiving an amended tax free allowance. I have been informed by the Revenue Commissioners that the incident was a once-off occurrence. The Revenue Commissioners took such a serious view of this matter, however, that disciplinary action was taken against the officer responsible.

I should like now to say something about the question of the relationship between civil servants and the Ombudsman. This issue has been raised on a number of occasions by the Ombudsman in his annual reports, and by Senators in the course of this debate. The Ombudsman remarked that some complaints which he regarded as justified were resolved only after confrontation with the bodies concerned. I must make it quite clear that the Government would not countenance any action on the part of any public servant or group of public servants which sought to thwart the Ombudsman in the discharge of his statutory functions. Such action would, in my view, be an affront to the Oireachtas to which the Ombudsman is directly responsible.

Mrs. Robinson

He is thwarted. That is his problem.

Mr. N. Treacy

However, in fairness to all concerned, it must be stated that there will inevitably be circumstances when public servants, acting entirely in good faith, will not see eye to eye with the Ombudsman. This is all the more true for the early years of the operation of the Ombudsman, in the course of which the public service in general and the office of the Ombudsman have had to learn to work together with no guidance from precedent. It is to the credit of both the Ombudsman and the public servants concerned that all cases of conflict were resolved in a mutally satisfactory manner.

There is no evidence to demonstate any substance in the suggestion made by some Senators that some public servants — and indeed public representatives — are exercising an interest in undermining the office of the Ombudsman with a view to its abolition and I must say that I find this suggestion, made in this House, both unfortunate and unworthy.

The Ombudsman has outlined the need for public servants to use clear and simple language in their dealings with the public. It must be said, however, that in certain areas the complexity of the subject matter necessitates the use, on occasions, of complex and technical language.

The attention of all Ministers and Ministers of State has been drawn to the comments of the Ombudsman in this regard and to his comments about public servants generally. The House may be assured of their commitment to the drive to ensure that the public always receive the utmost courtesy and help in their dealings with public bodies.

I believe the vast majority of public servants discharge their duties in an honest and diligent manner. Indeed, I would like to draw attention to the fact that the Ombudsman, in his most recent annual report, expressed his appreciation of the co-operation given by the great majority of public servants.

I should refer particularly to the question of difficulties with the Telecom Éireann billing system, referred to by a number of Senators. Nobody can deny that there has been, and still is, serious distrust of the accuracy of this system among consumers and, as the Ombudsman has confirmed, with some reason. The Ombudsman in his 1986 report has said that this mistrust can only be removed by the introduction of a billing system capable of supplying adequate information to consumers. I am glad to note that Telecom Éireann has proposals to introduce such a system, and I share with the Ombudsman the belief that this will greatly reduce the volume of complaints to him from this source in the near future.

I should now like to turn to the question of the resources and in particular the staff resources, made available to the office of the Ombudsman. It is, I think, now generally accepted that the poor performance of the economy in recent years is largely attributable to continued excessive public expenditure. It is also well known that it is a top priority for the Government to reverse this economic decline and that this cannot be done without tackling forcibly the root causes of high public expenditure.

In this context all spending programmes have to be subject to the strictest scrutiny and potential savings identified and achieved in these, whenever feasible. In the overall estimation process, the prime objectives must be to achieve the maximum level of savings and, at the same time, to preserve an adequate level of essential services. We have, I believe, succeeded in striking a fair balance between these important objectives, and also in ensuring that no sector has been asked to shoulder an unreasonable share of the burden of the overall reductions.

As far as I am concerned, there is an absolute consensus right across the political divide on the need to redress the serious imbalance in the state of our public finances. Senator Robinson, however, does not seem to wish to address this serious financial situation. It is very easy to call for extra staff and maintaining staffing levels which seem to create an imbalance. We must take into account that there is a new departure. There is evolution in technology and information systems. There is better efficiency in Government Departments. There is better management of the entire State Departments by the Government.

I am quite confident that with proper management, better efficiency, the directive given by the Ombudsman, and changes which are being made as a result of decisions taken by the Ombudsman, in the future the public will get better decisions, more equitable decisions and more efficient and quicker decisions. I accept Senator Ryan's point that the Ombudsman plays an important role in promoting public service efficiency — although this must be an objective of all public bodies at present. Nonetheless, given the budgetary background, and even taking into account the importance of the Ombudsman's functions, it was not possible, in current circumstances, to exempt this office from the drive to contain and reduce the size and cost of the public service to the taxpayer. This reality, as for every other Government Department and office, is reflected in the allocations for 1988.

Mr. Manning

It has been cut in half.

Mr. N. Treacy

While the staffing of the office for 1988 has been reduced from that obtaining in 1987, the Government are satisfied that the provision remains adequate to enable the office of the Ombudsman to provide an efficient service to those making complaints to that office.

Staff of the office of the Ombudsman, like all other civil servants, have the opportunity to compete in open competition for higher office within the public service, to take career breaks, redeployment or voluntary redundancy, or to move to the private sector. At least one member of the staff of the Ombudsman was appointed to a high position in the public service as a result of open competition. Another staff member of the Ombudsman's office moved to a key position in the private sector. That is a reflection of the high quality of the staff employed in this office.

The motion suggests that the redeployment of staff from the Ombudsman's office to elsewhere in the Civil Service does not involve an overall saving to the Exchequer. This assertion has been repeated in the course of the debate by a number of Senators. Senator Norris, in the course of his contribution, expressed doubts about the Government's skill in arithmetic. I must, with respect, harbour some doubts as to the qualifications of the Senator, and of others supporting this motion, in the matter of arithmetic because they seem to be missing the fundamental point about redeployment, which is that the posts, to which such staff are redeployed, are posts which it is essential to fill. Clearly, filling them by redeployment, rather than by new recruitment, saves the Exchequer the cost of the additional salaries. Indeed, the bulk of the investigative staff, who have been redeployed from the office of the Ombudsman, are now engaged on extremely important work on the Jobsearch scheme, in the Department of Social Welfare, through which, as the House will be aware, savings of over £21 million were achieved last year.

I know some Senators may not like to see the success of either the scheme or the performance of the Government, but these are the facts, and they stand. It is, perhaps, indicative of our commitment to the principle of redeployment that, since coming into office, 45 staff have been redeployed out of the Department of Finance, mostly to the office of the Revenue Commissioners. It is this policy of redeployment which has enabled the Revenue Commissioners and the Department of Social Welfare to maintain staffing levels while, at the same time, highly significant savings — of the order of £6 million per annum — have been achieved by the non-filling of vacancies in the Civil Service overall.

Any policy of this nature is effective only to the extent that it is maintained in spite of the special pleadings, however forceful, which can be advanced on behalf of any Department or office. Naturally, when one looks at an office such as the Ombudsman's in isolation, it would be all too easy to say that this or, indeed, any other Government office, is an exception which should be exempted from the cutbacks.

Accordingly, I have to say that the programme of controlling public service numbers is much too important, at this stage, to allow it to be picked off and undermined, one exception at a time. While endorsing the importance of the office of the Ombudsman and of the services which it provides, I must adhere to the principle that there can be no blank cheques for any Exchequer funded service, and that the amounts allocated to all such services to be governed by the taxpayers' ability to pay. The financial provision to the Ombudsman's office for 1988 represents the maximum the Government felt could be allocated there, having regard to the continuing need to contain the size and cost of the public service, while still ensuring that sufficient resources remain available for the effective discharge of all essential and high priority services. Therefore, I regret that the Government cannot agree to an upward revision in the allocation at this stage.

Having said that, I trust that all Senators right across the board will appreciate how important it is, in the overall policy of reducing public expenditure, to ensure that individual allocations are not exceeded, and that the individual components of this policy are not undermined by creating precedents for exceptions, one step at a time. That would be the slippery slope leading to the abandonment of our drive to ccontain and reduce these unsustainable levels of Government spending which, I am sure we can all agree, are a luxury we cannot permit ourselves at this juncture in our economic history.

In conclusion, might I express the hope — indeed, the expectation — that despite the fact that the Ombudsman's office could not be exempted from the drive for economics in the public sector, both he, the excellent man that he is, and his staff will continue to discharge their remit in the same exemplary manner as they have always done in the past. I thank the House.

Mr. J. O'Toole

It is an extraordinary response by the Minister. The fact that he could give it with a straight face is a tribute to himself as much as anything else. I presume he was not taking any notice of what he said. Certainly we have reached the stage now where the logic of saving money knows no bounds and no limits. I heard it said this afternoon that there is a toilet on the first floor here which is not bringing in any profit at the moment. It is costing us money and we will have to shut it down shortly. We are on the same basis, really, with the Ombudsman's office.

Judging by what the Minister has just said, the Ombudsman is saying to us that he cannot fulfil the functions assigned to his office by the Oireachtas. I am not sure whether the Minister has seen this report. It was circulated to all of us. Probably he has seen it. The Ombudsman is saying that he cannot do his job. He is saying that he cannot carry out the functions assigned to his office by the Oireachtas. That matter has not been addressed by the Minister in his response here this evening. It is on the record. What was done and what might be done about other affair's of State might be all very well and interesting to the Minister, but it does not address the point at issue here. Much of what the Minister said was irrelevant. It was not to the point and certainly failed to report to the Ombudsman's plea for help in order to do the job to which he has been assigned by the Oireachtas.

He also said that because of the financial allocation he has already lost four people and that another four will have to leave. Many speakers have referred to this already, but I want to put it clearly and definitely on the record that we have now in front of us two items, one from the Ombudsman to say that he cannot do the job assigned to him by the Oireachtas and the other to indicate that the only work he can do this year is to clear the backlog from last year. In other words, we now see that he cannot do what he was meant to do. The office is failing in its duty to the public. It is failing in the responsibility assigned to it by the Oireachtas.

This is purely a manipulation by the Government in order to save themselves from the embarrassment of the proper investigation of complaints against the Administration. It is unacceptable. I am ashamed that the Minister can come in here and ignore all these valid points. This cry for help from the Ombudsman has fallen on deaf ears. What is clearly pointed out is that the Ombudsman was there as the last port of call for those who had exhausted all other areas, but for the Ombudsman there is no Ombudsman. He has no one to go to. The Minister has succeeded in diminishing his effectiveness. He now ceases to be effective.

We are talking about the efficiency of State services and the need for the efficiency of State services. We all agree with that, so it is waste of time mentioning it again. Let us say for the record that we all feel State services and State administration should be highly efficient and effective. We all agree that there should be better organised administration. We all agree about the quality of the staff. One of the things that has sickened me, as a public representative representing a public service union and as a member of the public services committee of the Irish Congress of Trade Unions, is listening to Minister after Minister for the past number of months praising the quality of the public servants in their Departments. It is always said, despite the fact that I have never heard any criticism of the same public servants by the speakers in the actual debate.

Nobody here has criticised the public servants in the Ombudsman's office or in any other office. There have been individuals who have certainly created problems but the Minister, by saying that he has no problem and is very definite about the quality of the public service, implies that the rest of us are saying there is a lack of quality. There is not. That is not the problem. People can only work so many hours a day. They can only get through a certain amount of work. We know the amount of work the Ombudsman will get through this year. He might be able to get through the backlog from last year, but no new work. If the Minister can say to us that that is good administration and good organisation of finances, he must have a very different interpretation of that from the rest of us.

I would say — and I defy the Minister to correct me — that ruling out maladministration makes the system work more efficiently, that pointing up and indicating problems of administration lead to more efficiency. That is the main advantage of the Ombudsman. He can be used to smooth out problems in the system, to make it work more effectively and efficiently. For that a reason a cutback there takes from the efficiency of other Departments where there might be problems. It certainly seems that, when he is now snowed under and cannot carry on, we will all suffer at the end of the day. That must be seen as part of it.

How do you reckon the cost of somebody seeking to redress a grievance? How can one say doing that is akin to giving a blank cheque to the Ombudsman's office? Did anyone want a blank cheque in the Ombudsman's office? I thought what people wanted — and certainly what I wanted — is that the Ombudsman could address the problems that came across his desk, and no more. I do not think he should have a blank cheque, anymore than anybody else. I agree that nobody needs a blank cheque. There should be checks and balances in every Department and every office of State. What we are saying here is that he should have just enough to do the job and no more. He is not able to do the job. Therefore, he requires more. That is logic that will not go away. It is there. It is simple and it is there for people to deal with.

I also think that people need to have confidence in the State's administration. One of the ways people will have confidence in the State's administration is by knowing that at least there is somewhere to which they can bring their problems and that when all other avenues fail there is at least some other place they can go. Everybody would agree with that. In the Minister's speech earlier he certainly seemed to indicate that. I recall when the Ombudsman's office was set up there was all-party agreement that it was a good idea. There was total support for it at all levels, except from Senator Cassidy. We need to know what has changed in the meantime. All I can say is that something in his work and his reports was an embarrassment to some part of the Government. When I look at it that way, I get very worried.

The name "Ombudsman" itself, despite the fact that it is sexist, indicates a person. It indicates that there is a person to whom somebody can go in order to deal with the problems created by the faceless ones, the age of technology, or the age of information technology. Somebody can go to a person rather than deal with a building, which is what a Department is. He is really the antidote to big brother, the antidote to 1984 and the antidote to the problems created by the access to modern information and the technologically-minded society in which we now live. Therefore, people feel: "I cannot sort out my problems in a Department; I canot get my problems sorted out by working through the structures there; I feel I am not being properly looked after; this is someplace I can go with my problem". That is how the office was seen. That is why it was welcomed. It is the small person against the system. If it is the small person against the system, surely on the checks and balances we should let some of our resources go in the direction of the individual taking on the machine of State.

Mr. Doyle

The Government are very small-minded.

Mr. J. O'Toole

There is another area that worries me. I believe more than anything else that the greatest source of power is information. Information is power. We had this in the debate on the National Social Service Board. There was a very clear indication that there were some public representatives who were a bit unhappy at the volume of work being dealt with by the local offices of people like the NSSB. In other words, people felt they would prefer to see them go to the TD's clinic and get the "glad hand", and that the "gravy train" flow of information should come through the elected public representative rather than through a State body. There is a bit more of this here, as well.

There is an indication that perhaps peole who get their public representatives to do the job for them, rather than the Ombudsman, are welcomed by public representatives because, from a Government point of view, that keeps the Government protected. If it happens to be one of their party there is no way it will cause an embarrassment to them at the end of the day. On the other hand, if a good result comes it reflects on the party.

The Ombudsman's office really is a symbol of hope. It is a haven of hope when the system fails. It is a protection against victimisation. At the end of the day, it also is a place where the State can root out maladministration, where the State can learn to have confidence in itself, and where the State can be happy that the interests of the ordinary citizen will be protected.

I want to put this on the record because it was indicated earlier by Senator Cassidy that there was not unanimous agreement to the setting up of the office. The establishment of the office of Ombudsman and the extension of its remit was a unanimous decision of the Oireachtas. There was no objection to the setting up of the office despite what people say, and it cannot fulfil the functions assigned to it by the Oireachtas without the restoration of the staff to the level obtaining at the beginning of 1987.

We are also saying that we agree with what needs to be done. We agree with the way it was done until now, according to the Minister, and we know from the Ombudsman that he cannot do his work. This year he cannot take on any new problems. He will barely be able to sort out the backlog that is there from last year. He has lost four staff already. He is on the point of losing more and he cannot be an efficient arm of the State.

How can the Minister say he wants efficiency and effectiveness in Government Departments when he is actually choking the one we are discussing now. It is hamstrung; it will not be able to develop; it will not be able to do its jobs; and, in effect, it will not be able to serve the people in the way both Houses of the Oireachtas directed and said that it should. That is disgraceful and it is walking away from and deserting the problems of the people. It is an abnegation of the responsibility to see that the Administration carry out their functions, and it brings us to a position when the people have less confidence in the Administration. This has nothing to do with the Government — the Adminstration stays when Governments change.

If that is the case we all have a vested interest in keeping that middle ground untainted by the political interest of parties or, indeed, individual politicians. If that is what we want the office of the Ombudsman must surely be above suspicion. It must be above being tainted and it must be allowed to do and to carry on the work that it was set up to do. The Ombudsman has told us that he cannot do his job. We have asked the Minister to let him do his job and the Minister has said he will not give him the money to do his job. The logic of that is that the Minister does not want him to do his job. He is not allowing him to do his job. He is not now being allowed to do the job for which there is a mandate from the Oireachtas and this is the Government's decision.

Mr. Fallon

I will be very brief. Many Members have said they know very well the person who is now the Ombudsman, that as a political journalist he was an efficient, professional and impartial individual, and he brought those same characteristics to his role as Ombudsman. While we are talking about savings, and we are in an era of cuts, which is regrettable, the fact remains that when this Government took office — I have said this and heard it many times before — the national debt had doubled to £25 billion. The need for cuts and the era of cuts came about very fast and unfortunately all areas of Government had to be cut back — education, health, local government and so on. So, too, in relation to the office of the Ombudsman. His role, his office and his section within the Department also had to be cut as, indeed, had every aspect of Government life today. That is a fact of life whether we like it or not.

In so far as the Ombudsman is concerned, his work will certainly be reduced. It is a well known fact that within An Bord Telecom, the new £20 million billing system will bring about a reduction in work which, as a result, will reduce the work of the Ombudsman. I think that 25 per cent of the Ombudsman's work was in relation to An Bord Telecom. Therefore, there will be a clear saving for him in that area.

It is a fact, whether we like it or not, that within county councils we have local ombudsmen, in the form of county councillors, doing worth while community work. In relation to the An Post billing system, approximately three years ago as a result of questions in the Dáil, as a result of a campaign he personally started, Deputy Hugh Byrne, did more to improve the billing system of the P & T than any ombudsman could do. I believe that although there is a role for the Ombudsman TDs and county councillors in their own way are ombudsmen doing very practical work, the kind of work which can bring about results in the same way as the Ombudsman is doing in many other areas.

In conclusion, I agree with the Minister's interpretation. We are in an era of cuts. That is regrettable, but it is a fact of life. That being so, every area of Government must be cut.

Mr. Kennedy

In a special report to the Dáil and Seanad, pursuant to the provisions of section 6(7) of the Ombudsman's Act, 1980, dated 5 November 1987, the Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills, states:

It is necessary under the provisions of the Ombudsman's Act to report that the Office of the Ombudsman is unable, due to staff cutbacks, to fulfil the functions assigned to it by the Oireachtas. Reductions in the financial allocation to the office have already resulted in the loss of four investigators; a further four will be forced to leave in the near future, reducing the investigation staff from 16 at the start of 1987 to eight by the end of 1987.

It is in that context and against the background of this special report that I support this motion which states:

That Seanad Éireann notes with disquiet the recent special report of the Ombudsman made to both Houses of the Oireachtas on November 6th, 1987 and deplores the savage staff cutbacks imposed on that office at no overall saving to the Exchequer; and rejects any attempt to remove the affairs of Telecom Éireann from the remit of the Ombudsman and calls for the restoration of proper funding to enable the Ombudsman to provide justice and fairness to ordinary citizens.

In its short number of years in operation the office of the Ombudsman has proved a resounding success and has made a major impact on behalf of our citizens in dealing with bureaucracy. The operations of the office touch the daily lives of our citizens and offer them a central focus in seeking redress against Government Departments, local authorities, health boards and semi-State agencies.

The office of the Ombudsman is not, indeed, a costly operation. It cost £576,000 to run the office in 1987 and it should be clear from this figure that we are not going to achieve national recovery by trying to save money on a Vote of that size. Yet, for 1988 this Government have reduced by 16 per cent, from £576,000 to £482,000, the money to provide the salaries for the investigators in the office of the Ombudsman, thereby forcing the Ombudsman to shed more than half of his investigators in a short few months. The modest travel budget is to be reduced by £10,000, from £36,000 in 1987 to £26,000 in 1988. A sum of £10,000 which was allocated in 1987 to advertise and publicise the availability of the services of the Ombudsman yas been cut by £7,000 to a mere £3,000.

In 1987 the Ombudsman spent £9,000 on legal advice in very difficult cases in order to be sure of his ground and to prove that he had the legal authority to continue his battle with maladministration. Now in 1988 the Government have cut his budget for his legal advice from £9,000 to a mere £2,000 and all of this in the name of national recovery. It was of course as far back as 1644 when the poet and sometime parliamentarian, John Milton, wrote:

When complaints are freely heard and speedily reformed; Then is the utmost bond of civil liberty attained that wise men look for.

It is in that context that I would like to pay tribute and to join with the other Senators in paying tribute to Michael Mills, our first Ombudsman, and his staff for the dedication and commitment which they have shown in dealing with complaints of maladministration which he has received from the public at large, thereby supplementing the citizen's classical constitutional remedy whereby he approaches his local TD requesting that a parliamentary question should be tabled to the appropriate Minister.

The concept of the Ombudsman has come increasingly to be regarded as a potentially useful instrument, indeed, I believe a powerful instrument, in helping the citizen to secure fair treatment from the modern State. There are now Ombudsmen in most countries, notably New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. While the role of the Ombudsman in each country differs slightly depending on the traditions, history and cultue of each country, they all share a common objective and feature, ultimately to serve the public, to hear complaints in respect of the operation of the public service and, where appropriate, to take such steps as are available to them to remedy the consequences of a particular act or omission in the public service.

We owe a lot, of course, in this country to the Scandinavian countries. In Sweden, for example, the institution was and is in existence for over one and a half centuries. We indeed owe a tremendous amount to the pioneering spirit of a great Danish parliamentary commissioner, Professor Stephen Hurwitz.

In Ireland, as has been said by other Senators, on all-party commision was established in 1976 to consider the desirability of an Ombudsman institution and their central and unanimous recommendation was the establishment of a new and innovative institution to be called the office of the Ombudsman. In recent years our citizens have gained access to a wide range of Government services and support systems but they also have become increasingly vulnerable to the decisions of public servants. There is, of course, really no certain way to ensure that wrong or unfair decisions are never taken by public officials. What can be done, however, is to provide machinery whereby the individual who feels aggrieved by such actions or activities can bring the matter to light and have it speedily rectified and resolved. It is now clear, however, that the office of Ombudsman has become part of the problem of the delay which it was set up to rectify and resolve.

By the end of 1987 the backlog rose to some 2,500 complaints. This will require the entire time of the remaining eight investigators this year, 1988, to examine, without any reference whatever to the thousands of new complaints that will arise. The Oireachtas decided in April 1985 to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to local authorities, health boards, Telecom Éireann and An Post. It was agreed at that time that additional staff would be appointed to deal with the increase in complaints arising from this extended remit. The staff of the office was increased to 16 investigators and regional visits were undertaken on a regular basis to enable people to present their complaints at local and regional levels. The visits have been abandoned for the past number of months because of the reduction in staff and the Ombudsman does not see any possibility of their resumption in the present situation. Thus, while the investigation staff have been reduced by a half the number of complaints shows no sign of falling off. The vital role of the Ombudsman in redressing grievances has been pinpointed by Mr. Michael Mills himself in his special report where he states:

From the time of the extension of the Ombudsman's remit in April 1985 to Telecom Éireann complaints about telephone accounts have constituted by far the largest single area of examination. In 1987 the work of the Office in this area has been extended from an examination of individual complaints to a formal examination of the procedures used by Telecom Éireann in a number of specific areas, including the detection and prevention of faults in the metering system. Some of the investigations are now nearing completion but because of the reduction in staff the investigation in relation to the detection of faults has not made as much progress as was hoped for earlier in 1987.

The Ombudsman continues in this special report:

I regret the need to make this special report to the Oireachtas less than four years after the Office of Ombudsman was set up with the full support of all parties in the Dáil and Seanad. It has been recognised by the public as one of the most enlightened institutions set up in the history of the State. For the first time, citizens with no other avenue of redress can seek an impartial examination of their complaints. Many people who would not otherwise have got justice have had their complaints resolved by the Office of the Ombudsman because of the authority given to the Ombudsman by the Dáil and Seanad.

The Ombudsman concludes his report as follows:

The establishment of the Office of Ombudsman and the extension of its remit was a unanimous decision of the Oireachtas. It cannot fulfil the functions assigned to it by the Oireachtas without the restoration of the staff to the level that existed at the beginning of 1987.

It is for that reason that I strongly support the motion before us this evening. This motion should be unanimously supported by the House. However, I cannot let the occasion pass without paying Senatorial courtesy to the Minister of State here this evening, but I would be less than honest if I did not say that I was disappointed with, indeed I deplore, the unbelievable response of the Minister of State, speaking on behalf of the Government, to this motion. I believe that it was one of the weakest responses that has ever been made in this House. When certain points were made, so weak was the argument the Minister proceeded to shout louder.

Question put.

The Seanad divided: Tá, 18; Níl, 26.

Tá

• Bulbulia, Katharine.
• Connor, John.
• Cregan, Denis.
• Daly, Jack.
• Doyle, Joe.
• Fennell, Nuala.
• Ferris, Michael.
• Hogan, Philip.
• Kelleher, Peter.
• Kennedy, Patrick.
• McCormack, Padraic.
• McMahon, Larry.
• Manning, Maurice.
• O'Shea, Brian.
• O'Toole, Joe.
• Reynolds, Gerry.
• Ross, Shane P.N.
• Ryan, Brendan.

Níl

• Bohan, Edward Joseph.
• Cassidy, Donie.
• Cullimore, Seamus.
• Doherty, Michael.
• Fallon, Seán.
• Farrell, Willie.
• Fitzgerald, Tom.
• Fitzsimons, Jack.
• Haughey, Seán F.
• Hillery, Brian.
• Hussey, Thomas.
• Kiely, Dan.
• Kiely, Rory.
• Lanigan, Mick.
• Lydon, Donal.
• McEllistrim, Tom.
• McGowan, Patrick.
• McKenna, Tony.
• Mullooly, Brian.
• Mulroy, Jimmy.
• O'Callaghan, Vivian.
• O'Connell, John.
• Ó Conchubhair, Nioclás.
• O'Toole, Martin J.
• Ryan, William.
• Wallace, Mary.

Tellers: Tá, Senators Daly and Cregan; Níl, Senators W. Ryan and S. Haughey.

Question declared lost.

Mr. Lanigan

It is proposed to sit again at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

The Seanad adjourned at 8.30 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Thursday, 18 February 1988.