I move:
That Seanad Éireann recommends Mr. Michael Mills for appointment by the President to be the Ombudsman.
Appointment of Ombudsman: Motion.
In view of the season that is in it, I will be lenient with the Leader of the House on this matter. I have been cross a few moments ago.
The Senator has been wonderful all day.
Flattery will not get the Senator any further.
The motion is straightforward.
It is straightforward because the Opposition raised the point that the Government by sleight-of-hand were trying to ensure that both Houses had risen for the Christmas recess before it would be noticed that Michael Mills in the position of the Ombudsman had not been ratified following his six years in office in accordance with section 2 of the Act establishing that office. May I take it that we will be addressing Item No. 7 on the Order Paper? Long before Item No. 3 appeared Senator Manning and I asked our motion to be taken. It reads:
That Seanad Éireann, pursuant to the provisions of section 2(2) and (4) of the Ombudsman Act, 1980, recommends to the President the reappointment of Mr. Michael Mills to the office of Ombudsman.
Before the matter was debated in Dáil Éireann that motion was on the Seanad Order Paper. I shall be referring to it in the course of my contribution.
Item No. 3 is the only matter before the House.
I am making the point, for the record, that before Item No. 3 appeared on the Order Paper Senator Manning and I requested in our motion the reappointment of Mr. Mills. That was before the matter was taken in the Dáil. Thankfully we are discussing it today. The point I am trying to make is that the Taoiseach's efforts to get rid of Michael Mills were in vain, thank God. There was all party agreement——
We are dealing with a specific motion which has nothing to do with Item No. 7.
I have pointed out that Item No. 3 is the only item formally before the House.
I accept your ruling but I have made my point. The rest of what I have said is on the record.
It was agreed in the early eighties by all parties that there was a necessity for an Ombudsman notwithstanding the fact that after a change of Government a Labour Party Minister for Labour, if I am correct, tried to thwart this even though there had been agreement prior to the election and the money was provided in the Estimates of that year. Therefore there was a two year delay in appointing the man once the matter had been dealt with. There was all party agreement on the appointment of the individual concerned. I suppose it is a bit much to claim precedent when it has only happened once before but given the importance and independence of the office we as legislators hoped that that system would operate in all future appointments.
The Ombudsman's resounding success in investigating individual grievances arising from public administration is testified by the huge number of cases he has successfully dealt with. He has made a major impact on behalf of citizens generally, dealing with bureaucracy, helping them to redress grievances and so on. The volume of complaints has been well documented in reports of the Ombudsman. Indeed, matters got so bad because of cutbacks in the Estimate that last year he had to issue an individual report which caused major grievance for the Taoiseach and the Government. This presumably, plus the chequered personal relationship between the two gentlemen, may be the reasons behind the Government trying to slip by beyond Christmas without reappointing Michael Mills.
It gives me great pleasure, knowing the importance of his office and how important his commitment to his office is to the ordinary citizen to support the motion this afternoon.
On the Order of Business, it was agreed that each side would have 15 minutes. With your permission, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, I would like to split my time with my colleagues, Senator Cosgrave and Senator Jackman. I am only taking five minutes.
I support the motion which recommends the reappointment of Michael Mills as Ombudsman. Unfortunately, it seems that some personality problem has arisen in connection with this appointment. Prior to this appointment being made six years ago there were all party discussions and soundings between the Leaders of the political parties in the interest of ensuring that the person to be appointed would have the confidence of the political parties and would be a person fairly well known to the public. It is a position to which one could not appoint someone with no experience of either the political system or the administration of public affairs.
The Ombudsman acts as a sort of devil's advocate, as a public prosecutor and defender of the public's rights. We have seen the success of the Ombudsman's office during the past few years and it is important that this office continues to function successfully. It was disturbing to read some time ago that the Ombudsman had to go cap in hand to look for extra funds to employ an extra few people. If the many queries the office has received are to be investigated expeditiously and thoroughly the Ombudsman needs staff at his disposal. It is important that we ensure that his office, above all others, has adequate staff to investigate complaints.
There are two things we could say about the Office of the Ombudsman. The first is that in investigating individual complaints that a person's rights have been infringed the office perhaps is that person's final court. If the rights of the Ombudsman are being interfered with it is important that they be restored. Second, I hope the reports published by the Ombudsman will encourage the Government and the Department to change systems by way of changes in legislation to ensure that as far as possible delays are not repeated.
Deputies are criticised for dealing with queries but if a proper system was in place and if people felt they were not just a number when dealing with a Department we would not have them down at our clinics. To a certain extent, each of us has been an unpaid ombudsman. I hope also that no Department is issuing directives to officials that certain information is to be kept from the Ombudsman when he looks for files. It is important that complete files are handed over to the Ombudsman to enable him adjudicate. I do not think too many heads have rolled in Departments as a result of a person's rights being interfered with, but it is important that each person receives a full hearing and has his rights upheld. Obviously, vexatious claims are made and these have to be dealt with. It may be that a departmental official has been maligned in a certain way.
I support my colleague, Senator Avril Doyle. It is unfortunate that an individual's name has been mentioned in this debate. It is important that the Office, irrespective of who holds the position, be respected and that its full powers be restored. I hope in the coming years that the reports of the office of the Ombudsman will be reflected in changes in legislation enacted by this House and the Dáil.
I, too, welcome the recommendation that Mr. Michael Mills be reappointed by the President as Ombudsman. It is both fortunate and unfortunate that the Government had to be forced to table a special resolution to defuse what would have been a controversial issue for a second time in the life of this individual. I am happy that his position, as public watchdog, is being restored and I hope, like everyone else, that the resources necessary to enable him carry out that onerous job will be given to him. He was reappointed under duress but that should not take from the ability or independence of the man. He has worked like a Trojan.
In relation to the devolution of powers, it amazes me that Departments value and treasure their independence so much that any independent voice raised on the inefficiencies of Departments can be resisted so vehemently. Surely, this relieves Ministers of such onerous tasks as dealing with complaints about the inefficiency of the system. Unfortunately, Michael Mills finds himself under pressure again for the second time in 18 months. When he was first appointed for a term of six years there was total agreement between all the parties. I would like to stress the importance of there being a unanimous voice from these Houses in regard to this appointment. The ordinary citizen, in an age of intense consumer pushing, if he is to have his rights protected, needs someone who is independent. I welcome very much the reappointment of Mr. Mills. I, and the Fine Gael Party, will be watching with interest to see if he will be given the necessary resources and funding to enable him do a good job on behalf of those who do not have the resources to fight their own case. In fairness to Mr. Mills he did not engage in any lobbying for the position. I consider that it was a well-thought-out oversight not to reappoint him without pressure from the Dáil.
Oversight?
A well-thought-out oversight.
In supporting the motion I would point out that public representatives in their own way were ombudsmen particularly in the area of local Government. They highlighted many injustices and made representations on behalf of constituents in relation to planning, housing, telephone accounts and other areas. That is part and parcel of the life of the public representative. In many cases people feel that injustices are occuring and that bureaucracy has run riot. Apart from the public representatives there are two other ways of having problems resolved. One is through the Ombudsman and the other through the civil courts. But for the Ombudsman, court lists would be further clogged with all sorts of actions.
Mr. Michael Mills, the present occupant of the post of Ombudsman has given very fine service. He is independent and has spoken out regularly in defence of his office when circumstances demanded it. When it was suggested that the Ombudsman should be a solicitor or a barrister, that did not appeal to me and Deputy FitzGerald in picking a person like Mr. Mills picked a practical man with experience and integrity. Mr. Mills was a good choice who has proved himself in the interim.
People come to me at local authority level about problems. People bring their problems to the county manager, sometimes without success, and it is good that people have another recourse in the person of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is seen as a higher independent authority than the county manager or the public representative. It is important that people feel there is an independent watch dog and Mr. Mills has been a fair and independent watch dog who has given a competent performance during his term of office. I support the motion.
Earlier this morning one of my colleagues expressed the view that this debate would not take long because it was yesterday's news. So far as I am concerned it is very much today's news and the implications carry far beyond today, because the circumstances surrounding this proposed reappointment are, to say the least, disturbing.
Ideally, there should not be any controversy about the Office of the Ombudsman, because any controversy is potentially damaging. I know this from limited experience at university level where we have the local counterpart of an ombudsman who finds that his best work is done if he shuns the glare of publicity. The same is true at national level. Any suggestion or implication that the person is persona non grata with the Government or vice versa could affect his credibility in dealing with his business. Fortunately, the present Ombudsman is held in such universal high regard that he and his Office will weather this storm and will remain unruffled. He would wish that the controversy should now cease and that he should get on with his second term, but he would also be the first to appreciate that we have to discuss what is at issue here.
I spoke about disturbing circumstances. Obviously we do not know the full story but the full story at worst reveals conspiracy and skulduggery and even at best it reveals incompetence and discourtesy. It is quite extraordinary that in the lead-up to last week's controversy as Mr. Michael Mills was coming to the close of his six year term, no word at all was conveyed to him about what would happen, contrary to a report in one of last Sunday's newspapers. Mr. Mills was not approached by anybody as to his future. To leave a man in that kind of suspense indicates discourtesy and incompetence. He was left to watch in the dark, as it were, while the storm raged over his head.
What I found particularly unconvincing — this was something that was put forward as one of the reasons for an alleged difficulty — was the matter of an age stipulation in the Act. I read the Act quite carefully, and even a child could understand it, which is a change, because the Act says at section 2 (7) simply that a person shall not be more than 61 years on first appointment and section 2 (3) says that a person shall vacate the office on attaining the age of 67. There is no difficulty about that. There are numerous such provisions in various parts of the public and private sector. The point is that if a man reaches pensionable age before his term expires, he leaves. To suggest that there was some difficulty here was puerile nonsense.
The whole story has a moral or two. We might consider whether the Act should not be amended to take it out of the realm of party controversy, to prevent it being a party football, as it was in danger of becoming this week. As Senator Doyle has pointed out, the initiative for appointment and reappointment lies with the Oireachtas, with Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, and it is perfectly right that it is the Oireachtas rather than the Executive per se that should be given the authority under this Act. Indeed, Senators Doyle and Manning were perfectly right, and it was perfectly appropriate that they should have put down a motion conveying the same sense as the one we are now debating, because it is a prerogative of any Senator or Deputy to propose or recommend the appointment or reappointment of the Ombudsman. It is not necessary that the initiative should come from the Government yet, in practice, it has to be the Government.
One of the most important things that happened this week is that a warning bell was sounded about the dangers of a single party Government ruling both Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann, a situation which we have not had for some time now and, with the help of God, we will not have again. The whole episode points up the importance that there should be another party in Government with Fianna Fáil. Fianna Fáil may well be, as they have often claimed, the natural governing party of this country, but they cannot be trusted on their own. Whatever my views about the Progressive Democrats in the Seanad, I am certainly glad that this week and last week they are sitting at the Cabinet table.
I wholeheartedly assent to the motion recommending the reappointment of Mr. Mills. He is a patently good and public-spirited servant of the people. Only somebody of his wisdom, prudence and ability could have succeeded so magnificently in his first term, despite the difficulties to which my colleagues refer. He has used his considerable powers very discreetly in dealing with Departments of Government. One can well realise that this novel Office was a whole minefield for the conventional atmosphere of departmental rule, as it were, and he had to walk very carefully indeed. He has won respect for this Office by so behaving.
It is a tribute to him, for example, that during those six years he has never been compelled to invoke the special report clause which occurs in section 6 (5) of the Bill. What is at issue here is that in making his report to the Oireachtas, the Ombudsman must mention if there are special difficulties, if people have been placing obstacles in his path, if in trying to see that justice is done he is met with obstruction in Government Departments. It is a tribute to him that this has not happened and that he has never had to make a special report. I know he is very happy in that regard.
Now that he has gone into smoother waters and has overcome these initial difficulties, his second term should be serene as well as successful. He is gradually overcoming the law's delay and the problem of the cutbacks and substantial inroads are being made on the back work. His reappointment will be good news for the plain people of Ireland whose champion the Act sets him out to be. He has effectively refuted the depressing image, which is all too common in this country, of justice as something governed by strokes and pull and power. He has vindicated the Office of Ombudsman. If I may indulge in the vanity of quoting what I said myself when Second Stage of the Bill setting up the Office was being debated in this House, I then hoped, and now I am happy, that Mr. Mills has brought to the Office what I called a new dimension of popular rights, a new frontier of democracy.
I rise to say how relieved I am that the debacle of the controversy surrounding the reappointment of Mr. Mills appears now to have been resolved. In any community the functions of a man such as Mr. Mills who works on behalf of the community are extremely important. Here in this country where we have an extremely centralised system of Government, where from the cradle to the grave one cannot escape the State in its many manifestations, and an enormous amount of bureaucracy and red tape, nowadays coupled with modern technology of one kind or another which I must admit in many instances I find baffling, many people are quite bewildered simply when seeking their rights. Quite clearly, the Ombudsman has given the average citizen some redress against the machinery of State. When injustice is done or people are denied their rights we know there is always the possibility to go to law, but I am afraid most of us know how expensive that is and how it is quite beyond the pocket of the ordinary man in the street. Mr. Mills in his role as Ombudsman has given a great deal of confidence to the ordinary people, as other speakers have said here. I think he has been an outstandingly successful Ombudsman in his extraordinary honesty, his ability and his straightforward approach to problems. My only regret is there is a backlog of complaints in his Department. I urge today that we look at how he can be given extra resources and extra staff to accomplish his important task.
Any politician, any political party, any Government who in any way seek to undermine the role of the Ombudsman are suspect. Politicians complain regularly of being overloaded with work, made into messenger boys, having to hold clinics, trying to get people's rights for them and things sorted out. The Ombudsman, if his role was extended, could even assist in those matters because he has considerable clout on behalf of the plain people of Ireland. Not alone do I support this motion, I suggest that in every way possible his role should not only be endorsed but enlarged.
I would like to share my time with my colleague Senator Joe Costello.
I welcome the reappointment of Michael Mills as Ombudsman. In his term of office over the past six years he has been an outstanding public servant. He has been exceptionally fair-minded. Michael Mills did not become fair-minded when he took up the job of Ombudsman. He was fair-minded in his days as political correspondent in The Irish Press when he gave as good, assured and sound political advice as anybody I have seen to commentate on political matters.
There is, of course, a great necessity for an Ombudsman in this country. Public representatives of one type or another are constantly dealing with repressentations from constitutents in relation to their difficulties in getting around the bureaucracy. It is very important that there be some independent third party to whom the public can appeal so these problems will be resolved. It might also be of some assistance in diminishing what some people call this whole business of clientelism which has many negative political effects.
Michael Mills did outstanding work in one area in particular, that was problems relating to telephone accounts and how they might be judged by some third party. On that issue he has made a major contribution in trying to level out and obtain some degree of fairness for a public who, rightly or wrongly, felt they had no comeback once the Post Office, BTE or whoever they were made their judgment. He provided a very useful and valuable service, particularly in that area.
The treatment meted out to Michael Mills in the run-up to his reappointment was simply unacceptable either because it was incompetent or negligent or because there were more disturbing reasons behind it. Basic courtesy should have been extended to him so that he would have been assured somewhat sooner that he would be reappointed. One begins to be disturbed also by what went on in the context of what Michael Mills had to experience in recent times where funding for his Office was inadequate to the point that he was obliged to complain in public. It is not a characteristic of Michael Mills to start into that type of behaviour unless there were very grave and depressing reasons to do so.
It is very important that Michael Mills is an independent person. He has been an independent person, and it is inevitable if you are independent that you are going to annoy people from time to time. It is right and proper that perhaps he walked on some people's corns over the past six years. If he did not do that then he would not be doing his job because the whole nature of his business is, as it were, to referee matters relating to public administration and so on.
Again, I am delighted to see he is reappointed. The citizens of this country owe him a debt to the extent that he has laid down the precedent and set up a very valuable and worthwhile Office of Ombudsman.
I support strongly the motion. I agree entirely with Senator John A. Murphy that this is not yesterday's news. This is a very important matter. It is extremely important that this House puts on the record its concern for the Office of Ombudsman and that proper procedures be adopted in relation to the appointment.
We must consider the Office itself, the importance of the Office and the role of Ombudsman — a watchdog for establishing and defending the rights of citizens. He is an intermediary in the bureaucracy who protects, defends and ensures that the rights of the citizen are to the foremost. We have only lately come to have an Ombudsman in this country. We could have used this to great advantage years and years ago. Now that the Office of Ombudsman has been established, and the first term has been completed, it is extremely important that the precedents that have been established and the work that has been done will be built on and that the office of the Ombudsman is above reproach. I believe that the holder of that office over the past six years is a man above reproach. He was an excellent journalist during his time in The Irish Press and his qualities of hard work and concern for the citizen are expressed in his latest office.
The circumstances in which he was reappointed leave a lot to be desired. There was absolute silence up to the very last week, indeed up to the very last day, you might say the very last moment before the appointment was made. Last week the Labour Party raised the matter in the Dáil as to what was happening, and why there was no indication from the Government on their intention to reappoint Mr. Mills to the office. For the following three days there was silence from the Government, and the Taoiseach still refused to make any statement in relation to the matter.
There are two possible explanations; either a total discourtesy and incompetence on the part of the Taoiseach, or vindictiveness. It is difficult to accept it was incompetence. As has been mentioned by Senator Doyle, it has been around for a long time and has been on the Seanad Order Paper for a considerable period of time. It was brought to the attention of the Taoiseach so, therefore, I think it can only be due to vindictiveness because Mr. Mills in fulfilling his role has criticised in public the lack of resources and staffing to carry out his duties fully on behalf of the public. I certainly hope that is not what happened, but it seems to be the only possible explanation. With the backlog of complaints that the Ombudsman had and his inability to deal with them comprehensively and effectively as his Office entitled him and bound him to do, he was acting quite properly in defending the rights of the citizens. The whole messy manner in which he was reappointed should not have occurred and does not assist the Office of the Ombudsman being perceived as an independent body.
The reasons that were given subsequently, namely, that his age raised problems is absolutely ludicrous. That is the most nonsensical excuse that could possibly have been made. The Act, as Senator Murphy pointed out, does not pose any obstacles to his reappointment and this simply was a lame excuse used to cloud the issue with regard to the manner in which the appointment had taken place — to try to put a public face on the whole business.
Mr. Mills has been a champion of the ordinary person in the exercise of his Office. He has added an extra dimension to democracy. His work is particularly valuable in counteracting the clientelism and bureaucracy in which Departments operate. A very worthy man holds this worthwhile Office and I have no hesitation in supporting this motion fully.
I thank the various Members who have contributed to the debate. It was not anticipated that we would have had a long debate on what is a straightforward motion on the reappointment of Mr. Michael Mills to the position of Ombudsman. As Members are aware, this was raised a number of times in the Dáil on a number of different days and the Minister dealt with the matter at that point.
I am glad there is unanimous support for the motion to reappoint Mr. Michael Mills to the position of Ombudsman. The contributions clearly indicate that Members appreciate the importance of the role of Ombudsman in our democracy. It goes without saying that people who feel they have had some difficulty with a Department of State or local authority have a system of redress via the Ombudsman Office and this must be consoling to them.
I regret that some Members have suggested that there was vindictiveness and that the matter has been personalised or politicised in any way. It is a great pity that that should happen. I should like to let Members know the figure of the provision that has been made for meeting the staff costs. In 1988 the figure was £480,000 and in the recently published Book of Estimates for 1990 the provision for staff costs is £655,000. On the basis of those figures I cannot imagine there was any intention at any time not to continue with the Office of Ombudsman.
Let me again thank the Members for their contributions and I offer my voice in support of the motion.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Is the motion agreed?
Before we agree to the motion I would like to register my disgust at the Government's treatment of this House compared with Dáil Éireann during this debate. I consider it an insult to the Office of Ombudsman and to the man that no Government Minister was prepared to move this motion. It was also undignified that the Leader of the House had to rush out of breath into this House — congratulations to him — half-way through the debate and thrust the response into the Minister's hands so that he could reply.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
I must inform the Senator that she is out of order.
He was ambushed here after the last issue to keep the bare look off the House. I thank the Minister for his presence but the whole episode shows the disrepute in which this House is held. It is simply shameful treatment of this House compared with Dáil Éireann.
Question put and agreed to.