Annual Report of Ombudsman: Statements.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

I thank the Seanad for providing time for statements on the thirteenth Annual Report of the Ombudsman, 1996. The consideration of the Ombudsman's report by this House is most important. As Members are well aware, the contribution of Seanad Éireann to the success of the office of Ombudsman has, over the years, been crucial. It is important that the role of the Seanad is appreciated and maintained.

More than 20 years ago the question of whether this country should follow the Scandinavian and New Zealand example by establishing an office of Ombudsman was a major issue. At about that time, two esteemed former Members of this House — the then Leas-Cathaoirleach, Evelyn Owens and Independent Senator Gus Martin — were selected to serve on the informal committee which reported to Government on the issue. Their contribution was immense.

The lifelong commitment of Senator Owens to the advance of women's causes was universally recognised. It was in this context that she made a particular contribution to the process of establishing the office by endorsing the universally understood description "Ombudsman" for the new office, rather than some specially coined term less open to suggestions of gender bias. When that institution came into being, this House was to the forefront in making time available to discuss the annual reports which the two ombudsmen produced.

Given its composition and freedom from much of the pressures which affect us in the other House, this House has displayed a continuing and lively interest in the subject of public service reform over the past two decades. It is fitting, therefore, that it should turn its attention to the thirteenth Annual Report of the Ombudsman, 1996, which was published last June, at a time when the attentions of Members or aspiring Members of the House were likely to have been focused on other matters.

The position of the Ombudsman is unique. The holder of the office is unusual in being appointed not by the Government or a Minister but by the President on the nomination of the Houses of the Oireachtas. In this respect he resembles the Comptroller and Auditor General but unlike him, his office is not embedded in the Constitution.

Most of us see the Ombudsman as an investigator — a righter of wrongs. Indeed, his reports are concerned with the specifics of individual complaints against what may loosely be called "officialdom". This is the essence of his functions as provided for under statute. Those who resort to the Office of the Ombudsman are most immediately concerned with the details of their individual case.

In this House and in Dáil Éireann, we are obliged to address matters of national interest and issues which concern citizens generally. However, it is my conviction that we cannot hope to make the right decisions on behalf of the people and create and maintain proper democratic institutions of State if we lose sight of the concerns of ordinary individuals in their everyday lives. In this regard, the annual reports of the Ombudsman provide an invaluable service to the Government, Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas, officials charged with responsibility for carrying out public services at all levels and, of course, to the public as users of public services and as taxpayers. The details of the cases published by the Ombudsman have, over the years, provided the "forensic evidence" of how well institutions of public administration are performing where it matters most: serving the public.

Under the present Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, a number of innovative developments have taken place in the presentation of the annual report. It is published in both English and Irish; it is available to the public on the Internet and on diskette; last year the report set out general principles of good administration, and, this year, a checklist of standards of best practice which public bodies should adopt so as to ensure high quality public administration has been prepared to accompany the report.

As well as giving wider access to the report, these innovations provide a valid standard by which the reader can evaluate the performance of the public services as reported in relation to individual cases. The juxtaposition of principles of good administration, statements of best practice and reports of circumstances affecting people within one report, gives us at once a normative standard and an empirical analysis of a large segment of the public service.

Since its creation 13 years ago, the office of the Ombudsman has established itself as a key player at the centre of the Irish system of public administration. Central Government administration is, of necessity, complex; public bodies often present a bureaucratic face to the public. They have often been perceived as masters rather than servants of the citizen. This is being changed as part of the wider programme of institutional reform, legislation and organisational development under the strategic management initiative.

I am pleased to inform the House that the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, has accepted an invitation to be nominated as the first Freedom of Information Commissioner. This office was established under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997. In this new capacity, Mr. Murphy can bring his long experience as a public servant and his deep understanding of excellence in public administration to bear in ensuring the successful operation of freedom of information in Ireland. I am particularly pleased that Mr. Murphy has accepted what will be an important role as the Freedom of Information Commissioner. It widens and strengthens his remit and I do not doubt that he will bring the enthusiasm and high standard of excellence he displayed in the Office of the Ombudsman to his role as the first Freedom of Information Commissioner.

This is a time of change in the public service. This process is not solely a matter for the Executive arm of Government. The Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas collectively are the voice of the people and the advocates of the rights of the citizen. All the various dimensions of public administration are ultimately answerable, through the Oireachtas, to the people. We must ensure that our voice is heard and that the process of reforming the public service takes account of the actual conditions in the country, towns and cities. This whole process of public service change really matters only if it transforms, for the better, the entire relationship between public bodies and the public. If it were simply allowed to become a matter of concern to insiders within the system it will lose focus and fail to deliver the changes demanded. Lack of progress on key areas of reform during the 1970s and 1980s was, at least in part, attributable to this lack of focus.

Moreover, it is clear that the expectations of the public for better public services, as expressed by their representatives in the Oireachtas, are higher than ever before. Customer service is essential to successful businesses in the private sector. While the public service of its nature does not operate in the same competitive environment, we must continue to learn from the initiatives undertaken by banks, building societies and retailers in the private sector. My intention as Minister of State is to ensure that public bodies implement a more customer oriented service. Many of the elements set out in the Ombudsman's checklist of best practice are, in fact, incorporated in the policies we are putting in place.

As Senators are aware, the Public Service Management Act has been commenced by the Minister for Finance. This and other legislative changes are bringing real changes in the management of Departments and Offices across the Civil Service. The Public Service Management Act provides a legal basis for a new management structure in the Civil Service. It makes the accountability of civil servants more transparent. The new structures being put in place by means of the Act provide a framework for a new relationship between Ministers and the Civil Service. In effect, the Act provides a statutory basis for the modernisation of the administration of government.

Under the Public Service Management Act Departments are obliged to prepare and submit to their Minister a strategy statement setting out the key objectives, outputs and related high level strategies, including use of resources, of the Department. The timetable requires submission of these statements by March next year. Once Ministers have approved their strategy statements they will ensure that a copy is laid before each House of the Oireachtas within 60 days. This requirement is crucial. It is essential that elected representatives of the people are given an opportunity to address these statements individually. The process will give Dáil Éireann and this House a precise and comprehensive mechanism for evaluating whether quality and performance in the delivery of public services meets the highest standards. In this regard, the Ombudsman's checklist gives us an additional tool in assisting our deliberations in this regard.

At present, my colleague, the Minister for Finance, is preparing directions for Departments on the preparation of these statements and on the mechanisms of accountability for Secretaries General. In addition, the implementation group, set up by the Government on 28 July to drive the process of change in the Civil Service under the strategic management initiative, is developing additional guidelines to ensure that Departments are able to adapt quickly and efficiently to the requirements of the Act.

While implementing reforming legislation is an indispensable element of the process of reform of the public service, practical steps must also be taken at every level of government administration to ensure that the citizen as customer comes first. As Senators may recall, a leaflet setting out principles of quality customer service for customers and clients of the Civil Service was launched by the previous Government on 9 May last in Dublin Castle. The principles introduced by this quality customer service initiative, as it is known, address such areas as standards, information, timeliness and courtesy, complaints, redress, consultation, choice, better co-ordination and access. All Departments are committed to these principles and have undertaken to produce, by 1 November, a customer action plan setting out how these principles will be given full effect over the next two years.

As the House is aware, the strategic management initiative for the Civil Service emphasises the importance of quality customer service in the years ahead. I acknowledge the role of Senator Avril Doyle in the SMI when she was the Minister of State. Much credit is due to her for driving the process forward from its initial stages. The Government is determined to continue the implementation of the SMI. There is no choice in this regard. It must form a central part of how Government and others do business at the highest possible standard in the future. A high level working group has been established under the programme of change for the public service, "Delivering Better Government", to oversee improvements in this area. Indeed, the entire programme of change is in one way or another concerned with providing a better, more efficient and more responsive service to all customers and clients of the public service.

I wish to address a question raised directly by the Ombudsman in his report in regard to the Government's plans for his office. As the House is aware, the Government's programme — An Action Programme for the Millennium — includes the commitment that a key part of the process of institutional reform in the public service will involve "expanding the remit of the Ombudsman to include legal, medical and other areas."

Much work has already been done in this area by several Governments. The general principle of extending the remit of the Ombudsman has been a part of the programmes of virtually every party in the Oireachtas. Since assuming office, I have re-examined the earlier work done in light of the Government's specific proposals and I can report that this work is proceeding satisfactorily. The preparation of specific proposals is now well advanced in relation to extending the remit of the Ombudsman to cover a number of new areas — for example, over administrative matters in non-commercial State funded bodies which receive most of their funding from the Exchequer, including non-medical matters of voluntary hospitals.

The Minister for Finance intends to put to Government specific proposals on changes in these areas at an early date. My objective is to ensure that appropriate legislative proposals are brought to the Oireachtas without delay. I have also been informed by my colleague, the Minister for Health and Children, that consideration is being given to how proposals in relation to the medical area might best be implemented. In this regard, it is envisaged that consultations with relevant interest groups will be initiated in the near future.

I assure the House that the Government is committed to the promotion of excellence in the public service. The report of the Ombudsman makes a major contribution to setting standards and objectives to be reached as part of this ongoing process. In this regard, the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, and his staff merit the appreciation of all sides of the House. I was most pleased when the report was debated in the other House that there was a warm appreciation on all sides for Mr. Murphy's role and the manner in which he has tackled his responsibilities. The report sets new standards and the Ombudsman has rightly gone beyond his remit in setting down key benchmarks in the 1996 report which must be adhered to and achieved if we are to deliver quality services to the customer and be ready for the challenges which face us in the new millennium. I wish Mr. Kevin Murphy and his staff continued success. His new role as the first Freedom of Information Commissioner will greatly add to his remit.

Mrs. A. Doyle

I welcome the Minister and thank him for his kind remarks. By the by, I hope we need not interpret this Government's commitment to reform of the public service or to the pursuit of the strategic management initiative by the fact that a specific Minister of State with responsibility in this area, particularly for customers of the public service, has not been appointed. I know it has been embodied in other roles but the last Government gave a Minister of State, namely myself, a specific role in relation to customers of the public service such was the importance attributed by the Taoiseach and the Government generally to this area.

I note from the Minister's concluding remarks the importance he and the Government attribute to rolling out even further the SMI which, to be fair, was initiated by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Albert Reynolds, who launched it some years ago but who left office six or eight months later. Deputy John Bruton's commitment as Taoiseach was over and above the call of duty, particularly for the busiest public servant in the country. I consider public representatives public servants so when I refer to the public service I include us as elected public representatives. Unless we get into the mindset of considering ourselves public servants as distinct from those appointed as such, we will not begin to appreciate the enormity of the job which must be done.

On the jargon we use when talking about the strategic management initiative, there is a language with which those driving it from the centre have become so familiar that they forget the public does not have a clue about what they are talking. This is a great danger in the public sector change programme. Those of us who were fortunate to have been involved in the SMI use a language which is not understood or interpreted properly by those outside.

I warn the Minister to beware of civil servants bearing committees. The greatest mistake made over the past two and a half years in what was otherwise a period of great progress in relation to improving the quality of customer service in the public service and driving the SMI was that when I arrived in the Department of the Taoiseach one morning I was faced with ten new committees, some of which were working groups while others were task forces. I was presented with ten new committees, for want of another generic term, of which to sanction membership. By the time all parties in a three party Government had their share of members and the unions, employers and the public were represented, we had ten committees with three times too many people to allow them to function properly.

I do not know how one would get around that if one wants inclusive talks and to involve parties involved in public service change. We nearly drowned a wonderful initiative, the SMI, and Delivering Better Government, the follow on to roll out the SMI launched in May 1986, in committees. The Minister should beware of committees, even though some of the best and brightest civil and public servants are pursuing the strategic management initiative and the public service change programme. Perhaps he could see if there is another way to structure negotiations so they are inclusive. Committees, however, representing every interest and which take forever to meet and come to a conclusion are not the way to roll forward a programme at the required pace and that which the public demands.

This attempt at public service reform, or the strategic management initiative or the management change in the public service, call it what you will — I hate the expression SMI because so few people know about what the half dozen of those immediately involved are talking — is different from previous ones. Some excellent reports, White Papers, etc., have been gathering dust on shelves over the years. While some good has come from them, they have not moved the mass of the public service and the quality service programme forward. The difference this time is that it is being driven from within and the demand for change is coming from the public service as distinct from being forced on it by politicians or the customer of the public service.

With the increasing number of complaints being received each year by the Ombudsman, we can see the public is beginning to understand and demand a quality service which the private sector has known it must deliver for many years. The public service is trailing on the coat tails of the private sector, but it is rapidly catching up and wonderful progress has been made in recent years. We have learned from the private sector that if one wants to keep business in a competitive arena, in a competitive Ireland which is at the top table in Europe and in international markets, one must provide quality goods at a reasonable price, otherwise it is open to all comers to provide the goods. The same will happen in the public service with competition. Even if money is not being put on the counter as one is being delivered a social welfare, medical or educational service, it is still being paid for by the customer indirectly through taxes, insurance levies and in other ways. The customer is still paying even if they are not paying directly on a fee per item basis. We pay for public service annually. The customer is entitled to a quality service properly delivered on time and with courtesy and efficiency. I say that as a preamble to this matter about which I feel passionately.

Mistakes, however, have been and are still being made. I made mistakes; sometimes it is easier to see one's mistakes in hindsight than when one is in the middle of things. Such is the size of the public service and the enormity of the reform programme, it is hard to see the wood for the trees. I plead with the Minister to look at the committees which have been set up horizontally and vertically in Departments to deliver a critical programme of public sector change to see if they are necessary. They are not all necessary and could be amalgamated and shrunk to a size which will operate efficiently with the right number of people around the table and with good chairpersons leading and driving with enthusiasm, who understand the views of the public sector, public sector unions and the customers receiving the service from us as public servants.

I concur with what the Minister said about the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy's, 1996 annual report. It is excellently presented and produced and makes easy and user-friendly reading unlike many annual reports which are not exactly bedtime reading. This report makes fascinating reading from the statistics to the selected cases, to his foreword. We learn a lot from the way and the clarity with which the Ombudsman has presented this report.

From the statistics to the selected cases to his foreword makes fascinating reading. We have all learned a great deal from the way the report was presented and the clarity of its presentation. As an aside, if it is possible to print it on recycled paper it would be a good message from the Departments of State. I realise that can be more expensive but the message would be worth the cost. There may be additional problems in terms of production but that is only an aside, not a criticism. I compliment Mr. Kevin Murphy on his excellent report.

I enjoyed the Minister's coy expression when he told us he was delighted to inform the House that our Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, has been appointed Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act. Mr. Murphy informed us of that in June 1997 in the foreword to the annual report. I am delighted with the choice and he will do an excellent job with his extended powers in this area. The public do not understand how the Freedom of Information Act can impinge on them. Mr. Murphy's talents will shine in the areas where people will not be entitled to information. We must explain to the public why in certain very limited but important areas the information and data they may seek will not be available publicly. As yet that Act has not been implemented but it will be in March or April 1998. A job must be done in selling it to the public. As Mr. Murphy pointed out in his report he is not happy with the public relations in regard to his role as Ombudsman and despite his best efforts and those of his staff to publicise his role and what he is entitled to do he is not happy that all those who need access to the service he provides are aware it is available.

Those of us who have run political clinics throughout the years and have been in political life for a long time are aware that a certain cohort of the public know their entitlements, where to get them and, above all, where to go to complain and seek redress. There is another third who do not appear to have problems or do not need either public servants, public representatives or the Ombudsman to sort out their problems as they will do it themselves. There is as many as a third of the public who are not getting what they are entitled to. They are not getting it as quickly or with the courtesy and efficiency to which they are entitled although improvements have been made in this area. I compliment Mr. Murphy on emphasising the timeliness of delivery as it is a critical factor. I am, even now, receiving replies to communications I made in April and May on behalf of constituents. Perhaps I should have realised I had not received such replies but I was slightly distracted during the summer — it was a particularly turbulent summer, perhaps for some more than others. I am receiving correspondence such as: "In reply to your communication of May 2", etc., and that is not acceptable.

Mr. Finneran

Things are moving now.

Mrs. A. Doyle

They should have moved during the summer. This service is not acceptable to the people generally. We may need to stop and think about where our role as public representatives in holding clinics and as a type of one stop ombudspeople in our various constituencies ends and that of the Ombudsman begins. There is an interesting overlap in many areas. We are providing, particularly in the more competitive constituencies, many services that could otherwise be provided by the Ombudsman and as my colleague, Deputy Noonan, said in the Lower House, with one secretary if we are lucky, or sharing with three Senators, as I happen to be at present. When one compares like with like they are not equivalent services and they should be examined. We must ensure that as public representatives we are doing what we should be doing and make the best use of our time. The role of the Ombudsman in this area should also be examined.

I have felt for some time that proportionality is the key to delivering a public service. I spoke in this House more than two years ago about this point. It is a central principle of good administration and one which places an obligation on public bodies in the exercise of discretionary power to maintain a proper balance between the adverse effect of their decisions on citizens and the purpose being pursued by those bodies. It is a particular interest in cases where a body or an individual must decide between the rights of an individual and the common good. This is an established feature of administrative law in other member states of the European Union and is becoming a feature of Irish law. It has often been employed by courts as a means of judging whether the restrictions imposed by legislation on the exercise of any given legal right are excessive.

Some of the examples given by the Ombudsman in his most recent report are delays in responding to individual's problems. There have been many cases of this in the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and it resulted in a refusal for subsequent schemes. If those cases were investigated one would find the delay was not the responsibility of the customer of the public service — it may have been the responsibility of another arm of the civil or public service — yet there is the mindset of "it is more than my job's worth, the rules say you cannot", end of story. Yet, if the case is investigated the penalty incurred — by a farmer applicant in the case I have in mind — outweighs completely the transgression of perhaps missing an application date, possibly because the information required was tied up in some other arm of State. The principle of proportionality is not given significant recognition in implementing the rules. This is extremely important, particularly with the crossover of such a body of secondary legislation that is poorly understood even in both Houses as well as by the public generally, and the stretching out of European law which impinges on the lives of citizens at present.

The Ombudsman has noted in previous reports — I am not sure it was stated in this report — that some public bodies tend to administer their schemes and programmes in a rigid manner. He has a most important role, and has shown he is well capable of it, in interpreting in a user friendly and fair way where rigidity has denied the citizen of his or her entitlements, and often because of untimeliness in the delivery of service in another.

The areas of legislative reform, the rate of progress on the Administrative Procedures Bill and the amending of the Ombudsman's Act which are within the remit of the Department of Labour were previously the remit of the Ombudsman. Since the establishment of FÁS and other bodies they have technically been taken from the Ombudsman. This was an oversight which caused many problems for individuals who have not been getting a quality service most politicians feel they deserve. We must speed up in this area. The Ombudsman is concerned at the delay, which I understand. I also understand how the delay came about. We underestimate the enormity of the Public Service Management Act which was passed some months ago in the dying days of the last Government — we did not know that at the time but it subsequently turned out to be—

Mr. Cullen

We knew.

Mrs. A. Doyle

This was the Bill which amended the Ministers and Secretaries Act, the legislation that for 75 years has underpinned governance in this country. We have taken for granted the excellence of 99.9 per cent of public service delivery because we have schools and roads — maybe an odd pothole too many, depending on the winter or year in question. We have a health service, despite waiting lists, but excellent structures have been in place. We also have a social welfare system. As customers of the public service we have forgotten how each day of our lives is affected by public service delivery because such has been the consistency of good delivery that we have not come up against major problems in the main.

I compliment public and civil servants. Governments have come and gone but the public service continues; politicians refer to it as the permanent government. It has served Governments of different political persuasions extremely well and, by so doing, has served the people extremely well. It has been virtually free of major financial and political scandals and what small problems existed were handled properly. However, an uncompetitive mindset has set in. That is why there is a need for the SMI and for people of the calibre of Kevin Murphy — to ensure a quality public service to customers where others have been remiss.

I compliment Kevin Murphy and his staff for an excellent job. I have a few problems working out their figures for complaints received this year compared to last year and the year before, and also with valid complaints, complaints dealt with and complaints carried over. I would like that clarified. They have done a wonderful job otherwise. Would that everyone who needs his services were aware of it, but he realises this is a problem. I congratulate Kevin Murphy and extend my best wishes to him in his additional post of Information Commissioner under the Freedom of Information Act.

Mr. Finneran

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and join in the compliments paid to Kevin Murphy on an excellent report. It is clear and simple to read and it is easy to understand the thrust of whatever point or argument he makes. I compliment him and his staff.

I was taken aback that the number of complaints dealt with was in excess of 3,000; I expected it to be twice that. Given the level of complaints we receive as public representatives and the dissatisfaction expressed by the public when dealing with public bodies, I expected a higher level of complaints for the Ombudsman's office to investigate so that people could have the wrong they felt was done put right. The number of complaints is very small compared with the figure of more than 200,000 public service employees. Many people must be unfamiliar with, unaware of or do not know how to contact the Ombudsman's office to have their grievance investigated.

When I was a member of a health board the chief executive officer told me he instructed his staff that any complaint or query from the Ombudsman be referred directly to him. He wanted the matter dealt with immediately. There is a message there in that the Ombudsman put the fear of God into a senior civil servant. Many county managers have instructed their secretaries that any matters concerning the Ombudsman are to be dealt with quickly because they do not want his wrath brought to bear on their local authority. While the cases referred to in the report are only a sample, they highlight a caving in on all occasions by the local authorities involved. If every Member of the House were asked to give examples of similar complaints to those in the report, they could list scores of them made by their constituents who felt they were misled or badly dealt with by a local authority, health board or Department.

I ask the Minister to ensure the existence of the Office of the Ombudsman is brought to the attention of the public. It should be done in such a way that the public can read in the local paper or hear on local radio that such a mechanism is available to them, that it is their entitlement, and that it is not something which only applies to those in the know or familiar with legislation. It exists for John Citizen and is his entitlement. This should be explained through advertising. If it is done, people will avail of the services of the Ombudsman's office more extensively.

Legislation has been recently enacted which helps the better delivery of service to the public. The Public Service Management Act and the Freedom of Information Act are important legislation which provide safeguards towards a better and more user-friendly public service. The Freedom of Information Act also gives the public certain other opportunities. I am pleased the Ombudsman has accepted the role of Freedom of Information Commissioner. That is a welcome development.

I discovered a number of anomalies on reading the report which need to be addressed. I was taken aback to discover that areas previously the responsibility of the Department of Labour, such as FÁS and the Health and Safety Authority, are excluded from the Ombudsman's remit. That is inappropriate and the matter should be regularised. The Minister spoke of extending the remit into other areas, such as non-commercial State bodies, voluntary hospitals and the medical area. I am unsure where the remit stops as regards medical records. It would disturb me if records were made available under the Ombudsman's remit. Having worked in the field of health for more than 20 years, I know it is important that confidentiality of medical records is maintained as much as possible and that the confidential doctor/patient relationship and the Hippocratic oath are sacrosanct. This is as it should be, except where a person's welfare is endangered by this information not being made available. The Minister might comment on that when he replies.

Means testing causes problems for many people. This is one area where the human approach and human error are to the fore. The guidelines for means testing are to a large extent an interpretation of what constitutes a person's means. I could produce a list of means tests carried out by different Departments on the same family and no two would be similar. For instance, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs would indicate a certain level of income. The health board would have tested the same family for medical card eligibility but found a different level of income. Many other anomalies would also exist. Two years ago I suggested that there should be a central means test office and an appeals procedure against its findings. The findings of that office would have to be accepted by all State bodies. This may not be relevant to today's debate but it is inappropriate to have different Departments and bodies deciding different means levels for the same family. A central means test office would cut down on waste and unnecessary administration such as the number of field officers currently required.

We should also focus on the position of the Ombudsman vis-à-vis EU legislation. This legislation affects all our lives and there is a need for a European ombudsman or such like. I could paper a wall in this room with letters I have received from Ministers over the past ten years, particularly Ministers for Agriculture, Food and Forestry, in which they indicated that, under EU legislation, they were unable to take any decision as regards a particular grant application discrepancy. That seems to be the end of the matter. There is no opportunity for John Citizen to inquire as to the legislation, where he should go, how he should seek redress or appeal the matter. We have MEPs but very few constituents write to them on a regular basis. It is not expected that they would be able to raise what might be considered a trivial matter in a big parliament in Strasbourg or Brussels. The Irish citizen must accept in total a letter received from the Department of Agriculture and Food indicating that it cannot interfere because of European laws or regulations. There should be some redress. I am not sure if this should be accomplished by the appointment of a European ombudsman, an ombudsman dealing with European legislation or extending the remit of the current Ombudsman. However, we will have more rather than fewer of these cases. Perhaps the Minister has a view on this matter.

Senator Doyle stated that she was annoyed, if that is the word she used, that we do not have a Minister for customers of our public service. I am not sure if that was the full title she used.

Mrs A. Doyle

Specifically for——

Mr. Finneran

This is all right in principle. However, Senator Doyle was Minister of State at three Departments — Finance, Transport, Energy and Communications and the Taoiseach. I am not saying she is not a super woman but it would be practically impossible to deal with all the issues raised by those Departments. We have a Minister of State at the Department of Finance who deals with this. He has one Department and that allows him more time to deal with the rights of those using the public service. There may be an alternative view on this.

I wish to raise the recent disgraceful treatment of refugees who had to queue for hours in the rain on Stephen's Green. I am sure other Members of both Houses and the public felt likewise. That was a very poor response from the public service. Perhaps someone did not provide the necessary accommodation but it was no way to treat anyone attending a public office. These people, including women and children, had to stand in the rain for three or four hours. No one should have to do so. It was a disgrace and a black day for Ireland and our public service. The Government and the Minister must ensure that this does not happen again. I do not have to remind the House of the manner in which Irish people were treated in the past. Many had to queue for hours on Ellis Island. I visited there to study Irish emigration to the US. These people later became US citizens and were treated well. That was 150 years ago and things should have improved since then. We should never again allow people to be treated in such a manner when requested to attend a public office.

I am also concerned about the independence of the Ombudsman. I do not know how independent he is. To some extent he is answerable to the Executive. I may not be fully correct but the Office of the Ombudsman should be independent. If legislation is required to achieve this then so be it. I am very impressed by the staffing levels in the office which numbers 40 people and I compliment the Ombudsman on his excellent work. However, he dealt with just over 3,000 complaints so it does not seem to be a very heavy workload. Perhaps newspaper advertisements are required to divert more queries to that office. I do not intend that as a criticism; perhaps if we all made the case for more staff and better facilities we would be able to do our jobs more effectively. Perhaps the Ombudsman is setting an example for all of us; if he is, I compliment him.

I am very pleased with the Office of the Ombudsman, the work it does and this report. I do not think the Ombudsman shies away from any cases presented to him. It is good that the office is prepared to tackle issues at the highest level in the public service, local authorities, health boards and various Departments. I compliment the Ombudsman and I hope the office can be extended, particularly in the area of European law.

Mr. O'Toole

Before I comment on the report I would like to pick up on a point Senator Finneran made in relation to refugees. The manner in which refugees were treated last Saturday week contrasts vividly with the front page story on The Star newspaper today and on The Evening Herald yesterday where a 14 year old Irish girl, posing as her older sister, managed to get to the top of a local authority housing list in the UK. She was to be housed 60 miles away in another jurisdiction by the social welfare service there. That should answer the snide remarks we have heard in the past few years in relation to immigrants abusing our public services. It is a great credit to the UK social welfare authorities that they managed to act so quickly. They were misled in this instance but that is not the issue. As Senator Finneran pointed out, the museums in Ellis Island and in Grosse Ile in Canada are clear reminders of something we do not want to happen in this country and our public service should play a great part in ensuring it does not happen.

I compliment the Ombudsman, Kevin Murphy, on an excellent job and I do that with some satisfaction. I recall that objections were raised about his appointment when he was nominated for the position of Ombudsman. People asked if he would be fair, coming as he did from the heart of the Department of Finance. Would he be somebody on whom we could depend? Would he be seen to be independent? I remember making an impassioned plea in support of him in this House four years ago. I know Mr. Murphy very well and hold him in the highest esteem mainly because he was such a problem for me when he sat on the other side of the negotiating table and did not allow me to get my hands on the riches to which I felt the teachers of Ireland were entitled.

Mr. Finneran

The Senator did not do too badly.

Mr. O'Toole

I am very clear about the Ombudsman's commitment to public service and high office. I am personally vindicated in so far as he has discharged his duties with aplomb, style, imagination, flair and creativity. It is important to note that the report we are considering today is a stylish presentation.

I disagree with the point that the office might be overstaffed as I have some knowledge of the difficulties of dealing with various levels of complaints. On the basis of the number of investigators employed by the office it is clear they deal with an average of 250 complaints a year. These are serious complaints which deal with the upper echelons in Departments and so on. The staff are fully stretched in carrying out the duties required of them.

In essence, the Ombudsman's report is a proactive one. There has always been a danger that it could be a catalogue of woes, complaints and incidents where public servants did not discharge their functions effectively. The report states that people should be encouraged to complain, which causes me some concern. I believe people should be facilitated rather than encouraged to complain.

The essence of the report is to be found in the first three chapters where the Ombudsman adopts a proactive approach. He outlines a very clear model of good practice in indicating to the public service and the Departments which come within its remit that they should carry out their duties fairly, properly and impartially. He goes on to explain at length how that might be achieved. There is no better model of practice for a public servant; every newly appointed public servant should be required to study the first three chapters of the report as a job orientation. That is crucial.

Public representatives should not have responsibilities removed from them. One of the greatest time wasters in Government Departments is parliamentary questions. I was involved with two of the complaints made to the Office of the Ombudsman. I am certain that, on occasion, the delay in dealing with issues is as a result of a Department — in my own case the Department of Education — being required to deal with hundreds of parliamentary questions. Public representatives have managed to clog up the system of public administration with these nonsensical questions which waste Parliament's time and diminish its role.

A Freedom of Information Act, access to information and real openness and transparency should be all that is required of public representatives. Parliamentary questions constitute a gross interference with the work of the public service and put an unfair pressure on it. The issue of parliamentary questions blur what should be a very distinct line between public representatives and the public service. Civil servants spend week after week giving long winded answers to long winded questions on minor matters; these answers are then sent back in triplicate to public representatives and are in turn sent to local residents' associations, teachers' organisations and so on. The public service is doing the work of politicians. I will defend politicians when it is appropriate to do so but I believe the system of parliamentary questions is an ineffective and inefficient way to do business. If the system is to change, Ministers and Departments must change also. Will the Minister of State go into the House without written notes the next time he is taking Question Time in the Dáil? He need only be briefed on an issue to answer a question. Somebody else can type up the answer and send it off. Most of the questions asked relate to administrative issues which can be answered relatively easily. In general, Ministers will be completely briefed on issues and capable of dealing with them "on the hoof". They should do that rather than encouraging this system.

I recently attempted to obtain what I felt should be easily accessible information. I wanted to find out what the births registration numbers were for last April, May and June. I know the figures were sent back from the various hospitals to the office of the registrar of births in Dublin. When I tried to obtain those figures, which I know exist, I was told they were not available. I was subsequently told they had been forwarded to the Central Statistics Office. When I contacted that office I was told they could not give me the figures as they were not published at that stage. That kind of nonsense creates a great deal of frustration and I would ask the Minister of State to address the issue.

The Minister outlined the new role of the Ombudsman under the Freedom of Information Act which is in addition to his current role. It will require further administration and work. There is likely to be further development. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the Government's proposals regarding the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill and the Administrative Procedures Bill. There are areas which came within the remit of the Ombudsman which no longer do so. There are areas which should come within the remit of the Ombudsman including FÁS, the vocational education committees, the Health and Safety Authority and voluntary hospitals. People deal with these organisations on a daily basis and they are entitled to have a complaints process in respect of them.

I welcome the Ombudsman's reference to an efficient — meaning simple — complaints system. This is a key issue. Complaints should be dealt with at the lowest possible level, as a model of subsidiary. Many of the problems with Departments arise because people do not know how to address difficulties they are experiencing. Often people come to politicians which is wasteful of the public representative's time.

I am not enthused by the strategic management initiative. I believe that it will never be allowed work and that the decision making processes outlined in that excellent document will never come into operation. The strategic management initiative will not come into operation until the system of departmental management changes. We should receive a progress report on the SMI. What has happened this year that is different from last year? What will happen next year? What is the long term plan for measuring the progress of the initiative? In the end we have to assess whether it worked and whether it was given a chance. The strategic management initiative, which is supposed to reform the public and civil service, reminds me of socialism and Christianity — they were great ideas that were never given a chance. The SMI will not be given a chance.

How do Departments do their business and how should they change? This is the bridge between the SMI and the Office of the Ombudsman. Decision making and partnership are important. We have come through a series of national agreements, the most recent being Partnership 2000. I do not believe that Departments have been or are acting in partnership with the social partners. Partnership is not consultation. I have evidence that most Departments do not know the difference between consultation and partnership. They do not know when consultation finishes and partnership starts. Neither have public representatives made it clear that irrespective of the level of partnership required, the Secretary of a Department is the accounting officer responsible for the money being spent. The Minister of the Department has political responsibility for that money. No amount of partnership can change the responsibility for spending money. Therefore, a normal partnership cannot take place. We have not analysed the implications of partnership, to which I am committed. The difficulty I have outlined will not prove problematic for some time as we have not moved beyond the consultation process.

Departments, their heads and those at different levels of the structure have to be given the confidence to deal with the social partners on the basis of parity of esteem. A partnership of equality is what should exist. Partners should be equal but not identical. The Department and the Minister will always decide how money is spent. This can never be devolved to people outside the Department except in a controlled manner through budgets. I ask the Minister to clarify this issue through discussion.

Inclusiveness, openness and transparency have become cant phrases which mean very little. The concepts have been diminished and the value of the words has deteriorated because of their overuse, misuse and abuse. In particular, the issue of transparency needs further consideration. There is a view, encouraged by Opposition politicians, that transparency means being able to look into every nook and cranny of Government and the Departments, that a person should not have an unspoken, unwritten or unread thought, that everything should be in the open. In Dingle, the term "transparency" is used to describe somebody who would not be sent to the fair to buy a beast or to the quay to buy fish because they would not be smart enough to do either. I do not want such people running the country. We should not be looking for transparency, nor do we want the current level of opaqueness where we can see nothing. Somewhere between transparency and opaqueness lies translucency. There should be light emerging but everything should not be an open book. Openness and transparency is best served by accountability. If there is sufficient, clear and absolute accountability everything else falls naturally into place.

I congratulate the Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, and his office on doing an excellent job and providing detailed accounts of certain typical complaints to indicate the manner in which the office operates and the results achieved. More importantly, I congratulate him and his staff on taking a proactive and progressive approach to the office by giving models of good practice and for recognising that public servants and others should deal with the public is a proper and impartial manner. These chapters of the report, which is available on disk and the Internet, should be part of the briefing documentation provided in the orientation course of every newly appointed public servant and public representative.

Ms Cox

I welcome the Minister and the annual report of the Ombudsman. The presentation and content of the report is superb and I compliment Mr. Kevin Murphy and his staff. The theme of the report is positive and commendable. We all agree public bodies must ensure they provide a consistently high quality service to the public. Citizens are entitled to be treated properly, helpfully, promptly, equitably and impartially. The Ombudsman's guide to standards of best practice for public servants provides a useful checklist for all public officials.

As Minister of State, Deputy Cullen, said the public service is the biggest business in this State. It is perceived by many as complex, cumbersome, bureaucratic and, at the best of times, unhelpful. However, the public service culture is changing. I would like it to change faster and the standards of best practice will assist public officials in their efforts to, as the report puts it, "provide a better service to their customers" .

I welcome the concept of customer in the context of the public service. Coming from a business environment where the concepts of customer service and care are the main drivers, I hope they become the focus of the public service . The culture is changing, but I would like a public service where information is not withheld from individuals and where officials treat them with dignity and respect at all times; a public service which does not need a TD, Senator or councillor to intervene to speed up an application for housing or a medical card or assistance in getting an allowance; and a State where people entitled to benefits or assistance get them in a dignified and prompt manner.

A constituent recently asked me to speak to a housing officer on her daughter's behalf. She feels the officer does not like her and is delaying her application. That officer may be helpful and doing his or her best but the customer is not satisfied and does not believe she is being treated fairly or being dealt with promptly.

In the code of best practice, the Ombudsman identifies that dealing properly with people means having regard to their feelings, privacy and convenience. How many local authorities discuss private matters over the counter in public rooms, where anyone else who is waiting can hear the discussion? How many community welfare officers deal with customers in small, crowded areas where the people have waited for hours to meet them?

The Public Service Management Act, 1997, was commenced by order of the Minister for Finance on 1 September last. A key feature of this Act is the requirement that Departments prepare a strategy statement and submit it to their Minister. These statements will identify the key objectives of the Department and will be presented to the Houses of the Oireachtas. This process is welcome and will provide a mechanism for determining whether the service provided measures up to the standards of quality and performance set out by the Ombudsman's checklist. If we are to see any improvement in public service, it will be only by measuring what is expected against what we are given, identifying the gap — if any — and implementing remedial measures to address it.

I welcome the openness of the Office of the Ombudsman to review, and I am delighted it identifies the need to survey public awareness. In order to ensure the Office of the Ombudsman continues to serve the public in an appropriate and effective manner, such research is essential. The manner in which the Office of the Ombudsman has addressed the way it does its business is to be complimented and should be reflected in all Departments, local authorities, health boards and those in the public service. As Senator Doyle said, we are all public servants as public representatives elected to the Seanad.

The practice of visiting offices throughout the country is also commendable and successful. The Ombudsman raised the issue of the Government's plans for the office. It is committed to the process of institutional reform in the public service. This commitment will involve expanding the remit of the Ombudsman to include legal, medical and other areas. This expansion of concentration will be welcomed by the Ombudsman and all Members of this House.

The Freedom of Information Act, which will come into operation in April 1998, represents a major and welcome change in the public service. Citizens will have a legal right of access to information kept by the State, the right to have inaccurate or outdated information corrected and the legal entitlement to access the reasons for decisions taken by public bodies which will affect them. These fundamental, powerful and wide-ranging changes will assist the public services to move towards the standards of excellence advocated by the Ombudsman. The knowledge that each citizen can access vital information will improve the transparency of decisions and the thrust of Government policy making. The benefits will be felt in the improvement in the confidence of the public that the public service is acting in an open, fair, equitable and impartial manner. That is all we aspire to.

The nomination of the Ombudsman to the role of information commissioner is a significant step forward. The Government's offer and the Ombudsman's acceptance of it tangibly demonstrates that the Government is determined that the Acts already mentioned are not just meaningless and toothless legislation. The Ombudsman, in the role of information commissioner, will be entitled to examine documents and summon witnesses. He will have the power to issue binding decisions and conduct reviews of the Freedom of Information legislation and the responsibility to report on the operation and compliance by the public bodies with its provisions.

One of the excellent sections of the report is where the Ombudsman describes certain cases and relates them to the checklist. Showing a rule and then giving examples of how it did or did not work makes it more understandable and acceptable. The Ombudsman correctly asserts that delays on the part of a public body "not only creates frustration and uncertainty but can also give rise to practical difficulties and unforeseen consequences for its clients."

I have experienced this frustration when requests for information or action are sometimes ignored by public bodies. I have experienced a delay of up to four months in the setting up of a meeting with a public official. I have been told by public officials they are too busy to return my calls. This level of service is not acceptable to me or anyone. I hope this will change.

Dealing with people properly means simplifying procedures, forms and information on entitlements and services. Too often, forms require unnecessary information which demeans the individual's dignity. For some reason, Departments shy away from reviewing their questionnaires or forms. As time goes on and circumstances change, there is no need for the questions to be asked and nothing is done with the information gathered. It is gathered for the sake of filling in a form because someone is too lazy or not smart enough to review it. A review of all the information requested by the public service and any effort to simplify the procedure would be welcome.

Treating individuals in a uniform, consistent and fair manner is vital, otherwise inequities arise. Applying rules and regulations must, however, be done in a flexible manner. We all agree with the aspiration that no person, through no fault of their own, should be denied entitlements because of a technicality. Many public officials will welcome this as they often try to operate to that standard already, hoping to be seen as fair to everybody.

It is important to give credit where it is due. The majority of those in the public service are helpful and try to provide a quality service to all their customers. Change is happening but there is room for improvement, and it is important that the public service accepts this.

The Ombudsman's report identifies the quality of service for those who wish to use the Irish language as poor. This must be addressed, as it is an important matter. We must recognise the importance of Irish, particularly as we move more into the EU. Ireland needs its own identity and language. We must be able to identify with a culture that is uniquely ours and allows us to stand as individuals within the community of Europe. Those who live in areas where Irish is the day-to-day language are entitled to conduct their business through Irish, such as having letters answered in Irish. They should not be expected to put up with a service that is of a lesser quality than if it were in English. I am aware of the problems caused by this because there is a large Gaeltacht in my constituency.

I agree that changes in rules should be notified adequately to affected persons in advance. It is no longer acceptable that decisions are made and implemented and people only find out when they wish to use a service.

Close examination of the areas of complaint outlined in the report makes interesting reading. I am pleased that Galway Corporation, of which I am a member, was the subject of only 11 complaints in 1996. Of that number, five were not upheld and three were discontinued. I commend the City Manager and his staff on this record, which places them tenth in the ranking of 34 local authorities. It is important and interesting to look at the breakdown of categories of complaint. Housing allocation and transfers were the subject of 98 complaints out of 581, almost 17 per cent; planning accounted for almost 12 per cent, housing repairs for over 10 per cent and lack of replies to correspondence 3 per cent — that is a category that can be dealt with immediately. Any public representative will be aware that the two areas in which they are called upon to assist citizens most frequently are housing and planning. There is a definite message here that fundamental changes are needed in these areas. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government should reflect upon this and instigate a review of the housing policy. A review of the planning process is taking place and I await its findings and recommendations with interest.

I congratulate the Ombudsman and his staff on this very fine report and on their hard work. The constructive presentation of the report contributes to the improvement of the public service. I look forward to the day when we can say that our public service is 100 per cent customer focused, when all individuals are satisfied by the service they receive and when best practice means people are dealt with properly, fairly and impartially.

Mr. O'Dowd

I welcome the Minister of State. I agree with the Ombudsman's guide to standards of best practice for public servants.

It is significant that supplementary welfare allowances account for a large proportion of complaints against health boards and that housing transfers figure largely in the complaints against local authorities. The majority of those who apply for these benefits are unemployed and frequently disadvantaged. There is often a "hatch" mentality in these situations. One sees a hatch in these offices, often a frosted window, and people are apprehensive about what is behind it. Sometimes the windows are segmented, like venetian blinds, and one cannot see who is inside. This sends a bad message to the member of the public who is outside the window. As Senator Cox said, we need sensitive arrangements for people who visit public offices. There should be proper offices with doors that can be closed so that matters can be dealt with in private if that is the wish of the customer or official. The Ombudsman should start a campaign in every health board or local authority area to have the facilities in these offices examined and assessed, and then those improvements mentioned in his report could be incorporated.

Applicants for supplementary welfare allowance are faced with a technicoloured form which many of them cannot read. There is no recognition of that in this form, and I have complained about this to the health board. I presume this form is standard in all health board regions, and we need a much simpler form to help those who are applying for supplementary welfare allowance. All these people's data — such as RSI numbers, etc. — are on computers. There must be more respect for the disadvantaged, those who cannot read or write, who are looking for housing or support following the death of a relative, etc. We must give these people their fundamental rights. There is a fine health board office in Drogheda where the applicant for welfare must stand while the official sits, albeit on a high stool at a hatch. There should be an open door to an area where people can sit and discuss their business in private.

A criticism of Irish politicians is that we have a clientelist system. However, in the absence of concern for these people in a small number of places, some people feel they need someone to go in with them who can read and write or make their case. That is often a member of a local authority, a councillor, a Senator or a Deputy. To solve this problem, each local authority should appoint an official who would be trained to assist any person who has to fill in a form. Applicants for housing are often single parents living in stressful conditions and they may be unable to make the best case for themselves. There may be overcrowding or a lack of toilet facilities. In many cases their accommodation is rat infested. They are so frustrated when applying for a house they forget some of these problems when being interviewed by officials. Housing officers should have a check list so that issues such as health and so on are discussed. Factors such as these are not brought to the applicant's attention when applying for accommodation and, therefore, the housing officer is not in a position to assess fully their correct and proper needs.

I congratulate the majority of public servants who are very committed and dedicated to their work. We need to look again at those people in our society who are disadvantaged educationally and economically and who find dealing with public officials intimidating. They do not see public offices as friendly and welcoming places, which many public officials would like them to be. Perhaps the Ombudsman would address these points and, in so doing, there would not be a need for councillors, Senators and TDs to make representations on behalf of these people.

I congratulate the Ombudsman and his staff on an excellent report and I look forward to the next report.

Dr. M. Hayes

This is my first time to speak in this House and I find it more daunting that I expected. If I transgress, it will be unwittingly.

I spent all my life in the public service. I feel like a barman who finds himself on the wrong side of the counter, and having seen what it has done to his customers in the past, is afraid of getting a taste for it. I am a non-affiliated Independent Member of the Seanad. It gives me great pleasure to be sitting in the seat occupied by my old friend, Gordon Wilson, and that I follow my fellow townsman, John Robb, into the Seanad. I am grateful to the Taoiseach for his nomination and I am even more grateful for the generosity with which he accommodated my wish to remain Independent. I wanted to remain Independent because, coming from Northern Ireland, I wanted to respect the bipartisan policy on Northern Ireland which has been maintained in the Oireachtas over the years. There is also an element of the maxim, "no representation without taxation". I wanted to follow the precedent set by that great public servant, Dr. Ken Whitaker, who accepted the nomination on an independent basis to underline the political neutrality of the Civil Service, North and South, and I hope I can do that. Given those constraints, I hope I can be useful to the House.

I was an Ombudsman, and I speak today not as a shopsteward for ex-ombudsmen but to contribute to the debate given my knowledge in the field. I have a certain interest in the Office of Ombudsman here because I was engaged in consultations as far back as 1972 with the then Attorney General, Mr. Declan Costello, and a young constitutional lawyer, Mary Robinson, about the desirability of having such an office. The Irish office has been an outstanding success, thanks mainly to the founding Ombudsman, Michael Mills, a man of great quality who brought his own insights as a journalist and communicator to the office. He is the reason this office is very highly regarded internationally by fellow ombudsmen. That tradition has been built on and extended by another outstanding public servant, Mr. Kevin Murphy, whom I congratulate on the work done in the office and on the presentation of his report. There were worries at the time about the appointment of a departmental Secretary to the office. I believe there is a great advantage in appointing ex-departmental Secretaries because they know where the jugular is — they know about files and papers and they know the questions that should be asked. Without diminishing the efforts of anyone else in the office, I believe Mr. Murphy is in a special position to make the contribution which clearly he has made.

I congratulate Mr. Murphy on the quality of his report, particularly on the leaflet which sets out the qualities and standards required in the public service for dealing with people. What is needed in an Ombudsman is somebody who is fairminded and independent, somebody who will shine a light into dark corners and is not afraid to do so. At a time of scepticism in the public's mind about areas of policy and administration, it is important there is an office such as the Office of Ombudsman, in which people can put their trust. Ireland, North and South, has the great advantage of a public service which is incorrupt and which has a proud record. It is important that it be guarded and protected as it is one of the bastions of democracy in this country but it is populated by human beings who are fallible and it is into the area of fallibility the Ombudsman can look. I do not want to get into the broader debate of reorganisation of the public service, but I want to look at areas to which the Ombudsman adverted.

He mentioned the protection of the name "Ombudsman". I am glad to see he uses the term in the Irish version of his report. "Ombudsman" is a clearly understood international term. There is a danger that it may be debased by people appointing themselves, or being appointed, as Ombudsmen for consumers of this, that and the other, or as the representatives of readers of newspapers and so on. It is important that the term be confined to statutory Ombudsmen, the holders of offices set up by statute with independence and the power to investigate and make recommendations.

Reference was made earlier to the Ombudsman and legislation. The Ombudsman has nothing to do with legislation. He is concerned with the administration of legislation. If there are problems with European regulations, it is still possible for the Irish Ombudsman to make an onward reference to the European Ombudsman. It is important also that the Ombudsman be given sufficient resources to carry out his job. From my experience, the Office of the Ombudsman is not over-staffed. The work is difficult and time-consuming and one is dealing with matters of great complexity which can go on for a long time. It would be helpful if, in his next report, the Ombudsman gave some indication of the performance indicators set for his staff. In my experience we are getting good value for money from the staff. It is hugely important that the work of the Ombudsman should not in any way be truncated or curtailed by lack of staff or resources. That is where the Executive could put a rein on the Ombudsman. It is important for this House to ensure the Ombudsman can work independently.

The Ombudsman is also important in terms of imposing new standards in public administration. I would like a feedback on the report from Departments. It would be interesting to see, for example, whether complaints cluster around a certain office or practice. There should be an obligation on Departments to report back to the Ombudsman some months after his report, giving an analysis of the complaints they received during the year and what changes they have made to their practices. Not only should the Ombudsman detect what is wrong, he should also be able to seek changes and improvements.

I agree with many of the points made by Senator Doyle, particularly the question of proportionality. I would add to that the issue of legitimate expectation. A citizen should expect to be treated consistently by a Department and that legislation and rules would be applied consistently. Following on from what Senator O'Dowd said, I am a great believer in humanising the public service. Citizens are entitled to deal with a named official who does not hide behind a hatch. Public offices should be as pleasant as private firms, such as banks and travel agents. Cre ches should be provided for the children of mothers who are waiting to be dealt with. Citizens should have their affairs dealt with courteously and privately. The Ombudsman should be given powers to refer to such matters.

It was suggested the Ombudsman's powers should be extended in the health field. As I understand it, that would include the voluntary hospitals which receive substantial public funding which I would favour. However, I would be extremely worried if that began to impinge on the difficult areas of clinical competence and responsibility. That would almost mean requiring the Ombudsman to investigate whether someone was medically or professionally competent, which would not be helpful.

The work of Michael Mills and the present Ombudsman has shown the value of the office to citizens. They have also validated, by and large, the integrity and competence of the civil and public service. Where they have pointed to the need for change, those changes have been made. It is important to have such a regulator. We owe them a great debt. I pay tribute to the Ombudsman and his staff and wish them well.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Mooney)

I am sure I reflect the sentiments of the House in congratulating Senator Hayes on his maiden speech and wishing him well.

Mr. Quinn

One is advised never to follow children or animals on the stage because one does not have a chance of making an impact. That advice should include former Ombudsmen making their maiden speech. We were all impressed by the sincerity and skill of Senator Hayes' words and his insight into the Office of the Ombudsman and the public service. We greatly appreciate his membership of this House. I was not sure until he spoke today that he is an Independent. We must coax him over to this side of the House to ensure his independence.

I welcome this report of the Ombudsman. I wish to focus, not on the complaints received by the Ombudsman which are so well documented in the report, but on the general principles involved, particularly the trends which are emerging on the role and scope of the office.

I join with other speakers in complimenting the Ombudsman on the user friendly nature of the report. It is not going too far to say it is the best annual report from the public service in this State — I say that in case Senator Hayes thinks I am including his reports from Northern Ireland. It is an excellent report because it concentrates on the task of communicating with its readers. Unlike many public sector reports, its object is to illuminate rather than obfuscate, which is very welcome.

The report is not a PR vehicle aimed at inflating the corporate ego. It is a workmanlike publication aimed at enhancing our understanding of the work of the Ombudsman and his office, and enhancing his ability to do that job better. It is clear we are moving quickly into the second stage of the evolution of the Ombudsman's role.

When the office was set up 15 years ago its first task was to force our State culture to accept the idea of reviewing administrative decisions. For centuries, we lived with an administrative system which was its own court of appeal. The citizen had no easy channel to seek redress when it made mistakes. The implied assumption on which the system worked for many years was that the public service did not make mistakes. During its first decade, the main task of the Ombudsman's office was to row back on that culture and to establish the idea that the public service could make mistakes and that the best way to prevent further mistakes was to bring them into the open. There was a need to establish an easy way for the ordinary citizen to seek redress without the enormous costs and uncertainty of seeking a legal remedy. That has been achieved in a very short time. The principle and value of an Ombudsman are now accepted, which is a major step forward.

I was elected to this House almost five years ago. I used to say the Ombudsman's role was one of last resort and that we needed to be more proactive in creating a public service in which customers' interests were put first; it was interesting to hear Senator Cox speak today about customers' interests. If that were to happen, the Ombudsman would be no longer required. Instead of waiting for matters to go wrong and allowing the Ombudsman pick up the pieces, we should learn how to prevent matters going wrong in the first place. That was one of the important elements of Senator Hayes' speech. We have made enormous progress in that regard in the five years since I was elected.

I have referred previously to the importance I attach to the strategic management initiative as a way of creating a customer focused State service. I am pleased that the significance of the initiative is shared among all the political parties and that no incoming Government is tempted to kill it off because it did not initiate it. The work of the SMI has been given a powerful boost by the trends that are emerging from the Office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman considers that enough of a foundation has been laid to allow him to move from a reactive to a proactive role in the future. He sees his role as not only promoting good practice in the public service but as identifying malpractice wherever it occurs. In doing this he is seeking to minimise that part of his job where he functions as a court of last resort.

I welcome this trend. It will produce significant results in a short time. Together with the work done under the SMI, it makes it possible to hope that we will have a customer driven public service within the foreseeable future. That would result in tangible benefits for every citizen.

As part of his proactive role, the Ombudsman has set out a guide to the standards of best practice. He has given those working in the public service a blueprint to follow by which they will be judged. This is an excellent approach. These guidelines are an excellent recipe for the kind of public service we would like to see for the 21st century.

I want to focus on one aspect of these guidelines. The first section defines the meaning of dealing properly with customers of the public service. There are five elements and I will look at one of them. The first of the Ombudsman's priorities is that people should be dealt with promptly. Dealing promptly with them also means that they are dealt with correctly, sensitively and responsibly. He has got his priorities right because from the customer's point of view, promptness is the most important element of the responses they seek from the State's services. It is also the element most lacking in dealings by the public service with its customers. The biggest difference between the public and private sectors is the way in which they approach time. The public service too often exists in a time warp that differs from that inhabited by the rest of us. For the Ombudsman to recognise that and place it at the top of his priorities is a big leap forward for all in the public service.

The rest of the guidelines are equally well rooted in what the public want. I commend them to all members of the public service. The report should be on every desk as a reminder.

The Ombudsman is doing a good job both in terms of dealing with day to day complaints and in working to change practices within the public service. It would be more cost effective to give his office more resources, especially to enable him get his message to the public. Unfortunately not enough people know what the Ombudsman can do for them. In this regard I agree with Senator Hayes when he said the term "Ombudsman" should be confined to statutory ombudsmen with powers to investigate and make recommendations. Increased resources for the Ombudsman would soon be recouped by savings from better administration.

Another way of supporting the Ombudsman is to introduce the new legislation required to expand and upgrade his office. This legislation has been under consideration for too long; it is time to give it priority. The Government has indicated that it will not be introduced until next year, which is not good enough. It should be initiated in this House because it is the kind of measure which the House is best qualified to consider first.

I have one criticism for the Ombudsman, the Clerk of this House and the Clerk of the Dáil. The annual report of the Ombudsman notes that the Ombudsman is a member of the new group established to disseminate information on both sides of the issue in referenda. I welcome this but deplore the way, in the bail referendum last year, the group produced a classic example of how not to communicate. An advertisement appeared that looked like a tombstone and was couched in language which lawyers love but is meaningless to the layman. It was an approach that ignored all the principles of good communication, including the need for repetition. I was surprised that the presence of the Ombudsman and the Clerk of the House on the body was not enough to prevent this failure.

An equivalent exercise for next week's referendum on Cabinet confidentiality is imminent. Given that the referendum is to be held this day next week, I was surprised it did not appear in today's newspapers. I hope the advertisement will detail the pros and cons in a readable way that communicates well. I also hope the Ombudsman will be as energetic in addressing this matter as he has been in carrying out his main role.

I congratulate the Ombudsman on this report and on his work in the past year. I also congratulate the Office of the Ombudsman on the change in mindset that has taken place in the 15 years since the establishment of the office.

Labhrás O Murchú

Cosúil leis an Seanadóir Ó hAodha, seo an chéad uair domsa labhairt sa Teach seo ó toghadh mé agus tá áthas pearsanta orm gur ar an ábhar seo atá mé ag labhairt. I dtosach is mian liom buíochas a ghabháil leis an Aire toisc teacht agus ráiteas chomh cabhrach sin a thabhairt dúinn ar ábhar chomh tábhachtach agus chomh suimiúil le Tuarascáil Bhliantúil an Ombudsman. Fáiltím roimh an gcáipéis seo agus, cosúil leis na cainteoirí eile, caithfidh mé a rá gur cáipéis an-slachtmhar go deo atá inti, a chruthaíonn, ní hamháin go bhfuil an tseirbhís seo ag gníomhú, ach go bhfuil feabhas agus fás ag teacht air gach lá. Ní foláir nó go gcuireann sé an-áthas orainne mar Sheanadóirí go bhfuil a leithéid de sheirbhís ann mar tá taithí againne go léir, go pearsanta, go háitiúil agus go náisiúnta, ar na deacrachtaí a bhíonn ag daoine nach bhfuil cumhacht acu a gcásanna féin a chur chun tosaigh. Chomh maith leis sin ba chóir dúinne, agus tá sé de dhualgas orainn, tacaíocht a thabhairt don tseirbhís i ngach uile slí gur féidir. Tá súil agam nach ró-fhada go mbeidh gach duine sásta go bhfuil cothrom na Féinne a fháil aige nó aici. Toisc go bhfuil suim faoi leith agam sa chultúr Gaelach agus suim sa Ghaeilge go speisialta tá an-áthas orm go bhfuil roinn faoi leith istigh sa Tuarascáil ar an nGaeilge. Deir an Ombudsman ins an Tuarasca áil seo nach raibh ach trí ghearán déag faighte aige féin. Deir sé chomh maith go bhfuil gradam faoi leith ag an nGaeilge mar an chéad teanga oifigiúil ins an Stát seo ach toisc nach bhfuil Acht don teanga ann bíonn sé deacair ag an Ombudsman, mar gheall air sin, dul chun cinn ró-mhór a dhéanamh maidir leis na gearáin a bhíonn faighte aige.

Acting Chairman

A Sheanadóir, ta aiféala orm as ucht briseadh isteach ort ar an chéad uair duit labhairt sa Teach ach tá sé a haon a chlog anois agus tá an díospóireacht á cur ar athló go dtí a dó a chlog. Beidh cead agat labhairt arís ansin.

Sitting suspended at 1 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.

Labhrás Ó Murchú

Tá áthas orm go bhfuil tagairt faoi leith déanta sa Tuarascáil don nGaeilge. Mhínigh an Ombudsman go raibh deacrachtaí faoi leith aige maidir leis na gearáin a fuair sé. De réir dealriamh fuair sé trí chinn déag ar fad. Is ionann é sin agus a rá nach raibh an-chuid gearán faighte aige. Tá gach seans go bhfuil cuid de na gearáin úd leigheasaithe faoi seo nó b'fhéidir go bhfuil dóchas caillte ag daoine go bhfaighidh siad ceartú orthu go deo. Deir an Tuarascáil seo go bhfuil gradam faoi leith ag an nGaeilge sa mBunreacht mar chéad teanga oifigiúil an Stáit. Bhain an-chuid de na deacrachtaí a bhíodh ag daoine leis an tseirbhís phoiblí. Luann an Ombudsman sa Tuarascáil gur deineadh taighde i 1996 ar na seirbhisí a bhí le fáil as Gaeilge i nGaeltacht Chonamara. Fuarthas amach nach raibh seirbhís iomlan trí Ghaeilge le fáil ach amháin ó Udarás na Gaeilge agus ón Roinn Ealaíon, Cultúir agus Gaeltachta. Tá sé deacair é sin a chreidiúint agus cruthaíonn sé nach mbeidh dul chun cinn fiúntach ann, is cuma cad é an dea-thoil atá amuigh i measc an phobail don Ghaeilge, go dtí go mbeidh seirbhís iomlán le fáil. Déanann an Ombudsman cur síos freisin ar an saghas seirbhíse a ba chóir a bheith le fáil. Ní leor seirbhís nach bhfuil ar chomhchaighdeán leis an tseirbhís atá le fáil as Béarla. Más rud é nach bhfuil an caighdeán sin ann caithfimid a fháil amach cad ina thaobh nach bhfuil. Tá an tuairim ag daoine go bhfuil suim acu sa Ghaeilge go bhfuil sé níos simplí obair a dhéanamh trí Bhéarla. Ní dóigh liom gur drochthoil faoi ndeara na ndeacrachtaí seo.

Luann an Tuarascáil, cé go bhfuil gradam faoi leith ag an nGaeilge, nach bhfuil Acht um Chearta don Ghaeilge ar fáil i dtreo is go bhféadfadh an Ombudsman tabhairt faoi na gearáin ata faighte aige. Bhí coimhlint sa tír seo i dtaobh na Gaeilge na blianta ó shoin ach níl sé amhlaidh a thuilleadh. Tá an-dea-thoil i measc an phobail don Ghaeilge agus don chultúr Gaelach. Sampla amháin de seo na Gaelscoileanna atá ar fud na tíre agus sa chathair anseo. Tá tuismitheoiri ag feitheamh ar áiteanna sna scoileanna seo agus tá árd-chaighdean iontu. Beidh na scoláirí seo agus a dtuismitheoirí agus daoine eile a bhfuil baint acu leis na scoileanna ag lorg seirbhís trí Ghaeilge amach anseo. Tá súil agam go mbeimid in ann a chinntiú go mbeidh Acht ann a chabhróidh leis an Ombudsman tabhairt faoi na gearáin atá luaite ins an Tuarascáil seo. Ní cóir dúinn, ach oiread, dearmad a dhéanamh ar an ngradam atá ag an nGaeilge agus ag an gcultúr Gaelach go hidirnáisiúnta anois. Tá árd-mheas ag tíortha eile ar cheol, ar rince, ar litríocht, ar oidhreacht agus ar theanga an náisiúin seo. Tagann cuairteoirí isteach sa tír seo chun staidéar a dhéanamh ar an gcultúr agus chun taitneamh a bhaint as. Ní gá ach féachaint ar na figiúirí turasóireachta le fáil amach an fiúntas a bhaineann leis an gcultúr chun cuairteoirí a mhealladh isteach sa tír seo. Tagann siad isteach toisc go bhfuilimid difriúil agus toisc go bhfuil saibhreas faoi leith againn inár n-oidhreacht. Chonaic mé staitistic i suirbhé a deineadh ag Bord Fáilte a léirigh go raibh oidhreacht na tíre ar bharr liosta na bhfáthanna a mheall cuairteoirí isteach sa tír seo. Is ionann é sin agus a rá go bhfuil an cultúr agus an trádáil thar a bheith compórdach lena chéile. Más rud é go dtagann aon rud as an gcáipéis seo a bhaineann lenár bhféiniúlacht náisiúnta tá súil agam gurb é sin go dtabharfar tacaíocht don Ombudsman agus é ag tabhairt faoi na deacrachtaí a bhaineann leis.

This is my first contribution to Seanad Éireann. I thank the Minister for giving us an exceptionally helpful statement on the Annual Report of the Ombudsman, which I welcome. It is a particularly fine document professionally prepared which shows a great degree of concern in the workings of the Ombudsman's office. As legislators, we are not only happy that this office exits but that it is being developed and enhanced each year. It behoves us all who have concern for those who feel marginalised, who do not have a voice or political support or who may at times feel threatened or intimidated by bureaucracy, to give the fullest support to the Ombudsman and his staff and to help them to develop in whatever way we can.

Every public representative or member of the community has encountered people over the years who felt disillusioned, disappointed and ostracised almost in so far as receiving what they would consider fair and just treatment. It is possible that the image of the Ombudsman's office and the service provided is one which perhaps might overawe people who have no experience of using the public service in a manner of which we may have experience. We should, in whatever way we can, create greater accessibility to and a friendly imagine of the Ombudsman's office for those people. I do not believe that is possible in the context of the present structure.

It is probably worth considering a facilitator who would bring a case with an agreed person to the Ombudsman for consideration. When I refer to people who do not have a voice and who feel marginalised I am not talking about people who are quite vocal or good at agitation but about members of the community who, in other circumstances, might not wish to achieve public notoriety or who may not wish the spotlight to be turned on them as they are laid back, quiet and patient people. Nevertheless, if we are genuine about harmonising society, we can only do so by providing a cloak of reality to the aspiration of inclusiveness. If we do not do this people will be more cynical and removed from whatever progress is being made in society or in our community.

I was particularly pleased to see that in his report the Ombudsman has a generous section on the Irish language. He displayed admirable professionalism and concern in presenting that report. We are all aware that in the past the Irish language might have been viewed as something divisive in society or in the local community. That perception was not caused by the language but it might have been caused by the evidence that people, for some reason or another, wish to attribute to the Irish language a political meaning which does not exist. We can take great confidence from the status of the Irish language today.

If one considers the development of the Gaelscoileanna one would find they are not only located in places which are traditionally favourable and active where the language is concerned but also in the city and inner city. Children are on waiting lists. This is possibly one of the greatest cultural revolutions ever experienced in the history of a language in the world. Thousands of young people attend these schools and the obvious standards achieved means that in years to come all those young people, parents and relations will look for a service to continue their interest in the language. This would be seen, not only as a hobby but also as their vernacular at any given time.

There is an immense goodwill abroad at present among young and old and all classes. The language supersedes politics, religious persuasion and class and can be seen as a cohesive influence on our lives and can have a bearing not only on the cultural but also on the social aspect. Perhaps one of the reasons this has happened is our enhanced status within Europe, our interaction with other nations and above all else, the greater educational opportunities which our young people have at present. They are much travelled young people and see the difference, respect and support which is available for national languages in other countries. That support is not only financial but legislative.

It is well known that these countries give major injections of finance to institutes to ensure that French and German will have enhanced status internationally. In that context young people, and those not so young, realise we have a language, based on antiquity, an advanced civilisation and a wonderful literary tradition which is as expressive as any language to be found in the world. Bearing that in mind, the Ombudsman clearly made the point that the Irish language is the first official language according to Bunreacht na hÉireann but he pointed out that his difficulty in following up what he considers to be a relatively small number of complaints, 13, is that there is no Act to provide legislative support for the status mentioned in the Bunreacht.

The time is right to have a Bill of rights for the Irish language which has been in demand for so long. The atmosphere is right, there is goodwill and if we have the will to demand it, I have no doubt it will greatly enhance us as a nation.

I thank the Cathaoirleach for giving me the opportunity to address the House today and I thank the Minister of State.

An Cathaoirleach

I compliment the Senator on his maiden speech.

Mr. Chambers

I welcome the Minister of State to the House and I welcome the report in a very positive context. It is a very well documented report and outlines the progress made in the organs of the State.

I welcome that legislation is being considered to extend the powers of the Ombudsman within the State. That is necessary. From experience, when one looks at some of the special cases which have arisen and at our State structures, one can see the difficulties which people encounter. To an extent, they feel marginalised. People find great difficulty in getting what they regard as their natural rights within the State. One can see there is a balancing aspect and that as we improve our institutions under the strategic management initiative, one would expect the demand for the Ombudsman should be lessened. At a time when people talk of great national buoyancy and accumulation of national wealth we should look at our State in greater totality.

In his future considerations the Ombudsman should genuinely examine the provision of public administration to our people within the State. I do not think it is right that people should have to travel 100 miles to tax their cars, especially at a time when there are post offices, local authority offices, banks and other agencies in the private sector and many in the public administration sector in every village. This issue needs to be addressed.

We should look at public administration in its totality. There should be a basic fundamental service for our citizens. We are a small country with reasonably good wealth and within our technology we should be able to provide public administration equally and fairly to our citizens. This could be easily achieved and is something the Ombudsman should consider. The provision of services by semi-State bodies, banks and building societies are areas which should be examined by the Ombudsman in future. Where the Government gives certain areas a special tax designation as part of a development programme for improving those areas' infrastructure and facilities, especially to improve tourism, banks should provide fundamental services such as ATMs. The banks' profits are paid for by customers and the Ombudsman should have the power to direct these institutions to provide the necessary services for the further development of these areas.

I am concerned at the high level of complaints from my county to the Ombudsman, some of which involve the local authority. I believe it is connected with my earlier point concerning peripherality. Fundamental services, such as roads, water, sewerage and electricity should be provided for all. In more stringent economic times the State provided the basic service of electricity through the ESB at great cost and it is now readily available to everyone. The State should provide other fundamental services to every taxpayer. For example, every person who pays car tax has a basic right to roads of reasonable and good quality. It would not cost that much compared with overall State expenditure.

I welcome the report and consider the Ombudsman's work exceptional. It has injected a human element into a public service which tends to be somewhat removed. His work has brought about a customer oriented attitude in the service and introduced an element of fairness in its deliberations. I welcome the report.

Ms Leonard

I compliment the Ombudsman and his staff on an excellent report which is brief, to the point and concise. It is written in clear language and is one of the few reports one does not need an English dictionary to read.

The Ombudsman is in a peculiar position in that I am sure public service employees feel he is often looking over their shoulder. It is difficult to do one's job, even if one is an expert, if someone is in the background keeping an eye on one. However, one of the greatest sins is to become complacent, because corners are cut and the job ends up being only half done. The Ombudsman is obviously needed because the public needs recourse to appeal. He is also independent and impartial.

I know public servants tend to be categorised, having been one myself for many years, but we should think how people using the service feel about how they are treated. For example, if they are collecting unemployment benefit, they enter the office, take a ticket, wait in a queue for a half hour to an hour and are called to a hatch with two or three feet of counter between them and the person serving them. I am sure such people must feel like the child who asks for more and probably feel like beggars. Public servants can be impersonal and it is essential that people have the Ombudsman on their side. The service is essential and the 10 per cent increase in complaints suggests more people are using it. It will be needed all the more since we now live in a consumer society.

The report states that public bodies should strive for the highest standards of administration in their dealings and that they should ensure citizens are dealt with fairly and promptly and correctly in accordance with their entitlements. One wonders why we need the Ombudsman at all. However, as there were 3,181 complaints last year, there is obviously a great need for this service. It is to be expected that 48 per cent of the complaints concerned Civil Service Departments, but I was surprised only 19.5 per cent concerned the Department of Agriculture and Food. I know from my background that every year there are many people with forms to fill out for headage payments, suckler premia, area aid grants, etc., and this is the same in every other constituency. These people have more trouble filling out forms than doing their work. The language in some of these application forms would baffle anyone; one would almost need a degree in agricultural science to understand them.

One point I was disheartened to read in the report is that it is the most vulnerable people in our society who most need the help of the Ombudsman. I read some of the examples of widows and people with multiple sclerosis. Life is tough enough for such people without the added strain of waiting ten years for disability benefit. There is no excuse for this. These people suffer enough and, if they are entitled to benefits, they should get them. As public representatives, we cannot get people something to which they are not entitled; we can only speed up the process. In the case of the person with multiple sclerosis, all the Department had to do was seek proof the applicant had been to a doctor ten years before. Unfortunately, with all the bureaucracy it is sometimes forgotten we are dealing with people. It is an absolute disgrace that someone should have to wait ten years for their disability benefit. That said, I was delighted to read there was a successful outcome to the matter.

In his report, Mr. Murphy said he was expecting to include vocational education committees, FÁS schemes and public hospitals within his remit. However, this has not yet happened. I would be delighted to see this happen but will additional resources be made available? We need someone to keep an eye on these bodies. It is worrying when the Ombudsman takes on more work without the resources to back it up although this is an essential development.

This is an excellent report. Mr. Murphy and his staff are to be commended on its presentation. The lowest number of complaints came from my county — only two concerning local authorities. The North-Eastern Health Board also had the lowest number of complaints against such a body. Is this because we are so good in that part of the country? I would like to think it is because our local authorities and health board are so good at their jobs. I will refrain from saying so as I do not know what next year's report will contain.

Mr. Costello

I welcome this report and the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman. This office was a long time coming and when established I deplored that its remit was somewhat limited and did not extend to certain bodies and institutions which would benefit from such a development. The Minister of State, Deputy O'Donnell, spoke in the Dáil about the operation of prisons. That sector was specifically omitted from the remit of our Ombudsman whereas it is included in Scandinavian countries. It would be very valuable if a similar provision existed here. The Ombudsman is a very valuable watchdog in terms of being a go-between and a human face dealing with complaints made by the public against public bodies. He also seeks to establish standards of best practice.

This year the number of complaints have increased by 10.5 per cent from 2,879 to 3,181. The report includes a breakdown indicating the sectors in which the majority of these complaints originated. I am concerned at the level of complaints about local authorities. By definition they are local bodies and one would expect them to be more in tune with the local delivery of services than a national body such as a Government Department. To some extent, local authorities are involved in one stop shops and a more local delivery of services. Nevertheless, the number of complaints against them is quite high. Local authorities deal with people on the margins of society. Very often these people cannot deal with their own problems. Those seeking housing, maintenance and the provision of on-street services form the largest category of members of the public who have direct contact with local authorities. A substantial number of complaints involve first and ongoing contact with these bodies. I would like to see considerable improvement in this respect.

It is also worrying to see the number of complaints against the Civil Service and the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs. Like local authorities, this Department has most contact with people in the lower sectors of society and they seem to have a large number of complaints. Roughly 50 per cent of complaints are resolved. Other complaints were outside the remit of the Ombudsman.

Last Saturday week approximately 2,000 non-national refugees seeking asylum queued outside the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. They were there not through any fault of their own but because of the slow, tedious procedures for processing their asylum applications. They had to queue to have their identity papers renewed. This is a strategic management area. Simple commonsense and decent courtesy should be shown towards those who come to our shores in these circumstances. They should not be obliged to all come on the same day and wait for hours for the Department to process their papers. I do not know if the Ombudsman has scope to inquire into these matters as it applies to the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. However, this should be examined. If we are talking about a good quality service we are talking about a fair, speedy and humane service. This is particularly the case when dealing with vulnerable asylum seekers. This should strike a chord with all of us.

The Ombudsman states the emphasis of his tenure is to deal directly with individual complaints from the public. However, his emphasis on principles of good administration is equally important. If the corporate image of a public body is adequate it will have good practices, guidelines and standards and a plan for good administration and how best to deliver its services. While the Ombudsman deals with individual complaints it is important to cut down on the number of complaints. Public bodies should have a good quality plan which will be the basis of dealing with the public so that the Ombudsman's burden of work is limited.

I welcome this report. It has grown each year since the establishment of the office. Unfortunately, the number of complaints has increased again. However, with the emphasis on strategic management and the focus on those public bodies which are the worst perpetrators of bad practice we can expect to see some improvement.

Minister of State at the Department of Finance (Mr. Cullen)

I thank Senators for participating in this important debate. I concur with most of the views which were also strongly expressed in the other House. These views concern the work done by the Ombudsman and the quality of his report. The Ombudsman has set down a marker for all State or semi-State agencies which submit reports to the Houses of the Oireachtas. He has set down very specific benchmarks in relation to the manner in which he sees the public service and Civil Service evolving. That is a very valuable contribution to us as politicians who experience, in many ways, a similar fate in dealing with many very serious queries, considerations and concerns expressed from time to time by the people we represent. The role of the Ombudsman fulfils a major need.

Senator Finneran spoke about medical records earlier in the debate. He pointed out that the area was a very sensitive one and asked how the extension of the Ombudsman's remit would deal with that issue. The Minister for Health and Children is giving that issue careful consideration. There is a great sensitivity in relation to clinical judgments and the issue must be handled with great care.

Senator Doyle referred to the use of jargon in relation to the reform programme. I agree that the language we use should be straightforward and easily understood and should apply across the entire range of public services. It struck me, as I listened to the debate, that there seems to be a notion that we suddenly reach a point where we must change. I heard a very interesting comment recently that today we are actually witnessing change in motion. That comment struck me forcibly. Change does not stop happening; we do not set down rules by which we must live for ten year periods. We would all do well as politicians, and in the public service in general, to understand that change is constant; we should never go back to the days where we had to write up reports to see where we went wrong. We should be alert at all times.

Senator Doyle also asked about the implementation of the Freedom of Information Act. That will commence on 21 April 1998 for central Government Departments and bodies and on 21 October 1998 for local authority and health board areas.

Senator Finneran raised the issue of European legislation. The Ombudsman himself touched on this area in his report and refers to the role of the European Ombudsman. This issue is under review and I have had some discussions on it; we will assess what will be required in the regulations and look at whether we need to extend the remit and the powers of the Ombudsman in the future. It is an important point and was well made by Senator Finneran.

Some Senators re-emphasised the importance of the independence of the Ombudsman's office saying that it is a central aspect of his ability to fulfil his role. The Office of the Ombudsman is absolutely independent and no message should go out from this House that it is anything other than that. The Ombudsman, under statute, is only answerable to the Oireachtas.

One of the Senators — I think it was Senator Finneran — spoke about the fact that the Office of the Ombudsman is not enshrined in the Constitution. The constitutional review group is actually examining that issue at the moment; I think it would be worthwhile to do that.

Senator O'Toole sought further clarification on the Government's commitment to the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill and the Administrative Procedures Bill. I reiterate that I am giving priority to that legislative programme and proposals on it are well advanced in my Department. I hope to be in a position to present the proposals to Government in the near future.

Senator O'Toole also spoke about the need for partnership as opposed to consultation in the area of the public service. I believe the public service is genuinely moving towards that and, as a Minister of State, I will be giving them the fullest support I can to develop that psychological change. We are all in partnership and consultation on a permanent basis; we do not merely consult with somebody and then go off and do what we want to do ourselves. The world has moved on from that.

Mention was also made of the culture of the Civil Service. Senator O'Toole's suggestion that the principles of good administration form part of the induction training of all civil servants is an excellent one. It is important that public servants receive such training at an early stage to help them prepare for the role they will fulfil. We are all becoming increasingly aware that training is a fundamental and ongoing aspect of all our lives. Nowadays, nobody qualifies in a particular area without going on to do something else. It is not possible to survive or succeed if one does not engage in ongoing training. One of the keys to the success of the economic situation in which we find ourselves is that we have cottoned on to the fact that it is necessary to have ongoing training in both the public and private sectors.

Senator Cox referred to the continuing instances of poor customer service. While great headway was made in recent years in improving the quality of the public service, I accept that some work remains to be done. The issue of people's privacy in dealing with local authorities and similar bodies was also raised. At times people have deeply personal problems and they can feel that the whole world is standing round listening to them. That is the case in many of the buildings which are out of date and badly designed. As a former member of a local authority, I know that local authorities throughout the country are trying to find the resources to improve the situation. It will not happen overnight but we will get there sooner rather than later.

I take this opportunity to congratulate Senator Maurice Hayes on his maiden speech. As a former Ombudsman he would be alert to, and aware of, the difficulties of holding such an office. I concur with him that the office of the Ombudsman of this State does hold a high standing in international circles. The Senator raised a number of salient points one of which related to the resourcing of the Office of the Ombudsman. The resourcing of any facility or office is always a factor in its ability to deliver services. The Senator raised the question of having performance indicators for the staff of the office and the issue of departmental feedback on areas attracting the greatest number of complaints. He also spoke about the humanising of the public service generally. The Senator was able to bring his deep knowledge and experience to bear on the debate and we can all empathise with the points he made. However, it is not sufficient to empathise with him, we must engender the kind of culture he spoke about and we must put procedures in place which will allow that culture to flourish and grow. People must have benchmarks to adhere to and improve upon. The role and importance of the Office of the Ombudsman is fully understood, particularly by the Department of Finance. While subject to the usual difficulties of Government, procedures, policy and staffing, where possible we should ensure the Ombudsman has the full facilities required by him. His assuming the role of information commissioner puts another important burden on him and the impact of that legislation will be substantial.

I agree with Senator Quinn's comment that in a remarkably short time in office the Ombudsman succeeded in helping the public service realise mistakes can be made. This underpins the enthusiasm and vitality Mr. Kevin Murphy has brought to the office.

Senator Ó Murchú raised a number of issues I already referred to regarding organisation, giving consideration to people dealing with the Ombudsman and reporting procedures. Taken with implementation of the SMI and the new legislation, these provisions will allow a flowering for the new millennium ensuring best practice within Government agencies. It is our role to ensure the position of the Ombudsman is enhanced and the resources are put in place in line with the public perception of and need for the office.

All sides in both Houses see the Office of the Ombudsman as being very significant and demanding of the highest respect. It is delivering excellent service under the leadership of Mr. Kevin Murphy who has clearly indicated his desire to further enhance and develop the office. He is not necessarily satisfied with things as they stand and sees the challenges that lie ahead. We must ensure we provide him with what is necessary to meet the challenges he sees.

I thank Members for participating in the debate. It is important that we have an opportunity to discuss these issues. I referred to legislation currently being drafted and will return to these issues in the context of the public service.

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht - Thursday, 23 Oct 1997

Annual Report of Ombudsman: Statements.

Acting Chairman

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Thursday, 23 Oct 1997