Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 26 Sep 2012

Vol. 217 No. 4

Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2008: Second Stage

Question proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin)

I welcome the opportunity to introduce this important legislation to the Seanad. While I am sure many Senators will be aware the first equivalent to a modern-day office of the Ombudsman was established in Sweden in the 18th century, the starting point for the establishment of the Office of the Ombudsman in Ireland goes back to 1969 and the report of the public services organisation review group, better known as the Devlin report, which recommended the appointment of a commissioner for administrative justice, the theoretical prototype for the Ombudsman, which would emerge later. Six years after the publication of that report, a Dáil Private Members' motion led to the establishment of an informal all-party committee, which reported in 1977 and recommended the establishment of an Ombudsman's office. The Bill establishing the office was enacted in 1980 and came into operation, by Government order, in July 1983.

This Bill represents the most significant legislative development in the jurisdiction and role of the Ombudsman since that original Act came into force. In seeking to have the Second Stage debate completed in this House, I wish to highlight the role of the legislation as a key pillar of the Government's political reform agenda to strengthen the accountability of public bodies, enhance the transparency of public administration and improve the quality of decision making in the public sector. The programme for Government contains a commitment to extend the Ombudsman Act to ensure all statutory bodies and all bodies significantly funded from the public purse are covered, as well as third level institutions. The primary purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to deliver this commitment regarding public bodies and thereby ensure members of the public have recourse to the Ombudsman in respect of the administrative actions of a significantly wider range of public bodies than heretofore. The Ombudsman has expressed her own views on this matter, which have been used to inform the drafting of this legislation.

The Ombudsman is empowered to investigate complaints about the administrative actions of Departments and Government offices, a number of agencies, the Health Service Executive, including public voluntary hospitals, and local authorities. It should be noted the Ombudsman also has certain functions under the Disability Act 2005 with regard to compliance with obligations placed on public bodies by that Act. In overall terms, the Ombudsman currently has jurisdiction over approximately 35 Government Departments, offices and agencies, as well as over all local authorities and voluntary hospitals.

It is important to stress the Government's ambition for this Bill, if it is to be realised, must be fulfilled through its further amendment on Committee Stage in this House. I will explain by noting it will extend to comprehending all public bodies considered appropriate for review by the Ombudsman. My Department believes that more than 140 additional bodies, on top of the 35 bodies currently enveloped, will be brought within the Ombudsman's remit in terms of agencies and educational institutions and this will be extended further when significantly funded non-public bodies are added in due course. There has been a debate on whether bodies which get a significant chunk of money from the State also should be subject to the Ombudsman's review. More than 30 years after the enactment of the Ombudsman Act 1980, this Bill therefore provides the framework for the full realisation of the potential of the Ombudsman in providing redress to citizens in circumstances in which the system of public administration has performed inadequately. In addition to the highly significant extension in the scope of administrative review, the Bill also provides the Ombudsman with additional powers and updates various provisions in the original Act to provide the Ombudsman with strengthened and updated powers to effectively and efficiently discharge the critical functions and responsibilities of her office.

The role of the Ombudsman is not simply to examine individual complaints but also to ensure a better quality service to customers or clients of public bodies or citizens by improving the system of public administration in general.

An important part of the service is also the assistance given to members of the public on issues and areas which do not fall formally within the Ombudsman's remit. The Ombudsman's office does its best to offer advice, support and guidance in directing these inquirers to the right place to get assistance.

By the middle of September this year, approximately 80,000 complaints had been handled by the Ombudsman. Over the years, approximately 46% of complaints have been upheld in whole or in part or some assistance has been provided to the complainant. Last year the Ombudsman's office received more than 3,600 valid complaints. More than 11,500 inquiries were also received that year.

I am very conscious that the wider improvements in public administration which the Ombudsman can help bring about are often achieved through the unearthing of systemic issues which come to light, in the first instance, through individual complaints. The positive spin-off that this yields manifests itself in a number of ways. For instance, while the primary purpose of the Ombudsman's annual report is to report to the Oireachtas on the carrying out of her functions, it also serves to alert the public and public bodies to cases of interest which the Ombudsman deals with over the previous year.

The Ombudsman caseload can also act as a valuable mechanism for identifying where broader improvements are required in administrative systems and processes to meet the customer service objective of the public service reform plan of placing the customer, the citizen, at the core of public services. As highlighted in that plan to meet the challenge of delivering better for less, the public service must be focused on making the citizen's interaction with the State as simple and seamless as possible and improving the customer's experience in engaging with governmental systems.

Many of the public bodies which the Ombudsman deals with deliver services or administer schemes which are similar in nature. For instance, all hospitals face similar challenges in seeking to provide first-class patient care. An individual case where the Ombudsman finds fault with a particular public body and suggests improvements in practices and procedures can therefore provide a valuable learning experience for other public bodies which carry out similar work. In order to strengthen the role of the Ombudsman in this area, the Bill provides for the Ombudsman to make general recommendations to any of the bodies within her remit where, following an investigation, she considers it appropriate to do so. She can have a general application from a specific case.

A further benefit arising from the work of the office is the correction of issues which the Ombudsman identified in one case involving a public body which, in turn, leads to a retrospective review of similar cases which had arisen previously and where appropriate redress may be warranted arising from the decision reached after considering an individual complaint. This can yield benefits for a class of people who had never actually complained to the Ombudsman or were unaware of the capacity to complain.

The annual and special reports published by the Office of the Ombudsman show how the office can make a difference in the lives of many people while at the same time helping to raise the standards of public administration in Ireland. Public bodies can use the outcome of an Ombudsman investigation as an opportunity to turn complaints into a positive learning experience for the benefit of their organisation and those members of the public with whom they deal.

In advance of outlining the main provisions of the Bill, Senators should note that I intend to table a series of amendments on Committee Stage. This reflects the further consideration that Government has given to the provisions of the Bill and the opportunity the legislation provides for delivering key objectives in the programme for Government. The Office of the Ombudsman has been closely consulted on these proposals and the Ombudsman's views have been taken into account in finalising them. I wish to acknowledge that the genesis of the Bill lies with the previous Government. It was introduced into and passed by the other House, but never made it to this House because of the fall of that Dáil. We want to build on that foundation and extend it further.

I will now briefly outline the main provisions of the Bill. Section 4 amends provisions in the 1980 Act whereby the Government can add or remove bodies to the Ombudsman's remit by order. It is important that we will not be required to formally change the law to add a new body to the oversight of the Ombudsman. On Committee Stage, I propose to ensure that there will be automatic application of the Ombudsman to any new public body created thereby not requiring an order or legislation. I will also be proposing to allow for further extension of the application of the Act to non-public, significantly funded bodies on a case-by-case basis. I will be interested to get the views of the Senators on this matter. There are a number of significant non-public bodies that are largely funded by the State and the Government believes they, by and large, should be under the remit of the Ombudsman.

Section 5 updates the reference to "European Parliament" in section 2 of the 1980 Act. I also propose to amend section 5 further on Committee Stage to provide for a consultation for a committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas before making any proposal to appoint the Ombudsman. This is in line with what is happening generally with incoming heads of semi-State bodies appearing before committees. I want to go somewhat further in this case requiring a consultation in advance of any proposal to appoint the next Ombudsman.

Section 6 updates section 4 of the 1980 Act to allow the Ombudsman to investigate a failure by a body to comply with the provisions being introduced in the Bill requiring bodies under the remit of the Ombudsman to give reasonable assistance and guidance in dealings they have with members of the public. The section also clarifies that the Ombudsman may, in her general discretion, continue to investigate actions by bodies within her remit on her own initiative - an "own-initiative" investigation - without formal complaint being made. This allows the Ombudsman to be a self-starter and would not be required to be triggered by a formal complaint.

Section 7 introduces a new provision on the rights of citizens in their dealings with public bodies on administrative matters. The section sets out the entitlement of citizens to a high level of service from those bodies which come within the remit of the Ombudsman. Consistent with the resources available to them, public bodies will be required to: give reasonable assistance and guidance in their dealings with the public; ensure that the business of the person is dealt with properly, fairly and impartially; and provide information on any rights of appeal or review that people have.

Section 8 amends section 5 of the 1980 Act which excludes matters relating to the recruitment or appointment and the terms and conditions on which a person in a reviewable agency is employed. The Bill now provides that, on these types of employment-related issues, the Ombudsman will have no jurisdiction, regardless of the organisation concerned. The rationale for this is clear, namely, the role of the Ombudsman is to safeguard the rights of individuals and society in dealing with public bodies and not to investigate issues relating to terms and conditions of employment, for which there are already very well established and elaborate State procedures.

Section 9 amends section 6 of the 1980 Act to provide that the Ombudsman can make a general recommendation to public bodies within her remit as she considers appropriate following an investigation. Sections 10 to 14, inclusive, provide for the strengthening of the powers of the Ombudsman as well as making some technical amendments. Section 15 limits the use of the title of "Ombudsman" to positions that are either authorised to use the title by an Act of the Oireachtas, have obtained the consent of the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform to do so on foot of consultation by the Minister with the Ombudsman and relevant Ministers, or had commenced using the term before the publication of this Bill in 2008. The purpose of these provisions is to prevent a proliferation of entities using the term "Ombudsman" and safeguard the position and status which the Ombudsman and related offices hold in society.

Section 16 provides for the replacement of First and Second Schedules to the principal Act. As I have emphasised, the Bill deals primarily with the remit of the Ombudsman. Listed in the current Schedule of the Bill are, for example, the vocational educational committees, higher education institutes, organisations such as the National Roads Authority, the Central Applications Office, the Sustainable Energy Ireland Authority, the National Treatment Purchase Fund, the Courts Service, the Family Support Agency and many other semi-State bodies the activities of which affect the daily lives of citizens.

I will be proposing a further amendment on Committee Stage, to delete Part I and Part II of the First Schedule of the 1980 Act and to replace them with a general definitional provision in the First Schedule, with a list of specific bodies whose functions are to be partially brought within the Ombudsman's remit as "reviewable agencies". This will ensure that the Ombudsman's remit will automatically extend to all public bodies by way of a general definition of such bodies, except those bodies that are to be specifically excluded in whole or in part.

The Second Schedule to the Bill lists the bodies which are not subject to the Ombudsman's remit. The Ombudsman is precluded from investigating an action taken by or on behalf of a body specified in the Second Schedule. Bodies which are to be specifically excluded from the Ombudsman's remit include commercial State bodies; regulatory agencies operating in the commercial domain; bodies involved in the legal and criminal justice system or with closely analogous functions and research and advisory bodies with little or no direct interface with members of the public. The final list of exempted bodies is currently being compiled for Committee Stage on the basis of the advice of Government colleagues.

Sections 17 to 20 currently contain a number of consequential technical amendments to other Acts. I will be proposing further amendments on Committee Stage to provide for the merger of the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments with the Office of the Ombudsman. This merger is a recommendation of the McCarthy report and should lead to greater flexibility in the deployment of staff and administrative efficiencies through the amalgamation of back office functions. The Commission for Public Service Appointments and the commissioners are to continue with no change to their statutory roles.

I also advise the House of my intention to propose an amendment on Committee Stage to the Ombudsman for Children Act 2002. The amendment provides that the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman for Children will automatically follow any changes to the jurisdiction to the Ombudsman in order that, as the Schedules are amended, the change will apply to both.

The work of Transparency International highlights the Office of the Ombudsman as an important pillar of what is called "Ireland's national integrity systems", the key institutions, sectors, culture and activities that contribute to integrity, transparency and accountability in a society. Transparency International in its 2009 Country Study on Ireland observed that the Office of the Ombudsman was widely respected, has grown in confidence in recent years and is seeking to be more proactive in addressing more issues of public concern. It is essential that the continued effectiveness of the Ombudsman is secured by ensuring that the Ombudsman exercises oversight over the administrative decision making of all appropriate public bodies and that the Ombudsman's governing legislation is appropriately reformed and updated. This Bill achieves these dual objectives.

I trust Senators will strongly support this Bill and will welcome the new powers being given to the Ombudsman and the significant expansion of her remit. The Bill introduces a positive set of measures which will empower citizens in their interactions with public bodies and help to further improve standards of public administration. I commend it to the House.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Howlin, to the House.

Senator Thomas Byrne

Fianna Fáil welcomes this Bill, the introduction of which it proposed in 2008. It is a pity the previous and current Governments delayed in this regard. However, I acknowledge there were other priorities for both.

The Office of the Ombudsman is one of the few offices of State which attracts universal respect and praise in terms of citizens' interactions with it. I have never heard a complaint about that office and I am sure that will never be the case. The Bill is a welcome extension of the number of bodies that fall within the remit of the Ombudsman, which bodies were outlined by the Minister. Included are many bodies whose actions affect people in their daily lives. This Bill provides for the most significant extension of the Ombudsman's functions in the past 25 years, which is to be welcomed.

My own experiences in terms of dealings on behalf of citizens with the Ombudsman have been positive. In one case, where a citizen was being forced to remove himself from this jurisdiction because there were no care facilities for him here and the Department of Social Protection had denied him social welfare benefits, the Ombudsman rectified the matter by ensuring the Department recognised the reality of the situation, which was a welcome decision. I have also had a number of interactions with the Ombudsman in regard to mortgage interest supplement and rent allowance, which interactions were also positive.

The need for an Ombudsman is even more acute at a time when the economy is in the troughs. During this time, people become more aware of their rights and have, out of financial necessity or as a matter of justice for the sake of their families, a greater need to enforce them. The Government makes choices based on budgetary policy, thus abolishing or amending benefits. It is in respect of the rules applicable to those benefits that the Ombudsman's office comes into play in terms of examining and applying them correctly. The fact that the Government generally accepts the Ombudsman's decision saves people going to court to enforce their rights and also saves a great deal of time and money in that regard.

In the 1980s, my father, through his auctioneering business, had cause to take up a matter with the Ombudsman, namely, abolition of the first time buyer's grant and the arbitrary cut-off point which applied in this regard, which was introduced by former Minister, Ray MacSharry. Some €10 million worth of grants was being abolished at that time. While one person made the complaint people all over Ireland benefited. While people had complied with the rules the Government had put an arbitrary time limit in place. My family has had much interaction with the Ombudsman down through the years, to the benefit of many people.

The decision in respect of the use of the word "Ombudsman" as proposed by the Minister and first proposed by the previous Government, is the correct one. There are a plethora of ombudsmen in place, including the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman, the Insurance Ombudsman and Financial Services Ombudsman. We even have an ombudsmans' association. It is a pity this was allowed to happen. However, we cannot turn back the clock. I note that there are students ombudsmans in our colleges. It detracts from the important function played by the Ombudsman in this country that this has been allowed to happen. There should be no further attempts by organisations to use the title "Ombudsman".

I welcome section 7 which relates to citizens' dealings with public services. However, I am not sure it goes far enough. Fianna Fáil put forward a Bill in the Dáil last year, the effect of which would have been to force local authorities to reply to a person within a particular time. I am not sure this section puts that obligation on a local authority, which obligation can be an administrative burden on local authorities, in particular if they receive a huge volume of vexatious correspondence. I met this morning with staff of Meath local authority who are very dedicated people. However, it can be frustrating for citizens who contact local authorities by telephone, e-mail or letter about a pothole and so on, which may be small issues in the overall scheme of things but affect their daily lives, if they do not get a response. Although I have not used the FixMyStreet.ie facility I understand some local authorities are doing great work through it, which is a positive development.

If people know what to expect, it will be better.

The section is so general that it does not provide enough for the public. A local authority will be able to interpret it in a manner that gets around the legislation. I will have to discuss it with my group before we table an amendment to make it more specific. I am conscious of the resource issue because queries must be dealt with and local authorities do not have the staff they used to have. If people knew what to expect and knew that a complaint about a pothole did not go into a black hole in the office, they would be happy. If they knew there was a procedure in the office, they would be happy even if they never received a formal reply or a telephone call. Fianna Fáil is supporting the Bill and, on behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to the Ombudsman. My party in government did not agree with the conclusions of the Ombudsman on one or two occasions but my dealings with her office have been excellent. Ms O'Reilly and her staff are excellent public servants and deserve our support. I hope they are not overwhelmed with work as a result of this Bill.

Senator Cáit Keane

I welcome the Minister and the reintroduction of this Bill, which was reactivated by the last Government in 2008. It had another hearing in 2010. It has taken too long to get to this stage and it should not have taken so long because it is so important. The Government is only in office a while but when important Bills come along an explanation should be given for the reason they have not been enacted. I say that for the Government to note.

I raised a point on the Order of Business about women on boards. I find it difficult to call the Ombudsman an ombudswoman. Emily O'Reilly is universally respected and I would prefer to call her ombudsperson.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Ombudsman is Swedish.

Senator Cáit Keane

We are in Ireland. Táimid in Éirinn anois agus ba cheart dúinn a bheith ag cur in iúl-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

As Gaeilge, Ombudsman atá ann chomh maith.

Senator Cáit Keane

We will have to get a right English word-----

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

Cad faoin Ghaeilge?

Senator Cáit Keane

Sin é, aistrithe chomh maith agus focal ceart agus b'fhéidir go dtiocfaidh an Seanadóir Ó Clochartaigh suas leis an fhocal ceart le haghaidh ombudsperson.

Senator Ivana Bacik

Tá an focal ceart agam, ombud.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

Senator Keane to continue, without interruption.

Senator Cáit Keane

I am starting with section 15(10)(a), which gives protection to the term "Ombudsman". The Minister said he would accept amendments on Committee Stage and perhaps we will have a further discussion on the term. We are in Ireland and although we follow Sweden in many ways because it is way ahead of us in having introduced the Act in 1860-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

It is an international term and is used everywhere else in the world. People understand what it is.

Senator Cáit Keane

I know.

Senator Rónán Mullen

Is the Senator suggesting it should be changed to ombudsperson? That still ends in "son" and the Senator would still have a problem.

Senator Cáit Keane

I would not have any problem with the word ending in "son".

Senator Rónán Mullen

Ombudsperchild.

Senator Cáit Keane

The Minister has noted the point. I welcome the Government's initiatives and, when the Bill is enacted, it will amend the Ombudsman Act 1980, which established the office to investigate complaints about the administrative actions of public bodies that adversely affected individuals or bodies corporate. We all know how important it is to individuals, some of whom are at the end of their tether. They wonder where they should turn to if they cannot get any satisfaction. The Minister mentioned the figures and I will deal with this later. The Office of the Ombudsman must be used and people should do so. Very often, the airwaves are used when the correct course of redress, which is readily available, is the Office of the Ombudsman. The importance of the office cannot be overstated. When people are desperate and at the final hurdle, they will use it if they see no other road open to them.

The Legal Services Ombudsman is a separate entity. Can the Minister make a statement on the post of Legal Services Ombudsman to ensure we are all clear on its relationship to the Ombudsman? Momentum for reform in this area has been building for many years. It was first mooted in a publication by the Competition Authority in 2006, which pointed to a pressing need to introduce reform. The publication of the report on legal services provided an impetus for a debate on the topic and also, more generally, for a debate on the Ombudsman. The programme for Government committed to extending the role of the Ombudsman to ensure all statutory bodies and bodies significantly funded from the public purse are covered, as well as third level institutions. The Minister has outlined that it is proposed to enact the Bill but perhaps he can outline when it will be enacted. Perhaps he can give us a date when it will be finally passed by the Houses.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I cannot enact it. That is up to the Oireachtas.

Senator Cáit Keane

I do not want to go back to 2008.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

The Senator should leave the Minister alone.

Senator Cáit Keane

I would like a timeline. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform asked each Minister to review the public bodies falling under each Department's remit. In surveying the inclusions and exclusions, the Minister has done considerable background work before introducing the Bill. It is based on the recommendations of each Department, so the consultation process has been inclusive of all Departments. The proposals in the Bill are made on foot of the consultation process. It is proposed that non-public bodies, funded in significant part or in whole by the State, will be included on a case-by-case basis by ministerial order. The Minister outlined some of the bodies to be included by ministerial order rather than by amending legislation. I welcome this step because we elect Ministers to have the power to do things. They consult the various interested bodies and we do not want to be in the Chamber changing legislation every day.

Has the Minister outlined who will be consulted and who will help the Minister make the decisions? Some 140 additional bodies were added, both public bodies and bodies that are not public but require public subvention. It is proposed that the Commission for Public Service Appointments will merge with the Office of the Ombudsman. We have spoken so much about the mergers of quangos. Perhaps these two bodies are similar and fulfil a similar role. The last paragraph of the Bill refers to the financial implications, which means more staff. Does merging offices involve more staff or change or taking personnel from elsewhere to the Office of the Ombudsman? I recommend the latter because the Ombudsman needs additional staff. The Minister referred to 80,000 complaints, of which 3,600 were judged valid, in one year. There were also 11,500 queries and I do not know how many e-mails the office receives. The Ombudsman is snowed under.

The additional staffing provided for in the Bill is welcome but we want to ensure those staff are sufficient. Will the Minister make a statement on this?

The Minister stated the primary purpose of the Bill is to extend the Ombudsman's remit. I acknowledge it represents the most significant extension of the Ombudsman's powers in more than 25 years. I thank the Minister for this because the citizens need the Office of the Ombudsman.

The Bill is to extend the remit of the office to a range of bodies, including higher education bodies. The Bill updates some of the provisions contained in the Ombudsman Act 1980 and affords to public bodies certain new powers and obligations. I will not say any more about this because the Minister referred to this in his speech.

There is a provision in the Bill stating powers must be consistent with resources. This ought to be written into every Bill because one cannot go wild and must always operate within resources. The Minister should have a good look at the resources of the Ombudsman's office and ensure they are consistent with the provisions in the Bill. We must cut our cloth according to economic need.

A committee of the Houses of the Oireachtas is to have a role. Which committee has the Minister in mind? I refer to the provision to allow the office to make a general recommendation.

I commend the Minister who is bringing our legislation into line with the freedom of information legislation. It is welcomed by citizens. We hear a lot about openness, transparency and responsibility but this is giving great powers. The Ombudsman will now have the power to bring a case to the High Court if not given the required information. This is brilliant because the Ombudsman's hands were tied behind her back previously. One hit a brick wall and went nowhere. The amendment in this regard is very welcome. I thank the Minister for introducing transparency and openness. A reference to transparency and openness is now a cliché but the Bill puts these principles into action.

Senator Paschal Mooney

I welcome the Minister to the House. I welcome this key element of the programme for Government. It is interesting to note that this is the first extension of the powers of the Ombudsman in some 25 years. When the Ombudsman was appointed in the 1970s, the appointment was not met with universal enthusiasm, yet the office has proved to be very significant and effective.

I will not delay the House on the Bill. The Minister has outlined the various areas in which existing legislation will be improved. Recent cases dealt with by the Ombudsman give some indication of the effectiveness of her office. For example, the office challenged a HSE decision on nursing home charges, securing some 85,500 repayments for complainants. It intervened on behalf of parents who found out that their child who was being treated in a major hospital for a serious illness had been investigated for a non-accidental injury without their knowledge. The office reversed a decision on refusing carer's allowance to the father of a woman with mental health problems and a suicidal history. In the first case of its kind, the Ombudsman upheld a whistleblower's complaint about a flawed HSE investigation. The Bill is welcome in that it provides that, in making decisions on rights, benefits, etc., a public body covered by the Ombudsman must, consistent with the resources, deal with people fairly and in a timely manner.

Section 6 of the Bill updates section 4 of the existing legislation. The provision being introduced requiring bodies under the remit of the Ombudsman to give reasonable assistance and guidance in dealings with members of the public is important because there have been so many cases, for whatever reason, of members of the public not being treated by public officials with the respect they deserve. It is good to have the backstop. The Bill clarifies that the Ombudsman may, in her general discretion, continue to investigate actions by bodies within her remit on her own initiative and without formal complaints being made. This is also significant. The Ombudsman will no longer have to wait on the receipt of a complaint and can now initiate particular investigations across all the public bodies.

It is salutary to reflect on the fact that some 80,000 complaints have been handled by the Ombudsman's office. An average of 46% of complaints have been upheld, as the Minister pointed out. This shows the public has enthusiastically embraced the concept of the Ombudsman. Many public representatives who have been frustrated in their efforts to help constituents have referred many cases to the office of the Ombudsman. As stated, the success rate is pretty high.

We are now to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to some 140 bodies. This will obviously strengthen the accountability of the bodies because it has been proven that the coming into effect of the Office of the Ombudsman has improved the efficiency of public administration. The extension of the remit is bound to improve the quality of the service. It will also make public servants reflect more on how they initiate and implement policy in regard to their dealings with the public. I welcome this important legislation and wish the Minister well.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome the Minister to the House and the introduction of this Bill. As with all Members, I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the genesis of the Bill and the fact it was previously introduced in the Dáil under the previous Government. However, I understand it is the first time the Bill has been in this House. I am delighted we have the opportunity to speak on it now, essentially in a new period of its history. The Minister has outlined very clearly the proposals for amendment on Committee Stage.

Although the Bill was initiated under a previous Government, it clearly fits in with the current Government's political reform agenda. It covers a number of different principles, including that of strengthening accountability of public bodies and improving the quality of services to the public. The latter is an important aspect, as the Minister stated. As Senator Keane emphasised, it is important in enhancing the transparency of public administration. The Bill comprises a positive set of measures to empower citizens and improve public services.

Like previous speakers, I pay tribute to the existing Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, who has done a superb job and who is now halfway through her second term as Ombudsman. She has acquired a list of additional jobs and this Bill is adding to those.

With regard to Senator Keane's question on whether the Title should refer to "Ombudsman" or "Ombudswoman", I have grappled with the issue. I discovered literature suggesting the title "ombud" would be a useful compromise. It is non-gender specific and there is some backing for it, even in the Swedish language. Senator Harte pointed out to me that this is like a title used in Trinity College. Senator Barrett will be aware of fellows of the college. Women can be fellows, as can men.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Jolly good fellows.

Senator Cáit Keane

There was a time when women were not allowed in.

Senator Ivana Bacik

There are now many women fellows. Perhaps we will move on. I will use the term "Ombudsman". There has been discussion on the matter and alternatives proffered. Given that our Ombudsman is a woman and that the role is so closely and rightly associated with her, the title is interesting to use.

A very extensive set of amendments is to be proposed to the Bill and the Minister has outlined them to us. They will make the Bill even more radical in terms of the reforms to be introduced. The Minister stated that more than 140 additional bodies will be brought within the Ombudsman's remit. I very much welcome the extension of the remit to educational institutions and third level institutions, including Trinity College. There is to be a further extension, beyond 140, when significantly funded non-public bodies are added.

I am delighted the amendments are to be made in this House. It will give us a real opportunity to have a good debate on Committee Stage. Committee Stage debates in the Seanad comprise one of the strengths of the House. Any Senator may contribute and many will bring their expertise to the issue of the extension of the role.

The Minister referred to the role of the Ombudsman, to whom we pay tribute.

She has dealt with an extraordinary number of complaints, some 80,000, with 3,600 valid complaints and more than 11,500 queries in 2011 alone. This indicates her office's significant workload. It is important that she has been consulted on the proposed amendments. It was good to hear the Minister highlight her role in improving customer service in the context of the public service reform plan.

I now turn to the Bill's provisions and the proposed Committee Stage amendments outlined by the Minister. Section 4 is critical in this regard, as the Minister will amend it to ensure automatic application of the Ombudsman's remit to any new public body. The current section 4 requires governmental orders for any such extension.

Senator Keane raised the issue of criteria, particularly when it is proposed to extend the Act's provisions to non-public bodies that are significantly funded. Will the amendment propose specific criteria? Once an organisation fits the definition of a public body, the automatic application is clear, but one can think of a range of different non-public entities that are significantly funded. Last week, we held a good debate on charities regulation. It was prompted by a Labour Party Private Members' motion. We heard of the extensive reliance of many charities on State funding. Could they be included within the definition of non-public significantly funded bodies?

Quangos have been mentioned. I have read various references to, for example, Government-organised non-governmental organisations, gongos, which have become closely associated with Government funding. NGOs, or nongos, have no link to the Government----

Senator Cáit Keane

Are there gondolas?

Senator Ivana Bacik

----- but might still be in receipt of significant public funding, for example, charities. We require greater clarity on the issue and should deal with it in more detail on Committee Stage.

The Minister stated that there would be an amendment to section 5 to provide for consultation with an Oireachtas committee. This is welcome. A committee would even be consulted in advance of the Ombudsman's appointment. Committees are taking on such a role. Senator Keane asked which committee would be involved.

Yesterday, the justice committee held a useful hearing with the five members of the panel appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to select the new commissioners of the merged Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, and Equality Authority. The panel's five members, including the Ombudsman, commented on how it was a new experience for them to present their curricula vitae to a committee of Members. We replied that it was also a new experience for us. The meeting was a good exchange. The panellists were all persons of the highest integrity and there was no question about their curricula vitae, but the process was important for the democratic legitimacy of the merged commission.

The history of what happened is interesting. Having been appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality this summer, they stood aside from the process over their concerns that their direct ministerial appointment meant they did not fulfil the Paris Principles, that is to say, the Parliament had not had an input. They sought to appear before us as a way to assert their accountability to the Parliament. I was struck by the Minister, Deputy Howlin's intention to amend the Bill to clarify the Parliament's role in this regard. It is a requirement under the Paris Principles and our various international obligations that we increase parliamentary scrutiny of appointments to what Transparency International calls Ireland's national integrity systems, of which the merged commission will be one. I welcome the proposal.

In terms of section 7, I welcome the new provision on the rights of citizens and setting out entitlements to a high level of service. We have seen strong examples of improved services under the ongoing public service reform plan, which is being overseen by the Minister's Department, as well as the Croke Park agreement. The latter has received much criticism in recent weeks, but we must recognise the fact that it has delivered many service improvements at a time of significant reductions in the number of public servants. For example, the Passport Office offers a considerably improved service when it was once the subject of much public criticism.

Schedule 2 lists the bodies not subject to the Ombudsman's remit. Some obvious bodies are exempted, for example, the Law Reform Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions and so on, the reasons for which the Minister has supplied. The Higher Education Authority has also been exempted. Serious criticisms were offered in the Seanad yesterday and today of the HEA's recent commissioning of an international report that made the bizarre recommendation of merging UCD and Trinity College Dublin. Why should the HEA be excluded when third level institutions are included? Is the rationale that it has few interactions with the public? I presume that the merger of the human rights and equality institutions will need to be reflected in the Bill by way of an amendment.

I welcome the Bill and offer my strong support for it. That support is reflected on both sides of the House. The Ombudsman has been effective in her role. Transparency International has recognised this fact, as has every Senator. It is important and welcome that the Ombudsman for Children will follow automatically, in that her office will reform as well as the Ombudsman's. This is a radical proposal, but we can all support it as offering an improvement in public services.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

May I share time with Senator Quinn?

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

Will it be five minutes and five minutes?

Senator Sean D. Barrett

Yes.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I thank the House. I strongly welcome the Bill. It is a part of a reform agenda that must be implemented as quickly as possible. Other issues have diverted us, but this is an important matter. Mildly put, Sir Humphrey is not a natural democratic. We must devise institutions to make him explain what he is doing and why.

I join other Senators in paying tribute to the previous holders of the post. I welcome the extension of its functions. The first holder, Mr. Michael Mills, learned his skills in the House, thereby disproving the quote cited by President Kennedy: "Leinster House does not inspire the brightest ideas". The man who wrote it, Lord Edward FitzGerald, was in Carton House, which he preferred. I am glad that the Minister and his colleagues also took that step recently.

Senator Bacik queried the exemption of the HEA. It should be reconsidered. The first reference of the HEA to the Ombudsman will come from a certain Mr. R. Quinn of Sandymount, Dublin 4, who has something to say about how it performs its duties.

While I was a junior dean at Trinity College Dublin a long time ago, disputes between students and the college were appealable to Chancellor Mary Robinson, who subsequently became the Irish President, and Mr. Justice Henry Barron. This system ensured that we took our decisions seriously. The use of checks and balances improves the manner in which people conduct their business. Our society has needed checks, balances and scrutiny in the period since the Bill was first drafted.

I draw the attention of the House to the exemption list. The first body listed is Anglo Irish Bank. I do not know what was happening in 2008, but I cannot imagine an institution that has done more damage to this country. It should be the last body exempted. There are a number of other strange exemptions. I hope that the Minister will go through the list with a fine-tooth comb to explain why they have been exempted. It would probably make an interesting study of regulatory capture to learn who was using the back stairs to Ministers' offices to be excluded from this legislation.

Why has the IHRC been exempted? One has no right to question a decision of the IHRC via the Ombudsman. It seems a contradiction in terms. I am sure the Minister will re-examine the issue. It is also strange that while one can make a complaint about faulty marmalade, one cannot make a complaint about the agency investigating it, the National Consumer Agency.

Pension trustees should be covered by the Ombudsman. A large number of private and public sector pension funds seem to be operating recklessly, financially speaking. It seems that trustees get together, award one another added years or so on and bankrupt their members.

Looking through the list of exemptions, one can see the commissioner for aviation regulation. At the behest of a former Minister, Noel Dempsey, airport charges increased by 41%, which seriously affected Irish tourism. The commissioner should not be exempt. People have also complained about the Competition Authority because it has so little success in promoting competition, particularly when part of court cases. With the Fire Services Council, if a fire befalls a person, the issue should be dealt with in the best possible way. Essentially, everything on the list is worth checking. I would add Údarás na Gaeltachta to the list. I opposed very strongly in this House the removal of the elected representatives of Údarás na Gaeltachta, and that takes effect at the end of this month. There must be some other protection to provide checks and balances.

When reviewing Irish public administration approximately three or four years ago, the OECD referred to a problem of "agencification", but that is what happened. When we set up quangos or distance bodies from the Minister, the Minister does not have to answer parliamentary questions and the agencies quickly devolve themselves from any control by the so-called "parent" Department. As the McCarthy report noted, these bodies may have very large public relations budgets and become virtually independent republics. In a real republic like ours, that conduct is unacceptable; therefore, I am glad the Minister is reversing the process.

I disagree with my friend, Senator Keane. A dictionary definition taking in gender would indicate that "man" refers to women as well. "Personne", on the other hand, is the French word for "nobody", and I am sure "chairnobodies" would not be appointed to a committee.

Senator Cáit Keane

The IMF has changed its outlook on that issue.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

I support the Minister and will be opposing Senator Keane's amendment to change the Title of the Bill. It is an honour title.

Senator Cáit Keane

On a point of order, we hear much about the IMF, which has changed its term "ombudsman" to "ombudsperson".

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

That is not a point of order.

Senator Cáit Keane

It is a point of information.

Senator Sean D. Barrett

We are trying to get out from under the IMF, both in the verbal and financial sense. Regulators are not working in fields like aviation and transport. Representatives of the National Transport Authority wrote to a man operating buses between Limerick and Dublin recently indicating that he could not have extra buses operating if they were being left standing in the rain. The energy regulator, which the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dowd, would rely on for regulating water, has given the ESB chief executive a salary approximately four times that of the Taoiseach. The regulators should be examined. The Central Bank is probably the world's leading failed regulator as it caused the collapse of our banking system.

The Minister for Transport, Tourism and Sport, Deputy Varadkar, has indicated that the terms we signed with private operators to operate toll roads were disastrous from the taxpayers' and road users' perspective. A Minister of State, Deputy Shortall, drew attention last week to the fact that we have agreements with drug companies where we are getting perhaps 30% reductions in drug prices, while others were getting an 80% reduction. All public-private partnerships and agencies must be taken into consideration.

This is a splendid proposal and I wish it well. I apologise for using much of the time before handing over to Senator Quinn. I thank the Minister for coming to the House, which will support his efforts.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I thank Senator Barrett for sharing his time. The Minister and this Bill are welcome, as it will bring more oversight. There are nonetheless a number of areas where we can go much further in order to improve democracy. For example, our democracy should look to countries like Sweden, which was mentioned today, which have very powerful freedom of information laws throughout levels of government. The main function of the Ombudsman's office is to investigate complaints from members of the public who feel they have been unfairly treated by certain public bodies - we have heard about that today - but it should also ensure better governance. We must strengthen this and the public's ability to access information.

In Sweden, all public sector documents are in the public domain in order that people can check them and hold the people in power accountable for their actions. Giving more presence to freedom of information in this country would enable groups and individuals outside government - ordinary citizens - to inform themselves on how the Government is managing our collective well-being. The current piecemeal system of freedom of information requests and parliamentary questions is just not working. We should include all public bodies in a simple, easily accessible public spending website. Senator Barrett mentioned some of the exclusions and I am sure the matter will be considered again.

A public sector spending website could be based on the American Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act 2006, which was introduced by President Obama when he was a Senator. This led to the creation of a website in which any expenditure over $25,000 by the federal Government in the United States, as well as a number of states, is open to the public. We have much information on-line but it is not collected in a central website, and I do not understand why that is so in a country of 4.5 million people. The state of Missouri is interesting as it created a website showing how every dollar was spent in a particular year, starting in 2007. It costs just $200,000 for this process in a state with a population bigger than Ireland at 5 million people.

In the United States, the federal Government publishes a vast array of data at data.gov, and at recovery.gov where citizens can track how stimulus funds are spent. At foia.gov, which was launched in March 2011, people can see if agencies are fulfilling their obligations to disclose information under the US freedom of information Act. We should name and shame the parts of the Government which do not release information or do not do so in a timely manner. Our ways of getting information, including getting Deputies in the Dáil to stand up and ask questions, is out of date compared with what could happen in an age of transparency. We can bring this about.

On a point related to access to information and transparency, could we allow easier access for patients to their records, possibly in an on-line way, in order that they could track health records and make educated decisions? We should do so. According to a study conducted for the European Commission, only 4% of European hospitals granted patients on-line access to their medical records but surely these should be available on-line in order that people can make better decisions about their future, including the effect of diseases like cancer. What is the HSE doing in this regard, considering it has a multi-million euro budget? The suggested action would surely demonstrate that the HSE is thinking of its customers, or patients, as referred to by Senator Bacik.

Under EU law, the right to access personal health data is guaranteed but patients often need to put in a formal request, and procedures can be long and complicated. How can we reduce red tape in that area? Information is power and having access to such information can allow people to make better decisions about their health. The UK Department of Health has pledged that patient records will all be on-line by 2015.

Will the Minister comment on the ideas from a 2011 paper by the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, that the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman should be extended to include prisons and all issues related to immigration, refugees, asylum seekers and naturalisation, possible constitutional status for the Ombudsman, and an improved reporting relationship with the Oireachtas, including allowing the Oireachtas ask the Ombudsman to launch queries on its behalf?

There is much done in this Bill and the Minister has indicated he will make a number of amendments on Committee Stage. It will strengthen what we are all trying to achieve and although I congratulate the Minister on how far he has gone, I believe we can go further.

Senator Paul Bradford

I welcome the Minister and, like other Members, the legislation before us. It is impressive to learn that approximately 80,000 complaints have been handled by the Ombudsman since the office was put in place in the 1980s. The first Ombudsman, Mr. Michael Mills, set a very positive agenda for his office, and the outstanding work has been followed through right up to the current Ombudsman. We wish her well in her role.

I have listened with interest to what my colleagues have said, and we fully support every agency coming within the remit of the Ombudsman. I will not give a list of other agencies for which a case could be made for inclusion but the list could be expanded.

Maybe the challenge to the Minister, in his role as Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform, is that if we had what I would call modern and good politics in this country, some of the questions to which answers cannot be given, some of the documents which lie hidden forever and some of the issues which we have tried to brush under the carpet, would have light shone on them and we would not go to the Ombudsman's office but would deal directly with these issues in this House, in the Dáil or directly with the Departments to get answers.

Ireland has been a very secretive society. It has almost been a curse on the nation for generations. We are now dealing with some of the aftermath of that by way of the children's rights referendum and the Magdalene laundries which was debated in the other House last night. That sad endless tale will continue for some time. Many of those problems stem from our culture of secrecy. We must move beyond that and the Ombudsman's office has played a very positive role in opening doors which would otherwise be closed and that work must continue.

The Minister and Members of both Houses must attempt to genuinely reform politics in order that every Member of the Oireachtas is almost a mini-Ombudsman to whom constituents can go and seek information and that when we make inquiries to Ministers, answers are given. It is a disgrace that Members of this House cannot ask Ministers parliamentary questions, although I know that is not the Minister's fault. I often wonder how advantageous it is to ask Ministers parliamentary questions because of the quality of the answers. I was a Member of Dáil Éireann for ten or 12 years and different Ministers and different Governments, including Governments in which my party was involved, gave the same answers - generally minimalist in terms of information. It is part of the culture that one tells the Deputy, the Senator and the public as little as possible. We must move beyond that mindset. That is crucial to the concept of reforming democracy.

When the Minister brings proposals before us on the reform of politics, openness and transparency must be at the core of them. I recall when the rainbow Government was formed, the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, said on his first day in office - it was aspirational and he may not have reached the targets he set for himself through no fault of his own - he would like to govern behind a pane of glass. Everybody laughed because we thought that was kind of nonsensical. What Minister or Taoiseach would actually be transparent given the mentality we had that government must be secretive? That is an aspiration to which we should all aspire, namely, to govern and to conduct politics behind a pane of glass. That is what reform of politics is about.

I read a document recently about the reform of the Oireachtas which said that once a month, the Dáil sat on a Friday for approximately two hours, with no parliamentary questions, votes or otherwise. That is what passes in the Republic of Ireland as the reform of politics. As a long serving Member of the Oireachtas, the Minister knows we must go well beyond that if we want to give some credit to the word "reform". I look forward to him coming to the House to debate the reform of politics into the future because that is very much part of the opening up of government and the lifting of veils of secrecy. If that is done, the Office of the Ombudsman may not have to deal with the thousands of queries each year which stem from the lack of information.

Notwithstanding the great work being done by the Ombudsman, which is the last resource of many people, and the fact that much to the satisfaction of Oireachtas Members who make representations on behalf of constitutions, almost 50% of complaints are dealt with satisfactorily, I want to highlight a special report by the Ombudsman. I think there have been three special reports in the history of the State. The Minister would not be the one with particular responsibility for this but it is an Ombudsman's issue. The special report was on the sad and tragic saga of the lost at sea. It was debated at length in both Houses and at the committee. Who sits on what chairs has changed in the Dáil and in the Seanad but the subject matter and the lost at sea report have not gone away. I express my disappointment and my failure to understand why no progress has been made to date on implementing the request of the Ombudsman in regard to the lost at sea report. If reform, fairness, new politics and sincerity in politics are to mean anything and when the Ombudsman presents a special report to the Oireachtas with recommendations and the parties now in government rightly support that report, we must act on it if the Office of the Ombudsman is to have any credibility. Will the Minister take that request, which I know will be shared by many Members in both Houses, to the highest levels of government, that is, that the O'Reilly special report to the Oireachtas on the lost at sea tragedy be acted on?

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

Cuirim céad fáilte roimh an Aire agus ba mhaith liom tréaslú leis as ucht an Bhille a thabhairt os comhair an Tí agus as ucht bunú an coiste nua formhaoirsiú seirbhíse poiblí agus iniúcháin, mar sílim gur céim an-tábhachtach é sin. Táim féin ag suí ar an gcoiste sin agus tuigtear dom gur ag an gcoiste sin a bheidh cuid mhaith den phlé á dhéanamh ar an mBille áirithe seo. Maidir leis an mBille, tá sé píosa fada ag teacht. Is dóigh gur fearr go deireanach ná go brách, ach is maith ann é. Ó thaobh na díospóireachta maidir le ainm an Ombudsman, feicim go bhfuil leagan deas Gaeilge le fáil don ainm sin in úsáid ó am go chéile - Fear an Phobail nó Bean an Phobail. B'fhéidir go mbeadh muid in ann breathnú ar sin.

Sinn Féin is supportive of the Bill's intention to extend the remit of the Ombudsman to include a wider range of public bodies and believes, generally speaking, this is welcome. As was said, this is the first major expansion of the office's remit in its 24-year history. Previously, it covered bodies such as the Civil Service, the HSE and An Post and this Bill will extend its remit to more than 100 additional State agencies, including the Courts Service, VECs, third level institutions, FÁS, the Irish Blood Transfusion Service and several other bodies.

Since the creation of the office, where previously many of the key functions had been the responsibility of Departments, numerous public bodies have since been set up to deliver services and for particular purposes. There is good and bad in this. Whatever about that, clearly the scope of the Ombudsman needs to be expanded to take account of that and to have remit over such bodies.

The Bill also provides for increased powers for the Ombudsman which we welcome. For example, where the requirement on a public body to provide information for the Ombudsman about a complaint is not being met, the Ombudsman can institute legal proceedings. However, we have some concerns and we will consider amendments on Committee Stage to that end.

I also note that we have some queries as to the timing of the legislation. To some extent, it may be putting the cart before the horse. The Minister is currently actively considering the modernisation of the Ombudsman legislation as a whole. We are not opposed to widening the scope of the Ombudsman's office but surely it would be preferable to instigate the modernisation programme first and that the widening of the scope could follow on from that. Perhaps the Minister might comment on that.

I note the Minister does not have a heavy legislative programme in comparison with some of his Cabinet colleagues-----

Deputy Brendan Howlin

The biggest in this session.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

I stand corrected.

Acting Chairman (Senator Diarmuid Wilson)

There seems to be a tendency to pick on the Minister here. I will not allow it.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

I stand corrected; we will not argue over it.

We question the proposition that publicly-funded, non-State bodies be added to the list of bodies under the Ombudsman's office in an ad hoc fashion. If this is to be done, then there is a need for detailed criteria, as mentioned by Senators Bacik and Keane, to determine their inclusion. There is a wide variety of these bodies and they serve many functions.

I welcome the decision by the Minister to send the Bill to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions where it will be discussed this afternoon in private session. We note the Ombudsman's statement that the petitions committee will provide a much-needed formal channel of consultation and collaboration between the Oireachtas and the Ombudsman. I am a member of that committee and believe it has huge potential in supporting and complementing the work of the Ombudsman and it is highly necessary that the committee has the opportunity to discuss this matter. I agree with Senator Bradford on the reports by the various Ombudsman which have been made to date and the recommendations that have been laid before the Houses. That committee might be a very useful vehicle in trying to resolve those issues.

I further note the Ombudsman's suggestion that there is a case for constitutional status for the office to keep it safe from political attack and partisanship. It has been argued that constitutional status would also further recognise the office as a viable alternative to the courts in securing access to justice and in an informal and a cost-free manner.

This is an interesting suggestion which we believe is of value and we would welcome the Minister's view on it. The Ombudsman has sought more transparent procedures for appointing ombudsmen, adding that there is a strong case for having a prospective Ombudsman attend some kind of confirmation hearing before the Oireachtas committee charged with monitoring and supporting the work of the Ombudsman. Has the Minister responded to this query?

We are particularly concerned that there is a need for the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman to be extended to the prisons and all issues relating to asylum, refugees and naturalisation. We have one of the few Ombudsman offices in Europe whose jurisdiction is restricted in this way. In her annual report in 2007 in advance of the initial publication of this legislation, the Ombudsman said: "However, it is my understanding that the Bill will not extend my remit to complaints regarding decisions in relation to immigration and asylum matters. I am most concerned about this." She also said: "In my correspondence and submissions, I have stressed a number of points about this lacuna in my jurisdiction. I highlighted the fact that most Ombudsman Offices in Europe have jurisdiction in this area of administration." That point was highlighted last week with the publication by the Irish Refugee Council of a report on the conditions in the direct provision centres, which I raised in this House. It shows that the Minister should consider including those agencies in respect of the amendments being brought forward. If he does not, we will certainly think about tabling amendments to have that done because it is extremely important.

The Ombudsman's 2007 annual report stated:

It is an area of administration which impacts very significantly on the lives of a very vulnerable group of people, many of whom face significant challenges in dealing with organs of state and complex administrative processes which they know little about, while also being faced by barriers such as a lack of resources, a lack of legal expertise and language barriers. This makes it all the more important that they have full access to an independent statutory complaints system. As things stand, my Office can only be of assistance to people with complaints in relation to issues such as the quality of accommodation for asylum seekers or complaints about delays, whereas I am unable to scrutinise complaints in relation to actions such as decisions to refuse family re-unification applications, decisions to refuse leave to remain resident in the country, etc.

We agree that these restrictions are unwarranted and should be subject to investigation by her office in accordance with the terms of the Ombudsman Act. We will also seek an amendment to ensure the Office of the Ombudsman has the capability to conduct its business through Irish. Tugaim faoi deara go bhfuil Oifig an Ombudsman faillíoch maidir le hAcht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, cé go bhfuilimid ar fad an-mholtach faoin obair a dhéanann sí. Níl scéim daingnithe aici faoin Acht sin go fóill, in ainneoin go bhfuil comhráite ar siúl aici le ceithre bliana agus ba chóir go mbeadh Oifig an Ombudsman ábalta freastal ar shaoránaigh le Gaeilge chomh maith le haon saoránach eile agus dhéanfaí sin ach go mbeadh na hacmhainní cuí ar fáil chuige sin. Beimid ag moladh leasaithe ar an mbunús sin.

In general, we support this legislation, but this area needs to be considered in light of any modernisation programmes rather than being rushed through and that in widening the scope of the legislation, the Ombudsman needs more scope over justice issues. It is also very important for the Minister to make a statement about the increased workload on the office given the extra bodies under its remit and the resources available to her office to enable her to do her work. I share the concerns of some Senators about some of the organisations that are exempt. It strikes me that any agency that receives public funding should be open to question and a complaint to the office of the Ombudsman. I note that agencies such as the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, An Bord Pleanála, Bord Gáis Éireann, Bord na Móna, Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann, Coras Iompair Éireann, the Dublin Airport Authority, the ESB, the National Tourism and Development Authority, the IDA, the Irish Film Board, Iarnród Éireann and the National Concert Hall are exempt.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

They are commercial semi-State agencies.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

Many of those organisations are subject to questions in this House on many occasions.

Senator Ivana Bacik

That is not the test.

Senator Trevor Ó Clochartaigh

If they are receiving Government funding, it is extremely important that if there is an issue with their dealings, it should be reviewed. If they have nothing to hide, why should we exempt them from this legislation? Mholfainn gur cheart iad a chur san áireamh. We want full public oversight and transparency. State funding is going into these organisations and we are accountable to the electorate and the State as to how these moneys are spent. The role of the Ombudsman is extremely important in fulfilling those criteria. Beimid ag tacú leis an mBille ach beimid ag moladh leasaithe áirithe ar Chéim an Choiste. B'fhéidir, áfach, go dtabharfadh an tAire féin na leasuithe sin chun cinn agus nach mbeadh gá dúinn iad a bhrú.

Senator Jimmy Harte

I welcome the Minister to the House. The Office of the Ombudsman is probably one of the most respected offices in the country. In response to Senator Byrne, I do not think there have been any complaints about the office itself, which is a testament to the work of the Ombudsman. Obviously, some people are disappointed in their dealings with the office but there is never bad publicity about it. It is a very well respected office. It reminds slightly of the old television advertisement for Carlsberg when the employee goes to the room, finds it covered in dust, hears a telephone ringing in the distance, eventually discovers a dusty telephone in a dusty office and rubs down a sign on the door which says "Carlsberg Complaints Office". If the Office of the Ombudsman was in that advertisement, we would have achieved perfection but we do not have perfection in any walk of life.

It all boils down to customer relations, as one calls it in commercial life, or simply how one deals with the public. The nature of the Civil Service is such that it does not have the cut and thrust of commercial business which involves word of mouth. If somebody in a commercial business messes up, word of mouth means that he or she goes out of business. That does not happen in the public service, which is a good thing in some respects. An area with which I am most familiar is local authorities. They are sometimes an easy target for the public to hammer, be it over potholes, water, sewerage or housing. It probably all boils down to a HR issue when staff join a company or public body in terms of how they are asked to deal with complaints. Perhaps the Ombudsman is clearing up issues that should not have happened in the first place in many cases, but the Civil Service is such a big organisation. I remember speaking to a senior director of TNT Express, which is one of the biggest haulage and courier companies in the world based in Australia. Its policy was that when one rang the top guy in the company, one was put directly through and if he did not answer his telephone, he rang one back. The feeling at TNT was that if someone had to ring the head of the company, the complaint was serious and it was dealt with at that level. That feeling permeated the company. We have all experienced ringing Ministers', Senators' and Deputies' offices, as well as local authority and HSE offices, and being told somebody is at a meeting when we all know he or she is not at a meeting but sitting at the other end of the desk and does not have time to speak to us. It is an overall problem in society.

The remit of the Ombudsman must be extended to cover all public bodies because there is cynicism that there might be some public bodies that are not answering questions they are asked. The HSE is one example, and I have had experience of this with the HSE's Regional Forum West. Getting an answer out of it was like getting the third secret of Fatima. It was sent around the room and back again. Someone must be answerable and the buck must stop somewhere. The work of the Ombudsman has been very effective but it is worrying that 150 complaints are upheld per month, which equals 35 complaints per week and seven complaints per day. There is a fair bit of work involved in that. They are valid complaints and the figure of 3,600 complaints per year is worrying. If they related to a private company, it would not last too long.

The previous Government initiated this legislation and it is only coming to completion now. It is important in the current climate where the public treats politics and public life in a cynical way. It strengthens the power of the public to know that someone is fighting on its behalf. Rather than closing doors, the Ombudsman can open one. The experience the Ombudsman gives back to the public in rapping public bodies on the knuckles is important.

Otherwise the public service will be treated with contempt. The Ombudsman has increased people's ability to get through the system. She has good powers. I welcome any extension of the powers. Obviously there are other organisations that should be included but that issue will be discussed on Committee Stage.

Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform (Deputy Brendan Howlin)

I thank all Members who participated in what was a good debate. I thank Members for the welcome I received. I enjoy coming in as the debates are more calm than some of the debates in the other House. I will not deal with all the points made because that is not possible in the time available.

The legislation is part of an elaborate suite of reform legislation that I will have the privilege of piloting through the Houses. Many of the comments made by Senators overlap on legislation that I will bring forward, for example, detailed comments on the Freedom of Information Act. As Members are aware, the programme for Government has committed to a significant extension of the Freedom of Information Act and much work has been done in that area. Members have talked about whistleblowers legislation. I have published the heads of a Bill which is being considered by a committee. We had a good seminar on the issue. The heads of the register of lobbyists Bill have been published and referred to a committee. The general Dáil reform area is beyond my purview but I shall deal with the points made by Senator Bradford. Much more is needed in terms of the reform agenda to make public business more transparent and more relevant and to restore confidence in the institutions of State which is important, starting with the Oireachtas where there is a broken confidence. I used a phrase recently that, perhaps, I should not have used about simple commentators. There is a simplicity about some of the analysis about the complexity of public business, on which there is a need for an open debate, to see how we can deal with it.

Senator Byrne welcomed the Bill but why not given that his party was the progenitor of it. I acknowledge that. He underscored a theme replicated in every contribution, namely, the respect the Office of the Ombudsman, and the three holders of the office since its inception, had brought to that office, which is not common in all public institutions.

Senator Keane referred to the title "ombudsman". Ombudsman is from the Swedish concept. I hope I am progressive in all these matters but I do not go along with the notion that because the word "man" is at the end, it is gender specific. Ombudsman is a gender neutral comment, which in Swedish simply means "agent of the people". Given that it is internationally known, whether in Hong Kong, Sweden or Ireland, there is no need to craft it into something that is unique. Whether one is a migrant or a visitor one knows what the ombudsman is. I would not get caught up on the title. The objective of part of the legislation is to protect the title, in order that the word "ombudsman" is not so widely used, so profligate, that the high respect it has earned, through usage, is not diminished.

The Senator also mentioned resources. The reason for the mergers is back office supports. That is the idea I am trying to drive across the public service in order that the core business of each agency be maintained, as far as practicable, where it is needed. However, there would be a sharing of resources in order to avoid duplication of back office supports, either in office buildings, technology, or people to answer telephones, and all the things that can be done on a common basis but which do not compromise the effectiveness of the important role given to specific agencies, agents or authorities, under law.

Senator Mooney also mentioned resources. Of course, where there is additional staff, a strong redeployment process is ongoing within the public service, as mentioned by Senator Bacik. Where there is not the advance in public sector reform that people would wish, it gets an extraordinary amount of media attention and that is understandable. However, the transformational work does not get the same attention, it is taken as a given such as the reform of Garda rosters, an issue that had been talked about before I became a Member. It has happened and the Garda Commissioner has said that there is a 25% increase in Garda visibility on the streets. We transformed the sick leave arrangement by halving it, something which was supposed to be impossible. That is done, pocketed and forgotten. Likewise, absenteeism and common leave arrangements have been pocketed. There is a need to acknowledge the fundamental changes taking place in the public service. We are driving a very big agenda involving more than 200 timelined objectives. I have put this before the committees of the House and Members should engage with it. At the end of the process there will be a different public service. I am digressing from the issue.

Senator Bacik referred to the role of the Ombudsman and, specifically, Committee Stage amendments. I have indicated that we are replacing the Schedules attached to the 2008 Act on Committee Stage. The bodies which will be within or outside its remit is still a matter that is under consideration with individual line Departments. The general principle we are working on is that there must be a compelling reason to exclude them, rather than the reverse. I note the point made by Senator Quinn that the Office of the Ombudsman should be consulted on all these issues, including in respect of bodies which should be within or outside its remit. I undertake to do that, to ensure that dialogue and communication is clear.

The legal services ombudsman, which was mentioned, was established under the Legal Services Ombudsman Act but is being abolished as the Government has decided to introduce significant legislation to provide for the regulation of the legal profession. That legislation is being advanced by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. I have decided to include the Higher Education Authority in the remit.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I am delighted to hear that.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

I received strong representations from one of the Ministers of State who was anxious that be done. The Higher Education Authority will be included in my amendment on Committee Stage. If Members have strong views on the issue I would be happy to hear them between now and Committee Stage where there will be a full debate.

Senator Ivana Bacik

I welcome that announcement.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

There are two points I wish to make before getting to issues raised by Senator Barrett. There is a misunderstanding of the role of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is not a court of appeal for a regulator's decision. Landing charges at Dublin Airport cannot be appealed to the Ombudsman. The regulatory authority should be subject to a different appeals mechanism. The role of the Ombudsman is in the interaction of State agencies who have statutory roles to perform and the general public to ensure every citizen is dealt with fairly, well and in a timely fashion. That is not saying landing fees are too high at Dublin Airport or that there should be different bus routes or that the tolling regime is wrong or too expensive. The Committee of Public Accounts and a variety of other bodies deal with those issues. In a similar vein, the same applies to semi-State companies, an issue raised by Senator Ó Clochartaigh. Semi-States act as commercial companies. One cannot complain about an individual company.

They are not all in receipt of moneys from the State. Many of the semi-State companies are profit-making and remit a profit to the State. I do not think that the Senator can make fish of one and fowl of another. In other words, that Bord na Móna should be included because it is losing money this year but somebody else should be omitted. They operate on a commercial criterion and are subject to oversight in a different way.

I am very taken by Senator Barrett's comment on "agencification". I am not sure that I have heard it before but it is a good word. Agencification has happened and the biggest agent, or manifestation of agencification, has been the creation of the HSE which, to put it bluntly, was established to shield a Minister and a Department from questioning. We need to pull that back and get access and accountability in a real way and I am determined to do that.

I mentioned Senator Quinn's comments on freedom of legislation which is subject to extensive separate legislation. He mentioned that some countries have a great deal on their FOI websites in order to reduce the need for parliamentary questions. I invite Senators to look at my Department's website at per.ie. They will find a database that shows the current public expenditure for every Vote and a comparator - in graphic and monetary value formats - that displays changes in the past ten years. The staffing ratio is also displayed and members can see where ratios have increased or decreased over time. I invite Senators to examine it.

Since early this year I have instigated in my Department the publication of all tenders above €20,000 on their websites. I have asked other Departments to follow suit before the end of the year. My Department publishes the data as a matter of routine every quarter. It allows people to see who tendered and what we spend our money on. The database will be expanded but it is quite extensive now. I formally launched it and I invite people who were not aware of it to take a look.

I have invited my Department to explore the potential for Ireland's participation in the Open Government Partnership. It is a new global, multilateral initiative that aims to secure concrete commitments from governments across the globe to promote open government, and openness and transparency in administrative processes, including a proactive publication of as much official data as is possible. I have outlined the guiding principles that we will promote.

Senator Bradford mentioned a profound issue which I have made many speeches about in the past, that is the role of Parliament. I confess that there is always a view that the Opposition argues for the primacy of Parliament and accountability but as soon as it becomes a government that commitment is somewhat lessened. I am doing my best to hold on to the oppositional view that we need to strengthen Parliament. I shall probably stray off the reservation and get myself into bother by saying the following. It is like when I created the original reform plan for government called Better Local Government. When it was published I travelled around the country as part of a road show to promote it. I remember that at every information forum with councillors there was a general demand for more powers to be devolved to local government. Without doubt that is what happened everywhere I went. Later, after a cup of tea, a councillor would whisper in my ear that the programme should have nothing to do with Travellers, the siting of dumps and that he or she did not want the power to raise money. That was not a uniform response and I am not suggesting that it was. However, on examination of the existing powers one will discover that people often do not know that they have them.

Senator Thomas Byrne

True.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

Seldom are some of the powers utilised and there is an extraordinary potential for the Oireachtas to do more. Let me give an instance, and one that I shall give to the Committee of Public Accounts when I appear before it. We have changed the budgetary system here at my instigation last year. We produced a three year envelope of expenditure, in terms of the ceilings for every Department, in order that what we need to achieve is known for the next three years. We also published all of the comprehensive review of expenditure data in order that all of the options for cuts and modifications are available. On 1 January I wrote to the Chair of every committee asking him or her not to wait until the budget but to call in Secretaries General to debate ideas, examine the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure, CRE, and determine recommendations to Government for what should or should not be done. I have not been overwhelmed-----

Senator Thomas Byrne

The Minister will not be.

Deputy Brendan Howlin

-----by Parliament saying that we want to make the budget because the blunt view is that it is my job. One cannot have it both ways. One cannot say make Parliament responsible but, like good holy men of old, not yet. We need to be proactive.

I noted Senator Bradford's comment on working as if behind a pane of glass when I waited in the Visitors Gallery. He was right and many people said he made an interesting comment. To be blunt not everything in government can be done behind a pane of glass. We would not have reached our conclusions on Northern Ireland if everything had been done behind a pane of glass. There are necessary interactions. If people know that certain people are talking then negotiations would not happen. That must be understood and every company works like that. The principle behind the Senator's comment is right.

Senator Bradford also made an important point on the Lost at Sea report. Senator Ó Clochartaigh made an important intervention stating that the report might be an appropriate job for the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. The Senator asked about the role of the committee. The measure is a new innovation in this Oireachtas. My initial hope and intention for the committee was predicated on a referendum being passed that would allow it to be a clearing house for investigations. I still intend to introduce legislation as soon as I can and hope to have the heads of a Bill before the Government in the next couple of weeks. They will relate to the framework of investigations that can be done that is consistent with the Constitution as is. I shall introduce it to this House as soon as I can. In the meanwhile there is an important job of work to be done by the committee. First, it must link into the Ombudsman and follow through on recommendations that have not had enough focus in the House. Second, it needs to replicate - it is a matter for itself how it structures it - the petitions committee in the European Parliament which takes direct petitions from citizens that is followed by a hearing. I am interested to see how our committee will develop that aspect.

There was a point made about having constitutional status for the Ombudsman but I have not considered the idea. Perhaps - thinking off the top of my head - it might be a suitable issue for the constitutional convention.

I have mentioned the commercial semi-State companies. A number of Senators also talked about the justice area in terms of prisons and decision-making bodies for asylum applications, etc., and I will reflect further on the matter between now and Committee Stage which is not far away. I assume - I do not want to presume - that this House will vote on the Bill. Since nobody has opposed it then are we due to take Committee Stage on 4 October?

Senator Ivana Bacik

Yes, 4 October

Deputy Brendan Howlin

That does not give much time for Senators to consider their amendments but I will examine the matter.

I thank Senator Harte for his contribution and take his point that it is very important to ensure that the public has confidence in the way that State agencies conduct their business. The Ombudsman can play a compelling and important role in ensuring that the objective is achieved.

I hope that I have at least touched on the variety of issues raised by Members and look forward to returning here in the near future for an extensive debate on Committee Stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Acting Chairman (Senator Marie Moloney)

When it is proposed to take Committee Stage?

Senator Cáit Keane

Next week, 4 October.

Committee Stage ordered for Thursday, 4 October 2012.

Sitting suspended at 1.30 p.m. and resumed at 2 p.m.