Ms Emily O'Reilly:

I thank the Chairman for those very kind words. Members will be aware that I published my 2012 annual report yesterday. This is my tenth and final annual report since taking up the position of Ombudsman in 2003. During that period my office has dealt with over 25,000 complaints against public sector bodies and carried out several key investigations into various aspects of public administration.

My office continued to receive high numbers of complaints in 2012. While there had been a drop in the numbers of complaints, from a record 3,727 in 2010 to 3,412 in 2012, the number was still 25% higher than the ten-year average of 2,774. The largest number of complaints received involved the Department of Social Protection. Complaints relating to local authorities represented just under one third of complaints and one fifth were in respect of the Health Service Executive. A total of 11,178 inquiries were dealt with by the Office of the Ombudsman in 2012. It is very likely that following the extension of the remit of the office, the continuing pressure on public services to do more with less and with increasing numbers of people seeking State supports of various kinds, the complaint intake will continue to be significant.

I have attached as Appendix 1 to this presentation a brief summary of four cases in my annual report which I wish to highlight. This information has been circulated to members so my remarks will be brief.

In case No. 1, my complainant was granted arrears of survivor's contributory pension amounting to €68,000 because I discovered that the Department of Social Protection had sufficient information available to it in 1999 to be aware of his entitlement but failed to notify him at the time. Case No. 2 involved Letterkenny General Hospital which gave my complainant a number of conflicting diagnoses in relation to a serious genetic abnormality. Following my office's intervention, the hospital's clinical director met the complainant and arranged for a further definitive medical review by another specialist which confirmed that she did not have the condition. The cost of the review was covered by the HSE and it also refunded her the cost of her private consultation which amounted to €1,000.

In case No. 3, due to incorrect information from the Department of Social Protection, my complainant moved to Guernsey with his family in the belief that he would continue to be paid jobseeker's benefit for a period. The Department apologised for its handling of the matter and offered an ex gratia payment of €1,000 as redress, which the complainant was happy to accept. In case No. 4, a married couple applied for medical cards to the HSE but suffered considerable delay in having the applications processed, despite the fact that their circumstances were such that it should have been apparent at an early stage that they were eligible. The HSE awarded the medical cards backdated to 15 working days from receipt of the application and agreed to refund all medical, dental and optical expenses for the 20-month period of delay. I also contacted the Revenue Commissioners, which agreed to refund the income levy paid by the couple while the application was being processed, on the basis that individuals who hold full medical cards are exempt from the income levy and any overpayments of the universal social charge due to the delay on the part of the HSE. Members have also been provided with copies of the 2012 annual report which provides details of a number of other cases highlighting the type of case handled by my office in 2012.

Over my ten years in office, I have constantly urged various Governments to extend independent oversight to all public bodies. In May this year the remit of my office was extended to over 180 additional organisations, including all publicly-funded third level education bodies. On the passing of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act in 2012, I described it as a historic day for the Office of the Ombudsman and Irish public administration generally. Since 1 May 2013, all public bodies with significant interactions with the public are subject to independent and impartial oversight by the Office of the Ombudsman.

However, I feel I must once again draw attention to some very important areas of activity of the Department of Justice and Equality relating to immigration, naturalisation and prisons, which continue to remain outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This anomalous situation is virtually unique in terms of the jurisdiction of national ombudsmen in other countries and I know that members of this committee raised their concerns about the matter during the debates on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill. This concern is much appreciated. These areas were not placed within my remit in the Bill as I was told that other measures were being actively progressed by the Department of Justice and Equality. The Minister for Justice and Equality announced in 2012, before the enactment of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill, that a new complaints system was planned for prisoners. He stated this system would be open, transparent and independent and would provide an immediate mechanism to deal with such complaints on the ground. The new procedures for the investigation of complaints went live on 1 November 2012.

In May 2013, Judge Michael Kelly, Inspector of Prisons, presented his report, An Assessment of the Irish Prison System, to the Minister for Justice and Equality. Chapter 8 of the report gives a detailed description of the new procedures. However, he declined to comment on investigations commenced under the new procedures since 1 November 2012 as they were then in their infancy. However, he voiced concerns in the report about the fact that the new complaint procedures provide only a process for the investigation of category A complaints, which are complaints of the most serious nature, including assaults, serious intimidation, etc.

He called for a robust complaints procedure to be brought in for category B and C complaints and also asked, as a matter of urgency, that section 31 of the Prisons Act 2007 be amended to strengthen his own investigatory powers in certain areas. This suggests to me that there is much work to be done in terms of establishing a fully effective and comprehensive prisoner complaints system.

In regard to immigration, residency and asylum, the Minister has indicated that a new statutory appeals system will be established through the enactment of the Immigration, Residence and Protection Bill 2010. We await the enactment of that legislation. Until we see the final shape and substance of the new complaint processes in the immigration area, it would be premature of me to judge how effective they will be. I take this opportunity, however, to express concern regarding the delay in advancing the Bill. The Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform indicated a willingness, during the debate on the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012, to revisit that legislation if it was found to require fine-tuning. In that context, prisons and asylum matters may be the subject of further consideration at some time in the future. I expect the new Ombudsman may wish to monitor progress in both these areas.

The consequential increase in complaint numbers arising from the expansion of the office's remit will be managed within existing resources and supported by the significant operational reforms we have implemented in the past two years. The office's strategic plan for 2013 to 2015 sets out our plans for greater engagement with public bodies under our remit to encourage effective systems of complaint resolution locally, thus improving satisfaction with the service at point of contact and preventing the need for escalation to the office. It is early days to seek to quantify the likely number and types of additional complaints the office will receive annually from the new bodies under its remit. However, I will give members a general overview of the most recently available figures relating to valid complaints received against the new bodies in 2013.

As provided under the amending Act, I can examine only actions that occur on or after 1 May 2013, with complainants normally required to exhaust local appeal processes before coming to my office. In total, we have received 78 valid - by which I mean admissible - complaints against the new bodies. I have divided the breakdown of the figures into four broad sectoral categories and attached them in appendix 2, which has been circulated to members. Aside from the valid complaints being dealt with, my office has received a considerable number of telephone queries in regard to a wide range of the new public bodies, as well as complaints that were invalid or premature because they were not taken up with the public body concerned or the actions complained of predated 1 May 2013 or were otherwise outside our remit for whatever reason. Adding the valid, invalid and premature figures together, my office has received more than 200 complaints against the new bodies to date.

I will now make some general comments on our experience in dealing with the new bodies. My office has appointed sectoral leads to deal closely with the organisations in question in the four sectors and to monitor, analyse and process the initial complaints received in each sector. These sectoral leads have had a high level of direct engagement, including face-to-face meetings with a number of bodies, to establish a clear understanding of their processes and procedures and the challenges they face. The engagement also serves to give the new bodies a better understanding of my office's approach to complaint handling and the level of co-operation we need to investigate and evaluate complaints fully.

The sectoral leads report that the co-operation and engagement from the new bodies has been positive and open. In regard to Student Universal Support Ireland, SUSI, it is perhaps not surprising that we have had quite a number of valid complaints - a total to date of 55, or 140 if one includes invalid and premature complaints - given that SUSI has recently processed a very high volume of grant applications in the run-up to the current academic year. In fact, quite a number of SUSI cases taken on by my office relate back to the 2012-13 academic year, as some appeals took a significant length of time to process in SUSI. I can also deal with complaints about undue delay in dealing with grant applications going back to 2012-13 which were not resolved by May 2013.

As it commenced the new centralised grant processing system last year, SUSI was faced with considerable challenges and a very high volume of complaints. In the meantime, however, it has been refining its processing systems to make them more efficient and effective. SUSI has met officials from my office on a number of occasions and I am entirely satisfied with the level of co-operation it is providing. Needless to say, if the individual complaints my office is dealing with suggest further ways to improve the system, we will communicate that information to SUSI.

I have repeatedly welcomed the establishment of the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions. The Ombudsman has a duty to report to Parliament, and any broad concerns or issues identified by any Ombudsman relating to the public administration system must provoke the interest of, and a response from, Members of Parliament. This committee is a pivotal bridge between elected representatives, the Office of the Ombudsman and members of the public who may have suffered harm at the hands of public bodies. Its petitions function enables members of the public to complain to the committee on a wide range of matters relating to the provision of public services. In recognition of the statutory independence of my office and to avoid any overlap or duplication, the committee's terms of reference provide, among other things, that the committee will not accept complaints which have been the subject of a decision by my office or are under active consideration by my office. This is a practical and sensible approach to take and the office will continue to liaise with the clerk to the committee on such issues.

I am aware that Standing Orders cannot provide for the non-application of party whips to members of the committee. When I appeared before the committee in July 2011, however, members seemed to take on board my pleas that they seek to act on a non-party political basis when considering my annual report and other reports. I do not want to put particular members on the spot on this issue, but I noted Deputy Charles Flanagan's contribution on this point. It summed the issue up very neatly and courageously when he said:

I am conscious that I speak as a member of a Government party with a large majority. However, if the committee is to work to its potential - and supporting the Chairman will be vital in that regard - we should be less swayed by the rigorous application of the party whip. If there was ever an opportunity for any Oireachtas committee to be less dependent on the rigours of the whip, this committee may most appropriately take that approach. I welcome the Ombudsman’s observations in this regard, as contained in a report published earlier this year. I hope we will work together on an all-party basis, arriving at decisions by way of consensus rather than taking positions along narrow, partisan and party political lines.

I attached particular importance to this issue because of my decidedly painful experience in dealing with the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the aftermath of my special report on the Lost at Sea scheme. I do not propose to rehash that battle today, but if I had to give an example of how an Oireachtas committee should not deal with an Ombudsman's report, it is as good an example as one could find. As I leave office, one of my great regrets is that I did not manage to achieve redress for the Byrne family. I remain utterly convinced as to the merits of the case I presented at the time. It is only fair to say, however, that my experience with the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions has been nothing but positive. Although I await members' report to the Dáil on the two special reports I brought before them, I have confidence in their commitment to good public service, fairness, accountability and openness. I very much hope the next Ombudsman will continue to receive the same level of interest as I have done and that there will be a continued constructive engagement with the committee and a strong and courageous mutual commitment to good public administration.

I will now give the committee an update on the special reports to which I referred, in which I found that the mobility allowance, MA, and motorised transport grant, MTG, schemes were in breach of the Equal Status Acts. In the case of the former, the breach related to age grounds, whereas in the case of the MTG scheme it related to the way in which "severe disability" was being defined by the Health Service Executive in the Donegal area for the purposes of eligibility criteria. The HSE accepted the recommendations of my report on the MTG scheme. Since its publication, the applicant who was the subject of the investigation was approved for the grant following the review. An additional 50 people who had been refused the grant, having been deemed eligible on previous occasions, had the recent decision overturned and were also awarded the grant. I made a separate recommendation to the Department of Health that it issue a circular to the HSE in regard to eligibility criteria around the issue of "severe disability" and to ensure the definition of the term was not in breach of the Equal Status Acts. This recommendation was rejected, leading to one of my special reports to the Oireachtas.

The second report related to the mobility allowance scheme. The Department of Health had originally accepted my recommendations to make the scheme compliant with equal status legislation. However, when the recommendations were not implemented and I pursued the matter, I was informed that it must belatedly reject them. Following my appearance before this committee in regard to the special reports, members held separate hearings with the Minister for Health, the Minister of State with responsibility in this area and the Secretary General of the Department and other senior officials on 6 February 2013. On 25 February 2013, the Government announced its decision to abolish both the MA and the MTG schemes with immediate effect. Existing recipients of the MA were to continue in payment until June, and this cut-off point was subsequently further extended. On 11 June 2013, the Government announced that new statutory provisions would be established in regard to financial supports for disabled persons with mobility needs. The Government has established an interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, to develop proposals for a new scheme or schemes, and the group has been asked to report back to Government by October.

The closure of the schemes shocked me. Such decisive action contrasted sharply with the inaction of the Department during the period since 2000 when the Equal Status Act was first enacted and, in particular, with its inaction since 2008 and 2009 when it was on notice from my office, and from the Equality Tribunal, that the MA scheme contravened equality legislation.

The law is the law. If the law is unaffordable, as the Department claimed, then the Oireachtas has the power to change it. In fact, it has a duty to do so even if some of the options available will be unpopular. I saw no evidence of serious effort in the period from 2008 to address the issue and thus prevent the ultimate devastation caused to many people with disabilities when the shock announcement was made that the schemes would be abolished.

At the launch of my annual report for 2012 yesterday, I gave a cautious welcome to the announcement by the Government that payments are to continue to be made temporarily by the HSE to those persons currently in receipt of the mobility allowance. I very much hope that the interdepartmental group, chaired by the Department of the Taoiseach, will resolve the situation regarding the two schemes in an urgent and equitable manner. I also understand that this committee plans to report in due course to the Dáil, as provided for in its Standing Orders, on the outcome of its various deliberations on the matter. I appreciate that this may pose some difficulty for the committee and will, to a certain extent, be a test of its stated commitment to seek to act in a consensual manner. It is important that the committee would comment on the findings of my report and on how such maladministration can be prevented in the future.

My office has recently completed a number of investigations which, if time allowed, I would mention briefly. However, I need to note serious concerns with yet another report which just last week was rejected by the Health Service Executive with, I have to presume, the backing of the Department of Health. The rejection of my recommendations must now be a matter for my successor in his or her first weeks in office and I do not wish in any way to dictate how he or she should respond. However, as the investigation was initiated and completed on my watch, I feel duty bound to report briefly on it now. The investigation involved 17 cases where claims for repayments under the health repayment scheme had been refused. This scheme was introduced in 2006 to refund charges which had been levied illegally by health boards in respect of long-stay care over a period of many years. In the cases to which I refer, repayment claims were refused on the grounds that the applicants had not paid what are termed in the legislation as "recoverable charges". These negative decisions were upheld by the health repayment scheme appeals officer.

Following my investigation, I recommended that repayments should be made in all but one of the 17 cases. I also recommended that the HSE should examine the remaining case further. The HSE very recently sent me a detailed statement of the reasons it has decided to reject my recommendations. All of these reasons were, in fact, matters already raised by the HSE in the course of the investigation and matters on which I had reflected carefully before completing it. Among the HSE's reasons for rejecting the recommendations is a claim that I did not have jurisdiction to conduct the investigation in the first instance. This, unfortunately, appears to be the continuation of a pattern of behaviour on the part of the HSE and, more particularly, the Department of Health in respect of Ombudsman investigations. It will be a matter for my successor to decide how best to deal with the situation which has now arisen. Among my successor's options will be that of sending a special report to the Dáil and Seanad. In the event of my successor making such a special report, the involvement of this committee will be pivotal in determining the eventual outcome. I think it appropriate that I should, at this stage, inform this committee of the situation which has arisen.

Another issue of great importance raised by me over the years as well as by my immediate predecessor, the late Kevin Murphy, was the need to give constitutional status to the Office of the Ombudsman. As far back as 1996, the Constitution Review Group recommended that the Office of the Ombudsman should be given constitutional status. The review group pointed out that in the same way as the Comptroller and Auditor General monitors financial accountability, the Ombudsman monitors administrative accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General's office has constitutional status. It seems somewhat anomalous that the local government system, which is subject to my jurisdiction, also has constitutional status whereas my office does not. I spelled out the arguments in favour of such status in my office's publication on developing and optimising the Office of the Ombudsman which was issued to all political parties in February 2011 in the run-up to the general election. My office has made a detailed submission on the matter to the Convention on the Constitution and it will await with interest the proposals that emerge from that forum.

Earlier in the year, when I presented my 2012 Office of the Information Commissioner annual report, I highlighted a growing concern with regard to the failure of some public bodies to meet timeframes for compliance with requests by my office for information relating to review applications. Indeed, it has become increasingly clear that many public bodies do not have adequately resourced freedom of information functions and that the priority afforded to the administration of freedom of information matters by many such bodies appears to be deteriorating as resources diminish and demands for greater efficiencies naturally increase. This is a worrying trend which requires immediate action, particularly in light of the Government's commitment to reforming and extending the freedom of information legislation. As I stated in my 2012 report, public bodies must recognise that the administration of the freedom of information process, as a statutory function, should be afforded as much weight as any other such function. The administration of freedom of information should not be seen as an optional function from which resources may be diverted as other priorities arise.

I want to wish my successor, whoever he or she may be, all the very best in his or her work as Information Commissioner and Ombudsman and in the other statutory roles which come with the office. As the remit of the office expands and the public service comes under further pressure, the job will continue to be challenging. However, as the challenge grows, so too should the perceived importance of the offices in seeking to ensure a public service that acts in a fair, proper and open manner towards the public.

I again wish to thank the committee for its time and attention and for all the consideration it has given to me, my officials and the office during recent years.