Mr. Peter Tyndall:

-----many other jurisdictions. I am conscious that, for example, there is a federal correction ombudsman in Canada and ombudsman offices across central and eastern Europe have prisons and immigration issues within their jurisdiction. We are out of step on those areas. There probably was a fear at the time that an ombudsman might try to put himself or herself into the position of acting as an appeal body, but that is not the role of an ombudsman; it is to look at complaints. Legitimate complaints do arise. If decisions are not taken properly, we can comment on that, but it would not be the job of an ombudsman to substitute a decision. If someone is charged with making a decision on whether someone is entitled to Irish citizenship, it is not for an ombudsman to second-guess that person, but if someone, for instance, was facing extensive delays in the process or if there were administrative failings in the way decisions were reached, those people should properly have recourse to an ombudsman, as they would in any other field. I hope those are things on which we will see a positive response from Government. In response to the committee’s questions, I have put forward some of the areas where I think there is scope for development. I hope the Government will also share the view that there is scope for development and we will see proposals coming forward to address some of the deficiencies.

In a sense I believe the position with Irish Water was an oversight in that there was not a conscious plan to change the arrangements for making complaints about the organisation. There was no plan. The reason we saw the changes made on the websites today to say one cannot complain to the energy regulator is an attempt to put in place administratively something that should have been included in the legislation. The office was not consulted about the decision to take water related complaints away from us. When water services were provided by local authorities, if somebody wanted to complain about the water service and he or she did not get a satisfactory response, he or she could have gone to the Ombudsman’s office. One day a person could complain to the Ombudsman and the next day he or she could not. I do not think anyone set out to do that but when it did happen, people thought the arrangements could be made the same way as for electricity and gas, which is that one can complain to the regulator. I strongly believe that the role of regulators is to regulate, that they have a particular relationship with the bodies they regulate, which includes such issues as price setting and looking at competition. That means there is some conflict in terms of individual redress.

Typically, in other jurisdictions there is either a specialist ombudsman to deal with the specific areas or one can complain to the public services ombudsman about them. There is an opportunity with the alternative dispute resolution, ADR, directive in Ireland to make redress for people using services, both public and private. At a seminar yesterday, a leading academic in the field, Christopher Hodges, from Oxford University made it very clear that he thought Ireland should respond to the directive by having a public service ombudsman to deal with public services and a consumer ombudsman to deal with matters other than public services. We have the opportunity to do that. We can introduce it over time. It would cost nothing to the State to introduce a consumer ombudsman because, typically, it would be paid for by a levy on the industry. Making sure that I could cover public services that have been privatised would work in the same way in the sense that it could be dealt with by levy or charge per case, but it need not necessarily be a cost to the State or to the consumer because it would be free to the consumer. The Ombudsman service does not charge for dealing with complaints.

We have an opportunity to address the issues. The Government sent the matter out for consultation and we have responded in that vein. I hope we grasp the nettle. It could be done over time; it does not all have to be done overnight. One could set up a consumer ombudsman and gradually bring bodies into its jurisdiction. To give an example that was given yesterday, in Germany it was decided to bring complaints about airlines together in a statutory system and an airline ombudsman was created. Rather surprisingly, at the front of the queue to sign up was Ryanair. What the airlines have found is that customers who get an explanation, even if their complaint is not upheld, are five times more likely to use the same airline again, and that they are saving money on litigation because complaints are being dealt with in a much more efficient and cheaper fashion. The European Union has said that if one introduces consumer ombudsman services, there are considerable savings to be made by reducing the amount of litigation and the time that companies spend dealing with dissatisfied customers. The situation presents opportunities. For my office, the sensible thing would be to put complaints on Irish Water back into the Ombudsman system and to bring in the other utilities in order that if people want to complain about a public service, they would just go to the Ombudsman. Such a system would be straightforward. I have put the case to Government and I hope it will respond positively. The opportunity is there for it to do so.

I think Irish Water is subject to the data protection regime so there is an avenue for people to complain about how their data are held. That system is in place and I hope it will provide the protection people need. In terms of getting information, my comment was more about the fact that it is not about problems that have occurred but that as private bodies come into my jurisdiction through the major funding route, I believe there will not be the same pressure on them to comply and, therefore, as with, for instance, the Financial Services Ombudsman in dealing with the banks, it has binding powers. That is the precedent that should be adopted in this instance.

The powers to obtain information could be clearer in the legislation. The 2012 Act sought to give me access to the Circuit Court. There are simpler ways of dealing with it, namely, to simply require bodies to provide information when I request it and for legal privilege not to apply so it would be possible for me to see advice that people have received. That is not the same thing as me releasing that information into the public domain because quite often in the course of investigations, I see a lot of very confidential information, for instance on health records, but would never release that into the public domain. So I think there is confusion about allowing access and the belief that allowing access would be the same as publishing which, of course it is not. I quite often have to respect the confidentiality of, for example, records on adoption or child care that I would see. I do not suggest any change to that, just that I should have access to records.