Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees
Tuesday, 24 June 2025
Committee on Public Petitions and the Ombudsmen
Engagement with the Office of the Ombudsman
2:00 am
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Good morning everybody, and I welcome you to the public session of our meeting.
I will read some formal notices. I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the place in which Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit members to participate where they are not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting.
Our next order of business is our engagement with Mr. Ger Deering, Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, and Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue, senior investigator, from the Office of the Ombudsman. They are both very welcome.
Before we start, I want to explain some of the limitations of parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses may make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity.
Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks and it is imperative they comply with any such direction.
Before we hear from our witnesses, I propose that we publish their opening statements on the committee's website. Is that agreed? Agreed. On behalf of the committee, I extend a warm welcome to our witnesses this morning, Mr. Ger Deering and Ms Siobhán O’Donoghue. I invite Mr. Deering to read his opening statement. We will have a chance to have questions thereafter. I call him to deliver his opening statement. He is welcome here this morning.
Mr. Ger Deering:
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to present the Ombudsman’s annual report for 2023 and 2024 along with my colleague, Siobhán O’Donoghue. The year 2024 marked the 40th anniversary of the Office of the Ombudsman. Therefore, last year presented an excellent opportunity to take stock of the work, achievements and the developments of the office over the past 40 years.
Since its establishment, the Office of the Ombudsman has been to the fore in delivering social change by promoting fairness and inclusion and delivering improvements in the delivery of public services. We have dealt with a broad range of matters relating to the everyday lives and indeed deaths of citizens and people living in Ireland. The office has been at the forefront in challenging biases, improper discrimination and inappropriate attitudes. Some of these challenges are as great today as they were at any time in the past 40 years. The impact of the office since its establishment has been impressive and extensive. The complaints and issues we deal with are a microcosm of our broader society. We have addressed and rectified a broad range of unfairness and exclusion.
I will turn now to the specific work undertaken by my office in 2023 and 2024. I spoke to the committee last year about our outreach programme aimed at increasing awareness across all areas of society about who we are, what we do and how people can reach us. We do this through national and local media, regional complaint clinics, public participation networks and engagement with community, voluntary and social inclusion groups. The success of this outreach is evidenced by the ever-increasing number of complaints and inquiries we are receiving.
In 2023, my office received 4,465 complaints, which increased to 4,778 in 2024, representing a 7% increase. In 2023, we responded to 8,171 enquiries, which increased to 8,890 in 2024, representing an almost 9% increase. As I have voiced previously to this committee, I see these figures not just as engagements with the public but rather as efforts from my staff to help and assist 13,500 people in total in 2024.
I will now outline the specific numbers of complaints in each sector in 2023 and 2024. Local authority complaints accounted for the highest proportion of complaints received by my office in both years. I accept that this sector encapsulates a wide range of areas, including housing, planning and road-related complaints. With the ongoing housing issues which have impacted and continue to impact on every aspect of our society, it is not surprising that housing complaints made up approximately 60% of all local authority complaints in both years. This is why I published an own initiative investigation report focused on the housing assistance payment scheme, HAP, earlier this month. I will speak in more detail on this later. We have also developed a model complaint handling procedure, specifically for use by local authorities, and we are engaging with the Local Government Management Agency to ensure its successful roll-out and implementation across all local authorities with a view to improving the consistency of the service the public receives from local authorities.
The sector that received the second highest number of complaints in both 2023 and 2024 was Government Departments and offices, with 1,397 complaints received in 2024. This sector includes, among others, complaints about the Department of Social Protection and the Department of Foreign Affairs, as was, which both have high volumes of transactions. Both Departments accounted for the largest number of complaints in this sector.
The sector that had the third highest number of complaints in both years related to health and social care. A total of 839 complaints were received in this sector in 2023, increasing to 887 in 2024. These figures primarily comprise complaints about public hospitals, with 141 complaints concerning Tusla. In 2024, we completed our engagement with the HSE on our In Sickness and in Debt report, which detailed our investigation into the administration by the HSE of schemes that fund necessary medical treatment in the EU, EEA or the UK. It is fair to say that both the report and its subsequent implementation have been a success. Patients who were previously denied payments due to bureaucratic issues have now received reimbursements.
Patients have been provided with access to a meaningful appeals process, which has in some cases led to an increased reimbursement. We have also seen patients who borrowed from family members to pay for the treatment receive reimbursements.
I again commend the co-operation of the HSE with this report, with all recommendations accepted and the 18 falling within the responsibility of the HSE fully implemented. I see this as a blueprint for positive engagement with our office, one that I hope will be replicated in future investigations and reports.
I want to take this opportunity to note the renewed focus that my office placed on our role under the Disability Act last year. Under that Act, we can investigate inquiry officers’ reports on complaints made to public bodies under section 38 of the Disability Act, primarily concerning access to buildings and services for those with disabilities. We have developed a new and bespoke Disability Act complaint form, which can now be accessed directly from the home page of our website. We took this step not just to enhance and improve our accessibility, but also to make it easier for those who work in the disability sector to signpost our office and to highlight the role we can play in assisting the people they support and engage with on a daily basis. As I mentioned at the outset, my predecessors undertook a number of important investigations that culminated in various reports and recommendations, and I have tried to ensure that the good work done will continue until real change is achieved.
A report, entitled "Wasted Lives: Time for a Better Future for Younger People in Nursing Homes", was published by the office in May 2021 on foot of a systemic investigation into the appropriateness of the placement of people under the age of 65 in private and public nursing homes. The report made a series of findings and recommendations, covering a wide range of issues. These recommendations were accepted by the HSE. However, progress has not been as expected or hoped.
I published an update on this report in September 2024 and I have since received further updates from the HSE. While the programme has successfully transitioned over 101 people to more suitable accommodation, the progress made has been slow. Very importantly, through the enhanced quality of life supports, EQLS, element of the programme, the programme also helped to improve the lives of some who could not transition out of the nursing home system. I also noted that a lot of good work was done in this programme to establish a strong framework to operate consistently moving forward. Most regrettably and frustratingly, however, the good preparatory work that has been done may be somewhat in vain, as I was informed that the programme could falter this year and into the future without appropriate ring-fenced funding. The lack of such funding means that many of those identified for moves to more suitable accommodation will not be able to do so. While a relatively small amount of general funding was available at the beginning of 2025, this funding was committed to specific transfers by the end of quarter 1. No specific funding was provided for EQLS at all in 2025. These are major setbacks for the people concerned, their families and those who have worked hard on the ground to make progress in this area.
As I noted in my annual report, it is completely unacceptable that this excellent programme, which brought hope and independence to people with disabilities, has an uncertain future because of lack of dedicated funding. Lack of funding is simply no reason at all to keep these people living inappropriately in nursing homes. A commitment from the Government to ensure sustainable and annual funding for this programme and EQLS is, therefore, essential.
Last year, I provided an update to the committee on a report, entitled "Grounded: Unequal Access for People With Disabilities to Personal Transport Schemes", regarding the lack of access to transport for people with disabilities. By way of background, as far back as 2012, the then Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly published the results of her investigation into the motorised transport grant, finding that the interpretation of the medical criteria for eligibility for the scheme was unacceptably restrictive and contrary to equal status legislation. The Government decided to close the mobility allowance and the motorised transport grant scheme to new applicants in 2013. These actions were taken as interim measures. Since then, a separate scheme - the disabled drivers and disabled passengers, DDDP, scheme - has become the only scheme available that could potentially provide support in this area. Sadly, the excessively restrictive nature of this scheme rendered it unfit for purpose.
My predecessor, Peter Tyndall, published the Grounded report in 2021, which outlined our investigations into the three transport support schemes, those being, the two mentioned earlier and the mobility allowance. Grounded highlighted the collective unfairness and inequity of these schemes. In my annual report for 2022, I expressed my concern that people with disabilities continued to be denied access to personal transport supports. Following this, the then Taoiseach established a working group. I have met a number of times with the Department of An Taoiseach seeking to progress the matter and I will continue to be consistent in the message that has come from this office for well over a decade now, namely, that we need fair, functional and flexible transport schemes for people with disabilities.
I recently received an update from the Department of the Taoiseach that its working group has proposed that a new general grant-based scheme be developed and led by the Department of Transport. I am also informed that the Department of Transport is beginning the development of this new scheme. It is a welcome development that, at last, a Government Department has been allocated responsibility for this very important matter. I thank the Department of the Taoiseach for finally progressing this matter. I am cautiously optimistic that there may now be genuine progress. However, my team and I will continue to engage with the Department of Transport to ensure that a focus remains on developing and implementing this new scheme.
We have just completed an investigation into the administration of the housing assistance payment, HAP, scheme, an investigation prompted by a housing issues workshop we held with NGOs, and the complaints we had received about the HAP scheme at that time. My team carried out extensive research into the operation of the HAP scheme. They surveyed local authorities, holding in-depth consultations with seven of them, the Dublin Region Homeless Executive and the HAP shared services centre. They also consulted the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage, representative bodies, civil society organisations and took account of the issues raised by HAP tenants and landlords themselves.
The report was published earlier this month containing recommendations aimed at reducing inefficiencies in the system, addressing the inequalities between HAP tenants and social housing tenants, and ensuring that vulnerable applicants are appropriately supported. I look forward to working with the Department of housing to ensure the recommendations are implemented with a view to making real improvements in the area of housing for those who are reliant on this scheme.
I will return to where I began: this office’s 40-year anniversary last year. I mentioned to this committee last year that we had a number of actions planned to mark this important milestone. President Michael D. Higgins hosted our staff at Áras an Uachtaráin to mark the occasion, with the President himself acknowledging the profound and positive transformations this office has brought about in the times since its establishment. In support of the diversity of our communities, we hosted ambassadors and representatives from more than 40 different countries at an event highlighting the role of the Ombudsman and encouraging them to ensure that their citizens who reside here in Ireland are aware of the services the Ombudsman offers. We also participated at last year’s Pride festival which had a strong theme relating to pride at work. We saw this as the perfect opportunity to highlight our role and our compatibility with the message of inclusion that Pride embodies.
In other actions, we developed and published a guidance, Human Rights: A guide for Ombudsman staff when investigating complaints, which also seeks to increase awareness and use of the human rights framework throughout the public service. We also compiled a commemorative book containing case studies and reports for every year that the office has operated since 1984. In December last year, we welcomed previous holders of the office of Ombudsman, Ms Emily O’Reilly and Mr. Peter Tyndall, and both our current and former staff to an event, to reflect on the history and transformation of the office over recent decades. There was a collective understanding in the room that the work we do is important and must continue and endure each year as vigorously as in the past.
I acknowledge the work of my predecessors and the former and current directors general and staff of the office for the positive changes achieved last year and for each of the past 40 years. We are committed to continuing to bring about positive developments. We will also continue to pursue with vigour Government and public bodies to ensure maximum access to public services that are delivered to the highest possible standards, particularly to the most vulnerable in our society.
I thank the Cathaoirleach and the members of this committee for the opportunity to be here and for their interest in our work. We are happy to answer questions the committee may have.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Deering. I am going to open it to the committee now. Members can raise their hands if they have a question or comment. I call Deputy Brendan Smith.
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Cathaoirleach and, like you, I welcome Mr. Deering and his colleague, Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue, to the committee. I am a new member of this committee so we are just finding our feet in regard to the committee's role and, obviously, the role of the Ombudsman and its work. Do public utilities come under the Ombudsman's remit, such as telecom providers and ESB?
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To Mr. Deering's knowledge, has there ever been any effort to have them responsible to the Ombudsman? I know telecom companies nowadays are private companies. The ESB is obviously a State company.
Mr. Ger Deering:
Interestingly enough, with regard to An Post and previous iterations of the postal service, some people may remember that it was all part of the Department of Post and Telegraphs. When it was a Government Department, it did come under the office's remit. We dealt with complaints against telecommunications companies and the postal service at that stage but not since they have all been privatised.
On the question as to whether there have been efforts to bring them under it, my predecessor Peter Tyndall made a very strong argument that Irish Water should have come under the Office of the Ombudsman because that was a service that was carried out by local authorities until it moved. It did not happen anyway. Utilities are not within our remit.
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can ask two or three further questions?
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Of course. I am not going to turn the timers on but I will give people about ten minutes. We have plenty of time.
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Less than half of that will do. During the storm in January, Deputy Dolan and I had a huge amount of contact with the ESB. I represent Cavan-Monaghan and Deputy Dolan represents east Galway. We were very adversely impacted by the storm. The ESB was top class in trying to respond to us, making efforts and even ringing vulnerable customers that we made representations about, all of that. The telecoms providers leave a lot to be desired, every day. It is an area we might try to explore as a committee.
I am delighted Mr. Deering mentioned the inappropriate setting for so many young people with disabilities in nursing homes. We all know people who are in the wrong settings. I am glad his office and he as Ombudsman will be vigilant and persistent in this. It is an issue that needs to be improved. There must be a new setting for those people who have enough adversity to face every day without being in the wrong setting. The primary medical certificate issue is going on for far too long. I sincerely hope for the day when at least one parent Department takes ownership of it and makes it a feasible scheme. The conditions for a person to qualify today are unbelievably demanding and challenging. It is not fit for purpose.
Did I take Mr. Deering up correctly that of the complaints about Departments, Social Protection is first and foreign affairs second?
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Passports, is it?
Mr. Ger Deering:
Passports, yes. It really has to do with the number of transactions. For example, the Department of Social Protection does something like 80-something million transactions a year, so it is understandable that it is up there. Similarly with passports, I think it is more or less directly related to Brexit. A lot of people now are seeking passports. I would not say all of the complaints are in that space but a lot of the complaints relate to the people applying for new passports for the first time. When people are renewing passports it is done very quickly but there are issues. We are receiving complaints in that space.
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With regard to passports and Brexit, I never knew there were so many people living in the Six Counties in Northern Ireland who had cousins in Cavan-Monaghan who all voted for me, when they were looking for passports. Those of us in the Border areas who had some contact with people living in Northern Ireland, regardless of which political tradition they adhered to there, found they were very anxious to get an Irish passport.
In conclusion, and this is probably not directly under Mr. Deering's remit, does he get many complaints from people who are impacted by a lack of confidence in using IT and who cannot get a person to answer a phone in a Department, local authority or public utility? It is shameful the way society today is treating so many people who may not have the skills or the confidence to go online and transact their business. For any of us, when we ring Departments, public utilities or statutory agencies, you press any amount of X, Y, Z buttons and you get talking to nobody. It is very frustrating and very wrong. As a society, maybe we should be taking a look at the responsibility of Departments, statutory agencies, local authorities, the HSE, all the agencies and public utilities to have a proper level of response to people who want to phone and talk to an official rather than being told to go online. The person may not have the confidence to do that. They may be living in an area where they do not have broadband, as simple as that. Do queries like that come to Mr. Deering's office?
Mr. Ger Deering:
Yes, I would say communication is at the heart of an awful lot of the complaints that we get, or indeed lack of communication. We are very strong ourselves on putting out our own telephone number and saying to people that if they need to ring us, they can ring us, for the very reason the Deputy has outlined. Not just in the public sector but in the private sector also, if you go on a website it is almost impossible to find a telephone number to contact somebody. We would expect public bodies to make themselves accessible and to be as accessible as possible.
The short answer to the question is that many of the complaints we receive have to do with some form of poor communication. We also deal with what we call a non-response to correspondence. This is where someone has contacted a Department or a public body and received no response. We engage with them and get a response on the person's behalf.
Brendan Smith (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perhaps the Office of the Ombudsman and we as a committee should do work on this. People receive written communication with no phone number on it. It is scandalous how some people are being treated. I thank Mr. Deering.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I share Deputy Smith's concerns. It is incredibly frustrating for people who have a legitimate query and cannot find somewhere to bring it. I welcome the fact the Office of the Ombudsman advertises its phone number. I know I am not alone in having a large number of people coming to my constituency office who say all they wanted was to talk to a person, and that if they could speak to a person they could explain the situation. In the vast majority of cases people can tick A, B and C, when a question is asked an answer is given, and a chatbot might work. For people who have a query which is even slightly complicated or a tiny bit different to the 99% of queries, it is deeply frustrating. I agree with Deputy Smith that we should examine this as a committee. It is a huge issue. It is not good enough for people who might not have access to broadband or have the necessary skills, or who do not want to learn or may not be in a position to learn, and should not have to learn simply because they want access to a public service. This is something we will definitely take on board.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Deering for the presentation and I thank him and Ms O'Donoghue for coming before the committee. What is the approach of the Office of the Ombudsman to Dublin City Council and how it treats its tenants with regard to maintenance issues and allocations? Private tenants have access to the RTB but Dublin City Council tenants do not have this access. Is this something on which the Office of the Ombudsman has engaged? It is like a two-tier system for tenants. Dublin City Council's treatment of housing allocation and maintenance issues is shockingly poor. Tenants needs to have some effective way of challenging the conditions they have been allowed live in, which are horrific in many cases.
Mr. Ger Deering:
We do deal with complaints from tenants in local authority housing. I appreciate we do not have the same statutory powers as the RTB does in terms of inspection but if we receive complaints about maintenance issues, we engage with whatever local authority is involved to get its explanation. We have had some significant successes in terms of work done for people in certain cases. We do deal with those complaints.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Office of the Ombudsman has had some success. Has it made any recommendation that there be a statutory measure whereby Dublin City Council tenants could be heard by the RTB?
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Will Mr. Deering consider doing this?
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is pretty significant. I know it is not only with regard to Dublin City Council. Tenants throughout the State are left in horrendous conditions and they do not have anywhere to go in many cases. It is appalling how they are treated.
With regard to the HAP report how does Mr. Deering envisage the recommendations of the report being implemented? It is all very well having a report, and we have millions of reports, but how do we get it worked out?
Mr. Ger Deering:
I agree with Senator Andrews on the number of reports but we are very strong. One of the strengths of our office has been that we do not give up, even through a change of Ombudsman. The committee has heard me speak today about transport for people with disabilities. This was started almost 13 years ago by Emily O'Reilly and I am still following up on it. It is going on too long but we do not give up. Last year I spoke to the committee about the report we did with the HSE on treatment abroad. That is a model because all 18 recommendations have been implemented. This is a long answer to the Senator's question. We will now engage on a quarterly basis with the Department of housing because we see it as having overall responsibility for HAP, even though some of the recommendations involve local authorities and their shared services in Limerick. The Department has put together a subcommittee, which is charged with implementing this.
We will review on a regular basis with the Department to see the implementation of the recommendations.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
So the target set in that report-----
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Deering for that. What is the process in terms of assessing and the details around particular cases the Office of the Ombudsman will take on? What does that process look like?
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Yes, where it is decided to do a case.
Mr. Ger Deering:
A number of things feed into that. We receive 4,700 complaints, and we may see a trend. I will give the example of the treatment abroad scheme. We saw a trend of complaints coming in in that area that raised a red flag for us that something is not right. On the basis of that, we did a more in-depth investigation. We take a number of factors into account. It could be the complaints we receive ourselves, it could be the seriousness of the impact it is having or it could be the number of people it is affected. Just to be clear, there are two very different functions. One is to deal with each individual complaint and the other is where we decide to look systemically at an area where we believe there is a problem. It is based on the information and the intelligence we are getting, mainly through our own complaints but also through feedback from people.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The process is different for individual complaints and the broader element.
Mr. Ger Deering:
If the Senator comes to us with a complaint, we will first try to resolve it. In fact, 80% of complaints are resolved within three months. They are resolved informally. Back to what we talked about earlier, I actually call the telephone old-fashioned innovation. We get on the phone to the person who complained and we get on the phone to the public body, and we see whether we can resolve it that way. If we cannot resolve it that way, we go on to do a formal investigation of that complaint. We then issue a recommendation to the public body.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How long would that process take generally? I know it is huge.
Mr. Ger Deering:
As I said, 80% are done in three months and about 90% of complaints are done in nine months. There is a small number that take maybe more than a year. The vast majority are done within the three months, or the nine months if it is a formal investigation. That is separate. That is an individual complaint, and we have dealt with that and found a resolution. Separately from that, I have what is called "own initiative" investigation, where I can decide to look into the treatment abroad, the HAP scheme or transport for people with disabilities, for example. There is whole range of areas like that which we have looked into - the Magdalen laundries scheme and all of those that-----
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The Office of the Ombudsman would not come out with any statements or announcements until it has investigated thoroughly.
Mr. Ger Deering:
Correct. By the way, we are always anxious to hear feedback, and from this committee in particular as well. If there are areas members believe we should look into to, we are always happy to receive those kind of recommendations or suggestions. Like ourselves, the committee is at the forefront of hearing where things are or are not working.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I will give Mr. Deering one. I think Dublin City Council tenants need to come under the RTB. The weight of the Office of the Ombudsman would be very helpful for that. It is very important.
Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Chair. We meet again. I look forward to these reports. Many of these things are normally depressing. When I was reading the outcomes I was taken aback when the council refused to reinstate families' correct length of time on a housing list. I was glad that the Office of the Ombudsman had the power to investigate it, and the outcome was the common-sense approach, which I am delighted with.
I do not envy the witnesses' jobs but as any Ombudsman's office, it plays a vital role in keeping people on the right line. I thank the officials for their work.
I have one or two questions. Communication was mentioned. I think it is frustrating for all of us. I refer to human-to-human contact. The Chair even spoke about it as well. Mr. Deering said that he has specific individual cases, whether it is to deal with social welfare or somebody who does not read or write, and they are demanding written letters and stuff. While the individual could be certified as disabled, the Department will not pay that payment because he or she did not tick the box. Could the Office of the Ombudsman investigate there? I cannot physically pick up a phone and talk to a specific case and say this is why X, Y and Z has not been done. Is there a power within the office to pick it up in the same way as the one with the housing scheme or the other one about inadequate care for a woman in a nursing home?
East Cork is famous for whiskey and food but also for flooding. In fairness to the Departments, Cork County Council and the Office of Public Works, they have been amazing but there is a lack of progress in time. Flood protection barriers are going in at certain homes but it is all very messy because it is based on eircodes and so on. In certain estates, the flood protection cannot work because the houses are timber-framed. Families living in these homes have agreed with the farmer who owns the land to have an alternative quick-fix solution put in place but because of planning technicalities involving the OPW and Inland Fisheries Ireland, the council is not willing to engage. It is, however, willing to take a gamble that if we have another one-in-100-year event, which we could get twice in one week, these homes will be gone because they are timber-framed. They would be destroyed because they are vented on the bottom.
If I reported this case to highlight the need for a bit of urgency, could the Office of the Ombudsman do something? I know that it is all about time and money but there is also the issue of taking a common-sense approach. How many times have I said to Mr. Deering, when speaking about certain issues, that the Department appears to be more reactive than proactive? We have the solution - a temporary quick-fix - but we are not going to implement it. God forbid, we get another storm like Storm Babet in the next 12 months because we could have hundreds of families left with no homes. They will be scratching their heads saying, "Jesus, how did this happen?", when they already had a solution. If I were to bring this case to Mr. Deering on behalf of my constituents, is there a way for his office to try to progress it if it had enough information?
Mr. Ger Deering:
To be honest, I do not know without having the level of detail the Deputy talked about. One of the things that presents a problem for us is resources. If a body simply does not have resources to do certain things, we cannot tell a local authority to divert money from road works, for example, to do that type of work. We would have to have a look at that to see but we may have a limited role in something such as that.
Pat Buckley (Cork East, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Deering for his answer and the work his office does.
Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the Ombudsman for his work. The housing assistance payment is an area that I have researched and done work on. The Ombudsman's findings on HAP are important in highlighting the problems with the payment. Perhaps we could discuss a few of them. The other area I want to discuss is disability and the Office of the Ombudsman's powers and resources.
Mr. Deering spoke about inequalities in respect of HAP tenants compared with those in traditional or permanent social housing. There are huge problems there, as he outlined, in terms of top-up payments, issues relating to security of tenure and even waiting lists. Does he think HAP should be defined as social housing, as set out in the legislation? That is the fundamental question.
Mr. Ger Deering:
It is not for us to decide policy. If the Government decides that it is social housing, so be it. I am going to avoid that question but what I will say to Deputy Hearne is that I think there is an unfairness in the current system, as we have outlined in the report. For example, if a person is on HAP and has to pay a top-up, what is often not realised - the Deputy knows this but the public in general does not - is that they also pay a differential rent to the local authority. By the way, my first job in the public sector was as a rent collector, so I have experience in this area. They have to pay a differential rent. A person in a local authority house, social housing or whatever form of housing it may be, pays the differential rent and that is the end of the story. However, a person in a less secure situation, in private housing with HAP, may well be paying a top-up as well.
What is really needed is clarity because there are different approaches around the country. Some councils have what they call a transfer list. It is our understanding that a small number of councils leave everyone on the social housing list. This means someone who is in position 40 on the list when they got the HAP will stay in that position.
Others take people off the list and say they are now socially housed but that they are on a transfer list and may well be able to transfer to social housing at some stage. More transparency and fairness are required in the system regarding whether we consider people to be socially housed.
Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To push Mr. Deering a bit on this, and I understand he does not want to comment directly on the legislation, if we look at it in terms of housing need, we have the housing waiting list which comprises people on the local authority waiting list and not on the transfer list. It is in the region of 58,000 households. Most of those in receipt of HAP are not on this waiting list. How we define those in housing need determines the policy response so it is very important. The analysis and work of the Office of the Ombudsman clearly shows that those in receipt of HAP are still in housing need.
Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Even when they are in receipt of HAP they are still in housing need in relation to security of tenure and paying extra rent on top of differential rent. Mr. Deering has mentioned the issue of access to it if they have to move. There are also people with disabilities, lone parents and migrants.
Mr. Ger Deering:
The vast majority of them are in need. It is theoretically possible that somebody's circumstances could change significantly, even when they are on HAP, and they may no longer be in need of social housing. This is possible but it is the exception. The vast majority of people on HAP are in need of social housing. The question is whether we consider HAP to be social housing. I know this is the question Deputy Hearne asked me to answer but I feel it is a policy decision. Certainly the people concerned are still in need of housing and social housing.
Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Perhaps Mr Deering can speak in a bit of detail about a couple of the cases that have been brought to the Office of the Ombudsman. It would be useful to indicate this housing need.
Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue:
I can speak on some of the cases we receive. A common case we receive is somebody not getting their discretionary increase. We find that local authorities have differing approaches to this. Some local authorities apply it as a matter of course. Often, depending on their market, they accept that it needs to be done. Other local authorities require people to go ahead and ask for it, so people need to know this. Some local authorities do not give the entire top-up at one time. We have had a number of these types of queries.
With regard to other types of cases, another common issue faced is how tenancy in good faith is dealt with. Again, the legislation requires that the tenancy be in good faith but the detail on this is not always clear. We have found local authorities are often very focused on situations where there is a family member involved in a rental situation but this might not mean that tenancy is in good faith. There may be a previous rental history. This can often be a stumbling block. We have dealt with many cases where people are delayed because they are going back and forth trying to prove their tenancy is in good faith but, for whatever reason, the proof is not accepted.
Other cases we have had involve proof of ownership. Various houses present various anomalies in terms of how ownership is demonstrated. We have had landlords come to us who have not been in position to satisfy, for whatever reason, the requirement of proof of ownership. All of these delay people's HAP applications, which means the tenant is not in receipt of the HAP payment. They might be in a position where they have to pay the rent because they need to protect the tenancy. Then there can be difficulties trying to get backdated payments. As Deputy Hearne has said, these are people who have a housing need. Requiring them to pay rent could have a significant consequence for people. That is a broad outline of the type of case we get.
Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It comes to the fundamental point on the inequality that has been pointed out between those in receipt of HAP and those in receipt of social housing. There are 60,000 households deemed to have their housing needs met, yet here they are facing all the issues outlined, and going to the Office of the Ombudsman, which shows it is not the case.
Mr. Ger Deering:
There is an inherent unfairness. The point I want to make is that they also do not have access to the arrears scheme for people in local authority houses. If people in receipt of HAP are to be treated as socially housed, they should have the same access. The Deputy is asking a bigger question, which is whether they are socially housed. What we are saying is that, if they are to be considered socially housed, then treat them the same. They should have the same access to the same rights as people who are socially housed.
Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank the witnesses for attending and for going through the 2023 and 2024 reports. Since 2019, there has been a significant increase in complaints - almost 30% - to the Ombudsman. What are the underlying drivers of that trend? Does Mr. Deering feel that is more because people's awareness is growing regarding the role of the Ombudsman and what he can do or there is a weakening of our public service, leading to more incidents occurring that require people to go that far and complain?
Mr. Ger Deering:
It is a mix of things. We are doing a lot of outreach and work and reaching people we would not have before. There is no doubt about that. There are also many more public services and the population has increased. I do not think it is a worsening of public services. To revert to the question Deputy Andrews asked, if we see a problem in a particular area and then go in and investigate, we stop getting complaints about it, as happened with the treatment abroad scheme. If there are many complaints coming in a particular area, we like to deal with that area and stop those complaints, but then there will be new schemes and areas on which complaints come in. The increase is caused by the extension of public services, the increased population and the outreach work we do. It is all of those aspects.
Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Regarding systemic investigations, such as the 2023 report, entitled "In Sickness and in Debt", has the office any further systemic reviews planned for 2025? How does it prioritise and decide which issues it is really going to hone in on?
Mr. Ger Deering:
It comes through the number and kinds of complaint we get, the depth and nature of them, and how many people we think they are going to affect. There is also information that would come to us through the research that we do. For example, even though we had had a number of complaints about HAP, the real impetus for doing the HAP investigation was running a workshop with a range of providers in the housing area, and it was they who raised HAP. One of the most difficult things about HAP is a delay in one's application. We all know how difficult it is to rent; it is almost impossible to get somewhere to rent. If one strikes gold and manages to find a property to rent, but if there is a delay in then accessing HAP, the landlord is very likely to say there are plenty of other people he or she can rent to. There was this kind of unfairness and the impact it was having on people.
The Deputy mentioned “In Sickness and in Debt”. We found that people were really badly affected by that, hence the title, because these people were sick. They got the illness part cured but then they were in debt because, as the committee probably knows, people went abroad under those schemes, had the treatment, came back and through no fault of their own and in good faith, made a claim to get that money back only to find that they fell at the final hurdle because of some bureaucratic element. That has been one of the most successful investigations we have done in terms of how it was implemented. It was implemented to the letter and spirit by the HSE, and that has made a significant difference.
Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Brilliant. Does the Office of the Ombudsman have any other reviews planned for this year?
Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Can the witnesses allude to the area or field?
Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
No doubt.
Regarding the outreach to marginalised communities and the heavy investment in 2024, how is the office measuring those results? How do the witnesses know this is working and communities that have historically been underrepresented are feeling better represented as a result of this support?
Mr. Ger Deering:
We have taken several measures. We have been doing two things since the beginning of last year. It is very early days yet, so we are working off a small base. One is that we survey the people who come to us to make complaints. This is voluntary. Once people have made their complaints, they are asked if they would like to fill in a questionnaire. They click a link and go to a separate site. It is anonymous and not linked to their complaint. We use the census data. We ask the same questions that are on the census, such as whether people are members of the Travelling community, whether are Irish citizens or otherwise, etc. It must be remembered that only 30% of people fill out this questionnaire. I use the term "only 30%", although in research terms, this is a pretty good response rate. From those people who fill in the questionnaire, we have found we are over-represented in terms of people who have disabilities. In other words, if we measure the number of people in the community with disabilities and the number coming to us, we are well up in that regard. We are also slightly up in terms of people from the Travelling community, and with people from the Roma community. The one area where we have a challenge is with the younger cohort of people, those aged 18 to 32, who are slightly under-represented. This is one way we do it.
We also have a kind of barometer survey we do in the community to measure awareness of the Ombudsman's office. Some of the feedback is anecdotal too. The members will be familiar with the public participation networks, PPNs. Each local authority has one. I am on a mission to attend meetings of all of those by the end of next year. We are more than halfway through them now. I have attended a plenary of the PPNs in each of the local authority areas. We have done workshops with people with disabilities, on housing, etc. We have also participated in social inclusion weeks and in schemes for access to third level education. We are constantly engaging with the people who we feel might not normally come across us, and we are measuring the situation through those two surveys in particular.
Albert Dolan (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
The office has seen massive growth in the number of inquiries and complaints. How does Mr. Deering feel his office is resourced in the context of handling the growing number of complaints? Does he feel it is able to tackle everything now at a high speed?
Mr. Ger Deering:
I was very pleased with and proud of the staff last year in that while we had a significant increase in the number of complaints, we also had a significant increase in the number that we dealt with and closed. We did get a small increase in staff. I do not think anyone is ever going to say they have enough or plenty of staff, but I must say we are doing well. We closed almost as many complaints as we received. This was really good. In fact, very often public bodies, including an Ombudsman office, are nervous of doing outreach because they are already trying to deal with what they are trying to deal with. My biggest fear, however, would be that people who do not need our services are those who might come to us, while we would miss out on those who really do need our services. The good news is that, through the dedication of Ms O'Donoghue and her team, we are keeping up with demand. We will also keep this aspect under review.
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Mr. Deering and Ms O'Donoghue for their presentation. From looking at the report, I presume there are many recurring sorts of complaints year on year. What happens when the Ombudsman makes recommendations to public bodies that they refuse to implement? Is there any follow-up in this regard?
Mr. Ger Deering:
They are only recommendations. We use what I call moral suasion. I honestly cannot think of a situation so far where a public body has refused. We are open to somebody telling us that a recommendation is not exactly right and that the desired outcome could be achieved better in another way. We are always open to that. If a public body did refuse to implement a recommendation, one of the things I would do would be to bring the matter to this committee, because we do see it as an extremely important part of the process. We see this committee as our link to the Oireachtas. I can make special reports to the Oireachtas and would do so where that would be necessary.
For years we have been calling out the lack of progress on accessibility to transport for people with disabilities. It will be seen in today's report that it is the first time in almost 13 years an Ombudsman has been able to come here and report modest progress.
I have always said that, until we had a Department responsible for dealing with this and delivering it, we were never going to get anywhere. Now, the Department of Transport has been allocated the responsibility for dealing with this and there is going to be a new scheme.
We do not give up. We keep going back to the public bodies and the Government. However, they are only recommendations-----
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has the overall responsiveness improved year on year?
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Deering mentioned the health and the disability area. The Office of the Ombudsman's report, entitled "Grounded: Unequal Access for People With Disabilities to Personal Transport Schemes", referred to 887 cases. Am I correct in saying that 20% of the complaints that come to the office are about health?
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Mr. Deering mentioned a report, entitled "Wasted Lives: Time for a Better Future for Younger People in Nursing Homes", and how the implementation of that has been very slow. How does the office engage with the HSE?
Mr. Ger Deering:
I want to be clear. The HSE is not the issue here. To be fair to the HSE, that report was done by Peter Tyndall in 2021 and the HSE accepted the recommendations. It was slow in implementation because we ran into Covid. However, I am really pleased with and impressed by what the HSE has done over the past two years because the project requires a lot of advance work. One of the people who transitioned out last year had been 35 years in a nursing home. He had an accident at 21 years of age and it took 35 years until something more appropriate was found. You do not just transition somebody. There is about a two-year lead-in to the programme. The HSE has done a lot of work on preparing people and working with NGOs to identify suitable people to transition out. Equally important, there is the EQLS programme, which might get someone an accessible or motorised wheelchair, iPad or television to try to allow that person to live a more normal life in that setting. I got an email about three weeks ago from a lady thanking us. She had not interacted with us nor made a complaint to us but she was aware that, through the wasted lives project, she got a motorised wheelchair. Her words, not mine, were that, after six years, she could get out of prison and was going to be downtown every day this summer.
It is really important to point out that people are not asking for much. The HSE has transitioned 101 people. It is not enough, but it is a really good start. My problem with the scheme is that there is no funding for it. That is unforgivable because the scheme is working. The advance work has been done. The term that worried me most in the update I got last November from the HSE was something to the effect that it was now having to manage expectations. Having done all the advance work and having had people ready to move out, there is no funding for the scheme.
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am involved in an approved housing body mainly dealing with the homeless cohort. What we find is that a large part of that cohort have disability needs. The local authorities are not giving priority to people with medical disabilities. The Ombudsman's report highlights this. Is that correct?
Mr. Ger Deering:
That is part of it. As regards the wasted lives project and people moving out of nursing homes, I want to stress that only 10% of them needed actual own-door accommodation. Some of them had their own accommodation that needed to be modified. There are varying levels of scale of need. I was surprised by how few of the 101 needed actual accommodation. Some wanted to go back to their families, some wanted to go back to their own accommodation. Some went to more appropriate communal settings. It might be a house with four people. It would not necessarily be a local authority house, but it would be run by a disability organisation and it might have two, three or four people. I visited those houses. I met the people. What one person wanted to do was go to bingo. She is now able to go to bingo, which she could not do when she was in a nursing home. They want to go on holidays or downtown for a newspaper.
To be clear, I am not criticising the HSE. The HSE has been trying to find money from its own resources to fund this and make it happen but there is no set budget. When the HSE applied for its budget last year, it was not allocated sufficient funding to continue this scheme.
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Ombudsman have authority over the regulated or unregulated mortgage providers in Ireland, such as Pepper Advantage Ireland?
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Ms O'Donoghue mentioned the discretionary housing assistance payment. How does that actually work? If a complaint comes to the Ombudsman about that, is that not the area of the local authority?
Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue:
We will look at the complaint. We get complaints from people. We had one recently where somebody said they had asked for this and it had been a long time but they had not got a response. We will go to the local authority and ask whether it has dealt with it. There are times where people applied for the payment and were refused. We will look at the complaint and ask the local authority why it refused the payment.
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
How does the discretionary HAP work? There is a set amount.
Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue:
For local authorities nationally, there is a 35% additional top-up that they can pay in addition to its standard HAP cap. I believe the circular requires people to apply for it. They can ask the local authority. I am aware that some local authorities just apply it as a matter of course but some other local authorities require the person to ask for it.
Aubrey McCarthy (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Are there many complaints about the HAP payments?
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am sorry for being late. I see there were 24 complaints in County Longford. Will Mr. Deering give us a flavour of what they are about?
Mr. Ger Deering:
We find throughout the country that they are the same type of complaints. Some would relate to the county council for sure and some to the HSE. In fact I did the public participation network, PPN, in Longford, so I should remember because I actually had those figures for that. From recollection. it was the county council, the HSE and Government Departments generally as well. No county stands out. There is just a different scale but they tend to be the same type of complaints.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the Ombudsman deal with the fair deal scheme and nursing homes?
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Has that become an issue since Covid-19? We have seen many nursing homes, especially the smaller ones, closing down. We moved patients into the bigger nursing homes. In my locality it seemed to have caused a lot of stress for some of the patients who were moved. It caused confusion regarding properties. We have now seen an increase of sales of properties where nursing homes have sold them. Have there been many complaints around that?
Mr. Ger Deering:
We tend to get more complaints about the extra payments that people make. The fair deal is set out so there is not much we can do around its terms because it is a scheme and it is set out. We sometimes get complaints about where people get charged for services. Sometimes they are actually charged for services they cannot even avail of. We say to people to be really careful when going into a nursing home, to look at the contract and see what does that state and what is the nursing home entitled to charge in terms of extra payments. We deal with that. I am aware of a case where a person was discharged from a hospital, went into the nursing home and nobody told the person there was a charge. The person went from a public hospital and presumed themselves to be in the public system still. In fact, they were not. They had been admitted to a private nursing home. Neither the family nor the individual was told until, after some time, they received a bill for €32,000. We engaged with the nursing home in that case and we got that written off because we took the view that it is unreasonable, if the person has not been told and did not know there was going to be a charge, to come back with a bill after that length of time. It would be more of that kind of thing than the actual fair deal scheme itself.
Paraic Brady (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With regard to when somebody has a will read and the time it takes between a will going to a solicitor's firm and probate, are there many complaints regarding that timeframe and probate? It seems to be a huge issue.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Members will have a chance to come in on a second round. I have a few questions and comments. Mr. Deering indicated that this is the first time he has been here since the 40th anniversary of his office last year. I congratulate him in that. His office has a good track record and the anniversary is certainly something to be marked. I am mindful that his colleague, the Ombudsman for Children, is before the Joint Committee on Housing, Local Government and Heritage today. It is almost a day to showcase the work of our ombudsmen.
Specifically, relating to disabled persons, I note the work that was done, and I welcome the fact that transport for people with disabilities is going to be under one Department. However, I encourage the Ombudsman to look broadly at this because there are a number of elements to it. There is one that strikes me. I will be very parochial but it illustrates a broader example. There is a small village in my constituency that is out of the scope of the Vantastic service. It is within the scope of the community car. While the community car is a brilliant initiative, the car cannot accommodate a motorised wheelchair. A person in that area who has a motorised wheelchair cannot access any bus services because the area is serviced by Bus Éireann only and not by Dublin Bus. If we were to look at this on paper, we would say that this person is fantastically well served by public transport options, but none of those options are available. I am lucky to represent a coastal constituency. If a person who uses a motorised wheelchair wants to take a train, they have to give 24 hours’ notice. That is beyond infantilising to a person. They cannot live as an adult if they are required to give Irish Rail 24 hours’ notice. How do they know if they are going to feel like popping into town for a ramble around?
I commend the work the witnesses are doing on this issue and I welcome the fact that this issue is coming within the Department of Transport. In the context of how much further we have to go, is it the Ombudsman's intention to work with the Department and this committee to get us to a situation where we have milestones or signposts that tell us we are going in the right direction? As I said, on paper my constituent is well served but in real life she is trapped in prison. That is how she will describe it. She has to use taxis to get everywhere, but she is on a fixed income. People cannot keep going down to the community welfare officer for a recurring expense, which it is, yet she is required to attend hospital at least twice per week for different appointments. This is putting her in debt. The barometer I would use for measuring the success of any scheme to enhance the lives of persons with disabilities is the lived example. That means saying this is how our work is going to impact.
Mr. Ger Deering:
I absolutely agree. It is a matter for the Department of Transport to devise the scheme. In answer to the Cathaoirleach's question, we will be working in close co-operation with the Department. I take her point about the notice. I could never understand how somebody is supposed to give notice. In our working day, we may think and hope we will get the 6 p.m. train but it may then turn out that we do not get it because we do not get out of work on time or for whatever reason. I agree with the Cathaoirleach. If we look back at this, as a society we have been lacking. When Emily O'Reilly did her first report, to put it at its simplest what she said was that the scheme did not meet equality law because there was a cut-off at 65 years of age. This meant anybody over 65 was not supposed to be out. That was the theory at the time.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It was a case of "That is it now; your chance to leave the house is gone."
Mr. Ger Deering:
All that was required then was to extend the age from 65. Instead, the scheme was closed to new applicants on an interim basis. We have a bad record on this. I always felt that until we had a Department that could be held responsible for this, we were not going to make progress. In fairness to the Department of the Taoiseach, in the past two years, it has done a good job on exactly what the Cathaoirleach just mentioned. It examined all the schemes and tried to map them all. If we want to know what the best thing to do is, we have to look at what schemes we have at the moment and which of them we should enhance or whether it is a matter of replacing them with one entirely new scheme.
This is possibly what is going to happen. There is an acceptance that there is not a one size fits all and that different people have different needs. There is that last mile very often. They might have an accessible bus that serves them, but in fact they are a mile from the bus stop or the train. We have to find a way of getting people there. We will be working closely with the Department of Transport to see what comes out of this in time. However, it is the Department's job now to move on and develop a scheme.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We all share that hope. As a committee, we will be keeping a close eye to that as well because it is something that comes into all our constituency clinics. Mr. Deering discussed the outreach they do. This is incredibly important. I fully understand that in his line of work that he probably does not need to go out looking for business, but it is welcome that he does. When Mr. Deering is taking his feedback, has he engaged with, or would he consider engaging with representatives of and people who are victims and survivors of domestic abuse? The reason that I raise this is because it is in the context of housing and access to public services, but specifically for those who on the waiting list for housing. Anybody who follows what I say in the Dáil will know that I have raised this many times, but I will not stop raising it until we get some plausible resolution.
If we have somebody who has given ten or 11 years on the waiting list and they have to move because they are the victim of a vicious and serious assault, they must move for their own personal safety on the recommendation of An Garda Síochána. For want of a better phrase, they might have time served on a housing list. They cannot carry that time with them. I understand that they cannot bring it from local authority to another in normal circumstances. However, in exceptional circumstances when a person has a letter from An Garda Síochána that advises that person that he or she has to move to a different area to stay away from somebody who might be in prison and is about to be released, that person cannot go back. However, such people are faced with the prospect of losing the time. In this particular case, but there are many of them, this woman would lose 11 years on the housing list. She cannot ask somebody to go back. The average wait time in my constituency is 14 and a half years from the date a person fills out the application to the chance he or she will be housed. That is a lot to ask somebody to give up, particularly a person who has been through a lot of trauma and has experienced a lot of instability in his or her life. Access to secure accommodation would represent an important part of being able to just live. Does Mr. Deering have any thoughts on that? If he has not done so, would he consider engaging with representatives and survivors of domestic abuse?
Ms Siobhán O'Donoghue:
I am aware from dealing with complaints the legislation is not set up for those transfers. We get people with a slightly different issue, especially in Dublin, where they can be in one local authority and have areas of choice in other areas. People often can be confused. They may have lived all their life in Fingal, but it turns out that they applied in Dublin city.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That could be ten or 11 years before-----
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
It is something that the organisations involved in domestic and providing supports have raised. We are talking about small numbers. I get that every big case is made up of many small numbers. We are talking about people who have letters from An Garda Síochána. I know a woman who is in a situation where she about be offered a house in an area where she cannot go, but she will. It is something that would be worth having a look at.
On HAP, I welcome the fact that the witnesses have said - and we should all say - that people who are on HAP pay a differential rent. There is no such thing as a free house, not if they are on HAP or the local authorities. Everybody pays rent. It is important that we should say across the board. Do the witnesses think there is a case to be made for standardising how HAP is treated by each local authority? Are we looking at differences? Should we facilitate the local authorities doing what they do now? This is effectively to order their own business themselves. Should there be some standards? In Mr. Deering's experience, are there geographic reasons why these anomalies and inconsistencies have arisen? How did it happen? How can we fix it?
Mr. Ger Deering:
We have found some inconsistencies in how local authorities implement it and even how they sometimes interpret some of the circulars on that.
There probably is an argument for the discretionary payment being higher in certain areas where rents are higher. For almost everything else, however, we believe a certain level of consistency is required. Somebody who lives in county A should not be treated differently than somebody in county B. As Ms O'Donoghue said earlier, some local authorities will automatically look at the discretionary payment while others will not. Still others do not even mention it. People should at least be informed that it is available or a possibility. They should know that. I know that discretionary payments are discretionary. We acknowledge that. However, at the same time, we need some sort of consistency. We would like more consistency and the implementation of our recommendations will lead to more consistency.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Sometimes a discretionary payment is the difference between being in emergency accommodation and being in rented accommodation.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
One would question the extend to which the discretionary element should be allowed when it-----
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have one last question before we move on because I know that other members are indicating. I will move to the Wasted Lives report, its implementation and the good work that was done. In his submission, Mr. Deering stated that "progress has not been as expected or hoped". I have dealt with a number of these cases and they are heartbreaking. These are people in their 30s and 40s. I mean no disrespect to the nursing home, but these people should not be there. It is not an appropriate place for them. Is Mr. Deering making the case for ring-fenced multi-annual funding-----
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
-----specifically for this? Is the EQLS programme good enough as it is? Does it just need more resources? Does it need to be broader? Does it need more input from other agencies or is it fine as it is, albeit with a need for more resources to put it on a sturdier footing?
Mr. Ger Deering:
EQLS was working well. That lady got her motorised wheelchair. Other people need a television or iPad. It was working well. It has never really had a budget, which is a problem, especially as money becomes tighter, for those kinds of things without a heading of their own. EQLS is working well. In fact, the entire scheme would be working well if it had a dedicated budget. Things do not happen for any initiative that does not have a dedicated budget when times are tighter. Above all schemes, this needs dedicated funding because we need to give certainty. You cannot be working with somebody for six months in the hope that money will come and then find that money does not come. The HSE needs to be able to plan at least two years in advance. It must know that the cohort of people with which it is working can be assisted to move into more suitable accommodation. As the Cathaoirleach mentioned, the impact it can have on people and their daily lives is quite extraordinary. In some cases, the cost is significant and in other cases, it is not.
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
That is the key. The impact is massive.
Rory Hearne (Dublin North-West, Social Democrats)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I have a broad question about the overall approach to public services. There has been strong criticism in social policy literature down the years that the Irish welfare state and its public services show charity values rather than taking a human rights approach and perspective. Many problems stem from that. The approach we take is not that citizens are entitled to public services as a human right. It is that people are coming to the State and almost annoying it with their problems. The State will decide whether or not it wants to offer a service depending on whether the funding is in place or not. People are coming forward, whether they are tenants in council housing, patients in public hospitals or people looking for welfare, but we still do not take a rights-based approach and human rights approach to delivery across our public services. Do the witnesses have a comment on that? Is there a need for, and how can we progress, a rights-based approach within our public services?
Mr. Ger Deering:
It is fair to say that a considerable number of public servants do the job well and the way they should. However, I take the Deputy's point. We should not be relying on public servants doing things well of their own volition. There is the public service duty, with which the Deputy is probably familiar, which takes a human rights-based approach. As I mentioned in my report, we introduced a guide for our staff. We now take a human rights-based approach to our investigations. If we are investigating a county council or whatever else for an action, we ask questions of its representatives.
The guide assists. It is a guide for our investigators to ask the exact questions of public servants that the Deputy has just referenced. We hope that, by doing this, we will increase awareness and understanding that this is not some beneficial charitable service that is being provided. It must be done through the human rights-based lens of treating people with respect and dignity. We are putting a big emphasis on that. We ask public bodies how they treat people. When we talk about making complaints, we always say that we do not just look at the service. It is not just about whether people are entitled to a grant, rent supplement or whatever else they are seeking. It is about how people are treated as they apply for it and if they are treated with respect and dignity.
We talked about this issue at a workshop on housing last year. Two days later, we received a complaint from one of the people who had been there. It was interesting. The complaint was not about the housing situation but about how that family had not been treated with respect and dignity. We investigated and I met the family because they had been treated very poorly indeed. We take that seriously. We think the role we are playing and the work we are doing in conjunction with the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission will help to ensure we get where the Deputy wants to go. However, I accept we are not fully there yet. I think, to be fair, that many public servants deal appropriately with people.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
To clarify, I asked earlier about making statements on cases that had not been fully investigated. Is it the office's practice that it would not make a statement unless a case were fully investigated?
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Let us say the office investigates something. Before it makes a finding, adjudication or judgment on the matter, the office would make a statement on it.
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Does the same apply for the offices of all ombudsmen?
Chris Andrews (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is it a statutory requirement or just good practice?
Louise O'Reilly (Dublin Fingal West, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I am conscious of time. I thank Mr. Deering and Ms O'Donoghue for coming to see us again and for the information they have provided to us. It is good to get an insight into their work. It is equally important to know what work they are looking into for the future. We look forward to working with them and their team, and thank them again for the evidence they have given today.