Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour)

Any extension of the Ombudsman's remit is to be welcomed. However, where a new body is being created that takes over the functions of an incumbent body covered by the Act, it falls outside the legislation unless there is an order, approved by both Houses. As indicated by previous speakers, it has become the practice of this Government to create and establish a whole series of bodies, taking over what used to be direct ministerial functions. As a consequence when a body comes into being, the Minister concerned frequently replies to Dáil questions to the effect that as this is a dedicated body, he or she will no longer answer parliamentary questions. Thus, the very important recourse in a democracy, namely legitimate questions about the action of a public body in regard to individuals or specific issues, is lost. This has been a very strong feature of Government over the past ten years. The principle should be that all State bodies are subject to the Act, as they are created or where they are in being, unless they are specifically excluded. That means if a new quango is created, delegating unto itself particular ministerial functions, as happened for instance with issues relating to the security industry, fresh legislation would not be needed. This means a new body, from the time of its establishment date, should be legitimately subject to inquiries by the Ombudsman, therefore rendering some degree of accountability, particularly to individuals who might have issues to pursue with it.

I welcome the extension of the remit of the Ombudsman's Act to the bodies mentioned, particularly the educational institutions. That will be important where, for instance, a student could have a difficulty with an examination result or some other element of college or university administration. The tendency nowadays is to have recourse to legal remedies and to seek injunctions and so on. It would be much better if an Ombudsman examines the issue and either directs mediation or makes a preliminary finding. In most cases, that might well settle the particular problem, because very often people want information more than anything else. This is particularly true in the medical area where often something happens to a patient or where a patient dies, and all the grieving family wants is information on what happened to their relative. At present, where people seek information in such cases, hospital and medical authorities and the HSE are legally highly defensive. Instead of giving information, they tend to clam up and basically reserve their positions, because they anticipate potential legal action.

Mediation, information and no-fault information in a whole series of situations over a range of public services would both save people a great deal of anguish and much court time. It would also save a great deal in legal costs for individuals and public bodies. This is something we have not encouraged. We are very litigious and our manner of reacting to complaints or inquiries about public bodies is to up the ante and almost call in the lawyers automatically. We should consider developing procedures in this area.

I regret that a number of functions of the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform are excluded from the remit of the Bill. In her report last year, the Ombudsman made specific reference to the Bill. She welcomed the principle of the Bill extending her jurisdiction to bodies such as FÁS, the Health and Safety Authority and so on. However, she went on to say that she regretted the fact that decisions on immigration and asylum matters would not be covered by the Bill. She pointed out that, by coincidence, there was a Bill before the Houses dealing with significant changes in immigration, residence and protection matters which proposed further radical changes to the administration of the asylum system.

There is no provision under existing legislation for such complaints to be referred to the Ombudsman's office. I am aware the Ombudsman made a submission to the Department on the matter as long ago as July 2005 and that she has been in contact with Mr. Thomas Hammerberg, a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, and has expressed her concern about the restrictions in this area.

We need to think further about the implications. I would like to point out one area that has caused frustration for me and many other Deputies. Significant numbers of Irish people are married to people from countries throughout the world. In my constituency I frequently come across cases involving an Irish person married to someone from places such as India or Pakistan. After the birth of a child, the parents often want the grandparents to visit and it is a tortuous procedure to assist these people in getting a visitor visa. I have raised the issue with the Minister on a number of occasions.

There are ways to address this issue. I have dealt with cases where the families seeking a visitor visa were significant people investing in this country. They have lived here for a long period and are willing to go guarantor and comply with any reasonable request to confirm that their relatives, if given a visitor visa, will honour its terms and conditions. However, it is impossible to discover a defined procedure that is as fair as possible to deal with such situations so that people applying to embassy offices around the globe to visit their relatives who are settled here and married to Irish partners can do so. There appears to be no logical and transparent system for applying for visas.

We understand the examination of such visa applications must always be subject to intense scrutiny by the Department. Nobody objects to this, but the problem is that sometimes a visa is granted, but more often it is not and it is extremely difficult to understand the reasons for the rejection of the visa application. In this situation, the administration of the system could be vastly improved.

The situation could be improved even further if an attempt was made to deal with the consequence of the Government encouraging massive immigration to Ireland. In the newspapers this weekend there was mention of a visit of the former Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, under FÁS sponsorship, to various job fairs in Cape Town and South Africa. The purpose of that visit and expenditure was to encourage people from South Africa to emigrate to Ireland. The Minister spent significant sums encouraging skilled workers to come to Ireland. Many came, but if they want relatives to visit, they may find that while FÁS was hiring a grand piano to draw them into its job fairs, they may not be able to get permission for their relatives to visit, despite the fact that relatives coming to visit must have a return ticket and sufficient funds to meet their needs.

Another area of asylum and immigration legislation difficult to understand is the regulations relating to work permits for people coming here to work. Last night's television programme, "Prime Time Investigates", demonstrated the arbitrary way in which employers can act. They hold the work permits and vulnerable immigrants like the lorry drivers or domestic workers mentioned in the programme have few rights. They may suffer abuse unless the light is shone on how the work permit system operates.

The Office of the Ombudsman would be a good office to investigate whether the work permit system operates fairly, both in the interest of Ireland and of the employees invited here on foot of work permits obtained by their prospective employer. Oversight by the Ombudsman of this area could result in a better system and reduce potential abuse by employers of people coming to work in such situations.

With regard to asylum provision, from the 1990s on my area received approximately 500 families from Bosnia as a consequence of the war there, some of whom had been injured in the bombings in Sarajevo. Those people are now in Ireland almost 20 years and have integrated very well into the community. They came as programme refugees and were invited by successive Governments to live here. However, the rules relating to family reunification are extraordinarily difficult to understand although they are a recognised part of refugee law for programme refugees. Allowing the Ombudsman the capacity for examination and oversight of this area would significantly improve the quality of the administration of the law in this regard. It is obvious this should be an area the Ombudsman should have the power to inquire into. I am sorry this Bill chooses to duck these difficult issues. The Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform pretty much puts forward the theory that it is exempt from all inquiry by the Ombudsman, except with regard to the court system. The Department's approach is wrong.

The Garda Síochána and elements of its operations could also be the subject of legitimate inquiry by the Ombudsman. The issues relating to members of the force who have issues with the administration of the force could also be an appropriate area of inquiry. I do not believe the walls of the Department would fall down if that were the case.

I welcome the extension of the Ombudsman's powers and I understand she has agreed to appear before the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government on foot of an inquiry she conducted into waiver schemes for refuse collection. A series of different schemes operates across local authorities in Ireland and my Labour Party colleague, Deputy Ciarán Lynch, has raised a number of times the need for a national waiver scheme to clarify people's entitlements, particularly those of pensioners, to reductions in the cost of their refuse charges. Having examined the issue, the Ombudsman made findings that are helpful to the administration of the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and local councils. Her appearance before the aforementioned joint committee to set out her views is a positive development.

Much of what the Ombudsman does and many of the rights of that office are paralleled by freedom of information. I wish to mention two areas that cry out to be addressed by someone like an ombudsman. The first pertains to the issue of management companies because no legislation exists in this regard other than an entitlement under company law for the formation of a management company. Tens of thousands of people, particularly young people, have found the properties they purchased at great cost are subject to control by a management company. Such companies are necessary in the case of apartments. In recent years, however, traditional housing estates have been built in which local authorities have stipulated in the planning permission that the estate or development would be subject to a management company on completion.

The idea is that the developer has the management company and that on completion of the development, it is handed over to a management company of the residents. However, this system is not working. Residents are being charged enormous fees by managing agents and management companies, often for work of a poor or non-existent quality and there is no one to whom to apply. Although a National Property Services Regulatory Authority was established approximately 18 months ago and while it wishes to be helpful, it has no legal status. Moreover, given the current climate of difficulty regarding house sales, management companies have collapsed and people in apartment developments are finding it difficult to process the sale of their apartments because the management company comprises a clause in the titles to the property. This issue affects tens of thousands of people and as public administration has almost no remedy to offer people caught in such difficulties, this must be addressed.

I refer to house repossessions. Ireland has had a Financial Services Ombudsman in recent years who has been doing some excellent work. Every Monday, however, a procession of people, whose houses are being repossessed, comes before the masters of the various courts. Some mortgage companies are very eager to repossess mortgages at the first sign of difficulty and there is no code of practice or standard as to how this is applied. For example, one half of a couple with mortgage repayments of €1,500 to €1,600 per month may lose his or her job in the construction industry and as soon as the first payment is missed, the penalty charges begin to clock up like a cash register. The case is handed over to lawyers by the third month, when three months of arrears amount to a debt of perhaps €4,000 to €5,000. Within five months, by the time such companies have finished and the legal fees have been included, the debt may exceed €20,000. Moreover, the mortgage company will only accept total payment and will not accept part-payments. The total payment includes the arrears, penalties and astronomical legal fees included by such companies. This is crazy given the present climate, because who will buy such houses after they have been repossessed? There are no purchasers in the market and in some cases, the local authorities will bear the burden when the people affected go on public housing lists or apply for rent supplements. At present, there are aspects of public administration in which people's capacity to make applications under the Ombudsman's provisions would aid public administration. More particularly, it would aid individuals and families who suffer as a consequence of the failure to legislate or even to think out regulations that would address some of the difficulties into which we now face.

I refer to small business people who are finding that banks are cutting down on their credit and overdraft entitlements. Many banks are doing this at present. For example, a business may have permission to avail of an overdraft facility of €10,000 or €20,000, which it may not use. At present however, the banks are writing to such businesses to notify them that the value of their overdraft is being reduced. This has consequences if the business's debtors are slow to pay or, for example, they ask for an additional month's credit on the basis they are known entities who always pay. In the present climate, business people may wish to be able to make an offer whereby they take 50% and extend an additional month or two of credit on the balance.

However, their banks in turn are not making any allowances for such practices. This is an administrative issue in which a response that is both business-like and fair is required because circumstances have changed so dramatically. The remit of the various ombudsmans' structures could be used to inform banks that although it is acknowledged they must be business-like and seek to avoid bad credit risks, at the same time, good businesses are experiencing difficulties and were everyone to work together and were some leeway given, people would be able to get out of this mess.

While I seek imagination in this respect, unfortunately and surprisingly, the imagination to understand what people are suffering appears to have deserted Fianna Fáil almost completely. While I do not know whether the Green Party has any input in this regard, no such imagination appears to emanate from Fianna Fáil these days. The role of the offices of the various ombudsmen, which help with specific areas of difficulty by sorting out administrative rulings, making them more human, understandable and fair to the citizen or to businesses is an essential part of a modern democracy. Ireland improved dramatically in respect of its economy and everything else when we opened the door to freedom of information and let the light shine in. Ireland has nothing to lose as a country or an economy by letting in the light on how its public bodies perform. While I welcome this Bill, before Committee Stage the Minister should consider broadening its remit to include in particular the areas related to justice.

See this speech in context