Seymour Crawford (Cavan-Monaghan, Fine Gael)

While I have not engaged in much preparation on this issue, I felt obliged to say a few words on this Bill because the Office of the Ombudsman has provided a tremendous service over the years. The 2,500 complaints per year and 10,000 telephone inquiries per year give an indication of how the service is respected throughout the country and how people use it. Unfortunately, up until now there were a number of areas that the Ombudsman could not cover and I welcome the fact that those areas are included in the legislation.

I was interested in the example of a complaint in Sligo General Hospital that the Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, chose to use in his script. It is purely coincidental that the Minister of State, Deputy Devins, is in the House but if he reads the Minister of State's script he will find it. By dealing with the complaint in Sligo General Hospital, the hospital services improved dramatically in the subsequent period. That was a positive outcome and I was glad that the Minister of State highlighted it.

There have been so many inquiries and reports done by private groups on the hospital services. Specifically, I recall the Pat Joe Walsh report on a not dissimilar case in Monaghan General Hospital. Initially, it was used to try to close the hospital. They could not manage that at the time. The HSE and the Minister did not learn from it, as obviously happened in the Sligo case. That is an important element of what the Ombudsman has been trying to do. The Ombudsman has been trying, not only to sort out problems but to give guidance on how improvements can be made in the future. When I look at the present situation of our hospital in Monaghan and the failure of the Minister, Deputy Harney, to even meet with its personnel, the consultants or the hospital alliance to look at how things could be done better, the Ombudsman has still much to do in that area to save money and to ensure a better service.

The previous speaker, Deputy Burton, mentioned that the Ombudsman will attend the Joint Committee on the Environment, Heritage and Local Government to speak about some of the issues she has dealt with in that area. I wish to be associated with the comments on the waiver system and how the Ombudsman improved that structure. I welcome it because in my constituency there was a reluctance to give any waivers at all, no matter how difficult the circumstances. Especially in the case of the elderly or the handicapped on low incomes who would not be able to dispose of some of their waste in the way some of the rest of us would, in the garden or wherever else, the charges for waste were an imposition and the efforts of the Ombudsman in that regard were extremely important. I can see her having a much greater role in the area of local authority services. With the economic position getting much tighter, no doubt there will be efforts to cut back. It is important that the Ombudsman has the courage and the opportunity to ensure the provision of the best possible such services.

I welcome the fact that a large number of new organisations has been included in the legislation. Specifically, I welcome the inclusion of the vocational education committees. While many of these do an excellent job, no doubt, according to records from the past, there were serious problems in some of them. It is only right that a person who has a difficulty with a vocational education committee or any other such organisation using public funds has the right to bring the issue to the Ombudsman to ensure that it is properly teased out. The Minister of State, Deputy Andrews, stated the Ombudsman's remit will also now include the higher education institutions as well, and that is important.

The Minister of State went on to state that organisations such as the National Roads Authority, the National Treatment Purchase Fund, the Courts Service, FÁS, etc., are being included. One cannot help but be pleased to hear that FÁS is to be included. What has happened in FÁS in the past while is an indication of how difficult matters can be. I congratulate those in my party and in the press and elsewhere who exposed the FÁS issue. When I think back on the great work done by community organisations together with FÁS workers, people who were on social welfare who felt they had no hope were taken on by FÁS and given the opportunity to do good for their areas, and in many cases this led to employment.

I support the work of FÁS in places such as Dundalk and Drogheda in the provision of apprentice and other such services, but when one sees the Minister and chairman both involved in such wanton waste one realises that there is a dire need for the Ombudsman to be able to deal with such matters. We do not want inquiries and tribunals. We want structures like the Ombudsman to deal with such matters in a clinical and proper fashion and come up with the results in an open and transparent way.

I welcome the fact that the present Ombudsman, Ms O'Reilly, is prepared to come in to the Oireachtas to discuss the role of her office in such an open and frank way. It is important that Members of the Oireachtas and the public know exactly what services she and her office can provide.

While I have the height of respect for the great work done by many officials of the National Roads Authority down through the years, there have been major problems with cost factors on projects such as the Dublin Port tunnel. There needs to be openness and transparency in such matters and there needs to be accountability. Some of the work the NRA has done in more recent times is excellent, but it is not above the law and the fact that we cannot ask the Minister a question in this House about a road or anything to do with the NRA is not acceptable and is extremely difficult. I have raised this point on many occasions when such organisations were being set up, and I especially raised it at the time the HSE was being set up. The bottom line is that under this Bill the National Roads Authority will be included.

I also welcome the inclusion of the National Treatment Purchase Fund. I also have asked questions about the fund and been told it is a private organisation and we do not have any right to know. This is an organisation that is being paid for out of taxpayers' money. I am aware of umpteen cases where the patient concerned should have been dealt with by the public health service but because of total mismanagement of that service, for which the mangers got bonuses, they must be passed on to be dealt with by the fund.

I welcome that two of my constituents will be dealt with by the fund but this is being done because a ward in Navan hospital was closed. The theatre and staff are available for the operation but the management decided to close the doors. Many people are suffering as a result of that decision. This issue needs to be investigated at minimum cost rather than by means of big inquiries or another quango. The Ombudsman does a great job in this context.

I welcome the inclusion of the Courts Service in the remit of the Bill. A case was recently brought to my attention involving a young couple who built a house in which they intended to live for the rest of their lives. They wanted the best for their only daughter. They were assured by their architect that he was insured for €320,000 if anything went wrong. Unfortunately, things went badly wrong and the house developed cracks into which one could put one's hands. The house has not fallen down but the rear of the foundation was found to be utterly useless. I am reminded of the biblical story about whether one should build a house on sand or on rock. It appears that half of this house was built on sand. When the problem was brought to the architect's attention, he admitted that he was fully at fault. However, the insurance money also had to cover the legal costs of the case. To the best of my memory, the insurer's solicitor took €63,000 and the man who was supposed to be advising the couple and their daughter on how the system worked is seeking €137,000. Anybody who knows the law will understand that if somebody holds up his or hands and pleads guilty, there is no case. The couple is left with €120,000, which will not go far towards rebuilding their house. Will this type of situation be covered under the Bill? The case has been considered by the Law Society and it is now with the Taxing Master but it is difficult to get support from these parties. I have no doubt that the Ombudsman would take this case seriously and ensure that justice is served and the rights of people upheld. Imagine employing a solicitor who looks after his own rights instead of his clients.

I welcome the Bill and hope that it will address issues such as those which I outlined to the House. Other issues, including agriculture, also merit attention. The appeals system in the area of agriculture does not always reflect the reality of situations. I am not happy with that area and I hope the Minister can bring in further measures in that regard. I cannot overemphasise the positive impact the Office of the Ombudsman has made over the years. It has solved a great many problems and has done more than most in terms of improving administration. We have heard a lot about benchmarking. I do not want to give the impression that Sligo General Hospital is not a good facility but improvements have been made there on foot of an investigation by the Ombudsman. Similar progress was made in county councils and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government. The Office of the Ombudsman has a bright future and I welcome the expansion of its remit.

See this speech in context