Phil Hogan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael)

The provisions of the Bill in regard to the Ombudsman are unnecessary because members of the public and public representatives who are dissatisfied with the services of a local authority or who are concerned about maladministration already have recourse to the Ombudsman. Specific reference in the Bill to the Ombudsman could be also counter-productive for public administration as a whole. It creates the risk of an increase in relatively minor complaints which would be impractical to handle and would remove the Ombudsman's focus from more important areas in respect of which redress is required. Furthermore, premature recourse to the Ombudsman would negate best practice in customer care. The focus should be on the relevant business unit resolving customer care issues in the first instance, followed by recourse to the official with responsibility for corporate customer services and involving the Ombudsman only as a last resort.

The Bill, if enacted, could be used to circumvent the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act in advance of the reforms set out in the programme for Government. I am also concerned that it seeks to impose specific statutory standards in one part only of the public service. Any initiative along the lines proposed would need to be developed in a holistic manner for the wider public service.

In respect of dealing with queries and correspondence from public representatives in particular, all local authorities have arrangements in place to provide regular briefings to such representatives in respect of their areas. If they are not doing so, public representatives should make it known to them that there is a specific requirement on them in this regard. A range of provisions under Part 14 of the Local Government Act 2001 enable an elected council to obtain information in the possession of the manager on any business or transaction of the authority, including plans, reports, financial information or other relevant information. Regulations made in 2003 under section 237A of the 2001 Act require local authorities to put in place arrangements to provide to Oireachtas Members specified documentation, such as that relating to their budgets and draft development plans, and a wide range of other relevant information.

Local authorities are expected to have the objective of seeking to deal as expeditiously as may be with requests for access to information by a parliamentary representative in accordance with a proper level of customer service. They are expected to apply equivalent systems, procedures and timeframes as those which relate to councillors in their dealings with correspondence by parliamentary representatives. This includes similar arrangements for electronic access to information by councillors. These arrangements were introduced in the context of the ending of the dual mandate. Adequate legislative provision for public representatives is, therefore, already in place.

While at first glance it would appear that there would be no additional costs arising from the Bill, particularly as local authorities aim to respond with all due speed to correspondence, there is a risk that the mandatory and inflexible requirement proposed would inhibit efficient and effective delivery of services generally if resources had to be diverted to comply with it and that there would be consequential impacts on staffing levels. Potential efficiencies could be lost, with a direct cost to those paying for local government. Accordingly, the Government is opposed to the Bill.

See this speech in context