Fergal Browne (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State to the House. I felt there were some undertones to his speech and that it made some digs at the Ombudsman, but perhaps I misread it. I will read it again carefully. He appeared to compliment her on one hand but pointed out some faults on the other, but perhaps that is due to the speech writer rather than the content.

I welcome this report. It is good to be debating a report that is only a few months old and remains valid. We often get reports that are two or three years old and it is pointless to debate them. This report is still quite fresh. I am delighted the report is bilingual. I raised this matter on the Order of Business last week with regard to the interim report on e-voting, which was not bilingual. We have to wait two weeks for the Irish version of that report which is ridiculous. Perhaps the Ombudsman could take up that issue. All reports from State agencies should be bilingual and both versions should be issued at the same time.

I was amazed to hear the Leader admit, as I had not realised it, that the report on Seanad reform belongs to the same category. It was issued in English and the Irish version is due in a few weeks'. This is ridiculous in a country where Irish is a first language and where we promote Irish at every opportunity. Every county now has gaelscoileanna and coláistí and Irish is coming more and more to the fore. The debate in this House on the matter of Irish becoming an official language of the EU received widespread support. Now, a few weeks later, we have produced some reports in English only. This issue should be discussed.

I am aware that six months covered in this report relate to the term of the previous Ombudsman, Mr. Kevin Murphy, and that the second six months relate to Ms Emily O'Reilly. We have not had a full year report covering Ms O'Reilly's time in office yet. Pages 8 and 9 of the report are disturbing. They alert us to the fact that people with disabilities continue to be discriminated against, due to mindless bureaucracy. These pages made interesting reading and pointed out the difficulties involved in obtaining essential repairs grants and disabled persons' grants.

I am aware of some of these difficulties. While the staff in Carlow County Council are excellent at their work, the system is so slow that, invariably, some people die before they are allocated a disabled person's grant. That is a shocking indictment of the system. I compliment the South Eastern Health Board in the Carlow area which has taken a pragmatic approach to the home help for the elderly scheme. I feel sure that, like me, many public representatives, when an application to a local authority for a disabled person's grant is turned down, turn to the health boards. I find the health boards more ready to facilitate people and they allow work to start and will pay the grant retrospectively. The administration of the disabled person's grant is not as accommodating. To expect a person who suffered a stroke to wait up to two years for a downstairs toilet or for alterations to a shower or bath is unfair. This area should be re-examined and needs increased funding.

The Tánaiste, quite correctly, pointed out recently that there are issues concerned with ageing and planning for old age. There are certainly related issues in terms of building regulations. I visited the new house of a friend recently and noticed that the light switches were all at a certain level. These regulations are now covered by law, which is welcome, and people in wheelchairs, for example, can now access their light switches.

We should examine the building regulations and adapt houses so that in 40 years' time when we are older we can still live in them. Many older houses in Carlow need major renovation because they were built with steps. Nobody thought ahead. Consequently, rails are necessary on the steps to enable people to gain access to the houses. We all grow old and we need to avoid that kind of scenario. I hope the Minister will examine that issue and provide extra funding for disabled person's grants, essential repairs grants and housing aid for the elderly. If an occupational therapist issues a report that a person has suffered a stroke, the person should get a grant automatically or, if not automatically, work should be allowed to commence straight away and the receipts and a bill submitted later. That would be a sensible approach.

It is regrettable that we need an Ombudsman but we do. I am amazed by stories I hear as a public representative that I find hard to believe. One that springs to mind concerns a neighbour of mine who applied for planning permission to Kildare County Council. He submitted a planning application. New development levies were to be introduced a week after he was due to be given planning permission. The week before he was due to be given planning permission, Kildare County Council wrote to him seeking further information. That pushed him into the new development levy zone and he had to pay a few thousand extra euro in development charges. That was totally unfair and I directed him towards the Ombudsman. Through no fault of his own Kildare County Council pushed him into the new development levy zone. The information Kildare County Council requested could have been furnished seven weeks earlier. It is a bit rich that a local authority should leave it until the 11th hour to seek information. I have no qualms about making the accusation that Kildare County Council acted disgracefully on that front and that it did so deliberately in order to gather more development levies.

I challenged the Minister of State at the Department Agriculture and Food, Deputy Treacy, when he was here for the debate on rural housing guidelines to have the Government investigate that case, but nothing came of it. I wrote to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government and he washed his hands of it. I hope the person in question will succeed when he brings his case to the Ombudsman because what happened was totally unfair.

A major issue raised in this report is that of enforcement by local authorities. We have witnessed a building boom over the past few years and it is amazing with what builders are still getting away. The Planning and Development Act 2000 was to solve all problems. Unfortunately, it has not done so. How many builders have been refused planning permission because of past history? That was a major feature of the Planning and Development Act. I am aware of a housing estate that has been built in Carlow where people have been living for six or seven months and still do not have a telephone service because of a row between Eircom and the builder who has not put in the infrastructure which is necessary for Eircom to connect the telephones. The local authority has been tardy in that respect. I have brought the issue to its attention, but matters are not going well in the area of enforcement.

When I was out canvassing lately I was amazed to discover that brand new houses did not have vents as are required under planning regulations if a house is to be connected to the natural gas grid in order to avoid explosions. The Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, is right to highlight that difficulty. We need full-time enforcement officers working in county councils who can inspect building sites while houses are being built and examine, scrutinise and monitor constantly because once a developer has left it is very hard to get him back to rectify problems. This would save the Ombudsman, the local authority and the public much grief afterwards.

One aspect of the report that caught my attention was the idea of visitors to the office of the Ombudsman. That is an excellent idea. With Senator Feeney, I was privileged to join a parliamentary visit to Lesotho in Africa. We spoke very highly of the office of the Ombudsman when we were there. Unfortunately, Lesotho is still in the early stages of democracy. We explained the idea of committee structures at parliamentary level and also the idea of an ombudsman who is independent of the parliamentary system and acts as an extra voice for the public. Lesotho is examining these concepts and that is a very welcome development. The Ombudsman has met a number of people and should continue to do so, especially in developing countries.

The trends referred to in the report are worrying. The number of valid complaints received is up in almost all areas — the Civil Service, local authorities and health boards. That is not the direction in which we should be going. An Post features prominently. I am not surprised by that because An Post needs a major shake-up. I certainly am not satisfied with its performance. The service it gives is atrocious. We cannot depend on next-day post arriving. As long ago as the mid-1800s same-day post was guaranteed. That is hard to believe given that there was far more post than there is now because we have e-mail, faxes and other forms of communication now. An Post needs to get its act together in that regard. I am sure there will be many more complaints if it does not do so.

I have dealt personally with Ombudsmen and found them very courteous. However, there was a long delay in dealing with queries. I was a member of a residents association in my estate, which was dealing with the issue of boundaries. The planning permission granted to the developer was very sloppy and did not clearly specify what boundaries were to be put in place. We went to the Ombudsman to obtain a ruling. He contacted the local authority, came out to see the estate and gave us a report. Unfortunately, it took longer than I would have expected and, in that instance, it did not yield a result. Perhaps it is a question of allocating extra resources to the Ombudsman. The office should be given every possible resource to enable it to give a speedy response.

I was appalled in the context of section 7 of the Ombudsman Act, which can be invoked by the Ombudsman where there is a significant delay on the part of a public body in responding to the office of the Ombudsman, that the Department of Education and Science came out on top for the fourth year running. If the Department of Education and Science is slow in responding to the Ombudsman, what chance does an ordinary member of the public have? I hope the Minister will communicate with the Minister for Education and Science on that point. It is unsatisfactory and should not be allowed to continue. He should also communicate with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government because local authorities are also guilty in that regard. A public body should automatically respond as quickly as possible to the Ombudsman without the need to invoke section 7 to remind it to reply quickly.

The Minister mentioned the fees people must pay to secure requests under the Freedom of Information Act. Deputies, Senators, public representatives and county councillors should be exempt from such fees if their request is genuine. It is not fair to expect them to spend money investigating issues on behalf of the public. The Minister should re-examine that issue. In any case where there is a clear public interest involved, the fee should be waived for public representatives.

I am also concerned about recent trends regarding forms. I regard myself as fairly well educated. I am certainly not the cleverest person in the world but I am by no means the least clever. However, forms are becoming more difficult to complete. Members of the public find it difficult to complete forms relating to pensions and medical cards. Something will have to be done to simplify such forms.

The Minister of State admitted in his speech that 156 bodies remain outside the remit of the Ombudsman. They should be included in the Ombudsman's remit on a phased basis. Perhaps the Minister of State will outline the plans that exist to include such bodies. Ms O'Reilly indicated that she would like some of the public hospitals to come under her remit. The public would welcome such a move. I am sure that certain bodies cannot be included for various reasons. Will the Minister of State indicate the number of bodies that can be included? What is the relevant timescale for their inclusion?