Martin Mansergh (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, and his officials to the House. I am an enthusiast for the office of the Ombudsman, which was established in 1980. The establishment of the office was one of the many excellent administrative reforms introduced by the much-maligned Government that served between 1977 and 1981. The creation of an independent electoral commission was a similar reform. The office of the Ombudsman has stood the test of time.

I agree with Senator Browne's suggestion that the remit of the office should be extended to the rest of the public sector and his point that some forms are too complicated. He may have been a little unfair in another respect, however, because the report under discussion is a bilingual one, as all reports of a public nature should be. It is necessarily the case that such a report should be drafted in either of the two official languages, before being translated into the other language. It is obvious that a report may be urgently needed in some circumstances. The recent publication of the report of the Commission on Electronic Voting may be an example of such an instance. It could be argued that it is acceptable for a summary to be produced in the other language in such circumstances, if it is impossible to produce both versions of the report simultaneously.

We have been fortunate to have had three exceptionally distinguished holders of the office of the Ombudsman — Mr. Michael Mills, Mr. Kevin Murphy and Ms Emily O'Reilly. Part of the report we are discussing covers Mr. Murphy's period in office. I pay tribute to him not only for his work as Ombudsman but also as a very distinguished and able senior official in the Department of Finance. He had particular responsibility for the public service and social partnership and he made a major contribution to the development of the economy and social partnership over the years. I am sure that Mr. Murphy and many others will be given honourable mentions when the second volume of the history of the Department of Finance comes to be published, the first volume having been written by Professor Ronan Fanning.

I differ slightly from the Minister of State in one respect. The office of the Ombudsman is a public office, but I consider that it relates more to the system of administration than to the political system. I was impressed by the manner in which the office dealt with a case some years ago. I advised a widow in Cork to take her case to the Ombudsman to claim entitlement to a widow's pension. There was some uncertainty about her exact entitlement because some documents had gone missing. She was given an award following the intervention of the Ombudsman. The then Department of Social Welfare agreed to pay arrears of £14,000 or £15,000, which was quite an amount of money. The Ombudsman is a real recourse for individuals who fear they have exhausted every avenue, but still feel they have a strong case that is being ignored.

The Minister of State was right to emphasise the fact that the office of the Ombudsman is not an adversary of the public service, a point that was made by the Ombudsman in her report. The office works with the public service. Many of us in the political system are aware that it is generally unfruitful, with few exceptions, to treat the public service as an adversary. The Minister of State emphasised that the Ombudsman is right to encourage various public offices to develop and refine their complaint procedures, so that only the most difficult or insoluble cases reach her. The Ombudsman mentioned in her report the impressive statistic that half of all complainants are better off as a result of contacting her office. People can contact her office only when all other means of recourse have been exhausted.

We need to bear in mind when considering particular cases that many schemes are quite complex, as the Ombudsman mentioned. The finances of public authorities are quite tight, generally speaking, although a strong social and humanitarian dimension needs to be brought to bear. The cases that have been brought forward absolutely vindicate the value of the office of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman has pointed out that there is an unequal balance of power between those making complaints and, from their point of view, the relatively amorphous authorities with which they are dealing. She stated that she exercises the powers of her office by "persuasion, criticism, publicity and moral authority".

I am glad that the case involving the Revenue Commissioners has finally been resolved. A ruling from the office of the Ombudsman should be automatically binding, except where it is clearly unreasonable or based on a misapprehension of the facts. If such problems have not arisen, public authorities and Departments should have to accept the Ombudsman's rulings. It is important, in the interests of confidence in the system of public administration, that an absolutely impartial person should be entrusted with making the final judgment about whether the system of administration is right or wrong.

I notice that one of the cases cited in the Ombudsman's report related to the refusal of Tipperary Town Council to pay the disabled person's grant to a person who was quite sick. The case was satisfactorily resolved. The type of case highlighted by the Ombudsman may involve urgent remedial works, for example, particularly if the person involved is ill. The office may investigate promises made by public authorities that have not been fulfilled for one reason or another. It emphasises the importance of transparency and consistency. The Ombudsman deals with administrative errors. In exceptional cases, the office may prefer not to set a precedent, for example by providing for a resolution "without prejudice". There may be strong humanitarian arguments for such decisions — one may not want to prejudge relatively similar cases in the future. There is also the issue of where a public authority has mistakenly overpaid an individual a grant or allowances to which he or she is entitled, as well as those fraught cases where a public authority has overcharged, such as patient charges in nursing homes.

A Member earlier referred to Mr. Tom Sweeney who is on hunger strike outside the gates of Leinster House. Protests by individuals outside Leinster House or Government Buildings are nearly always based on an administrative complaint. The complaint may have been made to the appropriate Minister but the person feels the Department or public authority involved has not given him or her justice. Is there merit in allowing the Ombudsman a fast-track procedure to reach judgment on emergency situations that arise? I appreciate there could be dangers and downsides to such a process, but no one wants a stand-off when an authority disagrees with a person's entitlement. Some cases requiring a quick judgment are better off not being put to a Minister but to the Ombudsman who is recognised as an independent and impartial arbitrator.

At present, and in the future, some public services are farmed out to the private sector for pragmatic reasons. I would not like to see such services removed from the Ombudsman's remit. Regardless of whether a public service is run by the public sector or privately on the State's behalf, it should legitimately be within the Ombudsman's remit.