Labhrás Ó Murchú (Fianna Fail)

I welcome the report. It is a transparent document which makes it easy for all of us to understand the role of the Ombudsman and her office. It is important to realise that for many people the Ombudsman may still be an unknown service. On the other hand, the report suggests that more people are becoming aware of their rights. Many of the people who have recourse to the Ombudsman are those who would not normally want to find themselves in a conflict-type situation. They would not want the embarrassment that goes along with it and would rather remain privately worried about the lack of justice in their treatment.

As a result of the improvement in public services through local authorities and Departments, which means they are well laid out and easier to understand, people are now aware of their entitlements and are able to express themselves much better when making a complaint. This is mentioned in the report. It is important because if we are worried that a major part of the population who might have complaints would not consider using such a service, we should highlight the service and make it more accessible.

It is interesting that the Ombudsman points out that up to 50% of all complainants felt better off as a result of the intervention of the Ombudsman. In other words, they received some positive reaction. That is a large and impressive number. It is often felt that when one makes an appeal to any public body, one's chances of succeeding are less than might normally be the case. I find it encouraging that 50%, or one out of two, complainants had some success.

I also find it encouraging that according to the figures in the report, public bodies, by and large, are responding quite promptly to any queries they receive. Only 16 section 7 notices, which are the notices requiring compliance, were sent out, which is the smallest number since the office was set up. This suggests that the public bodies themselves, probably because they want to do the right thing but also because they might find themselves named in a specific case, are now anxious to ensure that their services and their responses are beyond question.

I was interested to see the small number of complaints made in one case concerning An Post. I found this very surprising, but then I remembered a programme I had seen on BBC the other night which said that normally, for some strange reason, people in the UK do not complain about inadequacies in the postal system. They were given figures of many millions for irregularities in postal deliveries, yet they accepted it and did not complain. I am not suggesting that An Post should have a higher rating in the area of complaints. This is an area in which one hears many complaints, regardless of whether those making them avail of the services of the Ombudsman, about post not arriving on time and so on. Some areas of the country are particularly bad, especially one area in Dublin which is infamous for bad service, yet the number of complaints is small.

When it comes to postal services, should we just accept weakness and feel we have no redress or that it does not fall within the remit of the Ombudsman? I would not like to think we would all start sending in thousands of complaints, but there are areas that need attention. I am not picking out An Post for any particular criticism because it is not warranted in my experience. Hearing the discussions outside, however, one might suggest that much of it is not credible in its own right.

The area of planning accounted for 27% of all complaints. That is a very large number — over a quarter of the total. Many of the complaints may have been related to enforcement orders but they seem to be mostly to do with planning. This does not surprise me because this is another area in which we hear much discussion among people who are dissatisfied. It is not a matter of not receiving permission to build a house but the procedures or lack thereof. Often when people go to the local authorities the relevant files are not available. In many cases papers are missing from the files. I am not sure why this should be the case. It may be one of the reasons there is so much dissatisfaction with the implementation of the planning code.

We have had a discussion about one-off housing in rural Ireland. We have discussed cases where people jumped the gun and went ahead of their own volition without a commencement notice, even though they had planning permission. This is more fundamental than the specific cases to which we are accustomed. If there is need for an improvement in the area, it should be made. A person wishing to set up a home will feel particularly vulnerable not simply as a result of getting a refusal, but by not knowing why the refusal was made or by not having access to certain information. Such information might allow people to understand the reason for the refusal or whether the ruling differed in other cases. As there are so many complaints in that area, I hope the issue will be tackled by the public bodies concerned.

Another important area has been touched on today. Some cases require more urgent attention, such as the one involving the unfortunate man currently on hunger strike outside Leinster House. This shocking case has been raised on the Order of Business in the House. It should not occur in this day and age. An emergency or express service should be available, similar to the intervention of the Labour Court. Such a service, which it may be possible to establish, could intervene almost immediately in the case mentioned where a health issue is involved. The matter should be examined.

The Ombudsman has raised the matter of the Official Languages Bill 2003. Ominously, she reports that she expects a much greater workload as a result of the Bill. She is right. If several hundred public bodies mentioned in this legislation have to deliver a bilingual service, and produce a report which could be the subject of Oireachtas discussion, there will be pressures in this area, even though a commissioner, the equivalent of an ombudsman, has been appointed by the President. In order to help the Ombudsman, it would be helpful if public bodies thought about this matter as soon as possible, availed of the back-up service and advice available, and decided to deliver in the manner required and within the specified time. The Ombudsman has a reason for saying she expects an increased workload as a result of the Official Languages Bill.

The Ombudsman is doing an exceptionally good job. She has kept her nose to the grindstone. There has not been a great deal of public controversy, but it is clear that she is beavering away quietly in the background. She has great public credibility, always an important starting-point for such a service, which must also seen to be independent and effective.