Thomas Byrne (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Fianna Fáil welcomes this Bill, the introduction of which it proposed in 2008. It is a pity the previous and current Governments delayed in this regard. However, I acknowledge there were other priorities for both.

The Office of the Ombudsman is one of the few offices of State which attracts universal respect and praise in terms of citizens' interactions with it. I have never heard a complaint about that office and I am sure that will never be the case. The Bill is a welcome extension of the number of bodies that fall within the remit of the Ombudsman, which bodies were outlined by the Minister. Included are many bodies whose actions affect people in their daily lives. This Bill provides for the most significant extension of the Ombudsman's functions in the past 25 years, which is to be welcomed.

My own experiences in terms of dealings on behalf of citizens with the Ombudsman have been positive. In one case, where a citizen was being forced to remove himself from this jurisdiction because there were no care facilities for him here and the Department of Social Protection had denied him social welfare benefits, the Ombudsman rectified the matter by ensuring the Department recognised the reality of the situation, which was a welcome decision. I have also had a number of interactions with the Ombudsman in regard to mortgage interest supplement and rent allowance, which interactions were also positive.

The need for an Ombudsman is even more acute at a time when the economy is in the troughs. During this time, people become more aware of their rights and have, out of financial necessity or as a matter of justice for the sake of their families, a greater need to enforce them. The Government makes choices based on budgetary policy, thus abolishing or amending benefits. It is in respect of the rules applicable to those benefits that the Ombudsman's office comes into play in terms of examining and applying them correctly. The fact that the Government generally accepts the Ombudsman's decision saves people going to court to enforce their rights and also saves a great deal of time and money in that regard.

In the 1980s, my father, through his auctioneering business, had cause to take up a matter with the Ombudsman, namely, abolition of the first time buyer's grant and the arbitrary cut-off point which applied in this regard, which was introduced by former Minister, Ray MacSharry. Some ¤10 million worth of grants was being abolished at that time. While one person made the complaint people all over Ireland benefited. While people had complied with the rules the Government had put an arbitrary time limit in place. My family has had much interaction with the Ombudsman down through the years, to the benefit of many people.

The decision in respect of the use of the word "Ombudsman" as proposed by the Minister and first proposed by the previous Government, is the correct one. There are a plethora of ombudsmen in place, including the Ombudsman for the Defence Forces, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman, the Insurance Ombudsman and Financial Services Ombudsman. We even have an ombudsmans' association. It is a pity this was allowed to happen. However, we cannot turn back the clock. I note that there are students ombudsmans in our colleges. It detracts from the important function played by the Ombudsman in this country that this has been allowed to happen. There should be no further attempts by organisations to use the title "Ombudsman".

I welcome section 7 which relates to citizens' dealings with public services. However, I am not sure it goes far enough. Fianna Fáil put forward a Bill in the Dáil last year, the effect of which would have been to force local authorities to reply to a person within a particular time. I am not sure this section puts that obligation on a local authority, which obligation can be an administrative burden on local authorities, in particular if they receive a huge volume of vexatious correspondence. I met this morning with staff of Meath local authority who are very dedicated people. However, it can be frustrating for citizens who contact local authorities by telephone, e-mail or letter about a pothole and so on, which may be small issues in the overall scheme of things but affect their daily lives, if they do not get a response. Although I have not used the FixMyStreet.ie facility I understand some local authorities are doing great work through it, which is a positive development.

If people know what to expect, it will be better.

The section is so general that it does not provide enough for the public. A local authority will be able to interpret it in a manner that gets around the legislation. I will have to discuss it with my group before we table an amendment to make it more specific. I am conscious of the resource issue because queries must be dealt with and local authorities do not have the staff they used to have. If people knew what to expect and knew that a complaint about a pothole did not go into a black hole in the office, they would be happy. If they knew there was a procedure in the office, they would be happy even if they never received a formal reply or a telephone call. Fianna Fáil is supporting the Bill and, on behalf of my colleagues, I pay tribute to the Ombudsman. My party in government did not agree with the conclusions of the Ombudsman on one or two occasions but my dealings with her office have been excellent. Ms O'Reilly and her staff are excellent public servants and deserve our support. I hope they are not overwhelmed with work as a result of this Bill.