• You are here:
• Home /
• Publications /
• Annual Reports /
• Annual Report of the Ombudsman 1997

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 1997

Chapter Two - The Year's Work

Number of Complaints

During 1997 I received a total of 3,929 complaints compared to a total of 3,181 complaints in the previous year. This represented an increase of 24% in the number of complaints received. Of these, 803 were outside my remit leaving a balance of 3,126 valid complaints. If a case cannot be dealt with by my Office, every effort is made to direct the complainant to some other service which might provide assistance or information. In addition to the new complaints I received, there was a carry-over of 948 complaints from 1996 resulting in a case-load of 4,074 to be dealt with in 1997. During the year, 2,981 of these were brought to a conclusion leaving a balance of 1,093 to be carried forward to 1998.

Of the 2,981 cases finalised in 1997, 523 were resolved and in 802 cases assistance was provided which means that in 1,325 (over 44%) cases some form of redress was obtained for the complainants. A total of 989 complaints was not upheld and a further 667 cases were either discontinued or withdrawn by the complainants.

In terms of the overall breakdown of complaints within my jurisdiction dealt with during the year, 50.2% concerned civil service departments and offices. Of these, 62% involved the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, 13.5% concerned the Department of Agriculture and Food and 9.9% were against the Revenue Commissioners. Of the remaining 49.8% of complaints, 25% involved local authorities, 13.5% related to health boards, 9% concerned Telecom �ireann and 2.3% An Post.

In addition to examining and investigating complaints, a significant portion of my staff's time is spent in advising members of the public of their rights and entitlements when they write, phone or call to the Office. It is understandable that not everyone will be familiar with the limits of my jurisdiction, in which case my staff will clarify matters and, if necessary, advise the complainant to redirect his or her complaint to the appropriate organisation. This "behind the scenes" work by my staff often goes publicly unrecognised but provides a very helpful service for members of the public especially when
informing them of their rights. The increase in the number of complaints closed during the year was possible only because of the continued commitment, hard work and professionalism of all my staff whom I would like to thank sincerely. My special thanks is due to Paddy Walsh and Matt Merrigan for their excellent work in preparing this Annual Report and the Guide to Internal Complaints Systems.

Public Access and Awareness

During 1997 my Office paid monthly visits to Citizen Information Centres [CICs] in Cork, Galway, Limerick and Waterford. Over the year there were 491 callers to these centres. I would like to thank all those involved, including the National Social Service Board and the CICs for their continued support in publicising these services.

One-day visits to take complaints were made by my staff to Enniscorthy, Dundalk, Drogheda, Bray, Cavan, and Monaghan. A total of 318 people attended.

In order to make my Office more accessible to people in the greater Dublin area, a programme of one-day visits to the main towns commenced with the visit to Bray, where a total of 51 people attended. A similar visit to Swords is planned for the first half of 1998. The network of CICs has been very useful in promoting public access to and awareness of my Office outside of Dublin. I intend to work towards establishing similar linkages with the Dublin Area-Based Partnerships with a view to providing access to those people living in disadvantaged areas of the city. I am conscious that the services of my Office are not being availed of by such people. A physical presence by my Office in their locality on a monthly basis is not in itself sufficient. They need the support and guidance of those currently delivering social and community services in these areas who know how the system works, and where the Ombudsman fits in.

Information on the Office, including details of the planned programme of regional and CIC visits for 1998 is published on the Internet (url:http://www.irlgov.ie/ombudsman/)

My Office can now be reached from any part of the State for the price of a local call.

The number is 1-890-223030

Market Research

I commissioned Lansdowne Market Research to survey the opinions on the Office of a representative sample of 805 adults nation-wide during October 1996. The results of this exercise proved very interesting and will allow my Office to target the limited publicity budget more effectively in future. While it is difficult to compare these results with surveys conducted by Ombudsman Offices abroad, the survey indicates that there is a higher level of awareness here of the existence of the Ombudsman, and of his role, than in many other countries. The survey also confirms that there is much work to be done in
increasing public awareness and access to the Office of the Ombudsman in Ireland.

Some of the main results are as follows:

34% of respondents were aware that the Ombudsman can deal with complaints from the public;

23% indicated that they would go to the Ombudsman if they wished to complain about a state organisation;

81% said that they had heard of the Office of the Ombudsman, but of these only 6% said that they had ever actually contacted the Office;

56% thought the Ombudsman was independent whereas a sizeable 25% thought the Office was controlled by the Government;

90% agreed that it is good that there is an independent organisation which can help with complaints;

70% agreed that if they knew more about the Office they would be more inclined to contact it.

Questions in relation to the powers of the Ombudsman yielded conflicting results and some confusion among the public is evident. Sixty eight per cent were aware that the Ombudsman could investigate decisions made by Government Departments; 64%, however, thought that the Ombudsman could investigate private companies or businesses, which is not the case. Eighty per cent of the sample said that they would like to have more information about the Ombudsman.

My Office has analysed the survey results and I intend to put in place specific awareness-raising programmes to meet identified shortcomings.

Strategic Management Initiative (SMI)

In February 1997, I published a Statement of Strategy which charts the development of my Office for the period up to 1999. The Statement stresses the importance of providing an independent, accessible, fair and effective complaints examination service and it sets out a number of strategies under each of these headings.

Among the strategies addressed in 1997 were a market research exercise which is reported above; a new performance assessment system has been developed and implemented for all staff; investigation procedures and the categorisation of complaint outcomes have been reviewed; an interpersonal skills staff training programme was completed and implementation of a new Office Information System was commenced.

The Public Service Management Act, 1997 provides, among other things, for the preparation of strategy statements by Government departments and offices in accordance with Government guidelines and policies. Given the statutory independence of my Office and in accordance with an option in the Act available to mine and certain other offices, I have elected not to be subject to its statutory provisions. The public perception of the independence of my Office is highly important. I could not subscribe to a provision which would subject my Office to Government direction in relation to my Office's preparation of a Statement of Strategy. However, I fully support the spirit and intent of the Act and I am exploring
ways of giving effect to its other provisions outside of the legal framework.

In relation to Strategic Management throughout the wider public service, I welcome the increased emphasis on quality customer service and in particular the provision by many public bodies of customer action plans and internal complaints systems. However, I would sound a note of caution. The customer concept is a useful one, but it should not be forgotten that the citizen has rights in dealing with public bodies and that they, in turn, have corresponding obligations to the citizen. Unlike a customer in the private sector, the citizen has no choice of supplier when dealing with the public service and this imposes special obligations on public bodies. In particular, citizens have the right not only to quality service but also to fair treatment.

Relations with Public Bodies within Remit

Many of my talks to public bodies in the course of the year were given in my capacity as Information Commissioner Designate. I gave a presentation to Secretaries General of Government departments and I addressed the Civil Service Annual Information Technology Seminar. Health service professionals and administrators have demonstrated a keen interest in freedom of information and I have spoken at several seminars organised by the health boards and other health service agencies. "Accountability to the Citizen" was the title of a paper covering all of my functions as Ombudsman and Information Commissioner Designate which I presented to the National Conference of the Institute of Public Administration.

As indicated in my Office's Statement of Strategy 1997-1999, I see public talks as an important means of promoting and developing good relations with the bodies within my jurisdiction. My staff also gave many presentations to individual Government departments, local authorities and health boards. Members of staff also serve on a number of outside bodies, e.g. the International Bar Association, the Central Applications Office Appeal Board, the Irish Society for Quality in Health Care and the Registrar's Committee of the Incorporated Law Society (which deals with complaints against solicitors).

The level of co-operation which I receive from public bodies is generally excellent and I greatly appreciate the efforts which most of them make to comply with my procedures. However, in some instances it has been necessary for my Office to invoke Section 7 of the Ombudsman Act 1980 in order to obtain a report from a body in relation to a complaint. A Section 7 notice requires public officials to furnish me with information relevant to a complaint by a specified date and, if necessary, to attend
before me for that purpose. Such a notice is issued only as a last resort after both oral and written reminders have failed to elicit a response.

In an effort to improve response times, I have notified each public body that, with effect from 1 January 1998, my Office will be keeping a record of the number of Section 7 notices issued annually to each body. I intend to publish the details in my Annual Reports beginning with the 1998 Report. In recognition of the fact that some public bodies are the subject of more complaints than others, the Annual Report will also detail, in the case of each public body, the number of Section 7 notices
issued as a percentage of total complaints against that body.

Government Plans for the Office

In last year's report I expressed my disappointment at the lack of progress by the Department of Finance in preparing an Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill to extend the powers and remit of my Office. However, I was pleased to learn that the preparation of the Bill was re-activated during 1997 and that the Department will be bringing proposals to Government shortly to increase the powers of my Office and extend my remit to vocational education committees, the public voluntary hospitals and the non-commercial state bodies.

Relocation to 18 Lower Leeson Street

Because of the anticipated additional workload arising from my role as Information Commissioner, the proposed extension of my remit and the staffing implications of the statutory Referendum Commission, it has been necessary to move from my Office at 52 St Stephen's Green to a new location at 18 Lower Leeson Street. My Office's telephone and fax numbers and e-mail address, remain unchanged.

Freedom of Information

In April the Oireachtas passed the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 which creates the new office of Information Commissioner. I was honoured to be invited to be the first holder of this new office which will come into being, with the commencement of the Act, on 21 April 1998. My proposed appointment as Information Commissioner will be in addition to, and separate from, my existing role as Ombudsman. The Freedom of Information Act confers important new statutory rights in the area of access to officially held information. From 21 April 1998 the Act will apply to all Government Departments and to certain designated public bodies (e.g. the Environmental Protection Agency, the Blood Transfusion Service Board). Six months later, in October 1998, the Act will be extended to the health boards and the local authorities. In addition, there is provision in the Act for other public bodies to be designated, by regulation, as coming within its scope.

The Information Commissioner will have a wide range of functions and powers under the new Act. These functions include the making of binding appeal decisions; promoting good practice; monitoring performance; investigating practices as well as reporting (both to the Oireachtas and to the bodies concerned). Arrangements for the establishment of the new Office have been under way for the past few months. At a broader level, the Central Policy Unit of the Department of Finance has been very
active in encouraging public bodies to make the preparations necessary for the successful implementation of the Act.

I am looking forward to the challenge which will be presented by my new role as Information Commissioner. I am particularly encouraged by the very active support already being offered by the Department of Finance. Ultimately, this Act is about opening up the processes of government to the people and increasing their capacity to participate on the basis of hard information. It will be the job of the Information Commissioner to see that the Act is implemented in a way which enables this to happen.

Contact with Other Ombudsman Offices

I maintain regular contact with my Ombudsman colleagues in the United Kingdom through the British and Irish Ombudsman Association and I attended its biennial conference in November 1997. I chaired the business session of the European National Ombudsman Conference in Jerusalem and in my capacity as one of four Regional Directors for Europe, I attended a Board Meeting of the International Ombudsman Institute in Copenhagen. In Strasbourg I participated in a seminar which examined the possibility of establishing a Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights. My Office was represented at a conference on Administrative Justice co-hosted by the Lord Chancellor's Department and the University of Bristol.

Among those who visited the Office in 1997 were a delegation including the Chinese Ambassador to Ireland and the Chinese Minister for Supervision; the Turkish Ambassador to Ireland; the Northern Ireland Ombudsman and his Deputy; a representative of the State Services Commission of New Zealand; representatives of the Office of the Attorney General, Australia; a Director of the United Kingdom Health Service Commissioner's Office and the President of the European Ombudsman Institute.

The European Ombudsman

In my Annual Report for 1996 I referred to the evolving relationship between the European Ombudsman and my Office and its role in strengthening the opportunity for Irish citizens, as citizens of Europe, to air their grievances against those institutions of the European Union (EU) or bodies which are within the European Ombudsman's remit. In accordance with agreed arrangements, National Ombudsmen can refer complaints against the institutions of the EU directly to the European Ombudsman who, in turn, may pursue them with the institution or body concerned.

In the course of 1997 I referred three cases to the European Ombudsman. All three involved interpretations of EU Directives by the European Commission. Two of the cases related to the Department of Agriculture and Food and the third related to South Dublin County Council. As I was not satisfied with the Commission's interpretations, I took up the cases with the European Ombudsman who has jurisdiction over the Commission. In one case it indicated that a test case was before the Court of First Instance and that it would review the matter in the light of the Court's judgment. The Commission is still examining the other case. My examination of the County Council case is continuing.

During the year a liaison network was established between the Offices of National Ombudsmen in the member states of the EU and the Office of the European Ombudsman. I find this network to be a useful source of information in relation to the application of EU law and the relevant principles of European administrative law.

Protection of the term "Ombudsman"

I was encouraged to find that my remarks about the protection of the term "Ombudsman" were supported in the course of the Oireachtas debate on my previous Annual Report. Together with my Ombudsman colleagues, both here in Ireland and abroad, I am anxious to ensure that the term "Ombudsman" is confined to those who satisfy the essential requirements of an Ombudsman. Otherwise there is a danger that those calling themselves "Ombudsman", who do not meet the criteria, will devalue the role and standing of those who do.

The Ombudsman of New Zealand for many years has had statutory authority under that country's Ombudsman Act to set the criteria against which to consider applications for the use of the term "Ombudsman". Following a recent amendment to the Danish Ombudsman Act, the term �Ombudsman� can be used in Denmark only if approved by Parliament. The Irish Ombudsman Act closely follows both the New Zealand and Danish models.

Back to contents