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

Annual Report of the Ombudsman 1997

Chapter Three - D�il and Seanad Debates on the Ombudsman's Annual Reports

The Ombudsman Act requires me to make an Annual Report to each House of the Oireachtas. I am encouraged by the level of interest shown by deputies and senators in my Reports, all three of which have been debated in either, or both, Houses. I was particularly heartened by the fact that my last report was the subject of extensive debate in both Houses and the recognition and support given by individual members to the work of my Office and my staff. I value their comments and, indeed, criticisms as an important form of feedback on the performance of my Office.

I strongly believe that the independence and powers of my Office together with my role in relation to the citizen and the public service can be strengthened and developed with the support of the Oireachtas. Indeed, one of the key strategies of my Office, as outlined in its Statement of Strategy 1997-1999, is to continue to promote and develop good working relations with the Oireachtas and it is in this context, also, that feedback on my Annual Reports is especially useful.

I have read carefully the contributions of members on my last report and it might be useful to set out some comments on the issues raised.

Many members felt that public awareness of the Office is still quite low and suggested that additional funds should be allocated to publicising it, both on radio and television. The suggestion is well-founded given that the market research which I commissioned last year showed that only 34% of citizens are aware of the existence of my Office and its purpose. I am not happy with this figure and I am concerned that many people, through lack of awareness, may be deprived of the opportunity to pursue their grievances with my Office. While the number of valid complaints received by my Office in the past two years has increased by almost 40%, it seems to me that many complaints are not proceeded with because of lack of awareness of my Office.

Within the limits of our budget, we have had to be selective in the type of publicity undertaken. The Office's annual programme of regional visits to local centres and the monthly visits to a number of Citizens Information Centres (CICs) have been effective in increasing awareness and meets, if only in a limited way, the calls by some members of the Oireachtas for regionalisation of the Office. Last year the total number of callers to the regional centres was 318 while the number who called to the CICs was 491. One member commented that the latter figure represented an annual average of only 80 callers to each CIC which in his view was very low by comparison with the number of callers to his constituency office. The comparison, however, is not a valid one - due to limited resources my Office has allocated one staff member to take complaints in each of the designated CICs for one day only in each month.

Another member expressed the view that the Office had not reached its full potential and called for a review of the Ombudsman Act and an immediate extension of my jurisdiction. He pointed to what he described as an alarming decline in the capacity of the Office to handle complaints and said that confidence in it had been undermined. He spoke of a decline in the number of complaints received, from almost 5,500 in 1985 to almost 2,500 in 1995. I cannot accept that the above figures support the member's contention. Firstly, there has been an increase of almost 40% in the number of valid complaints received since 1995. Secondly, the 1985 figures are in respect of the year in which the Office's jurisdiction was extended to local authorities and health boards and typically one would expect disproportionately high numbers in that year. Thirdly, the figures do not take account of the fall in the number of complaints against Telecom �ireann from almost 1,500 in 1985 to 262 in 1997. This was due to the introduction of itemised billing which, by putting more information in the hands of subscribers, has substantially reduced their grounds for complaint. I should also mention that market research which I commissioned last year, the results of which are described elsewhere in this report, showed that 80% would like to have more information about the Office - hardly an indication of a lack of public confidence in the organisation. I am always wary of putting undue emphasis on the numbers of complaints received and finalised by my Office because such figures do not do justice to the often time-consuming and complex nature of the work which comes before me and my staff. The activities of this Office over the last decade, and the greater emphasis being put by public bodies on providing better service to the public, have combined to filter out many of the less complex complaints. The volume of complaints processed by my Office is very similar to that of the New Zealand Office, even though the Ombudsman's remit there extends to prisons, immigration and school boards.

Another member, while expressing the view that the service provided by my Office represented good value for money, asked about the performance indicators I have set for my staff. The Statement of Strategy 1997-1999 for my Office encompasses four key objectives. My staff and I are striving to promote and develop the independence of the Office, public access to it, and the fairness and effectiveness of our complaints examination service. With the assistance of a new performance assessment system which my Office has developed, individual staff members have devised and agreed performance indicators which will assist in the attainment of the Office's objectives. The indicators are designed to ensure that a balance is achieved between examining complaints quickly and comprehensively and promoting systemic change in the public service by developing and promulgating principles of "Ombudsman jurisprudence".

In my previous Annual Report in dealing with the principle of impartiality, I stated that no significant case involving bias or prejudice had come to my attention during 1996. One member expressed surprise stating that, in his experience, bias and racial prejudice were on the increase as Dublin became a more pluralist capital. Another member referred to the manner in which asylum seekers were being treated in Dublin. The administration of the law in relation to aliens or naturalisation is outside my jurisdiction. A group of citizens who are at risk of suffering from bias or prejudice is the travelling community and I deal later on in this report with the problems I face when examining their complaints. Some complainants do make allegations of bias and prejudice against public officials. I have to say, however, that very rarely do I find evidence to sustain these allegations. That is not to say that the public body or its officials have been exonerated. Rather it means that I have found that the complaint was justified on grounds other than bias or prejudice.

I was encouraged by the support of the members for my proposals that the term "Ombudsman" should be protected and limited to those organisations which meet the essential criteria of an Ombudsman. I deal in more detail with this matter earlier in this Annual Report.

Back to contents