• You are here:
• Home /
• Speeches

Speeches

"From the Ground Up" (20.05.2006)

Address by Emily O'Reilly, Ombudsman at a Society of St. Vincent De Paul Conference held at the Ardilaun Hotel Galway

May I begin by saying how privileged I feel to be invited to speak to you here today, a day designed for thanking, invigorating and motivating those of you who work with the poor and the marginalised in our society. I have always admired the tremendous work that you do, the very essence of practical humanity. I acknowledge your commitment to respecting the dignity and self respect of those that you serve, based on trust and friendship. It is a very rich tradition that you are bringing forward from generation to generation and I commend you for it.

My father worked as a volunteer in the St Vincent de Paul night shelter near Christ Church in Dublin for many years and I remember as a child hearing his stories of the men he met there and the stories they told him late at night of their own lives. In college, at the behest of a friend who was a member of St Vincent de Paul, myself and some other friends used to visit some elderly people living out the last years of their lives on their own. Our time with them brief though it was, did go some small way towards alleviating the enormous self obsession of our adolescence. I don't beleive that any action is entirely altruistic; we all get something back.

On an organisational level I am very much taken with the concept of the Society's Social Justice Policy, utilising your extensive "on the ground" knowledge, of poverty and marginalisation to campaign for social policy reforms, aimed at resolving the problems that you encounter. In my comments here today I would like to explore your advocacy role in this area and how the Society and my Office might complement each other in seeking such resolution, on an individual basis and also on a systemic basis, particularly in those areas where the problems that you encounter are perhaps beyond your power to resolve.

The core function of my Office is to protect individuals who avail of public services from unfair, unsound and unjust actions on the part of those who are entrusted to deliver those same services. I seek to ensure that those individuals are treated with dignity, respect and sensitivity, and that complaints from individuals or their families are handled in a proper, fair and understanding manner. Because of its rather strange sounding name, I am always concerned that people might consider the office to be some strange elitist institution, accessible only by those in the know. In other countries, other words are used for the same role, Spanish speaking countries call it Defensor del Pueblo, or public defender, in France the term is Mediateur, mediator. In essence an Ombudsman is in the space between the people and the government, brining his or her clout and competence to bear on the administration to make sure that people, as I have said are treated properly and fairly.

The Office of the Ombudsman is established under the Ombudsman Act, 1980. As Ombudsman I am an independent and non-partisan office holder who supervises public administration. I deal with specific complaints from the public about administrative injustice and maladministration. I have the power to investigate, report upon, and make recommendations about individual cases and administrative procedures. I seek solutions to problems by a process of investigation and conciliation. My authority and influence derive from the fact that I am appointed by the President and report to the Oireachtas. In dealing with complaints I seek to gather all information relevant to a complaint, including, if necessary, the appropriate files from the body concerned.

I ensure that I hear both sides to a dispute. If, in the course of a preliminary examination, I consider the complaint to be justified, I may request the body to review the disputed decision. If warranted, I may initiate an investigation and make an appropriate recommendation for redress. I am conscious at all times of the need to be impartial, objective and to observe the principles of natural justice.

My Office does not have the power to nullify an action or decision. Neither does it have the power to impose a legally binding solution. These might seem to be significant obstacles to an effective Ombudsman operation but, in fact, they are strengths. For one thing virtually no Ombudsman recommendation, made following an investigation under the 1980 Act, has ever been rejected by the public body concerned. Another consideration is that the investigation process can also be flexible and informal rather than legalistic and adversarial.

The following are the public bodies subject to investigation by my Office at present: Government Departments and Offices (e.g. Department of Social & Family Affairs, Department of Education & Science), Local Authorities (all county councils, corporations, urban district councils and town commissioners), The Health Service Executive and An Post.

The Disability Act, 2005, which became law on 8 July 2005, imposes significant obligations on Government Departments and on public bodies to work proactively towards the improvement of the quality of life of people with disabilities. The Act also gave my Office new powers to investigate complaints about compliance by public bodies and others concerning accessibility of buildings and the provision of information and services to people with disabilities. My staff are at present liaising with the relevant bodies who are in the process of preparing sectoral plans as required under the provisions of the Act.

The enactment of the Health Act 2004, is an important landmark in the development of the Office of the Ombudsman. This legislation makes provision for the establishment of a statutory complaints procedure in the health service, not only for those services delivered by the Executive but also for those agencies providing services on behalf of the Executive.

The net outcome of this development will be that the major hospitals in the Dublin area, the so called Public Voluntary Hospitals, will come within my jurisdiction, as will other similar hospitals in the rest of the country, together with institutions, nation-wide, providing services on behalf of the HSE to the intellectually disabled.

There are some specific exclusions from my jurisdiction, the principal ones at present being: actions taken in the administration of the law relating to aliens or naturalisation (e.g. decisions in relation to asylum seekers, work visas and citizenship); actions taken in the administration of prisons, and issues which have already been adjudicated upon by a court or where court action has been initiated by the complainant.

My annual reports detail the myriad ways in which my Office has impacted on the lives of ordinary individuals who have had cause to complain about our public services; families seeking answers from hospitals about the care of their loved ones (particularly where death has occurred), older people seeking affordable care to which they have an entitlement, parents seeking allowances for their seriously disabled children, homeless individuals seeking accommodation, pensioners seeking pension entitlements, single mothers seeking welfare assistance or accommodation needs, individuals applying for medical cards or health related personal social services, Exceptional Needs Payments, Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance, Rent Supplements, Diet Supplements etc.

I have no doubt but that these are the types of problems that you meet on a day to day basis in your work in the Society. In fact, there have been situations where volunteers in the Society have made representations to my Office on behalf of clients, or acted in the role of an advocate for them. In some cases I have also come across complainants who, at the time they made their complaint to my Office, they were actually living in sheltered accommodation provided by your organisation. Let me give you some examples of the types of cases my Office has dealt with which I hope will resonate with you, and the work that you do;

In the first case a young mother, who was moderately mentally handicapped and living with her young daughter, was refused an Exceptional Needs Payment by the Community Welfare Officer. She had obtained a payment towards the cost of a washing machine in 2002, but was seemingly advised by her Social Worker to purchase same in a local shop which sells reconditioned models. This reconditioned model broke down beyond repair a short time after the twelve month guarantee was up. The woman sought a payment for another machine but this was refused on the grounds that she had recently received one.

The woman was living in a local authority house but had spent 8 years in care in a residential project. She had to bring her washing over to the project where it was done for her as there was no launderette in the area. The manager of the project helped her with the cost of a replacement machine and purchased one for her on the understanding that the cost would be reimbursed by way of the sullpementary welfare system. However, the Community Welfare Officer continued to refuse the payment. My staff made contact with the Community Welfare Officer and the relevant Appeals Officer. They outlined the critical nature of the refusal and the effect it was having on the young mother. Following these discussions the case was reviewed and payment was issued.

In the second case a mother of 10 children, 6 of them schoolgoing, applied for a Back to School Clothing and Footwear Allowance. Her application was rejected as her income exceeded the guidelines laid down in the scheme. This is not a discretionary payment and there are specific income limits applying in the scheme. The woman appealed but her appeal was also turned down by the Health Board's Appeals Officer. A representative from a local family care centre subsequently wrote to the Board outlining the obvious exceptional circumstances of the case, to no avail. Following receipt of the complaint my staff obtained the relevant files. It was noted that the local Superintendent Community Welfare Officer had been asked by the Appeals Officer to consider an Exceptional Needs Payment as an alternative in view of the fact that there were 6 schoolgoing children in the family. This is a discretionary payment based on the individual circumstances of the individual case. However, despite the further correspondence from the woman and her representative this did not seem to have been addressed by anyone. My officials immediately pursued the matter and a payment, equivalent to the amount which would have been payable under the Back to School scheme, was paid to the woman.

In another case an old age pensioner had applied to her local Council for a full waiver of her service charges. In accordance with its interpretation of the terms of the scheme, the Council granted a 50% waiver of the charge on the grounds that her income was derived from pensions. A full waiver would be granted by the Council in these type of circumstances if an applicant were in receipt of a Living Alone Allowance. As the complainant in this case was not in receipt of a Living Alone Allowance she was refused the full waiver. Following discussion between my officials and the Council, it reviewed the case. It accepted that the intention of their scheme was that an applicant, in circumstances such as the complainant's, should benefit from the scheme. The Council accordingly granted her a full waiver. In addition, the Council reviewed the cases of thirty other similar applicants and agreed to grant them a full waiver.

In another case a pensioner complained that he had been refused a grant under the Essential Repairs Grant Scheme by his local Council on the basis that he had been paid a grant under this scheme 21 years earlier. The repairs involved the replacement of the roof of his house. In support of its decision, the Council relied on the provisions of the Housing (Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations, 1993 which provided that a grant was not payable if a similar one had been paid at some time in the past. It was clear that the Council's interpretation was, strictly speaking, correct. However, my Office took the view that it was unreasonable for the Council to decline the payment of a grant to the pensioner on the basis that a grant under the scheme issued to him over 21 years previously.

In addition, my Office took the view that the earlier "essential repairs" were not envisaged to exclude any further necessary repairs in the case where the applicant occupied the house for a further 20 years or more. The Council was asked to review its handling of the case. Having consulted with the Department of the Environment and Local Government, the Council agreed to approve payment of the grant to the pensioner. Subsequently, the Department introduced the Housing (Disabled Persons and Essential Repairs Grants) Regulations, 2001. These regulations consolidated and revoked the earlier 1993 regulations and made legal provision for, among other issues, the payment of a second Essential Repairs Grant to an applicant in certain circumstances.

In my final example a woman complained about the refusal of her application for Deserted Wife's Benefit in 1995. She said that she supplied all the necessary documentation in support of her desertion by her husband which included evidence of her application to the Circuit Court for a Judicial Separation. However, having examined her application, the Department wrote to her requesting further details from her about her desertion. The Society of St. Vincent De Paul wrote to the Department in 1996 enclosing evidence that the complainant's husband had given an undertaking to the Circuit Court that he would stay away from the family home until the Judicial Separation application had been heard. The Society also asked for an up to date position with regard to her application. On receipt of this information the Department commenced payment of Lone Parent Allowance to the complainant. However, no details were furnished to the Society about the status of the Deserted Wife's Benefit application.

The complainant subsequently learned in November 2003 that, because her son would be 18 years of age that month, and was not in full-time education, he would no longer be regarded as a child dependent. Consequently payment of her Lone Parent Allowance (at this time it was called One Parent Family Payment) was to cease.

In the course of my examination of the case I obtained the Department's files. Having examined the files I put it to the Department that it appeared to me the complainant, through the Society of St. Vincent De Paul, had provided sufficient evidence at the appropriate time to support her claim of desertion by her husband. In this regard she had provided evidence of her application for a Judicial Separation, an undertaking by her husband to stay away from the family home and a copy of the Judicial Separation itself which was subsequently furnished by her to the Department. I also formed the view that simply awarding her the Lone Parent Allowance, rather than dealing with the specific enquiry concerning the status of her Deserted Wife's Benefit application, was unfair.

The Department agreed to review its decision and payment of Deserted Wife's Benefit was put in place in November 2004. Crucially this payment will continue until she reaches pension age regardless of whether she has a dependent child or not, provided of course, she continues to satisfy the other relevant conditions. Appropriate arrears amounting to €4,269.44 were also paid to her as her claim was backdated to 1995. You can see from this case how the Society's input into the case was crucial to the resolution.

I would now like to return to your advocacy role that I mentioned earlier, and address, in particular, how the Society and my Office might complement each other in seeking resolution to such problems on an individual and a systemic basis.

My procedures for taking and dealing with complaints are designed to be as user-friendly as possible. Complaints may be made in writing, by telephone or by calling to my Office in Dublin. My staff are available to the public on a monthly basis at Citizen Information Centres in Cork, Limerick, Galway as well as in Coolock, Dublin. In addition, a series of visits to other provincial centres is arranged on an annual basis. My staff also pay visits to the homes of complainants where appropriate.

Since February of this year my Office has been operating a new service in association with the Citizens Information Services in certain locations. This is called the Ombudsman Link Service, and will allow members of the public easier access to the services of my Office. For over ten years my Office has been in attendance for one day per month at the Citizens Information Centres in Cork, Limerick and Galway. This attendance afforded members of the public from these areas the opportunity to meet with my staff and explain the details of their complaints in person. Since these monthly visits began, over 5,000 people have been seen in the centres visited.

The Ombudsman Link Service will build on this existing monthly attendance by enabling people to call into Citizens Information Centres at any time to make a complaint to the Ombudsman. In addition, because of training provided to the staff and volunteers of the Centres, they will now be able to quickly identify matters that their clients raise which could be referred as complaints to the Ombudsman, and if their client so requests, the staff and volunteers of the centres will be able to assist them in making their complaint.

Initially, the Ombudsman Link Service will be available at Citizens Information Centres in Cork, Limerick, Newcastlewest, Galway and Clifden. However, it is my hope to develop this service on a more comprehensive, nation-wide, basis.

In a recent survey which I undertook to obtain feedback from complainants on the service provided by my Office, I ascertained that the old, the sick, the disabled and the disadvantaged required particular attention in facilitating them to complain when something went wrong for them. With this in mind I would be very open to engaging in discussion with the Society as to the possibility and practicality of exploring the development of a similar LINK service between my Office and the Society. To this end I would be very willing to enter into exploratory discussions, perhaps leading to a pilot project, under which the concept might be developed. I would see this as a very practical and concrete expression of the commitment of my Office to reach out to those individuals who are poor and marginalised; those same individuals that you deal with on a daily basis. I can assure you that my commitment would be unstinting if the Society were willing to engage in such exploratory discussions.

Finally, let me once again acknowledge my admiration for the work that you do on a daily and unheralded basis. Ironically, in our newly rich state, your role is more vital than ever. There is a widely held view that poverty barely exists in this country. An even more pernicious view is that those who remain trapped in poverty do so through their own fault. Last Christmas I listened to my own local St Vincent de Paul representative as he talked about the levels of poverty that he and his colleagues had encountered in neighbouring estates. He correctly judged that most of us would indeed be surprised by what he had to say. Your core role is practical help but over and above that you have a role in making sure that society is aware of the deep wells of disadvantage that no amount of individual fortunes based on property speculation or any other wealth generating scheme in this country has yet managed to alleviate. Long may your work continue and I look forward to the deepening of the relationship between the Society of St Vincent De Paul and the Office of the Ombudsman. In the words of my local junior infants choir,

"And in this world of darkness, we all can shine a light, you in your small corner and I in mine".

Thank you very much for your attention.

Back to contents