4.The Year in Review

Chapter Four - The Year in Review

The Year in Review

I am pleased with the way in which my separate statutory offices of Ombudsman (under the Ombudsman Act, 1980) and of Information Commissioner (under the Freedom of Information Act, 1997) have complemented one another in practice during 1999. In addition to these two offices, the secretariat to the Public Offices Commission (of which I am currently Chairman) is provided by Ombudsman staff and, in effect, three separate but linked bodies now operate from our premises at 18 Lower Leeson Street. Each of the three bodies benefits from its links with the other two, not least in terms of the very tangible benefits derived from shared services (e.g. in the administration, personnel, finance and IT functions). The challenges inherent in managing three separate, but linked, statutory functions were addressed during the year with the assistance of an external facilitator. In effect, this process is the first step in developing detailed business plans for each of the statutory functions.

Chapter 10 of Partnership 2000 for Inclusion, Employment and Competitiveness set out the governing principles and approach to the modernising of the civil service. It provided for the establishment, in each Department and Office, of effective partnership structures to engage management, unions and staff in developing and implementing action programmes to progress the Strategic Management Initiative (SMI).

In my own case a Partnership Committee, under the chairmanship of my Director and representative of all three Offices, was created early in 1999 and is now well established. In addition to SMI related issues, the Committee also serves a useful role in involving staff in identifying and addressing organisational and work-related issues and challenges generally.

Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill

I am very disappointed that the promised Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill was not published during 1999. Since my appointment in November 1994 I have been in regular contact with the Department of Finance regarding the need to update the Ombudsman Act, 1980 and to extend the range of public bodies subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. In my Report for 1995 I mentioned that the drafting of an Amendment Bill was then underway. In virtually every Report since then I have expressed the hope that this Bill would be published and enacted shortly. Unfortunately, the present position seems to be very similar to that in 1995 i.e. the drafting of a Bill is currently underway.

The present Ombudsman Act was enacted in 1980 and since then major changes have occurred within the public service. The Ombudsman Act has not kept pace with these changes with the result that the public is confused as to what exactly falls within the Ombudsman's remit and what does not. The fact that the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 covers a much wider range of public bodies - with which I deal as Information Commissioner - adds to this confusion. The public can be forgiven for expressing surprise on being told that the Ombudsman cannot deal with, for example, the Environmental Protection Agency or the public voluntary hospitals but that the Information Commissioner can. In 1999 my Office received 1,301 invalid complaints, or 33% of the total complement. This very high invalid figure must to some extent reflect confusion as to what the public expects the Ombudsman can, or should, cover. I very much hope that the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill will be published and enacted before very much longer.

Public Access and Awareness

People wishing to complain to my Office may do so either in writing (including by e-mail), by telephone or by calling to our premises in Dublin. In order to facilitate people from outside Dublin we have, for some years, been operating monthly visits to certain Citizens Information Centres (CICs) as well as one-off visits to other towns and cities around the country.

During 1999 my Office paid monthly visits to CICs in Limerick, Galway, Cork, Waterford, Portlaoise and, from October 1999, to Coolock in Dublin. The purpose of these monthly visits is to enable members of the public to present their complaints directly to members of my staff. The CIC visits continue to prove most useful with a total of 566 new complaints made in 1999; of these, 388 were valid complaints and 178 (or 31%) were invalid.

Staff from my Office also made one-day visits to Tralee, Castlebar, Youghal, Roscommon, Longford, Kilkenny and Wexford. These visits are well advertised in advance to ensure that there is an awareness of the sort of work my Office does and to encourage people to present complaints which they might find difficult to put in writing. A total of 474 new complaints were made at these visits, of which 388 were valid complaints and 86 (or 18%) were invalid. Between the monthly CIC visits and the one-day visits a total of 776 valid, new complaints were received.

I am conscious of the need to make my Office as available as possible to the public and to ensure that, where a person lives, or the capacity to present a complex complaint issue in writing, should not unduly inhibit potential complainants. In this context I will be continuing during 2000 with the programme of monthly CIC visits as well as with a series of one-day visits to other towns and cities. Information on the Office, including details of the programme of regional and CIC visits for 2000, is published at www.irlgov.ie/ombudsman/ on the Internet.

Relations with Bodies within Remit

Relations with the public bodies within my jurisdiction continue to be generally good. This is not something which I take for granted and I am happy to record my appreciation of the genuine efforts made by the majority of public bodies in their dealings with my Office.

I reported last year on the number of times my Office was obliged to invoke Section 7 of the Ombudsman Act in order to have the body concerned provide a response or documentation on a complaint. A Section 7 notice requires the provision of the requested information by a specified date. I invoke this power only as a last resort and, ideally, I would prefer not to have to invoke Section 7 at all. Details of Section 7 notices issued during 1999 are in the table across:

Overall, the total of such notices is down to 27 instances for 1999 compared to 45 for 1998. However, I am concerned to note that local authorities now account for 85% of notices issued. In 1998 there were 13 notices issued against the Department of Agriculture & Food - the most notices for any individual body. During 1999 this figure was reduced to three, in the case of that Department, and all three issued in early 1999 prior to the publication of my 1998 Annual Report. I am glad to report that 1999 saw an improvement on the part of that Department in providing information to me and I acknowledge the high level of co-operation from the Department's Ombudsman liaison officer and its Customer Services Officer.

Contacts with other Ombudsman's Offices

My Office continues to maintain a high level of participation in its membership of the International Ombudsman Institute (IOI) and of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association (BIOA). In May I was pleased to host the 1999 Annual General Meeting of the BIOA as well as participating in other BIOA events during the year. As one of the four Regional Directors for Europe, I participated in the IOI's Board of Directors meeting in Pretoria in November 1999.

I feel it is very important that my Office should keep up with best practice internationally and one way of achieving this is to maintain contacts with other Ombudsmen. During the year I was delighted to receive visits from the UK Ombudsman (Parliamentary Commissioner), Mr. Michael Buckley, the Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, Mr. Gerry Burns, the Norwegian Ombudsman, Mr. Arne Fliflet and from Dr. Marten Oosting, National Ombudsman of the Netherlands. These visits provide my staff and myself with an opportunity to hear at first hand of interesting developments in the jurisdiction and working methods of other Ombudsman Offices.

These contacts also facilitate work-related co-operation between Ombudsman Offices. During the year I was pleased to be able to deal with a complaint on behalf of a French national, who had returned to France after a period of employment in Ireland and who had difficulty in obtaining details of his employment record in Ireland. The complaint was sent to me by the French Ombudsman (Le Médiateur de la République) who had received the original complaint. For my own part, I had occasion to refer a complaint to my Spanish counterpart (El Defensor del Pueblo) concerning alleged inaction by the Spanish authorities in dealing with the death of an Irish citizen in Spain. I also referred an issue to the European Ombudsman arising from a complaint made against the Department of Agriculture & Food and which also involved Teagasc (the Agriculture and Food Development Authority) and the European Commission. I understand the European Ombudsman subsequently initiated an �own initiative� investigation of the European Commission arising from this referral.

Telecom Éireann

Following its privatisation, Telecom Éireann (now Eircom) ceased to be within my jurisdiction from 15 July 1999. Between 1984 and 1999, my Office handled over 11,600 complaints against Telecom Éireann. In over 28% of the cases, the complaints were resolved in the customer's favour and a further 13% received assistance in dealing with their problem. The company attracted an extremely high number of complaints in the 1980s which peaked in 1987 when over 2,000 complaints were received. The numbers of complaints declined dramatically during the 1990s with the introduction of itemised billing and the Customer Charter.

In 1998 I received 227 complaints against Telecom and there were 113 complaints for the first six months of 1999. These more recent complaints have centred mainly on disputes concerning the charging of calls to �entertainment lines� and on difficulties in the provision of service. Both of these, I believe, are likely to continue to be a source of problems for the elecommunications companies and their clients in the future. Regulation of the telecommunications industry, including handling individual customer complaints, is now a matter for the Office of the Director of Telecommunications Regulation.

I would like to acknowledge the co-operation afforded my Office by Telecom Éreann over the years and, in particular, the work of those Telecom staff who were assigned to the �Ombudsman's duty�.

On-going Complaint Issues

The Department of Education and Science is responsible for a number of administrative schemes, with the School Transport Scheme being among the most important. This Scheme continues to be the subject of complaint to my Office and I have suggested to the Department on a number of occasions that it be put on a statutory basis. The advantage of operating on a statutory basis is that the objectives and governing criteria of the scheme are likely to be made clear and the likelihood of arbitrary decision-making is reduced.

My suggestion has not been accepted. The Secretary General of the Department has argued that the School Transport Scheme does not lend itself to being placed on a statutory footing. I cannot agree. I have come across instances of discriminatory decision-making in relation to this Scheme in the past - see in particular my 1998 Annual Report (at Page 9-10) - and the possibility of recurrences remains. My experience suggests that having a clear statutory basis for schemes does not necessarily impair flexibility. I urge the Department to reconsider this question.

In the case of the Department of Agriculture, Food and Rural Development there appears to be an on-going problem caused by delays in the headage and premia appeals unit. To be effective, an appeals system must not only give the appellant a fair hearing but must do so within a reasonable timespan. If a farmer succeeds in his appeal but must wait a year or more for the appeal decision, the delay alone is likely to have caused him hardship. However, I note the establishment of the Department's Customer Complaints Procedure and I welcome its declared intention to establish, on a statutory basis, a comprehensive appeals system for all of its clients.

Other Issues in Brief

- In November 1999 my Office hosted a seminar on complaint handling in a hospital environment. The seminar was held in conjunction with the Irish Society for Quality in Healthcare. I have a number of complaints on hands from hospital patients and/or their families and one of these complaints is currently the subject of an investigation under Section 4 of the Ombudsman Act, 1980. - I continue to receive a small number of complaints regarding failure to provide service in the Irish language. In recent Annual Reports I referred to the desirability of having a Language Act which would define the rights of Irish speakers as well as defining the obligations of state bodies in relation to these rights. Certainly, reliance on policy statements as a means of ensuring action in this area seems misplaced. This is borne out by one of the findings of a survey which I conducted in my capacity as Information Commissioner and which will be published later this year. The survey related to the publication of the information manuals (known as �Section 15 manuals�) required to be published under the Freedom of Information Act. Under Government Guidelines in relation to the use of Irish by public bodies, these manuals should be available in Irish as well as in English. The survey showed that, of 169 public bodies which had produced such manuals, only 12 (or 7%) had produced them in Irish as well as in English. - I responded early in 1999 to some suggestions that there is a need in Ireland for a tax Ombudsman, separate from my Office. The suggestions arose in the context of the granting of additional powers to the Revenue Commissioners and the related need to monitor how these powers are being used. To some extent the suggestions may have been based on lack of information on the existing jurisdiction and powers of my Office. The notion of having separate Ombudsman Offices for specific areas of public administration in a small country is, I feel, counterproductive and contrary to general international practice. Among the decided advantages of a single national Ombudsman is the significant range of powers which the Oireachtas has bestowed on that Office and the capacity such an Office has to take an overview of public administration and to develop and apply common standards of practice to all public bodies. It is of interest that the operation of public sector Ombudsmen in the United Kingdom is currently the subject of a major review involving consideration of a unified public sector Ombudsman scheme for England. (Indeed, as part of this review, officials from the UK Cabinet Office visited my Office to inform themselves about my functions and operating procedures.)

Complaint Statistics

I received a total of 3,986 complaints during 1999 compared to a total of 3,779 complaints in 1998. In addition to actual complaints my staff also dealt with 4,776 enquiries from members of the public. These are predominantly telephone enquiries and they typically involve giving basic information in relation to public bodies or in relation to the schemes and services of such bodies. In most instances the enquirer is referred to the appropriate agency for further assistance. My staff have always dealt with a high level of enquiries of this nature but in 1999, for the first time, we have actually recorded the extent of this activity. Taking complaints and enquiries together, almost 8,800 people contacted my Office during 1999.

Of the 3,986 complaints received in 1999 a total of 1,301 (or 33%) proved to be outside jurisdiction leaving a figure of 2,685 valid complaints received. The proportion of invalid complaints received has been increasing in recent years despite our best efforts at publicising the actual jurisdiction of the Office.

There have been some interesting changes in the distribution of valid complaints received within the main public service sectors. The table overleaf illustrates these changes:

*Telecom Éireann fell outside my remit from 15 July 1999

Whereas 1999 saw a small decline in complaints against the civil service overall, there are some significant changes within that sector. For example, complaints against the Department of Social, Community & Family Affairs (DSCFA) in 1999 were down 15% on the previous year; and within this DSCFA decline, there was a drop of 44% in complaints relating to unemployment payments. Undoubtedly, the DSCFA changes reflect the reduced unemployment figures of the past two years. A 1997 survey showed that three bodies [DSCFA, Department of Agriculture & Food and Revenue Commissioners] account for over 90% of public contacts with the civil service. As the table below shows, these three bodies taken together account for about 80% of all civil service complaints to my Office:

Complaints in the health board sector fell by 25% as between 1998 and 1999. Given the on-going debate about hospital services in Ireland, this drop may seem unusual. However, it must be borne in mind that my jurisdiction does not yet extend to the public voluntary hospital sector which provides about 40% of public general hospital beds in the country. A small, but perhaps interesting, statistic relates to complaints regarding access to medical records. Such complaints fell from 22 cases in 1998 to two cases in 1999 and this presumably reflects the impact of the Freedom of Information Act which now extends to health boards and to public voluntary hospitals.

During 1999 a total of 2,603 complaints were finalised leaving 999 complaints to be carried forward to 2000. Of the complaints completed, 18% were resolved (meaning that the complaint was upheld); 5% were partially resolved; in 22% of cases assistance was provided and in 39% of cases the complaint was not upheld. The remaining 16% of complaints dealt with were either withdrawn or the examination process was discontinued. (Beginning in 1999, my Office has introduced a new result category, �Partially Resolved�, to reflect outcomes in which a complaint is partly upheld and/or the complainant has received some tangible redress.) In effect, 45% of complainants were better off as a result of contacting my Office either on the basis that their complaint was resolved or partially resolved or on the basis of assistance provided.

Full statistical details on the activity of the Office in 1999 are set out in CHAPTER 5.

Back to contents