• You are here:
• Home /
• Archived /
• 1995 Annual Report Press Release (13/06/96)

1995 Annual Report Press Release (13/06/96)

1995 Annual Report Press Release (13/06/96)

Press Release

Annual Report of the Ombudsman, 1995

13 June, 1996, 11am

This is Ombudsman Kevin Murphy's second Annual Report. In this report, in addition to describing the year's work and individual cases, he emphasises his increasingly proactive role in ensuring that public bodies give the citizens of this country the quality of service to which they are entitled. He makes the point that the public is entitled to be dealt with properly, fairly and impartially by the public service.

The report itself has changed, as Kevin Murphy promised last year. For the first time, the report is bilingual and this is a trend which he hopes will be followed by other public bodies. Also for the first time, he names individual local authorities and health boards in the case reports, except where to do so would have identified the complainant.

He also highlights the importance of administrative accountability which he says is the area in which both his office and the courts operate. He describes in detail the principles of good administration which guide him in his work and illustrates them by reference to the complaints which he examined during the year. He expresses the hope that greater awareness of these principles in the public service will lead to improved standards of public administration.

In the report the Ombudsman welcomes the recommendation of the Constitution Review Group to insert an Article into the Constitution to guarantee the independence of the Office of Ombudsman.

He welcomes the Government's proposals to extend his remit to public voluntary hospitals and to many other public bodies which are at least 50% publicly funded.

He will also be responsible for monitoring the proposed new Administrative Procedures Act which will require public bodies to meet higher standards of administration in their dealings with the public.

The Government's proposals for a Freedom of Information Act are viewed by Kevin Murphy as an invaluable addition to the rights of the citizen and he emphasises the importance of information in the citizen's dealings with public bodies - without information, he states, citizens cannot even begin to ask how and why decisions affecting them were made. The Office continues to add to its experience in this area through dealing with complaints relating to the Regulations on Access to Information on the Environment. In this Report the Ombudsman outlines two cases involving long delays in releasing information under these Regulations and makes the point that much work still has to be done in creating a culture disposed to releasing rather than withholding information.

During 1995 Kevin Murphy received a total of 2,879 complaints compared to a total of 3,160 complaints the previous year. Of this number, 629 were outside his jurisdiction leaving a balance of 2,250 valid complaints. There was a carry-over of 809 complaints from 1994 resulting in a total of 3,059 valid complaints to be dealt with in 1995.

A total of 2,181 complaints were finalised in 1995. Of this, 403 were resolved in favour of the complainant and in a further 542 cases assistance was provided, so some degree of redress was obtained in over 43% of cases finalised. A total of 842 complaints were not upheld and a further 394 were either discontinued or withdrawn by the complainant.

A breakdown of the number of complaints within jurisdiction handled during the year shows that 47% (almost half) concerned civil service departments and offices. Of these civil service related complaints, 49% involved the Department of Social Welfare, 20% concerned the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry and 11% were against the Revenue Commissioners. Of the remaining 53% of complaints, 25% concerned Local Authorities, 13% related to the Health Boards, 12% to Telecom Éireann and 3% to An Post.

The full text of the Ombudsman's 1995 Annual Report is available on Internet (url:http://www.irlgov.ie/ombudsman/). The Ombudsman can also be contacted by email at ombudsman@ombudsman.irlgov.ie

Individual cases this year include:-

• A case where a complaint against the Department of Education was received from a woman whose son believed he had been incorrectly awarded too low a grade in a particular subject in the leaving certificate. The Ombudsman is not equipped to conduct independent assessments of exam papers but when he decided to pursue the matter by ensuring that fair and reasonable procedures had been followed in the case, he discovered that the Department had already, in error, destroyed the script. Following the Ombudsman's intervention, the Department agreed to change their procedures so that in future all examination scripts will be retained until 30 November of the examination year and all scripts which have been the subject of appeals will be retained for one year after the result of the appeal has issued or a year after the correspondence has ceased, whichever is later.
• An old age pensioner who qualified for a Non-Contributory Old Age Pension in 1973 was unaware that he should have been claiming for his wife as an adult dependant since the introduction of an adult dependant allowance by the Department of Social Welfare in 1974. It was only in 1993, when a Department official called to him on separate business that he discovered that he should have been claiming for his wife since 1974. Initially the Department refused to pay arrears but, following an examination by the Ombudsman, and because of several factors unique to this particular case, the Department eventually agreed to pay the full arrears which amounted to �17,000.
• A complaint when Telecom Éireann required a subscriber, living in local authority rented accommodation, to provide a second guarantee for her account, even though she had paid her accounts satisfactorily since her first guarantee and provision of the telephone. Telecom withdrew its requirement for a second guarantee when the Ombudsman became involved with the case but as the guarantee in this case appeared to have been treated differently to Telecom standard practice, the Ombudsman recommended a credit of �100 to the complainant's account. Telecom accepted this recommendation.
• A chicken hatchery owner who complained that a delay on the part of the Department of Agriculture and Food in informing him of the introduction of a new EU Directive, on animal health conditions governing trade in poultry and hatching eggs, contributed to the failure of his business. His premises did not comply with the terms of the directive and he said he had been told that he would not be allowed to renew his licence or continue to trade after the introduction of the new Regulations. The Department's view was that the onus was on the complainant to keep himself informed of legal requirements for the operation of his business. However, an investigation by the Ombudsman found that the Department had not taken reasonable steps to inform all hatcheries of the imminence or implications of the Directive, that the larger hatcheries had received more favourable treatment by the Department in relation to information on the Directive and that therefore the complainant had been discriminated against by the Department. He recommended, in total, a sum of �8,800 in mitigation of the complainant's loss and for the inconvenience and stress caused by the Department's actions. The Department accepted this recommendation.
• Various complaints received from people who have been refused tax relief for forms of medical treatment not recognised by the Revenue Commissioners. The cases highlighted by the Ombudsman this year involve psychotherapy services. Unless these services are administered by a registered medical practitioner, as defined in legislation, or the person is referred to a psychotherapist by a registered medical practitioner for "diagnostic treatment" (again as defined by the legislation), they will not receive tax relief on the cost of the treatment. The legislation in this area is almost 30 years old and the Ombudsman notes and welcomes the fact that a review of this legislation is now being undertaken by the Department of Finance, in conjunction with the Revenue Commissioners.
• A complaint was made to the Ombudsman about the failure of Mayo County Council to release information under the Access to Information on the Environment Regulations. The requester wanted data on effluent discharges from an industrial plant. The Council refused the request because of concerns about the use to which the requester might put the information and because the industrial plant felt that the release of information would be detrimental to its commercial interests. As soon as the Ombudsman started his investigation, the Council released the information in question. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman proceeded with his investigation and concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the Council's original decision to withhold the information on the basis of protecting the company's commercial interests, that the Council had not conducted a full assessment of all available evidence in reaching its decision, and that public bodies cannot pick and choose between requesters for information under the Regulations. He also expresses concern about the delay which his staff experienced in their dealings with the Council and the delay of some sixteen months in releasing this information. The Council accepted his recommendations for improving its procedures for dealing with similar cases in future.
• Over the years, the Ombudsman has received numerous complaints about the administration of the Domiciliary Care Allowance (DCA) and Disabled Persons Maintenance Allowance (DPMA) Schemes by the various Health Boards. Details of some of these are outlined in the Annual Report. Two cases concern failures by the Eastern Health Board and the Southern Health Board to provide adequate information to parents with children who would have qualified for DCA but who were not advised by the Health Boards to apply. When they eventually found out about the allowance, the Boards refused to backdate the allowance to the date when their children would have been eligible. Following the intervention of the Ombudsman, the Boards agreed to pay arrears to the date of qualification (�7,546 in the case of the Eastern Health Board, �9,672 in the case of the Southern). However in order to address the recurring problems which have arisen with the Health Boards in the administration of these schemes, the Ombudsman met with the Chief Executive Officers of the Health Boards. He has since issued a memorandum, which they have circulated to their staff, setting out what he considers to be relevant factors in relation to the award of DCA and DPMA.

Further Information:- Pat Whelan, Geraldine Fitzpatrick - Office of the Ombudsman, 52 St. Stephen's Green, Dublin 2; tel (01) 6785222; fax (01) 6610570

Agriculture add-in ->
Education add-in ->
Environment/Local Authority add-in ->
Social Welfare/Health Boards add-in ->