• You are here:
• Home /
• Speeches

Speeches

Address at MORI Ireland Survey Launch (23.09.2004)

Address by Ms Emily O'Reilly (Ombudsman and Information Commissioner) at Launch of MORI Ireland's Trust in Public Institutions Survey

I would first of all like to thank MORI Ireland for inviting me to address you here this evening, and to congratulate the organisation on the publication of this preliminary report on trust in our public institutions, at a point when a great deal of our national, public debate centres on that very phenomenon. I look forward to a more detailed study in time.

As Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, as well as an ex-oficio member of the Standards in Public Office Commission, I deal on a daily basis with the concept of trust in public institutions.. As Ombudsman I deal with complaints from members of the public dissatisfied at their treatment by the public bodies under my remit, including Government departments and offices, Local Authorities, Health Boards and their hospitals and An Post.

The Garda Síochána are not part of my remit, but a proposed Amendment Bill should bring the voluntary hospitals, Fás, third level institutions and many other publicly funded bodies inside my jurisdiction.

As Information Commissioner, I deal with appeals in relation to the release of records by public bodies under the Freedom of Information legislation. The Standards Commission supervises the operation of the Ethics and Electoral Acts which deals with inter alia, political funding, political donations, electoral spending limits, codes of conduct, interest disclosures and so on.

All three offices have their philosophical roots in the belief that good governance in a democracy is enabled when those who are governed are given adequate information about the decision making processes that affect their lives, have an independent mediator to listen to and impartially adjudicate on their complaints against public bodies, and are confident that safeguards are in place to protect against political corruption. The three offices themselves amount to quite an armoury, and are rapidly being added to with the recent introduction of sectoral ombudsman including an Ombudsman for Children and an Ombudsman for Pensions. A Garda Ombudsman Commission is also promised as is a Defence Forces Ombudsman and a Financial Services Ombudsman.

So clearly Government believes that trust is important to the smooth running of a democracy, equally clearly the proliferation of new Ombudsman and Ombudsman type bodies, suggests that there are large gaps in public trust that need to be filled. This latest piece of research, which deals with local institutions, i.e. local gardaí, local hospitals, and local councils touches on those points where the public comes into its most personal contact with public institutions.

At first glance, given the widespread belief that the quality of our health service is poor, plus the recent controversies involving certain members of the Garda Síochána, it would seem surprising that those surveyed evince such high levels of trust in their local Gardaí and local hospitals. But they do.

74% trust their local hospitals and 70% trust their local Gardaí. I will leave it to the experts in Mori to spell out why this is, but I suspect two particular factors are at play. One is that in small, local communities, Gardaí, doctors, nurses and other healthcare providers are known personally to the people they serve and that in itself helps to build trust. Personal connection is vital. The other is, as other surveys have shown, that people are capable of separating out the individual parts of a huge bureaucracy and while they may not trust say, the national health service, they may have every confidence in the local surgeon, or district nurse.

Some of this analysis however, begins to crumble slightly when it comes to ratings for the local councils. Fifty one percent of respondents expressed distrust in their local body, compared with 48% expressing trust. Could this be because, unlike the Gardaí and the local hospital, a greater number of people have greater day to day contact with their local council given the range of often vital services they provide, and therefore perhaps have a sharper, more critical focus on the quality of those services?

It is of course important to differentiate between two kinds of trust. The dictionary provides two definitions, trust as confidence in the truth or honesty of someone or something, and trust in the confident belief in someone or something's ability.

So while you may well trust in the honesty of your ninety-year old next door neighbour, you may have zero trust in her ability to shin up a drain pipe and save you from a burning building. I submit that the trust in local councils that we are talking about here, is trust in its efficiency and trust in its overall ability to give a good, friendly, informed, uncomplicated, and speedy service, rather than trust in its honesty or integrity.

When I set about preparing this address, I asked myself one particular question. Why does trust matter when it comes to public institutions. If my trust falters in the ability of the local dry-cleaners to give me good service, I have any number of alternatives to choose from. But the same is not true - by and large -of the services provided by the local council. I may not like say, the rubbish collection policies of my council, but I have no choice but to continue to use them. If I'm on a local authority housing list, I've no choice but to go along with the authority's housing allocation policy. And If I know that, so does the public body, so why indeed should trust matter to them? They have the ultimate captive market, trust or no trust. As one woman said in a recent UK survey in this issue, "You can withdraw your business, but public services you cannot, you have no ultimate threat."

Some answers suggested themselves. Trust matters even more in local councils and certain other public bodies, precisely because there IS no alternative. Those who are wholly dependent on a particular service provider need an even greater level of trust in that body than they would in a private body with lots of eager competitors. Equally, and arguably, the responsibility of those who hold that public trust is also greater than that of those who work in the private sector.

Research carried out by MORI into the nature of trust in private and public institutions in the UK two years ago, provided further insights.

Does trust matter? Yes, came the response because if people lose trust, they disengage and that affects the public body's ability to provide adequate services to all of the people in need. If trust is lost in the police force, for example, fewer crimes will be reported. If elderly people lose trust in the providers of shelter and fuel and accommodation, their needs will go unmet and their lives greatly diminished as a result. Without trust there is greater suspicion, a poorer sense of community and of community values, and a greater sense of disconnect from the wider society.

Quoting from the same, I stress, UK survey, one woman said, "I absolutely dread having to deal with the council, absolutely dread it, If I can possibly avoid it, I will." Another woman said, "I just don't bother with the council because I know it is going to be long and they are going to stress my head out."

And without trust in public bodies and key service providers, there is greater anxiety, worry, and fear particularly among the more vulnerable members of our society. Consider the added strain on an elderly person, or a sick person, or a person in need of accommodation, if on top of the absence of vital services, they have little trust in the public body to provide them at all. Even if that lack of trust is ultimately misplaced, it is a reality to them, and one which impacts negatively on their lives.

On a wider, national level, diminishing trust can endanger the very nature of a true, participatory democracy. A recent OECD report noted that "several driving forces have forced countries to focus attention on strengthening their relations with citizens, including erosion of voter turnout in elections, falling membership in political parties and declining confidence in key public institutions.

What determines trust? Obviously, personal experience of an institution is one, or the experience of family and friends. And within that direct experience, there are certain forces at play that determine whether an individual will trust it or not. Sometimes it can be something as simple as the telephone manner of the person they first come in contact with.

Is it friendly engaging, is there a perceived willingness to help? Another factor is the ability of a public body to put simple, uncomplicated systems in place for getting in contact with the service one needs, rather than being given the run around through several departments, voicemail messages, and recorded instructions before slamming down the phone in despair and disgust. Much of this comes down to good management, putting systems in place from the bottom up to make sure that all sections work harmoniously, that the efforts of the entire body are directed towards a shared goal.

From my own experience as Ombudsman, the willingness of a public body, to own up to a mistake, to rectify it, and to put measures in place to make sure it doesn't happen again is critical in engaging the trust of the public. My office has constantly urged public bodies to set up their own internal complaints systems, and has assisted them in so doing. This not only deals with the particular complaint, but allows for a feedback mechanism so that the public body can rectify any systemic failures in their operations.

I would like to return to the broader context to the trust issue. Many governments throughout the world are engaged in public service modernisation programmes. At the risk of oversimplification, there are two principal aims underpinning these programmes The first is to make public services more responsive to the needs of the people; the second is to improve the country's international competitiveness.

The link between the second objective and public service modernisation is fairly obvious - the public service should facilitate economic growth and it should be easy for the competitive sector to do business with it.

The purpose of the first objective is, perhaps, somewhat more esoteric but, nevertheless, equally compelling. In a modern democratic state, people expect to be treated fairly and equitably in relation to their dealings with the public service. If they are not so treated, their trust and confidence in the system of government, or more specifically, the government of the day, can be easily undermined. Governments across the world have not been slow to recognise the political imperative which underpins this public demand and the advantages to be gained from modernisation programmes.

And, indeed, these sentiments are echoed in the opening paragraph of the MORI Report in the following terms:

"The issue of trust goes to the heart of contemporary public service modernisation strategies throughout Europe and beyond. These strategies are largely informed by the belief that increasing the quality of public services will lead to increasing trust in public administration".

And thus in every respect, the fostering of trust is truly a whole-of-government issue.

My Office's long-term objective is to improve the quality of decision-making in the public service. I will now take a few minutes to explain how my role as Ombudsman and Information Commissioner contributes to the achievement of this objective.

The Work of the Ombudsman's Office

What is an Ombudsman?

The International Handbook of the Ombudsman has this definition : "The Ombudsman is an independent and non-partisan officer...often provided for in the Constitution, who supervises the administration. He/she deals with specific complaints from the public against administrative injustice and maladministration. He/she has the power to investigate, report upon, and make recommendations about individual cases and administrative procedures. ..He/she seeks solutions to problems by a process of investigation and conciliation. His/her authority and influence derive from the fact that he/she is appointed by and reports to one of the principal organs of state, usually either the parliament or the chief executive."

My Office was established under the Ombudsman Act, 1980 and opened in January 1984. The Office is based on a model which is recognised across the world and, in very many respects, what my Office does is replicated in the work of other national Ombudsman Offices across Europe, in Australia, New Zealand and in Canada.

What I deal with are allegations of maladministration on the part of a public body which have adversely affected the complainant. Where this is found to have been the case, I will recommend suitable redress. The Oireachtas has given my Office quite substantial powers which include the power:

• to require any person (including the public bodies in question) to provide my Office with any information, document or thing which may be of relevance;
• to require any person (including officials of the public body concerned) who may have information of relevance to attend before me.

My Office does not have the power to nullify the impugned 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 the Office has an excellent track record in having its recommendations, following investigations under the 1980 Act, implemented by public bodies. Another consideration is that the present arrangements enable a great deal of case work to be conducted on a relatively informal basis which is usually to the advantage both of the body and of the complainant.

There are some specific exclusions from the Ombudsman's 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, citizenship and rights of residence of non-E.U. nationals ). In a European or international context, it is quite unusual to find a national ombudsman whose jurisdiction does not cover these areas.;
• actions taken in the administration of prisons;
• issues which have already been adjudicated upon by a court or where court action has been initiated;
• issues in relation to which there is a specific statutory right of appeal to an independent tribunal or appeal body (e.g. An Bord Pleanála on planning issues).

Which Issues?

My Office receives about 3,500 complaints each year of which about 2,500 fall within jurisdiction. Roughly 43% of the valid complaints involve civil service bodies, about 35% relate to local authorities and about 22% involve the health boards. Social welfare complaints (e.g. relating to pension entitlements, unemployment and sickness payments) account for almost half of all the civil service complaints. In the case of the local authorities, housing complaints are the biggest single category. In the case of the health boards, the biggest complaint issue is entitlement to Supplementary Welfare Allowance.

The typical complainant has been refused a payment or a grant or believes he/she has been paid less than his/her entitlement. However, not all complaints have to do with payments; issues to do with customer service (e.g. delays, failure to explain decisions) and with alleged failure to fulfil a statutory function (e.g. planning enforcement) also feature regularly.

About 16% of cases are fully resolved to the complainants satisfaction but when account is taken of partially resolved cases and other assistance provided, about 50% of complainants are better off as a result of having contacted the Office.

Dealing with Complaints

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. In addition, my staff are available to the public through a regular programme of visits to regional centres and also on a monthly basis at Citizen Information Centres in Cork, Limerick, Galway as well as in Coolock, Dublin. And at this point let me say how much I appreciate the very strong partnership that exists between my Office, the advisory body, Comhairle, and the CIC network which has greatly facilitated access to our services at local level.

Details of a complaint will always be put to the public body concerned. Depending on the response, my staff may examine the body's files on the issue and will often also discuss the case with the relevant officials. Having heard from the body, and considered the matter, my Office will then generally discuss the case further with the complainant. To some extent, this procedure functions as a form of mediation and it can often result in a settlement acceptable all round. Only in a small percentage of cases does it become necessary to resort to a written investigation report with formal findings and recommendations. Such formal reports are necessary where the adverse effect to the complainant appears, on the face of it, to be significant and where the body is unwilling to take action to mitigate the claimed adverse effect. Formal reports are also resorted to where the issues raised are of general significance and where principles or interpretations of wider application may be developed.

Promoting Good Practice

An Ombudsman serves the public not just by dealing with individual complaints but also by promoting good practice within the public service. The Ombudsman's Annual Report has always served to highlight practices or laws which are unfair in their consequences. In more recent years my Office has taken the initiative to highlight and actively promote good administrative practice. The 1994 Annual Report set out certain Principles of Good Administration which should guide public bodies in their dealings with the public. These principles assert, for example, that:

• powers must only be used for the specific purpose for which they are given;
• powers must be applied with objectivity and impartiality - factors not relevant to the particular case must be disregarded;
• unfair discrimination must be avoided - like cases must be treated in like manner.

These principles were first developed in the 1980s by a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe and it is not at all difficult to see how relevant they still are today.

The 1994 Report also set out a list of rights which people should be able to invoke in their dealings with public bodies. These include: the right to be heard, the right to receive sufficient information, and the right to be given reasons for decisions that affect one. These themes were developed further in "The Ombudsman's Guide to Standards of Best Practice for Public Servants". This Guide sets out a set of standards under the separate headings of dealing with people "properly", "fairly" and "impartially". The guide, which was updated and reissued in March of last year, is set out under four headings - dealing with people properly, fairly, openly and impartially. The revised guide takes account of more recent developments such as freedom of information, ethics and electoral legislation, the principles of quality customer service and the provision of redress. The Office has also published a Guide to Internal Complaints Systems and a guidance note on the provision of redress entitled "Redress - Getting it wrong and putting it right". The role of promoting best practice is one which I am very keen to further develop during my tenure as Ombudsman.

And here I want to refer to the survey report which says that trust is often mainly about satisfaction with services and keeping promises. It identifies six core factors that influence trust across the public bodies surveyed. These are as follows:

• keeping promises
• learning from mistakes
• what friends and family say about the service
• staff treating people well
• being interested in people's views
• quality of public leaders and managers

It is not difficult to see how the development of internal complaints systems in public bodies and proper redress mechanisms are concrete ways of giving effect to these key components of trust. And although much progress has been made in recent years, the development of internal complaints systems in public bodies in Ireland is still a relatively new concept. Complaints systems are better developed in Britain and this may explain why their hospitals and local authorities are rated relatively higher than in Ireland.

Relating to the Courts

One of the reasons for establishing an ombudsman's office is to provide an alternative to the courts. Only the courts can administer justice, in the full sense of that term. Like the courts, the Ombudsman is concerned with the administration of justice in the broadest sense. The Ombudsman's remit is narrower than that of the courts - confined to complaints made against the public service - and my mode of operation is different to that of the courts - usually inquisitorial rather than adversarial. Many of the issues raised with my Office could, in principle, be taken before the courts. In practical terms, before my Office opened in 1984, such cases were not to any great extent being taken to court. This may be a reflection of cost considerations, access, the need for professional advice and, indeed, the procedural complexities associated with using the courts. To this extent, my Office represents an alternative to, while at the same time complementing, the work of the courts. Availing of the services of the Ombudsman does not preclude a subsequent court action. But where the complainant sees that his or her case has got full consideration from the Ombudsman, and particularly if there has been redress provided, this must reduce the demands made on the courts.

My Office differs from the courts in a number of important respects. Perhaps the main differences are:

• the Ombudsman's method is usually inquisitorial rather than adversarial.
• the Ombudsman's service is relatively informal and does not give rise to any costs for the complainant.
• the Ombudsman is often able to invoke a wider set of decision-making criteria, and may often have more flexibility and discretion, than is the case with the courts.
• the Ombudsman's recommendations are usually published in an annual report whereas many cases going to court are settled in confidence on the steps of the court.
• the Ombudsman's recommendations are not legally binding but they have a strong moral and persuasive status; in addition to redress for the complainant, they often focus on procedural changes within public bodies.

The Office of the Information Commissioner

Last year, the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act received something of a body-blow when its scope was narrowed and up front fees were introduced for access to non-personal information. The Act was introduced in 1997 as a key element of the Government's modernisation programme and, despite the body-blow, its role in this respect remains just as important as ever. It covers over 450 public bodies and An Garda Síochána is probably the only significant public body which is not yet within its scope.

Last year, almost 16,000 FOI requests were dealt with by public bodies and 70% of these were granted in full or in part. My Office accepted some 900 appeal cases representing 6% of all FOI requests. Of the 700 cases completed by my Office last year, I affirmed the public body's decision in 37% of cases, I varied it in 7% of cases and reached a settlement in a further 21% of cases. The remaining cases were either discontinued or withdrawn.

The role of the Act in improving trust in public bodies cannot be overstated. Subject to the exemptions in the Act, it gives people direct access to information, both personal and non-personal, in the possession of public bodies. It also gives the public direct access to named decision-makers in public bodies. This is a very significant development in a system which was traditionally characterised as a faceless bureaucracy bedevilled by clientelism. The Act has also given an expanded role to the media as the "eyes and ears of the people".

No doubt some of you may argue that media usage of the Act has actually undermined public trust in the institutions of government. It is true that the media have been successful in exposing individual examples of bad decision-making which have been embarrassing to government and/or the administration. But the longer-term implications of these exposés is clear: decisions relating to public tendering, public appointments, expenses of public servants and Oireachtas members and many other issues are now potentially matters of public record and, in turn, public scrutiny. And as a consequence, these and many other matters are the subject of more rigorous decision-making standards.

Conclusion

While an Ombudsman Act and an FOI Act are important legislative mechanisms for engendering trust they are only one part of the solution. The survey report correctly stresses the importance of high quality leaders and managers and, indeed, "people issues" such as the need for staff to take the time and trouble to talk to and listen to their clients. These latter issues lie at the heart of a genuine quality customer service approach. While the public service has invested considerable time and effort in developing customer service action plans and charters, the survey results suggest that there is still much room for improvement. But one of the real benefits of this survey is the opportunity to benchmark these results against future surveys and in this way to track progress towards further improving trust in our public institutions.

Back to contents