The Ombudsman - State agencies must be open to scrutiny
As a result decisions are being made behind closed doors in hundreds of government bodies and agencies that can have a devastating impact on the man and woman in the street. Yet, they are not open to public scrutiny through the office of the Ombudsman.
It is not surprising that in her annual report for 2006, the Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly is critical of the serious limitations that her office faces on a daily basis.
Following her third year in office, she argues forcefully that ministerial responsibility is being eroded by the growing number of State agencies that now operate beyond her remit. Functions that were traditionally within the remit of ministers and their departments have been hived off to new single-purpose agencies.
Effectively, the administration’s ingrained conservatism in the face of change has given rise to what can only be described as a blanket policy of concealment. This explains the aura of secrecy shrouding far-reaching decisions by faceless public servants in the corridors of power. It goes without saying the clouds of anonymity militate against the public interest especially as decisions can have such a devastating impact on people’s lives.
Aptly, the theme of Ms O’Reilly’s report is Getting It Right, a reference to the increasing failure of public bodies to observe the law. The walls of secrecy surrounding their activities means that unseen officials bend the law at the stroke of a pen, knowing they can get away without being brought to account.
In her report the Ombudsman criticises the failure of government bodies to protect the interests of tens of thousands of people. As things stand, 450 State agencies are outside her jurisdiction. They should be obliged to open their doors and allow the Ombudsman to scrutinise their decisions.
The report shows that almost 40% of the 2,245 valid complaints handled by her office involved civil service departments and offices, while 37% related to local authorities and 17% concerned the Health Service Executive.
The Ombudsman’s many achievements include: nursing home repayments for money illegally deducted from the elderly by the State; a home for an evicted woman and her son; and a financial allowance for an injured young girl whose faculties were impaired by failure of the health service to make adequate provision for her.
Frankly, it is astonishing that public bodies not open to investigation by her office include Fás, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Health and Safety Authority, the universities, and even the fishery boards.
With issues of immigration and asylum also outside her remit, thousands of people trying to access services, or awaiting decisions on asylum, are denied access to the Ombudsman. They would benefit hugely from a simple legal mechanism allowing them to appeal through her office.
Ireland has undergone dramatic change in recent times. But legislation has not kept pace with the inexorable process of transformation.
As Ms O’Reilly points out, legislation relating to her powers reflects a dated Ireland, out of step with other European states.
The new coalition also needs to deliver on the vital question of freedom of information. Following a promising start, ministers have systematically eroded the right of citizens to access information by making it costly and ever more difficult to query decisions.
The Ombudsman represents the ordinary people of Ireland. In the public interest, the government is duty bound to introduce whatever legislation is necessary to bring hundreds of State agencies under her penetrating gaze.
CONNECT WITH US TODAY
Be the first to know the latest news and updates
