Ombudsman’s report - Get it right or be held responsible

The year 2011 was the busiest so far for the Office of the Ombudsman with some 3,600 complaints, according to the annual report presented to the Oireachtas yesterday.

Emily O’Reilly, the ombudsman, blamed the “ongoing effect of the economic downturn for the increase in complaints”.

A rise in the number of complaints is often a cause for alarm, but in this case it may also be a reflection of growing confidence in the power of the office to redress grievances. Ms O’Reilly warned that decision-makers need to be clearer about the basis for their decisions in matters like the denial of medical cards or carer’s allowances.

In one case she found that the father of a suicidal girl with mental problems was denied a carer’s allowance despite clear evidence of his entitlement to the payment. Following the intervention of the ombudsman, the decision was reversed and arrears of €10,287 were made to the father.

Public officials responsible for such decisions need to be clear about people’s entitlements, and they should base their decisions on the actual evidence. Where decision-makers have an element of discretion, it is important that they should explain their decisions clearly to the people involved. In too many cases they were adding to the stress of those involved by being opaque about their entitlements of the applicants.

One of the more high-profile cases involved a complaint about a flawed investigation of a non-accidental injury of a boy in 2000 without informing his parents. A scan at Our Lady’s Hospital, Crumlin, detected internal bruising in the boy’s head, and the staff contacted external health board staff for advice. The parents were not informed of the investigation. They felt that staff members suspected them of being responsible and treated them poorly as a result.

The parents “were not provided with an opportunity to clear their good name”, according to the report. Had they been told, they felt they could have allayed the concerns, and the hospital could then have focused exclusively on the boy’s medical care.

The CEO of the hospital refused to meet the parents in 2008 to discuss the case. Following the intervention of the Office of the Ombudsman, the CEO apologised, thus indicating that the parents had been exonerated.

In another case, Waterford County Council accepted responsibility for the destruction of 11 beehives last year, but insisted that the Department of Agriculture should pay the €349.30 in compensation. After the intervention of the ombudsman, the council paid the compensation.

Various cases outlined in the report show that the ombudsman’s office provides an avenue for redress of grievances that result from bureaucratic incompetence or indifference. In the public interest, officials should do their jobs conscientiously. They should get it right, or be held responsible, because such bureaucratic incompetence or indifference is not only a betrayal of society but also of their own conscientious colleagues.