Media Library

Speeches

ADDRESS BY HER EXCELLENCY, PRESIDENT MARY McALEESE AT THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE NEW OFFICES

ADDRESS BY HER EXCELLENCY, PRESIDENT MARY McALEESE AT THE OFFICIAL OPENING OF THE NEW OFFICES OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Minister, Members of the Oireachtas, Chief Justice, Members of the Judiciary, Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Ladies and Gentlemen,

I was delighted to be invited by the Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Kevin Murphy to formally open his new offices this afternoon. Just looking around me, I can see that the modern and bright surroundings are very much in keeping with the new range of functions which are being carried out here. On my way in, my attention was drawn to the very striking, and very modern piece of artwork in the reception area which, Kevin tells me, has divided his staff into two camps – those who adore it and those who detest it! Before I had an opportunity to voice my own opinion he quickly explained to me that the title of the piece, “Serein”, means, and I quote, “fine rain falling in tropical climates from cloudless sky”. I must confess that I was unable to see rain of any description in the picture and Kevin, on detecting this explained that the word “serein” is, in fact, French and signifies an impartial or dispassionate judgement! All I can say is that when his term of office expires, he clearly has a very promising career ahead of him as an art dealer!

The concept of Ombudsman is a relatively recent arrival to Ireland. Sweden first appointed an Ombudsman in 1809 and Finland followed suit in 1909. Denmark and the United Kingdom adopted the idea in the 1950s and the 1960s and in Ireland, the Office of the Ombudsman was established in 1984 with the appointment of Michael Mills as Ombudsman. The institution of Ombudsman has since spread worldwide with many of the emerging democracies giving it, not just statutory, but also constitutional status.

You all know that the function of an Ombudsman is to investigate complaints from the public about the services supplied by public bodies. It seems to me, however, that the Ombudsman has an even more fundamental role to play in ensuring that citizens have access to public administration in which they can have confidence. This confidence, which is the essential ingredient of a proper working democracy, can be secured only if public administration is open, transparent and accountable and if there are effective mechanisms in place to ensure this.

The Houses of the Oireachtas and the Courts are the constitutional mechanisms for protecting the citizen against injustice and arbitrary treatment and for ensuring the rights guaranteed to them under the Constitution. But with the increasing complexity of life and the growth in technology these institutions need to be supplemented and supported by statutory offices like the Ombudsman, the Information Commissioner and the Data Protection Commissioner which can operate flexibly and pragmatically while avoiding the adversarial approach of the courts system. If I might quote the first Danish Ombudsman, Stephen Hurwitz:

“The ombudsman system helps to emphasise the governmental services’ responsibility towards justice and efficient administration, large and small……It is the task of the Ombudsman to see to the best of his ability that all who hold authority retain a sense of responsibility towards the individual citizen.”

In recent years, public bodies, quite rightly, have begun to focus attention on the public and their rights as clients or consumers of public services. The Ombudsman’s role, however, is not simply a question of ensuring a better quality service to customers or clients. While obviously he has a shared interest with public bodies in ensuring better service, his interest goes deeper than that. If any section of the community feels that the system treats it unfairly, and that there is no accessible avenue of redress, then that confidence in public administration so essential to democracy will be missing. Greater efficiency and cost-effectiveness are, of course, key elements which the public service must pursue but it must never be forgotten that, unlike his or her counterpart in the private sector, the user of public services seldom has a choice of an alternative competitive supplier. Fair treatment is vital and must not be lost sight of when efficiency measures are being introduced. In addition, the pressures on individual public servants arising from greater commercialisation and greater personal accountability for performance must not lead to any diminution of public service values.

The Ombudsman is there to decide whether or not public bodies are guilty of maladministration. In trying to ensure that public servants are held accountable for their administrative decisions, the Ombudsman acts at a number of levels. At one level accountability for individual decisions is achieved by the examination and investigation of individual complaints and the provision of redress where justified. Since the Office was established, 46,000 complaints have been handled and in approximately 40% of cases some form of redress has been achieved. Examination of individual complaints often leads to the identification of systemic defects in procedures, approach or even attitudes and at this level valuable feedback can be given to the bodies within this remit. Procedures and systems can then be improved in order to ensure that particular complaints do not recur. There is, however, a further level to which he attaches particular importance. That is identifying, and seeking remedies for, deficiencies or injustices which have become endemic in the public service culture and which contribute to that “democratic deficit” which everyone admits exists and which alienates the citizen from the institutions of State.

His Annual Reports have been very well received by public servants generally. While he has not hesitated to criticise public bodies for wrongdoing, he has also taken great pains to offer them practical guidance on how to improve the quality of public administration. I might add at this point that my Office, thankfully, is not subject to the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction! The cynics among you cannot therefore accuse me of seeking to secure special favours from his Office!

It also seems to me that the Freedom of Information Act, 1997 which came into effect on 21 April for the civil service and related bodies and which will extend to local authorities and health boards on 21 October will require a radical change in public service ethos.

Members of the public will have the following new legal rights conferred on them:

  •  the right to seek access to information held by public bodies (including information in relation to themselves);
  •  the right to have personal information held by a public body amended where it is incorrect or misleading (and this right applies regardless of whether the material is held in a manual or a computer record);
  •  the right to seek reasons for decisions affecting themselves.

No doubt many complex and difficult decisions will arise for public bodies and for the Information Commissioner. But extending the right of the community to have access to information in the possession of public bodies and making Government in its widest sense more open to public scrutiny must surely improve the quality of our democracy and give citizens a greater feeling of participation in the political process. The rights of individual citizens are also greatly enhanced by their ability to have access except in very limited circumstances, to information about them held by public bodies, so that they may know the basis on which decisions which can fundamentally affect their lives are made and may have the opportunity of correcting information which is untrue or misleading. I wish all concerned with this radical piece of legislation every success.

Information is ow at the centre of all our activities. However, it is important that information is not distorted or biased and in that regard I have followed with interest the activities of the Referendum Commission and its efforts to ensure fairness in the debate on our two forthcoming referendums.

In conclusion, it seems to me that the opening of these new offices comes at a very appropriate moment. The Office of the Ombudsman has earned the confidence and trust of the Irish citizen and is now an invaluable addition to our democratic institutions. The Office has also won the respect and admiration of other Ombudsman Offices both among our European partners and on the international stage. The Office of the Ombudsman provides them with a means of redress against maladministration; the Office of the Information Commissioner protects their rights to access to official and personal information; the Public Offices Commission, also located in this building, oversees standards in public life and the Referendum Commission seeks to promote balanced public information campaigns in the lead up to Referendums.

The other side of the coin of public accountability of the institutions of State is the moral accountability of all citizens who have a right to vote, to use their democratic mandate and ensure their voice is heard. There are many stark examples throughout world history where the right to vote has been hard won. None of us should take it for granted. The forthcoming referenda are about our lives, our times, our futures – and, in particular, our childrens’ futures. We each have important choices to make. Every voice matters – but the voices of our young children who have no vote can only be heard if their mums, dads, aunts, uncles, brothers, sisters, grannies etc. make their way to the polling booth on Friday next and indicate their view – whatever that view may be and however it is informed or influenced.

I would like to congratulate Kevin Murphy and his staff for their excellent work to date and to wish them well for the future.

It is with great pleasure that I now unveil this plaque and declare these offices officially open.