When speaking the last day I mentioned the importance of this Bill, which has my wholehearted support and is long overdue. This is not a novel idea but one which has been adopted since the early part of this century in other countries and has made its way into most countries of the western world since then.
People may ask why an ombudsman is necessary. It is quite clear with the vast area of bureaucracy, the vast Government agencies and the large number of semi-State bodies, that it is important that people have recourse to agencies who can examine their case fully, who will have access to both sides of the coin as it were. We in this House can put down parliamentary question and write to Departments and take up cases in this way, but we cannot have access to what may be in the files and this always casts a doubt on whether we are meeting the case. Once there is a doubt in the mind of the public it behoves us to eradicate that doubt. I am certain that when the ombudsman is appointed initially we will get a number of complaints, possibly some of them frivolous, but when the matter settles down he will not have a very large volume of work. One of the effects will be that once he is appointed people in the various Departments, knowing they have somebody looking over their shoulder, will want to be a little more meticulous to ensure that what they are doing is done properly. That will cut down complaints, and that is important. I am not casting doubts on officials here. The officials we have are of a very high standard, but mistakes can be made which must be rectified and the ombudsman will have responsibility for that.
I want to come back to the area of local authorities and State bodies. It is important that they should come under the ombudsman from day one. The local authorities in themselves have a mechanism to which their members have tremendous access at local authority level and they can put down motions for consideration by their various committees and get at a lot of the problems there and solve them. That is not the case with the health boards. Large numbers of people are affected by the activities of the health boards and how they deal with problems. The health boards should be taken under the ombudsman straight away because to some degree they are isolated and in isolation they are not easy to get at and can stand on their dignity. I will be looking at this on Committee Stage to see what can be done to ensure that they will come into it very early.
With the growing numbers of semi-State bodies it is important that they are identified closely with the ombudsman. I mentioned on the last day that in the report it was intended that a two-thirds majority of both Houses would be required to remove a Member. The Constitution does not permit this and says that it must be by a simple majority. This is regrettable and is an example of where we require a constitutional change. The ombudsman must be seen to be above reproach and his should not be seen as a political appointment. Where a simple majority applies it can—I am not saying it would—be seen as being a political appointment vested in the Government of the day to make that appointment. I do not think that that is what is intended. We should consider what can be done to meet this wish of the all-party Committee who considered this matter and who were broadly in agreement with the whole aspect of this Bill. It will be a pity if their wishes cannot be met. We are all sincere in the view that this is a very important step we are taking, that it must start on the right note and that the man selected must be seen to be above reproach. The requirement of a two-thirds majority to remove him would give the feeling that there is impartiality here. That is why it is a little disturbing that we cannot meet what I suggest is a pretty simple requirement. I am not too happy about this.
The ombudsman will have a beneficial effect right across the board in the sense that his reports, which he will be laying before the House, will have the effect of streamlining Departments and of eradicating a lot of the problems that can for one reason or another become built into Departments and systems, and because they have been there for a long time and tradition has gone with them, they have not been removed. If, through the department of the ombudsman and his office, they are seen as an irritation and a cause of a large number of complaints, then he will make the recommendations and his recommendations should be accepted by the Departments. The ombudsman is a guardian of the rights of John Citizen, an administrator of justice. Given all that and the sense of impartiality, the ordinary man, the small man as we call him, can have his grievances aired. People of wealth and position can by their very position use influence and power and be seen to use them in order to gain privilege. It may be what they are entitled to, but because of their position and wealth they can and do exercise certain influences, whereas the ordinary citizen is depending on the day-to-day operation and hoping that a letter to his Department or a visit to his public representative can solve his problem. That is a haphazard situation, not fair or seen to be fair. A citizen will now be able to write to or call and state his case at the office of the ombudsman and will feel happier that his case is being processed to the full. Grievances, however small, are often magnified in the mind of the individual concerned, and unless they are cleared up properly probably cause feelings of discontent. I have no doubt that the new system will eliminate this.
The ombudsman is there to protect the interests of citizens and ensure that when a serious problem arises the citizen has a platform to ventilate his case and seek justice. I do not anticipate any hornets' nest being unearthed as a result of the appointment of an ombudsman. That is not what it is intended to do. Basically, it is intended to give freer access to the public to a right to be heard, which is important. Justice must not only be done but be seen to be done, and the only way that can be done is by giving people this facility.
The public are being more and more involved in public administration whether income tax, social welfare or physical planning, and more tensions and frustrations can build up for the ordinary man in the street as a result. If these emotions build up without the safeguard and protection of an ombudsman you tend to get a breakdown in respect for administration. That would be a pity. That is another reason why it is important that the office of ombudsman should operate as soon as possible. The selection of the first office holder for this appointment is very important. He will tend to set the pattern thereafter. He will have to be a person of humanity and warmth, accustomed to dealing with people, a person of broad common sense, a commodity sadly lacking in the present day world: it does not seem to abound any more.
The application of common sense solves many problems. I hope we shall have this type of person appointed rather than a person able to administer laws and justice as we see this done in other areas. We are not talking about a court but about people's human problems and frustrations. That is why it is important that we set the right tone in selecting a person for this job. I look forward to seeing who it will be, because once a pattern is set and standards established these tend to be followed in the future.
We have had sufficient time to think about the matter. In 1975 this suggestion appeared in a Private Members Motion. It is now May 1980 and five years have elapsed since the proposal first came to the House. We have all had time to reflect on what we want and expect. Basically, I expect that we shall have simplicity and accessibility and that the office will not be developed as in other areas, that it will be as informal as possible, easy for people to deal with. People should feel that it is there for them and exists as their office for their complaints. If we look at it like that we shall be establishing the right tone and attitude at the very beginning.
As a member of the All-Party Com-mittee one thing that came across quite clearly was that all Members desired to see this institution operating effectively in a very humane and easy way. That is what we want to see. If it begins like that it will set a very high standard, and I would hope that this human approach would percolate through all Departments, because in many Departments and public service agencies there is a lack of the human touch, possibly because of the rush and bustle of business: rules and regulations are of paramount importance and the public of lesser importance. That is disheartening but it is a reality. We must try to humanise administration and establish a humane basis of operating. The important aspect of this new office, in my opinion, is that it should operate in this way. If it does that it will do away with many of the niggardly problems, doubts, suspicions and distrusts of many people.
I am glad people will have direct access to the ombudsman. In the United Kingdom the public must approach the politicians. I would be totally opposed to that system because the whole idea of an ombudsman is that he be independent, not answerable to the Government. No doubt public representatives will also have access to the ombudsman but the important thing is that the public will deal directly with him.
This is an important Bill, but we have to include local authorities, health boards and State-sponsored bodies from the beginning. If we are serious about the office of ombudsman we must start the right way. I realise it would only require orders to bring in these various bodies, but the tone and the pattern set from the beginning is very important. If these bodies are included now, the pattern will be right from the beginning. Are we afraid there will be too many complaints? Have we looked at the type of complaints? Where do these problems manifest themselves most? Have we come up with an answer? It is important to find out where the discontent lies. Are the problems in the area of Government? Are they in the area of local authorities, health boards or State-sponsored bodies? If we examine these questions we will find that Government bodies will not be on their own.
As members of local authorities we know how far we have to go to get things done. In the various committees we can put down motions and have them voted on. The same applies to State-sponsored bodies. Because of their terms of reference they are very far removed from the general public and from this House. If a Deputy puts down a question about a semi-State body it is excluded. The only time we can discuss those bodies is when we are debating the Estimates, and those debates are limited. We are not given the time we require. It is incumbent on the Minister to include these bodies now. If we do that we will be starting off the right way.
I support the appointment of an ombudsman. If changes are needed we can make them by order. Reports will be laid before the House and recommendations from the ombudsman requesting additional help or powers or extending his terms of reference will be forthcoming. These recommendations should be examined and acceded to where necessary. The ombudsman will be a person on whom we can depend and will make recommendations. Over a few years I believe this will develop into an office which will have a very effective part to play in public administration. The ombudsman will ensure that people are treated fairly, are seen to be treated fairly, and that their grievances will be fairly dealt with. This will make the various Departments and semi-State bodies aware of the fact that there is a place where people can go to have their cases examined. This will have the effect of streamlining administration and will have a very beneficial effect.
I welcome the Bill.