Ombudsman condemns HSE actions

Ombudsman Emily O'Reilly has accused the Health Service Executive (HSE) of attempting to gag her office.

Ms O'Reilly said the HSE had taken a “perverse approach” to dealing with the ombudsman’s office in the aftermath of an investigation into complaints over guardians’ fee in July 2008.

The HSE rejected the ombudsman's findings and recommendations in a report compiled after the investigation and threatened a High Court injunction to prevent publication of the document.

Ms O'Reilly today reported to the Dáil and Seanad about her experience dealing with the HSE, in which she described "a bizarre series of events" that took place between July 2008 and June 2009.

The ombudsman said the decision of the executive to begin court proceedings against her office to prevent publication of the report was "a frustrating, wasteful, dispiriting and, ultimately, useless process" that had led to significant public expenditure.

The ombudsman said the HSE undertook what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to prevent publication of the investigation report.

"This campaign involved misrepresentation of the contents and implications of the report as well as the initiation of court proceedings which ran for seven months before their eventual striking out by the court," said Ms O'Reilly.

"Looking back with the benefit of one year's distance, it is my conclusion not only that these events proved utterly futile, in the sense of having no tangible outcome, but regrettably that it was never the intention of the HSE that they would serve any useful purpose," she added.

The ombudsman said upwards of €150,000 of public money may have been spent on legal costs "with no benefit of any kind resulting". In addition, the threat of a High Court injunction prevented Ms O'Reilly from presenting a report to the Dáil and Seanad on the investigation.

"The taking of these proceedings by the HSE has resulted in no benefit of any kind to any party other than to the lawyers involved," insisted Ms O'Reilly today.

"Nothing was decided and nothing was clarified, and the proceedings have made no contribution of any kind either to the furtherance of the HSE's child protection functions or to upholding the integrity of the courts. In short, these proceedings were an utter waste of time and money," she added.

Ms O'Reilly said the best that could be said for the HSE's behaviour is that “it was guided by an ill-judged reliance on legal advice resulting in what, on the face of it, amounted to a failure in balanced decision making".

"The worst that can be said is that the HSE's behaviour may have been a calculated and measured attempt to prevent the publication by my office of an investigation report which was critical of the HSE's actions," she added.

The ombudsman said it was extraordinary that the largest public body in the country could threaten a High Court injunction to prevent her office from communicating with the Oireachtas.

The court proceedings undertaken by the executive were struck out with costs awarded to the ombudsman's office. Ms O'Reilly said the HSE has not paid the costs yet and had "resisted any engagement with a view to my office collecting its costs".

Ms O'Reilly has been critical of the HSE on a number of occasions. Earlier this month she accused the organisations of being "riddled with secrecy and acting at times in its own self-interest".

In a response issued this evening, the HSE said it had sought to "engage openly, transparently and in a constructive manner" with the Office of the Ombudsman in relation to its investigation on guardians' fees.

"The HSE all times sought to ensure that it was operating within the boundaries of law and as such could not legally accept the findings and recommendations of the Office of the Ombudsman's early report for a variety of reasons. Ten of these reasons were outlined in detailed letters (Oct 2008 and Jan 2010) to the Office of the Ombudsman," it said in a statement.

The organisation added it has "genuine and valid reasons" for the court actions taken during the investigation, and that it would be reviewing the Ombudsman's final reports.