Joint Committee on Disability Matters, 24th June 2021

Opening Statement from the Ombudsman, Mr Peter Tyndall, on “Wasted Lives: Time for a better future for younger people in nursing homes”

Cathaoirleach and members of the Committee, thank you for the invitation to come here today to discuss my recently published report “Wasted Lives: Time for a better future for younger people in nursing homes”. 

Many Deputies and Senators here today will have had first-hand experience of the work of the Office of the Ombudsman but before I provide an overview of the findings of this investigation, I hope you don’t mind indulging me a moment to set out how my office works and why I felt compelled to use my powers, as Ombudsman, to initiate a systemic investigation into the current situation for people under 65 living in nursing homes. Let me also say from the outset that this report is not a criticism of nursing homes. It is instead about the inappropriateness of nursing homes as accommodation for the people concerned.

Role of Ombudsman

As Ombudsman I consider complaints from users of our public services who believe they have suffered an injustice as a consequence of maladministration by a public service provider. In determining such complaints, I examine the decision from the perspectives of legality and compliance, as well as fairness and good administration. Earlier this month I published my 2020 Annual Report which set out that over 3,400 complaints were received by my office last year.  Each one of these complaints was examined thoroughly in a fair, independent and impartial way.  Each one of these complaints came from a person who had a story.  Part of my work as Ombudsman is ensuring that the voices of people which might otherwise be ignored can be heard. 

Some individuals, and their stories, are particularly moving and shine a light on issues of such significance to the system and how our public services work, that they need particular consideration.

It was four such complaints which came to my attention and were the catalyst for the Wasted Lives Report.  The situation of these four individuals was very similar in many ways, and they all were able to articulate in their own words how inappropriate and unfair it was for them to have no option other than to remain in a nursing home.  However, for each of these cases the system seemed to be constructed in a way that made it seem nearly impossible for their circumstances to change. 

(...)

On 2 June 2021 Croatian Parliament took a vote on Ombudswoman’s 2018, 2019 and 2020 annual reports and decided to “duly note” them

Following the vote, we would like to take the opportunity to discuss the effect of the voting results on the implementation of the Ombudswoman’s recommendations and to point to the need for a different future regulation of the Parliamentary vote on her reports.

It is crucial that the Parliament discuss the reports and that it does so in a timely manner. However, the implementation of the numerous valuable recommendations contained therein should not depend on the outcome of the Parliamentary vote on them.

When it comes to the ombudsperson institution in the Republic of Croatia (currently, there are four in total – ombudsperson and three specialized ombuds), the results of the Parliamentary vote on its reports do not affect the incumbent’s mandate. They do, however, impact the efficiency of the recommendations in their function of a human rights promotion and protection tool.

In a situation where several different outcomes of the vote are possible, such as voting in favor, duly noting and voting against, it is not surprising that the results of the vote impact the reception of the recommendations by the institutions and the bodies they are addressed to. At the same time, it is important to stress that it is their quality and the dialogue between the ombudsman institution and other competent stakeholders on their implementation that should be the main criterion determining their efficiency.

The opinion of Ombudswoman Šimonović Einwalter, expressed both in the process of her appointment to the duty, as well as in the recent parliamentary debate on the institution’s reports and in her numerous media appearances, is that the reports of the ombudsman institutions should not be subject to a parliamentary vote. The argument for such an approach, taken in most other European countries as well, is the fact that the Ombudswoman’s reports represent an independent overview and an analysis of the human rights situation and the incidences of discrimination in the country, in line with the institution’s constitutional mandates, and are not merely reports on the institution’s internal operations or work overview for the previous year.

Thus, we are of the opinion that, in line with our institution’s constitutionally and legally enshrined independence, Croatian Parliament should discuss our reports in a timely manner and, in case it decides to vote on them, take the approach of duly noting them, at the same time strengthening the awareness of the recommendations’ addressees of the importance of their implementation.

Additionally, with a view of strengthening the implementation of the Ombudswoman’s recommendations in their function of an important human rights, equality and the rule of law protection mechanism, a continuous and efficient information exchange between the competent institutions throughout the year should be enabled. The increase in the number of recommendations which the Government addresses in its comments and opinions on the Ombudswoman’s annual reports, as well as the continuous monitoring of the recommendations’ implementation by the Government, with support from the Parliament, would surely contribute to this.

Background information: at its plenary session held on 20 May 2021 Croatian Parliament discussed four Ombudswoman’s reports – the 2018, 2019 and 2020 annual reports, as well as the Special Report on the Right to a Healthy Life. On 2 June it took vote on all four of them, duly noting the first three and voting in favor of the last one. The recording of the Ombudswoman’s address to the plenary is available here (in Croatian).

On Parliamentary Ombudsman Petri Jääskeläinen’s orders, two officials from the Office of the Parliamentary Ombudsman visited advance polling stations unannounced at eight municipalities in Southern Finland on 31 May and 1 June. The aim of the visits was to examine the accessibility of polling stations, the protection of secrecy of election and the voting arrangements. The visits also focused on the exceptional arrangements at the polling stations due to COVID-19. One of the officials conducting the inspection used a wheelchair.

The general observation was that there was still room for improvement in announcements related to the advance polling stations and their guidance. Based on the observations, the inspected polling stations had acknowledged the current exceptional circumstances well and taken care of the related health safety matters.

The Parliamentary Ombudsman welcomed the fact that advance polling stations are becoming increasingly accessible. The polling stations also have more accessible polling booths or spaces where voters using wheelchairs or other mobility aids can write down their vote while preserving their secrecy of election, as independently as possible.

Further measures  

The Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to bring the observations and development proposals contained in the inspection record that relate to the visibility of signs, accessibility issues and voting arrangements of the polling stations to the attention of the inspected municipalities and their Central Election Boards. Tampere, Akaa, Hämeenlinna, Janakkala, Siuntio, Kirkkonummi, Vantaa and Espoo were the inspection targets.

On its own initiative, the Parliamentary Ombudsman decided to investigate the drive-in in Espoo and the arrangements for voting outdoors from the perspective of protecting secrecy of election. As a result, a separate request for clarification will be sent to the City of Espoo. The Ministry of Justice is also asked for a statement on ensuring the secrecy of election under exceptional voting arrangements.

One of the special tasks assigned to the Parliamentary Ombudsman is the promotion, protection and monitoring of the implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities. This task is based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ratified by Finland. Inspections thus seek to draw special attention to accessibility and the possibilities for participation of persons with disabilities.

The inspection record 3250/2021 has been published (in Finnish) on the Parliamentary Ombudsman's website at www.oikeusasiamies.fi. 

For more information, please contact Senior Legal Adviser Juha-Pekka Konttinen, tel. +358 9 432 3338.

The Ombudsman looked into the services of libraries in relation to equality of conditions for EU citizens coming from other Member States and Czech citizens. “It is important that not only Czech citizens have access to library services, but also citizens of EU Member States do while respecting the principle of equality and the principle of non-discrimination,” said the Ombudsman Stanislav Křeček. However, the analysis of the 22 most important Czech libraries showed that this is not always the case. Certain libraries implement problematic conditions for EU citizens when registering, but especially when borrowing books and documents.

The research aimed to examine and compare the conditions of library services concerning EU citizens and Czech citizens. Ensuring equal access to library services is important as libraries not only provide meaningful leisure time but are also important for education or employment. Library services include providing access to books and documents, and also other services such as research, Internet access, copy services, or cultural and educational activities. The research focused mainly on the registration of new users, lending of books, and providing distance (online) services. Remote access has become more important during the covid-19 epidemic when it was necessary to provide services remotely.

The analysis included libraries established by the Ministry of Culture, the Ministry of Education, the Czech Academy of Sciences, and Regional Authorities. The research showed that the library rules of two of the 22 libraries contained problematic conditions concerning the registration of foreigners from the other EU Member States. They had to prove permanent residence in the Czech Republic and there was a different age requirement in comparison with Czech citizens (18 years for EU citizens, 15 years for Czechs). Nevertheless, problematic provisions were more common in the rules for remote registration of new users. The Ombudsman identified this issue in four of the nine libraries that offer this form of registration. Some libraries also require that the applicant has to be a Czech citizen or they want proof of permanent residence or residence permit.

"If the library distinguishes between Czech citizens and EU citizens only based on the citizenship, it violates the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality. The principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality guarantees that Member States must treat EU citizens in the same way as their nationals. This means that EU citizens must, as a rule, be granted the same rights and benefits as domestic citizens," the Ombudsman explains, noting: "Libraries are obliged to provide their services without any distinction." Differentiation in access to library services can only be justified if the library will do so on basis of objective and precisely determined criteria, or if imposed or permitted by a special legal regulation (for example, for the protection of young people, etc.). Therefore, the library cannot state that it will not provide its services to certain groups of readers.

It is, of course, appropriate for libraries to ensure the protection of their collections from non-return, theft, or damage. A completely legitimate requirement of the library for loans is, for example, proof of the address of an EU citizen in the Czech Republic to find out whether they are residing in the Czech territory and whether it is possible to contact them.
Recommendations for setting the conditions of library regulations in compliance with the principle of non-discrimination of EU citizens can be found in following infographics.

Birmingham City Council has agreed to revise its home to school transport policy and review all its decisions to issue a travel pass over the past three years following several complaints to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman found the parents of children with a travel pass, in two investigations, had to accompany their children to school because their child could not manage the journey independently.

The Ombudsman said the children should have been eligible for free transport as they lived more than statutory walking distance from their nearest suitable school, and the council could not insist the parents accompanied their children. The council also failed to demonstrate how the journey to school would be safe and reasonably stress free for either child.

In both cases the Ombudsman found inadequate record keeping. It also found the council did not follow statutory guidance as it did not invite the parents to their stage two appeals and its policy at the time did not allow them to make either verbal or written representations.

Michael King, Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman, said:

“The problems I have found with Birmingham City Council’s home to school transport policy have had a significant effect on both families, with the children’s education suffering as a result.

“Free must mean free, but despite being offered ‘free public transport’ in both cases the parents incurred extra costs because this was not safe, and they had to take their children to school either by taxi or using their own car.

“I am concerned that the very similar faults I have found in these cases mean it is possible other families have been similarly affected. Other parents and carers may have also incurred costs to access the transport their children are entitled to.

“I am pleased Birmingham City Council has agreed to review its policy and recent decisions on this matter, which should ensure other parents are not left out of pocket and inconvenienced by inappropriate decision making.”

In the first case, the council refused a mother’s application for school transport for her daughter, who has autistic spectrum disorder and attends a special school. The mother said the daughter needed school transport because her behaviour was ‘extremely challenging’.

The mother could not take her on public transport as there was no direct bus route to her school, and it would be particularly difficult taking her on multiple buses as she used a special needs pushchair. She said her daughter could hurt herself and react physically when she becomes upset. She asked the council to provide her with a taxi or minibus to school.

Despite the information given, the council decided the daughter could travel on public transport and said her parents should accompany her to school. In August 2019 the council dismissed her mother’s appeal. In April 2020 the Council overturned the original decision and offered the girl a place on a minibus.

In the second case, a mother applied for school transport for her teenage son to get to his special school. She told the council her son was ‘high risk’, had no social skills, needed constant supervision, and could become physical when distressed. She said neither she nor her husband could take her son to school because her other children with additional or complex needs also needed to be taken to school, and she had her own physical and mental health difficulties.

Instead of offering the son a place on school transport, the family was offered a travel pass to use on public transport and told to accompany him to school. The boy would have had to catch three buses to get to school, which would leave him confused. The mother appealed the council’s decision, and included information from her son’s paediatrician, but the council concluded there were “no exceptional circumstances”.

The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s role is to remedy injustice and share learning from investigations to help improve public, and adult social care, services. In this case the council has agreed to apologise to both families.

In the first family’s case, it will pay the mother £150 for her time and trouble and repay any costs she incurred to transport her child to school. It will also pay £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused, and a further £500 to recognise the impact the failure to provide suitable home to school transport had on her child accessing education.

In the second family’s case, it has agreed to pay the mother £150 for her time and trouble and a further £300 to recognise the stress and inconvenience caused. It will also review the family’s application and offer the son an alternative means of school transport which does not require his parents to accompany him, and pay the mother reasonable travel expenses from 13 March 2019.

The Ombudsman has the power to make recommendations to improve processes for the wider public. In this case the council will remind officers about their duties under the law when making decisions about home to school transport applications and appeals.

It will also revise its home to school transport policy and review all decisions it has made to issue travel passes since September 2018.

Article date: 25 June 2021