Ministerial responsibility is being eroded by the growing number of State agencies, the Ombudsman claimed today.
And the theme of Emily O'Reilly's annual report for 2006 was "Getting It Right", a critique of the growing trend of public bodies failing to observe the law.
Ms O'Reilly said the increasing number of agencies was also responsible for the dilution of powers because so many were outside her jurisdiction.
This report covers her third full year in office since taking up duty as Ombudsman on 1 June 2003.
"Over the years there has been a hiving off of functions which were traditionally within the remit of ministers and their departments and the creation of new single-purpose agencies, for example, FAS, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Health and Safety Authority.
"The practice of creating new agencies has accelerated in more recent times. There are now over 450 such bodies in existence, only a handful of which come within my remit as Ombudsman even though, paradoxically, many do come within the scope of freedom of information legislation.
"Other accountability mechanisms are also lacking in that they are subject to little or no parliamentary oversight and there has been a diminution in ministerial responsibility and control over functions which formerly were part of the relevant department."
Ms O'Reilly called for legislation to address "this accountability deficit".
The Labour Party's Joan Burton supported the call saying it should be acted on "as a matter of urgency".
The public was growing increasingly frustrated by the service they were receiving from public bodies caused in part by the "upsurge in the practise of outsourcing functions to the private sector."
"This has completely changed the landscape in the delivery of public services," Ms Burton said.
Almost 40 per cent of the 2,245 valid complaints received by the Ombudsman in 2006 related to civil service departments and offices, while 37 per cent involved local authorities and 17 per cent related to the Health Service Executive (HSE).
Among sample cases cited in her report, was one in which a patient was being overcharged for residential care by the HSE.
Despite hurried legislation in 2005 aimed at addressing charges which were found to be illegal, Ms O'Reilly identified conflicting regulations in the area.
The case surrounded the wife of a patient whose income was being assessed in setting a fee for nursing home care.
Ms O'Reilly found the Health (Amendment) Act, 2005 contained no provision for assessing the income of a patient's spouse when setting the charge. However, the National Guidelines on Long Stay Charges the HSE provided for a couple's income to be assessed.
"This provision was not in harmony with the parent legislation," Ms O'Reilly found.
The HSE corrected the anomaly after the finding and issued refunds of €131,000 to 51 families.
The report also cited a failure of the health service to make adequate provision for a young girl who had sustained injuries which led to the impairment of a number of her faculties.
The girl's mother was also denied a home care allowance because it was determined the girl who was nine at the time of the motor accident, did not meet the disability criteria.
The girl had also been assessed as having a learning difficulty and had been allocated a special needs assistant, and a resource and remedial teacher. She also attended physiotherapy, speech and language therapy regularly, had difficulties with social skills, and behavioural and sleeping problems.
"It seemed logical to the Ombudsman that if the child required such a high level of assistance in school, then equally she must require a substantial degree of extra care and attention in the home," Ms O'Reilly found.
The HSE agreed to back date an allowance to February 2002 and made in-home care relief and family counselling available.
The report also cited a case in which the Department of Social and Family paid a man disabled in a work accident over €92,000 in backdated benefit.