Mr. Peter Tyndall:

That is an interesting question. It dates back to an issue that my predecessor had with the report that I mentioned, Lost At Sea, when the role of the Oireachtas as an independent body overseeing the Government was seen by the Ombudsman of the day to have been undermined by the use of the Whip system which, in that instance, prevented a debate about the report. Different ombudsman offices internationally have different levels of access to parliaments. Some get to speak in the plenary session of the parliament. Obviously, that is not at all consistent with our tradition and would not be appropriate, but it would be appropriate for there to be some point at which there can be discussion. In my tenure as Ombudsman, this has not been an issue. The creation of the committee and its original mandate grew directly out of the Lost At Sea issue, when it was highlighted that there had to be some access.

It is reasonable for a Government, if it so chooses, to reject an Ombudsman's recommendations. That is not something that happens regularly in Ireland, if at all, but there has to be some capacity for Parliament to scrutinise the Government's decision to ignore or reject the recommendation. That is what failed before the creation of this committee and why we were a little concerned when the powers of the committee were somewhat reduced. It was not that there was real and present danger. The relationship between the various ombudsman offices and the public services in our jurisdiction is good and the Oireachtas has been good in the way that it has supported our recommendations. I give the example of the Magdalen laundry redress scheme, where the Oireachtas played a critical part in making sure that the scheme was accessible to all those affected by their stays in the Magdalen laundries. It is working well at present but it does not do to be complacent. One has to have robust mechanisms if things are not working well. That is why we were reinforcing these issues.