Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I echo the Chair's thanks to the Ombudsman and I wish her the very best in her new role. I am sure all members share the Chair's pride that Ms O'Reilly will be our representative in Europe.

In the context of her most recent report, Ms O'Reilly stated that the HSE and the Department indicated their view that she did not have jurisdiction to conduct an investigation into issues relating to the health repayment scheme in the first instance. It is my recollection that this is not the first occasion on which those two entities have made such an observation regarding the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. How is it that arguments remain about said jurisdiction? Surely it is clearly defined. Why do the Department and the HSE continue to make observations of this nature? If I recall correctly, there was an argument between Ms O'Reilly and the two entities in question regarding whether the matter to which I refer falls within her jurisdiction. That argument obfuscated the position with regard to the actual case involved. I am confounded that this is the case.

On freedom of information compliance, Ms O'Reilly referred to public bodies not being adequately resourced and stated that the priority afforded to freedom of information requests seems to be deteriorating as resources are diminishing. Is that Ms O'Reilly's observation or is it their observation to her? Have the bodies in question indicated that they are very concerned with regard to diminishing resources or is it the case that they are saying nothing at all and that this Ms O'Reilly's observation about them? Ms O'Reilly also stated that the statutory function of administering freedom of information should be afforded as much weight as any other such function.

Is Ms O'Reilly saying that public bodies are setting aside their statutory function in this respect or not treating it with the seriousness it deserves, or are they saying they cannot cope? That is an important issue because the Government is intent on expanding the application of the freedom of information legislation and on giving the office more powers. If organisations cannot cope with such requests on a practical level, this committee, or whatever version of it will be in place, will end up in a few years time dealing with complaints that such organisations were not able to respond to freedom of information applications. I think that is what Ms O'Reilly is suggesting.