Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I see the role of the committee and its relationship with the Ombudsman as being twofold. One role is that the committee will want to hold the Ombudsman to account to ensure that the office is doing what the Oireachtas thinks it should be doing. It is that formal role where the committee considers the annual report, etc. The second role, which is of equal importance, comes as the committee members' role as public representatives in holding public services to account. From that point of view, the Ombudsman provides the committee with valuable knowledge and information to enable the committee to undertake that role more effectively. Achieving the balance between those two roles will be important.

The linkage between the committee and the Office of the Ombudsman should be close. I have seen that there have been a good number of occasions when evidence has been given. There have been lively discussions with the previous Ombudsman. The model is there and in place and is developing well.

The reality is that although the Ombudsman has a relationship with the Oireachtas as a whole, in practice, to make that relationship work one needs something that is rather more like this where there is a smaller number of people and it is possible to have proper debate, engagement and discussion.

I hope that will continue to prove as effective as it has been in the recent past since the committee took on its new role.

There is a strong role for an information campaign with new bodies coming into jurisdiction. There is a misunderstanding of the role of the Office of the Ombudsman. It is really important to get bodies to understand that using compliance mechanisms to improve services is an important adjunct to their role as leaders and managers of services. They should not regard it necessarily as threatening and disadvantageous. Greater transparency, as brought about through freedom of information, improved complaint handling and improved service delivery, as brought about through engagement with the Ombudsman, are phenomena that bodies should be able to embrace. However, they will not do so unless there is information. There needs to be some targeted briefing material for bodies in order that the engagement can be set out in more practical terms. I have developed fact sheets principally for users of the Ombudsman's service. They set out succinctly and briefly how things work, what happens and what is possible. An equivalent simple, straightforward, punchy message will help to get across the point. I want bodies to embrace the opportunity, although I can understand it may take a little time to get them to feel enthusiastic about the engagement. However, there are opportunities. There are organisations the leadership of which engages properly with the process of improvement and uses compliance mechanisms for that purpose. I hope we can work very carefully with them.

In the midst of austerity, the point on freedom of information is very well made. There is often a hierarchy of issues that are lost as budgets are cut. Training is cut early in the day and resourcing freedom of information is not much further along the road. A delay in dealing with requests exacerbates the problem. Often, when a person asking for information to which he or she is entitled does not receive a prompt response, he or she assumes the reason is not necessarily the Department is struggling to find someone to do the work but that the Department does not want to release the information. The latter is often not true. The same applies to the responses to complaints. People believe they are being denied justice, simply because of the delay in obtaining sensible answers. In some ways, that is a very difficult conundrum. Setting targets for bodies to respond is the issue.

Publishing the statistics without delay, as I do now, is a very helpful way of highlighting where the problems are. The annual letters I publish, about which I talked, include information not just on what complaints have been dealt with and the outcomes but also on the performance of the bodies in jurisdiction in responding to requests for information from my office. These are the areas in which one can actually help to highlight where the problems are in the hope of persuading people to improve performance.

Engaging with the new bodies to discuss the requirements with them and getting some kind of information campaign going must be considered. I understand that is principally a departmental responsibility, but I want the Office of the Ombudsman to work alongside the Department in that regard. The Department needs to get the information across on the overall FOI regime, but it is for the office to ensure an understanding of the role of the Information Commissioner, what is required and how engagement will operate.

On the question about the recruitment process, members might understand that it might well be folly for somebody to comment on it before it is entirely completed. Perhaps I might say this is the first time the committee has had the opportunity to speak to a candidate for the office, which is a welcome step forward. The new Ombudsman and Information Commissioner will have to be elected by both Houses of the Oireachtas and appointed by the President. That and the ongoing relationship with the committee mark an evolution, which I can welcome.