Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Chairman, and I thank Mr. Peter Tyndall and Ms Bernadette McNally for their submission. On the issue of the remit in areas they feel should be covered, they have answered well the issue of clinical judgments on which I share their view.

The witnesses said prisons and direct provision should be covered. I agree wholeheartedly. Do the witnesses have an explanation as to why they have not been covered or what the resistance of the Government is to having the remit of the office of Ombudsman extended to cover these areas? That is inexplicable because human beings and citizens have rights. Whether they are in prison or whether they are asylum seekers, they should have rights. It is extraordinary that apparently certain categories of people are denied rights given to others. I agree wholeheartedly with the witnesses but I would be interested to hear the reason that is not happening. Have the witnesses had any communication with the Government on whether these areas should be covered and, if so, what was the response as to why these areas are treated differently.

Irish Water was mentioned. It is extraordinary that, as this new body is established and complaints inevitably arise about the way it deals with members of the public, people will not have an avenue for making complaints outside the body itself. Have the witnesses made the case that it should be included and, if so, what has been the response? It is particularly extraordinary given that Irish Water is asking for personal public service numbers, which is something that would only be done by full-blown Departments. In the latter situation, members of the public can appeal to the Ombudsman' office if there is any possible abuse of that information or the way in which a Department is dealing with a member of the public. In the case of Irish Water, this is an entity that can have access to such information. It has said it will be secure, safe and so on, but things happen. Is it fair to say that if a customer of Irish Water has a problem with how it is dealing with him or her in, say, the area of data protection, there is a big problem in not being able to make complaints to the Ombudsman or to go to the Ombudsman to have their complaint investigated.

I turn to the private bodies and the problems the Ombudsman has had with them.

Mr. Tyndall said the office's findings were not binding on them. In terms of access to information, it was also said that private bodies resist giving information where requests are made. That could apply to Irish Water as well, given that we do not know whether it is a private body or a public body, as it appears to be both. Could Mr. Tyndall outline more fully the problems encountered in getting the information required or some examples of where the Ombudsman's office requires certain powers?

In terms of streamlined complaints-----