Mr. Peter Tyndall:

The most important development in respect of ombudsman institutions worldwide relates to the Venice Principles. These are the principles on the protection and promotion of the ombudsman institutions. Some committee members will be familiar with the Paris Principles, which set out the rules governing national human rights institutions. Up to now, we have not had a global standard by which ombudsman institutions and the legislation which creates them can be judged.

That was redressed when the Venice Principles were prepared by the Venice Commission in 2019 and subsequently adopted by the Council of Europe. More particular for us is the fact they were adopted by the UN in December of last year in a motion which was co-sponsored by Ireland. I pay tribute to the Irish representatives at the UN who played an active role in making sure this global standard was put in place.

Ireland was a co-sponsor of the motion that adopted the Venice Principles. Why does it matter? It codifies some of the issues we have discussed with this committee and its predecessors. It sets out the importance of a set of fundamental principles around independence, jurisdiction and powers. It sets out how those should be delivered in practice. It does not just say an ombudsman should be independent but it spells out that the appointment process should enhance independence. It sets out that the status of the post should enhance independence and authority and so on. It specifies sufficient funding should be in place to enable an ombudsman office to do its job.

It sets out the importance of a broad jurisdiction across public services. It allows for the kind of arrangement we have in Ireland where one has, for instance, the jurisdiction over the Garda covered by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, GSOC. It does not require a single ombudsman office covering the whole of the public service. However, it does require that, of the ombudsman offices that exist, there must be comprehensive coverage across the public service.

It specifies the relationship with the parliament - the Oireachtas in our case - in a way which is different from what our practice has been in the past. It looks to the parliament having ownership of the legislation which creates ombudsman offices. As many of the services an ombudsman oversees are delivered by government, it is important the appointment process for an ombudsman should be seen to be independent of government. In our case, as I am appointed by the President following a vote in both Houses of the Oireachtas, we have some elements of that in place.

It also suggests the oversight of the legislation should sit with the parliament. Some committee members will be familiar with the fact the legislation governing the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman was driven by a committee of the Northern Ireland Assembly, not by the Administration in Northern Ireland. That is the kind of model that is used.

The convention also deals with the role of the Ombudsman in reporting to the Oireachtas and the purpose of that. The Ombudsman is essentially an officer of the Oireachtas. The Ombudsman has the role of reporting on public services to the Oireachtas. It can be done through an annual report which comes before the Oireachtas. Equally, it can be done with special reports.

There are various reasons for that relationship but I just want to focus on several of them. In the past and internationally, not every ombudsman recommendation was accepted or, if it was accepted, not every recommendation was implemented. Ireland actually has one of the best records internationally on that count. It was the Oireachtas that brought about the report, Lost at Sea, from one of my predecessors, Emily O'Reilly. It was many years before the recommendations were ultimately accepted. That is an important role. It also helps the committee in its job of holding the Government to account, insofar as that is the role of the Oireachtas and its committees. We give the committee evidence that adds to the picture it has of how well services are being delivered to people in the communities across Ireland.

On reporting in general, if I am reporting on an issue to do with health, I would expect the report to be considered by the health committee. As Ms Justice Ring said, many of the reports from GSOC would go to the justice committee. The reality is there are a lot of cross-cutting elements to reports. The annual report in my office would in fact impact on many committees and Departments. It is important there should be some locus for the engagement of the ombudsman community with the Oireachtas. We believe the role played by the committee's predecessor is a good way of doing that. We think too there is the possibility of developing that role further in order that a committee would look at whether Irish ombudsman legislation is fully compliant with the latest international standards and to propose changes if required.

I hope that sets out why we take our relationship with the committee as fundamental to the ombudsman institution but also to the Oireachtas.