Eoin Ó Broin (Dublin Mid West, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

First, the Minister of State's amendment No. 288 does not deal with the real intention of our amendment No. 69, which is with regard to the need for an ombudsman for the culture and heritage sector. There is no mechanism under the Bill for people to submit complaints to an independent office when public bodies fail in their obligations. We know that happens far too often. There is a real need, and we see this in other sectors, for an independent ombudsman or some similar office to deal with complaints, monitor compliance, etc. and, therefore, while a reporting mechanism has maybe some merit, which I will come to shortly, as the Minister of State understands, the purpose of the formula we used in amendment No. 69 is because we cannot propose the creation of such an office given it would place a charge on the State. It is a way of us raising it on this Stage, however.

With respect to the other amendments, Deputy O'Callaghan is absolutely right. Five years is far too long. I do not even believe the Minister of State believes five years is an appropriate duration, but that is the script he has in front of him. However, amendment No. 288 does not actually state what the report will be whereas the amendments my colleague, Deputy Ó Snodaigh, has tabled are very explicit on the reporting requirements. Therefore, on the basis of those concerns, despite the fact that the Minister of State knows I am a very generous person and I always like to compromise with him, amendment No. 288 does not deal with any of the substantive issues in the amendments in front of us. I will, therefore, press these amendments.

I would be interested in the Minister of State's response specifically with respect to the issue of the need for the ombudsman and also what he expects to be in that long-anticipated five-year report, if and when it sees the light of day.