Malcolm Noonan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Green Party) | Oireachtas source

With regard to the issue of the ombudsman and amendment No. 69, the existing Office of the Ombudsman examines complaints from members of the public who believe they are being treated unfairly by a public body or if they are unhappy with a service that is being provided by a public body. I see no reason to duplicate this existing role, especially given a complete lack of evidence suggesting any failure of duties of public bodies within the culture sector. Given the potential costs associated with the establishment and operation of a new ombudsman, I do not consider this to be in the public interest. For those reasons, I cannot accept that amendment.

Specifically, then, with regard to the review and monitoring of new legislation, I acknowledge the value in reviewing and monitoring the operation of new legislation. I intend to propose a new section that will introduce that mandatory reporting requirement, which we said is five years. I am open to flexibility on that - perhaps three years. I cannot accept what is proposed by amendments Nos. 266 and 267, however, as several elements go way beyond the scope of this Bill as well as beyond the remit of our Department. Furthermore, there appears to be duplication of reporting requirements that already exist, for example, with regard to the national development plan and the built and archaeological heritage climate change sectoral adaptation plan, which our Department was one of the first in the world to develop. It is a very innovative plan and a very good active working group is working to implement that as well. It has the sustainable development goals at the core of its work. For those reasons, I am not in a position to accept the additional reporting requirements. As I said, however, I will give consideration to flexibility on the five years and perhaps move it back to three, if the Deputy is amenable.