Mr. Peter Tyndall:

Starting with Lost at Sea, it is a matter of concern to me that that report's recommendations remain unimplemented. On the issue of a public services Ombudsman, I take the strong view that the findings should be binding unless challenged in court. The legislation would need to be amended to do that, as is the case in some instances. In that sense, it should not be possible for a body in jurisdiction to decide to disagree with the findings and ignore them. If it disagreed with the findings, there should be a formal process of challenge. That would give greater authority to the findings. It is right in a democracy that decisions about recommendations fall to the relevant democratic bodies, be they local authorities or, in this case, the Government. The previous Ombudsman made the recommendation; she put forward an extremely well argued case in her report. This committee is to some extent a product of Lost at Sea and concern about the fact that that recommendation was ignored. I will certainly support it in any way I can. We should all continue to work to find redress for those people who have suffered the injustice. I hope that members of the committee will continue to do that. Thankfully, during the 30 years of the office's existence, there have been very few examples of reports where the recommendations have not been accepted and implemented. I am not sure that we have always been as rigorous as we should have been in following up to make sure people have done what they said they would do, but at least they have said they would do it. There have been very few instances where people refused to accept findings and implement recommendations.

As a result, they are of particular significance. We have talked about two, the lost at sea scheme and the motorised transport grant. I hope we can work with the committee to make some progress on both of those. It would be disappointing to see them left unremedied.

Privatisation is an issue that is troubling ombudsman’s offices across the globe. It is not unique to Ireland, although Ireland has gone further and faster than other countries in areas such as waste management. People have redress one day for a service they rely on, such as the water coming into their homes, but the next day they may not. What most troubled me about it was that nobody even consulted the office. It was just the case that one day we did not have jurisdiction. Nobody had even talked to us about it. Redress for individuals using services is often an afterthought. People depend on waste collection, water and the other public utilities - electricity, gas, the post, transport and so on - and should have access to independent redress on them. That should be through a public service ombudsman. There is no reason to make the landscape of provision so complex that it is difficult even to know who is providing the service. It should not be difficult for people to know where to go to complain. I am pleased the committee is thinking of taking up this issue. There is a particular opportunity at the moment because the State has to decide how it will implement the EU directive on alternative dispute resolution. I hope the opportunity will be taken to create clarity and bring into being a more direct route to redress.