Mr. Peter Tyndall:

I will begin by echoing the comments of Dr. Muldoon. Our offices work very closely together and our views on these matters are shared. I would obviously defer to Dr. Muldoon on the issues of the charter in so far as it affects the rights of children. I am fully supportive of his remarks.

I want particularly to address proposals for the creation of a new ombudsman for education. I have concerns about this, which I think are similar to those expressed by Dr. Muldoon. The first is that most of these proposals relate to schools. Much of the work of my office is in the field of education. Much of that is in further and higher education, including issues about access to education for students with disabilities; grants for further and higher education; and the administration of universities and institutions of further and higher education. This is a significant piece of work and, if we were to have something called an education ombudsman, it would create confusion in the mind of the public. People would automatically assume that matters of further and higher education - grants and so on - would rest with that office.

That is a general concern about confusion.

There is another concern about creating a proliferation of ombudsmen's offices. People need to know where to go. Currently, they do. If more offices are created, though, confusion can be created. Across the water in the UK, there was a growth in the number of ombudsmen. This caused a great deal of confusion and is now leading to legislation to consolidate offices. We do not want to repeat the mistakes of others. That is not to say that I disagree with the intentions, given that they are correct. Some of Dr. Muldoon's remarks in support of that are important to bear in mind.

Speaking as the Ombudsman for public services, those services are democratically accountable to Members of the Oireachtas in respect of Departments and Government agencies or to local authorities. That means that ombudsmen's recommendations, which do not have the force of law, are almost always observed. In the 31-year history of my office, only one recommendation has not been implemented. In the case of private sector ombudsmen, however, mechanisms are needed to ensure that their recommendations are delivered upon, given that the same democratic accountability does not exist. The proposals giving the Minister the capacity to make directions would achieve that.

I draw the committee's attention to a final point. Were a new office to be established, we would have all of the costs and delays associated with its establishment. We would have to recruit someone, find premises and provide the office with ICT and it would have to develop processes and procedures. All of that takes time and money. Were the powers of existing offices to be extended, however, it would simply be a matter of recruiting new staff who could undertake that work within processes, procedures and a management structure that already exist and offices that have a record of delivering.

The Oireachtas needs to achieve what is proposed, but it can be done within the context of the existing framework. The legislation that is on the table to extend those powers and jurisdictions would have the necessary effect without creating confusion and incurring costs.