Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent) | Oireachtas source

I am delighted to support this motion. I note that the order was brought to the Seanad last week for its approval. That in itself is an important statement, on this eve of polling day. I agree that a child must be protected no matter where he or she resides, no matter who purports to have care of the child. Difficulties have arisen with regard to the remit of the office in the past but it would be criminal to leave any child unprotected and to protect the abusers, whether the State or any other perpetrator. It is disappointing that this provision was not included in the amended legislation. As a humble backbencher of the Opposition I ask why this was the case. I have no doubt it is a very complex legal area but we are supposed to have employed all these complex legal experts in the Office of the Attorney General and many advisers in the public service. I am appalled to think that this provision was removed or fell through the hoops. It took pressure from the Ombudsman and other concerned people to persuade the Government to make this very necessary change. We must ask why it was not included in the amended Act and why these things happen.

I refer to the wrong information about voting and the franchise being interfered with in Dublin which was corrected subsequently. However, the welfare of children is a much more serious matter. The protection of her children by the State was somehow negated, overlooked and dropped from the legislation with the passing of a Bill. This must be of significant concern, in particular, in view of the proposal to dispose of the Seanad. That House has more time for debating issues and it has legal experts among its Members. Senator Jillian van Turnhout is a children's rights campaigner and she is aware of these issues. This motion was intended to be passed without debate and now the House has only 20 minutes in which to discuss it. However, I support the motion.

It may be necessary to review how, on occasion, the Ombudsman interprets the remit of the office. Concerns have been raised with the Ombudsman, Ms Emily O'Reilly, to explain her assertion that she had no remit in some matters in the past. I was involved with some of those cases and there was a strong argument to show that the Ombudsman had a remit in this regard. Ms O'Reilly has never answered several questions, some of which I brought to the attention of the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs. There is a need for the Office of the Ombudsman to be accountable. It is not good enough to say that the office has no remit; it needs to have teeth and its decisions need to be respected. The Government and Departments must take notice of decisions of the Ombudsman and answer the questions. The citizens place great store and faith in the Ombudsman. They can come to us and we can raise matters by way of parliamentary questions but many cases are lost and the Ombudsman is the final arbiter. Where an appellant has not received a satisfactory response to persistent pleas to the Ombudsman I am not aware that Ms Emily O'Reilly has fully answered questions in some cases. She has come back with watery answers and that is not good enough. I refer to the Garda Síochána Ombudsman. Some people say that office is too intrusive but I disagree. People must have justice administered fairly and that is why the Office of the Ombudsman was established. I support this motion. The Ombudsman must be given the resources and the office must have zeal and a desire to find out the truth to ensure that it represents the downtrodden citizens who are denied their rights or who perceive that they have been denied their rights. I am not saying they are always right but there has to be fairness and understanding.

When people go to the Ombudsman, they do not do so lightly, although there may be some crank issues I do not know about. They can occur with everything and we get them ourselves. There must be an independent and objective office to examine fully the file, carry out a proper investigation and reassure the citizen making a complaint to the Ombudsman that it is acting on the citizen's behalf, without frustration, impedance or bias. It should deal with the question in hand.

It is paramount that we protect children. A person contacted me last night regarding a convicted paedophile who had been released to the community without anybody knowing. That person is living next door to the victim's family. We must consider such cases, although they may be outside the Ombudsman's remit. Victims must be informed if convicted people are to be released having served a sentence, and they must not be allowed near the people who have been offended grievously or hurt, which would put fear into them again.

See this speech in context