Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

189. To ask the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform his plans to extend the role of the Ombudsman to cover State bodies not currently within its remit; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [18240/15]

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I would like to ask the Minister about a different topic, as his Department is wide-ranging. What are his plans to extend the role of the Ombudsman to cover State bodies not currently within its remit? I know the Minister will say that he has extended the Ombudsman's remit but the legislation has a Schedule of exempted agencies which run to more than 110 organisations. When can we get some of those exempt organisations to come under the remit of the Ombudsman's legislation?

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The priority objective of the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 was to extend the Ombudsman's remit to a substantial number of new bodies which were not already subject to oversight by the Ombudsman, but whose administrative activities and decision-making impact on large numbers of people.  I adopted the approach of including a general provision of "reviewable agency" in the legislation where any public body that conformed to that definition came within the ambit of the Ombudsman, with exempt bodies listed individually in the Schedule to the legislation.

On that basis, the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act brought some 180 additional public bodies within the remit of the Ombudsman when it became law. This was the most significant extension of the Ombudsman's remit in 30 years. Obviously the Ombudsman's office has to be scaled up and supported to take on this very extensive new task.  Furthermore, any new body that conforms to the definition of "reviewable agency" will automatically become subject to review by the Ombudsman into the future. The Act also provides for the extension of the Ombudsman's remit by order to non-public bodies in receipt of significant funding from the Exchequer, where there is a clear public benefit in particular bodies being subject to review by the Ombudsman, in accordance with the commitment in the programme for Government. 

It became clear, following consultation with other Departments and with the Office of the Ombudsman, that it was not appropriate to bring certain public bodies within his remit.  On that basis, the Government decided that certain categories of bodies should not be included.  These categories, about which we have had a debate, include the commercial State bodies, economic sectoral regulators, research and advisory bodies with little or no public interaction.

As the Deputy may know, I am currently finalising arrangements for bringing privately-run nursing homes whose residents are in receipt of State funding or subvention within the Ombudsman's scope. I hope to be able to do so by the end of next month.  I have written to the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform to ask that it might consider that and advise me.

My officials are also considering the steps necessary to extend the review by the Ombudsman to non-public bodies in receipt of significant public funding in line with the commitment in the programme for Government. If the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform or the Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions has any suggestion to make in this regard, I will happily entertain it.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Last February I submitted a parliamentary question to the Minister asking him when An Bord Pleanála and Eirgrid would be brought within the remit of the Ombudsman. His reply was that An Bord Pleanála and Eirgird had never been scheduled and, as such, were never within the Ombudsman's remit. Anyone listening to him today would think that with 180 bodies listed, everyone was included. However, he keeps saying it is only reviewable agencies that are included. There are 110 bodies that are exempt, while a further 14 are substantially exempt, except in the case of specific issues. I will not go through the whole list which includes bodies such as the Broadcasting Authority of Ireland and the Equality Tribunal but ask the Minister to reconsider three bodies, in particular, in the public interest. He knows that there is a good case to be made with regard to An Bord Pleanála. Many people are dissatisfied that they cannot appeal its decisions to the Ombudsman. I am not talking about having another court of appeal, but people who are not satisfied with how they have been dealt with administratively by An Bord Pleanála cannot go to the Ombudsman. People who are not happy with how Eirgrid is dealing with them also cannot go the Ombudsman, while those who are unhappy with the Environmental Protection Agency cannot do so either. All three bodies are involved in public planning and there is no route, other than to the High Court, for those who are not happy with them. I think the Minister will agree that this is not satisfactory. These three bodies should be reviewable by the Ombudsman, while the public should have a right to go to the Ombudsman's office.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It should be acknowledged that one of the first things I did as Minister was to introduce the Ombudsman (Amendment) Act in 2012 which involved the most significant broadening of the role of the Ombudsman in 30 years. I changed the process, as I have in other legislation, to state bodies are included unless specifically excluded. The fact that the Deputy now knows who is excluded is a novelty. Up to now, only those specifically included would have been known. The categories excluded include the commercial semi-State sector, for reasons we have argued repeatedly, economic sectoral regulators, as well as research and advisory bodies. The Deputy made reference to An Bord Pleanála which was set up under statute by the Houses and has a quasi-judicial role. No more than we do not have the Ombudsman oversee the courts, we do not give the office authority to oversee An Bord Pleanála. If there is a case to be made for administrative oversight of An Bord Pleanála, I will happily hear it, but I am concerned to ensure its absolute independence in making planning decisions which have been so controversial for many decades will not be impeded in any way.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is probably much common ground between the Minister and me on this issue. I am not asking for people to have another route to appeal a specific planning decision-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is what would happen though.

Seán Fleming (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

-----but that the administrative aspects be open to review by the Ombudsman. Eirgrid is not dealing with the public on its commercial activity, while the Environmental Protection Agency has a key role to play. The Minister mentioned the Courts Service, which is generally exempt, except where it relates to an action taken in the performance of administrative functions under section 5 of the Courts Service Act 1998. The Minister is trying to claim credit for the listing of 110 agencies in the Schedule to the Act. However, he spoke previously about the "Second Schedule to the Ombudsman Act, 1980." That Schedule was not included by the Minister last year. I again ask him to consider the administrative functions of the EPA, An Bord Pleanála and Eirgrid. I understand his argument about commercial semi-State bodies and regulators being exempt, but these three bodies are significant and we will be revisiting the issue in the House.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

One of the reasons we set up the Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions was to deal with the Ombudsman. The committee's role includes receiving reports of the Ombudsman which often went into the air in the past. The Ombudsman now has a point of contact with the Oireachtas through the committee. I would be very happy for a discussion to take place within it or at the Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform with the organisations to which the Deputy refers, if either committee was of the view that this should happen. That said, I would be afraid that people dissatisfied with a planning decision would simply go down the road of making an appeal to the Ombudsman, as if that office could overturn planning decisions. That would not be a desirable objective.