Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I thank Senator Minihan for his intervention but I understand the distinction between military law and the civil code. That is not really what this amendment is about. I also welcome the comments made by Senator Maurice Hayes. What about the situation which existed in a number of barracks in Northern Ireland and England some years ago where particular practices of harassment were taking place against young NCOs? No complaint was made and no action could be determined. The issue only took off when an investigative programme brought it to public attention. That is the type of issue about which I am talking. Given the culture which might exist — this is a particular culture within the Defence Forces — we need to ensure the ombudsman is given the power to initiate an investigation if a matter comes to public attention, otherwise he or she will be neutered in his or her role.

My amendment may well be deficient in terms of its limitations, and I would be the first to concede that. However, there needs to be a wider remit if the ombudsman is to be independent. What would happen if, for instance, six months after the appoint of the ombudsman, a major investigative programme came out about a particular practice but no one had complained or there had been no defined action in the case? The ombudsman would be there sitting pretty and could not take on the case and investigate it of his or her own volition. We, as legislators, would be putting the ombudsman in an impossible position.

The Minister might consider this amendment again. We want to give the ombudsman the maximum power to use his or her own discretion. In the majority of cases, given the existing parameters in section 4, he or she would be able to make the decision based on the available evidence. Issues of public concern come to public attention from time to time in which the ombudsman should be involved but he or she could not be involved if the legislation, as drafted, goes through the House. I ask the Minister to give this some more thought. I understand the point he makes but that is not the point of the amendment which is about practices coming to the attention of the public where there is no specific complainant and where the issues involved need to be aired.