Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I acknowledge that it is a matter for the Houses of the Oireachtas and their committees to order their business, but we send them stuff every week. Nothing has more of a precedent than what is being proposed.

I will not get involved in the politics of the matter. When it was last debated in the Chamber, there was, equally, no mention of politics. It is not an issue for me whether someone did right or wrong. For me, the issue is that a process has been put in place to solve these issues. In this case, the process finished with the Ombudsman. It is interesting to look at how these things happen. Someone who runs into a difficulty with a Department appeals the Department's decision and when the person fails to receive satisfaction, the matter may be referred to the Ombudsman. In the case we are dealing with the Ombudsman came to a conclusion and made a recommendation to a Department. The Department concerned decided not to implement the Ombudsman's recommendation.

Certain issues then arose and they involve a former Minister, with whom I have discussed the matter on a number of occasions. If it is found that a mistake was made in a Department, that is not, necessarily, a reflection on anyone. Mistakes can be made. The points made by Senators on the Government side are not an issue for me. I know there are deadlines and that they must be kept. If I were managing a scheme, I would be very strict in that regard and slow to extend a deadline. Someone else might take a different view and that someone might be the Ombudsman.

Closure is not possible in this regard. What happens when a Department refuses to implement an Ombudsman's recommendation? Having considered the reasons for its refusal and not accepted them, the Ombudsman can refer the matter to the Dáil or Seanad. That is included in the legislation and very clear. However, what happens next? The answer is nothing. There is a vacuum in the legislation. There is a legislative error, for which we must take responsibility. We may insist that an Ombudsman's report must always be implemented but I would not be keen on that course. My own view is that we should have a system under which the Dáil, the Seanad or a joint committee would have the power to bring a matter to finality and closure.

The Government amendment is an attempt to stop debate on the issue. That cannot be right. I am happy to have cited the letter from Deputy Sargent who has written to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to say he considers it would be useful to invite the Ombudsman to make a presentation to the joint committee. That is a significant step forward. I ask the Government to listen to this suggestion. Rather than put the matter to a vote tonight and create widespread embarrassment, let the matter go before the joint committee to be dealt with in a non-partisan way. If people play political football with the matter, it is as clear as day what the result will be. I do not want this to be used to have a go at the former Minister. He may be right or he may be wrong. He may or may not have made a mistake. This is above and beyond that. The issue is how we deal with the matter.

This is not the first time such a thing has happened. To my limited knowledge, it happened at least twice before because I was involved on two occasions. One case was dealt with by the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service. That case was dealt with twice. The previous Ombudsman outlined his views on the case. Therefore, what is proposed in this respect has happened previously. A precedent is not being established in terms of what is sought. The last time what is sought happened was at the invitation of the committee concerned. There is no reason that could not happen in this case.

The last time what is proposed happened, the committee concerned examined the matter. The matter in question is not important in this context. It related to a person in an area close to the Minister of State's constituency across the border in south Kilkenny. The person had an issue with the Revenue Commissioners. Having examined the case, the committee, unanimously as I recall, came to the conclusion that the then Ombudsman's recommendations should be implemented. The committee called in officials of the Revenue Commissioners and told them that they wanted them to implement the recommendations. They listened to the committee but they did not do that. It is daft that this could happen. I am not saying that we as public representatives should be able to call the shots in all situations. That type of thing happens but we should have a way to bring closure to a situation such as this. It is not a matter of blocking something. We are not creating a precedent. We have the view of the Green Party member of the committee, we understand the legislation concerned and, effectively, what is being attempted here is to stop this issue proceeding at this point. Why should that be done? If this is an issue that needs to be brought to a conclusion, we should bring it to whatever is the appropriate conclusion and let that be the end of the matter.

Even if this matter is passed to the joint committee and it decides to implement the Ombudsman's recommendation, the matters will be sent back to the Department. The joint committee does not have power to insist that the Department implements the committee's recommendation. If the result were to be the same in this case, that would be the third time that committees of Parliament would have dealt with matters, come to the same conclusion on them as the Ombudsman and the recommendations in the cases were not implemented, or if the committee were to come to the conclusion that the Ombudsman's recommendation was not to be implemented and it disagreed with the Ombudsman, the situation would still be unfinished. We need to examine this area. I ask those on the Government side to recognise that a former Leader of the Green Party, Deputy Trevor Sargent, indicated clearly that it is his view that it would be helpful and useful for the Ombudsman to appear before the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Why can the Government not accept that proposal and let that be the end of the matter? It should accept this motion and bring this matter to a conclusion.

The Minister of State will note that I have not gone into the detail of the issue as I do not want to get involved in the case. I have read about it and have views on it. However, I specifically want to point out a weakness in the procedure in the legislation and to highlight that we have unfinished business. A citizen can go through all the hoops required under legislation and we can still not bring the matter concerned to finality.

People will never be completely happy with the outcome of matters that are dealt with. I am not trying to talk somebody into agreeing or disagreeing with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman is well able to look after her own argumentation and she will put her case to the joint committee and give both sides of the argument, as she would always do, and then the committee can come to a conclusion. All I ask my colleagues on both sides of the House is note that this not about putting a Minister in the dock. That is not what this should be about as far as we are concerned. This motion is about examining a procedure and the Ombudsman's views on the matter, how she weighed it up and for a committee to come to the conclusion to agree or disagree with that. It does not mean she is right nor does it mean she is wrong. It does not necessarily mean the Minister is guilty of some appalling crime if the Ombudsman finds differently. We should take the Minister out of the process, deal with the matter and bring it to a conclusion. I would prefer if it were dealt with in a committee than in either of the Houses.