Dan Boyle (Green Party)

A few weeks ago I entered into a debate on this matter outside the House for a number of reasons. When I was a Member of the other House and an Opposition spokesman on this area, I warmly welcomed the previous Government's decision to appoint Ms Emily O'Reilly to the position of Ombudsman. I was pleased when her term in office was extended. It needs to be acknowledged that she has done excellent work in the Office of the Ombudsman. However, I suggest a gap in the legislation continues to prevent her from being as effective as she could be. I would like the promised legislation to strengthen the office to be introduced as quickly as possible. Perhaps such a Bill could deal with some of the issues that have arisen in this case.

While the lost at sea issue needs to be examined in greater detail, I would like to focus less on that issue and more on the manner in which the Ombudsman, as an officer of the State, interacts with the Houses of the Oireachtas. We have had a useful debate on that aspect of the matter. It has been noted that this is just the second time the Office of the Ombudsman has tabled a report for special consideration by the Oireachtas. We need to put in place particular procedures and protocols for dealing with such reports.

I do not agree with Senator Twomey that an attempt has been made to obscure or deny debate. The matter has been discussed in this House and in the Dáil. When the Ombudsman tables a report in this specific way, as she is entitled to do under the legislation, there should be a means of enabling her to interact with the debates on it in the Oireachtas. It would seem ideal to allow such a debate to take place at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is responsible for marine matters. I am glad that consideration is being given to such an approach. We should allow such interaction to occur. The Ombudsman should make a contribution in response to the debates that have take place in the two Houses. The appointed members of the joint committee of both Houses should then react to her thoughts. To agree the motion proposed by Senator Bradford would be to prejudge the response of the joint committee.

Although there is more logic and sense in the Government amendment than in the Fine Gael motion, I am not without sympathy for the Byrne family whose specific case deserves to be examined. The vessel on which the father of the complainant to the Ombudsman lost his life went down in a stretch of water between Burtonport and Arranmore Island. As I have family connections with the island - my father came from there - I have travelled that stretch of water many times. I understand the harsh realities of the lives of fishermen in that part of the world. I accept that we lack mechanisms to recognise their difficulties and make sure they are compensated properly at times such as this. We need to discuss this wider issue.

I am satisfied that the best approach is for the Ombudsman to appear at a meeting of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in the short term. That would enable her to respond to the Dáil and Seanad debates. We could then see how the issue can be progressed from there. Such an approach should have been taken before now and I am confident it would result in a proper re-examination of the issue. The demand in the Fine Gael motion for a "thorough investigation" to be arranged is superfluous. I am confident the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food can sufficiently exercise its role in that regard. We should not second-guess the roles of our appointed committees in this way.

The Ombudsman should be given specific powers when the House gets a chance to consider the amending legislation that has been promised. As an important independent officer of the State, the Ombudsman should have the right to ask to attend Oireachtas committee meetings to discuss issues of relevance to her office. The Ombudsman's role is as a representative of citizens in the operation of administration.

I accept what the Minister of State, Deputy Connick, has said about the flaws in the lost at sea scheme and I should have joined other Senators in welcoming him to the House. I know from my first-hand experience that his family, community and constituents have taken pride in his appointment as Minister of State. I have a great deal of confidence in his ability to rise to his task.

The Minister of State has commented on the manner in which this affair has been responded to so far. Even if the application was late, there was an inconsistency of approach. Not only were advertisements placed in the marine press, but direct contact was also made with a number of people who were known to be affected by the issue. When the Ombudsman makes her presentation to the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, I would like her to address this aspect of the matter. I do not consider the scheme to have been organised in a particular way. This administrative inconsistency deserves to be explored further by the committee. In giving way to my party colleague, I welcome the fact that the committee decided today to examine the issue in a wider sense and to allow the Ombudsman to contribute to that process.