Seanad debates

Wednesday, 1 December 2010

4:00 pm

Photo of John Paul PhelanJohn Paul Phelan (Fine Gael)

Senator O'Sullivan also stated that it was reported in the media that the Ombudsman has political aspirations. His comments are beneath contempt and he should not have made them. The Ombudsman has fulfilled her role in an admirable way. Even though the Government has ignored her report, she has remained in her position.

This is the second report to be produced by the Office of the Ombudsman and laid before the Oireachtas. I understand the previous report, which related to a matter involving Revenue, received a better reception from the Government. I cannot understand how the Government can stand over the Ombudsman remaining in her position if it is going to ignore the recommendations contained in a report she has produced. The Ombudsman was appointed to her position by the then Minister for Finance, Mr. Charlie McCreevy, who was a member of a Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats Government. The Ombudsman has done her job very well but her report is being ignored.

The comments from the Ombudsman following the decision of the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food not to support her report are quite damning. She stated that in this instance the Government was allowed to be the judge in its own case. That is what happened. The Government colleagues of the former Minister of State, Deputy Fahey, voted at the Joint Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to exonerate him when a cold examination of the facts quite clearly indicates he should not have been exonerated. There was something very wrong with the way the lost at scheme was operated within the Department.

The independent person who was appointed to protect the rights of citizens, regardless of whether that person has any political affiliations, produced a report with the assistance of her staff. That report clearly indicated there was something wrong with the relevant scheme, and because Government members on a committee of these Houses then voted it down, we are supposed to leave the matter at that.

In the context of suggestions that this is a political attack on Deputy Fahey, if he had not taken the relevant decisions in respect of the scheme in question, no one would be attacking him. Even former Members of the Lower House, such as Dr. Jim McDaid, have admitted that there was something wrong with the way the scheme was implemented.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.