Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I stand corrected; we will not argue over it.

We question the proposition that publicly-funded, non-State bodies be added to the list of bodies under the Ombudsman's office in an ad hoc fashion. If this is to be done, then there is a need for detailed criteria, as mentioned by Senators Bacik and Keane, to determine their inclusion. There is a wide variety of these bodies and they serve many functions.

I welcome the decision by the Minister to send the Bill to the Joint Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions where it will be discussed this afternoon in private session. We note the Ombudsman's statement that the petitions committee will provide a much-needed formal channel of consultation and collaboration between the Oireachtas and the Ombudsman. I am a member of that committee and believe it has huge potential in supporting and complementing the work of the Ombudsman and it is highly necessary that the committee has the opportunity to discuss this matter. I agree with Senator Bradford on the reports by the various Ombudsman which have been made to date and the recommendations that have been laid before the Houses. That committee might be a very useful vehicle in trying to resolve those issues.

I further note the Ombudsman's suggestion that there is a case for constitutional status for the office to keep it safe from political attack and partisanship. It has been argued that constitutional status would also further recognise the office as a viable alternative to the courts in securing access to justice and in an informal and a cost-free manner.

This is an interesting suggestion which we believe is of value and we would welcome the Minister's view on it. The Ombudsman has sought more transparent procedures for appointing ombudsmen, adding that there is a strong case for having a prospective Ombudsman attend some kind of confirmation hearing before the Oireachtas committee charged with monitoring and supporting the work of the Ombudsman. Has the Minister responded to this query?

We are particularly concerned that there is a need for the remit of the Office of the Ombudsman to be extended to the prisons and all issues relating to asylum, refugees and naturalisation. We have one of the few Ombudsman offices in Europe whose jurisdiction is restricted in this way. In her annual report in 2007 in advance of the initial publication of this legislation, the Ombudsman said: "However, it is my understanding that the Bill will not extend my remit to complaints regarding decisions in relation to immigration and asylum matters. I am most concerned about this." She also said: "In my correspondence and submissions, I have stressed a number of points about this lacuna in my jurisdiction. I highlighted the fact that most Ombudsman Offices in Europe have jurisdiction in this area of administration." That point was highlighted last week with the publication by the Irish Refugee Council of a report on the conditions in the direct provision centres, which I raised in this House. It shows that the Minister should consider including those agencies in respect of the amendments being brought forward. If he does not, we will certainly think about tabling amendments to have that done because it is extremely important.

The Ombudsman's 2007 annual report stated:

It is an area of administration which impacts very significantly on the lives of a very vulnerable group of people, many of whom face significant challenges in dealing with organs of state and complex administrative processes which they know little about, while also being faced by barriers such as a lack of resources, a lack of legal expertise and language barriers. This makes it all the more important that they have full access to an independent statutory complaints system. As things stand, my Office can only be of assistance to people with complaints in relation to issues such as the quality of accommodation for asylum seekers or complaints about delays, whereas I am unable to scrutinise complaints in relation to actions such as decisions to refuse family re-unification applications, decisions to refuse leave to remain resident in the country, etc.

We agree that these restrictions are unwarranted and should be subject to investigation by her office in accordance with the terms of the Ombudsman Act. We will also seek an amendment to ensure the Office of the Ombudsman has the capability to conduct its business through Irish. Tugaim faoi deara go bhfuil Oifig an Ombudsman faillíoch maidir le hAcht na dTeangacha Oifigiúla, cé go bhfuilimid ar fad an-mholtach faoin obair a dhéanann sí. Níl scéim daingnithe aici faoin Acht sin go fóill, in ainneoin go bhfuil comhráite ar siúl aici le ceithre bliana agus ba chóir go mbeadh Oifig an Ombudsman ábalta freastal ar shaoránaigh le Gaeilge chomh maith le haon saoránach eile agus dhéanfaí sin ach go mbeadh na hacmhainní cuí ar fáil chuige sin. Beimid ag moladh leasaithe ar an mbunús sin.

In general, we support this legislation, but this area needs to be considered in light of any modernisation programmes rather than being rushed through and that in widening the scope of the legislation, the Ombudsman needs more scope over justice issues. It is also very important for the Minister to make a statement about the increased workload on the office given the extra bodies under its remit and the resources available to her office to enable her to do her work. I share the concerns of some Senators about some of the organisations that are exempt. It strikes me that any agency that receives public funding should be open to question and a complaint to the office of the Ombudsman. I note that agencies such as the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, An Bord Pleanála, Bord Gáis Éireann, Bord na Móna, Bus Átha Cliath, Bus Éireann, Coras Iompair Éireann, the Dublin Airport Authority, the ESB, the National Tourism and Development Authority, the IDA, the Irish Film Board, Iarnród Éireann and the National Concert Hall are exempt.