Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank all Members who participated in what was a good debate. I thank Members for the welcome I received. I enjoy coming in as the debates are more calm than some of the debates in the other House. I will not deal with all the points made because that is not possible in the time available.

The legislation is part of an elaborate suite of reform legislation that I will have the privilege of piloting through the Houses. Many of the comments made by Senators overlap on legislation that I will bring forward, for example, detailed comments on the Freedom of Information Act. As Members are aware, the programme for Government has committed to a significant extension of the Freedom of Information Act and much work has been done in that area. Members have talked about whistleblowers legislation. I have published the heads of a Bill which is being considered by a committee. We had a good seminar on the issue. The heads of the register of lobbyists Bill have been published and referred to a committee. The general Dáil reform area is beyond my purview but I shall deal with the points made by Senator Bradford. Much more is needed in terms of the reform agenda to make public business more transparent and more relevant and to restore confidence in the institutions of State which is important, starting with the Oireachtas where there is a broken confidence. I used a phrase recently that, perhaps, I should not have used about simple commentators. There is a simplicity about some of the analysis about the complexity of public business, on which there is a need for an open debate, to see how we can deal with it.

Senator Byrne welcomed the Bill but why not given that his party was the progenitor of it. I acknowledge that. He underscored a theme replicated in every contribution, namely, the respect the Office of the Ombudsman, and the three holders of the office since its inception, had brought to that office, which is not common in all public institutions.

Senator Keane referred to the title "ombudsman". Ombudsman is from the Swedish concept. I hope I am progressive in all these matters but I do not go along with the notion that because the word "man" is at the end, it is gender specific. Ombudsman is a gender neutral comment, which in Swedish simply means "agent of the people". Given that it is internationally known, whether in Hong Kong, Sweden or Ireland, there is no need to craft it into something that is unique. Whether one is a migrant or a visitor one knows what the ombudsman is. I would not get caught up on the title. The objective of part of the legislation is to protect the title, in order that the word "ombudsman" is not so widely used, so profligate, that the high respect it has earned, through usage, is not diminished.

The Senator also mentioned resources. The reason for the mergers is back office supports. That is the idea I am trying to drive across the public service in order that the core business of each agency be maintained, as far as practicable, where it is needed. However, there would be a sharing of resources in order to avoid duplication of back office supports, either in office buildings, technology, or people to answer telephones, and all the things that can be done on a common basis but which do not compromise the effectiveness of the important role given to specific agencies, agents or authorities, under law.

Senator Mooney also mentioned resources. Of course, where there is additional staff, a strong redeployment process is ongoing within the public service, as mentioned by Senator Bacik. Where there is not the advance in public sector reform that people would wish, it gets an extraordinary amount of media attention and that is understandable. However, the transformational work does not get the same attention, it is taken as a given such as the reform of Garda rosters, an issue that had been talked about before I became a Member. It has happened and the Garda Commissioner has said that there is a 25% increase in Garda visibility on the streets. We transformed the sick leave arrangement by halving it, something which was supposed to be impossible. That is done, pocketed and forgotten. Likewise, absenteeism and common leave arrangements have been pocketed. There is a need to acknowledge the fundamental changes taking place in the public service. We are driving a very big agenda involving more than 200 timelined objectives. I have put this before the committees of the House and Members should engage with it. At the end of the process there will be a different public service. I am digressing from the issue.

Senator Bacik referred to the role of the Ombudsman and, specifically, Committee Stage amendments. I have indicated that we are replacing the Schedules attached to the 2008 Act on Committee Stage. The bodies which will be within or outside its remit is still a matter that is under consideration with individual line Departments. The general principle we are working on is that there must be a compelling reason to exclude them, rather than the reverse. I note the point made by Senator Quinn that the Office of the Ombudsman should be consulted on all these issues, including in respect of bodies which should be within or outside its remit. I undertake to do that, to ensure that dialogue and communication is clear.

The legal services ombudsman, which was mentioned, was established under the Legal Services Ombudsman Act but is being abolished as the Government has decided to introduce significant legislation to provide for the regulation of the legal profession. That legislation is being advanced by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Alan Shatter. I have decided to include the Higher Education Authority in the remit.