Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

There are now many women fellows. Perhaps we will move on. I will use the term "Ombudsman". There has been discussion on the matter and alternatives proffered. Given that our Ombudsman is a woman and that the role is so closely and rightly associated with her, the title is interesting to use.

A very extensive set of amendments is to be proposed to the Bill and the Minister has outlined them to us. They will make the Bill even more radical in terms of the reforms to be introduced. The Minister stated that more than 140 additional bodies will be brought within the Ombudsman's remit. I very much welcome the extension of the remit to educational institutions and third level institutions, including Trinity College. There is to be a further extension, beyond 140, when significantly funded non-public bodies are added.

I am delighted the amendments are to be made in this House. It will give us a real opportunity to have a good debate on Committee Stage. Committee Stage debates in the Seanad comprise one of the strengths of the House. Any Senator may contribute and many will bring their expertise to the issue of the extension of the role.

The Minister referred to the role of the Ombudsman, to whom we pay tribute.

She has dealt with an extraordinary number of complaints, some 80,000, with 3,600 valid complaints and more than 11,500 queries in 2011 alone. This indicates her office's significant workload. It is important that she has been consulted on the proposed amendments. It was good to hear the Minister highlight her role in improving customer service in the context of the public service reform plan.

I now turn to the Bill's provisions and the proposed Committee Stage amendments outlined by the Minister. Section 4 is critical in this regard, as the Minister will amend it to ensure automatic application of the Ombudsman's remit to any new public body. The current section 4 requires governmental orders for any such extension.

Senator Keane raised the issue of criteria, particularly when it is proposed to extend the Act's provisions to non-public bodies that are significantly funded. Will the amendment propose specific criteria? Once an organisation fits the definition of a public body, the automatic application is clear, but one can think of a range of different non-public entities that are significantly funded. Last week, we held a good debate on charities regulation. It was prompted by a Labour Party Private Members' motion. We heard of the extensive reliance of many charities on State funding. Could they be included within the definition of non-public significantly funded bodies?

Quangos have been mentioned. I have read various references to, for example, Government-organised non-governmental organisations, gongos, which have become closely associated with Government funding. NGOs, or nongos, have no link to the Government----