Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

----- but might still be in receipt of significant public funding, for example, charities. We require greater clarity on the issue and should deal with it in more detail on Committee Stage.

The Minister stated that there would be an amendment to section 5 to provide for consultation with an Oireachtas committee. This is welcome. A committee would even be consulted in advance of the Ombudsman's appointment. Committees are taking on such a role. Senator Keane asked which committee would be involved.

Yesterday, the justice committee held a useful hearing with the five members of the panel appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, to select the new commissioners of the merged Irish Human Rights Commission, IHRC, and Equality Authority. The panel's five members, including the Ombudsman, commented on how it was a new experience for them to present their curricula vitae to a committee of Members. We replied that it was also a new experience for us. The meeting was a good exchange. The panellists were all persons of the highest integrity and there was no question about their curricula vitae, but the process was important for the democratic legitimacy of the merged commission.

The history of what happened is interesting. Having been appointed by the Minister for Justice and Equality this summer, they stood aside from the process over their concerns that their direct ministerial appointment meant they did not fulfil the Paris Principles, that is to say, the Parliament had not had an input. They sought to appear before us as a way to assert their accountability to the Parliament. I was struck by the Minister, Deputy Howlin's intention to amend the Bill to clarify the Parliament's role in this regard. It is a requirement under the Paris Principles and our various international obligations that we increase parliamentary scrutiny of appointments to what Transparency International calls Ireland's national integrity systems, of which the merged commission will be one. I welcome the proposal.

In terms of section 7, I welcome the new provision on the rights of citizens and setting out entitlements to a high level of service. We have seen strong examples of improved services under the ongoing public service reform plan, which is being overseen by the Minister's Department, as well as the Croke Park agreement. The latter has received much criticism in recent weeks, but we must recognise the fact that it has delivered many service improvements at a time of significant reductions in the number of public servants. For example, the Passport Office offers a considerably improved service when it was once the subject of much public criticism.

Schedule 2 lists the bodies not subject to the Ombudsman's remit. Some obvious bodies are exempted, for example, the Law Reform Commission, the Director of Public Prosecutions and so on, the reasons for which the Minister has supplied. The Higher Education Authority has also been exempted. Serious criticisms were offered in the Seanad yesterday and today of the HEA's recent commissioning of an international report that made the bizarre recommendation of merging UCD and Trinity College Dublin. Why should the HEA be excluded when third level institutions are included? Is the rationale that it has few interactions with the public? I presume that the merger of the human rights and equality institutions will need to be reflected in the Bill by way of an amendment.

I welcome the Bill and offer my strong support for it. That support is reflected on both sides of the House. The Ombudsman has been effective in her role. Transparency International has recognised this fact, as has every Senator. It is important and welcome that the Ombudsman for Children will follow automatically, in that her office will reform as well as the Ombudsman's. This is a radical proposal, but we can all support it as offering an improvement in public services.