Sean Barrett (Independent) | Oireachtas source

The regulator in that case acted at the behest of the airport authority and to the detriment of the rest of us in the country. That is what I say to a 41% increase in charges.

If there is a general power that anybody who looks for public money under section 4 is reviewable, we should specify the exemptions - the concept of which is wrong anyway - in a section of the Act rather than have a list of exempted bodies. The general presumption should be that the law applies and if people are being disadvantaged by agencies funded from the purse, those must have redress.

I appreciate the Minister's sentiments about Parliament and its rights, but there is much behind the scenes governance in Ireland which must be opened up. I suppose I am wishing to extend the powers of the Ombudsman to try to achieve that because a great deal was going wrong for a good while in this country. I fear, I suppose, going back to the Minister's earlier statement, that we are wasting a good recession if we do not open up to scrutiny on behalf of the citizens. The citizens are very annoyed at what has happened in this country. They believe they were powerless and they need the Minister and the Ombudsman to intervene on their behalf. It is a white knight role for them both. That is why I have difficulties with bodies being exempt from the general provision. If they want public money, we want to know what they do with it. Certainly, we want to ensure that they did not do it to the detriment of the citizens who paid for this.

The Minister raised that example. There are many other examples for which, when one goes through the list of bodies at the end, it is strange that we would deprive the citizen of that form of redress for which, we agree, from the former Ombudsman, Mr. Mills, through to the Ombudsman, Ms O'Reilly, the Ombudsman has been a beacon for the citizen in dealing with the many faults in the system of governance.