Dara Murphy (Cork North Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Ombudsman (Amendment) Act 2012 was signed into law by the President on 31 October 2012. The effect of the Act is that the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform can, by regulation, provide that entities be included under the remit of the Ombudsman.

I am advised that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government, under whose remit the Environmental Protection Agency rests, had communicated to the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform that it wished to see the administrative functions of the EPA included in the Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill 2012, but that the substance of licensing, regulation and enforcement be excluded, on the grounds that such decisions are quasi-judicial and highly technical. In any event, there are separate review and appeals structures governing these functions. As an acceptable form of wording could not be devised, the EPA was placed on the list of exempted agencies, as outlined in the Second Schedule to the Act.

The Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government fully endorses the recommendation of the independent review of the EPA, which was completed in 2011 by a panel of experts from across the main areas connected to the work of the agency. It stated the "EPA should be subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction in respect of alleged maladministration".

In considering oversight by the Ombudsman, the review was positive about the possible impact of the EPA coming within the Ombudsman's jurisdiction, as follows:

The Group concluded that the EPA should be subject to the Ombudsman's jurisdiction. This development would provide a free, independent complaint mechanism in the case of alleged maladministration by the EPA. The availability of such an avenue of redress would serve to increase accountability and transparency and underpin public confidence in the EPA.

However, the executive summary of the review stated clearly, "Given its quasi-judicial role in respect of licensing and the technical environmental expertise required, it would not be appropriate for the substance of decisions taken by the EPA to be subject to such review." It should also be borne in mind that EPA decisions may also be challenged in the courts by way of judicial review.

It remains the Department's position that the administrative functions of the EPA should be subject to the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman, once a satisfactory mechanism for this outcome has been developed. However, for the reasons outlined by the independent review group, the substance of the EPA's decisions in areas of licensing, regulation and enforcement should be excluded from the Ombudsman's remit.

It is not proposed to establish a new agency in the form of an environment ombudsman's office, as suggested by the Senator. Indeed, this Government has put considerable time and effort into reducing the number of State bodies as part of the public sector reform process. For example, the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government has reduced the number of agencies under its remit from 22 to 11, including the successfully completed merger of the former Radiological Protection Institute of Ireland with the EPA in 2014.

The Department will continue to work with the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform to agree an appropriate mechanism for bringing the administrative functions of the EPA under the remit of the existing Office of the Ombudsman.