Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

We have agreed a course of action in respect of the petition.

The next petition for consideration is petition No. P00029/16 in the name of Mr Oisín Tuohey, entitled "Reduce Maximum Working Week to 40 hours". The petitioner seeks to amend the Organisation of Working Time Act 1997 to reduce the maximum average working week for many employees to 40 hours per week. It is currently at 48 hours per week. The petitioner is of the view that this amendment would boost productivity and relationships in the workplace and result in fewer days of holiday and sick leave being taken and could reduce stress. The Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation has responded, outlining the reasons for the legislation. It is proposed to forward a copy of the response received from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation to the petitioner and close the petition. Is that agreed? Agreed.

The last petition for consideration is petition No. P00035/16 in the name of Mr. David Geary, entitled "Financial Ombudsman Review". The issues raised in this petition arose after the petitioner submitted a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman, FSO, regarding his standard variable rate mortgage provider. He was not satisfied with a decision taken by the FSO regarding his case and requests the committee to undertake the following actions. He wishes to have the decision of the Office of the Ombudsman independently reviewed to see if the handling of the original complaint was correctly adjudicated in accordance with the statute and to rectify any other similar cases in which the ombudsman has come to an incorrect decision, request that the ombudsman confirm if it was in compliance with the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2004 regarding the petitioner's case, and quality assure and review the appeals procedures of the ombudsman. The FSO has commissioned a comprehensive review of its operational services and, following this review, has implemented significant changes by the introduction of a dedicated dispute resolution service and the issuing of preliminary findings regarding complaints received. It is proposed therefore to inform the petitioner of Standing Order 111C(1)(h), which precludes the committee from examining parts of this petition, and to forward a copy of the response from the Financial Services Ombudsman to the petitioner and close the petition. It is important to note that we intend to invite the Financial Services Ombudsman to appear before the committee regarding this petition to discuss the outcome of the independent strategic and operational review and its progress to date and into the future. Is that agreed? Agreed.

I now turn to No. 10, which relates to the role and remit of the committee. I wish to inform members that the committee received correspondence dated 20 December 2016 from the clerk to the Standing Sub-committee on Dáil Reform regarding a request of the committee to broaden its role and remit to include matters of general public concern or public policy. The sub-committee, at its meeting of 14 December, agreed not to allow this request. Along with the request from the committee to broaden its remit, the Sub-committee on Dáil Reform also received correspondence from the Ombudsman Forum expressing its concern that the remit of the former Committee on Public Service Oversight and Petitions has not been retained and requesting that this decision be reviewed. On this issue, the sub-committee agreed the following: "Where a Select Committee does not under Standing Order 84A(8)(b) consider an Ombudsman report, or a portion or portions thereof, within two months (excluding Christmas, Easter or summer recess periods) of the report being laid before either or both Houses of the Oireachtas, the Committee shall proceed to consider the Ombudsman report, or any portions thereof not considered by the Select Committee." At this stage I open the correspondence to the members for further discussion. As we have previously discussed, there was a genuine expectation that the role and remit of this committee would be expanded. This was articulated through interactions I had as Chairman when attending the Working Group of Committee Chairmen. It is a statement of fact that the role and remit of this committee has been reduced relative to the equivalent committee that sat under the previous Dáil. It is arguable that if we are the first line of contact for the petitioner, the citizen, it is perhaps not adequate that the committee's role would be reduced to such an extent that we are left only to consider sectoral committee ombudsman reports that have not been considered within a two-month period in the various sectoral committees. In other words, we are left only to consider those sectoral reports that have not been considered by other committees and petitions that come before us. I open the floor to the members to give their opinions on the role and remit of the committee.