Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On the proposed timeline and the recommencement of the sitting at 1.30 p.m., because of the day that is in it, I may not be able to come back at 1.30 p.m. However, I will try to provide the Minister of State at the Department of Finance to continue the proceedings, if it is in order to do so.

I thank Deputy Pearse Doherty and his team for the very hard work they have put into this legislation. In general terms, it is good and necessary legislation. There are, however, aspects of the Bill which, from the Government's point of view, require amendment. I thank the Chairman, committee members and staff for facilitating us this morning. The best way for me to be helpful is to read the speaking note with which the Department of Finance has provided me. We can then have a more informal conversation. The note outlines how we might proceed in dealing with the content of the Bill.

I fully understand the intention behind the Sinn Féin Private Members' Bill which seeks to provide for the strengthening of the functions of the Financial Services Ombudsman, the consumer complaints procedure and related matters. While, in overall terms, I support the intention behind the initiative, the provisions, as set out, do not fully achieve that aim. I did not oppose the Bill on Second Stage as I agreed in principle with what Deputy Pearse Doherty was trying to achieve - to improve the legislation in place for consumers. The Government's Bill to amalgamate the Financial Service Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman was published yesterday. It is more comprehensive and provides for a number of improvements to the existing legislation. It will also amalgamate the offices of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman and consolidate and update the existing legislation, including the extension of the time limits for complaints, a singular concern of Deputy Pearse Doherty. With the agreement of the House, I hope to take Second Stage of the Bill in the Dáil by the end of the month. I have been told informally that the Business Committee will facilitate that request. I do not think we are setting up for a long delay. I am as interested as the Deputy in having the Bill enacted by the Dáil and the Seanad before the summer recess.

The Government's Bill has the potential to strengthen the functions of the Financial Services Ombudsman under the new body, the Office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, and to improve the consumer complaints procedure for consumers of both pensions and financial services. I am requesting Sinn Féin to work with me and my officials in order that we can focus on the Bill I have proposed which is broadly in line with the principles underpinning Deputy Pearse Doherty’s Bill. I make that formal request, although I know that the Deputy has an alternative view on how we should proceed. I will not, however, enter a quarrel about it either. If the Deputy is not open to accepting this offer, I am agreeable, in the interests of achieving the best result for the consumer, to working with him and the committee on the draft Bill, bearing in mind that it will have a more limited impact. However, in doing so I point out that if the Government's Bill, published yesterday, is enacted, it will repeal Part VIIB of the Central Bank Act 1942, part of which will be amended by the Deputy’s Bill. Therefore, my Bill, if enacted as it stands, will render the Deputy’s Bill ineffective by repealing the provisions his Bill is proposing to amend. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the pre-legislative scrutiny committee. In working with the Deputy in incorporating his Bill into mine, the principles of his Bill will be retained in the Government's Bill. I am sure he will agree that there is a finite number of resources in the public service and that the taxpayer is entitled to their best use. It is for that reason I urge Deputies to enable us to concentrate fully on progressing the larger and more comprehensive Bill through the Oireachtas to benefit consumers.

For this reason I urge the Deputies to enable us to concentrate fully on progressing the larger, more comprehensive Bill through the Oireachtas, which will benefit consumers.

I note that Deputy McGrath has proposed amendments. As these are stand-alone amendments, they can be dealt with during the debate on their merits in the ordinary way.

If we are to proceed now, I must highlight that there are some sections in the Bill that I can broadly support: section 1, section 2, as amended, section 3, as amended, and perhaps, after discussion, section 6. However, there are other sections which I believe require amendment and in respect of which I expect to work with the committee, particularly with Deputy Doherty, to find a solution. I agree in principle to section 4, which concerns time limits, but I believe it requires amendment to bring it more into line with the proposals in the Government Bill. I also believe that the appeal from the Ombudsman should continue to lie to the High Court and that it is in the best interest of consumers that it should do so.

If the Bill proceeds to Report Stage, I will propose amendments on that Stage to the principles in section 4, which concerns time limits, and in sections 7 and 8, which concern appeals, while perhaps flagging that I might need to make some more minor amendments to section 5, which concerns mediation, and other sections.

I wish to turn my formal speaking note into a conversation. The programme for Government commits us to amalgamating the offices and functions of the Pensions Ombudsman and the Financial Services Ombudsman, and the more comprehensive Bill published yesterday does that. Deputy Doherty's Bill, which is very important legislation, amends, strengthens and makes more amenable to public concerns certain sections of the existing legislation. Apart from the normal differences of opinion one would have about sections in a Committee Stage or Report Stage debate, I do not have a problem with the principles of what Deputy Doherty is advancing.

One option is to proceed with the Government legislation and incorporate the principles of Deputy Doherty's Bill into that debate, and I can assure him that we will approach it on the basis that we would seek to incorporate the essentials of his legislation. The alternative is to run two Bills in tandem and have the Government Bill proceed to Second Stage and Deputy Doherty's Bill proceed through Committee Stage, taking into account the caveats I have expressed about some sections that would need to be amended. The principal difficulty that would arise from running the two Bills in tandem is that while in some areas of Deputy Doherty's Bill the destination he outlines is the same as that at which the Government wishes to arrive, his method of getting there is different. He bases his amending legislation on the Central Bank Act 1942, while the Government legislation is based on a different legal premise. If down the road the Government Bill were to replace Deputy Doherty's Bill, if enacted, his Bill would have to be annulled in its entirety because it is built on the Central Bank Act 1942, which we would annul to get to our new legal base for the more comprehensive legislation. I am prepared to proceed on either basis. I know it is not easy to produce Private Members' Bills, that an awful lot of time and effort is put into them and that they are one of the elements of being in opposition. The successful delivery of a Private Members' Bill is a fairly serious piece of work in any parliament, particularly the Dáil. If we are to go ahead today, I can facilitate Deputy Doherty very quickly with the sections I have outlined with which we do not have an issue. Then, if I can get a commitment of openness to amendment, either today or on Report Stage, to the sections with which I have difficulty, we can go along that way.

There is one other difficulty, of which I am sure Deputy Doherty is aware, but I will point it out anyway. If his Bill passes all Stages in the Dáil and the Seanad and becomes the law of the land on these issues, the complaints initiated by persons under Deputy Doherty's legislation would have to proceed to their legal conclusions. While the base legislation would be overtaken by the more comprehensive Government Bill, the particular complaint, as initiated, would have to proceed under the rules as outlined in Deputy Doherty's Bill. Therefore, one complainant might proceed on a particular legal basis under the Government legislation while another complainant in parallel proceeds under a different complaints procedure, as outlined in Deputy Doherty's Bill. It is hard to foresee whether this would have major or minor consequences but it is worth putting on the record. I will go whichever way Deputy Doherty wants to go.