Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is no power grab. I assume the Deputy's rationale for the amendment, as he outlined, relates to the efficient functioning of the ombudsman's office. His concern may be that the function of the office may be impacted upon by the requirement to obtain ministerial approval before engaging consultants and advisers. However, that is not the case. It is important to note that because voted funds are used by the office, the relevant provision in the Bills is essential and that is why I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment. The premise of the section is that the financial service and pensions ombudsman, as an entity partly funded by the taxpayer and under the aegis of the Department of Finance, should seek the approval of the Minister for Finance before spending on a consultant or adviser who may be tasked with carrying out a review of the office, for example. The provision in the Bill is a standard requirement for public bodies in receipt of public taxpayers' funds. Recent legislation in respect of other public bodies, such as the Tax Appeals Commission and the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council, contains similar requirements to obtain ministerial approval before the expenditure of voted funds.

This section of the Bill on consultants and advisers came from section 133 of the Pensions Act 1990, with some drafting updates from the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. As the Pensions Ombudsman was funded by the Exchequer, it was subject to more stringent requirements than the Financial Service Ombudsman. In merging the two bodies - and in view the fact that the new body will have Exchequer funding - this accountability for the use of public funds is essential as it follows best practice. This provision was not an impediment to the functioning of the Pensions Ombudsman in office, nor did it negatively interfere with the independence of the Pensions Ombudsman. The Deputy is aware that consultant fees are a sensitive topic and are frequently subject to analysis and parliamentary questions. It is not the intention that the ombudsman should seek consent before hiring temporary front-line workers or support staff such those necessary to provide payroll, audit or IT services. Section 15(3) of the Bill outlines that persons may be appointed to the office as consultants or advisers or on a contract for services or on a permanent, temporary or part-time basis. Thus, there are many staffing options available to the ombudsman. For the reasons I have just listed, I cannot accept Deputy Pearse Doherty's amendment.