Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 26, line 23, to delete “substantiated or partly substantiated” and substitute “upheld or substantially upheld”.

Amendments Nos. 6 to 11, inclusive, 16, 18, 19 and 20 all relate to updating the categories of decisions. The intention behind this group of amendments is amending the Government Bill to align it with the Sinn Féin Bill, as passed by the Dáil, and the Free Legal Aid Centres, FLAC's, recommendation to bring more transparency and clarity to consumers about the labelling of decisions the ombudsman makes after completing an investigation in relation to a consumer complaint. In the existing Central Bank Act 1997, legislation on the ombudsman, and the published Government Bill, section 60, on completing an investigation the ombudsman must make a decision in writing that the complaint is substantiated, not substantiated or partly substantiated. My amendments on this issue, as well as those of Deputy Pearse Doherty, aim to change the categories to four more precise categories of outcomes. The categories of decisions are referred to in several sections in the Bill, hence the number of amendments. Section 60 of the Bill sets out four categories of decisions that can be made by the ombudsman on conclusion of his or her investigation of a complaint. Currently the possible decisions are limited to: "substantiated", "not substantiated" and "partially substantiated". The aim of the Minister for Finance's amendments in this group of amendments is to allow for a revised categorisation of decisions of: "upheld", "substantially upheld", "substantially rejected" or "rejected". These four categories are in line with Deputy Pearse Doherty's categories of decisions as set out in his Private Member's Bill as passed by Dáil Éireann, and I thank him for proposing this change.

A change in the categories of decisions, from three to four, allows for increased transparency and better reporting regarding the ombudsman's investigation of complaints. This is a reasonable update and modernisation of the current rules which will bring more clarity to consumers. As I mentioned in the Seanad last week, this change is a good outcome for both the ombudsman’s process and consumers, and will be in addition to the publication of decisions in section 62 of the Government’s Bill. There are consequential amendments to update and restate the existing legislation with the updated categories of findings. However, I now see that Deputy Pearse Doherty seeks to improve on his four new categories of decisions. The proposed new categories set out in this amendment are upheld, substantially upheld, partially upheld - which is new - and rejected. Deputy Doherty wants to revise the third category from substantially rejected to partially upheld. I can understand the principle of what he is trying to achieve but there may be drafting issues with his amendments, and I suggest that we return to this topic for report stage.

I can set out the purpose of each amendment in this group now if necessary, but I am withdrawing my amendments and I think the Deputy may take the opportunity to withdraw his amendments on the basis that we return to this on Report Stage.