Ms MaryRose McGovern:

From the day after the Supreme Court judgment in Zalewski, we amended our process to ensure that when we were notifying the parties that we considered it desirable to hold an oral hearing, we asked them whether their preference was to hold the oral hearing in private or in public so that we could take that into account in scheduling the hearing. I think in one instance, one party indicated that their preference was to have the hearing in public. We drew attention to the draft heads of a Bill that are before the committee today, and indicated that we might have to just look at that in the future and postpone the oral hearing for the moment. That person is now considering whether they want to proceed in private or whether they will hold off until we have had an opportunity to consider whether we will hold the hearing in public. One person's desire is only one factor because obviously the desires of both parties have to be taken into account.

Regarding the other factors mentioned in the Zalewski judgment, the idea of cross-examining witnesses has always been a feature of our oral hearings, without it being in the legislation. We have always had a stenographer take a transcript. We have always had the witnesses cross-examine the other party's witnesses and that has provided for a three-dimensional discussion about the issues, so I do not have any particular concern that any of the decisions issued are in danger.

Head 3 clarifies that, for the purpose of investigating complaints, a regulated financial provider shall include, unless the context dictates otherwise, a provider that was regulated at a relevant time. This is to enable the FSPO to investigate complaints against financial services providers that are no longer regulated. Has this been an issue for the FSPO? Are there cases it was not able to deal with because providers were no longer regulated by the Central Bank?