Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

On amendments Nos. 72 to 77, on Committee Stage we discussed the de minimis rule in regard to the naming of providers who had substantiated or partly substantiated complaints against them. The legislation provides for the naming of providers where there is in excess of three complaints against them. This provision is adequate. The argument made, to which the Minister responded, was on the proportionality question, namely, that in order for a systemic problem to emerge which requires further investigation, it is not unreasonable to say three or more complaints would have to be made to highlight the problem. If three or more complaints were made on a specific issue related to a specific product or behaviour, one would think there was a systemic problem. The argument the Minister made on Committee Stage was related to the sense of smell about a matter, namely, that if there was a bad smell about one provider in a small town, it could have a hugely detrimental effect on the totality of the business. That is why the three complaints rule has been included in the section to make it proportionate to the scale of the problem that may emerge because if there is a problem in one area, there will be a problem in another in terms of the individual, the business or the product sold. The three complaints rule in an important proportionate response to a problem that may come to the attention of the Ombudsman from time to time. Therefore, we are not proposing to take on board amendment No. 72 as it would disproportionately and negatively deal with financial services providers.

I will also not be taking on board amendment No. 73 as I have proposed a similar amendment in this regard. There was a discussion during the debate on Committee Stage about whether the category and description of substantiated or partly substantiated complaint against a financial services provider should be published. In response we agreed to examine these points before Report Stage. Following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, I can confirm that under section 70, section 57BF(2)(ca)(i) of the principal Act already deals with the issue of category. That is the clear view of the Attorney General. The point the Deputy is raising in terms of the description and categories involved has been dealt with as they are set out under section 70 in terms of identification in the report and the different classes involves. I draw the Deputy's attention to section 70, paragraphs (i) and (ii) of section 57BF(2)(ca) of the principal Act.

See this speech in context