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

I move amendment No. 3:

In page 26, line 29, to delete “substantiated or partly substantiated” and substitute “upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld”.

I will discuss amendment No. 3 with amendments Nos. 4, 6 and 11 to 15, inclusive, as they all relate to updating the categories of decision the Ombudsman can make in relation to complaints received and investigated by him or her. The provisions in this area have been improved and we are satisfied that the terminology used in previous legislation introduced by Deputy Pearse Doherty is correct.

In the existing legislation set out in the Central Bank Act 1942 and in section 60 of the Bill, the Ombudsman must make a decision in writing on completing an investigation that the complaint is substantiated, not substantiated or partly substantiated. Following recommendations from FLAC's 2014 report, Redressing the Imbalance, the categories of decisions that the Ombudsman can make, as originally set out in 57C1 of the Central Bank Act 1942, have been revisited. Sinn Féin changed the categories of decisions in its Private Members' Bill to make the outcomes more transparent to consumers and less misleading. Previously, as far as I understand, consumers may have been told their complaint was partly substantiated when in actual fact it had been mostly rejected by the Ombudsman. It is argued that this may have given a misleading impression of success rates. I thank Deputy Pearse Doherty for his work and research in this area and his recent decision to revise the third category of decision from substantially rejected to partially upheld, as we discussed on Committee Stage on 29 June. As I said during that debate, I am happy to now align the categories of decisions in the Government Bill with the revised categories in Sinn Féin's Bill. It is important to maintain as much consistency as possible across the two Bills where they overlap.

If my amendments in this group are accepted, the following will be the categories of findings made by the Ombudsman in future: upheld; substantially upheld; partially upheld; and rejected. Amendment No. 11 proposes to update the categories in section 60 to these four categories. Sinn Féin submitted amendment No. 2, which is similar to my amendments Nos. 11 and 13. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 follow on from amendment No. 11, changing the references in section 60 from the old categories of "substantiated or partly substantiated" to "upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld".

Section 60 deals with complaints and redress in respect of financial service providers. Section 60(2) sets out the grounds for reaching certain decisions and updates a complaint found to be "substantiated or partly substantiated" by substituting the term "upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld".

Section 60(4) sets out the redress available when complaints are upheld. The terms would, in future, read "upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld". The rest of the amendments in this group are consequential changes as follows. The proposed amendments No. 3, 4 and 6 seek to update section 25 to delete the reference to decisions that are "substantiated or partly substantiated" and substitute "upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld".

Section 25(6) deals with the "name and shame" provision. If, in the preceding year, three complaints about a regulated financial services provider are made to the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Ombudsman finds them to be upheld in some manner, such providers will be named publicly by the Ombudsman.

Section 25(11) sets out the procedure when a party appeals a decision, updating the text to contain the new categories of "upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld" decisions.

Amendment No. 15 updates section 72. Section 72(2) concerns the power of the court to grant injunctions in cases were the Ombudsman made a decision. It also proposes to delete the words "wholly or partly substantiated" and substitute the words "upheld, substantially upheld or partially upheld".

The Minister for Finance was also concerned about providing more transparency for consumers on decisions. Section 62 includes a provision for the publication of the Ombudsman's financial services decisions with names redacted, which is maximum transparency in any case.

See this speech in context