Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I support the amendments. I submitted identical amendments to amendments Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 13 to 15, inclusive. I assume the reason the amendments are in the Minister's name is that the wording is identical. They are identical because they replicate the provisions of the Bill recently passed in the Seanad. With two Bills proceeding through the Houses at the same time, it is crucial that the terminology used is identical, especially given the uncertainty about whether the Bill before us will be passed in the Seanad before the summer recess.

I welcome the amendments.

They introduce a new finding, as the Minister of State has said, of "partially upheld". I am pleased the Minister of State has adopted the proposal put forward by Sinn Féin on widening the number of findings that could be made. The amendment is about changing the text from "substantially rejected" to "partially upheld", which is a more positive way of reflecting the decision by the ombudsman.

The amendments also capture the issue of the name-and-shame provision that is already in place. These amendments allow for a third group of findings on the ground for naming and shaming to be dealt with. This will help consumers to make sense of the provisions because the findings are more accurately described as "partially upheld". This will reflect cases where the financial service provider was in some way at fault, however minor. Now, with four different categories, that will be far clearer.

The Minister of State referenced amendment No. 12, which is in my name. It is identical to amendments Nos. 11 and 13 combined, which are both amendments of the Minister of State. I put the two amendments into one but otherwise it is word-for-word identical. I will withdraw amendment No. 12 and allow the Minister of State to bring through amendments Nos. 11 and 13. It makes no difference which of them goes forward.

See this speech in context