Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I heard what the Minister read from his note, but his note did not say that he could not do it. It stated that he had to be conscious of quasi-judicial procedures and so on. I have not seen legal opinion on this, and I do not have legal opinion on it, but I am certain there are ways in which we can address the matter if we put our heads together. Even if, as I said, we may not be able to do it for those who have entered into contracts, we can look at contracts in the future if there is an issue. The bizarre thing in this is that an individual - for example somebody who is a victim of domestic violence – who may have been wronged by the financial institution can make a complaint herself to the financial institution.

The Central Bank, in the context of the codes the Minister of State mentioned, expects that financial institution to deal with her complaint and to respond to her regardless of whether the individual who has been involved in domestic abuse against her consents to it. However, when the financial institution fails her, she has no right to seek recourse from the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman unless her abuser puts his signature on her complaint form. That is nonsense. It just does not make any sense.

Let us look at the Bill before us, which I support. Section 15 gives the Minister for Finance the power to bring forward regulations involving internal dispute mechanisms within financial services providers where they may not exist. Would the Minister of State be happy if those regulations stated that an individual cannot be heard from unless the second person signs the form? No financial institution works like that. It is only the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman that works like that. The financial institutions will hear a complaint from one individual. There has to be a way to deal with this.

I am conscious that we are not going to get agreement on this amendment tonight, but I am trying to make sure that we go away, look at the legal avenues and find a way to resolve this issue. Protections can be put in place to allow for due process, engagement and information to be provided to any other signatory of the account but that should not block any consideration of a complaint the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman feels is important. As already stated, I am not arguing that it should be done willy-nilly or for every single case. I am arguing that this should be allowed where the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is of the view that it is in the interests of the complainant for a complaint to be heard. This may be in a case of domestic abuse or coercive control or where the other party to the original mortgage is in some far-flung land and the complainant has not had contact with him or her for 20 years. As it stands, the complainant's case can never be heard. That is not acceptable in this day and age. As I have said, there are bound to be ways to resolve this.

The amendment could stand in this legislation because all it does is enable the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman to hear these cases. It does not mean that he or she will hear the cases. It may be the case that we will have to look at other amendments to legislation to allow for protections for other signatories to the contract. The Minister of State mentioned the Central Bank code of conduct and all of the protections that are there but who polices the code? It is the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. If you make a complaint to the Central Bank, it will say that it cannot deal with individual complaints and will direct you to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. It is the ombudsman's code and he or she obliges the bank to adhere to it. If you feel the banks are not adhering to the code, you can make a complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. However, in this circumstance, you cannot. All of the protections are there. The more protections, the merrier. I am absolutely for that but I want to ensure that people are able to exercise their rights where they feel that consumer protections have been disregarded by financial institutions. They should then be able to make a complaint. It is crucially important that they can do that through a mechanism I very much support, which is free of charge, which has been efficient, although there are some issues at the minute, and which is readily available to the population.

I ask the Minister of State to commit to looking at this issue again in the spirit of determining what we would need to do to allow this to happen in these circumstances, which are limited in number but which still exist. How can we give the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman discretion to hear such cases? That is what I am not hearing at the minute. I hear what the Minister of State has said about just being briefed on this recently but I ask that he commit to looking at this issue again. I am not asking for it to be included in this legislation. This legislation will pass tonight but there will be other opportunities.

See this speech in context