Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to share time with Deputy Mattie McGrath.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Second Stage debate on the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland (Amendment) Bill 2011. It would have been unusual to hear a Member of Fianna Fáil being praised in this House during the past few days. However, I congratulate Deputy Michael McGrath on his introduction of this legislation which makes perfect sense in the current climate.

The role of Financial Services Ombudsman was established in 2005. There is no doubt that the Financial Services Ombudsman has had a positive impact on customer relations in the financial services sector countrywide. Since 2007, there has been an increase of more than 62%, which is massive, in the number of complaints made to the ombudsman in regard to financial services. It is interesting to note that during this period the number of complaints against the banking sector which were not upheld increased from 66% to 74%, which indicates the positive role of the ombudsman in changing behaviour within the banks which are now responding properly to complaints. One in every four complaints made during the past year was upheld. Given the increasing volume of complaints this means an increasing number of complaints are being upheld by the ombudsman. It also indicates there are still cultural and transparency problems within the banks.

In 2009, the then Financial Services Ombudsman requested that the Minister for Finance provide him with the powers to name institutions against which he had made findings, the number of complaints received, the findings for and against and the value in monetary terms in that regard. This proposal has been with the Department of Finance since 2009. It has taken action on the part of Deputy Michael McGrath, who introduced this Bill, to get the Government to accept that the system needs to change and that legislation to ensure this happens is introduced.

This legislation will be vitally important in terms of driving the cultural change required within the banks. Deputy Stephen Donnelly stated in his contribution last night that the banks are among the least trusted institutions in this country and across the world. Only 9% of people trust the banks to deal with them in a fair manner, which shows the real problems in our banking system and the need for a cultural change. We learned some years ago through the DIRT inquiry of over-charging by the banks. This issue still remains to be addressed. Banks appear to view their customers as a soft touch rather than people who make them successful. They choose to screw the people whenever they can and to get what they can out of them.

Reports were carried in the media during the past few days of banks selling insurance policies to people who would not qualify for payment under those policies should they need to call them in. This shows that the banks are continuing to missell products. There needs to be a massive cultural change in our banks. This legislation will go a long way towards forcing that cultural change. It will probably result in positive competition within the banking sector as banks compete to ensure as few complaints as possible are made against them to the ombudsman.

I give a guarded welcome to the Minister's response to the legislation. I note that he stated the financial service providers could view such provisions as disproportionate and unfair, which coming from the banks is rich. I am concerned that the Department will swallow up this legislation and that following the Second Stage debate it will remain on the Order Paper and make no further progress. The Minister should rely on the Financial Services Ombudsman to engage with financial service providers and should ensure this legislation is enacted as quickly as possible to ensure a cultural change in our banks.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I too welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a ghabháil leis an Teachta Mac Craith a chur an Bille seo síos. Molaim an tAire, an Teachta Ó Nuanáin, freisin for accepting it. It is magnanimous of him and his junior Minister. Deputy Pringle stated he would be concerned this legislation will remain on the Order Paper for some time. Given the tenacity and vigour with which Deputy Michael McGrath will pursue this, I know that will not happen. We will all support him in that regard. I give the Government the benefit of the doubt on this matter.

It is high time this legislation was enacted. It is shameful that the Financial Services Ombudsman requested these powers back in 2009. Who is the Department of Finance hiding? Why is it sheltering the banks? What type of system do we have?

It is ironic that this Bill is being discussed on the same days as we are discussing the findings of the Mahon tribunal. I believe a sub-culture exists within the senior echelons of the banking sector. I am not speaking about counter staff, many of whom are now being thrown to the wolves. Rather I am speaking about the slick operators who have forced others to do the dirty work for them. Previously, people respected the parish priest, school teacher and bank manager and, possibly, the creamery manager if there was one. We have no creameries now and have very few sagart paróistes - we must keep our faith - but we have plenty of bank managers.

While some of the banks have been amalgamated having brought our country to its knees they have in the main gotten away with blackguarding, infringement of rights and terrorising people. Calls were made recently in this House and in the media for the banks to be restrained in terms of the number of times they could menace customers in regard to loan repayments. Many bank managers are bully boys. They got away with this and are no different to many of those about whom we speak in the context of the Mahon tribunal. They used their position of influence wrongly. We all know that they told untruths to the late Brian Lenihan, the former Minister for Finance and the Government leading to the introduction of the bank guarantee. They have continued with that mask. They were allowed by the previous Government and are being allowed by this Government to con all and sundry.

I am glad Government Members saw fit to be in the House for the debate on Deputy McGrath's Bill unlike when we debated the motion on the interest rates of Permanent TSB, at which time, for 14 minutes, there was no Member on the Government side of the Chamber. This Government promised change and reform which we have yet to see. The banks are deluding themselves. They are lying to the people. They are saying that they approve X number of loans applied for but that is not true. Hundreds of thousands of customers go the banks looking for a loan, many of whom do not even get past the counter and are told to go away. They are not classed as applicants. The banks are withdrawing business people's overdrafts and forcing them to take out term loans. It is high time the Government, Financial Regulator and Credit Reviewer, Mr. John Trethowan, and his staff tackled this issue. We are only tickling the banks and paying lip-service to them. They know they can get away with anything and that the fraud squad will not be sent in to deal with them. Why should they be allowed to undermine faith in democracy and to give two fingers to the Government and so on at the same time as we are bailing them out? The public are mystified by this. Voters, non-voters and everyone else are sickened by the system. They know that there is not fair play in the system and that these people have gotten away with what they did. They are aware that Deputy McGrath has introduced this Bill, which I am glad the Minister has acquiesced to. However, one wonders how much longer it will take the mandarins in the Department of Finance to progress it. Mr. Cardiff was sent off to Europe in haste. Perhaps he knew too much about what went on that fateful - or fatal - night of the bank guarantee. There may be many more who know too much who are gone with their big pensions and we have to give people money well above the agreed cap. They know they can dance the merry dance to this Government as they did to the previous Government. It is time the rince and codding was stopped. They should be investigated thoroughly.

This power should be given to the ombudsman. Where there is wrongdoing, he should be able to name those involved. I am not saying he should be revealing names all the time. One in four complaints - 25% - is upheld. That is a lot. I am sure many more complaints would be borderline. Those involved have to be outed. The truth must be known. They must be named and shamed. They should be there to serve the people, rather than serving themselves and the people serving them.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to share time with Deputies Jim Daly, Twomey, Neville and McNamara.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to comment on the Bill. I thank and commend Deputy Michael McGrath for proposing it. As he acknowledged last night, the introduction of legislation of this nature has been discussed and mooted for some time. It is fair to say there is widespread political agreement on this issue. The Bill attempts to give the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman a basic and important power, which will enhance its work. I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for his constructive use of Private Members' time tonight and last night.

This debate is a good day's work for the Oireachtas. The Friday sittings of this House are often dismissed and sneered at by the media. I have made the point during those sittings that there is little point in encouraging and requesting Opposition and Government Deputies to propose legislation if it will inevitably be shot down or dismissed. When a good idea is proposed, it should be considered on its merit and not on the basis of the political affiliation of the proposer. That is the role of parliamentary democracy. This is an example of the real reform referred to by Deputy Mattie McGrath. The Government is willing to take up an idea with which it agrees, regardless of the party affiliation of the person proposing it. I thank the Minister, Deputy Noonan, and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Hayes, for the constructive and positive welcome they have given to the thrust of this Bill and what it sets out to achieve.

Significant work has been undertaken by the Financial Services Ombudsman to make progress with his proposal that he should be given the power to provide information about individual service providers in his biannual reviews. Any ombudsman should be expected to have the right to name and shame. It is an important tool for any ombudsman in protecting the public and ensuring complaints are addressed in a fair, transparent and comprehensive manner. Consumers have every right to expect to be alerted to any potential risk or instance of wrongdoing that is known to a statutory office. This issue boils down to protecting, informing and empowering consumers with the facts before allowing them to make their own decisions about financial services in that context. Now more than ever, Irish taxpayers are yearning for transparency and accountability. Having pumped billions into mechanisms designed to save our banking system, we want to see redress for wrongdoing. People should be named and shamed and held to account.

Deputy Mattie McGrath made an interesting point when he mentioned that the Financial Services Ombudsman originally requested these powers in 2009. He highlighted a point that the Government needs to take on board. When ombudsmen of various hues - the Financial Services Ombudsman, for example, or the Ombudsman for Children - seek powers to aid them in doing their work, why does it take this House and the political system as a whole so long to respond? The Government needs to take that point on board.

I would like, in the context of our discussion on the importance of publicising information relating to financial services and getting it into the public domain, to reiterate a request I have made previously in this House. The National Asset Management Agency, which will dominate many financial transactions in this country for the foreseeable future, should also be subjected to public transparency. This Government did not design the agency - we were critical of its establishment - but we have inherited it. We should not expect financial institutions to be subjected to greater public scrutiny without ensuring the same thing applies to the State vehicle that is involved in property and financial transactions. It is important for as much information as possible to be made available to the citizens of this country, who will be left to pick up any tab that may arise from NAMA.

Fine Gael pursued this matter for quite some time when it was in opposition. It comprised an important part of our election manifesto and it is in our joint programme for Government with the Labour Party. I encourage the Minister of State at the Department of Public Expenditure and Reform, Deputy Brian Hayes, to make progress with the extension of the freedom of information legislation to NAMA as quickly as possible. Just as we expect individual financial institutions to be subjected to scrutiny, it is important that we extend that same level of scrutiny to agencies that were established by Acts of this House. It would be wholly inappropriate for us to talk the talk if we do not walk the walk when it comes to such agencies.

I welcome this debate and this legislation. I do not share Deputy Pringle's pessimism that this Bill will be shelved or put on the long finger by the Government. Anyone who listened to the contributions of Government speakers like the Minister, Deputy Noonan, knows that will not be the case. I trust that Deputy Michael McGrath accepts the good faith of the Government on this issue. I look forward to seeing the thrust of the provisions of this Bill enacted and benefitting Irish consumers as quickly as possible. We must do everything we can to inform citizens with the facts, good or bad, about various financial institutions. We saw what happened in this State in the past when we failed to do this.

Jim Daly (Cork South West, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fáiltím roimh an deis labhairt ar an ábhar seo. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, which proposes that the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman be given certain additional powers to enable it to name firms in certain circumstances. I commend Deputy Michael McGrath for introducing this legislation. I echo the sentiments that were expressed by the previous speaker. When an ombudsman looks for supports of this nature and this House is called on to assist the offices of independent ombudsmen, which are doing such excellent work for the people of this State, it is important for this House to be seen to be proactive and strong in its response. I commend the Deputy for bringing this matter into sharp focus and drawing the attention of the House to it at this timely juncture.

In my role as a public representative, I have referred constituents to the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman on a number of occasions in recent years. The satisfaction levels of those who have had to go to the ombudsman have been extremely high. I commend the ombudsman on the exemplary service he offered to customers of financial services in the past. There is no doubt that the actions and the presence of the Financial Services Ombudsman have been of significant assistance in ensuring higher and better standards for the customers of these institutions over the years. It is unthinkable that regular customers of such institutions could have managed to pursue such issues through the expensive and difficult courts process, as they would have been forced to do if they had no option other than the usual legal process. The substantial legal departments and budgets of the financial institutions would have led to significant inequity, resulting in a David and Goliath experience for those customers who would have been brave enough to take on the institutions in the normal legal process.

I understand that the necessary consultations between the industry and the Financial Services Ombudsman have taken place with a view to making progress to a stage that will allow institutions to be named in certain cases, where this action will prove beneficial and act as an added deterrent to the industry not to err in its dealings with clients. I welcome the enthusiasm shown by my colleagues in Fianna Fáil for this legislation. I am particularly pleased with the reaction of the Minister, who has welcomed the proposal. He is most anxious to work constructively with Fianna Fáil in bringing about a resolution to this important matter.

The ombudsman has expressed his wish to have the power to name financial institutions where he deems it appropriate and helpful. He will judge it on a case-by-case basis. The ombudsman has made his approach clear in his biannual reviews. The Oireachtas must focus its efforts to assist in this process. I welcome the renewed focus on this legislation. I trust that our combined efforts will ensure that effective and robust legislation, which will stand up to the likely legal challenges, is passed. I am aware that consultation between the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the various service providers in the industry is ongoing. These negotiations will not conclude until all stakeholders have had their say. It would be premature for us to enact legislation in advance of that.

The financial services industry has gone through enormous changes. It will continue to face an immense challenge in the coming years. As legislators, it is imperative that we ensure every step is taken to support and encourage consumer confidence in these institutions as they work to regain the trust of the people. It is reassuring for the people of this country to have the highest levels of service available to them to deal with any complaints relating to their treatment by the financial services industry. Combined with the support of the people, it is also necessary to have the trust and co-operation of the industry in ensuring the continued good work of the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman. Limited companies with turnovers of less than €3 million, along with charities, club trusts and partnerships and personal customers of financial services, are able to avail of the services of the Financial Services Ombudsman. All of them rely on the security offered by this office so they can access an independent and reputable means of investigating any complaints they have about their dealings with financial service providers. This security is of enormous benefit to customers and is free of charge to anyone who has a grievance following interaction with the industry. The ability of the ombudsman to name institutions referred to in his judgments will not only act as a deterrent to other institutions, but will also enhance the role and regard of the office. I am happy to support and welcome the Bill. It is good to see both sides of the House working together progressively and constructively, notwithstanding the challenges that we will face prior to enacting the legislation and the conclusion of the consultation between the various stakeholders in the industry. I welcome the timely introduction of this Bill.

Liam Twomey (Wexford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy McGrath for introducing this Bill. It is very useful and important.

The Financial Services Ombudsman, the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and Deputy McGrath have had a clear approach to getting the balance right. When introducing legislation such as this in the current environment, there is always a concern that we could move from a total lack of regulation in the financial services sector to over-regulation. The latter has consequences also. Over recent years, banks and financial services almost bankrupted this country.

At present, there are three asset management agencies in the country: Certus; the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, otherwise known as Anglo Irish Bank; and NAMA. These organisations and the pillar banks have approximately €100 billion in distressed assets. We do not know what will happen to them or their real value, now or in the future. The value of distressed assets is significant by comparison with our GDP.

It was the exuberance of probably no more than 100 individuals, including developers, politicians and senior bankers, that brought us to the point where the country is now trying to dispose of €100 billion in bad assets, to get the public financial system back in order and to resuscitate financial services and banks, which we will be doing for the coming years. It is weird that only around 100 people brought us to this point.

We must avoid being too populist in dealing with the crisis. We must be careful that we do not let the pendulum swing towards over-correcting the under-regulation of the system. If we did so, we could run the risk of making a bad situation worse. That is why I admire the cool, calm approach that the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Taoiseach are taking, both in Europe and beyond, to restoring our reputation. I am very proud to observe this as a member of a Government party.

I remember going to mainland Europe shortly after the Government came into power. To say we had a battered reputation in the European Union at the time would have been to underestimate the seriousness of our circumstances. People were beginning to feel Ireland was more than just a basket case. They felt that we had thrown caution to the wind. A very tough battle has been fought by a number of Ministers, particularly the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Taoiseach to help restore our reputation. I am glad to see members of Fianna Fáil, such as Deputy Michael McGrath, with whom I recently travelled to Berlin, are working to get this country working properly again such that we can serve the people as expected of us. I hope this approach will continue in the House on issues such as this. I hope we will continue with such co-operation, not only in the Dáil but also in the Seanad and at meetings of the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, so we can best represent the people we serve. There is a considerable crisis that we need to deal with and we are still not out of the woods. It is important, therefore, that we try to work together as much as possible.

I recently wrote to a number of colleagues, but not only to those in Fine Gael and the Labour Party, in my constituency of Wexford asking them all to work together regarding the financial stability treaty on which we will vote in May. I am delighted to state members of the Fianna Fáil Party have agreed to our working together to send a clear message to the people in my constituency on the importance of the treaty. I hope this co-operation will continue. There is nothing wrong with having policy differences where they are genuine but sometimes too many people in this House take a populist and political approach to what are vital national issues. This is to the detriment of the people in the longer term. I hope we can continue with our approach to doing the right thing for the country. I will continue to work with all Members in this regard.

Dan Neville (Limerick, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this constructive legislation. I welcome the Minister for Finance's acceptance of the Bill. It will be of great benefit to the Financial Services Ombudsman. The Bill contains provisions to empower the ombudsman to report on investigations and adjudications concerning regulated financial services providers arising from consumer complaints made about their conduct. I welcome the approach taken by Deputy Michael McGrath to Government policy and I welcome the spirit of his comments on the matter yesterday.

Let me raise an issue that has rarely been spoken about concerning financial services providers. Researchers have found that people with mental health problems are three times more likely to be in debt than others as they are likely to be living on low incomes and are unable to work owing to difficulties getting a job because of the stigma associated with mental illness. It is important that debt collection agency staff seek mental health awareness training. Banks should adopt a system whereby customers can choose to have their accounts monitored for erratic spending to better protect their finances. Irish personal debt stands very high at present and this results in a significant mental health cost.

Money worries are not only keeping people awake at night; they are also causing high levels of stress, depression and, in some cases, self-harm and suicide. At a time when people across the country are anxious about their finances, debt depression is real and of growing concern. People living with mental health problems are particularly vulnerable to being trapped in a cycle of debt and poverty and many are unable to work due to ill health. People are becoming dependent on credit to pay for everyday essentials. Those on lower incomes are more likely to get credit from lenders who charge astronomical interest rates. This is a worrying trend as people are left facing a mountain of debt that they have no means to repay.

If we are to tackle this massive inequality and really help people who are struggling with mental health problems and debt, we need to see action by the Government, the HSE, banks, debt collection agencies and other creditors. We hope the Bill will facilitate that. Changes in practice such as waiving fees when a customer has been unwell and introducing mental health awareness training for bank staff would make a difference. Creditors have a duty to help, not hound, their customers, especially when they are coping with serious health problems. People with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, the manic phase of which can cause sufferers to spend extravagantly, are four times more likely to be in debt than others.

The survey to which I referred states:

Fewer than 1 in 3 people with problem debt informed the organisation to which they owed money of mental health problems because they did not think that they would be understood [...] or believed [...]. 83 per cent of those who did tell creditors continued to be harassed about debt repayments.

The urgency with which this must be addressed in times of recession was again highlighted by personal debt being a significant factor behind the worsening conditions of those with mental health problems. Up to 50% of respondents to a UK study on those with mental health conditions and personal debts were going without food and heating. The research showed 71% ran out of money every week or most weeks while 87% relied on credit to pay for food and everyday costs. Up to 56% had gone without food due to debt, 21% had gone without heating and 92% reported not being able to socialise.

These are the serious issues facing people under stress because of the current economic circumstances. These are people who never expected to be under such stress, who lost their jobs or are in danger of losing them, have had their incomes reduced or are in danger of losing their homes. This leads not just to stress, but interpersonal, interfamilial and relationship difficulties as well as an increase in alcohol consumption and drug abuse. The personal debt crisis is not just an economic problem, but a social one too.

I hope this issue is recognised by the Financial Services Ombudsman and the banks. Some banks pay lip-service to this problem and even give courses to educate their front line workers on how to handle customers. I urge the financial institutions and the banks to train more of their staff on how to deal with customers with psychological difficulties. We must also tackle moneylending, particularly illegal moneylending, which is trapping, exploiting and abusing people both psychologically and financially.

Michael McNamara (Clare, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputy Michael McGrath for introducing this important Bill in his party's Private Members' time. In his response to the Mahon, formerly the Flood, tribunal report, the Tánaiste referred to the corrosive link between corruption and politics, the lack of sufficient safeguards in the planning system and a runaway financial services system which provided cheap credit. This week, we heard much about the corruption in politics and how detrimental it has been. The Minister of State with responsibility for housing and planning, Deputy Jan O'Sullivan, has promised she will look at planning legislation. It is also good to see that the issue of financial services is also being addressed this week.

It has been a week in which, it is fair to say, politics has been brought to its lowest ebb since the foundation of the State. It has been a week in which the ordinary citizens on the streets of Dublin and Ennis, as well as across the country, have lost confidence in politics and its ability and that of politicians to deliver for them a system of government and rules by which they can live without favour given to powerful economic forces. In this context it is important we examine the role of financial services regulation.

This Bill's proposals are relatively modest but important. In that regard, I am quite happy to support it. I am also glad the Government will support the legislation. It is the second time in the year since this Dáil was elected that I have had the opportunity to speak on a Private Members' matter that the Government did not oppose merely for the sake of it. I commend the Minister for Finance on his mature approach in accepting this honest Bill.

The Bill gives the Financial Services Ombudsman the power to publish certain details of his findings. It reflects current government policy and the Minister for Finance set out in the Dáil on 16 February last that the Government has already been engaged in preparatory work necessary to make the sought after legislative changes. The Minister will bring forward an improved Bill on Committee Stage which will clarify the detail of its application. The Government does not oppose this Bill as it wants to work in a constructive way with the Opposition when it is eager to implement policy compatible with the Government's.

The Financial Services Ombudsman proposed himself that he be given power to provide information about individual financial services providers in his biannual report. This review is currently presented in aggregate form only. The Financial Services Ombudsman further proposes that these reviews provide a breakdown of the information provided by financial services providers and the relative market share of the provider would also be reported. He has invited and received submissions from interested parties and he proposes further consultations with the industry as to how this information should be presented. He has also requested that any legislation to provide information naming an individual service provider should only be published where he determines there is a compelling public interest to do so, such as the need to inform potential customers of risks they would not be aware of in the absence of disclosure. The Minister for Finance agrees in principle with the ombudsman's proposals and this Private Members' Bill reflects this policy. The precise scope and details of the application of the proposal have yet to be finalised. The Minister's officials will be engaging with the Financial Services Ombudsman in the coming weeks to formulate the details of a proposal for legislation.

It is largely irrelevant as to who proposes particular legislation. It is far more important that it makes sense. For a long time parties have opposed legislation and charges purely for the sake of it. This week the entire body politic stands impugned regarding corruption. For a long time Fianna Fáil refused to acknowledge corruption in the State. In doing so, it did the State a disservice because, as we now know, corruption existed in Fianna Fáil. It also existed in other political parties such as Fine Gael and the Labour Party. Playing Punch and Judy with politics by refusing to acknowledge a Member on the opposite side may have a valid point merely for the sake of opposing has ossified in the political system and done the country a disservice. More reform of the political system is required. It is 8.10 p.m. and only five of 166 Deputies are present in the Chamber. A Fine Gael Member has proposed that the Dáil sit on a more normal basis, namely, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. The time of gentlemen coming from their country estates or the Four Courts to the Parliament on a Tuesday afternoon, sitting until Tuesday night, repeating that on Wednesday and returning to their estates and professions on Thursday morning is long past. Fundamental reform was expected by those who voted for the Government. That this Bill is not being opposed is a tiny move in the right direction, but more reform is necessary. I am not referring to the financial services sector only, but to the manner in which Parliament carries out its business as well.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I understand that Deputy Calleary is sharing time with his colleagues.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am sharing time with Deputies Troy, Kitt and Ó Cuív.

Joanna Tuffy (Dublin Mid West, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Dara Calleary (Mayo, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome the Bill and congratulate my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath, on introducing it. I commend the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and the Government on their acceptance of the Bill. Deputy Michael McGrath is not a recent convert. He has campaigned on this issue for some time. If we return to debating the Bill's contents, it might be helpful.

Last year, €2.25 million was repaid or awarded in compensation to customers of financial institutions at the direction of the Financial Services Ombudsman. This amount reflected 7,300 complaints made to the ombudsman against financial institutions, representing a 67% increase. Of these complaints, 75% were not upheld, which is an interesting fact, but the sum involved is considerable. One gets the impression that, although there may only be a few offenders, they are getting away with it. Until we implement the Bill's provisions, they will continue to get away with it.

The 75% figure is interesting because the ombudsman is no pushover, in that he directed that those complainants had no cases. Given the fact that the level of proof required is high, one assumes that the misdemeanours involved in the 25% of upheld cases were serious, yet the institutions involved will get away with their actions until we can name and shame them. They should not be named and shamed out of a misplaced justice, but to warn future consumers that they are dealing with companies that have missold policies, not adhered to agreements with other customers in similar situations, etc. This is the least that we can expect.

For many years, I was intrigued by the minute-long spiel about being regulated and registered at the end of financial institutions' advertisements. This did not stand for much, given the condition of our banking industry. Deputies on all sides have referred to what we need to do next, that is, build a system of confidence in a sensible way. We must not over-egg it or create a situation in which small businesses and bank account holders are crucified with red tape, which we tend to do. In a sensible, managed way, we must restore discipline to our financial institutions. In turn, this will restore consumer confidence.

Mr. Joe Meade, the previous ombudsman, was strong on this point. After he wrote in 2009 to our late colleague, Brian Lenihan, Brian intended to pursue the matter. Mr. Meade deserves particular credit for the way he took on the job and championed the rights of the consumer. At a difficult time for the financial services industry, he stood tall as a representative of the consumer. People could have confidence in him. That people are increasingly using the office to seek recourse is a tribute to him and his staff. I know of Bill Prasifka from his previous incumbency in the Competition Authority and other agencies. I have not doubt that he will bring the same sense to the ombudsman's office.

On the eve of the Easter recess, I hope that it is not too much to ask that the Bill be passed by the summer recess. In this way, the current ombudsman could start using these new powers to name transgressors in public by the end of this year. The sooner it happens, the sooner clarity will be brought to the system.

Any public representative who has worked on the ground in the past two or three years has dealt with cases of financial institutions mis-selling policies, directing people's attention away from the small print that is included in every policy and not drawing customers' attention to various clauses. I am referring to insurance policies, loans backed by security products and, in particular, pension products. I have dealt with cases of pension products that were inappropriately sold to older people who invested their entire life savings in unsuitable products because they trusted institutions and individual sellers. Unfortunately, the trust that generations placed in financial institutions right up until recent years was abused. Many of the people who worked hard for their entire lives and were mis-sold products have been left in serious financial situations because their trust was abused.

This Bill aims to shine a light on abuse. It will send a signal from the Oireachtas to financial institutions to the effect that such conduct is not good enough and will not be allowed again. If they act that way, they will be named. The penalties on sellers may need to be examined and strengthened during the Bill's consultation period.

It would be remiss of Deputies to speak of the financial services industry while ignoring the fact that Ireland still does not have a properly functioning banking system. We are at the end of another Dáil term, yet we still do not have a loan guarantee scheme. I do not doubt that, although the Minister of State, Deputy Perry's Department has done its bit in this regard, progress is being blocked by the Department of Finance again. Functioning small to medium-sized enterprises, SMEs, are not getting money. We do not want basket cases to get money, as that is the reason we are where we are. Well-resourced, long-standing SMEs are being starved of capital. Even the Governor of the Central Bank has admitted that it is a serious problem.

Although considerable progress has been made this evening thanks to Deputy Michael McGrath, restructuring the banking system must be a priority during the Dáil's next term. Otherwise, the country will haemorrhage jobs and investment. The retail figures were published today. Our SME, manufacturing and retail service sectors are still struggling and will continue to struggle until we have a proper, functioning banking system that recognises them for what they are.

Tonight is significant. I compliment my colleague, Deputy Michael McGrath. The Bill is straightforward. To echo Deputy Harris, all of our many ombudsman offices should be examined in terms of what powers they need to be more effective. They should have the ability to name and shame, be it in respect of Departments, companies or others. Without this power, they are slightly neutered. With it, those they seek to serve would be far more serious in the way they handled issues.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I congratulate Deputy Michael McGrath on bringing forward this Bill and welcome that the Minister for Finance does not intend to oppose it. This debate is a good example of co-operation in this House. Perhaps it is part of the reform to which Deputy McNamara referred. I join Deputy Calleary in commending the former Financial Services Ombudsman, Joe Meade, who requested legislation that would give him the option of publicly naming an institution which acted wrongly. This recommendation has been taken up by the current Ombudsman, Mr. Bill Prasifka, who also supports the Bill.

Deputy Michael McGrath has made protecting consumers' rights one of his main missions as spokesperson on finance. Consumer rights have been abused and people have made complaints across a range of areas, including banking, insurance and investment. In recent years, the financial services sector has been strongly criticised and when confidence is lacking in the financial sector, there is an impact on the way people deal with their finances. The Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Jobs and Innovation, Deputy Perry, gave a detailed response to a question I raised with him yesterday on the issue of crime. People are becoming less likely to put their money into financial institutions and many elderly people are keeping money in their houses, which has led to house burglaries.

Last Monday, I attended a meeting of the joint policing committee in County Galway along with other public representatives, community leaders and gardaí. It was encouraging to hear that successful developments have been made in regard to the drugs culture in Galway. There has been a reduction in crime in many areas, such as personal assaults and property damage, but the burglary rate increased by 18% in rural areas of County Galway over the first two months of 2012. I am concerned by the fact that 846 incidents occurred over a two month period. Many of these burglaries were related to rumours that people are keeping money in their houses. In some instances, mattresses and pillows were ripped open in the search for cash. This is a sign of the decrease in confidence in the financial sector. The Garda advise people to keep their savings in financial institutions. Let us hope the institutions themselves do not break that trust.

Health insurance premiums have increased significantly in recent times. In February, the VHI increased its prices by an average of 9% and the price of its most popular plan increased by approximately €200. VHI will argue that it is losing 6,000 customers every month but the question arises of what insurance companies provide to their customers. Many of the plans aimed at older people have been downgraded. The insurance premium for one of my constituents increased from €888 to €1,051 per annum, an increase of 18%. That is a disappointing development.

Deputy Michael McGrath cited an article in the Irish Examiner about the sale of payment protection insurance to customers who could not avail of it. An investigation by the Central Bank's director of consumer protection uncovered widespread abuse across seven separate financial institutions. There has been a steady increase in complaints about the banking, insurance and investment sectors. This is why the Financial Ombudsman wants legislation to be put in place. The option should be available to name names because a culture change is needed in our banks. The saying, prevention is better than cure, is true in this instance because the Bill will work as a preventative measure.

I regularly receive complaints about managed funds. People invest in managed funds and incur penalties when they try to withdraw their money. They were not told how their investments work. I welcome that the Financial Ombudsman will be able to find in favour of people in that situation. Over the years people took out insurance without knowing what it was for. People were advised to take out insurance policies when the baby was born, when they got a job and even when they retired. They were used and abused because sometimes the lump sum on retirement went into the wrong type of policy. This practice has continued for too long. I often wonder why banks are involved in insurance in the first place. They appear to make loan approval conditional on taking out insurance but other companies are able to explain clearly to their customers what their entitlements are and how their funds are managed. One should not need to face penalties in withdrawing money from an investment. It is not always the case that insurance policies offer a mechanism for saving.

The Bill address issues in respect of banking, insurance and investment and should give people more certainty when they make investments. They can learn about how their funds are being managed and how to avoid penalties when they withdraw their money. The Financial Services Ombudsman has done great work in the past and I hope this Bill will become law at the earliest opportunity. People who have dealt with insurance providers in the past have been used and abused. I hope that does not happen again.

Éamon Ó Cuív (Galway West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I commend Deputy Michael McGrath on producing the Bill. The economic crisis that hit this country was at its inception and in its horrible manifestation primarily a banking crisis. Banks borrowed too much from continental banks, lent ridiculous sums of money to unscrupulous developers and lent far too much to investors. Banks lent grossly inappropriate sums of money to ordinary decent people. Banks were unrealistic in their investments, naïve in their assessment of securities and criminally immoral and dishonest in their approach to lending.

A culture of greed dominated the banking sector in the Ireland of the Celtic tiger and this culture has since proven itself one of the main causes of our economic woe. A ruthless pursuit of higher and higher profit margins, and the chase for ever increased sales has fundamentally damaged once trusted banks and undermined the whole financial sector in the State. It amazes me that all the focus has been on what was Anglo Irish Bank. People often do not realise or do not want to recognise that the recklessness of institutions such as AIB, which one would have thought was a well established and well run bank, matched anything that happened in Anglo Irish Bank.

Light-touch regulation as an economic theory has proven itself deficient. The approach failed miserably and yet everybody was doing the same thing. Ireland under the previous Government was following best international practice when it came to light-touch regulation of the financial sector. We were returning Exchequer surpluses and the economy was booming, but a rotten disease had started to fester and that disease was banking in Ireland. To return the financial sector to health, it is in need of wholesale reform. Part of this reform must be carried out on an international level and a European level given that Irish banks do not operate in an exclusively Irish-controlled context. Furthermore the currency within which they operate is controlled by bodies beyond the control of this House. Nonetheless we can still do our part and this Bill represents one small step towards renewal of our financial sector. It is in no way a substitution for other necessary reforming initiatives.

It is a fundamental concept in democratic states, that the laws of the land must be obeyed and respected by all, if they are just. If somebody breaks the law and has no good reason or defence for doing so, he or she must face the penalties that the State provides for such actions. Hopefully the time will come when we shall see those members of the banking fraternity who broke the laws being prosecuted and punished by the courts. I believe most of us look forward to that day and I hope it arrives sooner rather than later.

In June 2009, the then Financial Services Ombudsman, Joe Meade, wrote to the Minister for Finance to request that he be given the option, if he considered it to be in the public interest, to name an institution that had been subject to one of his decisions. This Bill, the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland (Amendment) Bill would give the Financial Services Ombudsman the power he requested nearly three years ago. The Government has promised to produce a Bill but as we discovered yesterday the Government promises more than it delivers. It was with shock that people heard that only three of the 26 Bills on the A list have been published so far in this session.

Since 2005 there has been a steady rise in complaints across the banking, insurance and investment sectors. At present there is no legal mechanism to allow the ombudsman to name and shame financial service providers when serious complaints against them are upheld by the Financial Services Ombudsman. Currently the information published in the twice-yearly FSO report is aggregated so that no individual provider can be identified and while the report includes case summaries, they are always anonymous. The ombudsman received nearly 7,500 complaints last year. Nearly 2,000 of those complaints were upheld with more than €2.2 million being repaid or awarded in compensation to customers of financial institutions. It is interesting to note that there was a 41% increase in mortgage related complaints during the second half of 2010.

It is clear that there has been a huge level of abuse of position across the financial sector. Clients were sold inappropriate products. Banks, investors and brokers effectively hoodwinked ordinary decent citizens into buying financial products that were more than unsuitable. All this was done for the sake of sales, sales and more sales. The greed of some unscrupulous individuals in Celtic tiger Ireland who abused positions of trust is probably best exemplified by particular unnamed bodies who advised elderly couples to put their savings into long-term investment products. In one particularly obscene case, a husband and wife aged 85 and 84, respectively, were sold a six-year term investment product with hefty penalties for early encashment. Everybody would agree this was crazy and sad. It is time for people who engage in that type of practice to be named and shamed. Other abuses include the changing of the terms of loans without reference to the borrower; the sale of payment protection insurance on loans that did not need them; overcharging of fees by banks; exposing vulnerable clients to high-risk investment products - how many people have lived to rue them; and the incorrect application of break fees when moving from a fixed-rate to a variable-rate mortgage.

The benefits of this legislation are threefold. First, giving the Financial Services Ombudsman the power to name offenders increases the penalty in having a complaint upheld against them by the Financial Services Ombudsman. It is a preventative measure that increases the power of the ombudsman and should result in financial institutions having more respect for the ombudsman given that he has the power to make known to the world their misdeeds.

Second, by allowing the Financial Ombudsman to publish the details of upheld complaints, if he deems it in the public interest, we are strengthening trust in our financial institutions. The risk of wrongdoing being aired publicly would, once identified, lead to it being resolved more quickly. For any institution, brand, reputation and image are everything. If they are aware that any possible mistreatment or wrongful treatment of customers could be made public it then becomes economically sensible to prevent situations arising when clients feel that they have been let down. This damages the name, brand and image of the institution and in short, it makes wrongful actions uneconomic.

Third, this legislation will benefit consumers by empowering them to make an informed choice with regard to where they bring their business. Successive reports from the FSO indicate that complaints are on the increase and, more tellingly, that there is a consistency running through the case studies contained in the reports, which suggests very strongly that financial institutions are not mending their ways. However, if certain institutions had a high level of complaints made public against them, it would inform the public that those institutions were not to be trusted. There would be a double-whammy in terms of gain in that the consumer would know which institutions to trust and we would also find that the number of institutions we could trust would rise exponentially because the institutions would know it would be the death knell for their businesses if they were not to honour that trust.

I welcome that the Government is not opposing the Bill. However, in the past, including when we were in government, I have seen a Bill agreed on Second Stage but the amendments did not come forward swiftly enough to allow the Bill to proceed to Committee Stage. When in opposition the resources to complete a Bill to the satisfaction of the drafters of legislation on the Government side are difficult to come by. I hope this will not be put on the shelf. We can do this with something simple. If the Bill needs amendments then let us make the amendments but let us keep the thrust of the Bill.

I note that if it gets to the House this week the Construction Contracts Bill will be introduced with amendments. It was going through the Seanad when we were in government more than one year ago. It is badly needed. I accept amendments are needed to reduce the thresholds but we must bring in consumer protection legislation and we must protect small businesses from the depredations of large businesses. We must ensure that we have a society in which, whether one is an individual or a small business, one's interests are protected from those who are powerful or who might seek to abuse their power. Ba mhaith liom moladh a thabhairt don Teachta Mícheál Mac Craith. Creidim gur lá maith é an lá seo. Molaim an Rialtas as ucht glacadh leis an mBille seo. Tá súil agam go mbeidh an reachtaíocht seo á phlé againn ar Chéim an Choiste go luath.

John Perry (Sligo-North Leitrim, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Deputy McGrath on bringing forward this Private Members' Bill to empower the Financial Services Ombudsman to name firms against which he has made findings. I thank Members for what has been a most worthwhile debate on the question of extending the powers of the Financial Services Ombudsman to name in certain circumstances individual firms against which he has made findings.

I welcome the consensus among Members that has arisen during the debate. It is natural that much of the debate focused on consumer protection issues. Many points were raised in which Members highlighted their concerns and they proposed suggestions to enhance the consumer protection measures in the financial services regulatory framework. I emphasise that Ireland has strong consumer protection legislation in place. I concur with the point made by various Deputies that Ireland remains an attractive place to set up a financial services business.

The financial crisis has highlighted the importance of the financial regulatory framework to the economy and the links between financial regulation and central banking. Measures have been taken to restore confidence in our system of financial regulation. The provisions proposed in the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011 are expected to enhance these further.

Consumer confidence is vital in a financial services industry that is strong, internationally respected and that can generate wealth for our economy. Deputy Kelleher proposed that all health insurance providers should fall under the scrutiny of the Financial Services Ombudsman. I recognise that there is an ageing population and that there is a demand for health insurance. All regulated health insurance companies fall under the remit of the Financial Services Ombudsman. In 2005 the Minister for Finance extended the remit of the Financial Services Ombudsman to the Voluntary Health Insurance, VHI, through regulation SI 191/2005.

In the course of the debate the high interest rate charged by some moneylenders was raised. While I do not support the imposition of high interest rates I acknowledge that moneylenders often lend small value loans for short periods. This is the reason such loans can be more expensive than other forms of credit. Moneylenders must apply to the Central Bank annually to have their licences renewed. The Central Bank has in place a code of conduct for licensed moneylenders. All moneylenders licensed by the Central Bank must comply with the provisions of the code and prior to entering into an agreement with a consumer they must prominently indicate the high-cost nature of a loan on all related documentation in cases where the annual percentage rate, APR, is 23% or higher. Consumers who consider borrowing from moneylenders should shop around and consider the various sources of loans available. I encourage consumers to avail of the personal finance information available from the National Consumer Agency.

The Money Advice and Budgeting Service, MABS, was mentioned during the debate. MABS works with people to assist them with financial planning and budgeting for the future. It is a national, free, confidential and independent service. The Financial Services Ombudsman has advised that he proposes further consultation with industry. The Minister has asked his officials to engage with the Financial Services Ombudsman in the coming weeks with a view to formulating more detailed proposals for legislation in this area.

As stated yesterday, I confirm that the Bill is consistent with Government policy. However, more work is required on its scope and detailed applications. Much work has already taken place to develop proposals for legislation. The Minister for Finance has stated that he intends to bring proposals for legislation in this area to Government shortly.

John McGuinness (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I compliment Deputy Michael McGrath on bringing this proposal to the House and on facilitating this debate. I have listened carefully to what most contributors have said. The financial collapse and the information provided by the banks to the then Government at the beginning of that time point to a banking and financial system which does not recognise its faults and failings and which is unwilling to come forward, put up its hands, admit it got things wrong and furnish the information upon which the Government should act. To put it mildly, the banks were economic with the information they brought forward to the State. Given that this was the case, how can the ordinary citizen trust the banks and financial institutions? This is the question posed by the Bill.

Reference has been made to the Office of the Ombudsman. What does the public and the ordinary citizen want from the Office of the Ombudsman? I believe the public envisages an office acting on their behalf with the interests in mind of the person who has been offended or who cannot get justice or fair play in the course of normal business. Consequently, I suggest that any legislation brought forward must strengthen the position of the Office of the Ombudsman. It must set out clearly the powers of that office and the consequences of not complying with it.

In the course of the last Administration I became aware of a case in which a compliant taxpayer was treated poorly by the Revenue Commissioners. The report contained much harsher words than I intend to use this evening. As a result of the examination by the Ombudsman, the Revenue was instructed to repay that person €600,000. It paid back €300,000 and no more. If the Office of the Ombudsman stands for anything, it is for fair play. The word of the office must be accepted by whatever agency or institution is under examination on behalf of the person represented by it. Therefore, the legislation must be changed and strengthened. The person who was repaid €300,000 rather than €600,000 should have the full amount repaid. We should do whatever is necessary in this House to ensure this takes place. In this case, the Government fell and this meant the report from the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Finance and the Public Service, which supported the person's position and that of the Office of the Ombudsman, fell as well.

I call on the Minister of State, Deputy Perry, to ask his party leader and the Minister for Finance about this case. This will demonstrate whether the role of the Office of the Ombudsman means anything. Both are aware of this case. It has been raised and supported across political party lines. I am speaking to the principle of supporting the office. I ask the Minister of State to seek a review of the case I have mentioned in this debate. This relates to the strength and respect the Office of the Ombudsman must have from this House in the context of legislation. This is hugely important.

It is equally important that the Government, in appointing directors, has the public interest at heart and that the extent of directors' power and position is specified in legislation. It must be clear what it is all about. If we are to represent citizens, that is what we must do. Nobody believes the bankers. I am aware as a business person that, as has been mentioned, small businesses all around the country cannot get money from the banks. However, the banks attempt to hoodwink all of us, including the Government. They tell us they are giving money out to small businesses and that they have spent the €7 billion or whatever they got from Government in doing so. However, they did not do that. If they did not use the money to provide the loans, we should ask them to give back the money and give it to some other institution. As I have often said here, unless we begin to take that strong action, the banks will continue to hoodwink the Government and all of us here. They received €7 billion, but only €1.7 billion has been provided in loans. This means the banks are not playing ball in the difficult circumstances surrounding this economy.

In 2009, the previous ombudsman, in communication with the then Minister for Finance, asked for the provisions and legislation sought in this Bill to be made. It shows how slowly the State moves on legislation that we are just debating this issue this evening, although the country is crying out for such legislation and those who have been hoodwinked by the banks and financial institutions are crying out for fair play. They are asking those that legislate to ensure that they have someone who will respond to them. However, they are being asked to wait again. I respect the fact that the Minister has agreed a Bill like this is necessary and that he will build on the Bill before us tonight. The Minister of State, Deputy Perry, has said this Bill is consistent with current Government policy, but that more work is required on its scope and detailed application. I understand that. However, I urge Deputy Perry and the Government to understand the need for speed and that it is vital to deliver this legislation as quickly as possible.

As we speak, people are trying to get their financial affairs in order, but are having enormous difficulty in their dealings with banks and financial institutions. People are being tied up in red tape and bureaucracy and pretence. They are being told they do not understand and that they signed up and should look at the fine print. This is not good enough. The provisions must be supported by legislation and similar instructions should be given to every Department with regard to legislation to govern sub-prime lending or money lenders. These people do not force people to take loans, but they are now the only people who will provide loans. However, these loans come with an enormous interest rate and a contract that is almost never ending but which doubles and trebles the amount of money loaned initially. It is not good enough that, as legislators, we would suggest leaving this for another day or say that we will strengthen the information made available to the public.

There is another serious issue to deal with in the context of the Government's consideration of the required legislation. We must ask how many accountants and solicitors teamed together to put tax relief schemes in place into which people bought. People bought into these schemes at the height of the boom, but they now find that the legal agreements around those schemes are not worth the paper on which they are written. In fact, some of the accountants and solicitors involved in those schemes have conflicts of interest left, right and centre. The people caught in these schemes have nowhere to turn to but to the courts, a costly exercise. We need to introduce legislation - it would be best to include it in this legislation - to offer some protection to the people whose savings and pensions were put into these schemes and are now worthless. What is even worse is that these people are now involved in bank loans covering those schemes. These are loans that may never be repaid and banks are chasing people for those moneys, but it seems there is no resolution to the problem.

If we are to fix the banks and the economic difficulties, this aspect of financial services - loans given out by banks and legal agreements almost falsely and inadequately put in place - must be examined and stopped. We must provide protection to these people if we are to rescue the economy and allow the good entrepreneurs locked into these schemes to be released and to work again.

Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Members from all sides who have contributed to this debate. I have sat through the three hours of the debate and have been very impressed by the quality and constructiveness of their contributions. We have had a very good debate. I also acknowledge and thank the Minister for Finance, Deputy Noonan, and his colleagues for accepting this Bill in the spirit with which it was offered. It is a straight-forward sensible piece of legislation and the fact the Government is willing to accept it is good. I hope we can co-operate on other issues in a similar manner. I urge the Government now to press ahead with this much needed reform. It is of little concern to me whether it presses ahead on the basis of the Bill I have published or on the basis of one it will bring forward. I just want to see the legislation introduced as quickly as possible. If the template I have provided facilitates the legislation being accelerated, I urge the Government to embrace it and to make it happen without further delay. There is no need for delay.

I want to take this opportunity to urge consumers who have outstanding grievances and issues to raise those with the Financial Services Ombudsman. Since that office was founded in 2005, thousands of consumers have found redress they would not otherwise have got. They had failed to get satisfaction from the institutions concerned, having gone through the internal complaints procedures. However, when their cases were taken to the ombudsman and independently evaluated, their complaints were upheld. This happened in 1,800 instances last year alone. Therefore, thousands of people have benefited and this is welcome.

I urge the Minister of State to consider a particular issue. Currently, the ombudsman is precluded from considering any matter six years old or older. I have come across more than one case, particularly in the area of investment products and mortgage protection policies, where it only becomes apparent later in the life of the product that it was mis-sold originally. I ask for this issue to be considered. It should also be highlighted that the ombudsman can also assist limited companies, charities, trusts and partnerships. While companies have recourse to John Trethowan's office in respect of credit decisions, they may also have other issues with financial service providers that can be raised with the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman. This is not widely known and the Government should highlight it through the various representative bodies. It should make it known that companies with a turnover of less than €3 million can avail of the facility.

The benefits of this Bill are clear and have been well recited last night and tonight. I have no doubt that if we had this legislation in place and could look back at the complaints records set out in previous ombudsmen's reports, we would see clear patterns of culpability.

At the moment, consumers are in the dark when entering into arrangements with providers in the absence of having that critical information. I have no doubt that the adoption of this Bill will serve to improve standards across the industry. There are many excellent performers who will also benefit because their high standard of performance will be highlighted. I wish to emphasise this point because it will be an important tool to give to the ombudsman.

In conclusion, I thank the Government for its support of this Bill and all the Members who contributed to the debate and I urge the Government to move swiftly, to take on board the comments by the former ombudsman, Joe Meade, and by Bill Prasifka. They have shone a light on areas of malpractice, on situations in which people have been treated disgracefully in many cases and this is an opportunity for us to assist them. I urge the House to enact this legislation as quickly as possible.