Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

On Senator McDowell's query about the presumption of private hearings versus public, section 12 of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act outlines various ways the ombudsman may conduct an investigation, including a formal investigation with oral hearings, if required. Section 56(4) of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act provides that investigations "are conducted otherwise than in public". This includes informal means, mediation and formal investigations or a combination of these processes as provided for in section 12. The Bill provides that the ombudsman can decide to hold an oral hearing in public if it is in the interest of justice to do so.

The ban on public oral hearings before the Workplace Relations Commission's adjudication officers was deemed unconstitutional. The comments by Mr. Justice O'Donnell in the majority judgment of the Zalewski case stated "it may ... be permissible to have a presumption in favour of private hearings at first instance". Officials have worked with the Office of the Attorney General to ensure the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman can hold public oral hearings, having consulted the parties to the complaint and having considered the nature of the circumstances of the complaint. The other elements of the investigation would still be conducted in private. The function of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is to investigate complaints about the conduct of financial services and pensions providers. The subject matter and nature of complaints heard by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman may be of such sensitivity for the participants that they believe it merits presumptions in favour of private hearings. As a result, the data processed by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman in the course of its complaint investigations is of particular sensitivity as it generally includes highly confidential personal financial details which may not be suitable for disclosure to the public. A high proportion of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman complaints include significant medical details which the GDPR identifies as special category data warranting particular protection. Some Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman complaints directly relate to medical and health insurance. It is not unusual for a complaint file which does not directly concern health or medical insurance to contain very sensitive medical details which a complainant may offer by way of context or background to their financial situation. The disclosure of such data to the public will very often be inappropriate because of the particularly sensitive nature of such medical and financial data in the evidence gathered for complaint investigations. From the day after the Zalewski judgment in April 2021, whenever the FSPO forms the opinion that an oral hearing would be desirable to take evidence on an oath or affirmation, both parties have been asked their preference for the hearing to be in public or private. I think I answered all of the questions.