Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, to our debate this afternoon.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairperson. I welcome the opportunity to engage with Members on the Bill. The Bill will strengthen protections for financial customers in Ireland and ensure that the office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, FSPO, can continue to carry out its statutory functions in line with the Constitution. Many will have heard the ombudsman, Mr. Liam Sloyan, on RTÉ this morning speaking on the FSPO's new report on complaints in 2024. That 6,185 complaints were received by the FSPO and €5.7 million was delivered in outcomes for consumers last year highlights the importance of the ombudsman as a service in demand. It also highlights the importance of progressing this Bill to ensure that it is maintained on a sound legal basis.

The Government published the Bill on 19 December 2023. On 5 March 2025, the Bill progressed through Committee, Report and Final Stages in the Dáil. Amendments were debated and adopted by the Deputies present. Today's Second Stage debate on the general principles of the Bill is an important step in the progress of this legislation. The FSPO was established on 1 January 2018 by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, as amended. The office is a critical part of consumer protection framework in Ireland providing an independent, impartial, fair and free service that helps resolve complaints for consumers, including small businesses and other organisations, against regulated financial services providers and pension providers. The work of the FSPO complements the wider consumer protection framework for financial services in Ireland.

Last Monday, I spoke at the launch of the Central Bank's revised consumer protection code, which updates and modernises the code and aims to ensure firms put the interests of the consumer at the centre of how they operate their business. The FSPO resolves complaints through one of two ways. The first is informal mediation. The second is through formal investigation and adjudication. This can include oral hearings, if required. This leads to legally binding decisions that are subject only to statutory appeal to the High Court.

Some of the amendments to the FSPO ACt proposed by the Bill have come as a result of the ruling in the case of Zalewski v. the adjudication officer, the Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland and the Attorney General. In that ruling, the Supreme Court held that the exercise of power by the adjudication officers under Part 4 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 was the administration of justice under Article 34 of the Constitution. The administration of justice is normally preserved for the courts. However, the Supreme Court found that the administration of justice as carried out by the adjudication service is permissible within the meaning of Article 37 of the Constitution as the administration of justice was limited. In light of this ruling and throughout the drafting of the Bill, the Department consulted with stakeholders, particularly the Office of the Attorney General and the FSPO. The consultations were to ensure the necessary amendments arising from the Zalewski ruling are put in place and to ensure the FSPO continues to administer justice within the meaning anticipated by Article 37. This includes the possibility of holding hearings in public where deemed appropriate. The Bill also improves the 2017 Act with some clarifications and correcting errors, such as typos.

I will outline the main provisions of the Bill. First, I will give an overview of the main Zalewski-related amendments. I will then summarise the other amendments proposed within the Bill. Section 13 provides that the ombudsman may require any person to attend before him and be examined and cross-examined on oath or affirmation. This updates the principal Act to include a provision for cross-examination and that a person can make an affirmation instead of taking an oath.

Section 16 provides that the ombudsman is required to take a decision whether to hold an oral hearing as provided for under section 12(1)(c) of the 2017 Act and as conducted under section 47(3) in public. This decision is taken after consultation of the parties concerned. The nature or circumstances of the complaint or other matters in the interest of justice should also be considered. This is one of the key amendments that has come about as a result of the Zalewski Supreme Court ruling.

Section 17 provides that mediation shall always be conducted in private. This provides an important comfort to complainants, who otherwise may be disinclined to submit complaints to the ombudsman. The procedures of the FSPO greatly encourage mediation between the parties on a voluntary basis to ensure that every effort can be made to facilitate the resolution of the complaints in the way that empowers the parties themselves to design and agree a confidential solution. This is in accordance with provisions of section 58(1) of the Act, which requires the ombudsman to try as far possible to resolve a complaint by mediation. Mediation by its very nature is a confidential process. Given that mediation is one of the various forms of "investigation" anticipated by section 12(1) of the Act, it would be contrary to the Act and the well-established procedures for conducting mediation for any FSPO investigation by way of mediation to be conducted in public.

Section 18 outlines that a person who gives evidence on oath or affirmation that is false, and that he or she knows to be false, has committed an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a class A fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or both.

I turn to the amendments to the 2017 FSPO Act that do not relate to the Zalewski case. Section 1 is a standard provision defining that the term "principal Act" refers to the 2017 FSPO Act.

Section 2 amends the interpretation section of the principal Act. Three separate issues are addressed here. The first substantive amendment is to the definition of "financial services provider" as set out in the 2017 Act. The definition is the list of financial entities in respect of which a complainant may submit a complaint to the FSPO. The amendment will include any person engaged in the activity of credit servicing before the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 and 2018, respectively. Currently, the FSPO may only accept a complaint relating to the conduct of a credit servicing firm where the conduct giving rise to the complaint occurred after the commencement of the relevant Act. The amendment will extend the jurisdiction of the FSPO relating to the activity of credit servicing. The FSPO will have jurisdiction to review complaints made at any point after a loan sale. This includes complaints before the commencement of either the 2015 or 2018 Acts.This issue was raised during the Dáil Second Stage debate in February 2024. The amendment will now address the legitimate concern raised and will ensure all mortgage holders will have access to the FSPO if needed. This part of the amendment was welcomed by and passed with the support of Opposition spokespersons in the Dáil on 5 March.

The second part of the amendment is to clarify the definition of the term “credit reviewer”. The third part of the amendment clarifies that the FSPO has the power to investigate complaints against a financial services provider or pension provider which met the definition of financial services provider or pension provider, as defined in the 2017 principal Act, at the time of the conduct complained of, even if that provider ceased to meet the definition of the financial services provider or pension provider, as defined in the principal Act, before the complaint was made to the FSPO or before the FSPO’s investigation of the complaint has been concluded. This proposed amendment will eliminate any ambiguity in the interpretation of the legislative provisions and it will confirm the FSPO can investigate firms which may no longer meet the definition of a financial services provider or pension provider at the time of the complaint. This is the interpretation long since taken by the FSPO and its predecessor, the Financial Services Ombudsman Bureau. Having considered the matter carefully and with the advice of the Attorney General's office, the proposed legislative amendment seeks to provide further clarity to confirm the position taken by the FSPO with respect to the existing statutory powers underpinning the investigation of these kinds of complaints.

Section 3 outlines the methodology for calculating expenses via percentage split. This is charged to the financial services sector by a levy for financial services complaints and expenses charged by the Exchequer for pension cases.

Section 6 outlines the process for appointing an acting ombudsman during the absence of an ombudsman in a number of scenarios. This includes providing a statutory basis for a member of staff to assume the position of acting ombudsman where there is no deputy ombudsman at the time. There is also a series of amendments to various sections of the 2017 FSPO Act to reflect the potential for there to be more than one person appointed as deputy ombudsman. This point is facilitated by amendments in sections 4, 5 and 7 to 11, inclusive.

Sections 12 and 14 clarify the respective remits of the FSPO and the credit reviewer. The credit reviewer makes a recommendation regarding a participating bank's lending decision, as a result of which the participating bank may decide to approve the loan. The FSPO’s jurisdiction does not overlap because the FSPO will not interfere with the commercial discretion of a financial services provider or a recommendation of the credit reviewer. However, a consumer may make a complaint to the FSPO regarding the conduct of a bank in how it has processed the application. This reflects input from the Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach in the previous Oireachtas in its pre-legislative scrutiny report.

Section 14 corrects a cross-referencing error. This amendment clarifies that the ombudsman may accept a complaint where a financial services provider or pension provider has initiated legal proceedings in relation to a complaint and where the ombudsman believes, based on reasonable grounds, that the provider has initiated those proceedings to frustrate or delay its investigation.

Section 15 would allow the Minister for Finance to make regulations that require financial services providers, or certain classes thereof, and pension providers, or certain classes thereof, to establish internal dispute resolution procedures for dealing with complaints and to publish their internal dispute resolution procedures. Currently, there is no statutory obligation on pension providers to have internal dispute resolution procedures in place. Furthermore, the regulation-making powers currently drafted would require the regulations to be applicable to all entities that meet the definition of pension provider.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will allow the Minister of State to continue for another minute.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Agreed.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This amendment would allow regulations to be made that require internal dispute resolution processes to be established by those responsible for the management of the scheme, such as trustees, personal retirement savings accounts providers or, in the case of a public authority scheme, the Minister or Ministers to whom the right of appeal applies.

Section 19 is to correct a typographical error; section 62 of the Act, which refers to “a decision of the Ombudsman under section 61 or 62 in respect of a complaint” rather than to “a decision of the Ombudsman under section 60 or 61 in respect of a complaint”.

Section 20 is a standard provision giving the Title of the Bill and when it will come into effect.

The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman (Amendment) Bill will update the 2017 principal Act to take account of the Zalewski ruling by making targeted amendments that provide for public oral hearings when appropriate, clarity around oath-taking and affirmations process in oral hearings, and that mediation shall be conducted in private. This is complemented by a number of other targeted improvements to the wider Act. These measures will strengthen the functions and the robustness of the office of the ombudsman and improve the consumer protection framework for customers of financial services and pension providers, an aim I am sure we all share in this House.

I would also like to mention the issue of a joint account holder progressing a complaint where the consent of all account holders has not been obtained. This was discussed at length on Committee Stage in the Dáil and is progressing. At my request, the Minister for Finance has sent a letter to the Minister for Justice to see how this issue can be explored further, given the broader legal and contractual context at play. Officials in the Department of Finance have also further engaged with the FSPO on this matter. With this in mind, I look forward to engaging with Members on the Bill today and hope it can be sent forward to Committee Stage for further discussion and examination of this important consumer protection legislation.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit. He will have a further ten minutes to come in at the end of contributions from the Senators.

Before I call Senator Joe Flaherty from Fianna Fáil to make his contribution, I welcome the students of St Peter's in Wexford, who I understand are the guests of the Ceann Comhairle, Verona Murphy, who I am sure wishes she could be here with them at this moment to share in this debate. However, she does have other matters to deal with and I am sure she will do that very competently. They are very welcome. Fáilte rompu go dtí an Seanad.

Joe Flaherty (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I concur and welcome the pupils from St Peter's. I am sure they were enthralled by that riveting discussion on pensions, but it is very important and, in 40 years’ time, they will reflect on it and say we made very wise decisions here.

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Troy, my constituency colleague, to the Chamber and wish him well in his role. I know he is very passionate about this sector, and he is determined to get this legislation finalised as soon as possible.

This is a very important Bill for many reasons but, crucially, it strengthens the protections for financial consumers in Ireland by introducing amendments to the legislation that underpins the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, or, as it more commonly known, FSPO, in order that it can continue to carry out its statutory functions in line with the Constitution. The need to introduce these targeted amendments, as the Minister of State alluded to, resulted from a Supreme Court decision in the Zalewski case regarding the WRC and its quasi- judicial role. In addition, the Bill clarifies that the customers of financial services providers who have left the Irish market will continue to be able to access the existing services and consumer protections afforded by the aforementioned FSPO.

This is an important Bill that will, when enacted, provide enhanced legal clarity for the statutory operation of the FSPO. It will also provide strong reassurance for customers about their ability to access the services of the FSPO, given recent bank exits from the Irish market. The Bill, once enacted, will also ensure the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman can continue its important work in helping consumers and small businesses resolve complaints against financial services providers and pension providers. This is extremely important given the exit from the market of a number of financial services providers. These targeted amendments will better equip the FSPO to withstand any potential challenge to its operations, and the improved legal clarity will reinforce the statutory basis of the FSPO, a key element of the consumer protection framework in Ireland.

The Bill, additionally, amends the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Act 2017, which underpins the operations of the FSPO.The Bill when enacted will introduce several amendments directly arising from the Zalewski case and, as alluded to by the Minister of State, will set out mediations that can be conducted in private. It will also provide that the ombudsman is equipped to take a decision on whether to hold oral hearings in public or clarify processes around oath taking in oral hearings.

The Bill sets out a limited number of further amendments to the 2017 Act. The purpose of these amendments is to clarify the ombudsman's ability to investigate firms that may no longer be regulated, make provision regarding the calculation of expenses incurred by the ombudsman in the performance of his or her functions, address cross-referencing errors that have been identified and clarify the respective remits of the FSPO and the credit reviewer. It will also clarify the process for appointing an acting ombudsman in the event of the absence of the ombudsman and provide that the Minister for Finance may make regulations requiring financial services providers or certain classes thereof and pension providers to establish internal dispute resolution, IDR, procedures for dealing with complaints and to publish their internal IDR procedures.

This is very important legislation. We are very aware of the challenges we will face in the coming years. Many would say we have a potential pensions timebomb coming. It is very important that we make people aware of pensions and that the State take significant action to address this. The country has a changing demographic. Foremost as a State, we need to be able to provide for older people. We need to give assurance to them as they grow old that there is certainty and that there will always be the warm embrace of the State to look after them into their old age. This is very important legislation. As I said at the outset, I commend the Minister of State on his work on the Bill to date. I look forward to its successful passage.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State, Deputy Troy. I indicate my personal support for this legislation. I understand the reasons he and the Department have been obliged to address the issue in the wake of the Zalewski decision as it applied to the ombudsman's procedures. There is a tendency now to set up specialist tribunals and to divide up what used to be the administration of justice and allocate them to bodies such as the Residential Tenancies Board or the Workplace Relations Commission, which replaced the unfair dismissals tribunal, the Employment Appeals Tribunal. Before that, it was accepted at that time that there was an appeal by way of rehearing to the Circuit Court.

By way of general observation, the Residential Tenancies Board has many good features but it has one very bad feature, namely, delay. Anybody can game the system. I know people say that law is expensive, but previously landlords could go to a Circuit Court judge and get summary justice if they were owed €10,000 or €15,000 in rent. Tenants could also go to the Circuit Court if they were being unlawfully evicted. Depending on the urgency of the case, an urgent response could be issued. While this is certainly not the case with the ombudsman, we cannot allow arrears to accumulate in these tribunals, that is, arrears we would not accept if they were happening in the court.

The Zalewski decision effectively meant that the activity of the Workplace Relations Commission amounted to the administration of justice in a limited fashion. What happens there between lawyers, employees and employers is the administration of justice in a limited way as permitted under Articles 34 to 38, inclusive, of the Constitution. That is also fine. However, in the Zalewski decision, the Supreme Court found that if it amounts to a constitutionally permissible administration of justice by a non-court body, that does not mean that the affairs of such bodies can be conducted in a manner that falls below the basic requirements that people would be entitled to if it were being decided by a court.

One of those requirements under the Constitution is that justice, in general, be administered in public. Therefore, we are entitled to know what the Workplace Relations Commission is up to. The public are entitled to see and to form their own judgments as to whether some of the cases there are fairly or unfairly decided and whether huge latitude is afforded to some employees or some employers in circumstances that raise eyebrows on occasions, when we see the money being paid to somebody who has done something seriously wrong but nonetheless the procedures were defective. The public are entitled to know that that is what is going on. The same applies to the financial services ombudsman. The public are entitled to know what is happening as between a regulated financial institution and its customers and how it is being decided one way or another and to have some capacity to appreciate whether what is happening there is fair or reasonable.

A second point arising from the Zalewski decision is this. It was found that people must have the opportunity to challenge statements made about them in these tribunals. We cannot have an adjudication where one person says something and the other person is not entitled to cross-examine or challenge that or bring evidence to say that what is being said to the tribunal is untrue. The changes in this legislation will not merely give the financial services ombudsman power to summon people but will also provide that telling an untruth deliberately to the financial services ombudsman is a criminal offence. In other words, people cannot lie with impunity just to get their side of the story over the line.

I am interested in one aspect of this. I fully accept that unfair dismissals and rows between customers and banks are not identical. However, it is notable that post the Zalewski decision, proceedings before a WRC adjudication officer "shall be conducted in public unless the adjudication officer, of his or her own motion or upon the application by or on behalf of a party to the proceedings, determines that, due to the existence of special circumstances, the proceedings (or part thereof) should be conducted otherwise than in public." That effectively means that the presumption is that these things are open to the public to see what is going on and, in particular, open to the media to see precisely what is going on.

In this case, section 16 of this Bill inserts a new subsection 4A in section 56 of the principal Act stating:

Where an investigation into a complaint made under this Part includes an oral hearing, the Ombudsman shall, on his or her own motion or upon the application by or on behalf of a party to the complaint, having consulted with the parties to the complaint and having considered the nature or circumstances of the complaint and whether it is in the interests of justice to do so, decide whether the oral hearing shall be conducted in public.

All I am saying is that we are setting a different test here, whereby the ombudsman may decide it having listened to both sides. It is interesting that in the WRC, the adjudication officers' arrangement is that the presumption is that it will be in public and the exception is that only in special circumstances is it done in private.I would like the Minister of State, maybe on Report Stage, to indicate why a lower standard of presumption is being applied to the ombudsman's obligation to conduct oral hearings in public than is applied in the WRC.

I fully accept the proposition that the role of deputy ombudsmen be recognised and that there should not just be a single office created. I am fully in favour of that, provided that there is some method of ensuring uniformity of approach between various persons looking at the same kind of issue. The Minister of State might deal with either now or on Committee Stage. In the PRTB, there is a statutory mechanism to try to have a single approach taken to a particular legal or factual set of circumstances as a general policy. We do not want to create a situation where one deputy ombudsman is known to be a softy and another is know to be pro-bank, orvice versa. We want some degree of predictability so that the ombudsman service in its entirety operates, more or less, to the same standards, the same approaches and the same policies in carrying out its functions.

I compliment the Minister of State on bringing this legislation before the House. It is good that this House is dealing with legislation, unlike a certain other place where nothing is happening at the moment. It is nice that this House conducts itself properly in a gentlemanly and ladylike manner.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Hear, hear.

Michael McDowell (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We trust each other. We do not shout each other down. It is a joyful contrast to some other places. I will not put it any further than that.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Well said. Professionalism is in rare supply in the other House at the moment. I call Senator Joe O'Reilly. Is the Senator sharing his time?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

No, I think my colleague Senator Nelson Murray is using her own time.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will not need ten minutes.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Will Senator O'Reilly need the full ten minutes?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will see how I go.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Okay. We will do that. Please, carry on.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My colleague will probably be called immediately thereafter.

I concur with the latter remarks of Senator McDowell. It must be almost a respite for the Minister of State to get into this House for a while. I welcome him. Not only does he have family in my area who are particularly good friends of mine, but I also served on the Council of Europe, where he served with great distinction and made a big impact for a number of years. For that reason it is a particular personal pleasure to welcome him to the House and indeed, as my colleague did earlier, welcome this legislation.

As the Minister of State stated at the outset, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, or ombudsperson, to be politically correct, is an office that is very widely used. It dealt with in the region of 6,000 complaints, with 5,000 resolutions in 2023. It is an important office and is an important bulwark for the public and a reassurance for people. It is important that we amend the legislation to take it into a good, modern and more holistic space so it can deal with more issues. We are doing that here. The amendments in the legislation outlined by the Minister of State are important. The introduction of cross-examination is particularly important, as indeed, as Senator McDowell correctly stated, is the criminalising of deliberate, fraudulent submissions under oath. That is important for the efficacy of the entire exercise and process for getting good outcomes. The cross-examination dimension is an important amendment. The decision as to whether an oral hearing should take place is important and in some instances that will be appropriate. Equally, section 17, which states that mediation will be in private, is important. A lot of consumers would not be happy to go into a public space and would not want to think they were in a mediation process that had any public dimension. It is important that it be voluntary to enter into it and that it is possible that within that space, to use a modern cliché, a confidential solution to problem can be designed and agreed. It is important that this can be done and that there is a mutuality and an agreement possible. Ultimately, it is all about being a watchdog but also being solution-focused. These are amendments to the 2017 principal Act.

The definition of "financial services provider" is being widened and will include institutions that have left the jurisdiction in order that all mortgage holders will be protected.

I will make a number of general observations that I would like the Minister of State to bear in mind and speak to in his reply. Some of them are not totally germane to this legislation but it is Second Stage and they are, in a sense, connected. In many respects, they are very relevant to the entire exercise today.

The first is something the Minister of Sate might relate to because of where he represents but is something people find very strange in an urban environment or a cosmopolitan setting like this. A lot of people have a difficulty with the entire move to contactless payment. A lot of older people, but not necessarily all older people, have a difficulty with everything being contactless. For example, there are beautiful gardens and a lovely public space in the grounds of Royal Hospital Kilmainham. The car parking service is gone to a private provider, not inappropriately and I understand why that might happen but people can only access the carpark via contactless payment. Many car parks around Dublin can only be accessed by contactless payment. There was dispute around going into various sports matches over a similar issue, which has been resolved. Contactless payment is not appropriate for everyone. Financial institutions will lobby the Minister of State intensely for contactless payment, as it reduces a lot of difficulty for them relating to security and staffing issues. While that may be so, the Minister of State is the people's representative in this and I appeal to him to ensure that while cash may not be king anymore, we do not lose the use of cash for those who have a difficulty with anything else. That might seem simple and almost absurd to some people. I could bring them to meet people for whom this is a real issue. For that reason I would appreciate a response from the Minister of State. I invite him to come and meet people and I will spend a Friday taking him around meeting people for whom this is a day-to-day issue.

Another difficulty for a very different cohort of people is the issue of debanking. It is a minority issue. There are a number of people who are having banking services removed from them on fairly arbitrary considerations. It could be that they have extreme politics of one type or another. It could be because they allegedly had difficulties in the past but whatever the reasons, people are being refused financial services on arbitrary grounds. The posh term for this, I gather, is debanking.Whatever terminology you might use, it is a horrible reality for the victims. In such circumstances, I would like to think we might do something about that too and make that a much more transparent process, with reasoning, notice and justification for it given.

The finances of vulnerable people, including those who have a bad credit history and so on, is a big area. They are prey to various things that could be pernicious, with terrible small print. I have great confidence in the Minister of State. I am not acting the fool; I really mean that. I have worked alongside him and I know how good he is at doing stuff. I would like him to look at this area of vulnerable people and products targeted at them in circumstances in which they can be victims and can be exploited. This can happen on the Internet. In that context, Internet scammers are using vulnerable people who apply for loans. They search for cheap finance, special finance or whatever. Scammers come to them and say that if those people give them their details, the scammers will process their loan applications, with a small fee of just a few euro, then they deny the poor people of the few bob they already had.

We are on Second Stage. I addressed the legislation earlier. I know it is not specific to the legislation, but these are real issues for real people. We do not often have the opportunity to raise them.

All in all, the legislation is good. Anything that modernises, strengthens and improves the process relating to the financial ombudsman or ombudsperson is important. I would like the Minister of State to explain where the role of the credit ombudsperson kicks in and where the overlap in duties lies. That is a little confusing. The Minister of State might speak to that if he does not mind.

I agree with Senator McDowell, who has such professional competence and experience here, when he says that we should not have delays from these tribunals. I ask the Minister of State to see if timings are good and if there can be speedy solutions. The Senator is right about the Private Residential Tenancies Board. I have been trying to process a case for somebody recently. It seems to be taking a very long time. Considering the requirements of people who are trying to register their properties with the board, to be good and to do the right thing, you would think they were seeking international passports. The process involved is quite comprehensive. If people are willing to register their properties and comply, I would have thought they should be welcomed with open arms - hallelujah - and not have a whole set of obstacles and delays put in front of them.

Maria McCormack (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. I definitely will not take the ten minutes. Sinn Féin will be supporting the Bill. We welcome this debate, notwithstanding the delay with the Bill moving from the Dáil to the Seanad. The Minister listened to my colleague Deputy Pearse Doherty and made amendments in the Dáil.

As reported in today's edition of the Irish Examiner, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman or ombudsperson, as we must say, saw a significant increase in complaints relating to insurance and fraud throughout the course of 2024, as the total number of complaints it received surpassed 6,000 for the second year in a row. This clearly shows the need for the legislation before us. It also shows that the but also that the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman's office should be resourced appropriately to carry out its work.

I want to talk about an issue which relates directly to thousands of families the Laois constituency in which I live and across the State and which I feel really strongly about, namely mortgage interest rates of more than 8.5%. That is a horror faced by 7,000 people who are trapped with vulture funds. A total of 100,000 people saw their mortgage interest rates go above 6% last year. For a €300,000 mortgage, 6% means you are paying €1,800 a month. That is over €6,000 a year more than someone on a rate of 3%. Someone on 8.5% is paying over €12,000 more a year. These vulture funds bought up mortgages on the cheap and are now squeezing people for every penny they have at a time when the cost of living is at an all-time high. This is an injustice that has been forced on them as a result of Government policy. That is the reality of the vulture funds. It is not the fairy tale that is told by Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil. It was promised that the terms would remain the same but, sadly, that has not proven to be the case. The vultures are living up to their name. The Minister, Deputy Paschal Donohoe, once stated that he would not mind if his mortgage was with a vulture fund. A person in the constituency in which I live asked me if the Minister would be happy to pay an 8.5% interest rate. We have to stop ignoring the scandal with vulture funds and give these mortgage prisoners a way back to traditional banks.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister of State. Our paths have crossed a few times. I harp on about insurance issues. He is great in that sphere.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill as I feel I have first-hand experience of the ombudsman's office. I am here to stand up for businesses and for people who feel aggrieved about financial services providers or their insurers. I was in a position five years ago, practically to the day, where I had to contact the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman's office out of utter desperation. Covid had just happened and our business was closed. Like everyone else, I did not know what to do. I immediately read the business interruption part of my policy to see if I was covered. We are a small business in Navan and we employ more than 20 people. It was affecting us all. Unfortunately for us, we still had to pay our high rent and our bills, so we were desperate. As far as I was concerned, our policy showed that we were covered, so I called the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman.

I felt my first phone call was very welcoming. I remember feeling safe. However, at this time, I was reading articles from the UK where its Financial Conduct Authority was bringing test cases through, which was not happening here. To my innocent mind, I thought this process with the ombudsman would last perhaps a few months. We did not have €1,000, never mind many thousands of euro, to pay legal fees to fight our case. Being able to work with and use the ombudsman's office was something we needed to be able to do and were glad to be able to avail of. We needed to fight for our business and all our employees. We needed to ensure that insurers were not just going to fob us off like they tried to do. As a side note, complaints to the ombudsman regarding insurance, as my colleague mentioned, rose by 26% between 2023 and 2024. We need to look at why so many complaints about insurance are coming in, with motor insurance being the highest.

Getting back to our case, the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman said we had a case. We were delighted. That process started in April 2020 and ended four years later. It took four years to get through the ombudsman. It would take me all day to express to the Minister of State the anxiety and distress that we experienced during those four years, as well as the other businesses that we were trying to help. As it turned out, the ombudsman used us as a test case. In other words, our case helped many businesses all around Ireland. I am delighted that it had that impact. No words I can use here today could vividly portray the anxiety we all felt. At each point when we thought we had won, there was an appeal. Even when we got to the High Court, there was an appeal. If I was to have brought the communication into this Chamber, I would have had to have brought in two Lever Arch files.

Given that experience, while we have the opportunity to discuss this Bill, here are my thoughts on the changes and the changes I think we should bring in. In order to bring a complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, your business needs to a turnover of €3 million or less. We can consider that one fact. This threshold was set 22 years ago. How can we possibly be using turnover figures from that time? If a business in Ireland has a turnover of €3 million and it has to bring its case through the courts, for example, the High Court, its legal fees will be in the hundreds of thousands. On foot of that, will the owner actually bother? Probably not. You need to win the case for your employees and business, so what do you do? You have been unfairly treated by a financial provider and do not know what to do. You cannot bring it to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman because your turnover is €3.1 million. Now is the time to increase the threshold to €5 million rather than waiting until 2026 or beyond.

The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman' office needs many more staff. I welcome the changes in the Bill to provide for the appointment of additional persons to act as deputy ombudsmen.I note the former Minister, Senator McDowell's, point that they should be of similar minds and not, as we see in the High Court, different judges awarding different sums as injury awards.

I welcome the hiring of 35 additional staff last year and hope the waiting times for motorists, businesses and people bringing complaints to the ombudsman will be dramatically reduced.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

While I welcome this important Bill, it ignores the most vulnerable people within our society. Nowhere does it refer to domestic violence or older people or people with disabilities being controlled.

I might wait until I have the Minister of State's attention.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sure the Minister of State is giving this matter his attention.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry.

Eileen Flynn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With the leave of the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach and my apologies, I will restart my contribution for the benefit of the Minister of State because this is very important. While I welcome this financial Bill, it is very important that we amend it. From my reading of how it stands, it leaves out many people in society, such as older people and victims of domestic violence who are financially controlled. Our group will table some amendments to make this a more just Bill that is fit for purpose for everybody. Some of those amendments, such as one relating to section 33 of the Domestic Violence Act, are intended to allow survivors to make financial complaints without having to consult their abuser. While we welcome this Bill, it should also cover injustices against older people, people with disabilities and people going through domestic violence. We have to name that in the Bill. As I said, the Civil Engagement Group will table amendments on the next Stage and we hope the Minister of State will be able to accept them.

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach might just indulge me to correct the record, I referred earlier to Kilmainham Gaol by accident with reference to the car park and the contactless payments, whereas I meant the Royal Hospital Kilmainham.

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Seanadóir. I call the Minister of State to reply. He has ten minutes.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach Gníomhach and all of the Senators for their contributions. The vital role of the FSPO for consumers of financial services in Ireland was highlighted just today because it launched its annual overview of complaints for 2024. In total, €5.7 million was delivered in outcomes to consumers in 2024. The FSPO received 6,185 complaints in 2024, maintaining the historic high level of complaints received in 2023. That was a 30% increase in complaints received on 2023. It is for that reason the Minister for Finance sanctioned the FSPO's work plan for 2024-26 at the end of 2023, increasing the staff numbers from 90 to 128, or by 42%. It is important in order that when people wish to avail of an office such as this, the matter can be dealt with in a timely and efficient manner. As Senators McDowell and Nelson Murray said, it is critical that the urgency of the case be met with the urgency of the response.

Anybody who listened to the ombudsman being interviewed on the radio earlier will have heard that financial institutions and pension providers should be doing more to reduce the need for people having to seek redress through these offices. An educational aspect needs to happen. The ombudsman said he has been working with financial institutions and that some have improved in recent years. There has been a notable decrease in the volumes of complaints coming from certain quarters but, unfortunately, with others we have seen an increase, one of which relates to the insurance industry. We know how hard the insurance industry fought on the business interruption case, an issue on which I was very vocal at the time. I will meet the Alliance for Insurance Reform later today and, as a Government, we will be bringing forward a new action plan on insurance reform to build on the reforms of the past year. I am certainly happy to engage with the Senators at any stage in that regard.

To respond to Senator O'Reilly, the only downside of being appointed as a Minister of State is that I will no longer serve on the Council of Europe with him. His company was always enjoyable but apart from that, he does a lot of good work out there representing Ireland on a very important body. I am not sure whether he will return as a member of it during this term but if he is, I wish him luck. He made a number of points, one of which related to access to cash. He will be aware the Government has commenced the access to cash Bill, which mandates that there must be an ATM within a certain geographical location and distance to ensure that people who like to operate with what is legal tender can be facilitated to do so. There are certain hospitality businesses in my home village where, if you do not have cash, you can go thirsty, which is a matter of fact. Even so, there are places that have tried to shoehorn in the tap and contactless system and that is not fair. It disproportionately affects people in lower socioeconomic groups, vulnerable people, people with disabilities and older persons and that is why it is important the access to cash Bill pass all Stages and become legislation, as will be the case.

The Credit Review Office is different from the FSPO because its only remit is to adjudicate on a commercial decision, such as whether someone's business can afford to repay a loan. It relates only to commercial decisions, unlike this legislation.

The consumer protection code, which was published this week by the Central Bank of Ireland, is intended to ensure people are aware of how they should be dealt with by financial institutions. That, again, greatly enhances and improves the consumer experience.

Senator McCormack referred to financial entities commonly known as vulture funds. The Bill brings those entities under the remit of the FSPO, whereas previous to this, some were excluded because of the date on which they were transferred from the financial institution to the regulated entities. Now, no matter what date on which they were transferred, if these regulated entities are failing in how they are operating with their customer, the customer will be able to bring this to the FSPO, which is welcome.

Another point about regulated entities is one the chairperson of the Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC, made at the launch of the consumer protection code at the Central Bank on Monday. The number of people who are failing to avail of and take a mortgage switch is mind-boggling. Almost €1 billion of savings is being left on the table where people are failing to make a mortgage switch. This is something the CCPC needs to address by way of a publicity campaign to make people aware they can switch. I accept that for some people who have had their mortgages switched to regulated entities, it is because they fell into arrears and perhaps were not able to make a switch. Therefore, they are brought under the remit of the FSPO so that they can be dealt with in a fair and proportionate manner.

Senator Flynn is not present but I am sure she is listening in from her office. I am open to meeting to see if there are any amendments that can improve this Bill.That is why this is Second Stage. It is an opportunity for people to make contributions and subsequently submit amendments. If the Senator is talking about amendments specifically for people where there are two parties to the account and it requires the two parties' signatures to refer the complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman, this was highlighted during the discourse in the Dáil. We are advised, from a contractual perspective, that we are not able to facilitate making the complaint with just one party's signature. I accept it is a particular bone of contention where there is domestic abuse or coercive control in financial matters. That is why we wrote to my colleague, the Minister for Justice, and to the FSPO to see if there is a mechanism so that, in extreme circumstances, issues can be dealt with. How much time do I have left?

Mary Fitzpatrick (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will give the Minister of State a minute or two.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | 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.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Senator Nelson Murray have a point of order?

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I have one point on the €3 million.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a very good point. I should have highlighted it. I was unaware of that. I will take the point back and see if we can amend it.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister of State.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are talking about making sure the body is efficient and can deal with existing complaints in a timely manner.

Linda Nelson Murray (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might need more staff.

Robert Troy (Longford-Westmeath, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

If we broaden the number of complaints that go into it, that may be counterproductive and may discommode disproportionately smaller business of under €3 million. I will not make a commitment other than to say we will look at in a positive light if possible.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When is it proposed to take Committee Stage?

Joe O'Reilly (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Next Tuesday.

Maria Byrne (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that agreed? Agreed.