That is just the preliminaries.

Sentiment score: 0.00

For what it is worth, I think Deputy Doherty’s interpretation is correct. I would also appreciate the Minister of State’s clarification on the matter raised by the Deputy. It seems to me there is a particularly broad definition captured in the amendment. If that is the case, it is very welcome. There was a very wide lacuna in the legislation that was identified quite some years ago by Deputy Doherty and others in opposition at the time. We have individually and collectively campaigned to have this lacuna addressed. It is a pretty egregious loophole to which the Minister of State and Deputy Doherty have referred, where somebody who wanted to make a complaint about the conduct of a financial services firm, a fund or credit servicing firm and the complaint involved conduct prior to regulation, the complaint could not be accommodated by law by the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. It is to the Minister of State’s credit that he has listened to the Opposition - finally, the Government has listened - and has addressed what is a very real problem for all too many people. We know from our experiences as constituency TDs and as spokespersons for finance the number of people across the country who have been damaged - families and businesses destroyed - because of the behaviour of funds and credit servicing firms that acted with impunity and simply could not be held to account by the FSPO because of this loophole in law, which prevented them from having a complaint about something a firm did prior to being regulated investigated. This is a very welcome development and something that was raised repeatedly on Second Stage. We requested that the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Chambers would come to the Dáil on Committee Stage to work with the Opposition or, indeed, to present his own proposition for how this would be addressed. In anticipation of that, Deputy Doherty and I have separately tabled amendments, which will be dealt with later in a grouping, that seek to achieve the same thing the Minister of State is achieving here. This is a good initiative. It is positive and welcome, if belated.

Sentiment score: 0.16

I am happy not to move my amendment because it has been dealt with effectively by the Minister's amendment.

Sentiment score: 0.77

It is a very welcome amendment and one I considered tabling but I did not manage to do so. I have dealt with cases over the years and I have engaged with the FSPO on behalf of constituents in situations where they were joint holders of a mortgage, the relationship had broken down and there was evidence of fraud, for the want of a better description, perpetrated by one of the people who held the account, which was accepted by the bank. The relationship had broken down and the person on the other side of that relationship wanted to make a complaint to the ombudsman about a matter related to that account and the ombudsman could not accept that because the complainant could not obtain the consent of the other signatory. That is a very real-life human set of circumstances that confronts far too many people and, arguably, is a form of economic and financial abuse that the FSPO is not in a position to investigate. It perpetrates another injustice against someone who has already experienced a number of injustices in his or her life. I have been in correspondence with the FSPO on this particular case and I believe it illustrates a broader problem. The ombudsman made it very clear that there are very obvious difficulties in framing a legislative amendment that might be able to accommodate everybody’s rights. I understand that. It seems that the ombudsman’s equivalent in the UK – the regulator there – has managed to steer a middle course on this and is acknowledging the problems. They too have a form of a GDPR regime. GDPR is not necessarily the problem. Of course, it is used as the omni-excuse to cover everything by some agencies that would just prefer to not do anything at all and that is the defence. I accept, however, that when the ombudsman was corresponding with me on this issue that was not the purpose but was obliged to point out the obvious GDPR issues that would arise. It should not be beyond us as a Legislature to try to come up with an innovative solution to accommodate somebody’s rights because it is an all too human problem. It arises all of the time. I would like to think there are people in the FSPO and similar organisations who would like to see a solution to this. It is not immediately obvious to me what that is. Deputy Doherty's amendment is helpful in trying to get to the bottom of this and propose some kind of resolution. I am interested in the Minister of State's views. It is a very human problem. It would be useful to hear his views on how the problem might be addressed.

Sentiment score: -0.02

With respect, the remarks the Minister of State read out are a restatement of the position the FSPO has put into correspondence with me over the years, and with others as well. Deputy Doherty is familiar with these kinds of cases. He has worked on them too. I imagine many other Members of the House have as well. The Deputy is right that we are legislators. We make the law and it is up to the agencies of the State to enforce that law. If the political will is there, it is surely not beyond our ability to develop an innovative solution that is fair to everyone and that can address these very real everyday human problems that are becoming more apparent by the day. I spoke last year to the Business Post, which started to express an interest in these cases. It did a desktop assessment of the kinds of regimes in place in similar common law jurisdictions where, for example, GDPR laws apply. They referred to the UK financial services ombudsman which said, “it had similar problems, but crucially, it was able to help in some instances”. It did not go through in detail what those instances were, but clearly the legal system with which we have most in common, the UK common law system, managed to find a way around this to accommodate this unfortunate everyday reality. Deputy Doherty's amendment is well crafted and it gives some latitude to the FSPO to make a determination on whether a complaint is appropriate or whether it can accept that complaint. An agency and organisation, operating under the laws we develop in this House and pass as a sovereign Parliament, should be able to interpret those laws and we should give it the latitude it needs to be able to operate in the real world and create some kind of practical framework to take these complaints and try to resolve them. The amendment is not overly explicit as to how that will be done. It is drafted broadly enough to allow the FSPO to look at all of the facts and merits of each individual case and make a determination as to whether it can take on the case while balancing everyone's interests. I find it extraordinary that there is an overly legalistic interpretation of these kinds of things. We deal all the time in this House with much more complex problems and we manage to find solutions. I reiterate that if the political will is there to deal with this, it should not be beyond us to find a resolution to this very real problem.

Sentiment score: 0.17

Just to clarify, this is Committee Stage and we will also have Report Stage.

Sentiment score: 0.00

I understand. We will be dealing with other finance-related Bills over the coming months. It is not unusual for an amendment that is not directly related to the subject matter of a Bill to be accommodated. This might be done in respect of the issue that is exercising me and Deputy Doherty. Deputy O'Callaghan has also spoken about it. This is not the first time I have raised this. We have raised it time and again in the Houses and elsewhere. The Minister of State understands the issue. He gets it. He is a constituency representative and a compassionate human being who understands that these problems arise all the time. He believes it is not possible to accommodate this in the legislation at the moment. We would disagree although regulation could potentially enable this area to be addressed. An overarching amendment to future legislation might be able to house such a regulation, for want of a better description, and enable that to happen. Will the Minister of State commit to engaging with the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman on this issue and to coming back to us in any format? He can see that we are exercised about it. We want to resolve this. Our bona fides on it are well established. Will the Minister of State engage with the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman to see if there is an innovative and imaginative solution that balances everyone's rights while addressing this problem? If we can get such a commitment here this evening, it would be a good evening's work and we could return to the issue again.

Sentiment score: 0.17