Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire Stáit as an leasú seo a chur i láthair na Dála inniu. Is leasú tábhachtach é seo atá tugtha isteach ag an Aire Stáit. Tá an leasú mar a gcéanna leis an leasú atá agam féin ar son Shinn Féin agus leis an leasú atá ag an Teachta Nash ar son Pháirtí an Lucht Oibre. Tá an trí leasú ag iarraidh an rud céanna a dhéanamh agus a bhaint amach.
Sentiment score: 0.00
That is fine.
Sentiment score: 0.20
I merely made the point that I appreciate the amendment the Minister of State has brought before the House and I referred to the amendment I have tabled on behalf of Sinn Féin. Without speaking for Deputy Nash, who will speak for himself, his is a similar amendment. All three amendments are trying to achieve the same thing. There was a serious problem with the original legislation which prevented legitimate claims being heard by the FSPO regarding conduct that occurred before the authorisation of a credit servicing firm. The role of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is vitally important. It is a piece of legislation that I have amended successfully in terms of the time limit that was there to investigate pieces of legislation. I am proud that the legislation I got through the Houses of the Oireachtas and enacted has allowed for many customers, particularly those in the tracker mortgage scandal, to have their complaints heard and adjudicated on. The role of the FSPO is to investigate to resolve consumer complaints regarding financial services. It is essential that the FSPO works as it is intended and that everybody has access to it and its services. That is crucial. That has to include people who have had their mortgages sold off, usually without their permission and against their will. As I said, the first three amendments before us all have the same intention. The aim is to close a loophole that existed in the legislation since the FSPO was established in 2018. The legal loophole has resulted in people whose mortgages are with a vulture fund having no access to the State's financial services ombudsman. That was a scandal. It was a disgrace. We need to recognise that many people went without those protections for many years. I welcome the inclusion of the amendment by the Minister in this legislation. I raised this on numerous occasions with his two predecessors. Indeed, there were attempts to proceed with this legislation in committee. I thank all my colleagues on the committee for agreeing to my proposal that the Bill would not go to Committee Stage until we had dealt with this loophole, and this is the legislation to deal with it. I welcome the fact that there is consensus on this issue. This stemmed from the fact that tens of thousands of mortgages were sold to unregulated vulture funds - something that should never have happened. Approximately 80,000 mortgage loans are held by vulture funds. I and Sinn Féin strongly oppose these sales. I strongly believe that retail banks should be those who hold our mortgages and long-term loans. These should never be in the hands of vulture funds and I warned against the negative consequences for consumers. We have seen those consequences in higher interest rates and also in the context of what we are trying to fix in this legislation, that is, the fact that they did not have access to the FSPO. At the time, Fine Gael told us that all these homeowners would have the same protections as anybody else. That is complete and utter nonsense. As we know now, they did not have access to the FSPO, one of the core issues that you have in terms of a financial product. Not only that, we know that those whose loans are with a vulture fund are likely to have experienced significant interest rate increases in recent years. That was the cornerstone of the argument that was put forward, not only by Fine Gael but also by Fianna Fáil, when they supported the sales to the vulture funds. The previous Minister for Finance repeatedly made those assurances to the public. In 2019, in a bid to convince the public, he stated that he would be happy for his own mortgage to be sold to a vulture fund. Little did he know he would not have access to the FSPO or, indeed, that the vulture fund would have jacked up the interest rate probably nine times over the past year and a half. The Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 came into effect on 8 July 2015 and that was followed by the consumer protection Act in 2018, which came into effect in January 2019. Before July 2015, the vulture funds owning the loans or the firms servicing them were not required to be regulated. That meant that the FSPO could not investigate conduct prior to the date with respect to either the fund or the credit servicing firm. The vulture funds owning the loans were only required to be regulated after the 2018 Act and many of these funds did not even ask for authorisation until months later. As a result, we had thousands of mortgage holders with loans held by vulture funds who simply could not make a complaint or, if they made the complaint, it could not be heard by the FSPO because the conduct was prior to 2019 or, in some cases, during 2019. I welcome the fact that these changes have been brought forward and that the Government has listened to the concerns I have raised but, without doubt, it damages the credibility of what Government parties argued in the past, that is, that everything was kosher and there would be no difference. The amendment, while positive in that it closes the loophole, is an admission that the public were misled. Let us be clear about it. They were misled, whether by mistake or design, on the protections they would have. We now need to see people who have been denied this recourse to be prioritised by the FSPO. People could not have their complaints heard. Now they will be able to have their complaints heard and we need to make sure there is a way in which those complaints can be fast-tracked, which may require additional resources. The statistics of the FSPO indicate the average waiting time for a decision is nine months. They also tell us that 85% of cases were decided within the first 12 months. We know from those two figures that a substantial minority of claims that are skewing these numbers. We have some people who have been before the FSPO not for months but for years. I was recently contacted by a person with a case before the FSPO relating to a tracker mortgage who has been waiting seven years for a decision. When this legislation is passed the people who have been denied access to the FSPO for the past number of years need to be prioritised, but that cannot come at the expense of those are waiting. We need to look at how this will be managed and how those who have waited too long for access to justice will now be treated and how they can have their complaints against the vulture funds or banks heard. I welcome the amendment and that the Minister of State has introduced it. I would like some clarification. The legislation deals with the 2015 and 2018 Acts as well as the Central Bank Act and the original FSPO Act. which established the FSPO. All are interlinked in terms of this amendment. I understand from the drafting that it does not require the credit servicing firm to be authorised. It says if an entity was involved in any of the activities - the activities are listed in a previous Act - the entity is automatically deemed a credit servicing firm regardless of whether it is authorised. There is an authorisation process. A grandfathering clause in the legislation allowed for automatic recognition of authorisation, but that obtained only for a period of a short number of months until applications were made. The automatic entitlement of authorisation was also conditional on a number of steps. Will the Minister of State clarify – I believe this is the case anyway – that this text will not require the credit servicing firm to be authorised? The effect of this text's inclusion is that, if an entity was involved in any type of activity that is defined under a different piece of legislation, whether authorised or not, the entity is deemed a credit servicing firm and, consequently, the FSPO can now hear cases on the entity's conduct or the conduct of others.
Sentiment score: 0.04
I thank the Minister of State. I do not want to fall out with him but, for the record, there were attempts to move this on Committee Stage. He is absolutely right that when I raised this with the then Minister, Michael McGrath, he said he would investigate it, but this legislation was going to go ahead. We stalled it, therefore, because this is the best vehicle to deal with it. That does not matter but I am highlighting it for the record. I welcome the Minister of State's clarification that those involved in credit servicing before the 2015 or the 2018 Acts will now be captured regardless of whether they are authorised. In order that it will be on the record, will he give the same clarification that those involved in credit servicing activities prior to the commencement of either of those items of legislation, but before their authorisation, will also be captured?
Sentiment score: 0.25
I am not going to move amendment No. 2 because we have just passed amendment No. 1, which does exactly what we are looking for. Amendment No. 4 is also in my name, and while I am not going to move it either, I ask the Minister of State to ensure the legislation does what that amendment proposes. It calls on the Minister to bring forward a report on the extension of the jurisdiction of the FSPO to cover all mortgage holders. This relates to the conversation we have just had regarding whether it covers pre-authorisation and so on. So many people have been caught out having been given assurances and told everything was okay. We would not even have known about this had someone not taken a case and pursued it, and the same applies to a lot of areas. When we think about the tracker mortgage scandal and the 40,000 cases, it was a handful of individuals, fewer than a dozen, who started that ball rolling and then we found out the issue was so widespread, with €1 billion of theft in reality. This amendment would provide that after a sufficient period, the Minister would ask his officials to look at this with the FSPO and carry out an exercise to ensure that the Bill, with amendment No. 1 in particular, is doing what it is intended to do, namely, include all mortgage holders in the net. I am not asking for it to be put into the legislation but, in the spirit of the amendment, the Minister might ask his officials after a period to touch base with the FSPO, make sure there are no issues and report that to us.
Sentiment score: -0.00
I thank the Minister of State. Really, what I am looking for here is an early warning system. I am familiar with the 12-month review and so on but I am thinking of people for whom, while they may have made a complaint that has not been heard, it may be a case of a vulture fund absolutely robbing them. It may be the case the vulture fund has taken their home wrongly from them. It may be that they were overcharged. We do not know what the cases are, and the cases have not been able to be heard. We are fixing that now when this legislation becomes enacted. What I really wanted was that we would not have to wait for a year to find out that there is still an issue. The FSPO may think this is fine, but there is another animal that challenges this and its lawyers will get to see whether the FSPO has jurisdiction in a given case. I welcome the Minister of State's comments but really what we want is an early warning system for this whereby, if something is flagged in respect of the FSPO, in these cases that are now going to come before it but cannot be heard for some reason, and where there is still another issue with the legislation, we will not have to wait for 12 months to find out about it. In the spirit of trying to resolve the issue, I ask the Minister of State to relay that to the senior Minister.
Sentiment score: 0.01
This section, which deals with the original legislation, addresses the funding of the FSPO. As we know, it is funded through two sources, namely, a levy and Exchequer funding. The former is an industry levy imposed on financial service providers annually in respect of FSPO activities for the investigation of complaints and the second source is funding provided by the Exchequer through the Department of Finance Vote. The section amends the Act, with which I have no issue, to clarify the methodology underlying how the distribution of expenses across the FSPO to sources of funding would take place. To that end, it is going to replace in the legislation the words "dealt with" with “received by”, which reflects the metric used by the FSPO in practice, so I have no issue with that. It also allows for expenses to be calculated over a three-year period rather than a one-year period, which is fine with me as well. These clarifications in this legislation seem straightforward and I am not opposing them. I would like to take the opportunity, however, to hear from the Minister of State, or indeed from the Department, about the rationale for not using the levy to cover the costs of the FSPO in its work that deals with pensions, because that does not come from a levy but directly from the Oireachtas Vote. I also note that the existing practice and this amendment focus on complaints received. Over recent years, there has been a concerning decline in the number of complaints substantially or partially upheld. It is concerning. I have written to the Minister about this issue and the trends that are there need to be analysed and explained. Maybe it is just a case that we are dealing with complaints that are of a certain nature but there is a trend of a decline in the number of complaints that are upheld, substantially or partially. Will the Minister explain why the work of the FSPO on pensions is not covered by an industry levy?
Sentiment score: -0.05
I thank the Minister of State for the response. As I said, I have no issue with the parts in this section. However, the clarification and answer the Minister of State gave me was that it always was this way and, therefore, it shall ever be. Without delaying this process, will the Department officials send me a note on why it should always be this way? I am not advocating that it should change but I just want to know the rationale behind the Department’s thinking that may have been this way. We amalgamated the financial services and pensions ombudsmen in legislation a number of years ago. Is there any rethink in the Department as to whether a levy should be imposed on all activities or should it just be maintained for financial services, which is what is provided for here?
Sentiment score: 0.03
I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, between lines 8 and 9, to insert the following: “(2) Section 44 of the Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following subsection after subsection (6): “(6A) Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Ombudsman may, where he or she considers it appropriate to do so to protect the interests of a complainant, accept a complaint with respect to a joint account or joint policy in instances where all owners of that account or policy have not consented to the complaint.”.”. This amendment seeks to amend the principal Act by the insertion of the following: Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Act, the Ombudsman may, where he or she considers it appropriate to do so to protect the interests of a complainant, accept a complaint with respect to a joint account or joint policy in instances where all owners of that account or policy have not consented to the complaint. What we are trying to do is self-explanatory. The amendment is intended to try to address the deficiencies in the legislation as regards complaints from people who have jointly held mortgages or other financial services. This is a consequence, in certain circumstances, of empowering an individual to block another from seeking justice or availing of consumer protection. This can be done out of spite or coercive control and in these instances the ombudsman is blocked from taking the complaint forward. There are situations in relation to this and what this amendment does is that it does not say it will happen automatically but it allows the ombudsman to hear the complaint. The ombudsman may, where he or she considers it appropriate to do so to protect the interest of a complainant, accept a complaint with respect to a joint account or joint policy. This is a sensible amendment and I am interested to hear the Minister of State's response and whether there is another way he believes this issue can be resolved.
Sentiment score: 0.13
I am very disappointed with the response from the Minister of State and Department. This is a real issue. I have an example of this. Coercive control exists. These people have a right to do what everybody else can, which is to make a complaint to the financial services ombudsman about the conduct of financial institutions. The Minister of State is telling me he will not do anything about the legislation that prevents them doing so where the person exercising coercive control over them does not allow it. That is nonsense and should not happen. Surely to God there is enough wisdom in this room to deal with this issue. If it cannot be fixed for contracts in the past, surely we can legislate to ensure contracts in the future allow for all joint accounts to have it specified that if a party to the agreement brings it to the FSPO without consent, it will be heard by the FSPO. There are ways around this. That response is a typical response outlining why not to do something. The Minister of State has to put himself in the shoes of the, mostly, women in this situation. Their partner took a joint mortgage with them and is not allowing them to get the justice they deserve. They do that, in some cases, out of spite and as a way to harm the individual. That is what this is about. If there is a way for us to resolve that, which I believe there is, it should be done. I understand the limitations of the FSPO but if the Minister of State is saying the limitations are consent and GDPR, can they not be provided at the point of entering into a contract? I have a case where there were eight signatories to a contract, six of them children. Some of them were not even in the country at the time. They were in Australia. They cannot take the case to the FSPO because the individual who benefited from this and from the wrongdoings of the financial institutions, as is alleged, will not play ball with the partner and children. That is nonsense. I cannot accept that. Let us imagine somebody coming to my constituency clinic who is the victim of domestic violence. Through other engagements, we find out she has been wronged by a financial institution but she cannot seek justice because the person who perpetrated that violence is attacking her once again through legislation that we can fix. Surely they have the right to do it. The Minister of State is probably not in a position because Cabinet has decided all this stuff but we have to be able to fix this. This is simple to fix if we want to do it. We make the law. The Minister of State read out that these are the rules by which the FSPO is set up. We know the FSPO has to play by the rules but we make the rules. Sinn Féin in this amendment is trying to change the rules so this type of situation would not be allowed and the FSPO would have discretion to hear a case from one party to a joint agreement where it felt it was in the interests of protecting the rights of that party. We can put in protections and rights for people to do this, that and the other but the basic right to take a case and seek redress should be afforded not just to some citizens but to all citizens. I strongly urge the Minister of State to rethink this. This is absolutely wrong. I know some individuals who have been in this circumstance. It is just not right.
Sentiment score: -0.01
I heard what the Minister read from his note, but his note did not say that he could not do it. It stated that he had to be conscious of quasi-judicial procedures and so on. I have not seen legal opinion on this, and I do not have legal opinion on it, but I am certain there are ways in which we can address the matter if we put our heads together. Even if, as I said, we may not be able to do it for those who have entered into contracts, we can look at contracts in the future if there is an issue. The bizarre thing in this is that an individual - for example somebody who is a victim of domestic violence – who may have been wronged by the financial institution can make a complaint herself to the financial institution. The Central Bank, in the context of the codes the Minister of State mentioned, expects that financial institution to deal with her complaint and to respond to her regardless of whether the individual who has been involved in domestic abuse against her consents to it. However, when the financial institution fails her, she has no right to seek recourse from the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman unless her abuser puts his signature on her complaint form. That is nonsense. It just does not make any sense. Let us look at the Bill before us, which I support. Section 15 gives the Minister for Finance the power to bring forward regulations involving internal dispute mechanisms within financial services providers where they may not exist. Would the Minister of State be happy if those regulations stated that an individual cannot be heard from unless the second person signs the form? No financial institution works like that. It is only the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman that works like that. The financial institutions will hear a complaint from one individual. There has to be a way to deal with this. I am conscious that we are not going to get agreement on this amendment tonight, but I am trying to make sure that we go away, look at the legal avenues and find a way to resolve this issue. Protections can be put in place to allow for due process, engagement and information to be provided to any other signatory of the account but that should not block any consideration of a complaint the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman feels is important. As already stated, I am not arguing that it should be done willy-nilly or for every single case. I am arguing that this should be allowed where the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman is of the view that it is in the interests of the complainant for a complaint to be heard. This may be in a case of domestic abuse or coercive control or where the other party to the original mortgage is in some far-flung land and the complainant has not had contact with him or her for 20 years. As it stands, the complainant's case can never be heard. That is not acceptable in this day and age. As I have said, there are bound to be ways to resolve this. The amendment could stand in this legislation because all it does is enable the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman to hear these cases. It does not mean that he or she will hear the cases. It may be the case that we will have to look at other amendments to legislation to allow for protections for other signatories to the contract. The Minister of State mentioned the Central Bank code of conduct and all of the protections that are there but who polices the code? It is the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. If you make a complaint to the Central Bank, it will say that it cannot deal with individual complaints and will direct you to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. It is the ombudsman's code and he or she obliges the bank to adhere to it. If you feel the banks are not adhering to the code, you can make a complaint to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. However, in this circumstance, you cannot. All of the protections are there. The more protections, the merrier. I am absolutely for that but I want to ensure that people are able to exercise their rights where they feel that consumer protections have been disregarded by financial institutions. They should then be able to make a complaint. It is crucially important that they can do that through a mechanism I very much support, which is free of charge, which has been efficient, although there are some issues at the minute, and which is readily available to the population. I ask the Minister of State to commit to looking at this issue again in the spirit of determining what we would need to do to allow this to happen in these circumstances, which are limited in number but which still exist. How can we give the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman discretion to hear such cases? That is what I am not hearing at the minute. I hear what the Minister of State has said about just being briefed on this recently but I ask that he commit to looking at this issue again. I am not asking for it to be included in this legislation. This legislation will pass tonight but there will be other opportunities.
Sentiment score: 0.02
I welcome that. As I said, the FSPO will operate within the rules that we set. It would be worth having that conversation with the Attorney General as well. The original Bill stems from the Zalewski case in the WRC. Any quasi-judicial organ of the State should have fair procedures, but fair procedures do not mean that someone should have to sign the complaint. Fair procedures can be about being notified that a complaint is in, and that an individual has the right to be there, to be heard, to be cross-examined and to take evidence under oath. These were all the issues that were at the core of the case that was dealt with by the Supreme Court. It should not be a block for an individual. As I said, the FSPO is a good first step but advice from the Attorney General on how this can be addressed in the here and now, or going forward, is crucially important. I will not press the amendment, given the Minister of State's commitment, although to tell the truth I want to press it. This is a big issue. It may not be one that affects hundreds of thousands of people but as I have said over and over again, a lot of the issues that become financial scandals happen because of one individual. One person did not lie down, was not going to be browbeaten by the financial institution and may have told his or her story to people. Those people may have thought that person was a crackpot or whatever, but he or she just kept on going and took it to the FSPO, which ruled for him or her. In some cases, the FSPO ruled against the person and he or she still kept on going. I know people who have benefited from the actions of one individual. I will not mention the bank, but there was an FSPO case a number of years ago. One individual took a case on prevailing rate issues. That person won the case. One complaint won that case and thousands of people were notified that they were owed thousands of euro by that bank. Let us imagine that the person who took that case against a major financial institution in this State was a woman whose partner or former partner was exerting control over her and would not sign the document. Can you imagine the impact of that on any financial institution? It would state straight away that it could not deal with that case and to forget about it, and not one of those thousands of people would have ever found out that they were robbed by that financial institution. At its core, this is about the right to justice, the right to be heard, and rights in those circumstances where blackguarding is going on that tries to deny access to the organs of the State that allow a person to have his or her complaint heard, considered and adjudicated on. It is that person's right in the first instance. I am very conscious, from our past, that the actions of such an individual can have an impact on tens of thousands of other people who have been wronged but who never knew about it and would never do anything about it if were it not for that person. I will leave it at that but I am very passionate about this issue. I am happy to work with the Minister of State on it. I will return to it because, as I said, this issue can be resolved. I hope it is without delay.
Sentiment score: 0.20
This relates to SMEs. At present, a dual track or dual process is under way where people can appeal a credit decision by a participating institution to a credit reviewer, while at the same time submitting a complaint regarding the conduct to the FSPO. The section seems to clarify that the complainant may not make a complaint to the FSPO and it may not investigate the complaint in circumstances where the credit reviewer has already issued an opinion to the complainant. The text in the explanatory memorandum is a wee bit contradictory. Maybe that is just my reading of it. I am looking for clarification on this. Obviously, the credit reviewer or the credit review office is something we want people to go to. It is non-binding, but can people go to a credit reviewer and if they are not happy with that decision, can they take a case to the FSPO after this legislation is passed? I ask the Minister of State to clarify that in order that we have clarification regarding section 12.
Sentiment score: 0.12
I am still not clear, and that may fall on me, on what the Minister of State said about updating and clarifying. People will still have the ability to make a complaint to the FSPO regarding the conduct. What will they not have the ability to make a complaint to the FSPO about as a result of the legislation? This legislation will ensure there is no overlap, which means it will remove the right to make a complaint in certain areas because it will have already been dealt with. Will the Minister of State explain what that is or what the overlap is?
Sentiment score: -0.14
That is clear. Why does this arise? The FSPO cannot adjudicate on commercial decisions of banks that operate in line with the codes of conduct and all the rest. Can the Minister of State explain to us why there is some confusion in the legislation because what he has described seems to be clear regarding the existing practice? Why is this section needed? Why is an amendment to the original Act needed?
Sentiment score: 0.13
I mentioned this section earlier when talking about amendment No. 5. This obviously clarifies that the ombudsman may require witnesses to attend before him or her to be examined or cross-examined on oath or affirmation. This comes from the judgment we referred to in the case that involved the Workplace Relations Act 2015. It was found that the procedures were unsatisfactory in that cross-examination of witnesses of the opposing party is fundamental to the fair procedures guaranteed under Article 40.3 of the Constitution. It is obvious that cross-examination of witnesses is fundamental to the concept of fair procedures. We talked about fair procedures. The original 2017 Act contains several provisions that recognise the quasi-judicial role of the FSPO. The decision in the Zalewksi case has required such bodies to examine their processes and procedures and ensure consistency with the constitutional requirements. That is really the core function of the original legislation. However, my understanding is that cross-examining witnesses has always been a feature of oral hearings of the FSPO, without this being in legislation. I understand there has always been a stenographer present to take a transcript and cross-examine the other party's witnesses, and that has provided for the three-dimensional discussion. Can the Minister of State provide certainty that the amendments will not have an impact on the operations of the FSPO? The FSPO has been doing what I have described anyway in practice for quite a long period. Is putting the existing practice in legislation just to have a belt and braces so things will remain as normal within operations?
Sentiment score: 0.16
On section 15, which we touched on in terms of internal dispute resolution and the power of the Minister to make the regulations, will it now be the case that all financial services firms and pension providers will have to have internal dispute resolution procedures? Will this amendment ensure this is the case? Is it a factor that there are many that do not have such procedures in place?
Sentiment score: -0.09
While the amendment is technical, is it correct that section 19 deals with the publication of information relating to complaints?
Sentiment score: -0.40
The issue I have, although the Minister of State will probably refer to fair procedure and all the rest, is that there is a huge difference between not naming Mrs. Doherty or whoever is taking a case that may not be upheld or is partially upheld and not naming the financial institution, such as Mars Capital. A David-and-Goliath battle that is being fought on this. I do not like the idea that the same privacy given to those making the complaints is being provided to the massive financial services firms, including vulture funds. That protects them from adverse findings made against them. I have concerns about this. The onus is on them, they are regulated, and, by law, they are supposed to do X, Y and Z. I am just concerned about this and wanted to put my concern on the record.
Sentiment score: -0.15
I hear that and it is to be welcomed, but does the section not deal with the power of the FSPO to publish the decisions and, therefore, give privacy or protection to the financial institutions under the guise of providing privacy to the individual making the complaint, whether he or she wants the hearing in public or not? None of us, or very few of us, will rock up to the hearing, but it is the publication that I am referring to. It relates to what I was saying earlier, namely that it is sometimes the case that only a few challenges to the system open up a Pandora's box. Where there is a case in which it is stated that AIB, Bank of Ireland, Mars Capital, Start Mortgages or another body did X, Y or Z, people start to pull out their contracts, be they in suitcases under the bed or elsewhere, and see whether X, Y or Z actually happened to them. When the name of the financial institution is not published, it becomes a bigger issue. I am not arguing that it all should happen but discretion should be applied by the FSPO. That was my point on the section.
Sentiment score: -0.00
Will the Ombudsman be able to name the financial institution if the case against it was partially upheld?
Sentiment score: 0.00
Is that possible without the consent of the financial institution?
Sentiment score: -0.17
It is only known to people who attend the public hearing. There is a publication thereafter of the findings. There is also then a second thing. I will go back to a point and finish on it. It is a David and Goliath scenario. People come to me all the time and I tell them the FSPO is a great system because people do not have to get lawyers or barristers. They can take out a pen and paper and write their story. They do not have to worry about how well it is written or whatever else and can send it to the FSPO. It will assist people in finding where the complaint is and all the rest. Some people will be gung-ho and will want to have that in public. However, most people will not. That is the reality. If their complaint is upheld, they would like the institution to be named. In that circumstance where they have not exposed themselves, their vulnerability and what they might believe to be their inadequacies, whether grounded or not, if they have decided not to hold the hearing in public, can the financial institution's name be published? I have argued that a discretion should be there.
Sentiment score: 0.01
I thank the Minister of State.
Sentiment score: 0.36
I agree with the question. I thank the Minister of State and his predecessor for engaging to deal with the loophole in this legislation. I also thank the officials from the Department and the FSPO for their input.
Sentiment score: 0.44