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?

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 Constit…

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?

While the amendment is technical, is it correct that section 19 deals with the publication of information relating to complaints?

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 vu…

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 onl…

Will the Ombudsman be able to name the financial institution if the case against it was partially upheld?

Is that possible without the consent of the financial institution?

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…

I thank the Minister of State.

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.

Tá sé iontach contúirteach agus gearr-radharcach deireadh a chur leis an nglas triarach, an triple lock. Is é seo an chéad chéim ag Fianna Fáil agus ag Fine Gael chun deireadh a chur le neodracht mhíleata na tíre seo. Beartas fadbhunaithe agus rathúil le blianta fada don tír seo é agus ní hé seo an t-am le dul leis an slua agus leis an slua a leanúint. Is é seo an t-am le fanacht lenár bprionsabail. This morning, the Government took the first dangerous steps in dismantling the triple lock. The proposal brought to C…

At least Fine Gael is honest about its intentions. It has been for over 20 years. When it produced its document, Beyond Neutrality, in its effort to dismantle neutrality, the Taoiseach described it as an out-of-touch ideological obsession. Fine Gael, in that policy document, described the Taoiseach and Fianna Fáil's approach as the nod-and-wink approach of signing up to initiatives and telling the Irish people that it is something else. The Taoiseach has adopted the Fine Gael approach and it has adopted his. It is …

That is not true.

The Taoiseach would not allow a free vote.

Not agreed.

At the end of January the Government gave its word on the floor of the Dáil that it would work with the Opposition to find a resolution to the impasse relating to the status of the Michael Lowry group of Independent TDs that would be acceptable to both Government and Opposition. It has gone back on its word now and has proposed to put a motion before the Dáil that puts Michael Lowry and his group in the centre of Opposition, giving them Opposition rights such as Leaders' Questions and others. It does that at a time…

Will the Taoiseach do what the combined Opposition leaders have asked of him? They have written to him and asked him to sit down to let us find a solution to this that is sensible, practical and common sense. The Government needs to show a bit of common sense on this issue.

Hear, hear.

So why are you doing this?