I will undertake to ask the officials to respond to the Deputy. I honestly do not know but I will put it into context. In the 2024 budget for the FSPO, only 4%, or €525,000, of the overall costs came from the Department and 96% of the funding was covered by the industry. A very small percentage of the funding is coming from the Department. I do not know what the rationale was back in 2017 but we will get that information from the Department. To put it into context, we are talking about a very small element of the o…

The FSPO has advised that where a complaint is made to it concerning a joint account or joint policy, it must recognise that all parties who own the account or policy have rights, entitlements and potential liabilities arising from that account or policy. The rights, entitlements and potential liabilities of joint owners arise not only from a legal and contractual perspective but also from other legislative and regulatory sources such as data protection legislation. Whether the complaint is resolved by way of a bin…

To be brutally honest with the Deputies, when I was briefed on this Bill before coming in, I saw the merits of where they were coming from. I could see the reason for this and the examples of where it could well be needed. I could think of examples of dealing with marital breakdown in my constituency where one party has gone, never to be engaged with and the other person is unable to make contact with them. I see the rationale behind this, and it is in that context that the Central Bank's consumer protection code p…

I hear what each of the Deputies is saying but, to be fair, the review of the consumer protection code is a good, positive and concrete change. We must also acknowledge that both parties to a contract have rights and they both have obligations. Deputy Doherty mentioned that the Central Bank or the relevant financial institution or pension provider can undertake a review if one party raises an issue, but it is also fair to say that neither the Central Bank nor a financial institution or pension provider is a quasi-j…

Section 12 clarifies the respective remit of the financial services ombudsman and the credit reviewer. There is another similar amendment to section 14 of the Bill; that section also corrects a typographical error. 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 does not interfere with the commercial discretion of a financial service provi…

It will not remove any right; it just clarifies what the right is. The Credit Review Office, as the Deputy knows, was established for people who had a grievance or felt their credit application was not dealt with appropriately by way of a commercial decision on their ability to repay a financial loan. The measure clarifies the difference between the review office and the FSPO but is not removing any right. If people still believe it is required to go to the FSPO on grounds other than commercial-decision grounds, th…

I understand it was raised during pre-legislative scrutiny that clarity was needed. The amendment is to give rise to that clarity.

To clarify, it is exactly that.

Currently, there is no statutory obligation on pension providers to have internal dispute resolution processes in place. This measure will make it a statutory requirement.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 7, between lines 20 and 21, to insert the following: “19. Section 62 of the Principal Act is amended— (a) in subsection (1), by the substitution of “section 60 or 61” for “section 61 or 62”, (b) by the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2): “(2) Subject to subsection (2A), the Ombudsman— (a) shall publish— (i) decisions made by him or her after the establishment day in relation to complaints concerning financial service providers, and (ii) case studies in relati…

Yes.

My clear understanding is that, as the law stands, the only person who can opt to have the hearing in public is the person bringing the complaint. Therefore, it is not the FSPO who makes the decision to have the hearing in public. By virtue of the fact that the complainant is willing to have the hearing in public, he or she is giving implied permission to be known. If he or she wanted to have it in private, he or she could do so. It is his or her choice, nobody else's.

To confirm again, it is only where the hearing has been in public. The matter that will be published has already been heard in public. No new information is being published. The only person who can decide if they are willing to have the hearing in public is the person who is bringing the complaint. If someone is willing to have their complaint heard in public, they will not have an issue with the findings being published.

That is my understanding, yes.

The hearing would have been held in public anyway. It would be known.

The FSPO publishes an overview of complaints every year, as the Deputy will be aware. Where there are numerous complaints against a particular financial institution, it is named. It is at the discretion of the FSPO. The Deputy is right. If the complaint is heard in private, it is not guaranteed that the name of the financial institution will be published. However, if there are continuous complaints against that financial institution, the FSPO will publish and name it. I will have to come back to the Deputy on the t…

I thank Deputy Buckley for raising this important issue and for offering me the opportunity to respond. As a former board member of the Cara Phort Family Resource Centre in my home village of Ballynacarrigy, I know first-hand the work these family resource centres undertake. As Deputy Buckley has outlined so eloquently regarding the resource centres in his own constituency, they really do invaluable work in the communities they serve. In April 2024 the Department of Children, Equality, Disability, Integration and Y…

I thank the Deputy for his honest and sincere contributions this evening. It is clear that he places a huge value, as do I, on family resource centres. The Minister is very pleased that 2025 will see the family resource centre programme expanding, with the provision of five new centres. That expansion is an imminent and very welcome development for the programme, its member organisations and the communities the new centres will serve. We must acknowledge that the previous Government brought the base level of fundin…

I thank the Deputy for raising this matter as it provides me with the opportunity, on behalf of the Minister for Education, to outline to the Dáil the current position in relation to the multiple projects specified in the Deputy’s request, namely, Coláiste Bhríde in Carnew, Gorey Community School, St. John's senior primary school in Arklow and Bunclody Community College. Since 2020, the Department has invested more than €5.7 billion in our schools throughout the country, involving the completion of over 1,150 schoo…

I again thank Deputy Brennan for raising these issues, and for doing so quite forcefully on behalf of the respective schools and articulating their positions. The Deputy is correct in saying that it is so important when we are making these investments in the schools that we get it right and that we put in place the services the schools need and the pupils and the teaching staff deserve for their respective schools. It is critically important as well to continue to engage with the schools, as the school building uni…