Robert Troy

Not agreed.

Níl.

There is an old saying, "Cash is king." I agree with that. It is very important that cash is facilitated. As a postmaster myself, I fully appreciate what Deputy Conway-Walsh said about the good work the post office network did in making sure people's pensions and unemployment benefit were paid out, even though these were not on the system, so to speak, and manually did it to make sure cash was in …

Access fees are a charge, usually a flat-rate fee irrespective of the amount being withdrawn, levied by an ATM operator to use a specific ATM. Most of us pay bank fees and charges to our current account providers. However, customers of Irish banks and payment service providers have not been subject to what are known as domestic access fees or ATM access fees. Access fees have not been charged for …

I move amendment No. 8: In page 40, between lines 14 and 15, to insert the following new section: “Amendment of section 61G of Act of 1942 48. Section 61G(1) of the Act of 1942 is amended— (a) by the substitution of “a designated enactment, a designated statutory instrument or the Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Act 2025 (in so far as that Act is not a designated enactme…

Under pressure.

I move amendment No. 1: In page 3, to delete lines 17 to 20 and substitute the following: “(a) in subsection (1)— (i) in the definition of “financial service provider”, by the insertion of the following paragraphs after paragraph (g): “(ga) a person who, before the commencement of the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015, engaged in any of the activities referred…

I just need to get the translation.

It was the Opposition that highlighted this at the time when the legislation was coming through. To the credit of the Minister for Finance at the time, former Deputy Michael McGrath, he undertook to take on board the Opposition’s concerns. I looked back at the debate in the Official Report. In February 2024, he acknowledged the Deputy had raised this matter in the House the previous week when we w…

That is correct.

I thank Deputy Doherty and understand where he is coming from. The Minister does have regular engagement with the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman and we can commit to keeping the matter under review and on our radar in the regular engagement. In respect of the amendments, as the Deputies are aware, we undertake post enactment to carry out scrutiny of all legislation. This includes the r…

I have been told that the FSPO was created by merging the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman and the levy system design reflects that since the 2017 Act. I do not know if that clarifies the matter for Deputy Doherty but if not we can come back to him with a more comprehensive answer. Section 3 outlines and updates the methodology for calculating expenses via a percentage spli…

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 w…

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 l…

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 …

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 issu…

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 juris…

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 …

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 he…

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 i…

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 …