Robert Troy
Longford-Westmeath · Fianna Fáil · Ireland
“Only last weekend, I had the honour of representing the Taoiseach at the commemoration of those who had lost their lives at the Battle of the Somme. The presence of the deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland was a very positive development. I understand that it was the first time she was present in Dublin for that commemoration.”
“People deserve to know and understand not just the aspiration but the implication for their livelihoods, public services and future. Transparency is something I have tried to foster during my term as Minister of State in the Department of Finance. People expect it and are savvy enough to find it themselves.”
“I welcome the opportunity to contribute on this debate on the financial implications of Irish unity. It is fair to say that it is an important discussion and one that deserves to be approached with seriousness, honesty and respect.”
“If we are serious about unity - I believe we all are - we must be equally serious about preparation. That includes asking the difficult but necessary questions, including about the role of the UK in supporting any transition, whether financial contributions over a defined period would form part of any agreement and how the EU could be inv…”
“While many will view these as barriers so as to delay and misinform, we need to realise that our island has overcome its fair share of barriers in the past and we have the capacity to overcome any barriers in the future. What we should be looking at are the opportunities that a united Ireland presents.”
“It can be secured through reassurance, actions and compromise. Deputy Lahart indicated some of the compromises that may need to be considered. From a financial perspective, we need to look for clarity. Some fundamental questions need to be addressed. What would happen to public services? How would taxation be structured?”
The complete record
Every one of 1,108 lines we hold for Robert Troy, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 20 of 23.
“The MOU provided for a package of funding of €5.8 million per annum to the FAI during that four-year period for football development. In return, and it is important to recognise this, the FAI has made significant progress regarding governance reform, with 159 of the 163 MOU recommendations and conditions either completed or having phase 1 completed. A new MOU was signed on 17 December 2024, which will increase State funding to the FAI to €6 million per annum for the period 2024 to 2027. With regard to State support for the development of facilities, more than €100 million in capital funding was allocated to Irish football in the second half of 2024.”
“The rate of duty depends on the type of betting activity and how the bet is placed. The rate of betting duty for bets place with a licensed bookmaker within the State either over the counter or via remote means is 2%. The rate of betting intermediary duty on the commission is 25%. Betting duty is reviewed annually as part of the annual budget process. Options regarding rates are presented to the tax strategy group, TSG, in the TSG general excise paper published on the website of the Department of Finance. Any decision on rates will be taken in the context of budget 2026. The Senator should be aware that considerable financial support has been provided by the State for the development of football in Ireland, particularly through the 2020-23 memorandum of understanding, MOU, between the Government and the FAI.”
“I thank the Senator for raising this issue. It is important to note that the use of funds arising from betting duty accrues to the Exchequer and there is no hypothecation or ring-fencing of betting duty receipts to any sport or sporting body. Such funding matters are for the Department of Tourism, Culture, Arts, Gaeltacht, Sport and Media and the Department of Public Expenditure, NDP Delivery and Reform to consider as part of the annual Estimates process. Betting duty is chargeable on all bets placed by a person with a licensed bookmaker at a bookmaker’s registered premises irrespective of the means by which the bet is placed. Licensed remote betting intermediaries are liable for betting intermediary duty on commission charged by them to persons in the State.”
“As Minister of State with responsibility for insurance reform, I confirm to the Deputy that work is well advanced on the new action plan. I have met with a number of key stakeholders and it is hoped we will seek submissions from the public on the action plan in the next number of weeks with a view to having it finalised in the next two months.”
“Naming this Bill in section 61G(1) of the Central Bank Act 1942 adds it to the list of designated enactments and designated statutory instruments to which section 61G of the Central Bank Act 1942 applies. This change will allow notice under this Bill to be served electronically. Service of notices electronically under the 1942 Act is allowed for under SI 177 of 2023. The inclusion of the Bill in section 61G removes the need for a specific section in the Bill on the giving of notices and hence section 4 of the Bill will be deleted.”
“This amendment concerns the serving of notices as part of the regulatory framework introduced in the Bill. Under the existing section 4 of the Bill, a notice, notification, direction or other document may be served on the recipient in person or in hard copy by delivery. It does not provide for the serving of notices by electronic means. This amendment is required to ensure that notices under the Bill may be served by electronic means to cash-in-transit providers and ATM operators who will fall under the regulatory framework introduced in the Bill. The proposed amendment addresses this by amending section 61G of the Central Bank Act 1942 to specifically reference the Finance (Provision of Access to Cash Infrastructure) Bill once enacted.”
“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 enactment)” for “a designated enactment or designated statutory instrument”, and (b) by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (b): “(b) in the case of a body corporate— (i) by leaving the notice or other document at, or (ii) by sending it by prepaid post to, the head office, a registered office or a principal office of the body corporate, or”.”.”
“While compliance by the designated entities with the access to cash criteria should mean new ATMs are installed, there is no guarantee they would be at the same location and this would be disruptive for communities. The introduction of an immediate prohibition on access fees would also place an increased burden on designated entities. It is for this reason the current wording of the section allows the Minister for Finance to either cap or ban access fees, as appropriate, rather than compelling such an intervention. It means the Minister for Finance can act in the future if access fees were to be introduced and impair access to cash, affordability and be harmful to financial inclusion.”
“Consequently, the Bill provides the Minister for Finance the power to make regulations to prohibit or cap access fees should they become a barrier to financial inclusion. However, the clear legal advice was the cap or ban must apply to all cards issued in EU countries. Therefore, if the amendment were accepted and access fees banned, revenue from access fees charged to EU visitors by ATM deployers would be lost. This would harm the commercial viability of certain ATMs, particularly those in areas with high tourist traffic, and could lead to their removal in more rural areas where such revenue is necessary for the viability of the ATM in question.”
“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 domestic withdrawals in Ireland to date due to Visa and Mastercard rules. However, visitors, including those from EU countries, are generally subject to such fees when using non-ATMs. Likewise, Irish account holders often have to pay access fees when using ATMs abroad. The status quo is dependent on Visa and Mastercard policies. These entities may change their rules to permit such fees in the future.”
“Government Departments and bodies under their aegis will be required to confirm, via their annual reports, that they are in compliance with the recommendation, further supporting the need for oversight and review. Future outcome 3.3 of the national payment strategy sets out that there will be a comprehensive overview of the national cash cycle environment that will inform policy thinking and formation related to cash and payments. Accepting this amendment would therefore represent a duplication of effort.”
“The national payment strategy proposes that all Government Departments and bodies under their aegis accept a range of electronic and non-electronic payments, including cash. If a body cannot accept cash directly, it must arrange immediately for the facilitation of cash payments through a third party. In November 2024, the Secretary General of the Department of Finance wrote to all other Secretaries General notifying them of this requirement and that any future contracts to be agreed between Government Departments, and bodies under their aegis, with third parties that involve seeking payment from the public must also include a cash acceptance or facilitation element.”
“The proposal included a requirement that member states prepare and submit an annual report on the acceptance of cash. In October 2024, the then Minister for Finance, Deputy Jack Chambers, launched a national payment strategy at the Central Bank of Ireland's offices and published the national payment strategy on the Department's website. The national payment strategy contains 16 further outcome recommendations in areas such as cash, resilience of payments, payment fraud, account-to-account payments and data collection initiatives. With regard to cash acceptance, the national payments framework recommends cash acceptance or cash facilitation in the public sector where a public body levies fines or fees or provides goods or services for a charge.”
“The simple reality is that people are taking the option to get payments paid into their bank accounts. That is their entitlement; I am not saying it is not. People are moving away from cash. The reason we have this legislation in place is to protect the infrastructure based on the 2022 levels. The fact of the matter is many people are using cash less and less frequently. With regard to the point about cash acceptance made by Deputy Doherty, the European Commission published a proposal for the regulation on the legal tender of euro banknotes and coins in June 2023. The proposal would provide for mandatory acceptance of cash in the euro area, with some exceptions. European Council working party meetings on the proposal are under way and progress is being made towards gaining agreement on a general approach.”
“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 circulation. One thing I always say is the best way to make sure these services are preserved into the future is for people to use them. I often give my own experience as an example. When I was working at the post office in my home village ten or 15 years ago, we made 200 payments on average on Fridays. Now we pay out 40% of that figure. That is not because the population of the village is declining.”
“Monitoring and compliance of the ATM accessibility requirements will lie with the Central Bank of Ireland. ATMs installed after 28 June 2025 must comply with the regulatory requirements. ATMs in use before that date may continue to be used until the end of their economically useful lives or no longer than 20 years after they entered into use. Accordingly, it is not proposed to accept this amendment.”
“The distance can be adjusted in future if, following data collection and review by the Central Bank, doing so would serve a useful purpose. Accessibility is governed by the European Union (Accessibility Requirements of Products and Services) Regulation 2023, SI 636 of 2023, which transposed the requirements of the European Accessibility Act into Irish law. This includes requirements that the ATM contains features, elements and functions that allow persons with disabilities to access, perceive, operate, understand and control them. SI 636 of 2023 addresses accessibility issues raised by the committee in the pre-legislative scrutiny report. The implementation of this legislation is the responsibility of the Minister for children, disability and equality.”
“Prior to the implementation of the local deficiencies framework, the Central Bank of Ireland is required to produce guidance on the assessment and classification of local deficiencies and when a remedy is appropriate and proportionate. The guidance must be prepared within 12 months of the commencement of the Act. It will also detail the steps the public can take to begin the process of having a local deficiency assessed. Following commencement of the legislation and once the Central Bank has gathered the necessary information, the Central Bank will review how the criteria operate in practice to see if the 10 km maximum distance for ATMs and cash service points, coupled with minimum ATM numbers per hundred thousand and the local deficiencies process, provide sufficient and effective access to cash.”
“If so, the Central Bank of Ireland will notify the designated entities, which will have at least one month or up to eight weeks to present proposals to the bank to address the breach. Where the Central Bank of Ireland is satisfied that the remedy is adequate, the designated entities will implement it. Where the Central Bank of Ireland is not satisfied that the remedy is adequate, it will have the power to issue a draft direction setting out measures to be taken by a specified deadline to one or more designated entities to remedy the deficiency. Relevant designated entities may provide observations on the draft direction within two weeks and the Central Bank of Ireland may amend or affirm the direction. Where designated entities do not comply with the direction, the bank may implement its sanction procedure.”
“Local deficiency is the term in the legislation for locations in the NUTS 3 region where particular difficulties arise in accessing cash, even if the access to cash criteria for that region are being complied with. It is possible that changes in the ATM locations, branch closures or independently-made changes in the An Post network could give rise to localised difficulties in accessing cash, even where the criteria for the relevant NUTS 3 region are still being complied with. In these cases, the local deficiency provisions of the Bill will come into effect. A person can notify the Central Bank of Ireland of local deficiencies or potential local deficiencies. The Central Bank will assess submissions and determine whether there is a deficiency that warrants a remedy.”
“A distance of 5 km was considered on the basis of the committee's recommendation. This found that a 5 km criterion would be disproportionately restrictive as the population percentages would still be based on the December 2022 coverage levels and travel and geographic factors would inhibit attempts to remedy it. The preference is therefore to set the distance criterion to 10 km in the first instance, which represents approximately 99% of the population being covered. A 10 km distance, coupled with the local deficiency process, will provide an initial indication of the number of ATMs and cash service points necessary to provide sufficient and effective access to cash. The local deficiencies process complements the 10 km criterion by providing a framework to address any deficiencies in the ATM coverage.”
“Amendment No. 4 proposes to change the required distance for the percentage of the population to be 5 km from an ATM or cash service point. It also proposes to add the criteria of a minimum percentage of ATMs that provide the necessary functionality to be accessible for those with visual impairments and other forms of disabilities. Section 6 of the Bill sets out population criteria that will require a specified percentage of the population in a specified region to be within a set radius of not less than 5 km and not more than 10 km of an ATM. The minimum distance of 5 km was added in response to the finance committee's recommendation. A minimum distance of 5 km, a maximum distance of 10 km, minimum ATM numbers per 100,000 people and a local deficiency framework were deemed the most optimal approach to maintain access to cash in the State.”
“I move amendment No. 3: In page 7, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following definition: “ “funds” has the same meaning as it has in Directive (EU) 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015 on payment services in the internal market;”.”
“3 is largely technical in nature and inserts a new definition of "funds" to ensure the proper functioning of the updated definition of "current account" in amendment No. 2. This definition of "funds" is as set out in EU Directive 2015/2366 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2015, or the payment services directive. As part of this amendment, section 4 is proposed to be deleted, as the provisions of that section are no longer needed after the addition of a new section 48, which I will propose and discuss with amendment No. 8.”
“While none of the online-only banks currently meet the quantitative criteria of the designated entities, there was never any intention to exclude them, and doing so would be likely to lead to further legal challenges on state aid and competition grounds. In addition, failure to address this issue could leave the legislation open to gaming. For instance, a designated entity could decide to no longer facilitate the depositing of cash in new current accounts. It has always been the policy intention that online current account providers would become designated entities if they satisfied the criteria regarding the shares of the current accounts and household deposits. Amendment No.”
“1 changes the definition of a "credit institution" to insert a reference to the establishment of a branch for "credit institution[s] authorised and supervised by the competent authority of another Member State". This has been proposed for technical reasons to ensure such credit institutions report statistical information to the Central Bank in respect of their operations in Ireland. Amendment No. 2 changes the definition of "current account" to refer to the lodgment and withdrawal of "funds", as the definition of "current account" in the Bill refers to the ability to deposit and withdraw cash. Some current accounts, such as those from Revolut and other online banks, do not offer a direct cash lodgment facility. Therefore, these accounts would not satisfy the definition as currently worded.”
“I move amendment No. 1: In page 7, to delete lines 13 to 21 and substitute the following: “ “credit institution” means any of the following that provides, or offers to provide, current accounts in the State: (a) the holder of a licence under section 9 of the Central Bank Act 1971; (b) the holder of an authorisation under section 9A of the Central Bank Act 1971; (c) a credit institution authorised and supervised by the competent authority of another Member State that carries on business in the State, by way of the establishment of a branch in the State, in accordance with the European Union (Capital Requirements) Regulations 2014 (S.I. No. 158 of 2014); (d) a credit union registered as such under the Credit Union Act 1997;”. The amendments in this group relate to the definitions in section 2. Amendment No.”
“That is where we are all at one and I have written to the Minister for Justice to see if there is a way around it. It is never going to be that either party is cross-examined. It will be the financial institution being cross-examined. In terms of domestic abuse as an issue, this will never be dealt with by the financial services ombudsman.”
“I am just confirming with my officials that my understanding is right. This is not one party against the other. I cannot bring my wife, or my wife cannot bring an argument with me to the financial services ombudsman. It would be me and her bringing a complaint to the ombudsman where the financial services provider failed in its duty in terms of a pension we had taken out, for example, or a financial product. It is the financial institution that will be cross-examined, not one of the parties. The amendment Senator Murphy put down, and the one Deputy Doherty proposed and on which there was a comprehensive debate in the Dáil, related to where, because of martial breakdown or domestic abuse, one person wanted to proceed with a complaint against the financial institution, and currently this requires the two signatures.”
“I thank the former FINPERT committee for its recommendation on the inclusion of affirmation in addition to oath in the pre-legislative scrutiny report, which is an improvement on the wording set out in the general scheme of the Bill. My officials tell me that in this instance, it is notable that since mediation was introduced in early 2016 as the primary initial process for resolving complaints, this has led to a reduction in the overall number of oral hearings required. In that context, by way of comparison with the 12 oral hearings scheduled in 2016, there were only three in 2021, four in 2022, one in 2023 and two in 2024. Most of this is resolved by mediation where there is no public display in overt hearings or cross-examinations. This amendment is just arising as a requirement of the Supreme Court ruling in the Zalewski case.”
“The proposed amendment in section 13 also seeks to ensure that section 47(3)(b) of the principal Act is consistent with the FSPO's oral hearing guidelines and existing practice. The FSPO's current oral hearing guidelines state that witnesses will be required to give evidence under oath affirmation and that each party will be entitled to cross-examine the witnesses. During FINPERT committee public hearings with FSPO officials on 10 May 2023, the then ombudsman indicated that the cross-examination of witnesses had always been a feature of oral hearings before the FSPO. This amendment is simply to clarify the process and underpin it with a legislative basis.”
“In that ruling, the Supreme Court held that in respect of the exercise of powers by the adjudication officers, pursuant to Part 2 of the Workplace Relations Act 2015 and the administration of justice under Article 34 of the Constitution, the administration of justice in accordance with Article 34 is normally the preserve of the courts. The court also found, however, that the administration of justice as carried out by the adjudication service is permissible within the meaning of Article 37 of the Constitution because the administration of justice is limited. The proposed amendment seeks to give effect to the Zalewski case. The Supreme Court found that the cross-examination of witnesses for the opposing party is a fundamental element of fair procedures as guaranteed under Article 40.3 of the Constitution.”
“Section 13 provides that the ombudsman may require any person to attend before him and be examined and cross-examined on oath or affirmation. This updates the 2017 FSPO Act to include a provision for cross-examination and also provides for a person to make an affirmation in place of taking an oath. Senators may be aware that many of the amendments in this Bill arise from the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Zalewski v. an adjudication officer, the Workplace Relations Commission, Ireland and the Attorney General.”
“We share Senator Murphy's views and we have written to see whether there is any way this can be progressed further. One of the suggestions made by Senator Murphy's colleague is that while it cannot be progressed retrospectively, a measure may be able to be introduced from that day forward. These are things we have written to seek advice on. As I said in reply to the previous Senator, the timeframe is quite short from when we were here last week to being back here today. There has not been time to do the detailed analysis. The 12-month review is the opportunity and is something we will keep a close eye on.”
“This binding outcome is understood to be unique in the European context, as many similar bodies in Europe issue recommendations rather than legally binding opinions. As mentioned, there was a good discussion on this issue when Deputy Doherty proposed the same amendment on Committee Stage in the Dáil last month. Work on this matter is progressing and, at my request, the Minister for Finance has written to the Minister for Justice to see how potentially this issue can be explored further, given the broader legal and contractual context at play here. Also, officials in the Department of Finance are engaging with the FSPO on this matter. We are all in agreement that this is a very important issue. We must also take the legal advice that, because of the contractual issues at play, it is not as easy as accepting the amendment.”
“Recognition of these rights, entitlements and potential liabilities is important due to the potential for the complaint to conclude by way of a binding mediation settlement agreement using the confidential dispute resolution service of the FSPO, or by way of legally binding decisions following an informal investigation by the FSPO. Other considerations worth noting are that the joint account holder who has not consented to the complaint may hold key information relevant to investigation of the complaint. This approach is of note given the views of the Supreme Court in the Zalewski case, which we have discussed throughout the debate on the Bill. It is against this constitutional background that the FSPO operates a quasi-judicial function and issues decisions that are legally binding on parties.”
“The rights, entitlements and potential liabilities of joint account owners arise not only from a legal and contractual perspective but also from other legislative and regulatory sources, such as data protection legislation. I listened to what Senator Murphy said regarding the banks doing more. Recently, I gave the example in the Dáil that when I tried to change a joint account with my wife, the bank would not do it - rightly so from the point of view of protecting both parties - without both signatures and both IDs. This was to ensure I was not trying to take control of the account without her prior consent. This is there.”
“I thank the Senators for raising this matter. It is why I said earlier to Senator's Stephenson that the discussion on section 12 is the most appropriate time to reply. I thank Senator Murphy for tabling the amendment. There was a detailed and comprehensive discussion on this issue on Committee Stage in the Dáil, which highlighted that this complex matter involves wider legal and contractual issues. For the information of Senators, during the Dáil debate I noted the FSPO advised that where a complaint is made to it concerning a joint account or joint policy, the FSPO must recognise that all parties who own the account or policy have rights, entitlements and potential liabilities arising in relation to such an account or policy.”
“I do not know whether Senator Stephenson heard the ombudsman on "Morning Ireland" last week, on the day the annual report was launched. What that office is trying to do is work with the financial institutions to educate them on their responsibilities. The FSPO does not really want to see cases ending up on its desk. They should be dealt with far more effectively and efficiently and they can be dealt with far more effectively in the institutions themselves. We have seen a new consumer code published, and training on vulnerable people is part of this. We have seen additional resources and staff given to the FSPO so people will have their rights vindicated in a timely fashion.”
“The work plan update in terms of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman was published a number of years ago. Extra resources and extra staff have been allocated to try to deal with cases in a much more timely and efficient manner. The consumer protection code I referred to, which I launched last week, is to try to deal with instances before they ever get to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman to ensure financial institutions honour their responsibility, first and foremost, in the protection of the customer. An enhanced consumer code gives the financial institutions clear guidelines on what they have to do. There are measures in the code for training when it comes to dealing with vulnerable people. This is why I referred to the code. We are trying to get these issues dealt with in a much more timely way.”
“One of the enhancements to the revised code, which I was pleased to see, were the new measures on financial abuse, including the definition of financial abuse. The introduction of the definition of financial abuse within the code is an important step forward in ensuring consumers of regulated financial services have the necessary protection against financial abuse. These measures are part of an important wider financial consumer protection framework, which may help to address at an earlier stage some of the issues the Senators have referenced today and, indeed, on Second Stage relating to consumers who are in vulnerable circumstances as a result of financial abuse, coercive control or in vulnerable circumstances as joint account holders.”
“We are all aware and very cognisant of the difficult issues involving financial abuse and coercive control. In many cases, the courts, not the FSPO, are the best place to deal with any situation in which one holder of a joint account is in dispute with the other. The role of the FSPO is to resolve complaints between the consumers and financial services or pension providers. The FSPO can make orders against regulated financial services providers but not against third parties or other consumers. Instances of potential criminal behaviour, for example, including coercive control, are a matter for An Garda Síochána. Last week, I attended the launch of the Central Bank's revised consumer protection code.”
“Even with the current timeframe, if a person made a submission to the FSPO today, it would not be heard within the three months. I fully appreciate the sentiments of the amendment. I genuinely feel that three months is far too short. That is why we are not proposing to accept the amendment. I have outlined, however, that there are current procedures in place within the current Dáil procedures, such as parliamentary questions, the various Oireachtas committees and, even in 12 months' time, the publication of a post-enactment analysis. For that reason, therefore, we will not be accepting the amendment. With regard to financial abuse and-----”
“The FSPO is also accountable to the Committee of Public Accounts under section 22 of the 2017 Act and to other Oireachtas committees under section 23 of the principal 2017 Act. In recent years, the FSPO has also appeared regularly before the Committee on Public Petitions and before the Ombudsman. In addition, there are a range of parliamentary procedures available through which to seek updates on the FSPO, including parliamentary questions. Under section 25 of the 2017 FSPO Act, the FSPO publishes a comprehensive annual overview of complaints. Under section 62 of the 2017 Act, it also published decisions with regard to complaints against financial services providers and case studies of decisions with regard to complaints against pension providers, subject to requirements of the Act.”
“That is great peace of mind for the people who have had their mortgages sold on. We are all in unison that those people need to be protected. That is a welcome development. In terms of the future updates of the FSPO and the legislation, as the Senator is aware, we undertake post-enactment scrutiny for all legislation. This includes the requirement under the Dáil Standing Orders that a post-enactment report is produced and laid in the parliamentary Library 12 months after the enactment of legislation. This 12-month post-enactment period provides a more appropriate timeframe to consider the operation of new legislation, in particular in this case with regard to extending the scope of the FSPO's jurisdiction.”
“I thank both Senators for their contributions, and Senator Murphy for submitting a particular amendment in this regard. He will be aware that my amendment, which was passed on Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann and extended the jurisdiction of the FSPO with regard to the activity of the credit servicing, was an important and comprehensive amendment that addresses the issue that was previously raised regarding the jurisdiction of the FSPO. I thank Senator Murphy's colleagues, in particular, Deputy Doherty, who was very forceful on this issue. It was a pleasure to work to get this amendment passed because it is critically important the people who had their mortgages sold to these regulated entities have the protection, and not just from now but is actually backdated.”
“I take on board genuinely what the Senator is saying, however. As I said, there will be an opportunity in the 12-month review to have a look at expanding that, but it was an issue of the time constraints. With regard to the second point made by Senator Stephenson about joint accounts, that is not related to this section but to a later section. I will speak to it at that stage, if that is okay.”
“That is the urgency in bringing the Bill to its natural conclusion through Committee and Remaining Stages in the Seanad, so that it can be referred to the President for signing and become law. We are still committed to looking at this in the course of the annual review, but it was not possible to do the in-depth analysis that needed to be done in those short few days we were here. Typically the Bill would be a longer time between the Second Stage reading and, subsequently, Committee Stage in the Seanad. I point out that the figures from the CSO show that, in 2021, microenterprises, which are those with fewer than ten persons employed and with a turnover of less than €2 million, accounted for 92.6% of all enterprises in Ireland. The vast majority of microenterprises are included currently.”
“I will respond initially to Senator Nelson Murray's query. On the previous day we gave an undertaking to look at the issue, but I did not realise we would be back less than a week later to go through Committee Stage. It has not been possible in that short timeframe to give the matter the scrutiny it needs. We are concerned that any delay in the implementation of the Bill could have unintended consequences. For example, it could prevent the Bill being enacted and giving the support to the people who are in the regulated financial entities. We want to give the opportunity to people who are subject to poor practices, perhaps, by vulture funds and who currently do not have recourse to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman in a timely fashion.”
“If we broaden the number of complaints that go into it, that may be counterproductive and may discommode disproportionately smaller business of under €3 million. I will not make a commitment other than to say we will look at in a positive light if possible.”