Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Doherty for his explanation. I think I can go some of the road with him.

I note that the Deputy's Bill as published provides for an additional time limit to make complaints up to two years from the date of knowledge. The heads of the Bill published last September provided for a possible three-year discoverability period for complaints with regard to long-term service. This is now reflected in section 52 of the Government Bill that was published yesterday. In that respect, the extension from two to three years for long-term financial services included in Deputy Doherty's amendment is to be welcomed. The extension from two to three years is in line with what we have published now, and I thank Deputy Doherty for that part of the amendment. I still have some difficulties with the section and I will explain what those are now.

The Government Bill provides an extra discretion to the ombudsman to extend the time limit that would benefit consumers in cases where it is just and reasonable, similar to the provision that exists for pension complaints. Furthermore, the Private Members' Bill is silent as to whether the new time limit applies only prospectively - that is into the future and the conduct that occurs in the future - or retrospectively, to conduct that occurred in the past. It could be that it applies to conduct that occurred in the distant past and these claims may be difficult to defend.

Section 51 of the Government Bill published yesterday provides for all pension products and for long-term financial services where the duration of the service is five years and one month or more and not subject to annual renewal or cancellation unilaterally. Complaints can be made either six years from the date of the conduct giving rise to the complaint, or three years from the earlier of the following two dates. The first is the date on which the person making the complaint first becomes aware of the conduct and the second is the date on which that person ought reasonably to have become aware. The phrase is "ought reasonably to have become aware" of that conduct.

Section 51 also states that complaints can be made within "such longer period as the Ombudsman may allow where it appears to him or her that there are reasonable grounds for requiring a longer period and that it would be just and equitable, in all the circumstances, to so extend the period". The new time limit for long-term financial services will apply to complaints made to the ombudsman about conduct that occurred during or after 2002 if "the long-term financial service concerned has not expired or otherwise been terminated more than 6 years before the date of the complaint". Furthermore, it is a common feature of these discoverability tests and in other ombudsman's schemes that the date runs from "the earlier of the date on which the person making the complaint became aware, or ought reasonably to have become aware, of the conduct giving rise to the complaint". This is a standard objective test of knowledge and a necessary provision to prevent the possibility of an open-ended time limit. The respondents would have a right to a reasonable time limit in which they are expected to keep records and defend any complaints. I am happy to discuss this provision in more detail in the later stages of my Bill.

If this section proceeds to the next Stage, I wish to put the committee on notice that I will bring forward amendments on Report Stage covering the issues such as time limits and other technical drafting changes. There may be other technical or related issues that the Department of Finance needs to explore further on Report Stage with a view to bringing forward an amendment. Effectively, I agree the main thrust of the amendment is to extend from two years to three years and I welcome that, but there are other issues which need to be amended. Rather than trying to patch it up now, we should leave that to Report Stage. I also indicate that my officials will be available to Deputy Doherty and his support group to discuss Report Stage amendments in advance to see if we can reach agreement on them rather than bouncing them on the committee at Report Stage sight unseen. If we could proceed on that basis, we could get over this difficulty.