Michael D'Arcy (Wexford, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The section primarily covers two definitions, namely, those of an "income continuance plan" and a "long-term financial service". Amendment No. 2 makes an addition to the definition of the word "consumer" to include employees or former employees who benefit from an income continuance plan. After part (c) of the definition of consumer in page 9, the amendment proposes to add "(d) an actual or potential beneficiary of an income continuance plan;".

In the Government's Bill, published on 10 May 2017, a "consumer" in respect of a financial service was defined in section 2 as being, in general terms, individuals, small businesses, charities, clubs and so on of financial services. The definition seeks to encompass as many financial services as possible. During the engagement on the drafting of Bill, the Office of the Pensions Ombudsman made us aware of the unusual case of income continuance plans or ICPs, which are also known as permanent health insurance plans. In an ICP, the employee is a third party and the contract exists between the employer who takes out the group scheme for the employees and the insurer. If an employee has an issue with non-payment of a benefit to which he or she may be entitled, he or she is currently excluded from the Pensions Ombudsman's remit because he or she is not a party to the contract in respect of the income continuance plan. The amendment seeks to address this lacuna in law which prevents a third party from taking a case in such circumstances.

The overarching aim of the legislation is to strengthen consumer protection and ensure consumers are not excluded from seeking appropriate and fair resolution and redress. With this in mind, the amendment to extend the definition of "consumer" to include those who may benefit from income continuance plans is important.

Deputies may recall that in the Bill, as published, the Department sought to include income continuance plans in the definition of "long-term financial service" by the use of the words "and not subject to [...] a right to unilateral cancellation by either party". On reflection, however, this group of amendments to the definition of the term "consumer" is the better way to accommodate these ICP cases.