Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I have no issue with amendment No. 1, which is technical in nature. I had intended to seek clarification in respect of amendments Nos. 2 and 3, which relate to income continuance plans, but the Minister of State addressed the issue. On amendment No. 4, we discussed this issue when debating my legislation and I am glad the Government has removed from the draft Bill the provision which would mean that where a contract was unilaterally cancelled, it would not be considered a long-term financial service. While this move is welcome, an issue remains in respect of people who will not be able to avail of the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman because their contracts are considered not to fall within the six-year rule, even though the contract has continued for longer than six year. I refer, for example, to insurance contracts that are defined in my legislation as contracts that have been consecutive for more than five years. A legal issue arises regarding whether an insurance contract which was entered into and renewed annually for a long period is legally treated as a single contract of consecutive terms. In other words, a contract renewed annually for ten years should be considered a long-term contract, rather than a one-year contract entered into when it was renewed in the previous year. If the latter were the case, the product would fall outside the scope of the Financial Services Ombudsman.

This argument has been thrashed out and the Minister of State and I will not see eye to eye on it. While I will not oppose the Government's amendment, I reiterate that while we are making significant strides in providing access to the Financial Services Ombudsman, access is also being restricted in a way that it should not have been. I ask the Minister of State to address the point I raise regarding a financial services contract, such as an insurance contract, that has been renewed annually for ten years. Can such a contract be legally defined as a single contract of consecutive terms, which would mean it was entered into ten years ago, or is it a new contract that is considered to have been entered into each year? If the starting point is considered to be the previous year rather than ten years previously, under the scope of the Bill, the holder of the contract will have no recourse to the Financial Services Ombudsman outside of the time limits that already exist.