Ms Derville Rowland:

There are a couple of things in that. First of all, I think the Senator is referring to the fact that the ombudsman made decisions prior to all of this, which fell either side of the pro and the con for consumers. They won some and they lost some. When we started the examination, we were aware of that. We have a very good line of information between the consumer protection area in the Central Bank and the ombudsman. Since we were aware of it and thought it should be looked at again in a wider way, we put it in as one of the requirements of the framework. We have tried to be really clear about it and started at zero again. Every tracker-related issue was put inside this examination. That is why it is so huge. We did not want to come back and have to gather up parts of this again and say it was problematic. It started at the widest possible parameter and moved in to any kind of tracker-related issue or mortgage where a change had happened - we set out quite a degree of detail about that. Inside of those criteria also would be the cases from the ombudsman, notwithstanding that the ombudsman may have found against those people. The lenders were told to look at the cases again within this wider lens. That is what is happening. I hope that answers the Senator's question.

The issue of the limitation period is actually something different. What we had in mind was time delay for long-tailed cases. It is important that if they are very serious cases, they could be permitted to be brought before the court without difficulty and in addition to the ombudsman's office. The matter has been subsequently amended to the benefit of people and therefore seems to have dealt with itself.