Michael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

What the Minister of State has said is significant. On a separate occasion I will ask the committee to write to the Ombudsman to look for data on the number of cases that have come before him that are in this category where the alleged mis-selling, for example, would have occurred prior to 2002 and where he has opted not to use the discretion to avail of the powers this Oireachtas gave to him under the Act to have a look-back. In that context, we should be looking for the information on the number of those cases, his reasons and his interpretation of the legislation on which we all worked hard to secure its passage.

We spoke on Second Stage about the issue of whole-of-life policies, which are very important. There are many people who have been very badly burned, so to speak, and I know the Minister of State is also aware of individual cases. I have sat down with many of those people and I am convinced that the terms and conditions of those products were not fully explained. There is certainly a case to be made in some instances that there was mis-selling, therefore, it would be very disappointing if the Ombudsman decided not to use the powers the Oireachtas gave him. It comes down to the interpretation of the reasonable grounds to extend the look-back prior to 2002. That is something we need to tease out further. We need to keep an open mind on this issue between now and Report Stage but it is very important that the committee would seek that clarification prior to Report Stage and that we reserve the right to introduce more explicit amendments at that stage to remove any element of doubt and make this absolutely clear. Obviously, they need to be constitutional but if we need to further strengthen the option the Ombudsman has to look back prior to 2001, I and my party would be in favour of that. However, we need an explanation from the Ombudsman first and if we can get that prior to Report Stage, that would be important because there are many long-term products. It is not just whole-of-life products. Those are important but there are many other long-term financial products, and those are the very products we designed that amendment for to enable them to be dealt with. I know mis-selling is a very difficult case to prove if we are looking back over 15 or 20 years in terms of who said what. The documentation may be limited. It is a very difficult case to prove but I am disappointed to hear that the Ombudsman has had that power for a period of months and has chosen not to exercise it. If we are allowed I would make the suggestion that the clerk would put that question to the Ombudsman.