Joan Burton (Dublin West, Labour) | Oireachtas source

From the documentation supplied, it is difficult to understand why, having reviewed the cases, the Central Bank has accepted that 1,800 people were able to qualify but not 200 other people with approximately the same background, working for the same entity, getting the same material and levels of information and, in particular, starting on the two-year fixed rate mortgage rolling to the staff tracker rate. That would seem to be a clear indication. The people involved work in the bank and were knowledgeable, more so than the average customer, about the arrangements into which they were entering. The explanations they have received are not sufficient.

The Central Bank is now suggesting the ombudsman has powers that it may not have. It would be appropriate if the bank could set out in detail the reasons for its decision, perhaps in writing. I would also like to hear the bank's suggestions as to why the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman has powers it does not have. I am interested in the Stop the Harm principles. In other countries, including the United States, it has been possible to take into account circumstances where people acting in good faith have been damaged, perhaps because in making multiple offers a bank ended up confusing or misleading them. I wonder about the principles in this context. Can the Central Bank have another look at it? It is difficult to understand how 1,800 people in a bank could be acknowledged after due representation, with regard to the arrangement of the bank to roll the staff onto a tracker rate, while 200 other people, many of whom have suffered a lot of harm and significant fallout in family circumstances, have been refused.