Ms Derville Rowland:

I will come in, if I may, to deal with the specific issue, which is, as far as I understand, a recent determination of the financial services ombudsman about its own jurisdiction to cover some of the subject matter of complaints made. It resulted in it making a determination that it cannot deal with some aspects of some complaints.

We do not have any more information about the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman's decisions in advance, or special insight into his decisions because his is an independent statutory office. However, we understand that some of the complaints that people have made with respect to the credit servicer are in scope and can be determined. That is clear, but the issue has arisen where the Office of the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman believes there is a limit on its jurisdiction because the underlying loan owner from the period from 2015 to 2019 is not designated as a regulated financial service provider, which is a prerequisite for the matter to be determined. That is a new decision. The system was not aware of that determination before now. It is of the utmost importance that the financial services ombudsman is supported in any way to close that gap. Of course, I do not tell the ombudsman what to do. We are simply part of a system of financial services, each being independent in our role, but we must work in an interlocking way. We are supportive of the ombudsman and his role. Anything his office thinks is necessary in order to close a gap, we would be absolutely supportive of because we want to make sure that the system serves all customers who have legitimate complaints to make.

Deputy Doherty was involved previously when there was an issue around the jurisdiction going back in time for complaints made and the ombudsman's mandate was amended to allow longer periods of time for older complaints because there had been a problem with limitation periods.

I do not say what the solution is but I completely join our voice to say that a solution should be found but it will be something on which the Attorney General may wish to opine or others who are part of the legislative process. However, it is possible to close gaps. The Deputy has been party to those efforts before, successfully, by joining with others to see that the scope of the ombudsman has been improved. We absolutely support people being able to make legitimate complaints about the financial services packages regardless of the complexity. We would add our voice to any remedy the ombudsman would wish to see in order to close a gap.

It is unfortunate that this has come as an issue later in time. That is true, and it is not something that we wish to see persist.