Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I welcome that clarification. If anything I think my legislation has acted as a prompt for the Government. This Bill was first published in 2014. As it passed Second Stage, the Government produced the heads of its Bill. As it passed Committee Stage, the Government published its legislation. Hopefully as it passes Report and Final Stages in the Dáil tonight, the Government's Bill will then come to Second Stage. If we keep on going, we might get the Government's legislation across the line.

We have tried to ensure here that the thought process in the Government's legislation and our legislation are exactly the same so that it is a seamless process.

My big concern, as I said on Committee Stage, is when the Government's legislation will become law. I welcome the fact that the provisions we outlined in our 2004 Bill, which we are discussing tonight, are being incorporated into the legislation.

There is disagreement on the definition of long-term financial services. I agree with Deputy Michael McGrath that a long-term financial service is one that is long term so therefore it does not include motor insurance. However, that is not what we are dealing with here, which is the mis-selling of products to consumers and whether the rules are too rigid. The argument is that if I took out car insurance in 2007 or 2013 and had it for a year, but found out ten years later that it was mis-sold, should I have the right to make a complaint because of the new rules which specify three years from the time I became aware of the misconduct? The argument is that I should not. Therefore, we created a definition of a long-term financial service which states it is a service of a duration of five years and one month or more, but it cannot have been cancelled within six years. On the passage of this legislation, many thousands of people will be able to resubmit their complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman and have them heard. Deputy Michael McGrath's example of somebody being outside the scope of the Bill is correct unless the individual made a complaint to the Financial Services Ombudsman during that period and, therefore, could automatically have her or his complaint heard. If one limits the definition, however, one will limit the number of people who can access redress and compensation, have the Financial Services Ombudsman’s office adjudicate on that issue and, if there is a wrong, have it put right. I will press amendment No. 2. There is a difference here and at this stage I do not think we will reconcile it.

See this speech in context