Eoghan Murphy (Dublin Bay South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

To go back to an earlier query raised by Deputy Michael McGrath about his interpretation in relation to payment protection insurance and the example he gave, his interpretation was correct, bearing in mind the long stop back to 2002.

In response to his point in relation to consistency between the enactment of Deputy Doherty's Bill and the Government’s Bill, I agree that we must take a consistent approach. That is the reason I flagged in an earlier contribution that we would need to look again at amendment No. 1 and consult with the Attorney General to make sure there cannot be an interpretation of the amendment that was not intended. Our fear is that Deputy Doherty's amendment No. 2 is too wide ranging and that it would capture financial service products that are renewed on an annual basis, and if that if they went beyond the five year and one month period they would then be treated as a long-term financial service, which would not be acceptable as we believe we must make the distinction between short-term and long-term financial service products.

The point about unilateral cancellation is the part of our amendment on which we need to seek clarity before we deal with the Bill in the Seanad.

See this speech in context