Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Acting Chairman. I thank the Minister for State for coming to the House. I congratulate him on his new role and wish him well.

I am pleased to move this Bill in the Seanad. My colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty, brought forward the Bill and it received unanimous support in the Dáil. I hope it can win the same support in this House on Second Stage.

Central to the urgency of this Bill are the families waiting for it to be enacted and that is why we wanted all Stages to be taken tonight. However, we respect the fact the Government and other Senators have indicated they want to include amendments. I ask for co-operation in prioritising and facilitating the taking of the remaining Stages as soon as possible.

There are families watching and urging us to progress this Bill and put in place a timeframe for it to be passed. Some Senators probably have met families in their constituency offices who are locked out of the Financial Services Ombudsman's system. The lockout clause, the so-called six-year rule, is the main target for this Bill. It will remove the rule that a consumer cannot make a complaint against a financial institution, which is a deeply unjust one. Over the past five years 3,000 people have been refused because of the rule. That is the official figure but all sides accept the real figure is much higher. People know about the rule so do not apply. Alternatively, when they ring the office of the ombudsman, they are told about the rule and so they never officially apply. The bottom line is we must get rid of the six-year rule. We will get into the detail on later Stages about how that is to be done. Our side wants the greatest possible number of people to benefit from this change.

A limiting definition of a long-term product that lets people down should be resisted. In 2014, the Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, published its report entitled Redressing the Imbalance - A study of legal protections available for consumers of credit and other financial services in Ireland. Deputy Pearse Doherty engaged with FLAC to get its well-researched and consumer-centred recommendations into law. The main aims can be found in the report. It is a tribute to FLAC that this Bill has won widespread support.

Senators might be aware that the Government has produced its own legislation. It is broader legislation that merges the offices of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman. We will get our chance to scrutinise that Bill at a later stage when it comes before us. Clearly, it is in the interests of all, especially consumers, that the two Bills are complementary. It is no coincidence that the Government's Bill has followed hot on the heels of Deputy Pearse Doherty's Bill.

I will now clearly address the sections of the Bill. Section 1 contains the definitions, as normal. Section 2 contains the definitions of long-term financial service. Sections 2 and 5 remove the six-year rule. The definition is critical because it determines what services and products can be complained about, even outside the old six-year rule. I am clear that the definition should not be limited by the inclusion of further qualifications, although the will of the House will decide on the final wording.

Section 5 lays out how the new rules will work. Instead of a blanket six-year ban on complaints, consumers will now be able to make a complaint within the six years or within three years of becoming aware of the breach. This model is used in Britain and Australia. For practical reasons, there will be a backstop of 2002 and a final cut off of six years since the product ended. The section is also very clear that the provision will be retrospective in nature. People in the past who turned away because of the six-year rule will be free to re-apply under the new rules.

Section 3 is a small amendment. It now means that the ombudsman will operate without undue technicality. This flows from the finding in FLAC's report that gives the ombudsman a clear legal mandate to operate informally. The courts could end up using this provision against the ombudsman.

Sections 4, 7 and 9 are consequent on each other. The substantive changes are as follows. While before the ombudsman was limited to three possible findings, he or she can now make four findings. Until now the ombudsman was limited to making a finding whereby a complaint was upheld, partly upheld or rejected. This narrow range of choices has meant that some consumers who had been, in effect, found against were still being told that their complaint had been partly upheld. This Bill allows for the four findings of upheld, substantially upheld, substantially rejected or rejected. The wider range allows for a more accurate result to be given to consumers.

Section 6 introduces a new method to encourage mediation as the primary tool of the ombudsman. I am glad to say that mediation has increasingly become the norm for the service. I wish to indicate that I am considering an amendment to this section to strengthen the focus on mediation further.

Section 8 increases the window in which consumers or, indeed, financial institutions can lodge an appeal with the High Court if they are not satisfied with a ruling of the ombudsman. Currently, there is only a 21-day window, but this Bill will increase that to 35 days. Ultimately, the court can make its own rules in this regard.

At this juncture I must point out that the original Bill contained changes in order that an appeal could be lodged with the Circuit Court. These sections were deleted on Committee Stage in the Dáil. The conversation on access to justice is one we must keep bringing up and keep our eyes on.

I hope that all sides support this Bill. Let us recall that the title of the 2014 FLAC report is Redressing the Imbalance. If we pass this Bill, we will have achieved a real levelling of the playing field for consumers.I hope that it can be passed tonight and that we will be back as soon as possible to finalise it so that it can be enacted. I seek assurances from the Minister of State that the Government is genuine in its approach to this Bill and in its response to the urgent need to protect our citizens.