Kieran O'Donnell (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I acknowledge the presence of Deputy Pearse Doherty, who introduced this Bill. The Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman Bill 2017 is complementary.

From reading the legislation, the key issue is the definition of what constitutes a long-term financial services product. I will speak from practical experience. Many ordinary people have approached Members about difficulties with various financial products that they bought. Recently, an elderly man - he was a good age - told me of how he had bought a life assurance product. He had assumed that it was an endowment product, in that it would effectively have an investment element, only to be told at the bright, young age of 93 that it was a term policy. By that stage, he had invested a significant amount of money in that section 60 policy. He went to the Financial Services Ombudsman.

Apart from what is being proposed in this legislation, we need to consider the issue of resourcing. We are regularly in contact with staff from the Financial Services Ombudsman. There is a resourcing issue and there are delays, but the staff are excellent.

Coupled with resourcing, an education and information campaign is also required so that the ordinary person can know precisely what he or she can get by approaching the Financial Services Ombudsman. In some cases where people are told to make submissions to the Financial Services Ombudsman, the level of evidence that they present is inadequate and, consequently, the decision that they receive is incomplete. We should examine this matter.

Senator Conway-Walsh referred to the retrospective nature of the legislation. It is something that I suspect has been examined by the Attorney General's office so as to ensure that it will work. We have often seen cases of a retrospective element not working. It is an important matter.

What I take from the Bill is the need to ensure that, where there are genuine cases of people effectively being misled on financial services products and becoming aware of that within three years, they are shown fair play. Under the current legislation, a six-year rule applies. The question is whether that statute is being - I will not use the word "abused" - worked by certain financial services providers. We want legislation to act in substance as it was intended to act. Under the current six-year rule, though, that does not happen in many cases. The amendments provided in this legislation will go a long way towards remedying that.

Coupled with that, we must ensure that, when people make submissions to the Financial Services Ombudsman, they understand what information they need to provide and how the process works so that the examination by the officer who has the case - the Financial Services Ombudsman is going to be combined with the Pensions Ombudsman - will be efficient. Many cases drag on for an inordinate amount of time because the officers involved are trying to compile all of the information. Information on this fantastic service is needed.

I will address the issue under discussion. I note from the most recent debate in the Dáil that discussions were going to take place between Deputy Pearse Doherty and the Department about examining long term versus short term and so forth.The most important thing to get right is that the legislation works for the purpose it was intended, and that one does not create something of a by-product whereby there is an unintended consequence which would effectively lead to an increase in premium rates on annual renewed products like insurance. Flood insurance is something I feel very strongly about. In Limerick we have had major floods over a long period in my local area of Castleconnell and around the city in Corbally. Many people in those areas can no longer get insurance. They had flood insurance and their product was renewed on an annual basis and when they signed the renewal they were not aware that flood insurance had been removed. We should consider what we wish the legislation to do and identify the unintended consequences we want to avoid and marry those and effectively in order that we have a body of legislation whereby people coming into our offices, who are invariably people who are financially stretched, who bought products for insurance purposes, will be entitled to have their cases heard regardless of the length of time. I commend the Bill to the House. We will be supporting it. I look forward to the Minister of State's comments on same.