Rose Conway Walsh (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Sinn Féin welcomes the Bill. As Senator O'Donnell has just said, when passed it will supersede the Sinn Féin Bill which I was delighted to see passed by the House last week. I am very glad to see that what was won on behalf of consumers in the Sinn Féin Bill will form part of this Bill.

This is a Bill of two parts. Firstly, it merges the offices of the Financial Services Ombudsman and the Pensions Ombudsman. Secondly, it overhauls many consumer protection rules regarding the making of complaints. Of most importance is the removal of the so-called "six-year rule". The issues in respect of consumer protection have been well debated and I am glad that common ground and common wording has been found in order that there be no differences from the point of view of the consumer when making a complaint, regardless of the date, from now on.

It is important that the merger of the offices of the Pensions Ombudsman and Financial Services Ombudsman not pass without comment and scrutiny. Members have become so used to the language of austerity that words such as "merger" set off alarm bells that the real intent is to impose cuts. There seems to be no democratic demand for such a merger. The basis for it seems to be the regulatory impact assessment by Mr. Hinz of the World Bank, who concluded that there was no compelling evidence that negative consequences would ensue from the merger. That is a very weak premise on which to proceed with the merging of two very important consumer protection bodies. In view of the recent tracker mortgage and PPI scandals, can one really say this is the right time to tinker with the consumer protection bodies of the State?That is not to mention the rip-off being carried out by insurers on drivers, small business and home owners day in, day out. Reform of consumer protection law is required and this opportunity could have been taken for a more radical approach. The strict power of the ombudsman to rule only on what is legal as opposed to what is fair frustrates many people, and that frustration is understandable. The Central Bank does not want to hear from individuals and the ombudsman can only stick to the narrow legal battles.

That is the situation for consumers in this country. When something stinks, everyone smells it but no one can do anything about it. I am aware, too, of the issues with endowment policies and so-called whole-of-life policies, where elderly people or their children in some cases are now realising that the small print contains some very nasty wording. The policies they were sold turned out to be different from what they were led to believe. I predict this will be a major issue for the new ombudsman's office over the coming years.

This merger should not and cannot put consumers at a disadvantage relative to where they are today. That means ensuring the new office is properly resourced at all times, which we need to monitor. My party put forward an amendment during the Dáil Stages seeking to weaken the overall control of the Minister in matters such as the ombudsman hiring extra resources or engaging a consultant to carry out a study. The principle of oversight is correct but it is my hope that, in practice, whatever resources the ombudsman wants, he will get.

I warmly welcome the new provisions allowing the ombudsman to publish findings in full. This is a significant improvement. Only last week we passed some of the other measures of this Bill because of the overlap with my colleague, Deputy Pearse Doherty's Bill. I thank the Minister of State and his staff on behalf of my party for their co-operation in getting Deputy Doherty's Bill through. Thousands of people each year who are prevented from pursuing allegations of wrongdoing against financial institutions will now be allowed to access justice through the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman. Figures from the ombudsman's office show that 1,000 people every year are barred from the process because of the six-year rule. We know thousands more have not applied because they have been advised the six-year rule will apply. This rule only operated to benefit the banks and other financial institutions, which it shielded from investigation. We will now redress that imbalance, with consumers empowered to make a complaint within three years of becoming aware of possible wrongdoing. Critically, thousands of people previously refused access to the process will now be allowed to resubmit their complaint because the legislation is retrospective in nature. This will come as very welcome news and a massive relief to the many consumers who have contacted us all, I am sure, looking for an opportunity to have their complaint heard. I wish particularly to commend the work of FLAC, the Free Legal Advice Centres, whose report, Redressing the Imbalance, forms the basis of these victories for consumers. I urge those previously refused access because of the six-year rule to reapply and the countless others who did not apply because of their awareness of the situation to reconsider submitting their cases. We support this Bill.