Rose Conway-Walsh on mortgage protection refusals for eating disorders

I will be as succinct as possible. I just wanted to take this opportunity, Ms Murdoch, to address the situation around mortgage life protection insurance for people with these eating disorders, and in particular of cases I am getting of where people are having counselling on a monthly basis, and that that reason is being used to refuse them insurance. So, my questions are, are you aware of the difficulty of people with eating disorders have in getting policy mortgage protection, and how do insurance companies in Ireland measure an access recovery, and what kind of oversight is there to ensure that firms are not discriminating against people with eating disorders? Thank you. Thank you, Deputy Conway Walsh. Yes, we have been made aware of the case and question on the issue, and we are tracking that. I have brought along my colleague Jacqueline Thornton, and I am going to ask Jacqueline, as the director in this area, to just comment, because I think we can provide some clarity on that for you today. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for the question, Senator. I think the first thing we need to be clear about is, regardless of the condition, be that a historic eating disorder or something completely different, there is no one condition or there is no one cohort of customers suffering from a condition who would be automatically declined for mortgage protection life cover. Each applicant who submits an application will be assessed individually on their own individual circumstances to understand the risk that that poses to an insurance firm. The insurance firm then applies their underwriting standards, the information they need, very sound medical data, up-to-date information, not just on medical data and conditions, but also on the latest medical technology and treatment available options that are out there. The decision is taken is to, is this level of risk in line with the insurer's risk appetite, and is it in line with the current book that the insurer has? In some instances, that risk will be deemed to be too high and beyond the appetite of the insurer. In those cases, yes, the explanations for the decline and the reasons for the decline will be set out to the customer in the response that they receive. Now, as we understand it, and as has been confirmed by the CBI to this committee, there are in effect very low levels of decline in mortgage protection in Ireland. And for those that do get declined, there is obviously a major impact because they need to get mortgage protection in order to secure a mortgage. So, there is a provision in legislation under the Consumer Credit Act, which makes it very clear that if an individual cannot obtain life cover, such as your constituent, or they can only do so at a cost that is unreasonably high, they can have an exemption from that requirement. And that is something that can be discussed with the lender. And I did note a recent statement regarding some BPFI data, which says that only 0.05% of mortgage application approvals do not proceed because of a lack of mortgage protection. Now, this indicates that that is a very low level of declines. And can I just say to you, like, this isn't just one case we're dealing with, and I suppose we have to look at it in the context of where there are huge premiums charged. So, it's not just a case of, no, we're going to refuse you on this basis. And the danger, I suppose, for us and why I'm concerned is that it may act as a deterrent for somebody accessing the help that they need and the supports that they need for fear of not being able to, at some stage in their life, being able to own their own home. So, I think, and I suppose what I would ask you from here today is to realise this is not one case for you to look at the situation, to put the insurance firms on notice that, yes, there is flexibility there built in, but that flexibility isn't being used, that there needs to be fairness in terms of their approach to people with undergoing counselling. Because I would see it as a very positive thing where somebody is taking charge of their health, be it their mental health or their physical health, but their mental health, in getting the supports and the treatment that they need and then being able to have a home of their own. It shouldn't be either one or the other. So, I would ask you to do everything that you possibly can to make sure that this situation is addressed for people across the board so that they know they won't be penalised later on in their life cycle. Okay, and I think that's fair. We do certainly work very closely with our members very much on the life side in terms of the underwriting criteria and issues that tend to come up, whether that's, as you mentioned, historic eating disorders or anything else. Again, I do think it is important to note that even if there are issues, conditions or risks that have an impact on the ability to obtain life cover, that is why the exemption exists. So, hopefully we are not in a position where people are afraid to look after their health or their mental health because it may have an impact on their ability to own their own home. That is why the exemption exists. So, if there is a condition, treatment, etc. that may potentially exceed the risk acceptance level of any insurer, that is why the exemption exists. So, that is why it is there to try to ensure that those affected individuals will still have the opportunity to own their own home at a later date. Yeah, and I think there needs to be transparent measures there so that you would see. So, if somebody is so long out of, you know, so many years without any issues arising, that then that would be recognised as well. And if they are getting counselling and they have everything in place, that they get rewarded rather than punished in those situations in terms of insurance. But I leave it at that, yeah. And... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ...