Michael Noonan (Limerick City, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The issue of granting the ombudsman permission to publish the names of financial service providers against which complaints have been upheld has been debated for some time. A Private Members' Bill on the issue, sponsored by the Deputy and his party, was debated last year in the Dáil. At that stage I indicated that legislation in this area was necessary to allow the ombudsman to name regulated financial institutions about which he upheld or substantially upheld claims. The ombudsman initiated a consultation process on the issue of publishing the complaints records of individual financial service providers, and in the submissions received, financial service providers raised the issue of how the information on the complaints could be presented. The ombudsman has long held the view that the public interest is better served by his having the ability to publish information on the complaints record of firms about which such complaints are upheld. The review of international best practice has confirmed this.

Dissemination of such information in a responsible fashion allows consumers to analyse the performance of all financial service providers and helps them make an informed choice while choosing a provider or product. The naming of financial service providers in certain circumstances will support the work of the ombudsman in carrying out his duties in an effective manner. Much work went into developing the proposal set out in the Bill and the ombudsman was consulted during the preparation of the legislation and is aware of its provisions.

The ombudsman suggested certain safeguards that should be included in any legislation to give the office power. The first is that there should be discretion as to whether an institution should be named and the second is that a complainant should not be named. The third is that there should be statutory privilege covering the naming of institutions. These safeguards have been provided in the Bill.

Deputy McGrath has examined the possibility of extending this further so that publication would occur after two complaints rather than three, with the nature of the complaints published by way of additional information. He is also asking that we examine the possibility that the appeals mechanism, particularly the provision for non-publication until resolution of the appeal, could be used as a device to delay publication. These are legitimate points and I will examine them between now and Report Stage. As this Bill was constructed after consultation with the Financial Services Ombudsman, I will need to consult with the office again before making any further change.