Mr. Paul Joyce:

Our view is that the Financial Services Ombudsman is understating his legislative power, albeit the legislation is flawed. We believe he is understating his power to review the decisions of lenders. Having said that, it is apparent that it was the Central Bank that chose the Financial Services Ombudsman to take on the role of being the avenue of referral. The committee should note that the word "appeal" is not used in the CCMA; the word used is "referral". The statement on the Financial Services Ombudsman's website is very clear. He sees his role in terms of examining the conduct of the provider, determining whether the processes were adhered to and whether the boxes were ticked, not examining whether it was appropriate, in the circumstances, to restructure a mortgage. There would clearly be a problem if legislation was passed obliging lenders to go down a certain road in that it could be challenged, but nobody has tried to do this yet. The question of whether it is unconstitutional would need to be considered in the light of the public interest and the common good in clearing up a very large personal debt crisis. We have not had such legislation. Instead, we have had a Central Bank code which has questionable admissibility.