Mr. Paul Kenny:

The history of the two offices has been different because much of the work of the Financial Services Ombudsman concerns issues which are contractual as between parties, so it will be dealing with insurance policies, bank matters and the like, which are the subject of contractual relationships between the parties. What we deal with is much more nebulous, and the people in jurisdiction include employers, for example, which range from Frisby & Co. with two employees to the ESB, and they all have different needs and different ways of operating. Trustees can range from individual small companies to professional trustee companies, and in between there will be groups of individuals appointed as trustees, including member trustees of the larger pension schemes and so on. The parties we deal with are very different and if the problems we have to deal with in pension schemes become fully fledged investigations, which, as I mentioned, we try to avoid if possible, they are much more complicated. The investigations sometimes go on for quite a long time because of the complexity of the issues involved.

In terms of our philosophical approach, there is no difference. We are there to serve the public and to try to give redress where people have suffered as a result of something that should not have happened or something that should have happened and did not. There are slight differences in that the Financial Services Ombudsman, for example, can make an award for pain and suffering, distress and so on; we cannot do that. There is a financial limit to the awards the Financial Services Ombudsman can make. In principle there is no limit to the award I can make; it is whatever it costs to put the issue right. Whereas we can only deal with individual members and contributors, the Financial Services Ombudsman has the power to take complaints from small companies whose turnover is under €3 million; that is the difference between us.

We would not differ significantly in our approach to the way we investigate matters. There have been appeals to the High Court which were decided differently in our two cases. I have tried to limit the operation of oral hearings as much as possible because they are extremely expensive and largely unnecessary. Only in cases where there is a dire necessity to hold an oral hearing will I do so, but some of the judgments of the High Court in the case of the Financial Services Ombudsman have suggested that he should grant an oral hearing almost on request. Some of the later judgments have toned that down somewhat, but some of the earlier ones painted him into a corner which he probably would prefer not to be in.