Susan O'Keeffe (Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Prasifka and his colleagues for their very clear presentation. I apologise if the answers to any of my questions were included in the annual report of the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman and I simply could not find them. Mr. Prasifka expressed the view that the levy is the appropriate way to fund his office rather than direct Exchequer funding. Without meaning in any way to impugn the work the delegates do, there is always the possibility that some people will say that because the office is being paid for by the industry, it might not be as independent as one would like. Have the delegates found that any of their members are reluctant to pay the levy and, if so, what recourse does the office have, or is this not really an issue?

Most of the other ombudsmen who have appeared before the committee observed that they often encounter delays in getting information from Departments and other bodies and experience a level of non-co-operation. Where they make findings, we were told, there is sometimes a problem with their implementation and, in some cases, they are just plain ignored. I note that the delegates' annual report makes no reference to any of these types of problems. This might mean they are not experiencing such difficulties or it could be that they are just not referred to in the report. Will Mr. Prasifka clarify that?

The Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman offers the right to mediation, but only a very small number of cases have ended up in mediation and only six were resolved by that route. Is this low rate because mediation is still a very new process or is it simply the case that it does not work in many instances? Does Mr. Prasifka have an observation on the role of mediation in general? As a society, it is surely something we ought to embrace more widely. I am pleased the option is there, albeit on a small scale. Perhaps the intention is to expand it. If a complainant is dissatisfied with the ombudsman's findings, is that the end of the line or does he or she have the right of appeal to the ombudsman?

Mr. Prasifka indicated that where a matter is found to be of systemic concern, his office will refer it to the Central Bank. Does that happen often? Mr. Prasifka observed that his office has a good and open relationship with the Central Bank. If information on referrals is not included in the annual report, does he agree it should it be included in the interests of transparency? If the office is discovering issues that have a systemic quality, should it not report them and say it has done so?

Mr. Prasifka noted that the Financial Services Ombudsman office is not obliged to feed into the setting up of rules or guidelines. Is there a relationship, either formal or informal, with the regulator whereby the office can feed in its expertise and findings, or do the delegates expect the regulator to read what they have done and take its own findings?