Mr. Ger Deering:

No. I have also reminded the institutions of the powers we have to prosecute. I am not happy with how the banks have always reacted to the office. As I mentioned earlier, I met the banks, collectively, in January 2016. I also met them again later that year. I have made it absolutely clear to them that it is not satisfactory for them not to provide us with sufficient evidence. I have gone back to them on several occasions on the issue of evidence. I will use whatever powers are available to me to get that evidence.

I referred earlier to correspondence I received, which is in the public arena, from which it was obvious what the bank was doing. An element of this is that the banks were looking at the ombudsman's decisions and rather than admitting that they got something wrong, they appeared to be looking to what was the least they could do to not to have another ombudsman's finding against them. That is not what the role of the ombudsman is about. We expect banks and financial institutions against which we make a finding on behalf of a complainant to put right that wrong for all customers and not only for the complainant. In other words, if there are ten other customers in the same situation they should also rectify the position for them.

I know the committee is aware of the distinction between the regulator and the ombudsman's office but it is important for me to point out that we can only deal with the individual complaint before us. In regard to the Deputy's question on the powers of the office to enter an institution, we can only do so to look for evidence in respect of a particular complaint.