Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

I think there will be disagreement between committee members in respect of section 7. As timing is an issue, we want to find as much common ground as possible before dealing with the issues again in the Government's legislation. The provisions contained here have started a debate on an independent appeals mechanism that is accessible to the consumer. Unfortunately, when the Financial Services Ombudsman finds in favour of a financial institution, an appeal to the High Court is beyond the reach of many people.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny stage, we heard about the drawbacks that could be associated with this section. However, we also heard that the existing mechanism is expensive and intimidating for ordinary customers. The instinct and motivation behind this section is to make access to the justice system affordable for the greatest possible number of people. I listened to the debate during pre-legislative scrutiny and recognise some of the arguments as to why, despite the best of intentions, this section could be considered a double-edged sword. I acknowledge the changes that are taking place within the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman. It has been issuing preliminary findings since the start of the year. It is early days yet but at least it gives people a type of appeals mechanism, although it is not independent. We left the section in nonetheless.

There are two parts to the section. The first provides that people would have access to the Circuit Court instead of the High Court. The second pertains to the timelines that would be laid out for persons seeking to appeal a decision, which would increase to 60 days. We have included that provision because, if an ordinary consumer is preparing a case for the Circuit Court or High Court and finds that the ombudsman has ruled against him or her, a period of 21 days is very restrictive in terms of getting a legal opinion, lodging an appeal, securing a solicitor and securing junior or senior counsel. It is a very costly journey for ordinary consumers and families. That is why we provided for an extension of the period to 60 days.

I am conscious that there is very strong opposition to this provision from Government. I do not intend to push the provision on moving from the High Court to the Circuit Court. The debate was worth having and we should continue to discuss having a more accessible, independent appeals mechanism. Let us look at the changes being made within the ombudsman's office since the start of the year and how they can be strengthened. I would, however, emphasise that the extension of the period from 21 to 60 days is important. The courts set out their own timeframe but they are also obliged to respond to the legislation laid down by these Houses. I hope we can find an area of common ground in respect of this provision as there is serious merit in it.