Trevor Ó Clochartaigh (Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome Mr. Prasifka and his team and thank them for appearing before this committee. A number of thoughts struck me as I listened to Mr. Prasifka's opening statement, particularly on the broader ombudsman issues. I have a particular interest in the Irish language and one of the points regularly made by an Coimisinéir Teanga relates directly to what Mr. Prasifka said, namely, that if an ombudsman cannot impose appropriate sanctions, then he or she is not really an ombudsman. That is an issue which we will be discussing further with the language commissioner, who does not seem be enjoying the co-operation of various Departments and semi-State bodies because they do not see the possibility of sanctions being imposed on them if they do not do what he recommends. He tries to cajole them and bring them along. It is interesting to see that in the case of the Financial Services Ombudsman, the sanctions that can be imposed actually work. The so-called name and shame table issued by the Financial Services Ombudsman seems to have worked very well and I applaud his office for that. Many people believe that if financial institutions are not acting properly they should be named and shamed publicly.

I note that there does not seem to be a large number of complaints relating to credit unions and I ask Mr. Prasifka to elaborate on that issue. I apologise for not going through everything in detail but it appears to me that there seem to be more complaints made against the larger institutions in the financial services sector.

Given that there have been a number of issues around some credit unions that have been amalgamated or have got into trouble, is there a reason there is not as much around that area? Is the ombudsman happy with the powers he has or is there an extension of the remit that he would like? The statutory Ombudsman has named a number of areas where it feels we should have jurisdiction in this area because we get complaints and we cannot deal them. Are there particular areas from which the ombudsman receives a body of complaints but which are outside his remit and where he would be open to having the remit extended to cover them?

Mr. Prasifka said that for the decisions to be legally binding it is important for the office of the Ombudsman to be statutorily based. What discussions has he had with the Department and the relevant Ministers in this regard and what has been their response when he has sought these powers?

The health insurance industry is an area in which everybody gets mind boggled. If one seeks to change one's policy from one provider to another, it is very difficult to compare and contrast the prices. If Mr. Prasifka sees a body of complaints arriving around a particular matter, does he issue a recommendation that perhaps the industry should look at homogenising the way it presents the information to the consumer in order that it is easier to compare and contrast and, if so, what mechanisms are in place for changing the way financial services present their products and services and how successful has he been?