Mr. Ger Deering:

I will come back to the committee with those details. On the general point, I welcome what the Minister said about an engagement on this issue because it is a very big decision. There could be unintended consequences of having appeals to both the High Court or the Circuit Court. The risk associated with a de novoappeal in the Circuit Court for the consumer would be costs. We do not have a set view on whether it should remain with the High Court or the Circuit Court but it is important to examine and research this carefully. For example, in employment law, it was decided to move complaints from the Circuit Court because it was felt that the employer had deeper pockets in those cases. It certainly is true that financial services providers have deeper pockets. Before forming a final view on the matter, I would like to have some assurance that we would not find ourselves in a situation where people are afraid to take complaints to the ombudsman for fear of opening themselves to an appeal to the Circuit Court and that providers would see that as an avenue, in some way, to scare people. Is there a way that it can be done without consumers running the risk of costs? Mr. Joyce has mentioned the involvement of the ombudsman in the High Court. We can discuss whether it is a good or a bad idea, but, if the ombudsman did not involve himself in the Circuit Court appeals, I think that would run the risk of costs to the consumer. That is certainly a concern we would have.

Separately, it is worth noting that as part of our changes we are introducing a preliminary finding. Currently, the first one knows of how a decision will go is when the finding is received from the ombudsman. The point was made earlier that no one is infallible. Currently, if someone gets a finding and something comes to light subsequent to it, be it a point of law or fact, the only way to deal with it would be for the ombudsman to go to the High Court to have the decision quashed. We will now issue a preliminary finding. This will be all but a finding. It will not be legally binding but it will be a finding in every other respect. We will invite, at that stage, submissions from both parties on points of law or fact that they believe have been decided wrongly. It is not an appeal but it is our way of trying to give people an opportunity within the existing system to say they have an issue or a problem with the preliminary finding. Regardless of where an appeal might lie, we think that will reduce the requirement on people to appeal. We will introduce that within the existing system. A lot more thought and consideration is needed before a final decision is arrived at as to where the appropriate place for an appeal lies.

The jurisdictional issue has also been mentioned. The Financial Services Ombudsman can make an award of up to €250,000 but I would say that is almost the least important remedy available. The rectification powers that the Financial Services Ombudsman can apply is far more important. For instance, a person's house is burned down and a financial service provider or insurance company has denied a claim simply because the person has said that he or she thought 30% of the roof was a flat roof but it turns out that 40% was a flat roof. I am talking about real cases here where I have overturned such a decision. In those cases, two things can happen. The first is that the claimant loses the insurance claim. In other words, the claim is not paid. However, sometimes, and every bit as significant, the company cancels the person's insurance. Now the claimant cannot get insurance anywhere else. In certain instances, I have directed that the insurance company reinstate the insurance and pay the claim. That can be much more important. From a jurisdictional point of view, the value of that is way beyond the current jurisdiction of the Circuit Court. Do we have a twin-track approach? A lot needs to be considered when changing the appeals process. I am not against the concept of an easier route to appeal. I just think we need to consider what are the possible consequences that might arise.