JOINT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC REGULATORY AFFAIRS debate -
Tuesday, 30 Jun 2009

Role and Functions: Discussion with Financial Services Ombudsman.

Chairman

On behalf of the joint committee I welcome Mr. Joe Meade, Financial Services Ombudsman, Mr. Conor Cashman, senior investigator and media liaison officer and Ms Sylvia Costello, personal assistant.

I draw witnesses' attention to the fact that members of the committee have absolute privilege but the same privilege does not apply to witnesses appearing before the committee. I remind members of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against any person outside the House or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose to hear a presentation from Mr. Meade which will be followed by questions from members of the committee.

Mr. Joe Meade

I am grateful for the invitation to appear before the committee. I will outline my role as Financial Services Ombudsman, what has been achieved to date and comment on some current issues.

As Financial Services Ombudsman I am a statutory officer who came into being on 1 April 2005. I deal independently with complaints from consumers and SMEs about their individual dealings with all regulated financial service providers that have not been resolved after exhausting the internal complaints process. It is a free service. I am not a Regulator or a consumer advocate but an independent alternative dispute resolution outside of the courts and I am impartial. In addition to rectifying matters I can make compensation awards up to €250,000 in any case which is binding on both parties subject only to appeal to the High Court. Our work is geared to ensuring that we act informally and efficiently as is required by legislation, but having regard to due process. The last thing I want is for my office to become like a tribunal or court. While I am neither a consumer champion nor a consumer advocate my decisions have led to major improvements for consumers. I must deal with matters in private but I publish selected unnamed case studies generally every six months to enlighten everyone as to what type of cases I deal with and what lessons can be learned. My role therefore cannot but enhance the financial services environment for both consumers and providers.

We are just four years in existence. Since 1 April 2005, we have received more than 21,000 complaints and all but 2,900 have been finalised. Last year alone we received 6,000 complaints, an increase of 36% on the previous year. We have received more than 3,850 complaints so far this year which represents a further 40% increase. In general, of the complaints that are closed, some 63% have gone in favour of the complainant.

In four years my office has been responsible for at least €50 million being refunded to consumers which would not have occurred, I humbly suggest, if my office was not in place. Apart from this €50 million, the cumulative knock-on effect that these findings have played industry-wide in getting matters resolved which do not come to me, is a further major benefit of the office.

However, the size of the award I make is not what matters; rather that the person who has complained and the financial service provider concerned get a fair and impartial finding from me. Some of my findings may be informative to the committee.

The €35 million settlement by Davy Stockbrokers during 2008 to resolve the matter of alleged mis-selling of perpetual investment bonds to around 130 credit unions was a direct result of my January 2008 finding in the Enfield Credit Union complaint. After the settlement in my favour of the judicial review proceedings taken in 2006 by Irish Nationwide Building Society against a finding of mine in a particular complaint, refunds of €1.5 million have been made to other customers following a look-back exercise undertaken at my request. Ulster Bank has made a Supreme Court appeal against a 2006 High Court judgment in my favour where a potential €7.4 million payout arises.

Awards of €200,000, €325,000 and €310,000 arose in three individual insurance cases; €250,000 was refunded to a retired person for a geared property fund investment while a €500,000 award was made to a credit union following a €1 million investment loss in a particular bond. However, I did not uphold an €800,000 death benefit claim due to non-disclosure of a prior medical condition or a €1 million loss suffered by an individual on a worthless investment bond.

I have also expressed since day one serious concerns regarding inappropriate sales of investment products, especially to the elderly, and I made significant compensation awards to elderly people. I have also raised issues such as ATM and credit card issues, conflicts of interest not disclosed, inappropriate investment advice being given, matters relating to travel insurance, insurance matters in general, income protection, and permanent health insurance policies. Also, financial service providers were culpable in selling inappropriate products and in one instance disgracefully bullied a vulnerable person into buying a worthless insurance health product. I will publish 27 other case studies on 14 July next where significant awards were made this year and serious issues of concern have arisen.

As I stated earlier, my findings on a complaint are binding subject only to an appeal to the High Court by either party and as a statutory officer, I am also subject to judicial review. In an office which can, and does, award substantial amounts of compensation, it is inevitable that some such challenges will arise and it would be unrealistic to expect that no appeals will be made. However, by the end of May last only 0.2% or 33 of my findings — 11 by financial service providers and 22 by complainants — have been appealed and out of 18 appeals closed so far, only two judgments were against me.

I cannot stop anyone appealing a finding but, naturally, I vigorously defend my actions. One financial service provider who was not satisfied with a High Court judgment in my favour did not hesitate to appeal to the Supreme Court. I would only decide to appeal a High Court judgment to the Supreme Court after I obtained and considered legal counsels' opinion, and where I ultimately felt it necessary and appropriate that a major issue needed a judgment of the highest court in the land. I did this once following a July 2008 High Court judgment in the Davy judicial review case because the judgment of the High Court had significant implications for the conduct of my investigations in that the Oireachtas laid down in the legislation that I must deal with complaints in "an informal and expeditious manner”. I await the judgment of the Supreme Court following its hearing in May of my appeal.

Some of the matters arising so far this year may be of interest to the committee. Many of the current year's complaints deal with investments, which have not performed as well as expected, which even turned out to be worthless, or where alleged mis-selling or undue pressure to invest has taken place. Inappropriate investments sold to the elderly have not gone away, alas.

Regarding property type investments, some financial service providers argued that where property advice is involved, it did not come under my remit. I disagreed because when a consumer seeks investment advice and part or all of the investment advice was to invest in a property then that is a matter which falls within my remit. Otherwise investment advisers have a free hand to do what they like with regard to advice on property investments and consumers would not be protected.

I received several complaints against accountants who gave investment advice but I could not deal with them. Whilst accountants are authorised as investment intermediaries, they are generally authorised under approved professional bodies status, and are not subject to my remit but to their self-regulatory accountancy body. I had to decline investigating three major complaints involving accountancy firms where the amount invested was up to €700,000 in each instance. If they were found to be in breach by their professional body, no compensation would be paid in most instances whereas I can award compensation up to €250,000 as well as directing that the investment loss be made good. I have requested that where any type of financial service is provided, whether by accountants, legal professionals, estate agents, An Post and so on, any complaint should be subject to my remit so as to have a level playing field for all.

The size of the breakage fee in switching from fixed rate to variable mortgages is a major source of complaints since May 2009. I have referred, where appropriate, whistle blowing letters I received, either to the financial institution concerned, to the Financial Regulator or to the Director of Corporate Enforcement. I can only deal with complaints which come under my remit but as the matter stated in these letters implied serious regulatory infringements, I felt it appropriate to take the actions I took. I have noticed that for some providers, liquidations and going out of business are beginning to arise and in one case the compensation I awarded is being paid over a period of time in instalments. I understand where large awards have been made by me, and some of them are under appeal, or which may arise in future, the professional indemnity insurer of the provider may not be willing to pay up that award with the result that the consumer may not get his or her compensation. I am keeping the matter under review because if this were to be the case then a consumer is not protected at all.

A seven member governing Financial Services Ombudsman Council appointed by the Minister for Finance has no role with respect to how I deal with any complaint. The office is funded by statutory levy payable by all financial services providers, which is set by the council with the consent of the Minister for Finance. Since 2005, our total running costs came to €13.5 million, including €1.8 million in legal costs. I always look for my legal costs when an appeal is not successful or withdrawn, though the collection of same from lay litigants is not easy. Running costs in 2008 were €5.1 million, while my staff complement is just 28. Though work has doubled since 2005, we did not have to increase the levy in 2008 and for 2009 a small increase in the levy arose. Furthermore, the average cost of my office in dealing with a complaint has dropped from €816 in 2006 to €638 in 2008, a 22% increase in productivity. My accounts are subject to audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General.

We have a busy year ahead, to which we will adapt. I hope we will not be constrained in the delivery of our service because of the public sector embargoes on resources. I will be pleased to answer any questions or comments.

Chairman

The practice is that a member will put a number of questions, which will be answered before we call the next member.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I welcome Mr. Meade, Mr. Cashman and Ms Costello. The cost of the fee to break a fixed rate mortgage was the subject of a report on the news but Mr. Meade did not go into detail on this subject in his presentation. Could Mr. Meade confirm the figure since May 2009 of the number of complaints he received from people seeking to switch from fixed to variable rate mortgages and the average cost of the breakage fee?

Has the ombudsman had any interaction with the Financial Regulator on these cases? He mentioned a case in which he upheld the breakage fee charged by the financial institution. My understanding is that when financial institutions provide a fixed-rate mortgage over a five-year period they use a formula agreed with the Financial Regulator but that this formula is now under review. Media reports suggest the Financial Regulator believes the formula is in order. The formula is based on the cost of money for the financial institution over five years, to which the institution adds a premium for a rate of return. The institution borrows over the same period as that applying to the mortgage to the customer. Does Mr. Meade look at whether the financial institution in such cases borrows short to lend long, by borrowing for only six or 12 months while lending for five years? By refinancing its own funding the institution could get the benefit of a fall in interest rates while its customer pays a fixed rate based on the cost to the bank of five-year financing. Such a practice would be of huge concern to me. In some cases banks may have borrowed for five years but in others they may have borrowed for shorter terms, gaining advantage from the fall in interest rates but not passing the saving on to customers. Has the ombudsman made any submission to the Financial Regulator asking for a review of this aspect of fixed rate mortgages?

The Financial Services Ombudsman had running costs for 2008 of €5.1 million for a staff complement of just 28. Can Mr. Meade say how his staff complement is made up? How many are legal people, how many financial? What expertise in the financial area exists in his office?

Mr. Joe Meade

Since May 2009 we have received more than 150 complaints about fixed-rate mortgages and they continue to come in every day. The amounts vary from €10,000 to €22,000, to €35,000 and €44,000, depending on the size of the mortgage, and the breakages vary from two to three and five years. We have not yet received any about ten-year fixed mortgages, though such things do exist. I ruled in one case, which was reported in the media, where there was a €44,000 breakage fee for a mortgage of €400,000, which was fixed for five years and of which six months had elapsed. The amount calculated was in line with the agreed formula and had formed part of the terms and conditions of the loan. As most of the complaints have been received recently they are still being dealt with so I cannot draw any conclusions at the moment. I may uphold some of the complaints but not others.

I will look for evidence that there is commonality in the formula as used by the firms in question, and that one does not use it one way while another uses it in a different way.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

When the ombudsman looked at the details of the €400,000 mortgage, did he consider how the institution had borrowed the money?

Mr. Joe Meade

No, I did not. I have to look at three aspects of a case when I receive a complaint. I have to consider whether the fee and how it was made up were disclosed to the customer when the mortgage was taken out. I have to consider whether the fee was properly charged in line with the terms and conditions of the contract and whether the fee was calculated correctly. If I were to discover the formula was not correctly applied, or that bank A had one formula, bank B had another formula and bank C had a further formula, there would be something wrong because all three would have different conclusions. We have made only two findings. There are other aspects to remember. It is possible that in some instances people were not fully informed that there could be a breakage fee. Some people might have been told they must take out a fixed mortgage as the variable rate mortgage was not suitable and so on. There are many permutations which could arise. Each case is looked at on its merits. If there is any matter of a systemic nature or which I feel I should bring to the Financial Regulator, I will do so. As of now, to base any general assumptions on one or two cases would be unrealistic.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

It is more that in the current climate mortgage holders are under severe pressure, particularly those on fixed rate mortgages. I know this is probably outside the scope of this discussion, but the point needs to be made. The taxpayer is currently providing a guarantee of the order of €440 billion to the banks. If a situation has arisen whereby fixed rate mortgages are based around the principle of banks borrowing money for a shorter term than they are lending for, it is morally and financially dubious. Will the ombudsman be examining that aspect? It is a valid question.

Mr. Joe Meade

First of all, as the Deputy rightly says, an ombudsman deals with complaints, not policy. If the Financial Regulator wants to change the formula which should be used, it can do that. There is a contract. I must be aware of what is in the contract. I do not want to make lawyers rich by going down to the Four Courts every other day. It is also fair to say that in the case with which I dealt, the money was not borrowed short. The calculation took account of the fact of a matter being redeemed early, unlike the money market, and the loss or otherwise that would have been incurred by the intuition concerned.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Was it a four or five-year term?

Mr. Joe Meade

It was a five-year term of which only six months had elapsed. It was €400,000 over four and a half years. It should also be borne in mind that the State itself, through the Housing Finance Agency and local authorities, also deals in fixed-rate mortgages. I understand a circular has issued to the county councils indicating that even where people are on local authority loans there could be a breakage fee and a similar system and principle will apply. It is unfortunate for the parties concerned, and I have the utmost sympathy for anybody who is on a fixed rate, but there are other matters which must be borne in mind. Two or three years ago people were dying to fix rates because interest rates were going up. Nobody could have foreseen interest rates dropping by the amount they have dropped over the past six months. That is no consolation to people who are on a fixed rate.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

And losing their jobs.

Mr. Joe Meade

As ombudsman I must see whether the terms and conditions of the loan were properly outlined and applied. There will be instances, on a prima facie basis, where I will be upholding complaints where it seems that at the point of sale matters were not done well. I have only dealt with one or two findings so far. If I feel matters should be brought to the attention of the Financial Regulator I will do that. Ultimately, overall general policy is a matter for the Legislature, the Minister for Finance or the Financial Regulator. I will feed into it by saying what my findings are. If I were to discover that there were three or four institutions with three or four different methods of calculating, each giving a different result, and each, depending which way it was done, giving the customer the benefit or giving the institution the benefit, that is something I would raise on a general level. Most of these regulations only came in in early May. There is a process laid down by the High Court whereby I must offer mediation, then raise a series of questions. The documentation must then be circulated to the complainant again and he or she may comment on it. Further comments must be obtained from the financial service provider. Then I make my finding. Many of the findings will not arise until the end of August or early September.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

The ombudsman expects to get through them then.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes. In this case the complaint was received in January. That is why there was a finding. It leaked out somehow, not from my office, I hasten to add. The fact that it is a large sum is an indication of how interest rates have gone in the past six months.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I suppose it also shows that people are under extreme financial pressure. Purely in the interests of looking after taxpayers and mortgage holders, banks, like any other business, must have a margin of profit. If a point is reached whereby the customers, the mortgagees, are effectively providing support to the banks we must have a sense of fair play. What Mr. Meade is saying is that he can only interpret what is laid down by the Financial Regulator and the Government.

Mr. Joe Meade

I have to interpret what is in part of the contract. As a Financial Services Ombudsman I have to hear both sides.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

But the formula itself——

Mr. Joe Meade

I have to be impartial. The formula is agreed under the Consumer Credit Act. It was working well until interest rates dropped dramatically.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

The Financial Regulator is currently reviewing the formula. Does Mr. Meade propose to look at the formulas of all the financial institutions at this time?

Mr. Joe Meade

No. What I propose to do, when dealing with complaints——

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Individually.

Mr. Joe Meade

——of fixed-rate mortgages, be they against bank A, bank Y, bank C or bank Z, is, if in the course of my investigation I find that different formulas are being applied, look at those, ask why there should be different formulas and what is the correct formula and bring the matter to the attention of the Financial Regulator pointing out the inconsistency.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Has the ombudsman received complaints involving all financial institutions——

Mr. Joe Meade

I have.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

——across the board?

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

The final question.

Mr. Joe Meade

The final question was about staff. I have lawyers, solicitors and business graduates on my staff but I have also got people with common sense.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I mean no disrespect. I am just asking about the staff.

Mr. Joe Meade

Absolutely. Rather than build a huge permanent structure where the amount of work might not be generated to warrant people working there, I decided for the first few years to contract out some of the investigating work to barristers or solicitors. I benchmark their work against that of my permanent staff. That means that if I get a big splurge I can take on people temporarily rather than have a huge permanent structure where people could be idle if I did not get the work.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

What is the average time taken to deal with a complaint?

Mr. Joe Meade

The average time used to be three months. Due to the High Court ruling which I have appealed to the Supreme Court and because I have to act like a tribunal now, it can take five to six months. First, I have to bring the matter to the attention of the complainant or the financial service provider. Sometimes the complainant may not have gone through the internal complaints process. If the complaint goes to investigation, mediation has to be offered. Both parties have to agree. If either or both parties do not agree, mediation does not apply. Then a series of questions will be raised. The answers will be received from the financial service provider. Those and all the documentation have to be circulated to the complainant for any comments he or she may have. If any comments come back from the complainant those have to be sent to the financial service provider for further comments. Then I make my final decision.

Before this, I had a process in place for quality control whereby a preliminary view would be issued from my office. If both parties were happy with it that was fine. If either or both parties were not happy they had a right to make a further submission and I would make the final decision. The High Court ruled that I could not do that because any finding, even of a preliminary nature from my office, was deemed by the High Court to be a finding of the ombudsman and, therefore, the appeal was against myself. I must say I found that a very useful quality control method and the industry is hoping I will win the Supreme Court appeal on that particular matter. I am a creature of statute, I will do as the courts direct.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

When does the ombudsman expect the outcome of the case?

Mr. Joe Meade

Hopefully at the end of July but that is in the hands of the Supreme Court.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I thank Mr. Meade.

Mr. Joe Meade

Have I answered all the questions?

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

I think so.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

I join in the welcome to Mr. Meade. In many ways Deputy Kieran O'Donnell has anticipated some of the questions I was about to ask. Following on the questions on mortgage holders moving from a fixed to a variable rate, can the breakage fees concerned vary from one company to another or from one individual circumstance or case to another?

Mr. Joe Meade

The contract will stipulate that if one breaks the fixed rate mortgage within the period of time, there will be a breakage fee charged. That fee will be in line with a formula for the cost of the loss which could arise to the institution. It will be calculated on the basis of the term left following the breakage, the amount of the mortgage and, naturally, the interest rate in which it was fixed. It will be the same for everybody who breaks.

Some will be smaller than others. The breakage fee on a three-year fixed period would not be as high as a mortgage which was fixed for a period of five years or ten years. If the mortgage was €100,000 or €200,000, compared to a mortgage of €400,000 or €500,000, naturally the amount of the fee will vary.

Unfortunately, as ombudsman, I do not have emotion. I must deal with the cases on their merits taking account of the conditions of the mortgage and whether the amount is being calculated correctly, and so on. If I found that there were different formula working between the various institutions and giving different results, that is a matter that I would deal with but so far it is too early to come to any conclusions on that.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

What about estate agents and outstanding property transactions?

Mr. Joe Meade

The only areas which come under my remit are where one goes to an investment adviser, who may be an auctioneer and investment adviser. There have been seven or eight instances where I have made awards of up to €300,000 in compensation where the investment advice given was to invest in a property, be it in Ireland or overseas, where it was generally indicated that one could flip it over after six months and one would make a big killing on it, or where the auctioneer cum investment adviser had an interest in that property and did not disclose it. In those circumstances, while the institutions try to say that as they were selling a property it was not subject to my remit, I am clear that if one went in looking for investment advice and part of the investment advice was to invest in a property, and the person was an investment intermediary, then that was under my remit. We had the two-card trick where the person's name card stated "investment adviser" on the front and when flipped over stated "auctioneer", and where some people stated that they gave personal advice but not on an official basis. To be quite honest, they got very short shift from me. Where a person went in to an auctioneer looking for a house or a property, that is not subject to my remit. However, where one went looking for investment advice and part of it was to invest in property, that was under my remit. There are approximately seven or eight instances of it which I have published where I have awarded up to €300,000 where conflict of interest was not disclosed.

Deputy Seamus Kirk

In the course of investigating various complaints which arise, I am sure legislative shortcomings will obviously manifest themselves from time to time. Does the ombudsman feel obliged to notify such matters or is it a discretionary issue whether he should state to the Financial Regulator or the Department of Finance that there is a need for legislative adjustments in a particular area?

Mr. Joe Meade

I have a memorandum of understanding with the Financial Regulator and the Pensions Ombudsman. Where I feel a matter is systemic within a particular company or could be applicable to the entire industry, then I will refer that matter to the Financial Regulator and ask the Financial Regulator, as part of its on-site inspection and the overall general views which it undertakes, to look at all of that in far greater detail.

For instance, one such area is the payment protection insurance in the construction industry. I had a case where it would only kick in if one was in permanent employment but most of the employees such as brickies were on short-term contracts. While they paid considerable premiums in payment protection insurance, it was of no benefit to them. In that instance, I referred the matter to the regulator and stated that he must deal with that.

Also, there have been matters, particularly disability claims and income continuance, where the conditions being laid down by companies excluded people. A person may have gone blind and the insurance company was trying to wriggle out of it by some legal means. I found against that and I referred the matter to the regulator stating this could be industry-wide.

For example, in regard to policy reviews, there was one company about which I received two complaints concerning matters that were not carried out and where I awarded €2,000 or €3,000. I asked the company concerned to look at all other policies and I referred the matter to the regulator. The company is now looking at 96,000 policies to ensure they have been operated correctly. If there is any matter that I consider should be brought to the attention of the regulator or the Department of Finance I will do so. I publish in my annual report each year matters that I have brought to attention and the actions taken by the Financial Regulator in drawing attention to various institutions on how to deal with complaints, their record-keeping system and how to deal with selling products to the elderly and so on, all of which are a direct result of complaints I received. The system works quite well.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I thank Mr. Meade for appearing before the committee. In regard to the levy, I note it is set by the Minister for Finance, following on from a recommendation of the council. What is the amount of the levy and is it related to the number of bank customers?

Mr. Joe Meade

The levy is payable by each financial service provider. It is calculated by taking account of the size of the organisation, its turnover, and the number of complaints we may receive. There are different rates for different institutions. For example, depending on the number of customers each bank has, the banking, insurance, credit union and intermediary areas contribute a specific amount. We calculate what should be paid by each area and each of the institutions will pay proportionately. There is a minimum levy on all people. Since we started intermediaries, the minimum level has not increased. Last year, while the levy was increased for most other areas, small intermediaries going out of business are finding it tough. The amount, €125, has not been increased since 2005. The levy is set by my council. The council comprises representatives of consumers, banks, insurance companies and an independent chairperson. In September the council has to approve the levy which is then sanctioned by the Minister for Finance under statutory order.

The office commenced in 2005. For the first few years it was difficult to gauge running costs. If there is a surplus at the end of the year it is taken off the levy calculation for the following year and we do not carry very large surpluses. None of the industry has been complaining about it.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Is it the case that the institutions that have most complaints lodged against them pay a higher levy?

Mr. Joe Meade

No. The levy is based on the turnover of institutions. It would be unfair to place a higher levy on people against whom a greater number of complaints are made. Whether a complaint is made or not the ombudsman is there in case there are complaints made against an institution. The office is in its formative years and the levy is based on the turnover of institutions. Naturally, a large institution will have more complaints than a small institution.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Does Mr. Meade not consider that those against whom findings are made should pay more?

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes and no. After three or four years we are in the process of looking at the levy. The UK charges a certain amount of the levy on each complaint that is upheld or on each complaint that is investigated. There are pros and cons with that approach. Some of the UK financial service providers say that every case goes into investigation, even when there is no need, so that a levy could be charged. I can assure the Deputy that my council which is representative of industry and consumers carries out a thorough assessment. While the levy was not increased in 2008 there was a small increase in 2009. We have refunded almost €50 million to €60 million to consumers while the overall cost of running the office was €13 million over four years. If an institution had to go to court to appeal a decision it would cost at least €600,000 or €700,000 and very few institutions pay that to me.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Leaving aside the question of complaints going to investigation, there is a strong case for imposing heavier levies on institutions that have findings against them, perhaps a further 10%.

Mr. Joe Meade

It comes down to a point of principle. If the ombudsman only existed to deal with complaints and charged a levy on that basis, that would be a reasonable suggestion. However, the ombudsman also exists to ensure people do not do wrong. Even when we receive a complaint which does not go through the internal complaints process it has to be processed and sent out to the institution. If the institution settles within two or three weeks there is still an administrative cost.

Chairman

We will have to suspend because a vote has been called on the Order of Business.

Sitting suspended at 4.40 p.m. and resumed at 5 p.m.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

The office is, essentially, fully funded by the levy and there is no direct funding.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes. From the day it was set there has been no Exchequer funding. There is a statutory levy payable by the industry. It has been argued that because we are funded by the industry we would be pro the industry, but that is not the case. Given that we are a statutory body, our decisions are subject to judicial review and subject to appeal. That is how we operate.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

In his presentation the ombudsman mentioned that the public sector embargo on resources might affect his office adversely. Obviously the Government describes it as a moratorium rather than an embargo. Of the €5.1 million, how much of that is payroll?

Mr. Joe Meade

About €3.2 million to €3.4 million would be payroll. Counsel fees amount to about €120,000, legal fees approximately €700,000, office accommodation €200,000 and there are publications, advertising and so on. Our largest expense will be pay.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

That would put average pay at about €120,000. Surely, that is not correct.

Mr. Joe Meade

Average pay would probably be €100,000. Some are paid at the senior level while others are at a junior level. I can provide the exact details for the Deputy. The 2008 budget for salaries and pensions was about €3 million.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

So it would be roughly €100,000.

Mr. Joe Meade

For 2008.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Given that the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman is funded by bank levy, it is not a core part of the public service in the sense that——

Mr. Joe Meade

No, but on the other hand we are a State body and, subject to clarification, the legislation provides that the salaries for staff have to take account of public sector norms and any conditions which apply to the general public service have to apply to the office also. So far we have not been affected because people have not left. If it was to be the case that we could not fill vacancies or take on extra staff — with a workload increase of 42%, ultimately the office is for the benefit of consumers should we find in their favour — and if my operations were subject to Government embargo to the extent that I could not effectively deliver my mandate, I would take up the matter seriously with the Minister for Finance and go public on it. So far, to date, we have not been affected.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Surely with a payroll budget of €3 million and average pay at €100,000, given the current climate if the Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman was an independent agency or a private company he should be in a position to negotiate efficiencies, to hire more staff but at a lower rate of pay.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes, but the Deputy must bear in mind the Government embargo which states that one cannot take on anybody. If a person takes early retirement he or she cannot be replaced. One cannot take on extra staff over the number authorised. We have contracted out some work to barristers and solicitors at very good rates. We try to minimise our costs as much as possible but a Government embargo on numbers is a crude mechanism. So far we have not been affected. If the number of complaints continues to increase and staff were to leave or go on maternity leave or whatever and could not be replaced, then the quality of our service could suffer. Those are matters which are being looked at very seriously.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

One of the arguments my party would make in terms of reform is that public bodies and State agencies should bid for funds. Essentially the ombudsman would bid for funds and would have much more flexibility on how to spend those funds. In the case of the ombudsman, he gets his funds through a levy system. Does he consider that if he had more flexibility he could use that €3 million, which is currently used on payroll, much more efficiently and to greater benefit to consumers than the high pay levels?

Mr. Joe Meade

As I indicated, the cost of a complaint has fallen from €816 in 2007 to €604 last year, which is a reduction of 22%. We are complaints driven. I cannot dictate how many complaints we will receive in a year. We run a very tight ship. Compared with other ombudsmen's offices, for example, we do not have a high level of principal officers and assistant principals, etc. We have kept grades to the bare minimum. We also have ensured that we will only have staff for the amount of work we have to deal with.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

An average salary level of €100,000 is very high. It is higher than a TD's salary.

Mr. Joe Meade

Bear in mind that there is an ombudsman and two deputy ombudsmen. The two deputy ombudsmen were the former ombudsmen in the private sector, who were taken on at very high rates approved two or three years ago. Over time, when those arrangements finish, I can assure the committee there will be big savings in that regard.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Would Mr. Meade agree that the top staff in his office are paid too much?

Mr. Joe Meade

I personally am paid less than the public sector Ombudsman is paid. Bear in mind that I can award compensation that can be subject to judicial review, court appeals, etc. I am not complaining about my pay, which is at Secretary General level, but it is less than what is paid to the public sector Ombudsman which is at High Court judge level. I do not set the salary scales. Bear in mind our level of responsibilities, the amounts of complaints with which we must deal, and the amount of appeals, judicial review and matters with which we must deal, as well as the high expectation which is placed on the office. The salary levels have been set by my council in consultation with the Minister for Finance and, indeed, the salaries for the ombudsman and deputy ombudsmen must be approved by the Minister for Finance.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

There could be, for example, nurses watching this who have significant levels of responsibility in their job and would never have the prospect of earning €100,000, and yet in Mr. Meade's office that is the average salary. I am sure there are many in his office who earn nothing like that, which means there must be others who are earning €170,000 or €180,000, which is hard to justify.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes, they do earn that. The three top posts in the office — one of them will be going at the end of July — are almost at Secretary General level. That is because when the office came into being there were two ombudsmen and they were merged into the office as deputy ombudsmen at salary scales on which they were in their former roles.

Contrast that as well with the ordinary person in Ireland. Look at the person who got a heart attack for which the insurance company did not want to pay out, and who got €325,000. Look at the credit unions which, because of the actions I have taken, have got €35 million. Look at the person who was blind where the insurance company did not want to pay out, and that person got €25,000 a year plus another €1,400 a month in pension. Look at the elderly person who was sold investments where it was put into a six-year bond and when the person died the estate could not administer it — €1.5 million.

On the level of responsibilities, of course nurses should be paid properly but one must balance one against the other. The ombudsman was set up to ensure that one would not have to go through the courts. If my office was not there for any of the ordinary plain people of Ireland, for instance, the elderly who bought €300,000 of product which should not have been sold to them, would have to seek redress through the courts. It is a question of balance.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

I accept that. I would just contend, for example, if the number of complaints to the office increases, as I think it will with the nature of the recession and people's money being much tighter, that rather than go to the Minister for Finance to look for a higher levy for more pay, Mr. Meade should go to him looking for proper flexibility to run the office so that with the existing payroll budget of €3 million he could hire more staff but at more reasonable terms and conditions.

Mr. Joe Meade

I have ensured that the grading structure in the office is kept on the low side and that the number employed is the bare minimum. Compared with other ombudsmen's offices, our grading structure is quite small. When the historical basis — with the merger of the old voluntary schemes into the office — will have run its course, there will be a saving as well.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Mr. Meade mentioned affordable housing. I do not think he has any role in this, but one of the matters I have particularly noticed with the affordable housing schemes and the local authority schemes is that interest rate reductions are passed on very slowly. First, they must go through the Housing Finance Agency, which then informs the local authority to reduce the rates. Of course, it works the other way as well. As as rates have come down, people living in affordable housing who, by their nature, are not particularly well off, must wait approximately two months longer for those reductions to be passed on. Has the ombudsman had any complaints about that?

Mr. Joe Meade

We had a few complaints, not on affordable housing but, say, where certain banks had not passed on the reduction in interest rates as quickly as possible or within a certain period. We upheld one or two of them and did not uphold one or two others. Some will be passed on within, say, a month, others may be passed on straight away and some may not be passed on. Much depends on the terms and conditions of the mortgage concerned. The Deputy is aware that the Financial Regulator put pressure on the institutions to pass them on quicker.

On the issue of the Housing Finance Agency informing local authorities to reduce the rates, I do not believe those come under my remit. They may come under the remit of the public sector Ombudsman but I am on record as saying that where a complaint is made about any financial service provided, be it by An Post, the Housing Finance Agency or whomever, it should be under my remit. Why should there be one law for one area and another law for another area?

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Currently, that falls under——

Mr. Joe Meade

Any complaints like that would fall under the remit of the public sector Ombudsman as opposed to me.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

It seems to be anomalous.

The breakage fees, which have been discussed by other members is an issue I feel strongly about. I am unfortunate in that I have a negative equity 40 year mortgage but I am very fortunate that, for some reason, I ended up having a tracker mortgage and as a result, between the pay cuts, levies and so on, I am down approximately €800 a month but I have saved €600 on my mortgage. I can only imagine the state people on fixed-rate mortgages are in who have been hit very hard by pay cuts, if they are in the private sector, and otherwise by the pension levy and the tax increases. I can only imagine the position they are in in terms of their own finances.

I accept that people who took out fixed-rates mortgages benefited in the past and there has to be a breakage fee but I am very concerned that the breakage fees are unfair. I realise this issue falls to the Financial Regulator to be decided but would Mr. Meade not agree a strong case can be made for having some form of statutory code of practice or a standard formula that is always applied? It seems to be up to the financial institution to decide on its formula. Should there not be a broadly similar single, transparent formula that people can use, even to calculate a breakage fee for themselves?

Mr. Joe Meade

Generally, the breakage fee will be outlined in the mortgage agreement and in the information leaflet given when the fixed-rate mortgage was being decided. I will find some examples that outline in detail that if a person had a €200,000 mortgage which is broken after three or six months, and if the rate was this or that, this is what could happen. As I said, we are only getting the complaints since May and what I have to look at first is whether a breakage fee is in order. The answer is "Yes" because institutions will have borrowed and lent it on for a certain period. They have done their calculations as well. If that is broken there could be a cost to the institution concerned. The calculation will then be done, as such, and generally the calculation is to ensure that the provider will not be at any loss because of the breakage if it has to put that money out onto the market. It must be borne in mind that there is a major difference between putting money onto the market for investing four or five months ago and putting it out now.

The fees have been approved by the regulator but if, in the course of investigations, we find there are different formulae in place which are having different results, that matter will have to be investigated. As ombudsman I deal with complaints. I am not the regulator. I am not the policy maker.

Deputy Leo Varadkar

Has Mr. Meade had any complaints yet from people who had a tracker mortgage, who then fixed it for a number of years and when the fixing period ended, they did not revert to a tracker mortgage but to a——

Mr. Joe Meade

No. I have received a complaint from a person who had a variable rate mortgage, then had it fixed, then changed to a variable, then to a fixed again and now, because the fixed rate is not working out too well, he is dissatisfied. If we received a complaint from a person who could not switch from a tracker to a variable mortgage, or vice versa, we would examine whether the attitude of the institution was reasonable and fair. If we found it was not reasonable and fair in refusing the customer’s request we could find in favour of the complainant but it would depend on the evidence and I would not want to pre-empt a finding in any particular case.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

I thank Mr. Meade for his presentation. Deputy Varadkar asked about fixed-rate mortgages. I once had a fixed-rate mortgage but, when I wanted to sell the property, the variable rate was higher. It would have been to the benefit of the financial institution to switch from a fixed rate but it still wanted to charge a significant amount to do so. What evidence does the ombudsman examine? To what extent does he try to determine the loss to a financial institution when a fixed-rate mortgage is changed to a variable rate? I understand the fact that a contract is agreed between parties but if one bores down into the details of these transactions does one find that a bank is necessarily out of pocket?

Mr. Joe Meade

We have extensive powers and ask serious questions. The Deputy will be aware that, long before the current controversy surrounding fixed-rate loans, the Irish Nationwide Building Society charged six months' penal interest for breaking a fixed-rate commercial mortgage. I ruled that it was not proper to do so and that the building society had to calculate what it actually cost, based on factors such as a comparison of the relative costs of putting the money on deposit and lending it out.

We ask a lot of detailed questions and receive a lot of information. We have only recently received many of the complaints about which members have asked but we will want to know whether there was a real loss to the institution in these cases, whether the fee was calculated in line with the agreed formula and if any profit was made by the institution on the transaction. If people were not properly informed of the conditions when they took out a mortgage or if there was confusion over the conditions, that will be taken into account. We want to ensure no profit is made by an institution on a breakage fee.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

Mr. Meade said that he dealt with complaints about all regulated financial service providers that had not been resolved after exhausting the internal complaints process. He also said he had received more than 3,850 complaints so far this year, which represents a 40% increase on the previous year. It looks like some 8,000 or 8,500 complaints can be expected for 2009.

Mr. Joe Meade

That is possible.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

These complaints come to the ombudsman after exhausting the internal complaints process of all financial service providers. Does this not imply that the financial service providers use strong arm tactics? There are two parties — the complainant and the financial institution. If that is the number of complaints after all internal complaints processes within the financial institution have been fully availed of, is that not evidence that the financial institutions are, effectively, being bullies and that they are adopting bolshie tactics against what Mr. Meade himself described as the plain people of Ireland? Does that not imply that the financial institutions or financial service providers need to re-examine their ethics and the morality of the way they do business vis-à-vis fairly defenceless and unprotected people, namely, their customers?

Mr. Joe Meade

I will give a general answer. I can get involved only when the internal complaints process has been gone through. Let me be a little bit local. A customer may have a problem with his or her bank manager in Miltown Malbay and fire off a letter of complaint to me, not having gone through the proper internal complaints process. When I receive that complaint I automatically send it to the liaison person who is at a senior level of management, and every financial service provider has one. He or she has 25 days in which to resolve the problem. If it cannot be resolved it will become part of my office's investigations. For the first six months of this year we received 3,800 complaints. So far this year 1,150 of those have been dealt with at local level, but when complaints were ratcheted up the line and referred to me, the institution itself settled.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

Is the office beefing up its numbers with these easy to resolve issues?

Mr. Joe Meade

No. If we get a complaint we must deal with it. If it is resolved amicably that is good for the customer, and I do not have to put resources into it. If it is not resolved amicably I will look into it. Of the 4,534 complaints which were closed in 2008, 1,600 were resolved amicably where they were referred to the financial service provider. It is often the case that the person who dealt with the complaint felt he or she had done a good job and was right but that when it is re-examined at a higher level of management, having been referred to me, it is settled, perhaps because of fear of what I might decide. It can work in that way.

It is also fair to say that in the past three or four years——

Deputy Seán Ardagh

Why does it have to go so far? Why do the financial service providers——

Mr. Joe Meade

We are dealing with human nature. If one has a dispute in a bank in Miltown Malbay and one is not happy, one may send a letter to me as ombudsman. I must deal with that. There might be serious issues involved as well. Sometimes there is a personality clash involved. To be fair to the institutions, they are making good strides in this area. One must also bear in mind that, at the moment, even with my office making findings, the number of lay litigants in the High Court is increasing because people often feel they are in the right, and they are under pressure.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

Have financial service providers changed some of their procedures and the ways they deal with these complaints as a result of the work the ombudsman is doing?

Mr. Joe Meade

Very much so. Many people say lots of bad things about financial service providers, but they have beefed up their complaints systems. The ones that come to me which are not resolved are serious issues. For instance, in insurance cases they may be under pressure from a reinsurance company not to pay out and there is need for a third party opinion, namely, from me.

I have been in the job for four years and two months. The improvements I have seen overall have been very good. It must also be borne in mind, and this is what I worry about, that if one is cutting costs, cutting numbers, outsourcing to places such as India, the standard of service in dealing with complaints may drop. That is a matter that may have to be looked at. It must also be recognised that under the consumer protection code there are procedures built in whereby a complaint must be acknowledged and dealt with within a certain period of time. If it is not dealt with within a certain period of time the matter must be referred to me. Compared with four or five years ago there has been a major improvement. However, we are dealing with human nature and there will always be some complaints.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

The ombudsman can award up to €250,000.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes, as well as directing that a matter be remedied, for instance in the case where the person had a heart attack.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

The ombudsman said he awarded €500,000 to a credit union.

Mr. Joe Meade

That case is under appeal so I am somewhat constrained in what I can say. It invested €1 million in an ISTC bond which proved worthless. The bond should never have been sold to the credit union. Against that, the credit union investment committee signed blindly and did not do anything. I am on public record as saying that the way the credit union investment committee had regard to investing members' funds was nothing short of a disgrace. In that situation I found both parties were culpable and I awarded €500,000 of the loss of €1 million to the credit union. The matter has been appealed to the High Court by both sides and the hearing will be held in October or November.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

If both sides were not culpable, if the ombudsman had found that only the defendant was culpable, would the award have been far in excess of €500,000?

Mr. Joe Meade

There was another case which made the newspapers two weeks ago involving a different credit union which made an investment of €700,000. In that case I found fully in favour of the credit union. The credit union investment committee asked various questions and researched various matters and so on. The bond should never have been sold to the credit union. In that instance the credit union was awarded the €700,000. On the other hand, I did not uphold a case involving a prudent individual investor who thought it was a good idea to take a gamble two years ago and, two years later, lost his €1 million because that investor knew what he or she was doing, was aware of the risk and was willing to take the risk. Those three scenarios involved the same bond. If the Deputy would like some bedtime reading he can look at the cases published in January 2009.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

Do not tempt me.

Mr. Joe Meade

In January 2009 the first three cases published involved the same bond being sold to three different people with three different results, which shows that each case must be looked at on its merits.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

I know the ombudsman is constrained in talking about the Supreme Court case but I find it interesting in the context of the question of the separation of powers, the power given to the ombudsman by the Oireachtas to deal with complaints in an informal and expeditious manner, and the question of whether that is constitutional in the first place. If the ombudsman can make a judgment and award a body €500,000 or more, he is in a very responsible position and is, effectively, acting in a judicial capacity. I have been through the wars in another well-known case, so I will be watching this one very closely.

Mr. Joe Meade

In the case of ombudsmen world-wide, and in the case of the voluntary schemes we had here, findings are binding on the institution but the complainant may appeal and go to court. In Ireland there is a great safeguard in that if either or both parties are unhappy with my decision they have the right of appeal to the High Court on a point of fact or on a point of law or whatever. I am a creature of statute. I carry out the duties assigned to me.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

I presume the ombudsman pays his pension levy as well.

Mr. Joe Meade

Of course. We are public servants and we do what any good public servant does, as is required by legislation. In the context of the case in question, we were dealing with cases in an informal and expeditious manner. It was argued that we should hold oral hearings in every case, that we should be exchanging documents left, right and centre and that we should make discovery if an institution asks for discovery, that we should, in effect, become like a tribunal. The High Court ruled a certain way. We changed our systems to deal with matters within three or four weeks. Since then we have, not in every case, held oral hearings with evidence given under oath and the right of cross-examination. It must be borne in mind that I do not bear any costs. Did the Oireachtas want that situation to arise in respect of something that was supposed to be informal and that would be of help to consumers? Is that fair if the ordinary Joe Soap cannot afford a senior counsel? I respect the judgment. The only reason I appealed to the Supreme Court is that this could have such a major impact on the running of the office. Already we have gone from dealing with cases in three months to dealing with them in five or six months. We could potentially have to hold an oral hearing in every case and that would completely gum up the system. That is the only reason I went to the Supreme Court to get clarity on the matter. The good point is that, despite the High Court judgment, within three weeks we were up and running with our new systems. It might be taking five months.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Is there representation at oral hearings?

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes, barristers, solicitors, whatever. They can be there on both sides. Hearings were previously informal. I would call in both parties separately and look into their eyes and listen to what they said. If we are going to be administering justice in such a way as to be like the Abbeylara inquiry, is that really what it was intended to set up to help consumers? I await the Supreme Court judgment. I have no quibble with the High Court judge who gave a judgment but I have a right of appeal to the Supreme Court. I have appealed, but we worked around the High Court judgment to ensure we respected that judgment in the interim, pending the Supreme Court judgment, at the same time ensuring that the office did not gel up.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

What is the basis of the ombudsman's argument to the Supreme Court?

Mr. Joe Meade

That we were set up to act expeditiously and informally and that what was outlined in the High Court judgment is tantamount to dealing with matters in a formal, judicial way, almost like a court or a tribunal. It will be appreciated that I cannot say too much about it, but that is the basis of the appeal, and whether what the Legislature laid down is what was intended.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

My final question relates to professional indemnity insurance. The ombudsman says that the provider of the professional indemnity insurance may not be willing to provide cover.

Mr. Joe Meade

I have heard through the grapevine, and so far there has not been any case where I have made an award although one or two of the awards are under appeal. These were small intermediaries, and small intermediaries would have professional indemnity insurance. Apparently the professional indemnity insurer has said it will not indemnify the complainant for the €500,000 or the €700,000 which the ombudsman had awarded because the professional indemnity insurance does not cover that. If that is the case, the intermediary may not be able to pay out, and the complainant who came to me and whom I have found in favour of will be left high and dry. What is the purpose of professional indemnity insurance? Is the scenario I have outlined good enough for financial service providers? We may have to bring these providers into the investor compensation fund. Would it be fair, in the case of a person who has been vindicated and whom I have awarded €200,000, €300,000 or €400,000, if it emerged that the award cannot be paid out?

Deputy Seán Ardagh

The Financial Services Ombudsman has discussions with associations representing the service providers and the intermediaries.

Mr. Joe Meade

The circumstances I have outlined, which have been brought to my attention, have not yet arisen. One or two cases are on appeal but a few more complaints are coming in. These involve an association that is concerned about this matter because it believes it is not covered and may have to incur additional legal costs.

I have raised this matter with the Financial Regulator. I highlighted the need for every intermediary to have professional indemnity insurance. If the insurance does not cover a large claim, a serious issue arises and the matter may have to be dealt with under the insurance compensation fund or other action may have to be taken. While such a case has not yet arisen, we have the warning signs and the matter needs to be taken seriously.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

Can the Financial Regulator insist that intermediaries take out professional indemnity insurance?

Mr. Joe Meade

They all have professional indemnity insurance.

Deputy Seán Ardagh

I realise that but can the regulator insist it is taken out at a level that would cover the cases cited by Mr. Meade?

Mr. Joe Meade

It is possible that this issue will finish up on my desk because the provider of the professional indemnity insurance is a regulated financial service provider. As these firms may be limited companies or sole traders, I may be able to deal with them if they were to have a complaint that a product was missold to them. These issues are, I believe, being considered. What I want to ensure is——

Deputy Seán Ardagh

The Financial Services Ombudsman is very powerful. Who guards the guards?

Mr. Joe Meade

The High Court guards me. Ultimately, those who believe they have not been given a fair crack of the whip, whether the complainant or financial services provider, can go to the High Court. If I can make a compensation award, I can enforce it through the Circuit Court. However, this is not of any use to an individual who has lost money if money is not available to pay the award. That issue is looming.

The question of liquidations or companies being wound up also arises. One highly honourable person who told me he could not pay an outstanding amount of approximately €40,000 asked me if he could pay the fine over a period of four or five months. I told him that was fine. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

The Chairman stated I am very powerful. When one has power one must be humble and exercise one's duty in a proper manner. Ultimately, the courts will be the saviour should I get it wrong.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Mr. Meade stated that he receives complaints from consumers and small and medium-sized enterprises.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes, any limited company with an annual turnover of less than €3 million – this limit can be varied up or down – and all unlimited companies, namely, small and medium-sized enterprises——

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Sole traders.

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes, that is the reason the credit unions were able to come to me with their complaints.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

Did their turnover have to be less than €3 million?

Mr. Joe Meade

Yes.

Deputy Kieran O’Donnell

In light of the difficulties with the banks, many people are seeking to change certain aspects of their financial arrangements, such as their overdraft facility. In many such cases, the banks are deciding to renegotiate all the individual's finance and loans and increasing the rate. Does the Financial Services Regulator have jurisdiction in such matters? Has Mr. Meade received complaints in that regard?

Mr. Joe Meade

We can deal with the provision or lack of provision of a service and the quality of such services. It is not unusual for us to receive complaints from people who were charged the wrong rate or refused a loan from a bank and so forth. Each case will be considered on its merits. We do not try to address issues with the benefit of hindsight. On a few occasions we have found that a bank or credit union was unreasonable in not accepting a guarantor. Any individual or small or medium-sized enterprise which is not satisfied with any service provided by a financial services provider may contact my office and we will deal with the matter appropriately, although I cannot guarantee satisfaction in every case.

Chairman

I thank Mr. Meade, Mr. Cashman and Ms Costello for appearing before the joint committee. I apologise for the interruption to the proceedings.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.45 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 8 July 2009.