Vol. 487 No. 4
12 Mrs. Owen asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment if she will make a statement on the proposed resignation of the Insurance Ombudsman and the resignation of a member of the Council (details supplied). [4257/98]
The insurance ombudsman scheme launched in October 1992 is funded by the insurance industry. To ensure the independence of the Ombudsman the operation of the service was divided into three component parts. The first is a board comprising executives who are elected from those insurers taking part in the scheme. The second is a council made up of nominees from within and outside the insurance industry. The council in the second part recruits and appoints the Ombudsman subject to the approval of the board in the first part. The third part is the Office of the Ombudsman where policyholder disputes are referred and resolved. The member companies of the scheme are bound by the Ombudsman's decisions.
The present Ombudsman was appointed at the outset of the scheme in 1992. In seeking the endorsement of the Minister for Industry and Commerce for the launch of the scheme at the time, the insurance industry expanded the draft terms of reference at the behest of the Minister to provide greater discretion to the Ombudsman in the determination of issues in dispute between policyholders and insurers.
As documented in its recent five year review, the Office of the Insurance Ombudsman has proved an outstanding success as an alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It has settled disputes and complaints by mediation and conciliation in addition to issuing written adjudications in more intractable cases. It has provided an invaluable service to the consumer and has led to improved sales practices and claims handling by insurance companies participating in the scheme.
As the insurance ombudsman service is a private sector scheme, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on matters related to the conditions and duration of the appointment of the Ombudsman. Neither would it be appropriate for me to comment on the resignation of a member of the council. Our primary concern is to ensure, in the interests of the consumer as policyholder, that whoever holds the office of Ombudsman is enabled to discharge the responsibilities of that office in accordance with the terms of reference. I will be meeting members of the council at their invitation to discuss the existing arrangements for the operation of the scheme in light of experience gained over the past five years and to satisfy myself these arrangements are being operated in a way which enables the Ombudsman to independently and effectively discharge the functions of the office in accordance with the terms of reference.
I thank the Minister for his reply and I will ask him a supplementary question, but first I wish to express again my extreme annoyance that two of my priority questions were ruled out of order, particularly the one on Ryanair. I do not want to get into a dispute with the Chair, but it is very bad that a priority question cannot be tabled to the Minister.
The Deputy is disorderly in criticising the Chair. She is completely out of order.
; I have written a long letter to the Chair.
The Deputy should leave it at that. Her letter will be courteously considered and replied to. It is disorderly for the Deputy to raise the matter in this manner.
I realise that but I am an elected Member and I should be allowed to raise it.
Will the Minister of State indicate the exact background to the publicity surrounding the resignation from next August of the current Ombudsman, Paulyn Marrinan Quinn? What are the facts relating to the resignation of a significant member of the Insurance Council that was put in place as part of that system? Is the Minister of State aware that the recent adverse publicity calls into question the effectiveness of such arbitration systems? The Law Society has recently set one up and if this system is jeopardised in any way by this type of publicity it will not be good for this type of arbitration.
The Deputy must not have listened to what I said. This is a private sector scheme. It is not a statutory body or organisation and I have no role or involvement with it. I am not privy to the exact situation. I am aware there has been some conflict within the office of the Insurance Ombudsman and between some council members. I respect the decision of the Ombudsman and her right to decide what she should do and when she should do it. I admire the work she has done. I issued a statement congratulating her on the great success of her work over the past four and three quarter years and I wish her continued success in her office until she vacates it next August. My responsibility is to the consumers. It is to ensure there is an effective Ombudsman service available to them so that this great work, which is on a par with the best internationally, can continue into the future. It is also to ensure that where there are difficulties involving policyholders they can be resolved in an amicable and fair way.
I cannot accept that the Minister of State does not know the background to this matter. He is responsible for the appointment of the Ombudsman and he will make it next August when the current Ombudsman resigns. In his letter of resignation Mr. McLaughlin said the Ombudsman had to fend for the scheme against its creators in the insurance industry from the beginning. It is the responsibility of the Minister of State if there is any allegation that the Ombudsman could not do her job properly and that the insurance industry was thwarting her in some way. Has the Minister satisfied himself that there is no veracity, or nothing behind the reason Mr. McLaughlin resigned? Is the Minister satisfied there is no thwarting of the role of the Insurance Ombudsman by the insurance industry? Surely, that is the Minister of State's responsibility.
I cannot understand why the Deputy states that I have responsibility pertaining to the appointment or the ratification of the Insurance Ombudsman when I have no legal basis for, or responsibility in, that area.
The Minister of State should have.
My responsibility concerns the legislation governing the insurance industry. For the third time I repeat that the Insurance Ombudsman is a private sector appointment, funded by the insurance industry, in three component parts, involving a board that is responsible for procuring the funds, assessing the budget and making the funds available; a council, whose function it is to recruit an ombudsman and to provide staff, the board then ratifies the decisions taken; and the third part is the Insurance Ombudsman's office itself.
I am absolutely satisfied with the conduct and performance of the Insurance Ombudsman and her office. There are difficulties and it is a matter for those involved to resolve them. I have taken an initiative to ensure consumers are protected and that this system is sustained in future. I will be meeting with the council soon to discuss this matter, but a cooling off period is important. The council has requested a meeting with me and when it is appropriate I will have that meeting.
Another question of mine was ruled out of order today, a Cheann Comhairle, about a raid on the Vintners' Association by the Competition Authority. I was told it could not be answered because it was not a matter for the Minister. The Minister of State tells us he has neither hand, act nor part in the role, work or resignation of the Insurance Ombudsman, yet the question has been taken. I am completely at a loss to know where I stand with regard to tabling questions. When Ministers do not want to answer a question they claim they have no role. On the other hand the Minister of State says he has neither hand, act nor part in this as it is a private scheme, so why was the question taken if that is the case? A Cheann Comhairle, you have to understand how frustrating it is to table a question which is allowed, yet the Minister of State washes his hands of the matter saying it has nothing to do with him. This is not good enough. This matter has been reported in the newspapers and I am quite sure the Minister of State and other Ministers have been apprised of it. I want some answers. Why did the Insurance Ombudsman feel it necessary to resign her position when somebody who has done only five years in the job would be in the running for another term? Although I know I cannot get anything more from the Minister of State by way of reply, I am not satisfied with his answer. Why will he not answer the question? Can he explain the background to the resignation of the person from the council? The Minister of State knows the answer.
I am absolutely at a loss to understand the tirade from Deputy Owen, who is an experienced parliamentarian.
The Minister of State should not be at a loss.
She said I have responsibility for something which I do not.
Why is the Minister of State taking the question?
She says I should answer this question to accommodate her. The Deputy asked me to make a statement on this issue. I have given a very detailed answer and I have responded to supplementary questions. For the fourth time I want to say that I have the absolute——
There is a conflict of interest.
There is no conflict of interest as far as I am concerned.
Why does the Minister of State bother taking the question if he will not answer it?
My responsibility concerns the legislative and statutory position pertaining to the insurance industry. My primary responsibility is to policy holders and consumers. The Insurance Ombudsman's office is a private sector office funded by the industry as a simple structure in three parts. There seems to have been a conflict within that system and I have taken an initiative on the matter. The council has agreed to meet with me. I am satisfied with the performance of this office. When it comes to international comparisons, it has done a tremendous job. I have no doubt that the record of this Insurance Ombudsman — who has decided to vacate her office as and from next August, and who made a public statement to that effect recently — has set a standard that will ensure the office will be sustained into the future. My primary function is to protect the interests of consumers, which I will continue to do.
I want to protest again. The Minister of State is not willing to answer the question.
I am willing to answer it, but the Deputy cannot understand the system.
We have spent 11 minutes on this question already, Deputy Owen.
Why did the Minister of State take the question? I have asked him about it regularly. It is disgraceful behaviour.
