Mr. Alan Jackman:

My thoughts are exactly what the Chairman has said. There is an element of prudence, which means we have to accept there will be secrecy, because they are technical matters pertaining to economies. The regulator requires economists to deal with these issues. We learned recently that psychology plays an important role. If people lose money they will spend more money and, similarly, banks will risk more money. There is also the law. This is fine in that it deals with prudential behaviour and systemic risks for the banks. However, I refer to conflicts of interest when people do something wrong. A bus driver or even a doctor would be tried according to the principle of public administration of justice but banks get a special arrangement. An example of conflict of interest is the decision as to whether it is preferable to see 10,000 mortgage holders get a bad deal or to save a bank that might cost the country €10 billion that could be spent on hospitals and schools. This is an extraordinary dilemma.

The matter has to be considered as separate issues of prudential behaviour and conduct. Where people are injured - I am not speaking about a monetary return - there are certain remedies. However, if I am subjected to psychological violence I cannot go to anybody. The Master of the High Court has drawn attention to this serious gap. I am suggesting that, rather than the Garda or the Ombudsman, the regulator is the place to go with such complaints. It might not result in a hearing or even an investigation but given that the regulator supervises these matters, it is the appropriate body to pursue a complaint. I understand that if one makes a complaint to a garda, he or she will merely log it. If 20 complaints are received on a subject, it is clear there is an issue, whereas at present all that is being done is supervision. It is like gardaí being able to check whether drivers are speeding but an individual not being able to inform them if he or she sees somebody breaking the speed limit. I hope I have made it clear that there is a difference between prudential behaviour and conduct, and people being allowed to make a complaint which relates to serious matters such as honesty, psychological violence or potential injuries. These can be confined, and the Ombudsman deals with everything else.