Mr. Brian Hayes:

That is the fundamental question. The European Parliament was very clear on this question. In any of the reports I have supported attempts were made to protect whistleblowers to make sure that where people make disclosures there is not just a beginning but a middle and an end point. As I understand it, the dilemma in the case the Chairman refers to is that there is no end point to that investigation. What people want to see when they come forward with a disclosure in the financial services area, or anywhere, is that there is a process which will get to an end point. They may not be satisfied with the end point. They may not have confidence in the outcome, but they need to know that the process is in train to get that outcome.

The Chairman asked what we can do. When the tracker issue broke, I knew what the reply would be from the ECB. It would be that the Irish Central Bank is dealing with it. The Central Bank representatives were very slow off the blocks in this committee. I remember what was said very well. Things have improved since then. It has taken us longer, and I believe by the summer we will be in a better position in terms of the number of people who were abused in that entire process as a consequence of the tracker scandal. The Chairman of this committee and the Government can look back over a 12-month period and tell people that that issue has been resolved but unless it changes its mandate, the European Central Bank will not get involved on a country-specific issue like that. However, the window is on the issue of the Commission. I complained on the tracker scandal. I argued that there was systemic collusion within the banking system, which effectively allowed all of them to take people off the legitimate rate they were on over that period of time.

As I said, Commissioner Vestager, in a comprehensive reply, said she was aware of and understood this problem and that within her Directorate-General, DG, there is an opportunity for people to make a disclosure secretly without publicising their name, rank or whatever. If there is information on collusion, she wants to hear about it and she will be on top of the banks like a tonne of bricks. That was the effect of what she was saying. I believe that is a more effective arm of the institution of the Commission because, as I said to Deputy Burton earlier, it has genuine built-up confidence in this area and a legal basis for what it is doing, but it requires evidence to be brought forward. The investigation I complained about is still open. If there were people who saw some form of collusion or anti-competitive practice because effectively there would have been collusion in Irish banks against other banks in other member states of the European Union, it would have been a fundamental breach of EU law to come forward with that information to her. That case remains open.