Ms Derville Rowland:

We chose to take this case through the enforcement power of the Central Bank, that being, the administrative sanctions procedure, which is one of the toughest powers that we have. Under it, we must first prove the breaches against the firm. That is a prerequisite in the legal framework and we did it in this case. I stand behind the enforcement outcome. We have used our powers and imposed a fine and a reprimand, as the Deputy commended us. As part of that, one must first prove the breach against the firm. That is part of the legal framework. Only if the Central Bank can demonstrate obligation on an individual to have executed that task and participated in it can we move forward.

A number of years ago, informed by our insights in this investigation and some of the other complex large-scale investigations we have undertaken over the past decade, we observed that there is a very good case for improvements, which is often the position, to our enforcement powers in the form of direct enforceable conduct standards, directly enforceable against individuals, requiring them to have integrity or to operate within the requisite standards expected. A breach of those would be directly enforceable against the individual. We would not have to go against the firm. We have also asked to break the participation link and for a senior executive accountability regime, SEAR, where all of the roles and responsibilities of the firm are specified and ascribed to individuals right across the firm so there will be no ambiguity or gaps. In large-scale firms with complex numbers and situations this will be very helpful. I am glad we are working with the Department of Finance to bring those improvements into place. The Government has supported that in the programme for Government.