Ms Derville Rowland:

I think Davy was aware of it because the investigation focuses on conduct it was engaged in. The information came into the public domain a number of months later. Davy contacted the Central Bank and, in that initial contact, we formed the view that it had a distinct lack of candour and transparency about the real characterisation of the deal. The Central Bank of Ireland responded to the information it had. As I set out for some of the Deputy's colleagues, we have taken that issue seriously. We have been engaged in very assertive supervision with Davy over a number of issues. As part of that, there was sufficient concern about the issue that an enforcement case was opened alongside that supervision. The Central Bank of Ireland had contact from Davy, we were very concerned about that, and we have been taking and continue to take assertive supervisory action. Alongside that, we opened the enforcement investigation precisely because we had a high degree of concern about the set of facts. We had to dig long, hard and deep to get to the bottom of the matter and uncover this, which we have done.

The Deputy asked about licence revocation. The Central Bank has a number of powers and we have to use them in a proportionate and commensurate way. We have taken the action against Davy - the firm - and determined that the appropriate course of action is to impose on it a very significant fine in the sum of approximately €4 million. We also issued a detailed public statement, which is right because where we can do so, we should put the information into the public domain. The criteria for revoking a licence are specific and need to be applied in a proportionate way.

It was our judgment that the appropriate course of action here was an enforcement fine to mark the gravity and seriousness of the matter and for the public information to accompany that so that Davy Stockbrokers could be held to account. That acts as a deterrent against the conduct in the firm. It sends a message to all other market participants that this kind of conduct will not be tolerated and that we seek to deter them from engaging in this type of conduct. The third reason is that it seeks to support public accountability in the oversight system through holding individuals to account.