Ms Derville Rowland:

I thank the Senator.

I was not at the meeting, but it was led by the director of enforcement and the team there. The approach will be that the Central Bank of Ireland will have an evidence-based procedure, which is a very formal and structured procedure, with the firm where the evidence is laid out in front of it and the allegations of breach are put to it. The Central Bank of Ireland puts it up to the firm that it can accept a fine set at a level; in this case the fine that was imposed was in excess of €4 million. The proposals usually made to firms are that, for example, a reprimand, which is one of the penalties in the administrative sanctions procedure, together with a fine, are proposed to the firm. It is the firm's choice to accept or reject that.

The Central Bank of Ireland will not enter into a binding settlement agreement without a very detailed public statement. As a matter of approach, the public statement is often a very serious focus for the firm because it does not want the details of the action to be in the public domain or it does not want too much detail in the public domain. It is often a very significant part of the argument that happens there. The public statement that members have before them is the key piece of information containing the penalties. That is the thrust of that focus.

If the firm chooses not to accept that approach, that is its right but then the case would move on to the next phase, the inquiry phase, which, as I detailed to the Senator's colleagues earlier, could take a significant length of time and elongate the matter even more. The discount is applied because there is a significant value. It is very like the criminal system where discounts are applied for guilty pleas to avoid the necessity, expense, burden and time of a trial because it is a very significant public benefit to the Central Bank of Ireland that our staff can then apply their skills in the pursuit of other cases. Therefore, that is the approach we follow.