Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Permanent TSB, a State-owned bank, threw the kitchen sink at this case. It teamed up with lawyers and fought this individual tooth and nail over five years. Then, when the individual wrote to the Central Bank, it handed back a letter saying it cannot comment on individual cases, even though it has a consumer protection role. This fella took on a State-owned bank, in respect of which the Central Bank was supposed to do a supervisory audit to make sure cohorts such as his were not screwed over to the tune of tens of thousands of euro. The Central Bank missed the case and left him on his own to fight it. If he had not done so, many others potentially in the same boat would not have benefited and the bank would have got away with it.

There are two aspects to this. First, there is a wider issue with the role of the Central Bank in being able to step in and take cases against the banks if need be. We have seen that with insurance companies as well. That mandate needs to change. Second, this type of standard letter stating the Central Bank cannot comment on individual cases is not appropriate. The letter should at least state the Central Bank will look at the person's case and make sure the bank, Permanent TSB in this case, has not done the same to hundreds if not thousands of other individuals. The Central Bank did not even give that assurance, and that is not fair. That supervision, that audit, was to identify the cohorts affected.

This issue has been raised with the committee by Padraic Kissane, witnesses themselves and members of the committee over and over again. It has been raised with the Central Bank that there was an issue with discounted tracker rates in that, when the discount was over, the tracker rate was not there and the customer had to go onto a variable rate. Despite the fact that banks got rid of tracker rates, they should have had that option to go back on the tracker. That is what the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman found. It is very annoying, and I get emotional about this, because I know the impact this has had on some of these individuals. There are 250 complaints. They may all be individuals. Some of them may involve bigger cohorts. Two hundred and fifty cases were made to the Financial Services and Pensions Ombudsman on the tracker scandal last year, 12 years after this first emerged. The Central Bank's role has to be different in this regard.

I will invite the witnesses to comment on that if they wish but I am conscious of the time so I will ask my final question. It is about the issue of KBC and Ulster Bank withdrawing from the market. As we know, Ulster Bank will write to its customers in the coming days. We are talking about 916,000 accounts and 700,000 customers. KBC will follow suit with 300,000 accounts. That is more than a million customers impacted and the biggest shift in accounts in banks in the history of the State. There is serious concern about that. I am concerned, but I also heard from Mr. Colm Kincaid, director of consumer protection at the Central Bank, that banks are not yet where they need to be in preparing for the closure and migration of these customers' accounts. I agree with that. Are the withdrawing banks, Ulster Bank and KBC, where they need to be at present to support their customers? If not, what will the Central Bank do about it? Are the receiving banks, the likes of Bank of Ireland, AIB and Permanent TSB, where they need to be to receive more than a million accounts over the coming months? If not, what will the Central Bank do about it? What is the Central Bank's assessment of the process at present? Is there a dedicated unit within the Central Bank to oversee this process? Has the Governor met with the CEOs of these banks to discuss this? This is massive. We could have major issues with mortgage payments being defaulted on, direct debits and so on.

Would the Central Bank consider establishing a special task force to manage this process in the coming months?