Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Does it need to be six years? Regarding the Statute of Limitations, we might say we are always kind of looking for something to guide us in relation to this. My concern is that if we take, for example, the tracker mortgage scandal that we just spoke about, not to open it up again, but it was not the Central Bank that identified this, rather it was ordinary individuals who identified it and took the case to the ombudsman, particularly in relation to Permanent TSB. The initial cohort was about 80 individuals. A test case flowed where the ombudsman upheld the decision, the High Court upheld the decision and Permanent TSB appealed that to the Supreme Court, until eventually the investigation or the examination was carried out. Some of those individuals were taken off those trackers more than six years before that. In addition, there are many other people. We should remember they said they had 300 or 400, and it went up 1,000, then 2,000 and 5,000 and then it was 10,000 and 12,000 cases in individual banks. It was years after that other cases were identified.

The issue here is that people would not be captured because they would be in a controlled function and they may have moved on from it. Therefore, because the investigation began after the six-year period, the powers of this legislation are mute, basically. They cannot be applied to the individual, despite the damage. I am using the tracker mortgage scandal as an example, but I agree with the point that it is very rare that these repeat themselves in exactly the same way. This is the problem with financial products. It is sometimes years after that one becomes aware of it and, therefore, a six-year lookback period would not be sufficient in this case.

I might be reading this section wrong. As I said, much of this is technical. However, my reading of this is that this section can apply to them if they performed a controlled function in relation to a regulated financial service provider or holding company within a period of six years immediately preceding the commencement of the investigation referred to subsection (1).

There are two things in relation to that. Somebody who has moved on or who is retired cannot be held accountable if the Central Bank did not notice this in time. That is a major issue. When a crime or something is committed, it is usually obvious but in the case of financial services and products and many of these scandals, it is not obvious. It is years later that it is found out that something happened. Many of these banks continue the harm right throughout as I have discussed but I have a serious issue with that time period. Even looking at the collapse of the banks, some of that was set in train a way back such as the risk appetite regarding Anglo and so on and so forth. I would be concerned a lot of people could fall through the cracks in six years.