Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I have listened to what the Deputy has said. At the moment, as he knows, this provision is not in place at all. When I was explaining how this would work to him and to the committee, I was not clear enough because the six-year period refers to the period of time after which an individual has resigned from the particular controlled function role. In my earlier explanation to the Deputy, I incorrectly said it might refer to when the regulatory breech has occurred and I was wrong in saying that. To clarify for the committee, what it refers to is the period after which an individual has resigned from a role. I will consider the point made by the Deputy. We have used our judgment on this issue. We have looked at the Statute of Limitations elsewhere to help guide the six-year period and we are using judgment in coming up with a period of time which we hope will be sufficiently long in order for the bank to be able to perform an investigation into individuals who are no longer in the role they were in. I appreciate the point the Deputy made and why he made it. Again, I am not giving a commitment to change the six-year period in this legislation now but certainly it is something the Department and myself will monitor if there are any issues in relation to it. The intent here is to provide a sufficient period of time that if somebody has left the role in which they committed a regulatory breach, that they can still be held accountable for it. I felt a six-year period was sufficient but I appreciate the argument made by the Deputy, particularly the point he made a moment ago that it may take some time for the regulatory breach to be identified. That is a fair point. As I said, I am not giving a commitment that I am going to change the legislation, particularly with a view to the value of trying to get this legislation enacted, but it is an important point my Department should consider.