Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I begin by saying I share the regret that others have expressed regarding the Central Bank's poor decision to remove its unit of consumer protection and regulation. I understand the functions. I do not need to have the elaboration again. The functions are taken up across different areas. However, very often in this committee, key issues of financial regulation that need to be highlighted, such as poor practices within the banking, insurance or other sectors, have come to our attention because of the engagement of individual consumers who have led the way. They have brought through and highlighted systemic problems and this has led to the examination of those issues. While it may be fine for Ms Rowland, knowing the thoroughness and professionalism with which she approaches her work, the general public do not know the individuals involved. It is not simply enough to say these people will still be employed. It is really important for a body like the Central Bank, with such public interest and public responsibility, that any member of the public who may never have looked at legislation and may not be looking at the organogram can ask who they contact. Something like a consumer protection unit is a clearly identifiable point at which they may begin their engagement on a matter that may then be referred to an office dealing with a specific area like insurance or banking, or indeed to the level of the deputy governor. It is worth deeply considering whether the removal of a visible and front-facing consumer protection unit makes engagement with the structures of the bank less accessible and less engaging for those individuals who have often driven the challenging of systemic problems.

Of course, it is not enough to refer simply to banking and insurance. There are other forms of consumers too, including those who, through the bank, are being offered the opportunity to buy bonds, including the Israeli bonds that are being discussed today. There are duties there as well. We need to dive a little deeper into EU Regulation 2017/1129. The bank was very clear and upfront on this regulation in relation to the recent issue of an arts exhibition that was cancelled at the Central Bank and the studies and articles highlighting the concern. The answer very much involved going back behind this regulation under which it has an obligation to sell unless the prospectus does not meet the "standards of completeness, comprehensibility and consistency". When you dive into the regulation, you see that quite a lot of powers and responsibilities sit on the Central Bank as a competent authority. There are very serious questions regarding these bonds around the question of the completeness of the information provided by the issuer and the comprehensibility of that information. For example, senior figures from the Central Bank have said they were not aware that they were being marketed as war bonds. That, in itself, raises the issue of the completeness of the information being provided in the prospectus and the comprehensibility of the information in question. If those who are responsible in the Central Bank as the competent authority are saying that the information may not have been in the prospectus, that becomes an issue of completeness and comprehensibility. There are also questions of consistency with other areas of EU law and, of course, the EU law which sits within the wider international law context. There are responsibilities that need to be re-examined. If there has been a failure to fully apply those responsibilities, that needs to be learned from. There are also possibilities and options that are available as of today to the bank which we need to examine.

Going back to that question of the prospectus, it is clear in paragraph 28 of the regulation that the prospectus should have the "key information that investors need in order to be able to decide which offers and admissions to trading of securities they want". It should have "the essential characteristics of, and risks associated with, the issuer, any guarantor, and the securities offered". That is part of what is expected in the prospectus. Further on, paragraph 40 refers to the quality of the prospectus and the quality of the engagement. It states that the "competent authority" - the Central Bank in this instance - can decide the frequency of reviews, that is, how often there will be a review in relation to these issues, in terms of "its assessment of the risks of the issuer, the quality of its past disclosures".

These are factors the Central Bank is able to take into account when determining whether there should be a review on the decision to accept this prospectus and offer these bonds.

There are two questions. There is the question of right now and we have talked about the absolute horror, illegality and disregard for law, including international law, which binds the European Union. Let us go back to 2021, which is when the last issuing took place.