Mr. Alan Jackman:

I have three case histories and would be very grateful if members read them in their own time. The reason I say this and would take direction they are hypothetical, but at the same time, they are pretty much 100%. One concerns a homeowner who, according to his partner, took his own life, but we do not know this. Nobody can make that decision in respect of the pressures he faced, but we do know that if he had made a complaint, he would have been told that he could not make one and that he would not find out what investigation had taken place. The second case history relates to share dealings in two financial institutions. Again, I had to take direction from the Chairman, but for one person there was the public administration of justice, while the other was subject to the strict professional secrecy provisions. The person in charge of the strict professional secrecy provisions was criticised by the judge in that case which was very high profile and one about which everybody was aware. Everybody is aware of the suicide issue because the case was well publicised. The third case history concerns a very famous whistleblower who appeared before Oireachtas committees. The most important thing I wish to say about this person is that he and the regulator cannot agree on the year. The issue is not the fact that the regulator asked the whistleblower to withdraw his allegations, the fact that the overcharging continued for two years or the fact that €30 million was given to charity. The real issue is that the regulator appeared before the Oireachtas committee and informed it that it had first became aware of the overcharging in 2004, while the whistleblower told the committee that he had informed the regulator two years earlier in 2002. It is extraordinary.