Mr. Maurice Crowley:

The Deputy referred to the banking culture board. Even from where we are coming we recognise that it is inevitable there will be initial scepticism. As far as the industry is concerned, it is very much a reaction to what happened in the case of tracker mortgages and the scandal that ensued. Notwithstanding the fact that it is funded by the industry, it is intended to be completely independent of it, which is very important.

The Deputy raised a challenging question. On one level he is not wrong - a bank is answerable to a set of shareholders and subject to all of the commercial imperatives this imposes on any organisation, not just a bank. However, the world has moved on, for banks and others. There is recognition of a much broader set of stakeholders. Having said that, there is a need for more proof of the pudding that it is moving on in our own sector and I believe a banking culture board would be a single manifestation of it. Work is being done by individual banks to demonstrate how they are changing their stripes in the context of having a consumer focused culture. They each have different programmes in their own right.

The Deputy asked who advocated for the consumer and referred to boards, senior executives, strategies and plans. Fundamentally, advocacy on behalf of the consumer has to start with the senior leadership in a bank. If it is not shown by it, the best efforts of people throughout the business will be diminished, but it does not mean that there are no people throughout the business advocating for the consumer. In our view, if one talks to any of the banks, it has to come from the top down. There has to be clear leadership, not just statements. There must be actions, rather than words. There has to be a consumer-centric culture, but it is not easy. The Senator referred to the length of time it took to change and embed a new culture. Unfortunately, as a sector, we are not unique in trying to change and improve the culture.