Mr. John O'Connell:

We all accept that banking is moving at a rapid pace. The current consumer protection code has been in place since 2012. It is still in draft form on the Central Bank's website. It has not kept pace with modern banking, including the development of digitisation, apps and so on. Any consumer protection code needs to be adapted to these areas.

I also refer to the importance of protecting what we have. We have a branch network that has served communities in this country well. Members will hear a lot of talk about reduced footfall. We are in a pandemic. We have advised people not to make unnecessary journeys. A dip in footfall is not surprising. However, a recent survey carried out by the banks themselves showed that the vast majority of people will return to branch banking after the pandemic, including greater numbers of young people. There is a bright future for banking if people invest in it.

We argue that a consumer protection code should be driven by what consumers and customers want and what small businesses need, not what banks feel is to their advantage. Customer service is being chipped away, whether the reduction takes the form of an ATM being removed or a reduction in the level at which a bank draft can be drawn. Those things should be defended by the Central Bank to protect the core functions of branch banking. This can be blended with a digital model that serves everybody. People need and want branch banking. If there was a cyber attack in the morning, people would be very glad to be able to access their funds through branch banking. We should act before it is taken away, because it will never be replaced. We need to have a proper debate about the level of banking we need and want in this country. It cannot be simply left to the banks.