Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Until now.

Therefore, the game may change. There is the issue of an individual thinking that his or her institution is being held accountable but it is a different matter when it comes to him or her personally. While I am not completely opposed to this section, I am concerned about its application. I can imagine there will be situations, and we discussed this last week, whereby the Central Bank of Ireland will decide not to pursue an action because of resources. This is the kind of situation where there could be a long, drawn-out process. The Central Bank may go in and say, “Look. just stop it and we will not hold you to account, your name will not be published and you will not have any black mark against you”. This allows for that to happen. I imagine it could also allow for minor contraventions, which is why I have highlighted that it may be in the interest of the Central Bank to just stop the activity.

In terms of the culture within banks and prescribed contraventions, this section should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Yet, there is no limitation in the application of this section and that is a matter of concern. It is to be provided in law that an individual who could be involved in A, B, C or D could also be involved in practice that is a clearly prescribed contravention and that may impact on individual customers in a significant way. The Central Bank of Ireland could on reasonable grounds suspect that person and then could enter into an agreement whereby that person does not accept that he or she has carried out that act. However, there would be an agreement in writing between this individual and the Central Bank to cease the activity or to resolve the matter and therefore nothing more would happen about it. I am concerned about the flexibility of the individual accountability regime and how it would be applied.