Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, and Taoiseach debate -
Tuesday, 27 Feb 2024

General Scheme of the Access to Cash Bill 2024: Discussion

The minutes of the joint committee's meeting on Wednesday, 21 February 2024 were discussed at our private meeting earlier. Are they agreed? Agreed.

In today's first session, the committee will engage with the Department of Finance to begin pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme of the access to cash Bill 2024. On behalf of the committee, I welcome: Mr. Oliver Gilvarry, assistant secretary with the banking and financial stability division; Mr. John Palmer, principal officer with the banking and financial stability division; and Ms Susan O'Reilly, principal officer with the international finance division.

The usual important note is that the evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or to otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that members should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable. Members attending remotely are reminded of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place Parliament has chosen to sit, namely Leinster House, in order to participate in proceedings.

I now call on Mr. Gilvarry to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I thank the Leas-Cathaoirleach and the committee for having us here today. I am heading of banking and financial stability in the Department of Finance. I am joined by Mr. Palmer, who works with me in the division, and Ms Susan O'Reilly, who is leading the team developing the new national payments strategy that will be the successor to the 2013 national payments plan. The latter forecast that Ireland would not become a cashless society but that it would become a "less-cash" society. Domestically and internationally, the trend towards electronic payment options is clear and strong. Prior to the Covid-19 pandemic, just under €20 billion was withdrawn from ATMs in the State annually. That figure was approximately €13.5 billion in 2022, a decline of just under one third. However, the retail banking review in November 2022 highlighted that cash still has an important place in the economy and is important to consumers in all walks of life. Cash is a crucial budgeting tool for many of those on fixed and lower incomes. It also allows individuals, including those who are older, to control their finances and maintain their financial independence. It is also important to small and medium enterprises.

In light of the need to ensure that cash remains widely available and accessible, the banking review recommended the preparation of access to cash legislation to ensure the continued reasonable access to cash in the State. The main objective behind the proposed legislation is to establish a framework to provide that any future evolution of the cash infrastructure is managed in a fair, orderly, transparent, and equitable manner. The proposed legislation will initially provide that this infrastructure is preserved at approximately December 2022 levels, accounting for the exits of KBC and Ulster Bank. It will allow for the setting of minimum numbers of ATMs per 100,000 people, and minimum distance criteria for access to an ATM or cash service points, such as bank branches and An Post offices, on a regional basis.

The regions for this proposed legislation will be the nomenclature of territorial units for statistics, NUTS, 3 regions established under the Eurostat criteria classification. There are eight such regions in Ireland. The general scheme requires designated entities, which will initially be the three main retail banks, to be responsible for maintaining access to cash levels. The general scheme also provides for the registration and supervision of ATM operators and cash-in-transit firms by the Central Bank. The bank will have the necessary powers to ensure compliance with the access to cash criteria.

It is important that consumers across the country can access their cash, even where the criteria are technically being met. To ensure there are no gaps in coverage, the Bill provides for the potential remedying of local deficiencies. These are locations within a NUTS 3 region where particular difficulties in accessing cash arise. The public will be able to inform the Central Bank where their access to cash is inadequate, and the bank will have a framework for responding to and remedying these deficiencies where appropriate. The Central Bank will prepare and publish guidance on local deficiencies before the framework is implemented.

While the general scheme introduces new obligations, the legislation has been drafted to avoid imposing an excessive burden on the designated entities. Accordingly, it contains provisions for the criteria to be reviewed following updated census figures, or if cash demand drops significantly in a calendar year compared with the previous year. The Minister for Finance can also request a review to be done and the Central Bank may also conduct a review on its own initiative at any time. These provisions ensure that the criteria can be adjusted in response to the demand for cash in the State, should it continue to decrease, or begin to increase.

Separate to the matter of access to cash, the national payments strategy being led by Ms O’Reilly is considering the issue of the acceptance of cash in line with its terms of reference. A public consultation closed in mid-February and the strategy will be completed later this year. This work dovetails with an EU proposal on legal tender, which is currently under consideration in the relevant council working group. The legal tender proposal will look at access to and acceptance of cash across member states. It proposes to place an obligation on member states to monitor access to cash, with a need to assess the level of cash access annually and report their assessment to the Commission and the ECB. If a member state’s assessment is that there is not sufficient and effective access to cash, it will be required to take remedial measures. We are available for any questions that the committee may have.

I thank Mr. Gilvarry. Does anybody else wish to contribute at this stage? No. I call Deputy Doherty.

I knew the Leas-Chathaoirleach would be here because he has been giving out so much over the past couple of years about the Oireachtas ATM being removed. That and the lotto have been his campaigns.

I welcome the officials for its pre-legislative scrutiny of the general scheme, which came about as a result of the banking review. I have a couple of questions on the general scheme. I am glad that we are dealing with it, particularly as a number of other jurisdictions have already legislated in respect of access to cash.

The details of what communities, individuals and businesses will be able to depend on in the future is missing from the legislation. That will be determined by regulation at a later stage. In the main, this is about enabling legislation, but perhaps we will delve into that to get an understanding of where the Department's thinking is and what the regulations would look like. As for the key criteria of a prescribed percentage of the population being within 10 km of an ATM where cash can be withdrawn and the number of ATMs per 100,000 people, Ireland already has a penetration of 99% of the population within 10 km of an ATM. Ireland also has 81 ATMs per 100,000 people. We are behind the curve on some of this; in the North for example, provisions are already being introduced and I am sure members and witnesses are aware of what the FCA is doing in this regard. In the North, and in Britain, 95% of the population has free access to cash deposits and withdrawal facilities within one mile of where they live in urban areas and within three miles of where they live in rural areas. Is there similar data for this State? That is my first question.

Mr. John Palmer

As for withdrawal of cash from ATMs, under the existing Visa and MasterCard rules, domestic access charges cannot be charged. This is a fee a person may see when he or she is abroad. It is normally a flat-rate fee and it is a fee to actually just use the machine. There are then normal bank charges and fees. They are a separate matter and it is the same in the UK. In this case, we worried about a fee or charge to use the ATMs. This refers to free-to-use ATMs in the UK or in the North as well. That is actually one of the provisions of the Bill; should Visa and MasterCard rules change and ATM operators decide to introduce fees, it gives the Minister the power to prohibit or cap them in the future. The status quo, however, is that ATMs are free to use for domestic cards.

I appreciate that. I will come to that provision of the Bill at a later stage around the fees of ATMs.

The point I wish to make is that in the North and Britain, 95% of the population live within one mile of an ATM in an urban area and within three miles in a rural area. Do we have any similar data here? There is a big difference between 10 km and one mile, as the witnesses will appreciate. I am trying to get an understanding on the actual levels. The criterion being used in this legislation is 10 km. Take Dundalk and Newry, for example. In Newry, a person is one mile from an ATM machine. If a person is in rural Armagh, he or she is within three miles of an ATM as 95% of the population are within three miles of an ATM. Will it be that just down the road in Louth a person can be 10 km from a rural machine? Do we have similar data on an all-island basis?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We do not have our data based on the one-mile or three-mile criteria that is being used in the UK, but we can look at this. A couple of different options were looked at, but we felt the criteria of 10 km and a local area deficiency clause were the appropriate way to go on this when we looked at the level of coverage currently and what would bring those percentage levels up. Therefore, there is a difference. Another aspect Ireland faces, compared to the UK, is that the level of the concentration of the population is different. This is again why we fell to the coverage level of 10 km for ATMs and 100,000 people of the population, in conjunction with the local area deficiency. There are powers that would be given to the Central Bank for areas with gaps. A person may meet the criteria but for whatever reason there is a gap, be that for geographical reasons or other. This allows for a 10 km criterion by giving cover, which was a more appropriate way when we looked at this in the legislation.

Okay. Do the witnesses believe that 10 km is a reasonable amount? Obviously, a percentage of the population will fall outside of the 10 km. If a person is on the margins of the 10 km criterion, it is a 20 km round trip to get access to cash. That is quite a significant journey and not good for the environment. There is a cost burden as well. It would be helpful to me - I cannot speak for the rest of the committee - if the witnesses were able to provide data around the current penetration, or the penetration as of 2022 which is the reference point in the Bill, in geographical distances such as 5 km, 3 km and so forth. If 99% of the population are within 10 km of an ATM machine at the moment, what percentage are within 5 km or 3 km? This is to figure out if the parameters are being set too far out. While I understand that a point must be picked, it would be good to have other reference points.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We worked out the 5 km and we can send that through-----

What is the penetration at 5 km? If Mr. Gilvarry has that data, can he provide it out of interest? He can provide the details later.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

At a State level, the coverage is approximately 87.4% in a 5 km criterion, which compares to 99% coverage in a 10 km criterion.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

To refer back to the point the Deputy made around a person being at 9 km or 11 km distance from an ATM, that is where we looked at the local area deficiency, which is quite important. If a person is at the cusp, it gives that scope and ability for the local area deficiency to be utilised. It could relate to transport links or the demographics of an area. For example, in the west of Ireland there is a much older demographic than there is in other parts of the country and this relates to their ability to access cash and such. These are all criteria that will be taken into account with the local area deficiency.

Let us talk about local area deficiency. How will that be determined? How will that be actioned? What sections of the heads deal with that again?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is section 7. On the local area deficiency, even if the criteria is met, there might still be localised difficulties with accessing cash infrastructure. There could be situations, like the one the Deputy made about a person being on the cusp of a 10 km radius or where a person is within a short distance of an ATM but there could be geographical issues or other issues for that person to access that ATM or cash service point. What is proposed in head 7 is giving the Central Bank the powers to address this by issuing a direction to the designated entities. These are the entities that will be responsible for ensuring access to cash for citizens. If the Central Bank determines that a local deficiency exists and it warrants a remedy, it can be make the direction to the designated entities. When this legislation comes in place, guidance will be issued by the Central Bank and it will take into the account the following factors; namely the size of the population to be impacted by the deficiency; the alternative cash infrastructures that would be available; the hours of availability as there is no sense in an ATM only open for two or three hours; the travel and geographical factors; demographics; the impact of financial inclusion; and any other matters that the bank deems relevant. The last factor is as a catch-all factor. This is the intention with that head. The public makes a point that there is no access, the Central Bank examines, considers that there is a deficiency and then issues a direction. Those are the criteria that will be considered.

This allows for the Central Bank to determine if there is a local area deficiency and some people would make the point that if there is a criteria of 10 km in the legislation and if the bank is of the view that a person is within that 10 km, then it would be hard to argue that there is a local area deficiency. This may fall in on Tory Island if they decide to take away the ATM machine. It could be argued that there is a local area deficiency even though Machaire Rabhartaigh is 10 km away.

If the bank is closing down the ATM machine or if one of the banks closes a retail branch and an ATM machine goes with it but if you still can access an ATM within 10 km, I would imagine it would be very difficult to argue a local area deficiency using these criteria that are before us. It is an exceptional measure is it not?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

If I could take the Deputy back a bit, what the banking review basically said was that as of the end of December, taking account of the planned exits, access to cash was reasonable. That was backed up by ECB surveys and stuff as well that showed approximately 90% of the population found it very or fairly easy to access cash. The purpose of the criterion of the 10 km is not to say that an individual has to be within 10 km; it is saying that for a region, on average, 99% of the population have to be within 10 km. When creating this legislation, the first step was to preserve and hold what we have as of December 2022. The Department of Finance has to come up with objective criteria that will drive that and we are confident that will do that. It is entirely reasonable to suspect that there are some existing local deficiencies and provision has been made for them to be addressed but we are also thinking for the future. The Deputy gave the example there and it is highly likely that further ATMs will be withdrawn, that bank branches potentially will close and that is when we will start to see local deficiencies come to the fore. It will be where certain levels of the population that used to be within ten or 20 minutes of an ATM suddenly find themselves facing a round trip of 30, 40 or 50 minutes. We see this as being independent of the 10 km criterion because it is clearly stating that within a region, if there are particular difficulties in accessing an ATM or indeed in the ability to lodge, you then will be able to make a complaint to the bank or a submission to the bank and the bank can then assess whether there is a potential local deficiency and then go on to the next level, which is where an investigator examines the situation and then it can determine whether to order a remedy. We do not see this as an exceptional measure. It would be an important part of the framework, as Mr. Palmer outlined.

The aim of this legislation is to manage the change in cash. We saw a massive drop during Covid followed by a slower drop and then a stabilisation. This is an important pillar of that framework that we have that macro framework. To be honest we have to have those criteria of 10 km and 100,000 people for the designated entities to know what the rules of the game are but also to have that further protection that ensures people have the ability to access cash for all of the reasons we outlined in the opening statement such as for financial inclusion, the importance that that has for people budgeting and others that they can actually get there. It is not that it would be exceptional. The case is there and as Mr. Palmer said, as things change we need to have that framework there. It is equally as important as the more macro part.

I appreciate that and obviously you could have a situation where ATM machines were taken away or closed down in certain areas but within the overall region, the organisation is able to meet those criteria, so this could be invoked. The heads provide for it being prior to the deficiency taking place. That would be in a scenario where somebody closes an ATM, the bank moves out and there is a deficiency that has been created in the area. Mr. Palmer mentioned that it is likely that there are already existing deficiencies. Therefore does the wording of this head deal with this as it says "the prevailing level of cash ... prior to the deficiency"? Does it allow us to state that there is an existing deficiency? It is scripted in the way that it is-----

Mr. John Palmer

It was written in the context that we do not think-----

Of course, the most common scenario-----

Mr. John Palmer

-----that there are many existing local deficiencies but as we cannot rule them out, that is something we definitely can look at.

We will stick with head 7 at the minute. Again, when we are dealing with legislation of this nature, which is enabling legislation, we have to place a lot of faith in the Central Bank. I do not know how this would be reported. Will it be a consumer watchdog that will perceive that there is a local deficiency or will it be a member of the public or a local community group? Could Deputy Durkan say there is a local deficiency? The bank is going to assess each potential local deficiency notified to it but I do not know who is going to be notifying it. We are going to have to have guidelines in relation to the assessment and classification of local deficiencies in the first place. Has the Department had conversations with the bank as to what this will look like and how it will operate?

Mr. John Palmer

The Deputy makes a good point. While head 7 refers to notifying the bank, the definition of local deficiency in head 3 states it is "a situation where a potentially significant gap or deficiency in access to cash is identified in a ... region by the Bank, or notified to the Bank". The aim is that anyone can do it, including any member of the public or civic bodies or community groups, etc. We are addressing that and making sure that this will be the case. We came to the conclusion that this must be something where guidelines and information are given. If the Deputy has been looking at the UK Treasury's cash access policy statement, it is taking a very similar approach. It is because there are so many different scenarios that this is not a case where you can write down specific circumstances in which this qualifies and that does not qualify because you probably will end up disadvantaging a lot of people in the end. I always give the example of how it would be a reasonable scenario to imagine a population of 1,000 has to be affected by the closure of an ATM. The impact is that they will now have a 45-minute round trip. I can guarantee that one of the first cases would be that 995 people now have a 42-minute round trip. That is clearly not correct and as Mr. Gilvarry pointed out, there is a whole heap of other factors to take into account. For example, what if the percentage of those 995 people who are over 70 is higher than the national average? You have to take demographics into account, as well as travel time, geographic matters. The classic example of a local deficiency would be that an ATM closes. What if there is one within 5 km but it is on the other side of a bay and a round trip is a long way or it is on the other side of a river and there is no bridge? A huge number of scenarios can come out of this and we are asking the bank to produce guidance, to explain to people how they will assess what constitute local deficiencies and when it might determine that it warrants a remedy. It is very hard, however, to come up with hard and fast clear criteria to be applied.

We will revisit that section again. Going back to the criteria that were used, we have seen a limited number of ATM machines. The main street banks have closed a lot of them. We also have seen a lot of independent operators take some over and open new ATMs as well. Why would the Department not use that figure of 87% within 5 km? Why not use both figures? I live in a rural community and I am conscious of 10 km being quite a bit. I know it is just a guideline but obviously, the more guidelines you have the better. Why did the Department not consider having criteria such as 87% of the population being within 5 km of an ATM machine and 99% being within 10 km?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We looked at several different scenarios and the level of coverage. We were trying to balance off, however. Ultimately, a cost is being imposed on industry. In the case of the designated entities, which are the three banks, it is important to have that balance. We are trying to find a balance between the current level of commercially viable coverage that is being provided and then managing that going forward. We looked at the different scenarios and balancing off that there is a greater number, which may mean more ATMs, but there is a greater cost to that which ultimately is passed back to the consumer.

To take the criteria as they exist, however, with 87% of the population within 5 km, 99% of the population within 10 km and 83 ATMs per 100,000 population, that is more guaranteeing that access to cash remains at its current level. If it is decided not to include the 5 km criterion but the criterion in terms of the penetration per population, of 83 ATMs per 100,00 people, has to be met, it would be more lucrative to take an ATM out of rural Connemara and put it into a Spar shop in Dublin Central. The community in Connemara would have access to an ATM within 10 km, rather than 5 km as was previously the case, but the overall higher level of coverage would still be met.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

As regards the 10 km scenario compared with the 5 km scenario, we do not expect to see any change from the current coverage levels or number of ATMs. It is kind of about managing the decline in the usage of ATMs and how that goes. We do not want too much of a burden to be put onto industry at a lower level. It is about looking to the future. That is what we are trying to do with this legislation. We have the branches and ATMs now, but it is about achieving a balance and not overburdening industry with a cost which, ultimately, is passed back to the consumer. In the context of a more aggressive decline in ATMs going forward, the Deputy referred to an ATM service being moved from the west of Ireland to Dublin. As regards the decline going forward, this legislation does not envisage any change of where we are at the end of 2022 levels but it is really looking five or ten years from that. There is a need to balance the cost to industry and the level of coverage. It is about ensuring there is access to cash, but also that we are making it commercially feasible to provide access to cash.

Mr. Gilvarry can correct me if I am wrong, but he is basically saying the Department expects a reduction in access to cash services because demand may go in that direction in future. If a 5 km rule was to be inserted, that would better guarantee that access to cash will remain at the current level and there should, therefore, be no additional burden on a financial institution, unless something has closed or an independent operator has pulled out, in which case there would be a burden on the financial institution to step in.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Part of the issue relates to the fact that there are now many IADs, independent ATM deployers. These systems or ATMs have been sold on and what we are doing here is designating the entities, that is, the three commercial banks. Looking five or ten years down the road and as we see declines, we do not want to see more IADs pulling out as a result of the decline in the use of cash. If a greater burden is placed on industry, that will ultimately be passed back onto the consumer. It is about achieving that balancing act. The issue we are addressing is not what we are facing today but, rather, the situation we envisage five or ten years from now. The usage of cash is declining. We can see that trend. In ten or 15 years, will we use as much cash as we do today? Going by the past trends, it is more than likely that we will not.

It has jumped since Covid. People still like to use cash. That does not really make sense because the heads of Bill, as far as I can see from my examination of them, allow the Minister for Finance to set the percentage. If a 5 km rate were set at the current level of 87.4% and the reduced demand scenario to which Mr. Gilvarry referred occurred, the Minister of the day could reduce that level to 80%. I do not wish to belabour the point.

Mr. John Palmer

The Deputy made a point about putting machines in Dublin, where it is lucrative, and taking them out of Galway. We carried out analysis in this regard. There are big regional differences, particularly considering the number of ATMs per 100,000 people. That is why we went for the regional solution. For instance, the region with the most ATMs per 100,000 population is the Border, at approximately 95, while the region with the fewest is the mid east, with approximately 73 per 100,000 population. Coverage in the Border area within 10 km is just under 99%, however, while in the mid east it is 100%. The Deputy is interested in a 5 km criterion. In the Border region, just under 80% are within 5 km of an ATM, while the figure for the mid east is 91%. These figures illustrate the very different settlement patterns and the distribution of population throughout the country. We have gone for the regional solution in order to avoid all the machines ending up in cities and none in rural towns.

I could take the example of the west, however. An ATM could be taken out of Connemara and moved into Galway city. The ATM would still be in the west and the same region, albeit an urban part of the region. The people in Connemara who used to have access to an ATM within 5 km, however, will now have to travel 25 km to Galway city to access it. There will probably be another ATM between those areas. I used Dublin as an example, but I hear Mr. Palmer's point regarding the regional solution. That is welcome and I see what the Department is trying to do. I understand that it is trying to set criteria, but it is our job to tease this out in pre-legislative scrutiny.

I ask the witnesses to provide the definition of limited ATMs.

Mr. John Palmer

We are excluding limited ATMs from the calculation of the criteria. According to the Central Bank, limited ATMs are ATMs in locations that are not open to general access. The examples it provides are ATMs located in stadiums or concert venue. Ironically, the ATM here in the Oireachtas, which is an issue for the Leas-Chathaoirleach, was a limited ATM because not everyone could walk in the door and use it. That is why we removed them from the calculation.

That is grand. I wanted to clarify that. As many ATMs are located in shops, there is access to cash only until 6 p.m. People need cash when they are going out later in the evening, however, and all that kind of stuff. ATMs are part of the fabric of our society. There are no criteria relating to where a person can get access to cash. People need access to cash after 6 p.m. We cannot always foresee when we will need to access the ATM in a shop and all the rest. There is no distinction in the heads of Bill with regard to whether an ATM is available 24-7, as many of them are, or from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Again, it comes back into the point of local area deficiency. One of the criteria will be hours of operation. If there are two ATMs in shops within a 40 km radius and the shops only operate from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., 6 p.m. or 8 p.m., that is where the local area deficiency becomes important. The criteria have been met but it is not possible to access cash after 6 p.m. in a 40 km radius. A person may have to make a 40 km round trip to get access to cash that is available 24-7. That is important. It is not a case of everything being fine if people have access to cash from an ATM in a shop that opens from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. As the Deputy stated, people need access to cash at other times, such as on a Sunday, outside a shop's shorter opening hours or whatever else. That is where that is covered.

This goes back to my earlier point that this relies on trust in terms of having to go through this other step. If we want to preserve access to cash, why not figure out where there is access to cash 24-7? Do the Department know that? Do it know the figures for the penetration within 10 km 24-7?

Mr. John Palmer

We do. In overall terms, the number of unrestricted ATMs is just under 940.

That is split approximately 50:50 between the banks and the independent ATM deployers.

How much would that be overall? Would it be a third or a fourth?

Mr. John Palmer

It would be a quarter.

Mr. John Palmer

It is approximately 4,200-----

Does the Department have the data for how many people live 10 km from an unrestricted ATM?

Mr. John Palmer

Do we? Yes, we do actually. In overall terms for the State, it is just under 96%

Mr. John Palmer

I apologise, that was for 15 km. It is 91%

That is a very high penetration if we take 10 km to be a reasonable distance. Some people will argue it is not. The deficiency in this Bill is that we are not guaranteeing that level of access into the future. There is a difference between access to cash between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. and access to cash in the evening. We have been there and done that. People are out and about in towns. It is important for the local economy and it should be considered as one of the criteria used. That is just one of the points I wanted to make about the shops and where they are.

I am sure the Central Bank will do its best, but many Oireachtas Members will be familiar with what happens when An Post announces it will close a local rural post office. It announces the criteria and tells everyone the decision can be appealed. It is about access. There are great criteria. The community will meet and so forth, but very few win, so it all depends on how a community having a fine service will be interpreted. It should be about preserving what we have. That is the stated intention of this legislation, with the ability of the Minister to amend the percentage in the future. There is a massive difference for a community between the ATM in the wall and the one in a shop. It is night and day. The one in a shop cannot be accessed all the time. The shop might not open until 1 p.m. on a Sunday, never mind closing at 6 p.m. It might not be open on bank holidays and so forth. There is a clear distinction and it should be captured in the legislation. I have said enough about that.

Will the Department comment on the process of consultation in which the Central Bank will inform the ministerial regulations and trigger the updating of those regulations?

Mr. John Palmer

The Deputy is referring to head 6.

Mr. John Palmer

We set out the criteria. The Minister will have regard to the position at the end of December 2022 in setting the initial ones. Mr. Gilvarry outlined the various review provisions in his opening statement. When the review is being done, a range of factors have to be taken into account. The first is cash demand, which basically recognises that it is highly likely that the use of cash will continue to decline. We do not know the rate or what will drive it, but the pre- and post-Covid-19 pandemic figures are clear; €20 billion was taken out per year in the years before Covid-19 and that is down to approximately €13 billion now. That is the first figure to look at. This is one of the matters those preparing the national payments strategy are being asked to look at and see whether they can shed any light on it. What would be the impact if cash demand dropped by 50% from today's levels so that only €6 billion or €7 billion was being taken out each year? How would that translate? Would the same number of ATMs be needed? Could we do with half the number? Would it be a straight line or would we end up with a situation where we need to keep three quarters of the ATMs to ensure people have what the Minister considers to be reasonable access to cash?

Population change is another criterion. We see more and more huge developments where the population in relatively small areas is increasingly dramatically, when several thousand apartments are built. That is probably something that would be taken account of, in the first instance, in a local deficiency protection, but when we look at the overall criteria, the way the population is being settled and developments are happening, it is highly likely that the overall criteria will need to change, certainly as regards the number of machines per 100,000 people in different areas.

Financial inclusion is the third criterion. At the very least, we would say that future changes should not worsen financial inclusion. Ideally we would like to increase it.

In reality, how could they not? The trajectory of this is to allow the Minister to vary the numbers so that the number of ATMs would be limited because the overall population is using or withdrawing less cash. People are still using cash in big numbers and it is likely that the people who do so are those who are financially excluded, who do not have a bank account and need to make sure they have the envelopes to pay their bills and so on. If the ATM is taken away, it cannot be otherwise. If the number of ATMs in our society is reduced, financial inclusion cannot be improved. It has to go in the other direction.

Mr. John Palmer

There is one scenario where that could be done. If cash demand drops by 50%, we might reach the conclusion that we need to keep the number of locations where an ATM is available. However, where there are multiple ATMs, which tends to be in bank branches with every bank having two, three, four or five machines, in the future they may well be able to get away with half the number because quite simply they are not being used. However, there would still be an ATM there. I do not think population criteria in terms of distance from an ATM will change very much, but I see the number of ATMs coming down. However, if the result of the number coming down was that more rural areas of the country were losing their ATMs, local deficiencies would immediately be triggered.

Mr. Palmer's point is valid. It is a good example of what could happen in the future, but the legislation we are dealing with allows the Minister to vary the percentage, which, let us be realistic, will not be increased, of ATMs within 10 km. That will have a financial inclusion impact. Otherwise, we should just say the Minister does not have that right and the penetration as regards distance would be the same. That would mean that, for example on Dame Street where there are three or four branches, two of them could be taken away and the 10 km rule will still be met.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We also have to factor in that if we are looking further out on this with the decline in the use of cash, there is a commercial aspect. There are commercial aspects to ATMs being used and as we see a decline coming through, which is likely. It is not certain, but it is likely. In ten or 15 years, we have to have the ability to change to reflect the situation with the appropriate protections in place. Even if in 20 or 30 years cash use has dropped by 60% from our current levels, we will always need a certain level of infrastructure to allow people to have access. I do not see that we will get rid of cash in full. The Swedes went down that route to a certain degree and then had to pull back. We will always have a certain level of cash and that feeds into the national payments strategy, as Mr. Palmer said. Where is this going? We need to consider what is the appropriate level of infrastructure we need to have in place. We must have the flexibility in the legislation and we also have to keep an eye on it. Again, I come back to managing the cost side of it. If there is a decline in cash, we should have a managed decline in cash usage so that people are not forced not to use cash, that they have the ability to get cash. That is the intention of the legislation.

Yes, I hear what Mr. Gilvarry said, but I do not agree with him. I agree that there should be flexibility in the legislation, but all that is being done by allowing the Minister to drop the percentage of people who have access to cash within 10 km, is taking services away from rural areas.

That is the reality of it. There will be people who are relying on that, which is making it a bit more difficult. There is a cost in relation to this, but we also need to ask what banking is about and what the services are about. It may not always be the case, but some of these financial institutions are very profitable. Access to cash must be a part of their core business, in my view, and we should not attempt to get rid of cash. I know the Department is not arguing for this.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I have mentioned a few times that if we see a change coming through, if there is an impact and if it does come back, there will be a point where we see this. As we have seen, an uptick has arisen in the use of cash in the 2022 figures from 2021. We can argue that some of this is because, as we have seen in other jurisdictions, there are higher interest rates, there is the slowdown of the economy and people are able to budget better by having a certain amount in their wallet at the start of the week, because they will know how much they will have to spend and they will not be relying on their card. All that comes through and it comes back to people’s financial literacy. Certain lower socio-economic groups use more cash. All of that, then, is a matter of defending against the local area deficiency. Those factors have to be taken into account with those declines.

Let us circle back to the issue of the local deficiency, where a local deficiency has been identified, and the Central Bank of Ireland agrees that the deficiency has existed, how is it determined to resolve that? There will only be three institutions that will be party to resolve that. Is that correct?

Mr. John Palmer

Yes, that is correct.

They are AIB, Bank of Ireland and Permanent TSB.

Mr. John Palmer

Yes. They are being set out on objective grounds.

What are they defined as?

Mr. John Palmer

They are designated entities. A designated entity will have more than the prescribed percentage of current accounts and the prescribed percentage of household deposits.

Where does Revolut fall into that?

Mr. John Palmer

No matter what level of criteria we set for the number of current accounts, Revolut does meet the criteria for the number of current accounts.

It does or does not?

Mr. John Palmer

It does for the number or percentage of current accounts but, as the Deputy is aware, the vast majority of people who use Revolut use it as a secondary account. Therefore, the actual level of deposits is extremely low. Part of the raison d'etre of this Bill is to ensure that people can access their own cash, savings, money and bank accounts, if they so choose. When we look at the figure for household deposits, the banks account for some 88% of that, according to the Central Bank of Ireland. The credit unions account for just under 12% of that. Of the 88%, I understand that the three banks account for the vast majority.

What percentage of household deposits are to Revolut at the minute?

Mr. John Palmer

The Central Bank will not tell us. The number is tiny.

Household deposits are really to the three banks, where the figure is €150 billion. In the credit unions, the figure is €17 million. We therefore suspect that what Revolut has is tiny because, as Mr. Palmer said, they are secondary accounts and people use them for paying for things, for children's accounts, etc.

Mr. John Palmer

Let us say that in the future, other neo-banks become bigger. If they go above the prescribed percentage, they will then become designated entities at that point.

That is okay. Let us go back to the core issue. Let us just continue this conversation. Revolut is now offering loans, it is doing vaults, etc. If Revolut has approximately €10 billion in deposits, it will become designated and will have to provide ATM machines. They will have to be part of the solution. Is that the case?

Mr. John Palmer

They will have to be part of the solution.

That is okay. Let us go back to the question of the three that will be designated. Consider a hypothetical situation in Inis Meáin where an independent operator will close the ATM machine. A complaint will be made from the local comharchumann to the Central Bank of Ireland, which recognises that there is a local deficiency. How will that be resolved? There are three operations and none of them will have a bank in Inis Meáin. How will that be resolved? Who pays for this?

Mr. John Palmer

The message we have been giving to the Banking and Payments Federation of Ireland, BPFI, and indeed to the banks relates to how this was handled and other jurisdictions. The UK is a good example, but Sweden and the Netherlands have a similar thing. The banks there work together. In the UK they are all part of a payment system, which is called LINK. LINK is the entity that will handle all of these issues for them. Unfortunately, there is no similar arrangement here at present, but we want to create the space for that to be a possibility. When the bank makes the determination that there is a breach of the criteria or indeed that there is a local deficiency, it will make a notification to all three banks. It will give them details of the breach or the local deficiency. Then, under the heads, they will have a month to come back and make proposals. They will also have the ability to consult with the Central Bank in that period. If none of the banks come back and make a proposal about how to fix it, or if the Central Bank decides that the proposals that have been made will not fix the problem, it will have to move on to the next stage, which is to issue a draft direction.

Draft directions have to be made specifically to individual designated entities. That would be a difficult job for the Central Bank to do in the example that the Deputy gave. We are setting out things that the Central Bank will have to have regard to when it is doing that, the first of which is the cause of the breach. If that can be attributed, it would obviously be a relevant factor. One example of the cause of the breach may be that a bank may close its bank branches in a region.

It is an independent operator.

Mr. John Palmer

Exactly, it is an independent operator. We will go with three other things: each designated entity’s market share of household deposits and current accounts; the objective to ensure fairness between the designated entities overall; and such other factors the Central Bank considers relevant. The Central Bank will have to make a call. In a case where you are talking about one ATM, the Central Bank may have to take any factors they can take into account, including those, and decide which of the three designated entities has to do something about it. In other cases where a whole region has been breached, the Central Bank may end up doing differential directions so that one bank operates two machines, another bank operates another two and a third will operate one.

As I have said, we want to create a space where the banks can-----

Mr. John Palmer

-----do some kind of joint venture so they can work together and share the costs equally and fairly between them. That would be far more efficient.

Yes. I have two final points here. The banks will take issue with the fact that the independent operators - which have a huge number of ATMs in the State - are not being asked to share any of this burden. They will also raise issues, such as with the credit unions and An Post, which now has accounts but also operates as points for AIB and Bank of Ireland. What is the rationale for that?

Mr. John Palmer

Again, it goes back to one of the underlying basic justifications for the Bill, which is to enable all of us to access our own money in cash or to be able to lodge cash to our own accounts. That money is with the banks. It is not with the independent ATM deployers, IADs. The IADs are merely providing a service and do not service payment accounts or bank accounts and they do not hold them. They cannot lend the money. In fact, it is a very low-margin business. If we were to put an obligation on them to keep or provide ATMs, frankly, that would wipe that business out. In that case, it would fall on the designated entities.

Regarding credit unions, within the realms of possibility to become designated entities in the future, even the largest credit union is a long way away from being anywhere near being a designated entity. However, we are seeing ongoing consolidation, so in ten or 20 years’ time, if a single credit union had a large share of deposits, then it would be appropriate for them to become a designated entity.

Another example you will hear of is An Post. Why are they not in there? They are providing the services of a bank. We see An Post as part of a solution, particularly regarding cash services points, or places people go to lodge money. Yet, An Post is not a bank. It has a small payments business and the vast majority of money attributed to it is in fact in State savings. That is in the Exchequer or is lent to the Exchequer. We do think it is appropriate to bring An Post into this.

My final point on this is on the regulation of IADs. Head 10 of the Bill allows for the Minister to have the necessary powers to prohibit IADs from charging access fees if there is a change in the card scheme rules in the future.

These are independent operators. They do not charge access fees at the moment. The legislation says that if they start to do it, the Minister can intervene and stop them. Why do we not just stop them now?

Mr. John Palmer

Deputy Doherty may have noticed that if we were to do it, based on the legal advice we have had to date, we would not just be able to do it for domestic Irish cards, we would have to do it for all EU cards. To be fair, the independent operators – not the banks – do charge access fees for non-domestic cards. We would immediately be cutting off a revenue source if we were to do that now. Plus, we would end up with the rather strange situation that visitors from the EU to Ireland would not be charged something but when we go elsewhere in Europe in many places we are now charged access fees. There is a level-playing field issue there. Basically the status quo is what was considered to be fair.

Is this a kind of big stick provision? Is it the case that if independent operators dare to change their approach and to start charging domestic customers as well as international customers then we will take out the big stick and they will not be able to charge anybody? Is that what Mr. Palmer is saying?

Mr. John Palmer

To date, it has not been an issue because of Visa and Mastercard rules, but they are independent companies that can change their rules.

Mr. John Palmer

This is there if their rules change and if independent deployers or indeed banks decide to start charging access fees then the Minister will have the power to either prohibit them or cap them.

But would it have to be domestic and international, even though they are regulated? Does every fee AIB or Bank of Ireland introduce not have to be approved by the Central Bank at this stage? Once they are regulated could we not differentiate between international and domestic charges if the provision was used and Mastercard or Visa change the charging rules?

Mr. John Palmer

Deputy Doherty is correct. If one of the banks did want to introduce an access charge for either domestic or indeed international, it is required to make a notification under the Consumer Credit Act to the Central Bank, but IADs are not required. They are not covered by that legislation. We are not talking about bank charges here. We are talking about an access fee, a flat fee.

Yes, €3.50 to take out your cash.

Mr. John Palmer

Exactly. We basically see that as a huge problem, in particular in terms of financial inclusion because if somebody can only afford to take out €20 and they are being charged even €2 for that it is obviously a very inequitable situation. We are talking about domestic cards in the current situation. We think the status quo is fair enough but we have to cater for the fact that we cannot control what Visa and Mastercard decide to do in the future. If they change their rules then IADs may well be in a position to introduce fees and we think it is important that the Minister then has the ability to intervene if necessary.

I thank Mr. Palmer.

We will have two more speakers and then we will try to bring the discussion to a halt.

I will be as quick as possible. I thank the witnesses for their statements. What assessment was done on the impact on rural areas of the withdrawal of ATMs? Could the witnesses clarify for me the distance they are talking about within which banks will be obliged to have an ATM?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The two criteria are a 10 km access point for ATMs and the number of ATMs per 100,000 of population.

But obviously the population is totally irrelevant in rural areas. In terms of the 10 km, is Mr. Gilvarry talking about a cashpoint being outside a building or available within a building? Are we talking about access 24 hours a day or for a limited time if they are within premises?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We are talking about both. The criteria do not say that the ATM is accessed 24-7. We look at them. We do have the number in regard to ATMs. Mr. Palmer might confirm that.

Mr. John Palmer

It was more than 900.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

It is 900 odd. About 25% of the ATMs are basically accessible at all hours but we also then have the provision of the local area deficiency where one of the criteria there is hours of access. I used the example earlier of where there is a geographical area with a radius of 30 km and all the ATMs there only operate from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. If they meet the criteria but they operate in a shop that only opens between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. within an area, that could then be examined as a local area deficiency. The reality is that people do not have access to cash because the ATM is in a shop with restricted hours.

Who has carried out an impact assessment on rural areas of not having cash machines?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We did a regulatory impact assessment as well. We looked at this as part of the banking review in 2022. We looked at the existing framework of what was there. The review concluded that the level of access we currently have is sufficient. A number of surveys were also done by the ECB and they concluded that the current level of access to cash is high or fairly high. That is basically where we are looking at it in both urban and rural areas. Excluding the exit of KBC and Ulster Bank, where we are currently, our intention with this legislation is that we are managing it going forward as things change so that whether branches close or other access points are not available we have a framework, which we do not currently have, for changes in our system because so much of the ATM sector, about two thirds, is operated by private operators.

Mr. John Palmer

It is about half.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

We have a framework in place to manage changes in the system, in particular changes that we will see in the coming decades.

The framework will guarantee rural areas have access to ATMs in the same way as the areas with a higher population. There will be no differentiation between people having access. Mr. Gilvarry rightly points to issues such as security and financial independence. In rural areas there is obviously a bigger population of elderly people as well, and the transport issues and everything else that goes along with that. Can the witnesses assure me that the framework has within it protections to provide for that?

Mr. John Palmer

That is the basis of the criteria. We have a specific percentage of the population within 10 km of an ATM and we also provide for the number of ATMs per 100,000. Based on where we are at currently, if we look at Dublin, we are at 100%, according to the percentage of the population within 10 km. If I take the west, we are at 99.2%. That is the level of coverage that we have today. If we compare Dublin, which is the urban area, with the west where it is much more rural, we have that high level of coverage. It is a case of managing that. Things will change, but those are the two criteria.

To be clear, are the cash points within banks being counted?

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

They are counted. We count the ATMs within the banks.

When Mr. Gilvarry refers to 99%, they are of no use to people over the weekend who want to access their cash.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Some of the branches have multiple ATMs. They have a kiosk inside and then they have a kiosk on the wall.

I am interested in getting the figures right. It sounds really good and reassuring to hear the coverage is 99% and that everybody has access to their cash over the weekend and on bank holidays but what are we left with if we take out the ATMs that are available just five days a week, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.?

Mr. John Palmer

The figures show that at the end of December 2022, there were about 936 what are called unrestricted ATMs in the country that operate on a 24-7 basis. In terms of population, just under 91% of the population are within 10 km of an ATM. In fact, 72.8% are within 5 km of an ATM.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

When we were looking at this, one of the things that immediately came up when we got the population figures is that in urban areas - Dublin in particular - ten ATMs spread throughout Dublin would provide 100% of the population with an ATM within 10 km. That is why we brought in the capacity relating to the number of ATMs per 100,000 of population, so that there are enough machines to actually function and to provide the service necessary to people. We will look at the issue of the unrestricted ones and whether there may need to be something separate on that. We will discuss it. It is a question of scale. The machines that are currently there are without any subvention from anybody.

I suspect what is there now is sufficient to meet the needs of the vast majority of the population throughout the country.

That is the problem. We have the vast majority and then we have whole towns that used to have cash points but no longer do. They may have had several cash points but they might have none now. I refer to the impact that situation has where an attempt is being made to develop areas, such as along the Wild Atlantic Way. There is a need to have access to cash along those routes as well. I am seeking reassurance that it will not be a case of giving overall population figures or us being in a situation where only the profitable cash points will remain. It is not just about the economics of this issue but also the social aspect, and the whole social inclusion aspect.

We must move on now, but we can take up this point in the next section anyway.

Mr. John Palmer

I was just quickly going to say that this is one of the key reasons we have for local area deficiencies. Where these issues arise, people will be able to make their submissions to the bank and then the bank can look at the situation and decide whether a remedy is warranted.

Did Mr. Palmer refer to what the bank will decide?

Mr. John Palmer

Yes, the Central Bank.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

Where it is determined there is a local area deficiency, the Central Bank will be able to impose such a requirement upon the designated entities. The criteria involved include the size of the population, the availability of alternative access to cash infrastructure, hours of availability, travel and demographics, the impact of financial inclusion and any other factors the bank may consider. The criteria are there, but the Deputy's point concerns whether there are gaps. The local area deficiency aspect is a crucially important pillar in this regard. It is a reinforcing pillar to ensure that if gaps are identified, the Central Bank will then have the power to direct in this regard.

I thank the witnesses.

I call Deputy Jim O'Callaghan.

I thank our guests for coming before the committee. It is interesting legislation and I am sure it was difficult to draft. I would like to clarify several areas in my own mind. The purpose of the legislation is to give statutory power to the Central Bank to impose conditions on certain entities to ensure there is access to cash at ATMs. Is that a fair assessment of it in broad terms?

Mr. John Palmer

Yes, in broad terms. The legislation is to ensure that the future evolution of the cash infrastructure in the country is managed, as opposed to the current situation where ATMs can come and go as the providers please.

The Department is satisfied that no such statutory powers are currently held by the Central Bank that would enable it to undertake this task and new legislation is needed.

Mr. John Palmer

Absolutely.

Regarding the purpose of the legislation, I think it has identified four entities on which the Central Bank may be able to impose conditions. The first of these is designated entities under head 9. Am I correct in saying these are exclusively credit institutions?

Mr. John Palmer

Yes, the designated institutions. To be a designated institution, the first condition is that the entity must be a bank or a credit union. In other words, these are the people who hold our money. The institutions concerned would then also have to exceed a prescribed percentage of the share of current accounts and of household deposits. There is a lower limit set in this regard. It cannot be below 5% in each case.

Okay. The definition of a "designated entity" is set out in head 9.

Mr. John Palmer

Yes, it is.

This legislation also seeks to give the Central Bank powers to impose conditions on ATM operators and cash-in-transit, CIT, companies.

Mr. John Palmer

Well, yes. First, those entities currently unregulated by the Central Bank will have to register with it. They can then be subject to normal regulation.

I am just trying to get this clear in my own mind because it is an interesting piece of legislation. Part 2, to a large extent, in heads 6 to 10, deals with designated entities, while Part 3 deals with the CIT companies and ATM deployers. Is that correct?

Mr. John Palmer

Yes

The Department's concern is that there is no requirement now for many CIT and ATM deployers to register with the Central Bank and it wishes to put in place a statutory process for them to do so.

Mr. John Palmer

Precisely. There are only a few CIT companies. It is a very concentrated market. They are actually regulated but, primarily for security reasons, by the Private Security Authority and not by the Central Bank. It is likewise with the independent ATM deployers, IADs, which are also not regulated by the Central Bank. Basically, regarding the whole situation, going back to access to cash, the criteria and how the whole system will operate, one of the key reasons it is necessary to regulate these entities, especially the independent ATM deployers, is simply for reporting purposes so the Central Bank can be in a position to judge whether the criteria in this regard are being complied with.

I welcome this fact. It appears that it is just not the credit institutions that are designated entities that will be covered by the new powers to be given to the Central Bank, as other entities that have not been regulated up to now will also be included.

Mr. John Palmer

Yes

Head 6 concerns reasonable access to cash. This is where the Minister does his assessment of what is required. It is just a general task the Minister must undertake to assess the level of ATM requirement in an area. The Minister does not take into account designated entities, ATM deployers and CIT companies in this regard.

Mr. John Palmer

No. The initial point is that the initial criteria are, in fact, designed to ensure the level of cash infrastructure that prevailed at the end of December 2022, taking account of the exits of KBC and Ulster Bank, will be preserved. There will then be a review mechanism as things change. Where the designated entities come into this is if the criteria are being breached. In this case, it will be their responsibility to solve the problem directly or indirectly, potentially working through IADs or on a procurement basis.

Okay. Head 8 gives the Central Bank the power to issue a notification to designated entities in respect of a local deficiency. Is this the head that will give the power to the Central Bank to issue a direction to designated entities stating there is a need for ATMs in a location?

Mr. John Palmer

Precisely. The notification element will result from the Central Bank, because of the monitoring of the overall criteria, discovering there is a breach or, alternatively under head 7, it will be determined that there is a local deficiency that warrants a remedy. At that point, the Central Bank will move on to giving a notification to all the designated entities equally. The purpose of this, hopefully, is to allow them to work together to help to solve the problem. They will have a month to come back and make proposals. If they do not make such proposals or if the Central Bank decides the proposals received are not good enough, then it moves on to a draft direction. It must, though, be directed at a specific designated entity. It cannot be a global, collective direction.

If there is a failure to comply with the draft direction, there will be an administrative fine or something to that effect.

Mr. John Palmer

In fact, after the draft direction - again, this is all after the legal advice and in line with the need to ensure fairness and proportionality - there will be a further two weeks to allow the designated entity the chance to make a submission. That draft direction, then, is either confirmed as a direction, amended and changed slightly or, indeed, not issued at all. If the designated entity fails to comply with the direction, it will become a designated enactment under the Central Bank Act 1942, subject to the relevant sanctions.

It is not a criminal offence.

Mr. John Palmer

No. It is in the context of an administrative sanction.

It is an administrative fine that is imposed.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

I will add that the intention here is to also provide flexibility. The UK, Sweden and the Netherlands have an entity that all their banks are involved with that basically puts the ATMs in place. We wished to ensure that if the industry here wished to go down this route, there would be this flexibility to allow it to pursue it.

That makes sense, of course. In Part 3, a different system is needed. A new statutory requirement is being placed on the CIT companies and the ATM deployers to require them to register with the Central Bank. Under head 12, it will be a criminal offence if they do not do so. Is that correct?

Mr. John Palmer

Precisely. It must be done this way because if, by definition, these companies are operating as a CIT or IAD without registering with the Central Bank, they are not subject to regulation by the bank and therefore cannot be subject to sanctions.

The way to pull them in, therefore, is to make them subject to registration.

Mr. John Palmer

Yes, exactly.

Moving to head 16, in respect of the requirement to be registered, the Central Bank can impose conditions on a CIT company. What type of conditions are we thinking of here? Are we going to try to ensure a CIT company puts mechanisms in place in this regard? What is the purpose here in terms of trying to impose conditions? What type of conditions could be imposed on such a company?

Mr. John Palmer

Head 16(1)(i) refers to this aspect.

Basically, today, if one of the CIT companies decided to exit the Irish market, it could do so without notice and that, as the Deputy can imagine, would be a major imposition on the economy. First, the Central Bank would put in requirements that they must give certain minimum notice periods if they are planning to make a major change in the business or, indeed, to exit the market. Second, they can be required to provide policies to the Central Bank in accordance with requirements set by the Central Bank that relate to resilience and business continuity arrangements, etc., in other words, planning for that.

Head 20 makes it a criminal offence for them not to comply with that. The reason I am asking these questions is what the banking federation has to say. In its statement, the banking federation points out: "Under the proposed provisions, it is the three retail banks that will have sole and legal responsibility for maintaining the prescribed levels of access to both ATM and cash access points or counter services." Obviously, they do not take into account that there will be a new statutory regime for CITs and ATMs, but is what the federation is saying correct?

Mr. John Palmer

In essence, in relation to the access to cash, the reason we want to regulate CITs is they are critical to the cash system. All of it is mainly about information. It is about knowing what is going on.

The independent ATM deployers, IADs, operate approximately two thirds of the ATMs in the country now, as they have taken them over from the banks because they were all formerly with the banks. A large part of that is about ensuring that the Central Bank has the right to require the relevant reporting it needs to operate the access-to-cash system. There are also other reasons we want them to be able to regulate ATM deployers, for instance, issues such as service standards and resilience. We would anecdotally hear stories about ATMs being out of use or out of service for long periods. It is about giving the Central Bank powers in such matters.

Is there substance to what they say? If Mr. Palmer is saying that only one third of the ATMs in the country are controlled by so-called "designated entities", as they are defined in the heads of Bill, is it not the case that we should be trying to put some statutory obligation on the entities that control the two thirds of them?

Mr. John Palmer

The problem with that is the ATM deployer business is an incredibly low-margin business. In terms of domestic accounts, for instance, when somebody with an Irish card takes out money from an ATM, that ATM operator gets a flat-rate fee. One is talking of 30 cent to 40 cent. That is it, irrespective of the amount being withdrawn. Whether someone is taking €300 or €20, they get that amount. They are dependent on the number of transactions. It is a very low-margin business. If we put obligations on them-----

Does Mr. Palmer think they would be frightened off?

Mr. John Palmer

The economics would be changed to the point that they would not be bothered-----

I am just interested to hear. I do not know.

Mr. John Palmer

-----whereas the designated entities are the banks that hold collectively some 88% of the €150 billion of household deposits in the country. The three banks hold the vast majority of that. Going back to the justification for the Bill, it is really about ensuring that citizens can choose to access their own money in accounts through cash.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

The criteria we have built in there for the designated entities relate to the number of current accounts and the level of deposits. There is a framework there, if new entrants come in, that once they hit certain thresholds they will then fall in and would become one of the designated entities but at the moment it would be the three domestic banks that would be subject to it as designated banks.

I thank them witnesses for that. I am conscious of time. I also thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach.

The next session starts at 5 p.m. I have a couple of comments to make based on comments and complaints that I have received from constituents. The first is the degree to which machines are out of order when a member of the public wishes to access his or her own cash. They will always point out that they want to get their own cash. It is not the bank's cash or the operator's cash. It is the cash within the ownership of the individual or authorised cash.

They also refer to the ones that are out of order where the sign on the screen says, "We are very sorry but this machine is out of order." They are not very sorry at all. They do not care. The reality is the customer is the customer. The bank and the ATM machine in place of the bank are providing the service to the customer and the customer expects that service. Reference has been made by all the speakers to urban and rural areas. In urban areas, it may be better, although I am not sure. I have examined the spread, etc., as to whether this will be effective. I worry about, for instance, in rural areas, where somebody travels from one to two, three or four machines to find one that is working at certain times and the degree of frustration that causes to the customer. I would point out the necessity to be absolutely certain that the customer is entitled to be served and to be recognised as a customer, not as a passerby who wants to put graffiti on the wall or something like that.

The other issue is the criteria. I welcome the criteria that have been referred to by various speakers. On the criteria that was used in removing the machine from Leinster House, the House of Parliament, most other parliaments throughout the world, as far as I am aware, have access to cash, and that is equally important here. The criteria used to remove it was that it was not making a profit and the footfall was poor. As if to emphasise cynicism, that decision was taken during the lockdown. What other way would the footfall be during that period? It hints at a disregard for the customer. The banks took their machine away from here and they disadvantaged many staff and Members who have to rely on that. Many staff who leave home very early in the morning in a rush, and Members likewise, found this a safe place. Reference has been made to the fact that it was enclosed, etc. It was not so or too badly enclosed. It was open well into the afternoon, evening and night. It was regularly open until 12 o'clock at night. Maybe not everybody realises that. These are the Houses of the Oireachtas. It is the national Parliament. It is absolutely necessary for the lending institutions to show that they have respect for the people who represent the people as well as the people. It is something that needs to be addressed as a matter of urgency. I believe it will be addressed because otherwise we will have to continue to raise it.

Mr. Oliver Gilvarry

On the ATMs, what we are bringing forward for the IADs, as Mr. Palmer outlined, is that these will have to be registered with the Central Bank. We are bringing in a supervisory or regulatory framework around them that does not exist today. That will give the Central Bank powers, under legislation, for regulations and that will deal with service standards.

On this issue, which we also hear about, that ATMs are down for periods of time, because there is no sense in having criteria for coverage and then the ATMs are not working and then you are moving, there will be regulations there for the services standards that would also include hours of operation and withdrawal limits. Denomination is also an issue that has come to the fore, and that will be something there so that it is not only giving out €50 or €100 notes. On that, there is a financial inclusion part. There are also outages and maximum down-time periods, and communication and signage. There is a framework that will come on the ATM operators, which is not there today.

In addition on withdrawals, under the legislation, they will be required to notify the Central Bank of any business changes including a two-month notice period before any ATMs are removed for the planned withdrawal or installation of ATMs. In notifying the Central Bank, the proposed Bill will bring in all that framework that, in fairness, the banks and other regulated entities are subject to. These are important pieces of our cash infrastructure and also important for consumers to be able to access. We will bring in that framework.

I thank Mr. Gilvarry. I look forward to that.

We will now suspend for five minutes to bring everybody else into the room and welcome them.

Sitting suspended at 4.59 p.m. and resumed at 5.05 p.m.

In this second session we will engage with the Banking and Payments Federation Ireland as we continue our pre-legislative scrutiny of the access to cash Bill. On behalf of the committee, I welcome from the BPFI, Mr. Brian Hayes, CEO, Mr. Gavin Purtill, director of regulation and supervision, Ms Gill Byrne, head of payments, and Mr. Ali Ugur, chief economist.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person or official outside the House either by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I remind members who are attending remotely of the constitutional requirement that members must be physically present within the confines of the place where the Parliament has chosen to sit, namely, Leinster House, in order to participate in public meetings.

The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. Witnesses are again reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if witnesses' statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative they comply with any such direction.

I invite Mr. Hayes to make his opening remarks.

Mr. Brian Hayes

I thank the Vice Chairman and members for the opportunity to address this pre-legislative scrutiny of legislation on access to cash. I will not reintroduce my colleagues. We are happy to be here to take any questions on the heads of the Bill. We also submitted to the committee a consultation paper we had as our submission on the national payments strategy. We thought it useful to send that to the committee in advance in order that the whole issue of access to cash, which we deal with in the consultation, is also properly scoped in.

The payment landscape in Ireland and globally has changed significantly over the past ten years, with a huge shift to digital payments and online banking as many consumers and businesses embrace the new and innovative payments methods and services available to them. The recent pandemic has driven an even greater step-change in this transformation. The most recent Central Bank of Ireland figures show the value of ATM withdrawals has fallen by almost one third since the pandemic, with the volume declining by almost 45%. Conversely, industry data shows that the number of contactless card payments more than doubled between 2019 and 2022. In December 2023, the value of payments via mobile wallets such as Apple Pay and Google Pay was higher than the value of cash withdrawals, according to the Central Bank. Despite this societal shift, the BPFI and our member banks recognise the vital relevance of cash for many consumers and small business operators who continue to rely on cash in their daily lives. It is especially important for the most vulnerable members of society and, as we work our way through the current cost-of-living challenges, for many people who use cash for budgeting and managing their household finances.

In this context, the banking industry is fully committed to maintaining reasonable access to cash both now and in the future, in accordance with consumer demand.

We are supportive of the introduction of a flexible framework to manage this access. We do, however, have a number of significant concerns regarding the proposed framework as currently set out in the general scheme. We are very grateful to have the opportunity to address these particular concerns with the committee.

There are seven core concerns. One of the core purposes of the proposed legislation, as outlined in the scheme is to "manage future changes in the access to cash infrastructure in a fair, equitable and transparent manner". As matter stand, we believe that the current provisions within the scheme are neither fair nor equitable and, more critically, pose a very real risk to the current and future competitiveness of the Irish retail banking sector. Under the proposed provisions, it is the three retail banks - the three pillar banks - that will have sole and legal responsibility for maintaining the prescribed levels of access to both ATM and cash access points or counter services. This is despite the fact that they only control around one third of the general infrastructure. All other providers who make up the remaining cash access infrastructure, including An Post, independent ATM providers and credit unions, are excluded. In a scenario where any one of these providers withdraws an ATM or a bricks-and-mortar counter service that leads to a breach of the cash access criteria, under the current proposals, it will be the responsibility of the retail banks to replace this service, even in circumstances where that is not commercially viable.

Enacting the proposed legislation in this manner will unquestionably place the retail banks at a competitive disadvantage by creating an unlevel playing field among existing and perhaps future market participants. Additionally, it will almost certainly lead to an increase in new and unquantifiable fixed costs for retail banks, which could ultimately increase the cost of everyday banking services. In the current environment where our banks are once again profitable this may be sustainable but given the cyclical nature of the sector and the business underlying the sector such costs could pose challenges into the future.

Furthermore, the current provisions raise the very real risk of creating a significant barrier to entry for new retail banks that might choose to come into the Irish market considering the potential costs involved. Following a year in which we have seen the exit of two retail banks from the State, one of which closed its doors after 175 years, this prospect poses even greater challenges for the retail banking sector left in Ireland. It is within this context that we are calling for a number of important changes to certain provisions within the general scheme.

On the question of shared industry responsibility, first and foremost, it is imperative the scope of the designated entities criteria be broadened beyond the retail banks. The Irish cash landscape is made up of a host of market players including An Post, credit unions and digital banks. In order to create a level playing field among all market players, the provision and cost of reasonable access to cash must be a shared industry responsibility across all current and future providers of cash and current accounts.

In the context of unquantifiable costs, much of the debate on access to cash up to now has focused on the availability or otherwise of ATMs. This point came out in the committee's first session, when the focus was nearly exclusively on the question of ATMs. Under the current provisions, as well as being responsible for maintaining specified levels of ATMs, retail banks - based on December 2022 levels - will be responsible for ensuring that at least 99% of the population live no more than 10 km from a cash service point where cash can be deposited as well as withdrawn and where in-person assistance will be available. In restating our commitment to maintaining reasonable access to cash levels within the retail banking sector’s network, under this provision, banks are facing the prospect of replacing bricks and mortar counter services in the event of a withdrawal of such a service from other providers. This has the potential to impose unquantifiable costs on our banks which, as already outlined, has significant implications from a competition and cost to consumer perspective. This provision as it relates to cash service points should be revised, with the geographical radius increased to 15 km in line with An Post’s geographical commitment.

In the context of creating an independent revision process, under the current provisions as proposed the responsibility to vary the access to cash criteria resides with the Minister for Finance of the day. As the designated competent authority in charge of supervising the financial services sector in Ireland and for regulating other aspects of the cash landscape, we believe this function should instead reside with the Central Bank of Ireland and should be fully independent. It is also important to note that an EU regulation on cash as legal tender is currently under discussion and that any measures introduced domestically should be aligned with this proposed regulation.

On ensuring a dynamic and agile review system, alongside the access to cash criteria, the general scheme also sets out the triggers that will prompt this particular review. This is proposed to take place at the request of the Minister within 12 months post-census or in the event cash demand drops by 12% year on year. Given the continuing and rapidly evolving nature of the payments landscape and the need to introduce a flexible framework to manage the decline of cash, we believe the proposed review triggers need to be amended significantly. This includes the reduction of the review period to a mid-census timeframe or every 30 months and a move to a point where a maximum of a 10% reduction from the set December 2022 baseline should trigger a review. This should be monitored separately across the eight geographical regions set out in the scheme and not across the State as a whole. Other triggers, such as an exceptional event, should also be considered in addition to providing for the banking industry itself to invoke a review, subject, of course, to the review process by the Central Bank of Ireland.

On the question of cashback services, we believe that it is important that the definition of the access to cash points is broadened and should include retail branch locations, branch ATMs, An Post locations, independent ATMs, credit unions and cashback services. The BPFI is aware of the upcoming proposed changes to the EU’s payment services directive 3, which will enable retailers offer cash back without a purchase. This will allow consumers easier access to cash across multiple locations where retailers support this facility.

Our final essential point is on the imperative of providing clarity on local deficiencies. An as yet undetermined but significant part of the general scheme relates these deficiencies. These are cases where although an area meets all of the access to cash criteria, certain localised deficiencies arise. In areas where such deficiencies are deemed to exist, it will be the responsibility of the retail banks to address them. While the scheme sets out that guidelines will be published by the Central Bank on this, no timelines are provided. With limited detail on how these deficiencies will be assessed, this poses a significant challenge to our members in terms of the potential costs involved. It is critical that more information is provided on this process both in terms of the assessment and the implementation timelines. To this end, we believe a consultation process, facilitating engagement and input from the industry, should be established by the Central Bank to ensure transparent procedures are put in place, which can then be subject to regular review.

As demonstrated by the Department of Finance’s own assessment of the landscape here in Ireland as of December 2022, there is ample provision of cash access across the State. The banking industry is committed to playing its part in maintaining this access as well as responsibly managing its decline. This responsibility must be shared across all relevant market players working within realistic, responsive and objectively measured parameters. The proposals, as currently presented, are of concern as they exclude key organisations from this remit, raise concerns in terms of their impact on competition, and have a genuine cost impact that is not quantifiable, with the knock-on potential that banking in Ireland may be more expensive in the future.

We welcome the opportunity to work with the committee on this pre-legislative scrutiny to improve the general scheme. We will be happy to answer questions.

I thank Mr. Hayes.

I thank Mr. Hayes for his statement. It appears he does not like the general scheme too much or does not want legislation to be put in place. There are so many things Mr. Hayes has pointed out that were they all to be implemented, it would nearly negate the legislation altogether. It is certainly important that we discuss them.

The first issue I want to ask about is competitive disadvantage. Will Mr. Hayes explain exactly how the Irish banking sector competes as a whole and how the potential cost of ATMs impacts the sector as a whole? Mr. Hayes is presenting this as something new that the banks are being asked to do in terms of providing reasonable access to cash. Before Covid, some branches were closed down. We saw the impact of that on rural communities. The fact that because people were forced to make digital transactions and non-cash transactions on foot of Covid is, it appears, being exploited to say that people's behaviour has changed and we do not need access to cash anymore. When you go into a branch, there are no longer people to speak to; you are pointed to this or that machine. People are being forced into using machines. That is okay for those who are comfortable doing it, but I have seen elderly people in banks who are absolutely distressed by the way they are being forced to engage with these changes. If we are now saying that providing services within a 10 km limit is too much to ask of banks, I find that difficult to reconcile. Mr. Hayes might speak to that point.

Mr. Brian Hayes

I appreciate the Deputy’s remarks. I do not want our statement to be in any way seen as indicating that we are against cash. We are concerned with a managed decline of the service. The reality, as the Department, the Central Bank and every other public authority has said, is that a decline in the use of cash has occurred. The Deputy is right to say that this was a trend long before the pandemic. It is also fair to say that during the pandemic, the trend escalated. It is worth saying that we were asked by the Government at the onset of the pandemic to make sure we could radically increase contactless payments because the Government and public authorities, from a public health perspective, wanted to take cash out of the system. A decision that probably would have taken the industry many months to come to a view on was done in a week. What happened during the pandemic was the escalation of an existing trend.

It is also fair to say that our customers were probably ahead of the banks on this issue. They were already tapping with their fingers and voting with their feet in terms of wanting contactless payments.

When we look at the number of ATM transactions in millions, it was 151.9 million in 2015 and then 156.2 million. It did not go into decline until 2019. The big drop was in 2020.

Mr. Brian Hayes

If one looks at in-store transactions and contactless payments, 85% of all in-store transactions are now done by means of card or contactless payments. We know that over a four-year period, the total number of ATM transactions went from €20 billion to €13 billion. I want to be very clear: we are not saying that we do not believe there is a role for cash. Cash is here to stay. It is around how, through the infrastructure, we and others make sure we provide that service to people.

The Deputy asked about the issue of competition. We used to have 12 retail banks in this country, then we had nine, then we had seven and then we had five. We now have three retail banks. In the course of the past 24 months, the only surviving international retail banks decided to leave. The issue the Deputy raised in the context of competition is critical. I respectfully suggest to the committee that this is a broader issue of competition policy. I would love to see the competition authority give its view on the general scheme and whether it fits competition policy that three banks – they are the biggest banks in the country and they are the pillar banks - are being asked to provide this infrastructure to the exclusion of everyone else as we go forward. From a competition perspective for existing players or, indeed, for banks considering entering the market here, the question that arises is whether there is a level playing field.

The Deputy was right to raise the point about competition. The logical agency to ask that view of - I am sure it would be more than happy to give the Deputy a view - is the competition authority. There is a distinct issue of competition when three banks, even though they only represent one third of the existing infrastructure, are being asked to meet every deficiency. Given the Deputy's remark about competition, that is a very important point.

In terms of the banks leaving the market, Mr. Hayes referred to it not being competitive and to the shrinking of the sector. How much did Bank of Ireland announce in profits earlier today?

Mr. Brian Hayes

We know what it announced today.

Mr. Brian Hayes

Does the Deputy not know?

Was it €1.9 billion?

Mr. Brian Hayes

It was €1.9 billion. That is right.

I am just trying to get at why €1.9 billion is not enough and why the infrastructure to enable access to cash, particularly for rural areas, is not there.

Mr. Brian Hayes

Is the logical corollary of that if one of the banks or all of the banks were not to make money, that infrastructure would be withdrawn? Is that the argument the Deputy is making?

No. I am asking why the landscape is not competitive when that amount of profit can be made.

Mr. Brian Hayes

I am not saying it is not competitive. There is competition in the Irish market. What I am saying is that we have seen the withdrawal two retail banks in recent years. That is a question which, from an industry perspective, the Deputy and this committee need to address. Placing all the responsibility on three entities to do this creates a competition issue. That is my general point.

What are the banks saying to Mr. Hayes with regard to why they are withdrawing?

Mr. Brian Hayes

I might ask Dr. Ugur to come in on this.

Dr. Ali Ugur

It is a fair question. Rather than looking at the nominal amounts, however, the banks, certainly the national banks, invest a certain amount of money into the market and look at the return. The Deputy might be familiar with the return on equity. Obviously, as part of an international group, they looked at the return on their investment and did not find it attractive. Hence, after being here for 175 years in one case and over 50 years in the second, they decided to invest that capital somewhere else. Looking at the nominal amount on its own and trying to make a comparison is not satisfactory.

It is astonishing for laypeople to look at this and think that those amounts may not be enough, although Dr. Ugur said they are nominal. I know how people make decisions, but I do not understand why they may not be enough.

Mr. Brian Hayes

It is very cyclical. We are going through significant profitability this year or, rather, last year, given the reports that will come out from the pillar banks. Banking is a cyclical operation, however,. Without profitability, there is no capital. Capital and profitability are two sides of the same coin. Without capital, you cannot lend, and without lending, there is no investment. The essence of profitability is, effectively, organic capital. What is critical is to take a number of years, rather than one year. The reason that profitability is back, thankfully, in the banking sector now is because of the higher ECB rates.

Of course it is. It is not that anything major has been done. It is because of the higher rates, the differential between the rates and the amounts that have been deposited.

Mr. Brian Hayes

I am aware of a recent announcement by one of our members investing very significant sum of money in an ATM network into the future, which I think is to the order of €60 million-----

Mr. Gavin Purtill

It is €60 million for all ATMs.

Mr. Brian Hayes

-----for all ATMs. Banks need to be profitable for the time when loans go bad or when the economy turns. However, they equally need to be profitable to invest in their infrastructure, new systems and the regulatory cost and cost of distribution. We can look at one year, but cyclical profitability is the issue.

I understand that. Last year was quite profitable as well. I have no reason to think that next year would not be profitable either.

Mr. Brian Hayes

A few years before that, there was no profit because of Covid-19.

We are looking here at reasonable access to cash and ATMs. I am particularly looking at rural areas. People see the amount of profit being made and they are wondering how the provision of reasonable access to cash could have a negative impact on the banking sector. That is what I am trying to get at and what would seem to be reasonable.

Mr. Brian Hayes

I will make it very clear that we are very well aware of our responsibilities. We want to be absolutely part of this solution, but we are saying, as is the case in other jurisdictions, that there are other providers. We also need to find novel ways in which we can provide cash to people as they need it because cash is legal tender, and it is going to remain legal tender well into the future. However, it is how we provide that infrastructure in an efficient, consumer-focused way. The concern we have is that some of the provisions in these proposed heads are putting all the responsibility on three banks in this country. We think that needs to be challenged, not just from a competition perspective but also from a perspective of fairness. That is why we are here today.

Yes. People would think that as well. When people had to bail out the banks and meet that cost, they would have asked why they had to do that for a small number of banks as well.

Mr. Brian Hayes

The good news there, and I will give the Deputy the latest figures because it is always good to put these facts into the public domain, is that of the €29.3 billion that went into AIB, Bank of Ireland and PTSB, €23.1 billion has been returned to the Exchequer and €5.2 billion remains in current valuation of the public shareholding position of AIB and PTSB. That leaves then an outstanding €1.1 billion. Therefore, 95% of the money that was put in between 2009 and 2011 thanks to the Irish taxpayer has been returned

I really feel really strongly about this and the reason I do is because it is passed off like that. We saw the austerity that was caused in terms of the cutbacks in the most vulnerable communities in this country. We are severely feeling the impact of it. This is not just a transaction without any human cost. We are feeling the human cost of that austerity now and we will continue to feel it in trying to catch that up, which Mr. Hayes knows, in many of the communities around Dublin and other areas where the people had to bear the burden. The banks are saying it to those people, many of whom were youngsters at the time and who were desperately impacted. It is too late in many cases to say now we have paid it back. I know this is maybe not a discussion for now, but I cannot just let it go with the banks patting themselves on the back to say they have given it back or are giving it back.

Mr. Brian Hayes

I will make two points, the first of which is that 14% of the adjustment, and I know this because it is an indelible mark on my mind because I was there at the time, was to do with bank debt. The remainder - 86% - was to do with the difference between tax and expenditure in the Irish economy at that time. Without the support of the Irish taxpayer, the banks would not have survived. It was the absolute responsibility of the sector to deliver that funding back and the remaining bit that remains. However, we are not going to help the public shareholding position and the valuation of those shares if we continue to have an unlevel playing field. That is my point.

It is, but this is getting back to who we are trying to protect here with this legislation and that is the most vulnerable people. It seeks to ensure people have financial security, especially elderly people, and control over their own finances. People who are on very low incomes and people who do not have transport also need to be able to go to a cashpoint to get cash in lower denominations and to have access to their own cash. We have to remember it is people's own cash as well. That is what we are trying to ensure here. Mr. Hayes mentioned the three pillar banks, but banks are banks. Obviously, we would like for post offices, credit unions and others to be able to share that as well, but there has to be a central responsibility on the banks to ensure that happens. This legislation tries to provide to have that done.

Dr. Ali Ugur

To come back to the Deputy's remarks about comments or questions we have, I note that Deputy Doherty had similar questions about the review process, the review system and clarity on local deficiencies. We are asking similar questions to those asked earlier. It is not a criticism of the legislation, but we are looking for more clarity on certain aspects.

Okay, I understand that, and it is obviously the BPFI's responsibility to do it. I completely respect and understand that.

In terms of the designated entities criteria to be broadened beyond just that of retail banks, what else is the BPFI looking at there? It is looking it credit unions and post offices. What else?

Mr. Gavin Purtill

In terms of the architecture for ATMs at the moment, the ownership by banks is approximately 29% or 30%, so it is one third of that. We are looking to ensure that anybody who takes advantage or makes use of the infrastructure is required to contribute to that. We are, therefore, looking at An Post, credit unions and digital banks.

In terms of the UK's approach, they look at current accounts and they do not include that requirement for household deposits. That criteria would bring those into scope.

Mr. Gavin Purtill

To come back to the Deputy's original question, we are not seeking to negate the legislation. We are looking to drill into it and understand the issues. To come back to the points around the drop in transactions, the Deputy quoted the 2015 figure of €151.9 million. However, the 2022 figure is €87.5 million, so it is a 58% drop, which is very significant. We are seeking to ensure the legislation is agile enough to move with the changes in demand for cash.

Mr. Purtill could never see a point when it will go back to 2015.

Mr. Brian Hayes

It is unlikely, but who knows. It is unlikely.

We need to have safeguards in place. Can we talk about the provision of local deficiencies? To me, it would seem like it was a really good idea to have that in there to be able to provide for areas. Therefore, we can say there are a certain number of cash machines and ATMs in the west, but then we might see the people living in certain local areas may not have them. People should not be geographically disadvantaged when they are trying to access their own cash.

Ms Gill Byrne

Perhaps I will come in to respond to that. I do not think we are debating the local deficiencies and the requirements for that. What we are trying to understand is what that process will look like and how that process and assessment will be undertaken to ensure it is manageable, fit for purpose and achievable from our members' perspective. It is maybe a gap in our understanding around the process itself and the timelines of when it will be implemented. That is why in our response, and Mr. Hayes referred to it in the opening statement and it is in the briefing document, we are very much encouraging an open public consultation and further engagement with the Central Bank of Ireland. We think that is imperative.

I will ask a final question. In 2020, AIB sold off 500 non-branch ATMs and Bank of Ireland and AIB sold off 1,200 between them in 2021. Until recently, the entire network was operated by banks and now it is down to one third. How much did the members make when they were sold off to private operators? I am not even asking for each one but how much was made.

Mr. Brian Hayes

We do not have the figures on that. Obviously, we are an industry group.

Each decision that each bank makes is a commercial decision it makes in its own right. In the same way as ATMs, or the hole in the walls as we know them, came in 40 years ago to service a particular need, so too has the transformation of the ATM service being sold to independent operators been part and parcel of that commercial reality for efficiencies and economies of scale. It is also that these operators have real skill in what they can provide. There have also been many other developments. The Deputy will have seen that some of our members have put together a very strong alliance with An Post. That has been very helpful in trying to keep those An Post offices open and trying to get more transactions to the 920 branches of An Post throughout the country.

The point we are making is that many different players can help in the transmission of cash. As we showed to two of our members in their alliance with An Post, that has really helped to improve footfall in An Post, in the same way that putting in independent terminals in shops has helped footfall in some of those centres. As my colleagues said, if one looks at the UK legislation, a much wider group of providers is involved, including payment service providers, PSPs, the UK post office and the like, to help do that work. That is all we are trying to say on this. It is a wider pitch. However, the decision to sell ATMs is a commercial decision that banks will take as they see fit.

Was any consideration given to the fact that private operators might close down ATMs that were not at a sufficient economic level for them?

Ms Gill Byrne

Perhaps one of the reasons, or rationale, from the bank's perspective, is the demand for cash was reducing and they wanted to ensure the maintenance of a service. Having the IADs who focused on that service, which had economies of scale throughout the country, was probably one of the considerations or rationale, from our members' perspective.

No consideration was given to what those deployers might do. They might run it for a while and then just close it down, and that would be it.

Mr. Brian Hayes

As I said, it has to be done on a commercial basis. Irish banks do not charge for ATM use.

They charge enough. My goodness, they charge enough.

Mr. Brian Hayes

With respect, people are charged a hell of a lot more for cash withdrawals in other jurisdictions. If we want the service we provide to continue, there is a cost in all these things.

There is a cost. The issue is getting the balance between the economic and social responsibility so that people can have reasonable access to money. There is a social responsibility on the main banks and, as Mr. Hayes said, other operators, as well as an economic responsibility. I do not want to see a situation where it is purely profit driven, is about whether it tallies on a sheet for the banks, and no consideration is given to elderly people who may have been loyal to that bank all of their lives, who then find that they cannot access their own cash.

Ms Gill Byrne

To go back to the point about the banks wanting to ensure that level of service is maintained for the most vulnerable cohort, it is not just about the most vulnerable cohort Mr. Hayes mentioned. We are fully aware and appreciative that many people in society may not be considered vulnerable, but they are using cash for budgeting purposes. Consumer choice is key here. That is fully recognised by the retail banks and why we are in support of engaging with the finance committee, etc., on this process, the framework and the legislation. We just have a number of challenges that we would like to work through and address.

I can see that. I am sure other members will also want to discuss them.

Mr. Gavin Purtill

To close off the point on customers who need additional assistance, we are very active in that space. Banks have their own vulnerable customer units. We are very conscious of the impact of the proposed legislation on that. It is a very big area of focus for us.

There needs to be more focus. I ask the BPFI to review it on an ongoing basis and to call to branches to see how people are instructed to just go to machines, and the confusion and stress that causes. I also ask the federation to review it on a continuous basis and to ensure that people trying to access their own cash always have somebody to talk to in order to sort out problems. Whether they have concerns around the security of their own finances, or whatever it might be, they should be able to pick up the phone or go into a branch to talk to somebody and, if they want to get their own cash out, they should be able to do so in a reasonable manner. That is all. We can work together in order to be able to do that so people are protected.

A couple of issues come to mind. We all accept the fact that banking has a duty to make profits in order to function. Banks are not charitable institutions. They have to make profits and have returns by the end of the year. If there are indications they are losing their profit, or there is a lack of focus as a result of losing profit, they will be out of business. That is the ultimate situation, which is what happened in this country. However, a few contributory factors could and should have been identified at the time. I am looking at a couple of notes. We had a lot of incoming competition, which was not wise. There were missed opportunities at the end of the boom period. Banks across the road from me were lending money as if there would be no end to the boom. It was obviously not the case. That went on. I and others had to negotiate between borrowers and banks to try to hold the line when the crunch came. There was a grave danger for a long time that the entire banking system was going to collapse and the country with it. Ultimately, however, the public, people and taxpayers had to pick up the tab to secure what was happening.

We accept all that, but that does not mean we could not have practised better. For instance, two banks provided credit at an alarming rate, which undermined the existing pillar banks here. I do not know why that happened because they were all supposed to be under the supervision of the Central Bank, which was supposed to be under the supervision of the ECB, where we were represented on the board. That did not happen. A sequence of things in that regard worried people and still worry them. As I recall, many people could not access their own money at that time. When the country was going broke, the inquiries were thick and fast regarding the few investments people had from the sale of a property, or a relative's property or whatever, which were put into some banks that I will not mention, in deference to them, and which was not a good idea. All people were then concerned about was how to rescue their own funds.

The lesson to be learned from all that is economies do not function unless they can make a profit. They do not have to do a rip-off but they have to make a profit. There has to be stability. A lack of stability undermines any economy very quickly. The thing we all have to remember in this country is the rapidity with which the house of cards fell. The speed with which action had to be taken, and the limited action that could be taken, was frightening. The IMF then came. During the time before the IMF came, everybody was asking where we were going to go from here and what would happen. There were a lot of worried people who could not access their own money. It was not possible for them to access it because it was frozen.

We subsequently had a situation where a number of these banks left the country. Their initial intentions were not as honourable as they should have been.

It exposed the country and our banking system. It did a great deal of damage to the credibility of the banking system and to the general public's regard for that system, on which they relied. It was all downhill in the context of where we were going at that stage. People now do not think about that time. We recovered, or at least we are in the course of recovering. It has not gone away either. It is still there. We continue to carry the burden.

One of the lessons we learned or should have learned on foot of that crisis was that some people did what they thought was the right thing to do, even though it might have been the reckless thing to do. We all heard the stories about banks offering people who were buying houses Mediterranean cruises or things of that nature. That was outlandish. Those banks knew full well that the cruise could be over in two or three weeks, at the best of times, but that the debt would remain for 20, 30, 40, 50 and 60 years. We continue to carry that debt. The thing we have to learn about that is that we cannot spend at will and put the country at risk. This is because people other the individual who is spending at will are going to be affected. We have to keep an eye on that.

I welcome that the witnesses are going to restore the peculiar little machine that used to dispense cash to the Members of the House. It was not a whole lot of cash; we did not look for much. The ATM was also for the use of the staff of the House, however, of whom there are many. It is good courtesy to the staff and Members of the Houses of Parliament that our guests recognise that some fairly considerable business takes place here and that, as a result, they will reward us in a small way for our diligence, activity and, sometimes, criticism. I sincerely hope that these meetings are a prelude to that. I hope that both our knowledge of where we have come from and what we have learned along the way will stand us in good stead in the time ahead. We do not wish to use ATMs to rob the banks. We want ATMs to serve the customer. The customer is the most important person in this equation. We want satisfied customers who know they can rely on the banking system and who can get cash out of ATMs when they want. We do not want ATMs showing messages to the effect that they are temporarily out of service. That is not a service at all. It gives the banks a bad name. It also reduces the level of trust, which is one if the things financial institutions, be they small or great, have to depend on.

I thank the witnesses for their contributions. I also thank the members. We are few on the ground, but we make an odd impact now and again. Sometimes we give a good account of ourselves. Our performance in that regard is not dependent on the weather, I hope. I thank everyone very much for being with us.

The joint committee adjourned at 5.54 p.m. until 1 p.m. on Wednesday, 28 February 2024.
Top
Share