Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

JOINT COMMITTEE ON FINANCE AND THE PUBLIC SERVICE díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 6 Apr 2005

National Irish Bank Limited: Presentation.

The next item is a discussion with representatives of National Irish Bank Limited. Our guests are here to discuss issues surrounding the report of the inspectors appointed under section 8 of the Companies Act 1990 to investigate the affairs of National Irish Bank Limited and National Irish Bank Financial Services Limited. We are joined by Mr. Don Price, deputy chairman, and John Trethowan, chief executive of National Irish Bank Limited. On behalf of the committee, I welcome them and thank them for attending today's meeting.

Before the discussion commences, I advise that while comments of the members of the committee are protected by parliamentary privilege those of visitors are not so protected. Members are reminded that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses of the Oireachtas. We will commence with a short presentation from Mr. Price followed by an open discussion with members of the committee.

Mr. Don Price

I thank members for inviting us to come before the committee today. I am grateful to accept the committee's invitation to discuss the bank's response to the findings contained in the High Court inspector's report published at the end of July.

At the outset, let me state that we accept the High Court inspector's report as highlighting failings in the systems and controls operated by National Irish Bank during the period from 1988 to 1998. We accept that during that period National Irish Bank let many of its customers down. We failed our customers and for this I wish to reiterate the apology we have already offered to our customers, the general public, the regulatory authority, our staff and now this committee. I urge the members of the committee not to judge National Irish Bank in 2005 by reference to the standards and practices that applied between 1988 and 1998. The bank did not wait for the publication of the inspectors' report before dealing with the serious issues which gave rise to the appointment of the inspectors. It has engaged in a process of compensating customers who have suffered as a consequence of the failings in the systems and controls which were graphically outlined by the inspectors in their report. The changes made by National Irish Bank have been far-reaching and comprehensive to the extent that NIB is now a new bank, in effect. It bears little resemblance to the bank as it was in 1998.

I would like to outline some of the important changes which have taken place and the measures which have been taken to address the shortcomings identified in the report. I will start by discussing interest and fees, the area that has attracted the most attention. The bank has devoted the most resources to that area since 1998 to ensure that shortcomings have been identified and that the customers who have been affected have been reimbursed. The allegations relating to fees and interest largely pre-date——

Did Mr. Price say they all have been reimbursed?

Mr. Price

They are being reimbursed. I will speak about that matter in a moment. The allegations largely pre-date the introduction of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. A number of significant changes were made to banking practices across the industry after that legislation was passed. In 1996, the bank started to notify customers in advance about the details of the fees to be charged to their accounts. That important change, which introduced a greater degree of transparency, ensures that customers are not charged for services without being informed in advance. The bank has radically overhauled internal systems relating to the charging of fees and interest.

A major difficulty in this area, which was identified in the report, related to the application of an administrative time charge, which was at the centre of many of the allegations made against the bank. As a direct consequence of the extensive reviews carried out by the NIB after the inspectors were appointed in 1998, a series of new and specific tariffs for various ancillary services was agreed with the Director of Consumer Affairs and took effect from November 2002.

I assure the committee that National Irish Bank has put in place robust, transparent and verifiable systems to ensure that its customers are charged fees and interest only in accordance with notified tariffs and following the giving of advance notice. The bank has devoted resources to ensuring that customers who were or may have been overcharged have been reimbursed. That compensation has taken two forms. The bank took steps, in response to specific allegations raised in 1998, to ensure that the affected customers were reimbursed if a fee or interest amendment could not be validated. In other words, the customer was favoured if doubt existed about the validity of the fee or interest amendment. Consequently, more than 1,450 refunds, totalling approximately €1.9 million, were made to customers at that time. The refunds included interest to reflect the time value of money.

National Irish Bank has initiated a further fee and interest reimbursement programme to address the inspectors' broader findings. The inspectors found in their report that the bank could not conclude that all instances of improper charging had been identified because its procedures and controls at the time were inadequate. The bank launched a further reimbursement programme in September 2004 in response to that finding. The programme's underlying principle is that the bank will reimburse all manual fee and interest amendments not validated by reference to surviving documentation. It will ensure that the bank cannot benefit in any respect from its past shortcomings.

I will outline some of the provisions of the programme that was launched last year. To hasten the process of reimbursing customers, all low-value manual fee amendments of less than €13, or £10, between 1988 and 1998 are being automatically returned to customers, with interest to reflect the time value of money. That process is being implemented regardless of whether there is documentation to support such amendments. The bank has dealt with approximately 43,000 customers and 187,000 amendments in this way since September of last year. Approximately 60% of affected accounts have already received reimbursements for their known amendments. The bank continues to seek contact addresses for approximately 9,000 former customers who are known to have been affected by low-value amendments.

In addition to the accounts of those affected above the €13 threshold, the bank has conducted a validation programme to establish the total amount to be reimbursed to customers. The bank has chosen to calculate the amount to be reimbursed on the basis of amendments which cannot be validated by reference to records which are still available today, even though many of the amendments may well have been justifiable at the time they were made. It was found during the sampling exercise that just under 80% of the fee amendments between 1988 and 1988 can still be validated. The bank has commenced a detailed review of all accounts impacted by manual fee amendments above the €13 threshold. If the bank is unable to validate the amendments, customers will be reimbursed again with interest.

National Irish Bank has completed a comprehensive review of all manual amendments to interest charges in all branches for all quarters under investigation. Reimbursements affecting just over 3,900 accounts and totalling €340,000 have been identified and reimbursements have been made affecting approximately 2,800 of those accounts. In common with the fee programme, the NIB continues to seek contact addresses for former customers who have been identified as being eligible for reimbursements. We will effect reimbursements to such customers in due course.

The bank has set aside a total of €10.6 million to cover the total cost of the programme. That sum includes the estimated cost of covering those periods in which there are gaps in the source records of amendments. I refer to periods in the late 1980s and early 1990s. An initial donation of €1 million has been made to the bank's nominated charity, the Community Foundation for Ireland, in respect of such gaps. At the end of the programme, the bank will make a further donation of funds which were set aside but which remain after all the affected customers have been reimbursed. Many of our customers have used the contact line that the bank established to enable them to register their concerns. Some former customers have used the line to inform the bank of their current contact details. I emphasise that there is no onus on current customers to take any action as the bank intends to contact directly everyone who is due a reimbursement.

I assure the committee that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure that customers whose charges for the period now under review cannot be validated will be reimbursed. The bank will not make any gain from fees or interest inappropriately charged during the period covered by the investigation.

I would like to speak about DIRT and non-resident accounts. The inspectors identified significant shortcomings in the bank's systems of collecting DIRT from customers, a matter that was addressed previously by the Committee of Public Accounts. The bank's systems were not seen as robust and shortcomings were identified in systems and controls. To remedy the shortcomings, the control of all accounts exempt from DIRT, including non-resident accounts, has been centralised under an operational tax unit within the bank's finance function. The staff of the unit, who are experts in this area, report to an experienced tax compliance manager. Branch staff can no longer open tax exempt accounts without the authorisation of the unit.

As an extra safeguard, a €10,000 floor has been implemented for non-resident deposits. All staff are being given anti-money laundering training. Every branch has a tax compliance supervisor and an officer charged with reviewing the opening of accounts. An account overview team reviews centrally all new accounts which are opened. A team of compliance managers regularly visits all branches to monitor the level of compliance with procedures.

The bank undertakes an annual review of all non-resident accounts in accordance with the guidelines of the Revenue Commissioners. The accounts are monitored centrally to check for any changes which would indicate that non-resident status should no longer apply. The bank believes it has fully addressed the issues raised by the inspectors and the Committee of Public Accounts. Payments were made in October 2000 in settlement of all DIRT related liabilities following audits by the Revenue Commissioners. The bank has no residual liability for DIRT.

I wish to speak briefly about offshore policies, which are commonly referred to as CMI policies. I can confirm that National Irish Bank no longer sells any offshore products and that its financial advice and services division, which sold the offshore products, has been closed down. The bank is dealing with the cases of customers who claim to have received wrong advice from the division I have mentioned. The bank put in place a comprehensive customer resolution scheme in January 2001 to assist customers who may have received incorrect advice. It has approved settlement offers worth just over €14 million to date, of which approximately €12 million has been accepted by investors. The compensation scheme does not involve compensating people in respect of tax issues they may have had prior to taking investment advice from us.

I turn next to structures, controls and governance issues. The management structures and systems within National Irish Bank have been transformed since 1998. There has been a complete overhaul of the senior management team and comprehensive measures to ensure the matters investigated by the directors cannot recur have been put in place. All our procedures have been overhauled to ensure policy and practice are correct and compliant. All retail and business financial service procedure manuals have been reviewed, rewritten and reissued. New monitoring controls and supervisory mechanisms have been implemented and a significant programme of training and development has been introduced in the bank. The programme covers business ethics and ensures policy and procedural changes are understood and implemented.

On 1 March this year, National Irish Bank and its sister bank, Northern Bank, became members of the Danske Bank Group which has confirmed its intention to invest heavily in bank systems and technology. The investment will result in the migration of our current technology processes to the Danske Bank platform by April 2006. The group has also confirmed its intention to invest in expansion in the Republic of Ireland.

National Irish Bank has adopted the Irish Bankers Federation code of ethics which deals specifically with standards and ethics in professional life and is designed to safeguard the interests of customers, employees and shareholders alike. The bank has also implemented the code of practice for credit institutions issued by IFSRA. Our risk management processes measure staff awareness of the requirements of the various codes applicable to our business. A values in business ethics course attended by all National Irish Bank managers was completed in spring 2000. The course was designed by the Industrial Society, which is a well respected UK training organisation.

Since 2000, all new NIB entrants have attended an induction course which includes a programme outlining the bank's values and explaining how they apply to employees' work. In 2003, we completed training of all supervisory staff through the managing people better programme which provided clarity on self-conduct, coaching and teamwork behaviours. These behaviours have been incorporated into individual performance plans for each job role as part of the bank's appraisals system. Before legislation was implemented, we introduced in 2000 a confidential alert line to provide a confidential mechanism to allow staff to raise matters of concern and provide reassurance to those who do so. I assure the committee that the bank is committed to compliance and actively encourages any member of staff who has a concern of any nature to come forward in confidence and have the concern addressed.

As a business, the bank has paid a heavy price for its past failings. Final costs are expected to reach approximately €75 million. In December 2004, NIB reached agreement of the sale to Danske Bank Group and the transaction was completed on 20 February 2005. The committee should be aware that under the terms of the agreement, National Australia Bank has given warranties and provided indemnities to protect Danske Bank from certain risks, including those in respect of liabilities arising in connection with the High Court investigation. In addition to direct costs, there has been a significant opportunity cost to the bank which did not grow at the same rate as its competitors during the economic boom of the 1990s. We missed out on the growth during the period.

Rightly, we have devoted considerable management, personnel and financial resources to co-operation with inspectors and the carrying out of internal reviews of procedures and processes. I am satisfied that the bank has responded appropriately to investigation to ensure compliance and reimburse customers. We are sorry for what happened and have learned serious lessons from the failings of the past. Our aim is to ensure that National Irish Bank continues to make amends, restores the trust and confidence of our customers and continues to offer Irish consumers a valuable alternative and competitive service operating on a strictly compliant and trustworthy basis. I am happy to respond to questions.

Thank you very much, Mr. Price.

I thank our guests for attending and presenting their case. Everyone must be pleased to hear of an offender who has reformed and engaged in what is nowadays called restorative justice by paying back what was owed. National Irish Bank, however, was not some misguided youth who could be forgiven for straying from the straight and narrow path. National Irish Bank was a very wealthy corporation with a significant international parent which should have known what standards were expected in banking. The proportionality of responsibility applied seems to have left the bank relatively free compared to the individuals who were caught up. There is a suspicion that in legal terms the bank aided and abetted tax evasion and that the law was not up to a standard whereby sanctions could be enforced. The people who aided and abetted within the bank do not seem to have had to face the music in the same way as those individuals who were aided and abetted.

It seems banks can heap blame on a number of staff and it gets off the hook. While the bank must pay recompense, the corporation per se does not seem to be held accountable for the practices in which individuals within it were involved. That is a problem we have yet to address in Ireland. While it is true the legislation was hopeless at the time the offences took place, the law now allows only for a maximum penalty of €5 million for misdemeanour by a corporation. It seems tiny in the context of the scale of money involved. What is National Irish Bank’s view of the proportionality of culpability? It is unacceptable that the companies have been left fairly free while individuals have been made culpable.

How did it happen that an international group which should have been aware of the highest level of ethical procedures did not have the compliance systems necessary to discover highly unacceptable and unlawful practices within a subsidiary? While I accept that it has new owners, I would like to hear the bank's views having been through the experience. We need to understand how the wrongdoing took place and how the audit committee system failed to flag it. Why did the bank not have systems in place to highlight when it failed to comply with tax, consumer or other law? There is a new order in National Irish Bank, which has joined the Danske Bank Group, and more power to them. I hope the company will emerge as a strong force in banking while applying ethical rules. Will Mr. Price provide the committee with details of the warranty and indemnity which continues to be held by National Australia Bank? What future potential liabilities does it cover?

The Oireachtas has been engaged over the past three to four years in shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. We have introduced a law on aiding and abetting and created sanctions through IFSRA. We will rely in future on principle-based regulations rather than on heavy oversight of banks. Given the NIB experience, does Mr. Price understand why Oireachtas Members are suspicious of relying on hands-off compliance which assumes sound principles will be applied when the history of the banking sector contains many examples of the application of wrong principles? Are we being asked to rely too much on faith in adopting principle-based regulation?

I accept that the witnesses before us are not responsible for much of what happened. Our questions are on how to clean up the mess created by the wrong people. I share the continuing frustration of the public that the responsibility for the wrongdoing of the bank has not been shouldered. While the commercial success of NIB was damaged, people got away with wrongdoing because the law was not up to an adequate standard. This leaves ordinary customers, consumers and legislators frustrated. However, Members of the Oireachtas must share some of the blame because proper legislation was not in place and we did not give sufficient thought to these issues.

I thank Mr. Price and Mr. Trethowan for appearing before the joint committee. Although I intend to make some critical comments, I am nevertheless impressed that they have put their hands up and admitted to us that National Irish Bank failed its customers and apologises. While I appreciate this is a beginning, it does not resolve the problems.

I concur with everything Deputy Bruton said and wish to address his later comments in detail. Where are those who took the decisions that got us into the mess? Are they doing work of a similar nature? The witnesses may not be able to answer that question comprehensively but the bank has certain responsibilities in that regard.

I have never been able to establish what penalty National Irish Bank applied to former senior managers. Although we have had many banking scandals in recent years, the importance of this report is that, for the first time, it states that senior management was responsible and aided and abetted the wrongdoing, some of which was illegal and some not. What penalties did the bank apply to those who created the major problem that occurred?

I was delighted to note that Mr. Price and Mr. Trethowan did not go down the route taken by others who appeared before the joint committee by trying to give the impression, albeit not explicitly, that these practices were common across the banking sector. The fact that they did not do so means I am now required to ask the question because the joint committee needs to determine if they were widespread. Based on their experience and, to repeat the phrase used in the presentation, surviving evidence, do Mr. Price and Mr. Trethowan believe the practice was widespread in the banking system at the time?

The presentation addressed in great detail the bank's current approach to compliance and noted that customers are informed in advance about administrative charges, etc. It also described the compensation system and the type of processes currently in place. We were not told, however, who is supervising the system, even if this may be a given. On what basis can we have confidence in the system? Is an outside supervisory authority or individual in a position to confirm that the bank is compliant?

What specific changes have been made to the role and function of the internal auditor and audit committee of the bank? Does the audit committee meet the internal and external auditors without senior management being present? Does it issue separate reports each year to the board and the shareholder AGM? What is the employment status of the auditors vis-à-vis the bank?

What changes have taken place since 1998 in terms of the number of independent directors in National Irish Bank and their responsibilities? I do not expect a full answer to my next question. How does National Irish Bank find its independent directors? From where do they come and what is their background? What profile does the bank seek in an independent director?

I will address some of the specifics of the CMIs and related products. One of the problems at the time was that we were in a period of change as we moved towards the adoption of the euro. The Central Bank applied strict controls at the time by requiring that the names of any persons making offshore investments be brought to its attention. While this matter was not specifically addressed in the report, as far as I have been able to determine the system failed because National Irish Bank did not take responsibility for informing the Central Bank that an individual had made an investment in, for example, a fund in Luxembourg. The practice of giving the information to the investor sounds like an invitation to dispose of it in the wastepaper basket. It may not have been a legal requirement but who was responsible for the decision not to automatically inform the Central Bank of such cases?

Mr. Price made an interesting reference to a code of ethics in his presentation. I would like a copy of the document. In the context of responsibilities, he referred to staff, customers, shareholders and a fourth group, perhaps managers. What was this group?

When they appeared before the joint committee, representatives of the Irish Banking Officials Association referred, though not specifically in the context of National Irish Bank, to a climate of fear among its members with regard to acting properly. The presentation goes to considerable trouble to explain how members of staff can deal with problems they may experience. What is National Irish Bank's view of its relationship with the union? Does it regard it as a source of trouble or a partner? Would it prefer if the union did not exist or is a positive relationship possible?

Mr. Price

Many issues have been raised and I will try to answer them in the order in which they were put. If I miss anything, members can inform me when I conclude. The first question was how this happened. It should be recognised that the report makes clear that there was no dishonest corporate policy associated with it. It was a story of human failure in which the systems and controls were simply inadequate. While it is probably cold comfort, the report made no adverse findings against the board or directors.

Did Mr. Price not indicate that the problem arose as a result of decisions taken at senior level management level and that non-compliance was aided and abetted by bank policy? Were those conclusions not in the report?

Mr. Price

No, the report concludes that there are no adverse findings against the board or the board audit committee.

I was referring to senior management.

Mr. Price

The Senator is correct that responsibility lies with senior management. In terms of what drives something like this to happen — again it is easy for me to comment because I was not there — but what strikes me is that there was an improper balance between driving the commercial growth of the company and having the necessary checks and balances in place to ensure compliance.

I do not have a great deal to add to what we have said already. On the question as to whether the penalty imposed on National Irish Bank was commensurate, a cost of €75 million is an enormous burden for a company of our size. While cannot undo what happened, we have done everything in our power to put matters right. We have settled with Revenue and introduced reimbursement schemes for customers as well as interest on fees and CMI. We volunteered to pay the costs of the inspectors so that the taxpayer did not have to foot the bill. I do not know if there is anything additional we could do from a commercial point of view.

While Mr. Price's statement that no corporate dishonesty occurred is correct, surely it was a major corporate failure on the part of the parent company not to exert pressure to ensure its bank complied with law in the countries in which it operates and its managers did not run amok in the manner the managers in question did.

I wish to add to that before Mr. Price responds. On the same issue, I take the point that in the report the directors and the board were not found to be responsible, but I am astonished that one can differentiate between the board and senior management. What is the role of the board? Should it not take responsibility for what happens? It should not be a case of just three lunches a year and collecting the fee or whatever at the end of the year. It must have some responsibility. Where was the gap there?

Mr. Price

The board audit committee had a role and perhaps I will comment on what it is doing today as much as what it was doing then. At that time the board audit committee consisted of three non-executive directors who took reports from senior management on what was happening throughout the bank. Once there was a breakdown at senior management level it was very difficult for the board audit committee to second guess. The inspectors deduced that while the audit function and the board audit committee are responsible for checking that the compliance function is being pursued, it is not their role to check that actions have taken place. That responsibility lies with senior management.

To return to the earlier question, there are no findings in the report against, or criticism of, the parent company, National Australia Bank. All the findings are specific to Ireland. I do not think there is anything else I can say on that.

I was asked about what penalties we could impose on individuals. Again, one has to realise that we were part of the legal process. We did not conduct our own investigation. We worked with the inspectors. All the individuals who are named in the report as having responsibility and knowledge have left the bank. They had left the bank when the report came out. The report has been referred to the Director of Corporate Enforcement and the Director of Public Prosecutions. That is not a process in which we can get involved. It is for them to follow up the matter and judge it appropriately.

I was asked whether this was an issue specific to NIB or the banking sector. The only thing I can say is that, as we saw from the PAC, the DIRT issue was clearly an industry-wide issue. As regards the other points, I was not here at the time and it is not appropriate for me to comment on other banks. That is a question that one would have to put to the other financial institutions.

I do not ask Mr. Price to answer factually but is that coming through in terms of the evidence he has unearthed in dealing with all this internally? I accept that Mr. Price may not know it personally but has it been said to him by the people involved in all this that they were only doing the same things as everybody else?

Mr. Price

I have had no direct involvement. The inspectors carried out all the interviews. None of the work of the investigations was carried out by the bank. All the interviews were carried out by the inspectors. There is no basis on which I can comment on what happened in other banks at that time.

I was asked what is now in place in terms of governance with Danske Bank. First, Danske Bank has a structure whereby it has a supervisory board of about 20 individuals who are all non-executive. It has an executive board with an executive chairman who is the group CEO. A management committee is in place below that. It has a board audit committee, which is made up of approximately six non-executives from outside the industry, including the chairman of the company, and it has responsibility now for National Irish Bank as a subsidiary of Danske Bank.

In terms of the governance of NIB now, as the committee is aware, we just changed over on 1 March. The group CEO of Danske Bank is now our chairman. We have three non-executive directors from Denmark and we have two executive directors, myself and Mr. Trethowan. We are in the process of appointing two new local non-executive directors. That process is well under way. We are using an executive search firm in Dublin to assist us in the matter.

I was asked about the profile of the individuals we are seeking. We are looking for people who will have the stature to support National Irish Bank, especially given our recent history. We want one of the individuals to have an accountancy background, given the responsibility to sign the statutory accounts. It will be a broadly based board, albeit two members still have to be put in place.

In terms of the role of the board and the board audit committee, the two key roles in terms of governance would be to monitor the performance of both the bank and the management according to the strategy that has been agreed with Danske Bank and that we would fulfil all statutory and fiduciary duties in terms of financial accounting and compliance. Those are well documented within the Danske Bank organisation.

A question was asked about the code of ethics——

I am not finished with the audit committee. I asked specific questions about the relationship with the internal and external auditor and whether they make specific recommendations and report to the board and to the AGM.

Mr. Price

We have an internal audit function here in Ireland. It reports independent of management to the head of group audit in Denmark. It reports independently of local management in Copenhagen to the supervisory board. It is completely separate now.

As part of our articles it is a requirement for the board audit committee to meet the external auditors without management at least once during the year. The head of audit can only be appointed or removed by the supervisory board. In other words, if the auditor comes up with something and management do not like it, management cannot get rid of the auditor. It goes straight through to the supervisory board.

What is the role of the audit committee in that function and does the audit committee meet the internal audit people?

Mr. Price

They do. We have both internal audit operational risk and compliance. They take presentations from the head of compliance, the head of audit and the head of risk management. We also meet as a management team to address those issues. Clearly the audit committee overviews that. It seeks to ensure that all the audit items are implemented.

If an audit item is raised in the bank, management cannot sign off and simply say it has achieved that. One of the problems that occurred in the 1990s was that management was effectively policing itself. Today in National Irish Bank if an audit item is raised it can only be closed by the audit function independent of management. It is not sufficient for me simply to say as a manager that I have done something; it has to be signed off independently. That report goes in, again independently, to the audit committee.

What is the position with the code of ethics?

Mr. Price

The core elements with the Irish Bankers Federation relate to integrity, professionalism and compliance. Schemes within National Irish Bank have been rolled out throughout the bank. The awareness of that code is measured by our compliance managers who go around the bank. Again, it is an ongoing refresher course rather than something done at a particular time.

On that point, will Mr. Price tell us if the independent audit function meets the audit committee of the board independently of management? Does it meet without senior executives being present?

Mr. Price

Part of the articles of the audit committee require them to meet at least once a year without management presence.

Usually when people make presentations to the committee we receive a copy of the presentation. We have not received one today. Will it be made available to us or will it just be part of the record?

Mr. Price

We can provide copies of my presentation.

I welcome Mr. Price and Mr. Trethowan. We have had many debates in this committee in recent years and in other fora regarding problems with banks and financial institutions generally. This has been a tale of woe in the past ten or 12 years and one scandal has followed another. The Legislature is somewhat responsible to the extent that it did not provide for all the checks and balances. However, it would also have been expected that those in a position to deal with matters of such importance to the public would have had a code of ethics. I am not just referring to the National Irish Bank but to all financial institutions. A code of ethics was surely lacking. If we were to examine the role of the Central Bank in those years, we would note that its role was very much prudential and that the ordinary customer or citizen was not considered.

I acknowledge the points made by Mr. Price, particularly his apology to the customers and the public. Some other financial institutions found such an apology very difficult to make. National Irish Bank has paid compensation. Mr. Price has indicated that many of the practices in question occurred prior to the passage of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. I appreciate that a finger must be pointed at the Oireachtas in this regard.

Mr. Price stated that the cost is in the region of €75 million. He stated that his bank is in a strong position under its new ownership and that it is looking to the future. In his reply he might indicate the level of activity of the bank in the State, the number of branches, the number of staff and the bank's share of the market. Will this share increase in the future?

Irrespective of the questions this committee has been asking, I am very much in favour of a strong banking system. It is in the best interest of the country. However, the public must have confidence in the sector. If one were to ask people on the high street today for their views on financial institutions or banks, they would certainly not give a complimentary answer, and I would not blame them on the basis of what has happened over a long period.

Mr. Price made a very profound statement which needs some explanation. I am not sure whether it was a written statement or made verbally to the committee. It contains the answer to everything, but the manner in which it is responded to is important. Mr. Price stated there was, during the period in question, a breakdown at senior management level — I believe I am quoting him verbatim. What does the statement mean and what are its implications? The meaning will allow me to decide on my next question. It is very important that we receive an explanation.

Mr. Price

The point I was making in the report was in response to the question on the board and the board audit committee. The report states that responsibility lay with senior management at the time and it identifies by name 19 individuals who were implicated. It elaborates at length on the background to that conclusion.

In broader terms, I consider it insufficient for senior management to simply send out circulars asking for tasks to be done in respect of regulatory compliance. One must also check whether these tasks are carried out in practice. While I am now saying the process is validated by independent checks by a board audit committee, this did not occur in the 1990s. A number of weaknesses and failings have been identified in the report. The checks people would certainly expect today were simply not carried out.

Mr. John Trethowan

May I add to what Mr. Price has stated? In the work we did over the past few years, we never encountered any direction by the board or senior management to address any of the matters reported on in the inspector's report. We saw many communications from the senior team and their purpose was not to address matters such as bogus non-resident accounts but to follow through on the control loops that failed. I believe this is what Mr. Price was referring to.

The 19 people who were named in the report were at senior management level. Did they retire on a pension or are they still working with National Irish Bank? Was any of them sacked?

Mr. Price

First, one will appreciate that the people in question have all been named. We are not talking about a generic management team but about individuals. As I stated, the report has been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Director of Corporate Enforcement. It is not appropriate, therefore, for me to talk about specific individuals. However, I can say that none of them worked for the bank when the report was published.

One must bear in mind that this investigation dates back 17 years to 1988. Although the inspector's report named 19 individuals, it does not allocate levels of blame in terms of significance. It will be a matter for the relevant authorities whether they wish to pursue any of the individuals who have been named.

I take Mr. Price's convenient point that none of the individuals was working for the bank when the report was published. Surely the bank had established, long before its publication, that some people had acted inappropriately. Is this not the case? The public, the members of this committee and others decided that inappropriate activity took place. If National Irish Bank had knowledge of such activity prior to publication of the report, did it not suspend or sack any of its staff at that stage?

Mr. Price

As soon as the High Court inspectors were appointed, they took ownership of the process. Our role was to co-operate with the inspectors and provide them——

In advance of their taking ownership, what action did the bank take?

Mr. Price

Although I was not chief executive in 1998, I believe the bank was as surprised as anybody when this story broke. There was no activity before 1988.

I might be from Roscommon, but I am not as naïve as one might believe. The answer to my question is that nobody was suspended, sacked or reprimanded in any way prior to publication of the report. Therefore, all we have ascertained from National Irish Bank is that a former junior clerk owned up to certain activities in the High Court or some other court and was subjected to public humiliation. That is basically what we have discovered to date with regard to staff. I appreciate that certain sensitivities are involved in respect of forwarding of the cases to the Director of Public Prosecutions and that further action may be taken at a later stage.

Will Mr. Price explain again the position on paying back customers? If we had the relevant information in written form, we would have a better understanding of what was involved. I have noted that compensation was paid but I found Mr. Price's explanation hard to figure out. Is he saying that everybody who held up to €15 was compensated?

Mr. Price

The issue with which we are dealing concerns manual adjustments rather than computer generated adjustments. We looked at all the manual adjustments and where we are able to validate with the available documentation, customers will be reimbursed. To speed that up, because we are talking about 300,000 amendments, all manual amendments below a €13 threshold are automatically being repaid, accounting for 200,000 of the 300,000 amendments, regardless of whether they were due the reimbursements. We are looking at amendments above the €13 threshold on a case by case basis.

I wish the NIB well. It is important that we have a good banking sector. Seven years ago I had a sound business proposal but my bank did not agree. I went to a manager I knew in the AIB Bank in Athlone and he agreed with me, gave me the money for it and we were both right. The most important thing is that the public regains confidence because the banking sector is vital. We have gone through a desperate period, however, and I wish the NIB well. We have some distance to go and today's decision on the ombudsman is important from the customer's perspective. Will NIB comment on that?

Mr. Price

I hope that we can resolve any complaints without referral to the ombudsman but anything that gives the consumer more protection is welcome.

Under what circumstances did the 19 members of staff identified and named in the inspector's report leave the bank? Did they get payments on leaving and have they been in receipt of pensions or other emoluments since they left?

Mr. Price

It would be inappropriate for me to talk about any individual. It is not a generic management team, it is a set of named individuals. Therefore I cannot answer the question.

Were measures taken that would have deprived any member of a generic management team of the normal retirement bonus and pension and other entitlements in the past ten years?

Mr. Price

We would respect the legal conditions of employment.

If they had legal entitlements to pensions and gratuities, they would have got them?

Mr. Price

Yes, that is my understanding. I do not know. Some of them left long before I joined the bank.

I realise that, but the witness is here to represent the bank, although he might not have been involved in these proceedings. These people got their full legal entitlements from the bank and a number of them have moved on to work in other sectors of the Irish banking industry. Does NIB have a view of their fitness to be involved in banking when probity issues arise for any part of the generic management team subject to mention in the inspectorate's report?

Mr. Price

It is inappropriate for me to comment on named people but if there is ever a lesson for all financial institutions on the importance of compliance within the industry, it is what happened in NIB. It is for the other financial institutions to make those judgment calls.

If NIB advertised a job tomorrow and anyone who was a part of this generic management team who had subsequently left NIB were to apply, as an equal opportunities employer, would that person stand the same chance as any other applicant of being employed?

Mr. Price

That is a leading question. We would look at any employment situation, the pros and cons involved, whether they are to do with probity or the skills for the job, and make the appointment on merit. It is a hypothetical question.

Mr. Trethowan

IFSRA would have more of a role in deciding who is fit to work in the industry than individual banks.

The development of a detailed code of ethics is welcome. The High Court inspectors said that while many branch managers operated or played a part in the improper practices, they concluded that it would be inappropriate to find individual managers responsible as they believed that responsibility for the practice lay at a higher level in the bank. IFSRA is carrying out a study on probity and fitness to practice in banking. Has the bank offered its views and experiences to it?

Mr. Price

We have been in regular contact throughout this with IFSRA. The Deputy was not here when we addressed the question of the culture of the bank and the training in ethics and behaviour that we have put in place in the past seven years. Deputy Burton is right, as well as the systems of control, the culture is important.

Mr. Trethowan

The cultural changes have been effected not just by training but we have also put interventions in place where, apart from the audit function, compliance training managers check what happens in branches from day to day and offer training on the spot if remedial action is necessary. We have also put controls in place for area managers. These steps were introduced progressively in the past few years.

If a bank employee comes across something inappropriate, do positive whistleblowing structures exist and, if so, what are they?

Mr. Price

We introduced a whistleblower policy in 2000, before the legislation came in. There is a confidential telephone line to our audit function. In the past 12 months, only one person has used the facility to raise a personal issue that was dealt with by the HR function but the facility exists.

Mr. Trethowan

Over and above that, we intervene daily in branch routines where people from outside the branch check how things are done. That process has been going on since 2000.

Is that a peer group from outside the branch or an audit review?

Mr. Trethowan

They are experienced compliance training managers. They have an inspection role to inspect legal compliance, be it with DIRT, account opening or ethics. They have set systems tests.

The Director of Corporate Enforcement, Mr. Appleby, in the aftermath of publication of the report, indicated that he was reading it. Has he been in contact with the bank?

Mr. Trethowan

No.

That is interesting.

Would we expect him to communicate with the bank?

He indicated that he would examine whether there were grounds for bringing a criminal case against the bank. It would be interesting to know whether he communicated with the bank because he claims oversight in this matter.

Mr. Trethowan

He made some inquiries about a few of the named individuals. We have assisted him in those inquiries but that is the full extent of the communication with him.

Did he contact the bank about named individuals?

Mr. Trethowan

Yes.

I apologise for my late arrival but I had to attend another meeting upstairs. I am interested in National Irish Bank and the report. Politicians are notorious for engaging in post mortems. Much has happened at National Irish Bank, but banking is about risk-taking and making money. National Irish Bank has sold its business for a substantial sum to Danske Bank, a large European bank. Consequently, many people here, including staff and others, have been left in misery. Did the bank receive €1 billion and will it contribute to the State from the proceeds of this sale?

There was a furore about the bank's products but other institutions received bad publicity for overcharging, which was less serious than the problems at National Irish Bank. Today the bank tells us that the people involved were outside its direct employment. In other words, they were selling a suspect product on a freelance basis and it was not possible for the bank to discipline or chastise those people. Nevertheless, the bank's executive must have supported them in this activity. Why did the bank allow that to happen?

Mr. Price

The cost to National Irish Bank will be approximately €75 million. That covers the repayments of DIRT to the Revenue Commissioners, reimbursements on interest in fees and the Clerical and Medical International scheme. The bank has volunteered to pay the costs of the High Court inspectors. That is a significant cost burden to a company the size of National Irish Bank.

The parent company has sold National Irish Bank and Northern Bank. Some of the comments about this reflect a misunderstanding that the amount of money made on the sale was for two banks, not just National Irish Bank. No organisation could have done more than ours to try to make amends for what has happened. Was the Deputy's other question about the role of the board?

I asked whether the people selling the suspect products had the blessing or imprimatur of the bank's executive. It is not good enough to say they were employed outside the bank.

Mr. Trethowan

I take it the Deputy is referring to Clerical and Medical International policies.

I am referring to the policies which created all the difficulty.

Mr. Trethowan

The sales staff involved in that product were part of a division of the bank, not the mainstream bank. The policy was designed to be sold to non-residents of Ireland and it was improper to sell to Irish residents. That was a failure in the control mechanisms of the bank at that time.

Since the allegations broke we contacted each of the 478 Irish residents who purchased those policies. I visited several of them and heard their stories. We have arranged a compensation scheme which has addressed approximately half of those affected and we are working on many of the others. That scheme is designed to put people in the position they were in the day they purchased the policy. For example, if the policy was sold as being tax free the bank has stepped in and reimbursed the gain on the policy, as well as the fees etc.

Does that mean that much of the money accumulated from the sale of the bank will be used to pay moneys to individuals and the Revenue Commissioners and for other activities associated with the problem?

Mr. Trethowan

The schemes we have established to put matters right are subject to various provisions. We have funds set aside to meet all the potential claims from the Clerical and Medical International investors and to reimburse all the interest and fee adjustments and we have made a full and final settlement with the Revenue Commissioners for outstanding DIRT issues.

On a more positive note, what plans does the bank have to develop in Ireland, whose economy is growing at 5% and where two million people are employed, as against the 18% to 20% who were unemployed some years ago? Ireland has become very attractive for financial institutions and there is a great deal of activity in this sector, with new banks entering the market. Will National Irish Bank develop new products?

Mr. Trethowan

The bank is in a state of anticipation on the impact of the transfer of ownership to Danske Bank. Danske announced that it sees the Republic of Ireland as a highly attractive market and National Irish Bank as a good vehicle to move forward. As Mr. Price said in his presentation, we have built a new bank here and that provides a strong foundation from which to advance. As we will install new computer systems by April 2006, there is much work to be done between now and then. There will be new products and the bank will become much more prominent in the market. We intend to open some branches too.

Does the bank intend to expand or rationalise its branch network?

Mr. Trethowan

We intend to open branches in key cities across the Republic.

I thank Mr. Trethowan and Mr. Price for attending this meeting and being as full and open as circumstances permitted in their presentation and responses.

Barr
Roinn