Since the Deputy's question concerned the recently published progress report from IFSRA, it is only fair to point out that the matters to which he referred, namely, the problems with a particular bank, could not have been taken account of in the report because it was published at the end of April and some of those issues only came to light around that time.
As the Deputy is a member of the Joint Committee on Finance and the Public Service, he will be aware of the changes we have made to financial regulations over the past two years. The Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Act 2003, which was passed last year, created a single regulatory authority in the area. This only came into effect from 1 May 2003. As the Deputy will be aware, most of the matters to which he referred predate the setting up of IFSRA. The overcharging issue, which was the first major issue brought to light, is the responsibility of the Director of Consumer Affairs under the Consumer Credit Act 1995, which was introduced by a previous Administration. Any deficiencies in that Act were dealt with in the Bill that is currently before the Seanad, the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Bill 2003.
The Deputy and many others are inclined to criticise the Central Bank, but the matter of overcharging was not the responsibility of the Central Bank but of the Director of Consumer Affairs. I am not implying any criticism of the Director of Consumer Affairs — it would have been impossible to find out about these matters — I am simply pointing out how the system works.
Last year's Act set up IFSRA as the single authority in this area. It also made substantial changes. For example, under the old Central Bank Act it was strictly forbidden for the Central Bank to communicate to the Revenue Commissioners information about tax evasion. The prudential mechanism of its supervisory powers was ring-fenced in that regard. This changed after the 1994 money-laundering Act, but that was the legal position until then.
I find it difficult to accept that there was a culture of fear within the banking organisation. Perhaps in any big organisation some people will operate in this manner — there are many in my party and the Deputy's party who do — but I do not accept that it was widespread. AIB is made up of people at many different management levels. It is owned by shareholders the length and breadth of the country and all around the world. It is not a privately-run organisation headed by a single person. There are so many structures in place in these organisations that I find it hard to accept that there was a culture of fear. Perhaps there is at some level, but I do not buy into that allegation.