Court Sittings

Thursday, 7 May 2026

Questions (224, 225, 226, 227)

Cian O'Callaghan

Question:

224. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance when he was first made aware of a High Court case (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33545/26]

View answer

Cian O'Callaghan

Question:

225. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if he will initiate a review of the relevant legislation and processes in view of a judgement (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33546/26]

View answer

Cian O'Callaghan

Question:

226. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance if an independent review will be undertaken of a case (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33547/26]

View answer

Cian O'Callaghan

Question:

227. Deputy Cian O'Callaghan asked the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance given the Central Bank Act 1942 states that applications to confirm a prohibition order should, insofar as practicable, be heard and determined within three months yet the President of the High Court has indicated that this timeframe is not achievable in practice; the action his Department is taking to ensure this provision becomes achievable in practice; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [33548/26]

View answer

Written answers

Tánaiste and Minister for Finance

I propose to take Questions Nos. 224, 225, 226 and 227 together.

I am aware of the High Court judgment in this case and while the High Court notified the parties of its decision on a confidential basis in May 2025 there was no basis or requirement to share the judgment with any other parties.

I have been informed by the Central Bank that it takes the High Court judgment seriously and is in the process of thoroughly mapping the judgment against its current procedures to identify what changes are required and will make all the necessary changes to incorporate the judgment into its processes and procedures.

I would note that a number of changes have been already made to the Central Bank’s investigations pillar under the Fitness & Probity (F&P) regime since the time of the investigation and decision to which the judgment relates. These changes have been advanced and the recent written judgment has provided additional clarity and guidance that will be built into internal and external processes and procedures to ensure fairness and robustness of Central Bank investigations in the future.

Furthermore since the decision was made by the Central Bank in this investigation, it has also introduced enhanced scrutiny and oversight on F&P cases in the pipeline to ensure that fair procedures are provided to all persons the subject of an investigation that are consistent with the findings of the judgment.

The Central Bank has also provided the following information highlighting the following material changes which have taken place in the years since this case:

• In 2023, the Central Bank (Individual Accountability Framework) IAF Act 2023 came into effect and introduced a number of changes to the investigations pillar of the F&P Regime. These changes enhanced the procedures in processes and the 2010 Act enshrined the independence of the prohibition decision makers. The Central Bank revised and published updated guidance on ‘Fitness and Probity Investigations, Suspensions and Prohibitions’ and Regulations governing the conduct of investigations in April 2023.

• In July 2024, the Central Bank published the independent review of the F&P Regime. The review was undertaken by Mr Andrea Enria (Enria Report). While the review focused on the gatekeeper pillar of the regime the specific recommendations around fairness, efficiency and transparency of process have been adopted by the Central Bank into the broader operation of the F&P regime to include the F&P investigation pillar. Examples include the fact that at the earliest point in the investigation process, the subject is provided with an overview of the end-to-end process and is kept up to date on the progress of the investigation through regular engagement.

• On 28 January 2026 the Central Bank launched a public consultation on prohibition notices which concluded on 25 March 2026 with final guidance expected in the coming months. This guidance will take into account the recommendations arising from the Enria Report in the preparation of the draft guidance on prohibition notices. The Central Bank have also informed me that it will also take into account the judgment referred to by the Deputy in finalising this guidance.

• Prior to the High Court judgment, the Central Bank was undertaking work on enhancing its process and procedures for the conduct of oral hearings for all ongoing and future cases.

In response to your question on the 3 months confirmation target, the Central Bank provided the following information:

• The majority of prohibition notices imposed by the Bank were agreed with the relevant person and so did not require Court confirmation.

• The IAF Act 2023 amended the Central Bank Act 2010 to provide that a prohibition notice does not take effect until confirmed by the Court unless otherwise agreed to take effect without confirmation in accordance with section 46.

As such, persons are no longer prohibited while the Court confirmation process is ongoing. Thus, the legislation introduced in 2024 has provided an effective remedy.

Taking these issues and changes into account, I do not see a need to undertake a review of the relevant Central Bank legislation or the operational processes within the Central Bank at this time.

However, I do expect the Central Bank to continue to engage with all stakeholders in improving its processes and procedures in line with an ongoing commitment to reform.

Question No. 225 answered with Question No. 224.

Question No. 226 answered with Question No. 224.

Question No. 227 answered with Question No. 224.