Mr. Shane Kavanagh:

I thank the committee for this invitation. In 2018, I appeared before the committee as a representative of a group of EBS agents to express my concerns about accounting and other irregularities within EBS. Despite letters from the joint committee to EBS on the matter, EBS refused to engage. A former EBS director confirmed my concerns and appeared before the committee to outline the consequences of these accounting irregularities.

In a separate case taken by another agent to prevent termination, the company claimed it was being terminated because it resisted pressure from EBS to adopt underhanded sales tactics for investment products. Mr. Justice Jordan ruled against the EBS and noted that he was being told to move along, there is nothing to see here. In his 2019 ruling, the judge called on EBS to “lead by example” adding:

I would have thought that a competent mediator could bring sense to bear and mediate a solution to the dispute between the parties. If the parties are committed to doing business with integrity and in accordance with the regulatory requirements that exist, then what possible obstacle stands in the way of both sides starting on a new page

Sadly, the bank did not listen and instead, in 2020, brought the case to the Court of Appeal where once again all three judges ruled against the bank.

Today, our group of EBS agents are like insects caught in a spider's web. Since our last appearance before this committee in 2018, there has been no attempt by EBS to engage with any of the agents in respect of our dispute. Sadly, two of our colleagues have passed away, both of whom are in our thoughts today, as are their families. We have now spent more than ten years trying to get justice and, to add insult to injury, EBS will not negotiate with us, although it appears to be willing to negotiate with a third party who is soliciting a fee.

EBS signed contracts with us knowing that it was unable to fulfil its obligations. The result was that we could not sell mortgages and EBS instead instructed us to sell investment products associated with a high commission, although they were highly unsuitable, and to do whatever it takes. These products were not suitable for every customer as many customers simply did not have a tolerance for risk. We objected to these instructions and were warned that if we reported it our lives would be hell. Agents who failed to comply lost their livelihoods. Clearly, having the courage to speak out was dangerous.

I welcome the protected disclosures legislation which must be transposed later this year and I hope my comments will be of assistance. If we are to restore the integrity of the financial services industry in general, the foundation stone must be accountability. Every decision which impacts customers or consumers must be traceable to the individual or individuals who made the decision. If we tackle the issue of accountability, we will, at the same time, tackle inequality, dishonesty and corruption in our banking industry and become a beacon of hope for the world's banks, which have, in recent years, lost the trust of the nations to the point that Bitcoin, which is not regulated, has established itself as an acceptable currency on the world stage. Where will this end if we do not stop the rot?

Sadly, whistleblowers are often seen as conspiracy theorists, troublemakers and a threat. They are exposed to bullying and retaliation, leading to financial insecurity and stress. The courts will normally ignore criticisms of regulated banks if the Central Bank and the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, ODCE, have not raised any objection. Having first-hand experience, I have outlined the efforts we personally made with regard to resolution. I refer the committee members to Exhibit 1, which I included as part of my opening statement. It is a map regarding the activity of our group of EBS agents.

If Government regulators are unwilling to act, the role of the whistleblower becomes more important. Ireland's record of dealing with conscientious workers is extremely poor. Conscientious workers are not being publicly represented, apart from the representation provided by a few politicians who are simply doing their job. The very fact that our group exists tells one that Ireland has a long way to go. The State's attitude is concerning. Healthy scepticism is one thing, but when one knows one is correct and is telling the truth, it is soul-destroying to be dismissed as a crank.

What do we have to do to win the interest of the gatekeepers with a view to ensuring an independent and transparent investigation? Personally, I must admit I was very naive. I thought we were all on the same side. I was wrong. The powers that be are just not interested in uncovering the truth and appear more interested in covering up for their corporate cronies. The question must be asked: why does the Garda Economic Crime Bureau not take the lead and investigate these issues irrespective of establishment perception?

In our case, the Central Bank wants this issue to go away simply because it did not do a sufficient job and, as it turns out, it was in its interest that the truth be circumvented. The Minister for Finance and his Department have made it clear to me that they are never going to believe me no matter how well the evidence is presented. The result of all this is that reputations are saved, careers are made and society pays. The time has come for the State to exit its bunker mentality, to stop turning a blind eye, to turn over a new leaf and to engage and support those who speak up for the betterment of society.

I suggest that a dedicated independent anti-corruption agency should be established to tackle white-collar crime and corruption in the corporate world and political spheres. The State should establish a fund to financially support conscientious workers who find themselves with no income and introduce legislation which will provide free legal aid for all conscientious workers who have no alternative but to take their case to the courts for resolution. The State should also introduce an incentive scheme to encourage employers, including State bodies, to employ conscientious workers who find themselves with no work having previously made a qualifying disclosure.

I believe that very few people are aware that the Protected Disclosures Act 2014 exists and that there are legal protections available. The relevant authorities need to educate people on how to use the Protected Disclosures Act safely and to ensure that people are aware of its protections. The State and its representatives also need to educate themselves on the Act and when it applies as there appears to be some confusion among some State employees. I have personal experience of making a disclosure to a State entity only to be told that my complaint did not fall within the Act under a section that I never mentioned in my original disclosure. When I appealed this decision, I highlighted the section of the Act under which I believed the matter fell. However, my disclosure was dismissed on the grounds that it was a matter for another entity, that being the same entity against which the disclosure was made. I responded and informed the recipient that there was nothing in the legislation to allow that body to evade its responsibilities where the responsible company, for whatever reason, refuses to investigate. I provided evidence demonstrating that the company in question was not independent when investigating matters that I was raising. To this date, this concern remains outstanding. I have a question for all legislators on this committee. Do they believe this behaviour is legitimate?