Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

The UK’s vow to overhaul its post-crisis system for vetting key finance workers has largely been seen through the lens of attempts to revive a City of London bloodied by Brexit.

A recent Irish legal case, however, raises another argument for reviewing the systems for checking if key finance workers are up to the job — the basic (and legally protected) tenet of fairness.

Ireland was hot off the mark in introducing its “fitness and probity” regime for checking the qualifications and characters of its bankers in 2011, as the country was still in the throes of a €67.5bn EU-IMF bailout triggered by the implosion of its biggest lenders.

Emboldened perhaps by the prevailing depth of feeling against bankers, the Central Bank of Ireland forced sitting bank executives to jump through the new system’s hoops if they wanted to continue carrying out the roles they already had. There were no short-cuts — one then-CEO said at the time he had been asked for a copy of his results from his final school exams — but no one was in any position to question the central bank’s methods.

More than a decade later, the regime has swollen to cover a variety of roles across Irish regulated financial services companies, spanning everything from the country’s biggest domestic banks to its international funds industry and its sizeable cluster of post-Brexit EU outposts.

The expansion has fuelled disgruntlement among bankers, fund directors, insurance executives and others. Now in a stronger position thanks to the much-changed health of Ireland’s financial sector, they have accused the CBI of being bureaucratic and of taking an overly intrusive, combative approach.

The CBI says it has “continuously evolved” the fitness and probity regime, which provides a crucial “gatekeeping role” to ensure those working in financial standards are up to the job.

Some of the criticisms levelled against the process came to light in a recent successful challenge to the CBI’s rejection of a candidate put forward as a chair of two investment funds based in Ireland. The case marked the first time a refusal to authorise an individual was returned from an appeals body to the CBI for “reconsideration”.

The 90-page long judgment from the independent Irish Financial Services Appeals Tribunal criticised the regulator for running a process that was at odds with the director’s constitutional right to fairness. It also questioned the opacity of some of the CBI’s requirements for incoming directors, and stressed the need for a timely process when delays could impinge on an applicant’s ability to earn a living.

“They are sending a very strong message to the CBI,” says one senior figure in the funds sector, which makes up a key part of Ireland’s financial services centre.

The CBI, in response, promised an “independent review” of the fitness and probity regime “to ensure that it remains effective into the future”, without giving further details of what that would entail and when it would be completed.

Some of the issues in the appeal, which involved some 1,500 documents and was heard over four days, appear idiosyncratic. The judge criticised the fact that, throughout a key interview on video, the screen of one official scrutinising him was kept blank without explanation, something which made the applicant uncomfortable.

Other aspects, and criticisms, have broader application, including whether applicants need to be comprehensively warned about the content of their interviews. The judge rebuked the CBI for not giving the applicant “fair notice” that he would be asked detailed questions about issues at a firm he was previously involved with, where bond investments had become “seriously impaired”. The applicant had complained that the interview was “more like an investigation or critique” of events related to that firm.

The CBI’s review may clarify the technical expertise needed by executives and directors at various levels, which would be welcomed by industry, but even finance veterans who crave certainty fear it could be elusive. “It’s difficult for the CBI to be black and white about requirements,” says one. “They need some latitude to be able to review each case on its own merit.”

Some regulators watching from outside fear that the review goes too far in changes, it could undermine a key part of the checks and balances in Ireland’s financial system. Fairness, after all, is in the eye of the beholder.

laura.noonan@ft.com