OK James,
Not being funny here, but take a few minutes if you would to consider these questions please....
What's the definition of who was responsible for the tracker scandal ?
...It appears to have been an industry wide decision so does it stem back to some sort of suggest solution from the Central Bank to help manage the funding problems associated with the tracker mortgages at the time, or perhaps the Banking and Payments Federation and how do we evidence this ?
How exactly do you identify the people specifically responsible given many of the decisions were taken over seven years ago, as documentation may well have been destroyed at this stage ?
Let's assume you've got a way to find the people who made and then implemented the decisions, what happens to them when they are identified ? Do they have the right to an independent and fair hearing, or a right of appeal after a decision has been taken and if so, how does that work ?
... many of the directors at the different Banks have been changed, so odds are they are already gone. How do you deal with them, given past experience with dealing with the likes of Michael Fingleton etc. to date ?
...Then you've got the people who did what they were told (because if they didn't, then they faced disciplinary proceedings and may well have lost their jobs), what do you propose to do with them ?
Next up, it's obvious that we can quantify costs incurred by people such as penal interest rates, unpaid direct debit fees etc. so that's something we can calculate and put a figure on. Then there's the horrific cases of people who clearly lost their homes as a result of the overcharging, the duress it caused and so on. That's not as easily quantified but there's probably some form of compensation can be figured out for it. But thereafter, what about the rest of the people - people who still paid the rest of the bills throughout the period, didn't fall into arrears etc. What's the method for calculating compensation for them (and please don't come out with something ridiculous, it's a real problem that needs a genuine solution) ?
What's the likely timeframe and cost to deal with all of the above ? Why pays for it and who is entrusted to manage it correctly ?
I am far from saying that things should just be swept under the rug and forgotten about, but what I am saying is that some of what you want simply cannot be achieved, or at least not without costing the state an absolute fortune with no guarantees of any preferable end result.
We've needed regulatory change and that's come about (albeit, it could still be further improved to properly address consumer protection for example), but we also need massive cultural change across the banking industry - so that there is a genuine appreciation of the industry's social function and its importance to society. Society needs banks, but banks also need people to generate their profits. As such, I would rather now see a genuine focus on and investment in changing the culture of the banks permanently, then waste hundreds of millions of euro on a pointless investigation that will achieve nothing other than fatten a few wallets and give the government something to refer to when asked what they've done about the issue.