That Dáil Éireann, pursuant to Standing Order 128(1) of Standing Orders Relative to Public Business, directs that the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland Bill 2003 in whole be recommitted to a committee of the whole House.
I move that this Bill be recommitted to Committee Stage in order to consider whether its provisions regarding enforcement under Part 2, corporate governance under Part 3 and sanctions under various Acts delegated to IFSRA, constitute best practice for the protection of consumers in their dealings with financial institutions in light of the serious compliance and regulatory failings highlighted by the recent overcharging by one of the leading Irish banks.
Most people were shocked to discover that not only was there overcharging but there was no compliance sign-off within AIB under which directors of banks would be obliged to indicate in the audited reports or other reports to the regulatory authority that they certified their bank was compliant with consumer protection law. The bank continued to be non-compliant for eight years in respect of consumer protection law. There was no response from within the bank to this non-compliance. There seems to be no understanding within the bank of its obligations and no State obligation on the banks to issue compliance statements.
More seriously, it has been discovered that this clear offence under the Consumer Credit Act 1995, is an offence that carries no sanction. The Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment and the Minister for Finance, as they wrestled with what was best consumer protection and best practice in the run-up to the introduction of the IFSRA Bill, in a debate that continued for four years, did not address the issue that the Act contained no sanctions for dealing with this type of offence. Worse still, it has been discovered that over a period of eight years——