I move amendment No. 245:
In page 52, lines 20 and 21, to delete subsection (4).
This subsection duplicates the provisions of section 8 (3) which provides that the fees payable on application for an authorisation may be varied. On reflection, though this amendment has been moved, I am giving notice that I am withdrawing it because it will be a repetition, it is tautological.
Amendments Nos. 246 and 247 are related and will be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 246:
In page 53, subsection (7) (iv), line 1, before "Revenue" to insert "current".
We discussed a similar point in the context of an earlier section. Amendment No. 247 proposes to delete "dated within three months prior to the date of application." These amendments allow for any change in practices by the Revenue Commissioners in the issuing of tax clearance certificates. We have already dealt with it in amendments Nos. 63, 64, 204 and 205.
The change is that a person cannot produce an out of date tax certificate.
Yes. We are inserting the word "current".
I move amendment No. 247:
In page 53, subsection (7)(iv), lines 3 and 4, to delete "dated within 3 months prior to the date of application".
I move amendment No. 248:
In page 53, subsection (7), between lines 7 and 8, to insert the following:
"(f) the applicant has failed to comply with regulations made under subsection (8).".
The purpose of this amendment is to ensure that in the event of regulations being made requiring mortgage intermediaries to effect policies of professional indemnity, failure to comply with such regulations would constitute grounds for refusal to grant an authorisation. We are allowing for a situation where mortgage intermediaries would be required to take out professional indemnity. This may arise in the future.
I do not understand why it is lettered (f). Where are (a) to (e)?
We dealt with the same point on section 8 in relation to credit intermediaries.
The Minister is essentially providing that she will be able to insist on professional indemnity insurance.
I expect that is how it will develop.
If the Minister proceeds along that route, the power will exist to deny a licence.
If they have not linked themselves to the professional——
Has the Minister made a decision on the issue of professional indemnity insurance which is at the heart of this? There is no objection to the amendment although I do not understand why it is lettered (f). I do not see (a) to (e) on the page. What is the Minister's view on professional indemnity for mortgage intermediaries?
The Deputy is now discussing the insurance field which is the subject of many regulations and directives at present. There is talk of professional indemnity at present. If the insurance industry — as distinct from this Bill — moves along that path, we are now providing that a lack of professional indemnity would constitute a ground for refusal of authorisation rather than having to amend the Bill when enacted.
If a consumer has paid over money to a mortgage intermediary and it transpires that the mortgage intermediary has not secured the loan as expected, does the consumer suffer a financial loss at present?
The person will be entitled to indemnification under the terms of their contract if they have not complied with the housing regulations.
Must they be bonded?
Yes, they would be bonded. Professional indemnity covers negligence and misleading information in the course of the transaction. The purpose of the amendment is to prepare for developments in the financial arena.
That is acceptable, subject to renaming (f).
That is a typographical error.
It should read (vi).
I move amendment No. 249:
In page 53, subsection (9), line 16, after "days" to insert "of receipt of notice".
This amendment is for the purposes of clarification and is similar to amendment No. 209.
I move amendment No. 250:
In page 53, between lines 23 and 24, to insert the following subsection:
"(11) In an appeal under this section the Director shall not be awarded or ordered to pay costs.".
We encountered a similar issue in Parts I and VIII. It ensures that the Director will not be inhibited from refusing to grant an authorisation because of the fear of costs being awarded against him. Equally an applicant who has been refused an authorisation or licence should not be inhibited from appealing against the Director's decision for the same reason. We dealt with this point in the context of the patents and trademarks legislation.
We accepted this principle on a previous occasion. It is reasonable that the Director, in taking these cases, should not be burdened with other people's costs, regardless of the outcome. I support the amendment.
