Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Joint Committee on the Secondary Legislation of the European Communities díospóireacht -
Wednesday, 2 Jul 1975

Draft Community Instruments on Credit Institutions.

Now we come to a report of some practical implication, that is, a report on Draft Community Instruments dealing with Credit Institutions. Because this matter is of considerable interest to some of our credit institutions in this country I shall deal with it in detail. As Members can see, the proposal we are dealing with is a proposal for a Council Directive on the harmonisation of laws regarding the commencement and carrying-on of business of credit institutions. There is a related proposal for a Council Decision to set up a contact committee between the authorities of Member States responsible for the supervision of credit institutions. The important thing to note is that that contact committee will consist of representatives of the Central Banks which are the supervision institutions concerned.

The first point to note is that the Commission is proceeding very cautiously and warily in this whole area because it has discovered that it is a complex situation and that the institutions, the circumstances and the traditions of the different Member States are considerably different. There seems to be general agreement at all levels that the Commission should proceed slowly and cautiously in this harmonisation process. We have had very considerable help in our discussions as a Committee from the Irish Bankers' Federation, from the Building Societies' Association, from the Irish League of Credit Unions and from the Central Bank.

Paragraph 3 defines credit institutions, and as the proposals now stand the Directive will apply not only to banks but to trustee savings banks, building societies, credit unions as well as the Agricultural Credit Corporation and the Industrial Credit Company. In paragraph 4 we see what the Directive proposes, the prior authorisation by competent national authorities before an institution can commence, supervision by the competent authorities of the funds of these institutions, the supervision of withdrawal of authorisation, the application of the Directive to branches of institutions having their head offices outside the Community, appeal to the courts by the institutions, the establishment of the contact committee and also, an important point, that the implementation must be within a period of two years. The decision which is sought would establish the contact committee.

In paragraph 6 we set out our general attitude that we welcome, in general, the principle in the Directive with some limited reservations about the application of the Directive to institutions in this country. The bankers strongly favour a blanket coverage by the Directive. They feel that everybody who is in this field should be covered by the Directive. However, we do not quite accept that general view. First of all, let me say that we recommend—I shall skip over to paragraph 9 which contains perhaps our most important recommendation—that the credit unions, because of their particular constitution and framework and method of activity, be excluded from the operation of the Directive and we also ask that special consideration be given to Irish building societies.

I think, Mr. Chairman, it is important to refer to the last paragraph of paragraph 7 which is on page 4. As you know, the draft Directive has certain exceptions from it I think the bankers were quite strong that that should not be allowed to continue. In that paragraph we read: " In the interests of securing not merely free competition but competition on equal terms the Federation favours the application of the draft Directive without the exceptions specified therein . . .". I think the exceptions specified in the draft Directive seem to favour certain continental institutions.

Well, in general, we favour special provision being made for the needs of building societies in this country.

And for the credit unions.

We specifically asked that the credit unions be excluded.

I think our building societies are only concerned on a time basis.

Two years deferment is what they are looking for.

The bankers are particularly strong in their reference to this and as regards the continental institutions that were left out.

The Bill is about to be introduced in connection with building societies.

Part of the difficulty with the building societies is that our legislation in that field is so archaic that I suppose before we could really be judged on our views on it we would require to seek first to have our native legislation brought up to date.

The bankers also made the point that the contact committee would be composed of representatives from central banks as supervisory authorities. They hoped that side by side with the contact committee, working in co-operation with the Commission, a committee of private institutions would be formed. We supported that.

Yes, and that they should be consulted.

As long as the right of establishment is confined to national jurisdiction in respect of credit unions there should be no real objection to this.

We found some misunderstanding in that. The vital right of establishment is there, in the Treaty. There is no gainsaying the right of establishment. What is involved is whether or not adoption of these particular provisions can be procured. We do not disagree with that. If building societies wish to seek an extension of the time, it is provided for and the report looks reasonably sympathetically on that proposal.

There are one or two points I should like to make. I welcome the findings of the Joint Committee on this proposed Directive. The approach has been excellent. A Directive is obviously necessary and this is acknowledged by the Federation of Irish Bankers, who point out that there is already in this country a system whereby the Central Bank can question the bona fides of the people who intend to establish banks in the country.

I agree with the reservations the Committee have in one or two particular areas. For example, Article 6 of the draft Directive which is referred to on page 4 would apparently empower the Commission, after consultation with this contact committee, which is apparently composed of the Central Bank representatives of the nine countries, to alter the list of banking ratios which are determined. The Federation of Irish Bankers believe that this gives too much power to the Commission, and suggest that the agreement of a bankers' committee, in addition to the contact committee, should be got before the Commission should act. I consider this to be an excellent idea because it appears to give too much control to the Commission if they can alter liquidity ratios in an arbitrary fashion merely by consulting the Central Bank representatives, again part of the Establishment. This would give the banks the necessary involvement in these decisions of ratio which are critical and where the banks here are so deeply involved.

We support the banks.

I compliment them for having done that. The Committee has responded to the Directive.

It is a very important one.

I take it that the adoption of these five reports is agreed. That would bring us to the end.

I should like to make one last point. I think as well—and it hinges on the same point, not so much as the ratios but rather the viewpoint of the federation of bankers—that there should be some involvement with the banks within the nine countries in the establishment as far as this is concerned. It is envisaged that a contact committee should be established which is to embrace the central banks of the nine. The Irish Bankers' Federation favour, as is stated here, setting up a committee of commercial bankers which will have a function co-extensive with the contact committee. Possibly, to be co-extensive is to give them more power than is feasible because we think of governments when thinking of central banks. It is desirable, without question, that a committee of the bankers in the nine be established because these are the people who are directly involved.

We agree with the bankers that this is one area where nothing but good can come from contact with commercial institutions.

I should like to make one point before accepting the report. On page 4 we deal with the alteration of banking ratios. I would prefer if this had to be done with the agreement of the contact committee rather than merely requiring consultation. Perhaps, I would prefer to see the Central Bank itself mentioned as a body whose agreement was required.

In fact, the contact committee will include a Central Bank representative.

I would prefer if this was done with the agreement of the contact committee rather than after consultation with them.

I think we covered this point.

We suggest that the agreement of the contact committee and, indeed of the bankers' committee should be required before a committee would act. The suggestion is an agreed one and the Joint Committee supports it. We support the view that the Central Bank was——

There was some question about those funds. I think they were included.

Paragraphs 1 to 9 inclusive, agreed to.

Draft report agreed to.

Ordered : To report accordingly.

In this session of the Houses, we have gone through a great deal of work largely due to our very efficient Secretariat. We have nothing particularly urgent on our programme at the moment so I would not propose to have a further meeting of the Joint Committee until the Houses resume after the recess. However, if it does appear that a particular measure would require urgent attention I would not hesitate to ask you to come to a meeting during the recess.

May I just ask two brief questions? This afternoon, we passed five reports two of which are very important: one on direct applicability and the one on credit institutions. I should like to ask a brief question on the effectiveness of this Joint Committee. Why do we not follow up our reports? To my knowledge, none of them—apart from the Report on Regional Policy, our first report—has actually been debated in either House of the Oireachtas. The Committee should be more concerned about the effectiveness of what we are doing. I appreciate that today's proceedings are recorded and that the reports themselves are available. We should make specific requests in relation to them that they be debated, either together with the report——

In other words, not just laid before the Houses?

Yes, not just laid before the Houses, but actually debated.

That question has been agitating my mind also. I hope that our primary task was to get ourselves into a position of producing good reports first of all. When we have done that, then we could go on from that and consider how effective we can make them.

The Department of Foreign Affairs assure us that our reports will be quoted in their annual report and in that way they will come before both Houses for debate.

My second question relates to the publishing and printing of reports. It has come to my attention that some of our earlier reports have gone out of print already, which would be a great pity. I imagine that the reports of this Joint Committee will be read, whatever their immediate practical relevance now, and will be also a source of scholarship and study by researchers later on. There should be a larger printing so that they do not go out of print and they should be very widely distributed.

This is an interesting point. Perhaps the solution to it might be that the reports may be bound in a House production rather than a public production.

From the Library point of view.

That is actually a feasibility. I am sure that we are all very elevated to hear that our earlier reports are running out of print.

Apparently that is so and I think it is disgraceful.

I prefer to take the optimistic view.

Let us say it is a situation to be capitalised on.

The Joint Committee adjourned at 6 p.m.

Barr
Roinn