Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Financial Services Regulation.

Dáil Éireann Debate, Thursday - 3 March 2005

Thursday, 3 March 2005

Ceisteanna (2)

Joan Burton

Ceist:

2 Ms Burton asked the Minister for Finance if he has plans to extend the remit of the IFSRA or the Central Bank to regulate companies which advance money from their own resources secured on assets such as property, especially in view of the fact that the advisory group on this sector recommended in 1999 that such businesses be regulated and in view of the reported extensive activities of a company (details supplied); and if he will make a statement on the matter. [7296/05]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

All financial service providers that provide loans secured on a person's principal private residence are subject to the provisions of Part IX of the Consumer Credit Act. This is as a result of an amendment to the Act made last year, following consideration of a recommendation in the 1999 McDowell report.

The Consumer Credit Act is the principal source of protection to personal borrowers. The Act subjects all lenders who provide finance on the security of the family home to a range of obligations. These include: provision of a written loan agreement, quoting the APR and any other fees that will be charged; a requirement to warn the borrower about the risk of losing their home; and an obligation to put mortgage protection insurance in place. Apart from the special case of the family home, the Act does not apply where a loan is given for a commercial purpose.

There is no statutory oversight of interest rates except for the special case of moneylenders who come within the scope of Part VIII of the Consumer Credit Act. This special category of lender typically provides short-term loans to poor credit risks at very high APRs. Such lenders are required to hold a moneylender's licence and the financial regulator can refuse to grant such a licence on the grounds that the cost of credit is excessive. The requirement to hold such a licence and the corresponding oversight of interest rates only applies to this specialist category of lender.

The financial regulator already has the power under the Consumer Credit Act to give directions to a mortgage lender about misleading advertising as well as to prosecute for breaches of the Act. In addition, under the legislation establishing the regulator, its consumer director has responsibility for monitoring the provision of financial services to consumers generally and has the power to require a provider of such services to furnish information relevant to any inquiry or study that the director chooses to undertake.

I am at present consulting the Financial Services Ombudsman Council about the financial service providers not regulated by the financial regulator that should be brought within the scope of the Financial Services Ombudsman, when the ombudsman commences operations on 1 April. The ombudsman has extensive powers to provide redress to consumers who have been unfairly treated by a financial service provider. Subject to the views of the council, I can see merit in including those mortgage lenders who provide loans secured on a person's principal residence.

Criminal activity, including money-laundering, by financial service providers or any other persons is governed by criminal justice legislation. This is enforced by the Garda Síochána and the Criminal Assets Bureau. All entities whose primary business is lending are subject to the know your customer, reporting and other obligations under money-laundering legislation. Their professional advisers, such as accountants and solicitors, are also subject to these reporting requirements. All companies are subject to the enhanced company law regime that has been put in place in recent years, including the oversight role of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. The financial regulator's role regarding compliance by regulated institutions with money laundering, tax and company law is purely supportive.

Does the Minister agree that this type of company should be fully regulated by IFSRA and, therefore, the remit of the authority should be extended to cover this type of company? I do not know if the Minister shares the shock of most people who heard reference to a company, Chesterton Finance, in media reports concerning Garda investigations into money laundering and the Provisional IRA and other paramilitaries. I received the same reply as the Minister from the Director of Consumer Affairs in regard to Part IX of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. Does the Minister think this sufficient? For example, a prominent partner in one of the largest accountancy practices was offering potential investors in this company 10% returns, well above ordinary interest rates and, therefore, attractive in the context of the potential for money lending.

Does the Minister know how many such entities are unregulated? Does he know the amount of lending which may be undertaken by such companies? Such companies have had dubious reputations in the past, particularly where they have lent money on the security of land, generally lending about half the value of the land which they hold as a mortgage. The Minister may be aware that these companies also apply stringent terms and conditions and high interest rates on the loans they provide. Does the Minister share the view of the McDowell committee in 1999 that such entities should be regulated? While the original plan was that regulation of IFSRA was to operate through the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment, once it came into the ambit of the Central Bank and the Department of Finance, this appears to have been blocked. Will the Minister comment on this matter?

The specific information the Deputy seeks on the amount that can be borrowed and the numbers of institutions involved is not immediately available to me but I will make it available to her. With regard to the point on companies linked to money laundering and the allegations in regard to IRA criminal activity, the main purpose of the financial regulator's supervision of financial services providers is the stability of the financial system and the protection of individuals who entrust financial institutions with their money. While the financial regulator has a general obligation to support other State agencies such as the Garda and the Revenue Commissioners by providing them with reports on relevant matters which come to its attention in the course of its activities, this role is a supportive one.

The Criminal Justice Act 1994, as amended, provides, among other things, for the offence in law of money laundering and includes measures to counteract money laundering, which includes the concealment, disguise, conversion, transfer or removal from the State of any property, including money, which is or represents the proceeds of criminal activity. The obligation of clients of financial institutions in general therefore applies also to non-deposit-taking mortgage lenders. The obligations also apply to auditors, accountants, tax advisers and lawyers. The financial regulator is even obliged to report any suspicions it may form in regard to a body supervised by it to comply with the identification, records and reporting requirements.

The Office of the Financial Services Ombudsman, which commences operation on 1 April, will have extensive powers to investigate complaints and order redress where a customer has been unfairly treated, and such redress could include a direction to change a practice complained of and award financial compensation. This is the avenue we should explore and on which I hope to make decisions before 1 April.

That does not answer the point that this area is not regulated by IFSRA. We have set up an expensive and extensive regulation model. However, a letter in my possession from the Director of Consumer Affairs indicates that the only powers of oversight that exist are in regard to the Consumer Credit Act 1995. Will the Minister agree to extend the powers of IFSRA specifically to cover this area, as recommended in the McDowell report?

The question arises whether we should apply it to those bodies which do not take money deposits as part of their operations. As I stated, the Financial Services Ombudsman Council may well be the best avenue in this regard. We will consider the matter in that context.

Barr
Roinn