Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Financial Services Regulation

Dáil Éireann Debate, Wednesday - 18 May 2016

Wednesday, 18 May 2016

Ceisteanna (1)

Michael McGrath

Ceist:

1. Deputy Michael McGrath asked the Minister for Finance to extend the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 to the owners of credit and to ensure that non-bank lenders and vulture funds are fully regulated in a manner that adequately protects mortgage holders, tenants and small and medium enterprises from unfair practices by entities with a short-term investment horizon; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [10761/16]

Amharc ar fhreagra

Freagraí ó Béal (5 píosaí cainte)

As the Deputy is aware, the Consumer Protection (Regulation of Credit Servicing Firms) Act 2015 deliberately did not include owners of credit within its remit. However, relevant borrowers, whose loans are sold to third parties, maintain the same regulatory protections they had prior to the sale, including under the various statutory codes, such as the consumer protection code, code of conduct on mortgage arrears, code of conduct for business lending to small and medium enterprises and the minimum competency code, issued by the Central Bank of Ireland and the Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Act 2013, section 48, lending to small and medium sized enterprises regulations 2015, which comes into operation on 1 July 2016.

I introduced amendments on Committee Stage in the Dáil to ensure owners could not do anything which a regulated firm could not do. Those amendments ensure that a regulated credit servicing firm cannot do something, or fail to do something, which would be a prescribed contravention if performed, or not performed, by a retail credit firm. They also prevent the owner of credit from instructing a regulated credit firm to perform such an action.

Contravention of these provisions could lead to a fine not exceeding €250,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, or both. Therefore the borrower is protected because the owner cannot give an instruction that would breach the rules. Also, the instruction cannot be implemented by the regulated credit servicer, over whom the Central Bank has oversight as a regulated entity. If the owner does not appoint a regulated credit servicing firm to service the credit or the owner wants to undertake some of the functions of credit servicing, then the owner himself or herself must be authorised and regulated.

Given that the owner is prevented from asking the credit servicing firm to do things which would be prohibited and the regulated credit servicing firm cannot perform the action in any case, it is not clear what additional benefit would accrue by imposing the regulatory requirements on the owner.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

It is clear that the additional regulatory requirements would put additional costs on owners and could inhibit people from taking over ownership of loans or reduce the price that they are willing to pay for them. The legislation deliberately regulated the interface with the borrower. The sale of a loan from one entity to another does not change the terms of the contract or the borrower's rights and obligations under the original contract.

The programme for Government provided that, "We will provide greater protection for mortgage holders and tenants and SMEs whose loans have been transferred to non-regulated entities, vulture funds". This is a year one action in the programme. The detailed nature of exactly the greater protections to be provided to mortgage holders, tenants and SMEs whose loans have been transferred to non-regulated entities will be decided after further consideration of the issues. The nature of proposed changes will decide who in the Government will take the lead responsibility for the implementation of these protections. I do not consider that extending the scope of the credit servicing legislation to owners is the way to go.

I thank the Minister for his reply. The agreement which Fianna Fáil entered into with Fine Gael and the programme for Government Fine Gael has agreed with the Independents refers to the issue of providing greater protection for borrowers, including SMEs, mortgage holders and tenants who occupy properties, regarding loans that have been sold to unregulated entities or vulture funds. This is the key issue on which I want to focus. The 2015 legislation is not complete, in that the owner of the loan does not require to be regulated whereas the credit servicing firm and the intermediary does require to be regulated. The definition in the Act excludes, for example, the determination of the overall strategy for the management and administration of a portfolio of credit agreements. It is clear that potential consequences arise from the fact that the vulture fund or unregulated entity is outside the ambit of Central Bank regulation and protections and, in our view, this piece of legislation must be amended to take account fully of the issue.

When we were drafting the Bill, as the Deputy is aware, the legislation deliberately regulated the interface with the borrower. If the owner acts as his or her own agent, he or she is caught in the legislation. If the owner instructs the regulator to do anything contrary to law, penalties are applied. Since our last conversation some weeks ago, I have gone over it again and I cannot see the gap in the legislation which the Deputy has indicated exists. In the interests of the new procedures in the Dáil, I will ask my officials to talk to the Deputy and, if he can identify the gap, I am not averse to an amendment if it is required.

My central point is that the owner of the loan not being regulated exposes the borrower to potential risk in that all the important decisions around the restructuring and calling in of the loan and the initiating of enforcement proceedings are taken by the owner of the loan, which is typically a non-regulated entity or vulture fund. This is the case for tens of thousands of mortgages and SME loans which have been sold by way of portfolios. While the intermediary firm, the contact point the borrower has - in the case of residential loans it is typically Pepper, for example - is regulated, it is not making the final decisions and calling the shots. This exposes the borrower to potential risk. The Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, highlighted this very clearly in its submission on the legislation when it was passed. I will engage with the Minister's officials. There is an issue. The programme for Government commits to asking the central Bank and Oireachtas Committee on Housing and Homelessness to examine the legislation. I would welcome that.

The counter argument is that if the owner acts as his or her own agent, he or she is caught by the legislation. Given that the owner is hands off in terms of the interface with the borrower, he or she cannot act as the Deputy suggests he or she may. If the owner crosses the line and begins to act as the Deputy says he or she may act, he or she is caught by the legislation. If the Deputy is willing to talk to my officials, and if he can convince them it is necessary, I am willing to use an appropriate vehicle to amend the legislation along the lines he suggests.

Barr
Roinn