Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 16, paragraph (b), lines 4 and 5, to delete all words from and including “the” in line 4 down to and including “taking” in line 5 and substitute the following:"any risk arising from the affording or extending of credit to, or the taking of".

Amendment No. 48 and the substituted version of paragraph (c) are designed to remove the risk of paragraphs (b) and (c) being given a construction that confines their application to the credit information providers providing the credit. These amendments are in many ways consequential and directly linked with the amendments proposed for section 16. Section 16 gives credit information providers the option or the obligation of accessing a number of scenarios, including considering a new applicant, considering a request by the credit information subject to change the terms and conditions, or restructuring, or considering the impact of a breach of terms and conditions by a credit information subject. The amendments proposed in section 16 afford credit information providers access where changes to terms and conditions or a breach of terms and conditions occur with credit information providers.

Section 17 sets the boundary for proper use of central credit register information obtained by a credit information provider under section 16. This section needs to be amended to reflect the changes made to section 16. In summary, if one provides for the gateway in section 16, one must also provide the associated appropriate legislative boundary and permitted use in section 17.

The proposed amendment No. 50 to section 17(d) is in order to standardise the language in section 17 to more directly reflect the provisions of section 16 and make it clear that what is being referred to is the common meaning of default, specifically a breach of obligations under a credit agreement rather than any other meaning of default, such as any regulatory concept of default. The inclusion of amendment No. 51, relating to section 17(f), again allows for portfolio analysis of a credit information provider's own submissions to the register to be included as a legitimate purpose for accessing information.

I am not accepting Deputy Doherty's proposed amendment No. 49. This amendment would impact on the effectiveness of the register by limiting the access of credit information providers to the register by not allowing them to evaluate the risk of affording or extending credit to, or taking a guarantee or indemnity from, a credit information subject unless the credit information subject has consented to the evaluation. In effect, this amendment goes against the stated aim of the legislation in promoting responsible lending by possibly resulting in pertinent information being withheld from the credit information provider. On this basis, unfortunately I am unable to accept the amendment.