Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Without sounding circular in my position on this, I do not see what is earth-shattering about the comment by the Minister for Finance that if one takes out a loan of €300,000, by signing on the dotted line one has committed to paying back that loan. If somebody decides to sell one's loan to somebody else, one still owes the money. We need to make sure that people in such circumstances are not put at a disadvantage in terms of consumer protection and in terms of access to the various supports and codes that have been put in place in recent years. When we leave our bubble in Leinster House and talk to our constituents, they just want to know how they are going to pay their mortgages. That is certainly the case when I talk to my constituents. They are more interested in the principle of being treated in a fair manner and being able to access all the codes and supports they could access before the loan was sold than they are in who owns their loans.

I want to make it clear, as I did during the discussion on a previous amendment, that there will always be a regulated entity and that the buck will always stop with that entity. All we are doing in this amendment is providing that one cannot use the excuse that one cannot do anything because one was told to do something by an unregulated entity that was outside the ambit of the regulator. We are making sure there can be no break, breach or lacuna on the basis of which people can be ignored. I do not see a need for the regulation of owners, in addition to the credit servicing firms, because there is always a regulated owner. It would also increase costs. As we all know, these costs are ultimately passed on to borrowers. On the question of how a breach of this section would be pursued, I remind the committee that it would be a criminal offence by the holder of the legal title. The Central Bank has an obligation under section 33AK of the Central Bank Act 1942 to report any suspicion of a criminal offence to the Garda Síochána, regardless of whether the suspicion relates to a regulated financial services provider or to an unregulated entity. That is why I believe this amendment is very important. I do not want to repeat myself at this stage.