Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 26, to delete lines 29 to 38, and in page 27, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:

“(a) by the substitution of the following subsections for subsection (1):

“(1) The Head of Financial Regulation may issue a notice (in this Part called a ‘suspension notice’) in relation to a person if—

(a) subject to subsection (1A), the person’s fitness and probity is or has been the subject of an investigation under section 25, or

(b) the Bank or the Governor has imposed a prohibition on the person under section 43 (whether or not there has been any investigation under section 25),

and the Head of Financial Regulation is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of the proper regulation of a regulated financial service provider or holding company that the person not perform the relevant controlled function, a part of the relevant controlled function, or any controlled function, while the Head of Financial Regulation, the Bank or the Governor, as the case may be, is carrying out any function in relation to the person under this Chapter or Chapter 4.

(1A) In paragraph (a) of subsection (1), the reference to an investigation under section 25 does not include an investigation in the circumstances referred to in paragraph (aa) of section 25(2), unless any other paragraph of section 25(2) also applies.

(1B) Where paragraph (b) of subsection (1) applies, the reference in that subsection to the relevant controlled function, or a part of the relevant controlled function, is a reference to a controlled function, or a part of a controlled function, to which the prohibition applies.”,”.

I propose to take amendments Nos. 6 to 12 together as they provide for procedures for issuing suspension notices in the situation where a person has been prohibited. Amendment No. 6 provides for the bank to issue a suspension notice where a person has been the subject of an investigation under section 25 of the Act of 2010 where the head of financial regulation has imposed a prohibition on the person whether or not there has been an investigation. There is an exception included in the amendment to provide for a situation where a suspension notice does not apply. That is in the case where the person being investigated is no longer performing a controlled function role as there is no need for a suspension notice in such a case.

Amendment No. 7 is a technical amendment to provide that the suspension notice sets the grounds of the prohibition notice. Amendment No. 8 provides for a five-day period of response by the person or holding company to the notice issued. Amendment No. 9 provides greater clarity on the nature of the submissions a suspended person or regulated financial provider or holding company concerned may make in respect of a suspension notice. Amendment No. 10 provides that a person who is not suspended during a fitness and probity investigation can be suspended on prohibition pending the confirmation of the prohibition by the High Court. Amendment No. 11 provides that the period for which a suspension notice issued following the prohibition of the person concerned has effect does not extend beyond the time that the High Court determines whether to confirm the prohibition. Amendment No. 12 deletes the new subsection (11A) in section 43 as it is no longer required in view of the redrafting of sections 16 and 19.

I recommend that the committee approve amendments Nos. 6 to 12, inclusive.