Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am supposed to give him recognition for a decision he has made, which was to cap the recovery of regulation costs at 50% at the moment, but to understand and not to blame him for not being able to give a guarantee for a decision he cannot make. On the one hand, he can cap the recovery rate at 50% but, on the other hand, he has no role in this because of the Central Bank. The reality is that the Minister has a role and can take a role if he wants. We can introduce a provision in the Finance Bill placing a cap on the amount the Central Bank can apply in terms of regulation of credit unions. I know that, as does the Minister, the Chairman and every other member of the committee. Of course, the Minister could give a guarantee if he so wished. However, I want to move on to my final two questions and the Minister can respond to that. I recognised that there is a difference between 50% and 100%. He should not try to suggest I did not.

The Minister mentioned that we are likely to see reductions in the credit institutions resolution fund levy. However, as consultation is ongoing we have not seen the outcome of that. Would it not be more appropriate to wait until that consultation has ended, unless the Minister knows the outcome of the consultation? Perhaps he could inform the committee what that reduction will be. The credit unions might be able to sleep easier tonight if they knew that levy was to be significantly reduced. I understand they have been engaging with the Minister and wrote to him in April, but he has not responded to them.

In his opening statement, the Minister mentioned he proposed to introduce a credit unions and loans Bill in 2019. He will be mindful of the moneylenders Bill that I introduced to reduce the APR that moneylenders can charge. Some of them are licensed to charge up to 180% at the moment. That Bill has passed Second Stage and is before the committee. It was also signalled, because it is part of the same report, that it should be accompanied by an increase in the levy from 1% to 2%. As I signalled on Second Stage, would it not be appropriate for that to be included as a Committee Stage amendment as opposed to introducing a different Bill to address it?