Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)

For the sake of clarification, my understanding from the regulator is as the Minister describes, namely, that this was a company wholly regulated in Germany with certain minimum licensing requirements in Ireland. Will the Minister set out clearly, in the case of companies like Ormond Quay which I understand was wholly owned by a German bank, the remit of the Irish regulator and the remit of the non-Irish regulator? I understand that the Irish regulator was not given some information on which they failed to act, as a newspaper report suggested, and that they were fully co-operating with the Germans who had the primary role in regulation. That would be worth clarifying because it is important that there is general confidence in the way we regulate.

Will the Minister clarify where the lines of responsibility fall in cases like this, the requirements in regard to an Irish regulator of a company like Ormond Quay and how they were fulfilled? My understanding is that the problems were entirely the responsibility of the Germans to regulate but what was the Irish role? It is important we know that because at least one newspaper article suggested there was something remiss in the way it was being overseen in Ireland. It would be worthwhile for the Minister to set out clearly the lines of responsibility in an authoritative way as he is undoubtedly in a position to do.

On section 6 and the application of fees, with which I have no problem in principle, in other parts of the financial services regulatory Bill, as far as I can recall, the setting of fees involved some type of consultation with an industry panel. There was a loop where people at least saw that the fees were reasonable and related to something fair. Is there a structure like that regarding the setting of fees?

See this speech in context