Dáil debates

Thursday, 13 June 2013

Central Bank (Supervision and Enforcement) Bill 2011: Report and Final Stages

 

11:40 am

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

I do not propose to accept amendments Nos. 43 and 57 as proposed by Deputy Doherty. The Minister for Finance has pointed out that he has no responsibility for the regulation of debt collectors and debt collecting firms. Debt collection services apply across a significantly broader range of activities than simply the recovery of moneys for financial products. They also apply in the case of utilities, rents and other consumer debts, as well as debts between businesses. The Minister for Justice and Equality is responsible for legislation in this area. The Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 applies to all debt collectors operating across all sectors of the economy, including private individuals and debt collecting firms. Under section 11 of that Act, it is an offence to demand payment of a debt in a way designed to cause harm, distress or humiliation. A person found guilty of offences under the Act is subject to large fines and up to 14 years' imprisonment. In the case of financial institutions that use debt collecting firms, the Central Bank has imposed requirements that offer protection to consumers under its revised consumer protection code. The code obliges the covered regulated entities to ensure that any outsourced activity such as debt collection complies with the requirement of the code.

In fairness to Deputy Doherty, he has been consistent on this issue in recent years. I understand he introduced a Private Members' Bill in this regard and also raised it during other Private Members' debates. We have had two initiatives in this specific area, as I discovered in the course of my preparations for this debate. There is no doubt that this is an area that requires closer regulation. However, as the Minister for Finance, Deputy Michael Noonan, pointed out on Committee Stage, it is under the auspices of the Minister for Justice and Equality. The latter has indicated a willingness to examine the issue in a constructive way and to work with colleagues across the House to establish an improved regulatory and statutory framework for this area. I very much hope that whatever comes out of that initiative or series of initiatives will address the issues Deputy Doherty has identified.

Amendments Nos. 44 and 58 deal with an issue in respect of the definition of "excepted person" which was raised on Committee Stage, namely, that the Money Advice and Budgeting Service was not included in the list of exempted categories. That organisation is a charity, does not charge for services and receives Government funding. Meeting any one of these three criteria would provide an exemption under the legislation. In the interests of certainty and greater clarity, however, it is considered appropriate to name MABS specifically as being exempt from the definition of a debt management service and to provide that organisation with an exemption from the requirements provided for in respect of a money transmission service.

Amendments Nos. 45 to 56, inclusive, and 59 to 69, inclusive, are technical amendments.

I do not propose to accept Deputy Doherty's amendment No. 70. The provision that was agreed in this regard on Committee Stage is broad enough to cover the requirement. In addition, the Central Bank's revised consumer protection code will require the publishing of fees and services by the entities covered by the provisions in this Bill. Section 62 provides that the bank may impose on a debt management agency "such conditions or requirements or both as the Bank considers appropriate relating to the proper and orderly regulation and supervision of debt management firms". I very much take on board what Deputy Doherty is seeking to do in terms of ensuring fees are transparent, but it is our view that the existing broad definition as set out under section 62 allows that to happen in circumstances in which the Cental Bank deems it necessary. Therefore, I do not accept the necessity of including the provision in amendment No. 70.

Amendment No. 71 is a technical amendment.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.