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

We had a discussion, not on this issue but on a similar one, on Committee Stage. The first point to make is one I made on Committee Stage that, principally, this Bill is not about moneylenders, rather it about trying to ensure there is a very clear decision-making process on prudential risk within the financial institutions and that we capture that by way of information, which previously was not in place in terms of the crisis that befell us all. That is an important point. I am also aware that the whole question of APR reflects the very significant risk - we discussed this on Committee Stage also - and that is the reason it attracts such a very high rate of interest. The point the Minister, Deputy Noonan, has repeatedly made is that the first priority is to have this in place for the banks and credit unions and we can then consider rolling it out for other aspects of the financial services industry, and as to whether this would make a difference, we would have to be clear on that.

The legislation that already regulates moneylenders, which is the Consumer Credit Act of 2010, sets the floor at €200 for its consumer protection rules. Those are consumer protection rules and whether they have the same impact the Deputy is suggesting in his later amendment is probably another matter. Licensed moneylenders fall within the current definitions of regulated financial service providers. The consent of the Minister will be sought when regulations are being made to phase in licensed moneylenders. The Minister will be cognisant of the need to ensure the threshold is set at an appropriate level. The Minister for Finance may review the threshold amount having regard to influences, including taking into account the effect of credit information subjects. It would not be the appropriate way to adopt the proposed amendment as it would be a case of treating credit information providers differently, which could be found to be discriminatory. We will also discuss that when dealing with the next amendment. To meet a claim of discrimination one must be in a position to objectively justify such differences in treatment. It would be more appropriate to determine if one could be justified after a period of practical operation of the credit register.

We are cognisant of the points both Deputies are raising, and specifically Deputy McGrath in this amendment No. 4, but we should wait and see where this goes. Importantly, the first priority, as we have given a clear obligation to implement, would be for banks and credit unions. We will then see whether this can be rolled out across the entire system. That appears to be the approach that would have the support of the entire system, given that the primary objective of this legislation is not about the question of moneylenders per se but about the quality and the collection of data surrounding borrowing decisions that are taken across financial institutions.

See this speech in context