Pearse Doherty (Donegal, Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim mo bhuíochas d'achan duine a thug páirt sa díospóireacht inniu agus a léirigh tacaíocht don Bhille. Ní labhair aon duine inniu nach raibh sásta tacaíocht a thabhairt don Bhille agus tá mé iontach buíoch as an méid daoine a labhair agus a phléigh go mion an t-ábhar atá idir lámha againn inniu.

I welcome the contributions from all sides of the House. There is support from all sides of the House for the legislation. The Minister of State and the Government have qualified their support. They say they support the Bill in principle but they really do not want to see this legislation go any further because they talk about a more holistic approach. I have said there is a need for a suite of laws to be brought in. I accept this is part of the solution; it is not the total solution but it does not mean it is not worthwhile. I am determined to pursue this legislation through Committee and Report Stages and through the Seanad, as I did when we lifted the six-year rule in the legislation I drafted, in order that it will make a real difference to people's lives. We must move ahead with this Bill. Delay is not acceptable while thousands are being ripped off every day and bankers act with impunity. I do not have confidence that the Government will take the issue seriously. It talks about its seriousness and that it is considering two reports, one from the Central Bank and one from the Law Reform Commission. It is not serious about this issue and it cannot convince the House that it is.

The then Governor wrote on 18 August 2015 and told the Minister straight-up what was required. I will say exactly what he required. There was a lot of nitpicking at the legislation. I thank the parliamentary legal division for the support we got in drafting the legislation. The then Governor said in the last paragraph:

We propose that a general offending provision be implemented whereby across all regulated financial service sectors, not just insurance, senior personnel, directors and key office-holders, including the external auditor might be guilty of an offence where false and misleading information is provided to the Central Bank by a regulated entity which they represent where they knew or ought to have known that the information was false or misleading. In addition, this provision should be designated as a prescribed contravention pursuant to Part IIIC of the Central Bank Act 1942, as amended, so that there is a range of administrative sanctions available. In order to ensure the latter there needs to be made available administrative sanctions capable of being imposed on individuals for their actions. At the moment, a limitation exists whereby the contravention has to have been committed by the regulated entity. This structure effectively allows individuals to act without responsibility for their actions of lying or misleading.

That was a plea from the then Governor of the Central Bank in 2015 and we are asked to believe the Government is taking the issue seriously. We heard from the Minister when we previously raised this question that it considered it a number of times but it did diddly-squat about it. It is still not an offence to lie through one's teeth to the Central Bank, which is usually done, as the then Governor said, to cover up something else within the institution unless there was a specific request made for the information from the Central Bank. That is where the Minister and the Government are completely wrong.

They say they think it is important that the House is reassured that the Central Bank has significant powers to sanction regulated financial service providers and their senior managers for the provision of false and misleading information. That is not true. In the Governor's letter of two and a half years ago, he says this offence can only take place where the information is given in response specifically to a legally binding request. He goes on to say most of the interaction between the Central Bank and regulated entities and their staff was of a different nature and that for all other incidences of interaction, both formal and informal, there are at present no consequences for the individuals or entities where they provide false or misleading information. He says this lacuna should be corrected; why, therefore, does the Minister of State give false information on the floor of the Dáil? He is trying to pretend this is not a serious issue but they are lying to us. They have lied over and over again and the Governor says this in his letter, but the Minister of State says that, while he supports this legislation in principle, he does not want it to go any further.

The Government thinks our legislation goes too far and may impinge on the rights of the bankers who are lying through their teeth. The Government may avoid a vote but this will go to committee and it needs to go further as we need to get real. We need real action on behalf of all the victims. I ask the Minister of State to reconsider his position and not to put out wrong information to suggest the situation is not as serious as it is. There is a major lacuna in the law, but we found out about it not because the Government was upfront and told us, or because the Central Bank told us but because, after two different freedom of information requests, we found the secret correspondence between the former Minister and the former Governor. That correspondence pointed out that bankers were lying to them, but they could do nothing about it.

See this speech in context