Cathal Crowe (Clare, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I was worried we might have to bail out to the convention centre, which was quite a miserable place to be stuck in. At least we are here for the time being.

I am glad to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. It is a positive Bill and empowering to consumers and all who walk through the doors of a bank to avail of services. It provides for greater levels of accountability in the financial services sector. It sets out the standards and behaviour expectations of the financial sector for individuals and firms that operate within it and holds them to very high standards. This is good for consumers, transparency and doing business above board. There are also improved mechanisms for the Central Bank to have a supervisory role to uphold the high standards we expect of the sector.

I do not intend use all of my time but I will make a few points. Earlier this year, AIB announced it would go cashless, a decision it rolled back on. It was the right thing to do. It was anti-consumer and anti-rural. It was very insulting to a taxpaying public which bailed out the Irish banking sector in 2008. At the time, many Ministers in government explained that the Government cannot intervene in operational banking matters, but I hope that as legislation continues to evolve and be refined, we can have a mechanism whereby we can have a greater hold over the likes of AIB and other financial institutions to ensure we do not end up with another August 2022 announcement that a bank is going cashless. It caught the whole country by surprise. It caught AIB by surprise that there was such a backlash from the public, and rightly so. I hope that in time we can have mechanisms that bring more responsibility to the banking sector. It is not all about the ethics of banking, although that is important and is in the Bill. It is also about the onus on banks to provide, under licence from the Central Bank, a service at community level in the country.

On community banking, other models could be worth examining in due course, such as the Kiwi banks and Sparkasse banks in Germany, which operate very well. Too often, they are misunderstood as being akin to the Irish credit union model. They are not; they are quite different. They are very successful models that work very well at community level. A lot of money is reinvested at community level.

I and many other Members have a bugbear about the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act. Section 37 of the Act makes every person who serves in this House a politically exposed person. We have faced an electorate, regardless of which, if any, party we represent, and have a mandate, through the ballot paper and electoral process, to stand in this House but we have that Act hanging over our heads. I cannot reconcile that with any Member of this House, past, present or future, being subject to legislation that would define his or her as being in the same bracket as terrorists.

The genesis of this goes back to a different era in politics when business may not have been quite as clean. All it takes is a few individuals in any work environment to stain the reputation of many. There was corruption and people who abused office over many years, but the reality is that many politicians are politically exposed persons due to section 37 of the Act. If they, their spouse, partner, children or grandchildren want to avail of a very small and minor financial product, they cannot get it. I recently celebrated my 40th birthday and group of us went out to celebrate. As now happens in bars and restaurants, the bill came out and out came the Revolut cards. I was embarrassed to be the only one at the table who had no Revolut card because I have to go through hoops and loops and back over and beyond. It is impossible to get one. That is just one financial product; there are many others that are being denied to people.

I accept that the public lens in its full wrath is cast over us; that is part and parcel of the job. We should be scrutinised and held to a high ethical bar, but I do not think all of our family members and extended family should have a net of suspicion thrown over them. I do not think the Act can be reconciled with the positions we hold and our families who do not seek public life. The Act is not up for debate today. Maybe it is legislation born out of a requirement of ten years ago and perhaps it needs some refinement. I fully support the Bill before the House. It is good legislation and has my full support.

See this speech in context