Barry Ward (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

Gabhaim buíochas leis an gCathaoirleach Gníomhach agus cuirim fáilte ar ais roimh an Aire Stáit. In the first instance I want to welcome this legislation. As the Minister of State pointed out at the outset of the debate, this furthers and refines the measures at European level to ensure that the State can tackle money laundering, deal with issues surrounding money laundering and the financing of organisations like terrorist and illegal organisations and it is tremendously important.

As I have said in this context on a number of occasions, it is also important that this legislation be legible to ordinary people. This is amending legislation. It amends not just the 2010 Act because that Act has been amended by the 2018 Act so reading this document is incredibly difficult because almost every section amends another Act. It means that for an ordinary person who wants to see what the law says it is extraordinarily difficult to penetrate the dense nature of this Bill. That could be overdone if we adopted a practice in these Houses of passing consolidated legislation every time.Instead of amending the Act, we should pass another Bill, repeal the earlier legislation and have one single version of the law on money laundering, anti-terrorist financing, etc. I often say that because it is something we should consider. I recognise it creates administrative challenges but it would make our law a much more penetrable and legible corpus for ordinary citizens, as well as for lawyers. I say that as somebody who goes through it relatively regularly.

Mention has been made of the fines Ireland has sustained as a result of the late passage of this legislation. The deadline for the passage and implementation of the legislation was 10 January 2020. Anybody with an eye on politics will know that perhaps politicians' minds were on other matters at that stage in the process. It is unfortunate that we are late transposing the directive. I hope the Bill will enjoy support and pass quickly through the House of the Oireachtas.

In that regard, I will raise several points about the legislation's content in the same vein as the points made by Senator McDowell on this and other anti-money laundering legislation. There is a real danger that in implementing these rules and regulations for commercial entities in the State, the bureaucracy will go into overdrive and put in place measures that it says comply with the legislation but that we all recognise go far beyond what the law actually requires. This has been the case for many years, even with respect to establishing identity, proof of address, etc., when opening a bank account. The banks invariably require more forms of proof of address and identification than the actual anti-money laundering legislation requires. It is totally unnecessary. It does not make the system stronger and does not stop people from money laundering or make money laundering more difficult.

While such measures are important and one should have to establish one's identity, it should not be to the satisfaction of some bureaucrat in a bank's head office, wherever that might be, who has decided to go one step further than the legislation. There is a real danger that legislation like this becomes a charter for banks to create another barrier for people setting up an account or, indeed, changing bank, shopping around, moving an account elsewhere or using the competitive measures that the State is also trying to push from the other side.

It is important the message goes out that there are onerous responsibilities as a result of this legislation but that banks, commercial institutions, designated persons and others covered by this legislation do not need to go beyond them. The know-your-client provision has been represented. Of course banks should know who their clients are. It seems to me, however, that whenever I ring my bank, nobody knows who I am and the only person I can speak to is in a call centre somewhere and not in my bank branch. Banks cannot have it both ways. If they want to serve their clients, that is exactly what they should do, instead of hiding behind legislative measures.

As Senator McDowell pointed out there are onerous provisions regarding people designated as politically exposed persons. We should not underestimate this. I too have received many forms from my bank, some of which asked me for extraordinary details. My bank asked me to account for my income well beyond what the Revenue Commissioners might ask me to do if they were auditing me, for example. It seems quite unreasonable.

The provision in section 10, which amends section 37 of the 2010 Act, expands the definition of a politically exposed person to include an individual performing a prescribed function. I presume it is intended that the Minister prescribe that function. It is not clear to me where in the Bill the Minister is empowered to do that. Perhaps it is already contained in the 2010 Act. Will the Minister of State clarify where the power to prescribe those functions lies and how we will define the further expansion of that class of politically exposed persons?

Section 5 involves an expansion of designated persons. In the same way that politically exposed persons have onerous obligations, so too do designated persons. Section 25(1)(f) of the 2010 Act will now bring in letting agents who are dealing with properties where the monthly rent is more than €10,000, while section 25(1)(c) deals with art dealers and art valued at over €10,000. I do not have a difficulty with either of those provisions. The majority of transactions are at the upper end and it is entirely appropriate that they would be pitched there. However, it might be worth considering index-linking the €10,000 figure to avoid having to revise it upwards in 15 years' time to account for the fact that inflation in property and art prices or general inflation has brought into the net of designated persons a load of people who are not required to be there.Index-linking might overcome that.

I also welcome the slight relaxation, in section 10 which amends section 37 of the principal Act, of the obligation on designated persons to examine the background and purpose of transactions that are unusually large or complex. The insertion of the words "as far as possible" appears to be a reasonable response to a difficult obligation on designation persons and a measured response to the fact that they may have to do more than is reasonable.

On the whole, I welcome this legislation. There is a great opportunity, as the Minister of State has said, to refine what the European Union does and what we as a national Government and State do. It is important. On behalf of the Fine Gael Party, I express support for the legislation and hope it enjoys a swift passage through the House.