John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 82: To ask the Minister for Finance if the proposed insurance mediation directive two regulations will continue to treat solicitors and accountants on a different basis to independent insurance brokers by means of the approved professional body regime; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14023/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I met with one of the insurance brokers' representative associations on 17 February last. The specific issue they highlighted was in relation to the conclusions drawn in a recent Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) which was conducted by my Department. This recommended that, when amending the Insurance Mediation Regulations (S.I. No. 13 of 2005), the existing regulatory regime should be maintained for accountants that perform insurance mediation business on an ancillary basis. However, the RIA also made a number of recommendations which were aimed at making the existing Approved Professional Body (APB) regime more transparent. In particular, the RIA recommended that the current benchmark for determining ancillary business should be reviewed.

The representative association had argued strongly against the retention of the existing APB regime during the RIA process. On the other hand, the accountancy representative bodies argued the contrary position equally strongly. In those circumstances, it was appropriate that particular emphasis should be given to the position of the Financial Regulator, in view of its role in regard to the supervision of insurance intermediaries, as well as its statutory responsibility for consumer protection. The Financial Regulator's assessment was that the current APB regime delivers effective regulation in a rigorous, independent and professional manner. The Financial Regulator confirmed to the Department that there is no evidence that the APB supervisory regime is less effective than direct regulation by the Financial Regulator. As far as the impact on consumers and the rights of citizens are concerned, the assessment of the Financial Regulator is that customers are best served by the retention of the present APB arrangement for insurance mediation.

At the meeting referred to earlier, the association disagreed with this conclusion and, consequently, I offered to ask the Financial Regulator to re-examine its assessment. The Financial Regulator is at present analysing the counter arguments put forward by the association and I await the Financial Regulator's further assessment with interest.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 83: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will accept a proposal from an organisation (details supplied) to exempt both basic banking and insurance products from the consumer protection code. [14024/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

At the outset I would like to point out to the Deputy that the decision on any exemptions from the Financial Regulator's Consumer Protection Code (CPC) is a matter for the Financial Regulator under Section 117 of the Central Bank Act 1989. I only have the right to be consulted when the Financial Regulator draws up, amends or revokes one of its Codes of Practice.

The CPC already contains some exemptions from its requirements for the provision of a "basic banking product or service". Such a product or service is excluded from the 'Knowing the Consumer' and 'Suitability' provisions of the CPC when certain criteria are met. A "basic banking product or service" is defined in the CPC as 'a current account, overdraft, ordinary deposit account or a term deposit account with a term of less than one year'. A bank must first establish that the consumer is seeking a basic banking product and when the bank has established that this is the case must advise of any restrictions on the account and of any lower cost alternatives that may be available from the bank.

Unlike basic banking products, which are designed to be generically suitable for all, insurance products are affected by the individual circumstances of consumers. For example, when a consumer is purchasing a life assurance policy the policy detail and price may be affected by whether the consumer is a smoker or not. Similarly in motor insurance the age and accident history will have implications for the insurance policy offered. Therefore it is appropriate that the CPC fully applies to these products.

John Deasy (Waterford, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 84: To ask the Minister for Finance if he will accept a request from an organisation (details supplied) to be included on the restructured board of the Central Bank/Financial Regulator and the industry panel; and if he will make a statement on the matter. [14025/09]

Brian Lenihan Jnr (Dublin West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In progressing the agenda for the reform of the Irish financial regulatory system, the Government will make appointments to the regulatory authority based on the authoritative standing, expertise and experience of individuals. The Financial Services Consultative Industry Panel is intended to be representative of the industry as a whole and no particular organisation or group is automatically appointed. When making appointments to the Panel, I seek to ensure that over time a broad range of relevant interests is, as far as possible, appointed. The organisation referred to by the Deputy has in the past served on the Industry Panel and I would expect that it will be asked to do so again in the future. In the meantime, the organisation is of course welcome to express its views on financial services issues to the current Panel.