"Variable rates set to become major issue in General Election"

Brendan Burgess said:
There is no posturing about this. It's a very practical proposal.
Click to expand...

Except that is not what FF proposed in their private members bill. I wasn't referring to your proposal - I was referring to FF's proposal, which I still believe amounts to nothing more than political posturing.

I happen to disagree that your proposal of introducing a "default rate" is practical (for the reasons previously outlined) but that is a different issue entirely.

Look, if people want to reward FF for making populist gestures, that's obviously their right.
 
So what all of us in the Fair Mortgage Rates Campaign is doing is "political posturing"?

We should all just shut up and stop even discussing the fact that Irish borrowers are paying twice the rates being paid by borrowers in other countries.
We should do as we are told by the Central Bank and the Minister for Finance to wait for competition to bring down the rates?
The 150,000 people who won't benefit from competition should simply continue to smile and pay a few thousand a year more than is justified?

To protest, to argue is political posturing?

Is that your argument?

Presumably your suggestion that the banks should be allowed to charge what they like as long as none charges more than 125% of the average new business rate is also political posturing?

Brendan
 
Brendan Burgess said:
So what all of us in the Fair Mortgage Rates Campaign is doing is "political posturing"?
Click to expand...

Huh?

I really couldn't have been any clearer that I was simply referring to FF's proposals. Not your proposals. Not any proposals of the Fair Mortgage Rates Campaign (which I assume mirror your own proposals although they are not published anywhere to my knowledge). Not anybody else's proposals. Just FF's proposals as reflected in their draft Bill.

I was also very clear why I think their promise to introduce legislation to deal with this issue is simply political posturing:

Sarenco said:
How?

What exactly will this legislation provide for?

Will it be a repeat of their private members bill that proposed to give the power to the Central Bank to set rates? We know the Central Bank don't want this power and it seems highly unlikely that they would be allowed to exercise it by the European banking authorities even if they had it. So that won't achieve anything.
Click to expand...

I would characterise the adoption of any policy by a political party or candidate that has no realistic chance of addressing an identified issue, simply to appeal to a cohort of voters, as political posturing.

That's all.
 
Sarenco said:
Huh?



I would characterise the adoption of any policy by a political party or candidate that has no realistic chance of addressing an identified issue, simply to appeal to a cohort of voters, as political posturing.
Click to expand...
Michael McGrath has a clear understanding of Fianna Fail policy and in my view he is in no way posturing.In fact he is held in high esteem across all political parties for his balanced views.Just watch him in the Dail
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarenco said:
I would characterise the adoption of any policy by a political party or candidate that has no realistic chance of addressing an identified issue, simply to appeal to a cohort of voters, as political posturing.

That's all.
Click to expand...

OK, I see where you are coming from.

There is a serious problem which needs to be solved. I think our solution is better than the FF solution, but it does not mean that the FF solution is just political posturing.

I gather that it's also FF policy to oblige the banks to treat existing customers the same as new customers. That is not posturing either.

You have a suggestion, which I consider meaningless. It would simply allow the cartel to continue.

But maybe between the lot of us who are concerned with the problem, we can come up with a solution.

The Central Bank might not want the power. They might well want to protect the overcharging by the banks. But that does not mean that we have to accept that. And if someone challenges it who happens to be a political representative, it does not mean that they are posturing.

I suspect that during the General Election campaign we will have candidates making statements on the issue who showed no interest in the issue up to now. That might well be characterised as posturing.

Brendan
 
Brendan

I really was not trying to re-ignite an old debate about our respective proposals to deal with this issue. However, I would point out that my proposal was simply intended to prevent lenders charging usurious rates, relative to the wider market, to borrowers that are not in a position to re-finance their loans.

My proposal was never intended to address any alleged cartel. We already have laws that prevent market participants colluding with each other to fix prices. If you genuinely believe any market participants are colluding with each other, then I would suggest that you should report this illegal activity to the Competition Authority.

I simply don't agree with you that price fixing by the State, in any market, is ever appropriate in any circumstances. You can obviously disagree with this position but I hope you will agree that it is hardly an extreme position to hold in a free democracy.

I never suggested that challenging any prevailing policy position was posturing. I hope I have been absolutely clear about what I regard as political posturing. In my book, making any proposal or promise that a candidate for any office knows, or ought to know, will be totally ineffective to address a given issue simply to make the right "noises" and garner votes is posturing.

Separately, could you direct me to any published statement of the aims and policies of the Fair Mortgage Rates Campaign?
 
Sarenco said:
If you genuinely believe any market participants are colluding with each other, then I would suggest that you should report this illegal activity to the Competition Authority.
Click to expand...

But isn't that the problem. The Competition Authority has no function concerning banks. This function has been retained by the Central Bank.
 
Sarenco said:
If you genuinely believe any market participants are colluding with each other, then I would suggest that you should report this illegal activity to the Competition Authority.
Click to expand...

I repeat, why would one report this specifically to the Competition Authority, which has no function in relation to banks?
 
Sophrosyne said:
I repeat, why would one report this specifically to the Competition Authority, which has no function in relation to banks?
Click to expand...

Why do you think the Competition Authority has no function in relation to banks as regards the discharge of its functions under the Competition Act?
 
Because of the cooperation agreement in February 2011. The NCA, now subsumed into the Competition Authority agreed to forbear its functions in relation to competition in favour of the Central Bank.
 
Sophrosyne said:
Because of the cooperation agreement in February 2011. The NCA, now subsumed into the Competition Authority agreed to forbear its functions in relation to competition in favour of the Central Bank.
Click to expand...

That makes no sense.

The NCA never had any role in enforcing the Competition Act prior to its amalgamation with the Competition Authority. I genuinely don't know what you are talking about - how can any agreement between two State agencies override an Act of the Oireachtas?
 
Sophrosyne said:
Nevertheless, that is currently the case.
Click to expand...

So you say. Can you post a link to this agreement and I will try and look at it tomorrow?

I would genuinely be amazed if an agency that had no statutory role in enforcing a particular legislative provision (such as the Competition Act) agreed to forbear exercising its (non-existent) functions in relation to that provision.
 
Sarenco said:
Separately, could you direct me to any published statement of the aims and policies of the Fair Mortgage Rates Campaign?
Click to expand...


Hi Sarenco

Apologies, you have asked for this before.

We are working on putting these down on paper as part of our strategy to make it an election issue.

Brendan
 
Sophrosyne said:
Because of the cooperation agreement in February 2011. The NCA, now subsumed into the Competition Authority agreed to forbear its functions in relation to competition in favour of the Central Bank.
Click to expand...

Is this the co-operation agreement you are referring to?

http://www.ccpc.ie/sites/default/files/documents/Central-Bank-NCA-framework.doc.

If so, it has absolutely nothing to do with the enforcement of competition law.

Here's a link to a response to a recent OECD questionnaire on behalf of the Competition Authority.

http://www.ccpc.ie/sites/default/files/S-14-009 Competition in Financial Consumer Protection.pdf

I would draw your attention to the response to question 1.5:

"The Competition Authority is responsible for enforcing Irish and European competition law in financial services and all other sectors."

Hopefully that's clear.
 
Hi Sarenco

I think you are correct in law.

In practice, the "whatever they are called now" NPPC has made it quite clear that they have no interest in the area. And I suspect that is because they have been told by the Central Bank to keep out of their territory.

Brendan
 
Now there is a fair bit of ranting going on here at the moment.

1. Mr Burgess referred me to the similar rants on Joe Duffy on RTE as the basis of 'for jasus sake lads' and that all the complaints submitted to the FSO were similarly packaged. There is an element of truth to that. What is clear if the hapless consumer did not raise specific matters, then the FSO did not raise the matter for him. Secondly after reading many of the previous FSO 'decisions' it is clear that Mr Prasifka went off down technical contract law route and ignored virtually all of the powers he had. Quite simply ask yourself why so many reviews are now taking place. He made a complete shambles not only of his understanding of his powers, he also allowed technical arguments and ignore so many aspects in cases that he must stand as the greatest disaster from the consumers point of view that took the office. A total utter disaster - and that is not opinion - it is based on reading his considered cases and the Act that created the beast. He was an utter disaster.
2. As regards the Competition & Consumer Authority - they have lost any sense of purpose and if you read some of the nonsense they are writing now compared to what they used to do - it is absolutely shocking. The memorandum does exist.
3. Central Bank through their Consumer Protection Director are taking action - albeit cautiously.
4. The continuing saga of the variable rate customers - why was this and the tracker issue not brought to fruition in that Banking Inquiry as the Banks continuing conduct is simple the proverbial two fingers at the challenged middle class. You had dozy parliamentarians who hid behind lawyers as the basis 'we cannnot make adverse findings " is the claptrap they spouted. Since when is showing various figures to each CEO to comment on not the route they should have gone? For if the answer was 'I don't know / cannot comment / etc" you would have had your answer. On the other hand Richie Boucher would not lie and his answers would have shaken the Nation to its core. He is blunt and he would have told it as he saw it.
5. Forget the legislative approach - we need new entrants and new Building Societies - we just canned the last one. Great country!
 
Last edited:
Brendan Burgess said:
Hi Sarenco

I think you are correct in law.

In practice, the "whatever they are called now" NPPC has made it quite clear that they have no interest in the area. And I suspect that is because they have been told by the Central Bank to keep out of their territory.

Brendan
Click to expand...


Hi Brendan

The Competition and Consumer Protection Commission (to give them their full name) has certainly made it clear that they do not believe undertaking a further study on mortgage rates would address the underlying issues in the banking sector or would be a good use of their resources. However, they haven't said that they wouldn't take action if presented with evidence that lenders are actually operating a cartel (ie colluding with each other to fix prices to the detriment of consumers).

If presented with clear evidence to this effect, I don't see how the Commission could refuse to take action without being in dereliction of their statutory duty.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top