Report on Politically Exposed Persons: Motion Dail Éireann — 2024-04-25 ============================================================ John McGuinness (FF), Carlow-Kilkenny I am delighted that we have had this debate, but not by a long shot am I convinced that the Department of Justice or the Department of Finance understands exactly what we are asking for. The report makes recommendations. In my opening remarks, I stated that it would be essential that any enhanced due diligence measures undertaken by financial services against politically exposed persons, their close associates or their families were balanced, appropriate and fair. We all agree on the need to monitor the source of money laundering – the big picture, as it were – but the directive's application is the issue. There is no need for some of the categories to be included as PEPs. The Ceann Comhairle's private secretary and the ushers in the Dáil are all politically exposed. They meet us every day of the week. Where will the Department say, "Stop", when it comes to extending this measure to every citizen in the State? The application and definition concern me. Deputy Jim O’Callaghan wondered whether a statutory instrument from the Minister might define what a PEP, family member or associate is. The Central Bank could define those terms. It could set out protocols for every bank and credit union in the country to follow. It is that simple. They should exclude the ones that are innocent, as it were, and include the ones that may very well be exposed, ourselves included. We are just asking for what was outlined in the report, that being, an appropriate and fair approach at the level I am speaking of. I am not talking about changing the system up along the line or chasing those who need to be chased. I am asking that we have a common-sense approach. I am always reassured when Deputy Connolly agrees with the committee. I will say the same of Deputy Conway-Walsh in terms of her involvement in the committee. It is reassuring to know that others, including other member states, feel the pain. Deputy Connolly put it well; the banks monitoring our accounts is the wrong way around. The banks get away with anything and everything, yet the ones who go chasing them, particularly on committees and so forth, are the ones who are being monitored by them. I have no bank accounts. When I go into a credit union, my application for a loan is not dealt with by the loan officer. It is dealt with by the board of the credit union. I am sure that those who are not familiar with this matter are asking themselves what Deputy McGuinness gets up to that his application has to be dealt with at board level. That is the type of reputational damage that is being caused here. It would make great sense if everything to do with the lives of politicians or civil servants were to be brought together in one Act that was not called the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act. The legislation should clearly set out criteria for people to follow so that our families and staff are protected against some of the nonsense contained in that Act. What about retired Deputies and Senators? Will they continue to be considered politically exposed persons? I am sure they will be. There is no mention of them, but my interpretation of the measure leads me to the conclusion that they, too, will remain included under the definition of a politically exposed person. I challenge anyone in this House who does not have a Revolut account to try to open one and see what happens. I had one and I had to close it. I opened it out of interest to see what would happen. Revolut does not want us because there is too much scrutiny involved. The Minister of State mentioned the Central Bank of Ireland. The Central Bank must be far more prescriptive about what it believes the commercial banks need to do to be compliant with what is being asked of them regarding how they deal with politically exposed persons and how they view us, monitor us and put further paperwork in our way. That needs to be explained. I imagine that these working groups in Europe are all talking about the big picture, and none of us disagrees with that. This goes back to how this measure is applied and the fact that no one seems to want to define it in such a way that there is no ambiguity. All Members who spoke have had similar experiences. This report speaks to the issues they and their families have faced in their day-to-day lives. The measure is disproportionate and unfair. The Minister of State has to address that. When a committee meets to decide on this, I ask that it deal not with the macro side, because we all agree on that, but with what is happening to all of us in this House. This measure is badly affecting people who are nowhere near being able to make a political decision. They are nowhere near being in a position in which they could get involved in some sort of corruption or money laundering. They are our family members and staff. We would be doing all of them a terrible injustice if we did not speak about this and seek the clarifications that would give them the same rights as other citizens. They are being deprived of their rights to privacy and to make an application without being judged before they even make it. These rights are hard fought for, yet here we are, Members of this House, and this is happening left, right and centre. The Minister of State mentioned that other legislation was transposed into Irish law in more recent times. That has not been debated or discussed by a committee. On that issue, as a Sinn Féin Deputy mentioned, those who are engaged in money laundering, all sorts of corruption, the drug trade, etc., seem to be able to open bank accounts everywhere. It is not just an imbalance. It is a crazy and unacceptable situation. Spend time chasing them, not the innocent. It is as simple as that. Apply common sense. Do not be directed by the diagram I mentioned, which frightens me. This started with the G7 in 1989 and involves us. All along that diagram there is very little open political debate that can be followed by way of a public meeting. That is not right. It is not democracy. I am delighted Deputy Connolly mentioned the danger to democracy. We are open to the accusation that this proposal has not been arrived at democratically. It has not. All the groundwork will be done and dusted before it ever gets to the European Parliament. Then, it will be lost in the fog and madness of bureaucracy and MEPs will vote for it. It has taken a committee of this House to take an interest in the issue and to appeal to our Ministers for Justice and Finance to stop it. I thank Members and the Minister of State for their contributions. --- Source: Houses of the Oireachtas. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). The Official Report is revised after first publication; the fetch timestamp below identifies the version quoted. Record URI: https://data.oireachtas.ie/akn/ie/debateRecord/dail/2024-04-25/debate/main Retrieved: 2026-08-14T04:52:52+00:00 Sitting date: 2024-04-25