IBRC interest overcharging
Peter Mathews uses the Companies Auditing Bill to raise alleged continuing interest overcharging by IBRC and its contractors, citing a court determination and potential liability involving the State, Central Bank and NTMA. The Chair repeatedly insists that only the Bill’s publication, not its substance, is in order.
I refer to another aspect of the companies auditing Bill mentioned by Deputy Durkan. It relates to the continuing interest overcharging by IBRC, which is now in liquidation. This is very important.
Comment on this
It has been read into the record-----
Comment on this
The promised legislation is the companies auditing Bill.
Comment on this
No, it was a different answer to a different question. This relates to the auditing-----
Comment on this
That is correct. I refer to its purpose. When it is published it has a purpose.
Comment on this
That has been mentioned. Its purpose is now extremely important across the whole nation. IBRC, which is operated by other companies that are subcontractors to run the ledgers and do the operations of the loans, some of which have been sold, some of which are still in IBRC-----
Comment on this
There is interest overcharging. Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan said so in her determination in a court case last November.
Comment on this
This is very serious. The Minister is jointly and severally liable for such illegal overcharging.
Comment on this
Deputy, will you please adhere to the rules? This is about promised legislation. It is not about the content.
Comment on this
Should promised legislation not cover this illegality by the Minister for Finance-----
Comment on this
-----the Central Bank and the NTMA which are shareholders in IBRC?