The financial services industry has expressed concern about the regulator's proposed sanctions regime.

Twenty-two separate submissions were made to the Irish Financial Services Regulatory Authority in relation to its consultation paper on administrative sanctions procedure.

Among the areas addressed by companies and industry groups were the fears that the proposals would curtail dialogue between the industry and the regulator, the speed with which companies could be called to account for their actions and the likelihood of transgressors having their names published as part of any settlement with the regulator.

Several drew attention to the fact that Ifsra proposes to be effectively both "prosecutor" and "judge" in its inquiries.

A number of respondents, including the Financial Services Consultative Industry Panel of Ifsra, said no administrative sanctions procedure should be introduced until an appeal tribunal was up and running.

The Irish Insurance Federation complained that the proposals contained "few, if any, of the natural protections for accused corporations or individuals that are to be found in civil or criminal courts where equivalent penalties may be imposed".

Currency fund manager Alder Capital went further, stating that Ifsra's approach could have implications for the human rights of those in the financial services sector being regulated. It said it would be asking the Human Rights Commission to investigate the procedure

In its submission, PricewaterhouseCoopers points out that Ireland has developed significantly over the past decade as an international centre for financial services. It cites "international recognition that Ireland has a respected, open and business-friendly regulator" as one of the key drivers of this growth and warns against any move away from this.

The Irish Association of Investment Managers said curtailing the current informal dialogue between the industry and regulator would be a "retrograde step and one to which we are opposed".

The consultation paper states that Ifsra "considers that publicity is critical to an effective enforcement regime and it will seek to publish the results of its inquiries in as many cases as possible".

Almost all industry players have taken exception to this approach. Bank of Ireland was not alone in suggesting that "settlements should not be published or taken into account in future incidents".

It said a settlement "may be entered into for a number of reasons and does not indicate whether an institution is guilty of a breach or not".

Several institutions also argued that the threat of publicity, or "public execution" as one put it, would give companies and individuals little incentive to make voluntary disclosure, something that the proposals are keen to promote.

"The objective should be to ensure compliance through fostering a culture of disclosure," Financial Services Ireland wrote in its comments. "Actively facilitating disclosure will promote compliance more effectively than enforcement actions and the threat of negative publicity."

There was also a fear that publicity would reduce public confidence in the financial services industry.

The Irish Brokers Associations said insurance intermediaries were already regulated by the European Communities (Insurance Mediation) Regulations 2005 and noted that the proposed sanction regime could leave its members trying to conform to "two separate and, in some cases, conflicting regulatory regimes with different enforce procedures."