THE FINANCIAL Regulator may claim that it has "fundamentally and forever changed" following the banking crisis, but old patterns could be re-emerging in its handling of difficulties at the state's credit unions.

Although the regulator admitted two weeks ago that it had issued private warnings to over 30% of credit unions during 2008 about their arrears levels, it has consistently refused to provide full updates on the current situation.

The registrar of credit unions, a division of the Financial Regulator, has said that bad debts in the sector are still rising - but its head Brendan Logue has refused to comment on what percentage of credit union loans are in arrears or how quickly they are increasing.

Logue's refusal to disclose such information comes at an unfortunate time for the regulator, raising questions about its commitment to openness and transparency in advance of its upcoming merger with the Central Bank.

The government hopes that the merger will rebuild the confidence in the country's financial regulatory structures which was rapidly eroded last year after revelations about Anglo Irish Bank and the Financial Regulator's mishandling of the banking crisis in general.

This was exemplified by the performance of its then chief executive Patrick Neary, who was assuring investors of the strength of Irish banks just weeks before the emergency blanket guarantee scheme was introduced last September.

The credit union issue, however, evokes other uncomfortable memories of Neary's reign: the Financial Regulator's general disinterest in informing consumers, even those who were eligible for compensation as a result of overcharging or some other banking blunder.

But there is arguably more at stake this time around given the major role that ordinary members play in electing credit union boards.

Indeed, the power of individual members to hold boards to account is recognised by the Financial Regulator, which encourages "credit union members to attend the AGMs of their credit unions. . . [and] their boards so as to satisfy themselves that they have full information on all relevant matters including regulatory issues."

But some believe that the Financial Regulator's disclosure policies mean that inquisitive members of troubled credit unions will effectively head into these meetings blindfolded.

"The registrar could easily answer general questions about credit union arrears," said personal finance expert Brendan Burgess, who was chairman of the regulator's consumer panel between 2004 and 2007.

He said there would always be limits on how much information a regulator could disclose, but that a lot of the information currently being suppressed by the Financial Regulator should be in the public domain.

"With consumer issues, in particular, you can't go around naming institutions with cashflow problems as that would just cause a run on the bank or credit union involved. But I do think the Financial Regulator is abusing their secrecy rules in many cases and they aren't giving consumers the level of information they should be entitled to."

Burgess said the worst example of this approach came in 2006 when the regulator effectively left many Irish Nationwide customers who had been overcharged in the past in the dark.

In that case, the Financial Services Ombudsman Joe Meade found that the building society had been imposing unlawful penalties on customers who repaid their loans early to switch to another lender.

Meade was only able to order the bank to repay customers overcharged over the previous six years - the limit of his powers - but the Financial Regulator declined to force the company to refund further.

"It also never named Irish Nationwide for overcharging, meaning that customers who were not following the case in the press would never have realised that they were affected. On top of that, the Financial Regulator also left responsibility for administering the refunds in the hands of the building society," said Burgess.

Burgess has little faith that the new Central Bank Commission, which will replace the regulator in the near future, will improve its record on transparency.

"It's the people that have to change, not the structure. It has the wrong culture and bringing it back into the Central Bank won't change that. What they need to do is bring in new people at the top with a new approach," he said.

In many respects, the Financial Regulator's general attitude towards confidentiality seems to contrast strongly with the view taken by other regulators, such as Britain's Financial Services Authority (FSA).

One particularly striking difference in approach between the FSA and its Irish counterpart is their respective policies towards the handling of firms and individuals whose applications for regulatory approval are rejected.

In Britain, the FSA "in order to protect consumers" publishes all such rejection notices, including the reasons why the applicant was turned down, even in cases where individuals have failed its fitness and probity tests.

In Ireland, however, the Financial Regulator refuses to publish any information about rejected applications, arguing that it's "a confidential matter for the firm".

The FSA also provides significantly more detail about the sanctions it imposes on companies who fall foul of its rules and regulations and the reasoning behind its decisions.

For instance, when the FSA fined Bank of Ireland £375,000 (€439,000) in 2004 for failings in its anti-money laundering procedures, it published comprehensive details of suspicious transactions at one of the bank's British branches to explain the issues involved.

According to a FSA spokeswoman, the organisation uses public statements as a deterrent against poor practice in other companies.

"When deciding a sanction, one of the things we take into account is whether the punishment puts out enough of a deterrent message to other firms to ensure their affairs are in order," she said.

Meanwhile a spokeswoman for the Financial Regulator told the Sunday Tribune that its policy was "to be as open and transparent as possible while operating within the confines of European and Irish law".

"The Financial Regulator is subject to obligations of confidentiality arising from EU law and the Central Bank Act 1942. The EU law aspect stems from the supervisory directives, which place an obligation on the Financial Regulator to treat confidential information pursuant to the requirements of professional secrecy which involves restricting disclosure of confidential information to specific gateways contained therein," she said.