Mr. Brendan Lenihan:

We are very co-operative with co-operatives. They have been an important feature of the agricultural sector for a long time. Accountants have a great deal of experience in that regard. That exact model is not being discussed, but we will support whatever structure is laid down in legislation with the right business fit. It should not be a problem.

Deputy Jonathan O'Brien asked about lead-in times. In other professions, for example, architecture, there are sunset clauses, etc. While we are not adverse to this suggestion, there are practical problems. If one is part-qualified or unqualified, it is difficult to get professional indemnity insurance. One must explain one's circumstances to an underwriter and express one's desire to work on preparing accounts, filing tax returns and, potentially, handling client money. Even an interval period draws many risks. It may be that the right approach is to re-term what one does. There will still be practical problems, for example, procuring professional indemnity insurance or people having a complaint mechanism against practitioners. This is the minimum amount of public protection that people need.

This is the reasoning for our clear amendment.

We could do something that has a sunset clause only to find in three or five years that we have gone through the balance of an economically distressed period and we still do not have the consumer protections that most people think they have. This would sit uncomfortably with us. We will work with members, as legislators, and IAASA to come up with a solution. I commend the straightforwardness of our amendment, which is that at a point in time the public should know that the accountants with whom they are dealing are supervised by the state regulator.

On the 20-partner limit, the relief is already provided for in the Bill. However, it states that all of the partners must be statutory accountants. While some of the larger partnerships in this State comprise between 80 and 100 partners, it is unlikely that all of them are accountants. Pensions is a big area and servicing client needs in this regard requires actuaries and senior personnel. IT is another big competency area, as is the legal area and so on. I believe the Government's intention in terms of enactment of this legislation is right. However, in terms of the practicalities of it, we would like to get to a position whereby in order to avail of the exemption proposed a partnership should be controlled by a majority of accountants. It is the test of control that is most important.

The specific clause proposed in the Bill deals only with accountants. It is appropriate that it be retained as scripted. At the end of the day the Bill deals with auditing and accounting measures. As I stated, the relief already exists. I do not believe the practical intention of the Bill is disrupted by the fact that many of the partnerships include people of different disciplines. A small change would facilitate this.