Jan O'Sullivan (Limerick East, Labour)

I seek more clarification on this matter. The Minister has introduced some substantial amendments on Report Stage, which we obviously have not had a chance to discuss before. They are amendments we need to get right because we are already falling foul of EU Commissioner McCreevy. We need to be careful not to fall foul of him further in amending this legislation. I regret that we must deal with such detailed and technical amendments at this point in the debate.

As I understand it, amendment No. 5 relates to how an insurance company might gain more from risk equalisation than the risk justified and what should happen to that money. Schedule 2 deals with that matter in detail, under the heading "Community framework for state aid in the form of public service compensation (2005/C 297/04)". It covers "case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Communities" and so on. It behoves us to take note of that and ensure that the contents of this legislation comply with EU regulations and what the EU Commission considers to be an interpretation of EU regulations. The schedule on page 31 states:

22. Any over-compensation may be used to finance another service of general economic interest operated by the same undertaking,... 23. The amount of over-compensation cannot remain available to an undertaking on the ground that it would rank as aid compatible with the Treaty

I am flummoxed as to whether I am competent to accept or reject the Minister's amendments, which is why I am asking these questions. On the one hand, that is already contained in the Bill and, on the other, we have amendments addressing the same issue. They may or may not be contrary to Schedule 2. I ask the Minister to provide more background information on the reasons for introducing these amendments. Do they arise from discussions with the EU Commission? If so, are the amendments, particularly Nos. 41 and 44, inserted on its advice? As the Minister has said they are all related to that issue. In order to be competent legislators, we need more information on the background to these amendments.

See this speech in context