Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

First and foremost, I thank the Deputies for their contributions to this debate and the Senators for their contributions in the Seanad. I look forward to the Committee Stage debate next week.

There is a few issues to clarify. First, the purpose of this Bill is to address a few simple accounting difficulties that have arisen in the context of companies locating their headquartering facilities here. It is not to cater for every company. There are a number of strategic companies which are large employers. They are very reputable companies and they make a major contribution to the employment in this country. It is not for every company that would like to do its accounting practices through other methods.

On issues with regard to reputational damage, IDA Ireland, ODCE and the Revenue Commissioners were first and foremost asked to look at this as well. We did our own due diligence. What is critically important is that the US GAAP accounting procedures have exacting and high standards. It is important to put that on the record. US GAAP has good accounting practices and is internationally recognised as having that. It is not that they are trying to move to a system where there are easier or more lapsed standards. That is not the case.

The primary purpose of the Bill is to assist companies that have moved here in recent times, which are headquartered and had facilities here, and want to move from US GAAP accounting to Irish GAAP or IFRS standards. That is to be done over a period of time of not more than four years. This provision runs out in 2015.

Another issue with which some Deputies had grave concern - I know that they were not referring directly to me - and about which I would not have any concerns is the context of giving the Minister the authority to make regulation. An important part of the Bill, section 2(4), states:

Every regulation under this section shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made and, if a resolution annulling the regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the regulation is laid before it, the regulation shall be annulled accordingly but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

The bottom line is that if the Minister makes a regulation, it is laid before the Houses and if either one of the Houses passes a resolution annulling that regulation, that is the case. Therefore, there is democratic accountability included in the Bill at section 2(4). It is critically important that people realise there is democratic accountability here. I myself would have concerns if it was simply a matter of the Minister deciding to draft a regulation and hand it over to the officials, and that then the matter would be done and dusted. It does not work like that and, thankfully, this provision in the Bill insists on regulations being laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. Democratic accountability to the parliamentary assembly is of critical importance.

Reputational risk, as I stated, was raised by a number of Deputies and it would be critically important that no Deputy leads it hanging in the air. Either they have concerns or they do not. We can alleviate any of their concerns if they look at what this is trying to achieve. It is an interim measure. There are already exacting standards in the US, including generally accepted accounting principles, and US GAAP.

A number of issue were raised and if I forget any of them, we can refer to them again on Committee Stage. Deputy Penrose spoke of Dr. Courtney and his fine volume on company law. It is a fine read and I would urge every Member to read it before Committee Stage on Wednesday next. It would be an interesting read over the weekend.

See this speech in context