Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

That is the purpose of the exercise, but only a small limited number of companies - roughly, five or six companies - will avail of this. That is the purpose, rather than putting an onerous cost on them unnecessarily that they can over a period of time move from US GAAP to Irish GAAP or IFRS. There are many acronyms in use in the Department. The other day I was at the world trade talks where they have a language of acronyms of their own. One would nearly want a dictionary of acronyms.

I was asked why the issue of the stock exchange was included at short notice. That issue did not come to our attention until quite recently. It only came to our attention in the context of a director sitting on an inquiry established by IASSA and having to retire prior to the inquiry being completed. It was brought to our attention in October last. We were reacting to issues which were raised and which came to our attention at the time.

The amendment of the funds industry is being published tomorrow. Deputies will be able to digest that over the weekend as well and we will be able to deal with it on Committee Stage. I have covered most of the other areas of particular interest to the Deputies.

There is a consolidation of standards and, hopefully, over the next number of years one will see the various standards of accounting around the world coming together under a more unified code. I would urge at every possible level that there would be a standardised, uniform generally accepted accounting principles in use by the European Union, the United States and other major economic blocs.

I was asked if the Minister decided to make regulation and lay it before the Houses, and if it was discussed by the Houses and accepted, what other accounting standards may be under consideration. At present, there are no other generally accepted accounting principles from other countries under consideration, but it would be unhelpful and would tie up the Oireachtas unnecessarily to have primary legislation debated through the Houses again to deal with one or two companies which may find that this issue is causing them difficulties in the short term. It would be preferable to give the Minister the powers to lay regulations before the Houses for Deputies to consider.

Canada and Japan also would have exacting accounting standards. It is critically important to state that the legislation does not give the Minister a free hand to decide on any standard he or she may prefer. There are exacting standards laid down in the legislation as to what he or she can consider in the context of placing a regulation before the House. As regards the valuation of assets, these companies will follow the US gap to the extent that it does not conflict with company law. They will therefore follow these valuations. That question was also raised by Deputy Varadkar. The purpose of the Bill is that rather than putting excessive, onerous administrative costs on companies here that are employing many thousands of people, there will be a transitional period over which they can move from the US gap to the accounting centres of Ireland or IRFS.

That is primarily the purpose of the Bill, which will now move on to Committee Stage. Deputies expressed concerns about the funds industry and the fact that we are tabling an amendment at late notice. It is not really at late notice, however, because we have until next Wednesday for Deputies to consider that amendment. It will be primarily to allow funds to migrate in and out of the country. The stock exchange issue was merely to clarify some of the matters that where raised by some companies. It is to avoid administrative burdens being placed on them, but we are conscious of the need to notify markets. There is already strong regulation and legislation in place which require PLCs that are floated on the stock exchange in the context of purchasing own shares. The requirements are onerous and rightly so. Companies often purchase their own shares if they have surplus cash reserves. There is nothing unusual or untoward in that. It is part of the normal, everyday management of PLCs. A notification process is already in place but in the context of this legislation we are saying it also must be put on the website.

Reference was made to the fact that some people may not be aware of it, but the markets are always aware of these things. I can assure the House that if it is put up on the website of any PLC, the markets know about it immediately. People involved in trading and monitoring markets are aware of PLC websites, and that shares are being purchased. In any case, they have to notify the stock exchange within a day of the shares purchase.

I hope that covers most areas that were raised by Deputies concerning the Bill. Broader issues were also raised in the context of Government policy on competitiveness, addressing the challenges of unemployment and regional development. My comments may stray from the Bill, but I beg the indulgence of the Chair to refer to the issues that were raised by Deputies in that regard. May I do so?

See this speech in context