Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)

The courts have even considered the content of the Second Stage contributions of Deputies and Members of the Upper House in order to discover the intention behind legislation. The Second Stage debate often frames the overall direction legislation takes.

The funds industry is critically important and approximately 10,000 people are employed in it. Some 26,000 or 27,000 people are employed in the Irish Financial Services Centre, IFSC. The reputation of the country is also critically important. As Minister of State with responsibility for trade, I am in a position to state that the IFSC is internationally recognised as a fine centre of its kind. The regulation which governs the way the IFSC operates is extremely important.

There has been turmoil in the financial markets in recent times. As a result, it is important that a message be conveyed internationally to the effect that the IFSC is a good place to do business - particularly in view of the fact that there is proper regulation and that proper oversight and governance mechanisms are in place there - and that it is competitive. When people consider where they wish to locate funds, establish headquarters, etc., we hope they will look favourably on Ireland in the context of what it has to offer, namely, Greenwich mean time applies here, we have good connectivity with the United States, Europe and elsewhere, and the populace speaks English. These are great advantages in the context of promoting the IFSC as a place in which to locate operations, etc. The Government and the relevant State agencies will be doing everything in their power to promote the centre.

It is important that legislation to facilitate the migration of investment funds into the country should be in place. If there is only one-way traffic, companies will be extremely reluctant to locate here in the first instance. We must, therefore, be in a position to facilitate inward migration. If companies are willing to move in, they will also like to know that they can move out again if they so wish. We must get the balance right.

Amendments Nos. 3 to 5, inclusive, demonstrate that we are serious with regard to ensuring that proper governance and oversight mechanisms and proper regulations are in place. They will also ensure that funds companies will be notified in respect of proceedings.

The Deputy is correct in stating that we do not want to be overly prescriptive in the context of directing the courts and imposing on them a narrow focus. However, we want to be able to indicate clearly the intention behind the legislation. A court must be satisfied that a deregistration would not only be detrimental to the petitioning creditors or shareholders but that it will also be materially prejudicial to the interests of shareholders and creditors or both taken as whole.

The Bill has evolved during its passage through the Houses. It was never intended to rush through Committee or Report Stage amendments in either House. Representations were made to the Department, which wanted to respond and that is why the Bill evolved. Another factor in its evolution relates to the changing circumstances internationally and the turmoil that arose. Opportunities now exist in the context of the movement of funds and the volatility that exists. Financial services companies want to establish operations in secure centres that are well regulated and recognised internationally. Ireland is so recognised.

If the Chair will indulge me, I wish to refer to an amendment that was ruled out of order. It is important to state that in the context of generally accepted accounting principles in the US and with regard to the Minister to be in a position to make an order in respect of other jurisdictions where such principles hold sway, primary legislation was mentioned as being a necessity. In that context, 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". The Minister may make an order in respect of accounting practices other than those used in the US. In that context, strict criteria are laid down with regard to the accounting practices that can be used. In addition, the Bill promotes democratic accountability and this should meet the concerns raised by Deputies. Orders must be laid before the Houses and either House can reject an order within a set period.

I would like the Bill to pass through the Houses with full cross-party support. This will send out a strong message with regard to Ireland as a location where high standards of corporate governance apply across the board. That is critically important in the context of where we are trying to place Ireland internationally in respect of attracting funds and also foreign direct investment and the job creation, etc., that flows therefrom. I hope I have allayed the concerns expressed by Deputies in the context of the Minister having powers that are too wide-ranging or being in a position to make up his own rules. As regards the latter, my officials would certainly never allow me to make up my own rules. In the interests of democratic accountability, it will be necessary for the Minister to lay any orders before both Houses.

See this speech in context