Dáil debates

Thursday, 1 February 2024

Ceisteanna ar Sonraíodh Uain Dóibh - Priority Questions

EU Directives

10:50 am

Photo of Michael McGrathMichael McGrath (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for the question. In November of 2022, the Court of Justice of the European Union, ECJ, ruled in joined cases C-37/20 and C-601/20 that a provision of the EU anti-money laundering, AML, directive under which information on the beneficial ownership of corporate and other legal entities held in central registers must be provided to the general public is invalid. The court found that the provision interfered with the rights recognised in Articles 7 and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.

To ensure our domestic legislation complies with the court's ruling, and following consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, a statutory instrument was prepared amending regulations which govern two of Ireland's registers of beneficial ownership information - the register of beneficial ownership of companies and industrial and provident societies, RBO, that operate under the auspices of the Companies Registration Office, as well as the central register of beneficial ownership of Irish collective asset-management vehicles, credit unions and unit trusts, which is operated by the Central Bank of Ireland.

As Minister for Finance, I signed into law the relevant regulations: SI 308 of 2023, the European Union (Anti-Money Laundering: Beneficial Ownership of Corporate Entities) (Amendment) Regulations 2023. The Deputy may be aware that a recent political agreement was reached in Brussels in respect of the new EU AML rule book. However, formal agreement, including the text, remains to be agreed by all member states. The EU Council proposes that provision for access to beneficial ownership information by the public should be on the basis of "legitimate interest". Following agreement of the new EU AML package, officials will consider what further amendments to domestic legislation are required as part of the transposition process.

The direct answer to the question is that following the ECJ judgment, my Department consulted with the Attorney General and received advice. On that basis, the statutory instrument was prepared and that is what I signed into law last year. This is an area, though, where policy is developing quite quickly and I expect we will be returning to this issue.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.