Noel Ahern (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

I am sorry to disappoint the Senator. We have considered them. Everything is worthy of consideration, but it is not intended to accept them. We do not believe they add anything to the Bill. I have outlined the process that exists. It may well be that this is how they do it in other countries. I do not mind looking at how it is done in other countries, but it does not mean we have to imitate them or slavishly follow their example. We have our own controls and processes, which are clearly laid down. It is not just done overnight because the directors bring a proposal before an annual general meeting. It is a slow process, involving the Central Bank, members vote on it and there is ample time to consider it. Ultimately, if people are not happy they can go to the High Court.

However, it would not be appropriate to give the courts the function of approving a conversion scheme. That function rests with the Central Bank, which has the expertise and the standing. No justification has been made to transfer this function. It might even be in conflict with the jurisdiction of the High Court to deal with petitions of members. Ultimately, if members are not happy their last court of appeal is the High Court, under section 105 of the 1989 Act for cancellation of a conversion scheme. It would be somewhat strange to go the court for approval on the first day and then members might ultimately opt to back to the High Court as their last court of appeal. The court might have a conflict of interest, in the event, as some people might want to ensure it stood by its original decision.

It is a financial matter. The Central Bank is involved early on, then the members. If the members are not happy, the High Court is the final appeal forum if they wish to go there to have the conversion scheme cancelled. We have considered the issues, but we do not believe they add anything to the Bill.