Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

Is it appropriate for me to ask Senator Barrett to flesh out some of the points he made regarding the amendment he wishes to press? Perhaps he could send me a note on any practical mechanisms through which we could look at this again, without prejudice.

I refer to the question raised by Senator Barrett on Committee Stage concerning the situation of New Zealand under the decision of 13 June 2013 implemented by the Commission. The Commission is not commenting on the quality of audit in any of the countries listed in the annexe. It simply states there is not enough information for it to assess the equivalence of the oversight systems.

Recycle 2 of that decision includes the statement:

The Commission has carried out assessments of the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entries of the third countries and territories listed in the Annex to decision 2011/30/EU. The assessments were carried out with the assistance of the European Group of Auditors Oversight Bodies. The public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities for those third countries and territories were assessed in the light of the criteria set out in Articles 29, 30 and 32 of Directive 2006/43/EC which govern the public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit firms of the Member States.

Recycle 4 states:

Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Egypt, Mauritius, New Zealand, Russia and Turkey have established or are in the process of establishing public oversight, quality assurance, investigation and penalty systems for auditors and audit entities. However, information about the functioning and the rules governing such systems is not sufficient to carry out an equivalence assessment.

I hope this gives some clarity regarding the point raised by Senator Barrett.

In regard to amendment No. 5, I am sympathetic to the principle of the amendment proposed by Senator Barrett. However, I am informed that the amendment as proposed does not achieve the outcome the Senator seeks, which is to have a requirement for regulations made under this section to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas. It has not been possible to have an appropriate amendment drafted, within the applicable deadlines, to enable me to table an amendment today and in the interest of not delaying the progress of the Bill, I propose incorporating the measure into the Companies Bill 2012. The intention is that the requisite amendment will be included as an amendment in that Bill. On that basis, I hope Senator Barrett understands we will not accept his amendment.

In response to a point Senator Barrett raised previously on the substantive Bill, the committee powered through 1,400 sections in two days in an efficient manner. I acknowledge the role of officials and public servants involved in the process. While the Senator has made a point about the number of years it has taken, it moved through the committee expeditiously, because it is very much a cross-party Bill. It is a consolidating piece of legislation and there was agreement from all political sides on the need to ensure we dealt with it efficiently. We probably set a record in dealing with 1,400 sections in 24 hours, not a bad way to do business in the House.

I ask Senator Barrett to take on board the points I have made in regard to amendment No. 5. I am confident his concern will be covered in an amendment to the Companies Bill.