Seanad debates
Thursday, 28 September 2006
Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Bill 2006: Committee and Remaining Stages
11:00 am
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 6, subsection (3), line 24, to delete "prejudices" and substitute "shall prejudice".
This amendment deals with technical matters. I am advised that the term "shall prejudice" should be used rather than "prejudices". I will leave it to the Minister of State to decide.
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
With regard to amendment No. 1, my officials have consulted with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and on his advice I do not intend to accept the amendment. His advice is that there is no need for such a change.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 6, line 39, to delete "securities" and substitute "securities,".
I wish to hear the Minister of State's reply.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
If that is the considered advice I will accept it.
Feargal Quinn (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I do not understand amendment No. 2. Will somebody explain it to me?
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I understand amendment No. 2 is not being pressed.
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 2 seeks to insert a comma after the word "securities".
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 7, line 37, after "provided" to insert "for".
I would like to hear the Minister of State's views on the amendment.
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
My officials have consulted with the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and on his advice I do not intend to accept the amendment.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is there a difference between his advice and the Minister of State not accepting it? Are we happy that in his view and in the Minister of State's view the text is correct?
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We are happy that the text as it stands means what we want it to mean. We sought the advice of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel on foot of the Senator's amendment to see whether it actually means what we intend it to mean. Given that Parliamentary Counsel verified that it does, we accept it.
Rory Kiely (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
We now come to amendment No. 4. Amendments Nos. 6 to 18, inclusive, are cognate. Therefore, amendments Nos. 4 and 6 to 18, inclusive, may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 8, subsection (1), line 30, to delete "Transparency" and substitute "transparency".
I am advised that the word "transparency" should appear with a small "t", rather than with a capital "T".
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Like the Senator I am advised that it is correct in the original text. It is not an issue on which we will have a falling out.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Is the Parliamentary Counsel happy with it?
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
He is happy that the current text is correct and I will accept the current situation.
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
This is a technical amendment, the purpose of which is to clarify that the directive referred to in line 13 is the transparency regulated markets directive. Two directives were mentioned in the original Bill and this is to clarify that it relates to the first-mentioned directive.
Paddy Burke (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
Amendment No. 19 is a Government amendment. Government amendments Nos. 20 and 21 are related and may be discussed together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
(d) a public limited company one or more of the securities of which are not, for the time being, authorised to be traded on a market referred to in subparagraph (i), (ii), (iii) or (iv) of paragraph (c) but were authorised to be traded on a market referred to in any of those subparagraphs within the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the relevant proposal in relation to the takeover or other relevant transaction was made other than a public limited company (in section 2B also referred to as an 'excepted company') the only securities of which were authorised to be traded, within the foregoing period, on a market referred to in any of those subparagraphs are those specified in section 2B,".".
(2) The cases to which the qualifications contained in paragraphs (c) and (d) of section 2 concerning an excepted company apply include the case where the authorisation for the trading of the securities concerned was given before the commencement of section 16 of the Investment Funds, Companies and Miscellaneous Provisions Act 2006.".
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I thank Senators for their valuable contributions. We had a useful debate on Second Stage in July. This is technical legislation covering a number of different areas of company and consumer law. I wish to record my appreciation of the input of Senators to the debate. These provisions are necessary to allow Irish companies to continue to compete on international markets, thereby allowing us to maintain our competitiveness in key areas where it has been established. In addition, key provisions are included to allow for the smooth and effective transposition of EU directives relating to takeovers and transparency. It is imperative that we provide for civil and criminal liability and sanctions in these areas and this must be done by primary law. Should any further amendments be made in the Dáil I will, of course, bring the Bill back to the Seanad when Senators will have a further opportunity to give their views.
I thank the staff of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel and the Attorney General's office for their assistance in drafting the legislation and my own staff for the work and effort they put into bringing the Bill to fruition.
Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context
As the Minister of State has said, the Bill is largely technical, but necessary because of the new directives dealing with takeovers, transparency and related matters. The most important element of the Bill is how it deals with competitiveness to put us on a level playing pitch. Once the British Government had decided to increase the audit threshold, I considered it was important that we were not at a disadvantage with regard to our neighbouring jurisdiction in the northern part of the island. The Minister of State was of the same view as he took this aspect on board when we first mentioned it.
I welcome the audit limit exemption increase to €7.3 million, which is an important factor. I urge the Minister of State to continue to hold an interested watch on such matters. I look forward to coming back to deal with the Bill again if amendments are made in the Dáil.
I thank the Minister of State and his officials with regard to what has been achieved.
Michael Ahern (Cork East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context
I wish to express my appreciation for the co-operation of Senator Coghlan in this process.