I thank Senators for bringing forward their Bill. I will support it today on Second Stage. I hope to engage actively on it between now and Committee Stage, but I also hope that between now and Committee Stage we see the Government stepping forward, delivering the agreed Bill on Seanad reform and bringing it to us.

As has been pointed out, the motion corrects an error but it points to several other key issues and I want to pick up on several of them. One is with regard to the points made by Senator Byrne. There is a concern about financial institutions and the quite disproportionate level of concern about data breaches with regard to financial institutions. I recognise the motion will make it easier to make appropriate investigations and act on them but it raises a related issue which, unfortunately, we will not be able to di…

I move amendment No. 1: In page 6, between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following: “Report 4. Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Minister shall lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report in respect of the impact and use of the provisions in this Act, including a consideration of the use of Investment Limited Partnerships for tax avoidance, and their impact, if any, on the Revenue Commissioners.”.

This amendment builds on the discussion we had with the Minister of State on the OECD and the base erosion and profit shifting, BEPS, on Committee Stage. This is a somewhat wider amendment, however. I am asking that within 12 months of the passing of this Act - and I remind the Minister of State that he can agree to the action even if he does not agree to the amendment - the Minister would lay before both Houses of the Oireachtas a report on the impact and use of the provisions in this Act, specifically the investm…

I want to make a point of clarity because I would not want the Minister of State to accidentally misinform the record. I have not objected to the fact that lobbying has taken place. I have objected to the fact that the lobbying documents were not made available to the spokespersons. The fact of lobbying is not the issue. It is the transparency on it.

Again, it is very important to clarify that nobody objects to the fact of lobbying. It is a normal process. Many of us received lots of pre-budget documents, for example, from various bodies on the budget and the Finance Bill. The issue is the clarity. I note that the Minister of State at least believes the Houses of the Oireachtas should have access to these documents as part of their process of consideration. I regret that this House of the Oireachtas has not had access to the documents because this is the consid…

I object to amendment No. 7's inclusion in the grouping. It relates to a separate and different issue and should be dealt with separately, if that is okay.

I move amendment No. 2: In page 6, line 16, after “individual” to insert “or body corporate with or without limited liability”.

Amendments Nos. 2, 18, 24, 26 and 41 to 43, inclusive, all relate to the same core issue, which is the fact that there is what I am concerned might prove to be somewhat of an omission in the Bill. The Bill refers specifically to beneficial partners throughout as individuals and does not give recognition to the fact that beneficial owners may be corporate entities, or bodies corporate. Especially given that we are looking to a very large new tool and product that will be made available and that we are reducing liabi…

In an investment limited partnership, including where the investment limited partnership is an umbrella fund with sub-funds, will a beneficial owner be identified for each company who is an investor in that company? I wish to clarify that it will not be simply one beneficial owner in respect of the investment limited partnership, but that persons relating to the sub-funds within the umbrella will also be identified.

I will come to the 25% issue in a moment; it is dealt with in a separate set of amendments. In that circumstance, there may be a number of beneficial owners in respect of a company or investor. My wider concern is about the disappearance of the limited partners and the fact that the limited owners may effectively be in that corporate space. I think it would be better if a person were identified for each investor in that context. That would be the natural follow-through on it. Perhaps that can be looked at in the Dá…

Therefore, there will be no case where the beneficial-----

I just want to clarify this. There will be no case of a company with a 25% shareholder where that individual is not identified. In that context, I will withdraw the amendment.

I move amendment No. 3: In page 6, line 18, to delete “more than a 25 per cent” and substitute “a”.

These amendments deal with the issue of the 25%. These investment limited partnerships are potentially very large. An investment limited partnership could potentially have up to €100 million in capital. Under the Bill, an investor who might have €24 million in capital in an investment limited fund would not be listed as a beneficial owner. I am concerned that there is still effectively a mandate for secrecy for very large-scale investors, whether for individuals who come in under that 25%, corporate entities as des…

I respect that 25% is the figure set out in the money laundering legislation but the concern is one of scale. As I see it, Ireland is keeping the same definition of a big fish while enlarging the pond very considerably. The concern is that investment limited partnerships are not of the same scale as an individual company. They are an amalgam of multiple funds. That is the case that has been made in favour of them; that there will be large umbrella funds with multiple sub-funds, a very large investment vehicle with …

I move amendment No. 4: In page 6, line 18, to delete “more than a 25 per cent” and substitute “more than a 10 per cent”.

I move amendment No. 5: In page 6, line 19, to delete “or more than 25 per cent of the” and substitute “has”.

I move amendment No. 6: In page 6, line 19, to delete “or more than 25 per cent of the” and substitute “or more than 10 per cent of the”.

I move amendment No. 7: In page 7, line 25, after “2005” to insert the following: “or its international equivalent for individuals without a PPS number such as a passport number or national identity card number or national insurance number”.