This amendment deals with issues relating to the use of PPS numbers and so forth. I separated it out because it is a slightly different point to the one we were making about corporate bodies and how they are addressed in the Bill. Many of the internationally based, non-resident individuals who are beneficial owners may not have a PPS number. In order to ensure such beneficial owners can be identified on the register we may need to collect an equivalent international number such as a passport number, a national iden…

My concern is not just that the PPS number is the only identifier mentioned but that, in fact, it is quite a narrow definition of PPS number in the Bill, in that it is the PPS number within the meaning of section 262 of the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005. We are talking about Irish PPS numbers and that is what is specified in the Bill. I recognise there is reference to the “information to be delivered to the Registrar” and “such information as stands determined by the Registrar for the purposes of this secti…

I move amendment No. 8: In page 9, to delete lines 7 to 39, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 11.

Section 7 gives rise to one of my most fundamental concerns in respect of the Bill. I will be pressing this amendment to a vote in opposing the section but I am also proposing a number of other amendments to extract some of the more egregious elements of the section. On Committee Stage, no strong rationale was put forward for the section besides the question of what is a change and a shift in the current understanding of what constitutes a limited partnership versus a beneficial partnership. Effectively, this secti…

What is the case for that?

What time is the debate due to conclude?

I am very concerned because I thought we were setting up new vehicles. The Bill was to set up investment limited partnerships, as the Minister of State said, and the limitation of liabilities between sub-funds under an umbrella structure. If the nub of this legislation is not accountability for beneficial owners but the expansion of what the Minister of State calls a "white list" into a set of new activities, that is a concern and the case has not been made for it. I have not heard the case for why it is so importa…

I move amendment No. 9: In page 9, to delete lines 16 to 33.

I move amendment No. 10: In page 9, to delete lines 36 to 39, and in page 10, to delete lines 1 to 11.

I move amendment No. 11: In page 10, lines 9 to 11, to delete all words from and including “(irrespective” in line 9 down to and including “occurs)” in line 11.

I second the amendment.

I will speak briefly as Senator Ruane has covered the arguments extensively. As I said, I second these amendments. The fundamental point is that we are the Legislature and we are putting in place the framework under which these funds will operate. Indeed, extraordinary provisions have been made in this Bill to allow particular activities to take place that would not normally take place, for example, to allow a limited partner to exclude limited partners from certain liabilities. Many choices are being made in this …

I second the amendment.

I move amendment No. 14: In page 16, lines 24 to 26, to delete all words from and including “calculated” in line 24 down to and including “made” in line 26.

Amendments Nos. 14 to 16, inclusive, address the fact that the way a majority of limited partners is calculated under this Bill is not by a simple vote of all limited partners but according to a majority shareholding, that is, who has the largest amount of shares. Again, this comes to the question of invisible control. My concern is that one may have a single limited partner who has 51% of all of the limited partner shares and can, therefore, call the shots in terms of votes. The Minister of State might address thi…

I know. Can the Minister of State clarify if someone controls 25% of the vote is he or she a beneficial partner?

I see a clash. The Minister of State has said again that it is an advisory capacity and so forth. Again, the legislation explicitly says, "consenting or refusing to consent to, any action proposed by the general partner" - that is not advice - "on behalf of the investment limited partnership and exercising any powers or authorities" as a board member. We need to be clear. The Minister of State has repeatedly stated this is a consultative role but the power, as given, is directly a power of consent or non-consent in…

I move amendment No. 15: In page 16, between lines 26 and 27, to insert the following: “(2A) Where a single limited partner holds a majority shareholding a simple vote of limited partner shareholders shall be constituted as majority.”.

I can see that the Leas-Chathaoirleach is about to guillotine the debate. I wish to make a comment before he does so. There is one amendment that we have not reached, but if the Minister of State-----

That is a pity because-----