Could the Minister give an example of why the bank would revoke conditions already agreed? What would be the circumstances, in a general sense, in which it would do this? Section 43 (2) states: "the Bank may at any time amend or revoke such conditions or requirements or both referred to in subsection (1) of this section."
SECTION 43.
Question proposed: "That section 43 stand part of the Bill."
When initially imposing conditions, it may decide to set down certain conditions. It may impose a condition at the outset which at some stage it may decide to remove. It is given discretion so it can work both ways, that is attach additional conditions or remove conditions, depending on what circumstances prevail at a particular point. It is very difficult to think of a case history. It is being given discretion, in the light of the experience of the new owners, in relation to the imposition of new conditions or the deletion of conditions.
What recourse would the company itself have if it did not like the conditions or the set of circumstances?
If it feels the additional conditions are unduly restrictive, it can decide to go to the courts.
Must it go back to the court?
Yes. This is included in section 46.
In agreeing these conditions I presume there is some discussion between the Central Bank and the companies involved. That would be part of normal practice.
It is normal practice that there is dialogue and a great deal of interaction between them. They would discuss on a one to one basis what would or would not constitute a fair imposition.
Would that apply to companies from a different member state?
Of course. The same open access avaiability, dialogue and consultation process is envisaged in all cases, whether from another jurisdiction or home based companies. That is the whole idea. The conclusion would be arrived at by way of exchange and discussion between the bank and the firm.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 44 agreed to.