Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are related and may be discussed together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
SECTION 56.
I move amendment No. 67:
In page 57, subsection (11), lines 51 and 52, and page 58, line 1, to delete all words from and including "the" in line 51 down to and including "under-taking" in line 1, page 58 and substitute "a person to whom this section applies".
Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 are drafting amendments. Section 56 (1) defines the phrase: "persons to whom this section applies". Subsection (11) does not use this phrase. Instead, it refers to "the approved stock exchange or authorised member firm or associated undertaking or related undertaking" and to "the approved stock exchange or authorised member firm". The effect, therefore, is that subsection (11) does not apply as widely as the rest of the section. This was not intended and the two amendments correct subsection (11) to tighten it up.
Are the powers conferred on authorised officers under this section similar to those conferred on officers under other acts, where there would be powers to appoint similar people, or are there differences in the context of this Bill?
What we have tried to do is give as many powers as possible to ensure that, when investigations are carried out, anybody given authorisation will have authority to examine each and every aspect and to make a full, complete and detailed examination of what exactly might be going on. I understand that the powers are quite substantial and more investigative, in terms of their dynamic, than those given to other investigating officers. Going down through them, one will see that they are quite strong powers. There is the power to enter, at all reasonable times, any premises; the power to inspect documents and make photocopies——
Are the powers of seizure and entry in this Bill going beyond the normal powers under other Acts? If so, will the Minister point out where this occurs?
The powers are basically the same powers given to investigating officers in the Central Bank Act, 1988. They were adequate in that Act and are equally so here. There are no other powers one can envisage that should be inserted here. They seem to be adequate to meet the requirements.
Are they referenced in the directive?
No, they are not. They are reinforcing the same powers as those contained in the Central Bank Act, it gives the same powers of investigation and it has been, as I said, generally accepted that Central Bank Act powers are adequate.
The powers of the Central Bank acting as the authority here are similar to those in other member states? Is there a substantive difference?
No, there does not seem to be. In drafting this the Department has liaised with other jurisdictions to see what powers are enforced there. They have decided to look at the powers vested in other investigating authorities and feel that what has already been put in place for the powers of the Central Bank is adequate to meet the requirements here.
I wish to come back to the point where a third country company or an outside force with a small operation here is involved. If something crops up which powers are needed to investigate and where the records that needed to be accessed by an investigating officer are held in another jurisdiction, does the same power of access to another competent authority exist or could it be done through the powers conferred here?
We have already discussed this. In relation to the investigation here all the povisions here apply. In relation to the investigation of their offices overseas, whether it is the main company office or whatever, the Central Bank here would liaise with the competent authority in the other member country and ask that all necessary access to documentation etc., would be invoked by the authority there. We do not have the power so we would have to ask the competent authority in the other member state to do the investigation.
The authorised officer would not have the capacity to go outside his jurisdiction. Could he do it by agreement with another competent authority?
He could. Basically he would seek the compliance of the member firm itself in relation to the power to investigate all aspects of the company's affairs. If he is refused by the member firm he then seeks such recourse from the actual competent authority in the other member country to do so. It has been already agreed among the competent authorities that they would facilitate each other in this regard.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 68:
In page 58, subsection (11), line 6, to delete "the approved stock exchange or authorised member firm" and substitute "the person to whom this section applies".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 69:
In page 58, subsection (11), lines 9 and 10, to delete "alleged offender" and substitute "officer, employee, shareholder or agent of the person to whom this section applies".
Amendment agreed to.
Section 56, as amended, agreed to.