Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The Minister is arguing that company directors will have to wheel in consultants if they want to be able to state their companies are compliant with the law. We may as well close down the whole system if that is the case. That is the precise argument used in 2003 and there is no basis for it. People act within the law to the best of their ability. If my company contracts another firm to transport and dispose of materials in a proper manner in the local dump and the latter decides to dump the material at the end of a farmer's field or in an empty quarry, I will not find myself in court provided my company has met all requirements and put in place the proper structures to ensure it is dealing with a reputable company. In such circumstances, the company cannot be held responsible for fraudulent or illegal behaviour. If we have reached the stage that we must engage consultants to establish that legislation being passed on a monthly basis in the House is being complied with, we have a serious problem.

The Minister referred to people knocking on doors because of heavy regulation but declined to comment on the fact that my amendment would raise the threshold and reduce the number of those required to be involved in the compliance process. I ask her to comment.

Does the Minister's memory stretch back to two months ago when Members were lining up in both Houses and in committees to highlight the failure of the Financial Regulator to regulate with sufficiently strength. Last week's edition of The Economist featured a whole section of some 15 pages on how we should approach the regulation of companies. President Obama stated recently that we must strike a proper balance in a number of areas, including regulation.

I am opposed to heavy-handed regulation. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure people act honestly as our forefathers did in the past. Before legislation was introduced people did not sign documents but shook hands. One's reputation was one's bond. That is the way I was reared and it is how I would like legislation to work. All I seek is that people do their best to comply with the law and ensure they can show what measures they put in place to try to ensure compliance. We can demand nothing else of decent, honest company directors. We do not want them relying on consultants in big offices on Merrion Square or Fitzwilliam Square at €600 an hour to come in and tell them they are complying with the law. It is their own executive who tells them they are complying with the law. Can one imagine that companies do not have a risk audit, a health and safety person? They are supposed to have a person appointed by the company to ensure that they comply with the law in a variety of ways.

I strongly reject the contention that this is to place additional burden on the company. It is quite the opposite, but it is being presented to the Minister as such. It is for honest people to state and show that they have done their best, and for the auditor to confirm that that has happened. What is the high bar on that one? What is the threat in that to anybody? Why would any honest company director have a problem with it?

Recently, I asked a professor of business about this issue. As devil's advocate, I put the argument the Minister put about the issue of other legislation on environment, health and safety etc. There is a long list of such legislation which I have in my office since I got all this stuff in 2003. The answer I got back questioned company directors not being responsible for having in place structures that save people's lives or make them work more safely. The professor looked at me like I was from the Dark Ages. All I am asking for is simple, straightforward stuff.

I also want to put on record the other points the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement made about what the Minister is supporting. He stated that, regrettably, he could not endorse it because it means that the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, as the body responsible for encouraging compliance with company law, including the preparation of books of accounts that give a true and fair view, finds unacceptable a proposal which omits reporting on obligations "that may materially affect the company's financial statements". That is what the Minister is supporting. The Minister's Department is the parent Department of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement which states this is the situation. That is what she is asking me to accept. The director went on to state that the provision for auditor review of the director's compliance statement has been entirely deleted. This was a key recommendation of the audit review group in enhancing the public interest role. The director stated that the proposed definition of material compliance no longer requires that the arrangements of structures in place must be reasonably effective. We, therefore, have heard it from the Director of Corporate Enforcement.

The first time this goes wrong politicians will stand up in this House and the other House to ask why the Director of Corporate Enforcement did not get in there and do this, that or the other. The director offered his view and here we are ignoring that view. It cannot be right.

The Minister stated that she is open to dealing with this issue. I have given her the view of the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Committee of Public Accounts and the audit review group. What does it take to change the Minister's mind on this? If she is open to it, what does she need to hear or from whom does she need to hear on this matter? The other group which had a reservation about this section was the Revenue Commissioners, but I will not go into that. Let it be on the record that the House had the opportunity to act on this and it refused to do it or it is not doing it for issues of no relevance whatever. I appeal to the Minister to open her mind to this, to take it on board and to make it happen.