Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister. Nobody wants to be argumentative about ensuring compliance with company law. In recent times, there have been some high profile cases of people breaching company law. We need, therefore, to ensure integrity in the process and that we have a system in place where suppliers and people who trade with companies have confidence in the accounting system and certainty that the books they present on an annualised basis are fair and compliant. It is critically important for the confidence of people trading with a company to know that what is said in the accounting system and on their accounts is audited and signed off. By and large, that happens with almost all companies. However, a small proportion of companies fail to comply in a timely manner each year. They currently apply to the District Court. Fewer than 0.5% of companies apply to the District Court because of late filing. It is not as if the number of companies that are taking this particular route is hugely significant.

With that in mind, we believe that this procedure should be retained at District Court level. Most of the companies that apply are doing so for genuine reasons. This change would penalise small companies by forcing them to pay exorbitant fees to go to the High Court. An appearance at the High Court will cost at least five to six times what it will cost to go to a District Court. That in itself is a huge inhibitor for companies that have been unable, for good reasons, to comply with the filing process laid out in statute. That is the main reason.

Within that, the companies could have genuine reasons for late filing. There could be force majeure in the form ofsomething happening to one of the directors. There could be myriad reasons why they are late in filing, yet we will compel a company to go to the High Court if this legislation is passed. That is unacceptable given that every day of the week we come in here and talk about small and medium-sized businesses being put to the pin of their collar. We were talking about it today during Oral Questions. We talk about the pressures on small businesses, the exorbitant costs, the creeping anti-competitiveness in the economy and so on. To be consistent, these matters should be dealt with by the District Court. That is why we will oppose amendment No. 3 and press amendment No. 4.

We need to ensure that there is unanimity in the House where corporate governance is concerned. We need to ensure there is integrity in how we govern companies and how we enforce company law. I believe in all of that. Equally, I also believe in fairness, proportionality and in ensuring that we do not use a sledgehammer to crack the odd nut. Unfortunately, the High Court is a place where we will be sledgehammering an awful lot of small nuts. Instead, I urge that we go down the route of proportionality and leave these matters to the District Court. It is not a huge number; just over 1,000 companies go to the district court because of late filing. It is less than 0.5%. It is not locking up the court system or judicial system, but it does allow a company with a good reason to make its case to the District Court without having the burden of exorbitant fees placed on it, which would arise if it had to make its case at the High Court. I urge the Minister to look at it through the lens of proportionality. That suggests that the District Court is the place to be.

See this speech in context