I know different terms are used in later sections of the Bill. The new section 205E(5)(a)(i) states the directors shall specify if they are of the opinion, based on the procedures referred to under subsection (4) of the same section, that they used all reasonable endeavours to secure the company's compliance with its relevant obligations in the financial year to which the annual report or notes relate. This sounds reasonable and nobody could object to it but the sting in the tail comes in the new section 205E(5)(a)(ii) which states the directors shall specify if they are of the opinion that "the company has complied with its relevant obligations in that financial year". How could anybody sign this? If a non-executive director, not working in a particular company, asked the chief executive for a guarantee before signing a statement of compliance, and the chief executive said he or she could offer such a guarantee, the non-executive director would say that this was not good enough. This is because the chief executive is not an expert in the areas of health, the environment, competition or pensions. The non-executive director would not be willing to take the chief executive's word unless consultants and experts had been employed to give the company a clean bill of health in all the relevant areas.