Joe O'Toole (Independent)

I understand that but I sat in this seat in 1990 when the original legislation was passed. We had many discussions on this issue and on the importance of having a consolidated Bill. Then we went away for the summer holidays with our buckets and spades and suddenly the beef industry fell apart. The then Government needed to act urgently to deal with that and both Houses reconvened to pass one or two parts of that legislation - I cannot recall which it was but the Minister's adviser will be able to tell her. I can quote the Minister chapter and verse on when we have enacted parts of legislation on a number of occasions.

The answer to the Minister's first point is that we want a clear message to be given. I advise her that I am not a member of the Opposition, I am one of the Independent Members. I am as likely to vote for the Government, as Fine Gael will know, on any issue as it arises. I consider the issues and deal with them as I find them.

This provision does not amount to additional regulation. It is a red herring to suggest it does and I would like the Minister to acknowledge that point. The regulation is in place. This provision simply deals with the level of fine for not complying with the regulation. That is all we are talking about in this instance.

In terms of the difficulty of having one figure for one and no figure for another, we will do a deal with the Minister, if she accepts this amendment, all the others can be introduced on Report Stage. It is very simple, we can introduce them all next week. There is no difficulty about doing that. That is the way we should approach this issue at this stage. There is no doubt we can deal with issues on Report Stage.

The Minister will not have heard what I said here this morning or yesterday morning. All of us as public representatives should be dealing with these types of issues, whether they relate to the National Asset Management Agency, the Director of Corporate Enforcement or directors' compliance statements, in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner to move matters forward. I want us to examine each such issue and consider how we can strengthen the legislation underpinning it. The Minister will get no marks for citing St. Augustine's line in response, namely, that a proposal might be a good idea but it will not be acted on yet, it will be done next year when all the other matters are being dealt with. I guarantee that we will not have the consolidated Bill before next summer. It is too big to be ready by then, although I agree with the Minister it is needed. I will cite a minor example that illustrates the need for it.

When I checked which director is referred to in the section, whether it was the Director of Corporate Enforcement, the Director of Public Prosecutions or both of them, I could not find the definition in the 2003 Act, to which the section refers, or in the 1990 Act. I know the definition is included in the legislation and I am not suggesting it is not. I accept the need for a consolidated Bill and I accept the need for this Bill. There is a $64 question in this respect. This legislation is being introduced now because the Minister thought it was important. There is nothing in it that could not be deferred until the introduction of a consolidated Bill, except the Minister prioritised this Bill, rightly, but it is all part of what will have to be dealt with again in the new Bill next year. This will have to be encompassed into the new companies legislation. In this legislation the Minister is changing the 1990 Act, the 2003 Act and the various other Acts. This will have to be done again next spring. If that is the case, what is the difficulty about accepting the amendment proposed by Senator Cannon? That is the reality. The Minister's arguments do not hold water. I promise her I am saying this for her own good.