Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The Minister is absolutely correct in the point she makes about the broadness of the interpretation. I have been on the receiving end of this issue where lawyers just read exactly what the Minister has read out and which is certainly broad enough. However, there is a suggestion there that the director has to know what he is looking for, if the Minister understands me. The reference to classes of document means any document which relates to rather than having to ask for a particular one. This is the intention of this amendment. I agree with the Minister's interpretation or explanation of the term "books and documents" in the legislation as it stands and that it is perfectly broad enough and I recall that being broadened out.

I will give the Minister an example. The lawyers will just look at it and say, "What book has he asked for?", or "How did he describe the book?" or "Can you describe the book?", "Is it a particular book or is it any book?". If he fails to describe it in a way that can clearly identify it then one could argue it does not have to be presented. I think it allows the director to do his job more effectively. I agree with the Minister's view that it is not about broadening it but rather what it is called.

What does the director write to the company? What does he put in the body of the letter? This is the significant issue. I may not have convinced the Minister the last time but every letter like this is perused, examined and dealt with by the lawyers. This is not a letter to the directors who deal with it and reply to it; that is not what happens. It goes straight to the lawyers so the director is actually talking to Arthur Cox or McCann FitzGerald or Matheson Ormsby Prentice and that is where it is dealt with and their view will be only to give what one must give which does not meet the spirit of the legislation. In that sense this is a helpful amendment.