Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

That is correct. Naturally, where there are enormous amounts of information, it might be considered best to take the information away. If a person is in a trading situation the last thing he or she wants to see on the premises is the staff of the ODCE for three or four months, when it might, in fact, be best to have that information off site. In normal circumstances the director will make his or her determination. In a situation, however, where vast amounts of material need to be reviewed, then information would be taken off site, but only in those circumstances. I have been around a long time and I know that one person's determination of what "as soon as practicable" means will vary from another. One person will see it as being instant and someone else will take it to mean somewhat longer. I appreciate the Cathaoirleach has a further amendment to deal with, on time limits, but it should be emphasised we do not want to tie someone's hands to the extent he or she has to access the courts, which could mean, in effect, going back through the entire process and stalling an investigation. At the same time, one does not want to see people stopped from trading normally.

It is important to achieve balance. This is as balanced as can be, given that the section deals with situations in which one does not know what one might meet. An examination could be very short with a prompt determination. On the other hand, there could be a huge investigation. We want to ensure that any investigation that takes place is right and for everyone's benefit. It must protect the reputation of the Director of Corporate Enforcement and for the benefit of a person being investigated there must be fair procedures.

On that basis, I am convinced the legislation to amend section 20 of the 1990 Act is more than adequate.