Ciarán Cannon (Progressive Democrats)

That is exactly the point. I ask the Tánaiste to assure the House that there is no possibility, under this legislation, of a director of a company who has no knowledge of the carrying out of an illegal act being implicated in the commission of that act. That is the issue. As far as I am concerned, the current wording of this provision - "if a company enters into a transaction or arrangement that contravenes section 31, every officer of the company who is in default shall be guilty of an offence" - reads as if one is trying to remove a tumour with a machete rather than with a scalpel and some surgical skill. It seems to be far too much of a burden. Can the Tánaiste give me some reassurance in this regard? I tabled an amendment to try to protect executive and non-executive directors of a company. The Bill does not even draw a distinction between the two categories. If people are not involved in any way in the commission of an illegal offence, it should not be implied or assumed they are guilty. If the Tánaiste can assure the House this section of the Bill does not provide for such an implication or assumption, I will be quite happy to support it.