Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

In normal circumstances I accept the views of those who are elected in this House, particularly if they are articulated in such a way that the argument is convincing. I totally refute Senator O'Toole's assertions that I do not know what is happening and that I do not know that companies in particular sectors must abide by the laws of this land on health and safety, licensing etc. What I articulated on this was in the context of the compliance statement. If Senator O'Toole wishes to have an audit done, in normal circumstances I would put money on it, because half the time we are talking about money, that they will not allow a director to sign off on their obligations in certain circumstances unless they have an expert opinion to allow them to do so. The argument I was making was not that a company must abide by the rules and regulations by which it is regulated no matter what the company is. That is taken as read, as said and as expected. We are specifically speaking about this.

I introduced this legislation, as I indicated to the Senator, following from the debacles that took place within the financial sector where I asked the Office of Corporate Enforcement what additional measures he wished to see in the context of this specific issue. He put them forward and I have accepted them, and these are the measures that I am putting to the floor of the House. In general, they are being accepted.

The discussion here is on different legislation, section 45, which was controversial and which has not been enacted. I have taken the past year in familiarising myself on the company law side. There are issues that I have asked to be considered so that when I come back to the floor of this House in approximately a year's time or less, I will have formed an opinion and briefed a Government to form an opinion to bring certain measures to the floor of this House and to the Lower House.

I say to the Senator is that there is an argument out there, and that argument has been articulated by Senator O'Toole and three other speakers. There is a majority who are against this. However, since 2005 matters have changed. I give an undertaking here publicly that I will take on board Senator O'Toole's views — we can have further discussion privately later if necessary — and ask the CLRG for a review. It will not be an overall massive review because it has a considerable amount of work to do, but I will speak to the chairman. I spoke to congress on a number of issues of company law and it has articulated its views. I will speak to Mr. Paul Appleby's office again before I make a final decision on what I think would be the best recommendations to put to the floor of the House and discussed further because it is huge legislation. I would prefer not to be put in a position where I would be expected to accept this amendment in a vacuum of the overall revised company law legislation that I would like to bring to the House.

Senator O'Toole made a fair argument and I would like to consider that argument, to hear what the Lower House will say on this issue and then form an opinion where I would come back to the floor of the House with my recommendations and have further opportunities. It is a process and much work has been done on company law. We will have further discussions with the relevant parties and bodies, and a final determination will naturally be made on the floor of the House.

I am not rejecting this. My preferred option is to consider it further and that we would bring back to the House what we wish to see in an amended section 45 so we can bring the matter to finality. Obviously, it has been very controversial on the basis that since 2002 this matter has not been brought to finality. I do not think I am being unfair. I would like to bring to the House the best legislation but on the basis of what we are specifically doing here, my view is that we should consider it further.

On the issue of the amount of money, Goodbody Economic Consultants were asked to deal with that, and I am sure Senator O'Toole has the CLRG recommendation available to him. I can only be guided by what has been brought to my attention and what has been articulated by the majority of the CLRG. I cannot accept the amendment but that does not deter me from reflecting on the thrust of the discussion in the House.