Joe O'Toole (Independent)

——not listening to any of the debate, so I will have to put it on the record again for him.

My amendments, such as the exemption, reduce the number of companies covered by the Minister's proposal. I am raising the required level of turnover for the companies limited by shares from €15 million to €25 million per year, and making a number of other changes which I will not discuss. It reduces the number of companies involved, and I ask Senator Walsh to acknowledge that.

A point I read into the record already is that the Bill contains a proposal that a company may rely, at the director's discretion, on internal and external advisors to help secure compliance. It is unnecessary and incurs additional costs. The director forms a view on the basis of acting honestly. I will not accept anybody telling me one has to get somebody in to say one has done one's best to comply with the law of the land.

I will give a simple example. If a company has to make an appointment at any level, it is more than likely nobody from the board will be involved with most of the appointments made. An appointment has to be made in line with the laws of the land. No company will sit down and say, "Show me the advertisement". They will not ask how many days did one have between the advertisement and the appointment, how the criteria were determined, how they were applied, who asked the questions and if the same questions were asked of all candidates. That is a job for the executive of the company. There is no question about that.

The same applies to legislation on health and safety, the environment, bullying or anything else. The company puts things in place and one must trust people to do so. All the director has to say is the company has a structure in place to ensure it complies with the law. If somebody did not put structures in place, one cannot hold the director accountable. There is no point in bringing in an outsider to check that, because he or she has to go through every single thing that happened during the course of the year. That is not what this is about. People have to act on the basis of trust and confidence.

I have no differences with the points made by Senator Walsh, in terms of his views on companies. I do not agree we should withdraw limited liability. One could certainly not have business without it. I made reference, on many occasions, to the fact people should be told it is a privilege to allow companies to operate. However, it is no more a privilege than a bank handing a loan to somebody. There is trust and confidence it will be paid back and the person is able to do so.

If people take on the responsibility and privilege of limited liability, they do so on the basis they will do their best. If a company goes to the wall, all we ever ask is if it happened in a way that was beyond the control of the company. We do not pull people before the courts, but if we felt somebody was not acting honourably, we would do so. That is all that is involved.

I listened to what the Minister said and asked her to put something to the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. We are not dealing with Report Stage today. The Minister has listened and said she will look at the issue again. It is not my intention to push this to a vote at this point. We will revisit it on Report Stage and I would like to hear something extra from her then. We will see if something needs to be done at that point.

I thank the Minister for her engagement on the issue. It was very much appreciated.