Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Directors have responsibilities. Where they act negligently, with gross negligence or wilfully incorrectly, they are exposed, and that is as it should be. There have been cases taken against directors in that regard. However, we should be very careful to limit that to situations where people are acting fraudulently or with gross negligence.

I would also apply that to the public sector, which has not always been done. I mentioned the HIV blood scandal in this House many times, which warranted people ending up in jail as a consequence of their actions. I am fully in favour of that type of accountability for those who hold responsible offices. I agree with Senator O'Toole that to be a director of a company and have the protection of limited liability places responsibility on one to act in accordance with the law. We should be careful. There is also an economic and business side to this and people need to be encouraged.

We have seen examples of bad corporate governance and greed within many large companies, and that needs to be tackled. I do not like the thrust of placing more and more onerous responsibilities on directors, because a conscientious director will not sign off on a compliance notice without being 100% satisfied.

I concur with the point made by the Minister. In many instances, that may mean going outside the executives and getting independent validation and verification of what one is signing off on. One could perhaps qualify it by submitting a compliance notice, which Senator O'Toole inferred, and that it is a matter for executives. I agree with that. I was an executive of a company and I know the responsibilities involved and how one is held to account by directors.

However, if one qualifies it by saying one is relying on certain information, based on what the executives said, one is diluting it to the point of being meaningless. I am not sure there is any need to go beyond where we are.