Mary Coughlan (Donegal South West, Fianna Fail)

Recalling what I said on the last occasion in response to amendment No. 16, I made the point that the new subsection (12), which immediately follows the amendment before us, provides a defence for anyone who is a director of a company in question. My view is that subsection (12) will provide the adequate defence to which the Senator referred. He also mentioned family situations in which people may not have had knowledge or due cognisance of anything, but without a doubt the necessary safeguards would be consistent with the requirements of the House. The Senator also referred to section 383 of the Companies Act 1963, which dealt with officers in default. In this instance, the defence provided for in section 383, would be different from that now provided for in the new section 40 of the Companies Act 1990, which is inserted by section 7 of the Bill before us. I appreciate the debate we have had, but my intention is to give due regard to people who may not necessarily be dealing with such issues on a day-to-day basis. Having analysed this matter since we last discussed the Bill, I am satisfied the approach contained in section 8, specifically regarding the insertion of a new subsection (11) and the related defence of subsection (12), is appropriate and consistent with the wording of the existing related provisions. Although I appreciate the crux of the Senator's argument, I feel subsection (12) gives the necessary safeguards. In my definition of this matter, I am satisfied that defence mechanism is there.