Ivor Callely (Fianna Fail)

I listened with interest to Senator O'Toole's contribution. He asked why the Minister of State does not simply proceed to implement the advice of the Director of Corporate Enforcement. Just because a person in authority, whether the Director of Corporate Enforcement or otherwise, says we should do something, that alone is not sufficient reason for doing so.

In the course of his contribution, Senator O'Toole eloquently put forward a support base for his proposal. He spoke about the aftermath of events at Enron in 2002 and urged that we be proactive. I support his view in this regard. If this proposal has been on the table since 2002, what consideration has it received since then and why has no amendment been made to incorporate it into legislation? I read a newspaper editorial in recent days which made the case that Ministers should make decisions rather than seek reports. I understand the company law review group is due to report but I am not sure whether that means it will be in three months or 18 months. I do not know how long the issue has been under consideration and when it is likely to report.

Senator O'Toole is correct that when the entire financial debacle surrounding Anglo Irish Bank and Irish Life & Permanent emerged, there was a general view among the public that some of those involved in what was seen as shady and unethical behaviour should have been taken out in handcuffs. I will not go into that in detail today. I understand there is a quite senior Minister who is somewhat saddened that she made a comment on one occasion about a former senior Irish officeholder being put behind bars. As a consequence of her statements, that person probably avoided what may or may not have been his deserved fate. We must be cautious when we talk of people who have allegedly done wrong. There must be due process.

Senator O'Toole spoke about earlier, draconian times when people who did wrong were hung outside their doors. He went on to speak about limited liability and the benefit of this to company directors. If I understood the Senator correctly, he seemed to suggest that limited liability affords company directors carte blanche in respect of financial burdens, compliance or the law of the land. That is not my understanding of limited liability. Many directors have found that while it may have offered some level of protection in the past, it has, more recently, been of little use. I am sure Senator O'Toole is aware that limited liability might in the past have given company directors a certain comfort regarding bank loans, for example. Now, however, they are usually requested by financial institutions to provide personal guarantees in this regard. I make this point because Senator O'Toole seemed to indicate there was a certain blessing for company directors in regard to their responsibilities. Perhaps the Minister of State will clarify this in his response.

In general, the argument made by Senator O'Toole merits consideration, particularly in light of the position in which we find ourselves following recent experiences in financial circles. The Minister of State is as aware as any of us that there is great annoyance among the general public at what is perceived to be wrongdoing by senior players in financial institutions. Congratulations are due to the Minister for Finance in bringing pressure to bear in influencing the former chief executive officer of one particular building society to surrender a bonus payment in the region of €1 million. However, that development was achieved as a result of leverage as opposed to the use of a legislative mechanism.

While canvassing during the recent election campaign, I obtained from members of the public an impression that they were annoyed with the former chief executive of a particular financial institution, which has been nationalised. It was clear that they were also annoyed with the pension payments made to the former chief executives of building societies or whatever. However, they are equally annoyed that huge amounts of taxpayers' money is being used to bail out the banks. People are aware that this money does not relate to one individual. They are also aware that it is not a question of responsibilities, compliance etc. and that it is a much broader issue. If we were to discuss the issue of compliance, members of the public would probably sign up to the proposal Senator O'Toole has put forward.

In my capacity as an elected local public representative, for a number of years I was a member of a board and that board received a breviate from the financial controller which contained the information he felt it was appropriate to provide. Other information was also relayed to board members by various other professionals - those operating in the areas of technical support, health and safety or whatever. The board members received those reports and, in the hope that they were factual and correct, adopted them accordingly. Very little of the information in those reports was challenged and perhaps there were not many board members who were qualified to make such challenges. People might have been qualified to challenge information relating to particular aspects but they may not have been in a position to challenge the reports to which I refer in their entirety.

I do not wish to disagree with Senator O'Toole. I wholeheartedly support a great deal of what he said during his contribution and I look forward with interest to hearing what the Minister of State may have to say in reply. However, we must consider how we might deal with some of the issues that will arise as a result of legislation that will have to be introduced to deal with other matters. This is an extremely complex subject. Senator O'Toole and I may have expressed different opinions on Committee Stage but I am inclined to sign up to what he is proposing now, particularly if this can be achieved. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister of State has to say with regard to the deliberations of the company law review group.