Joe O'Toole (Independent)

The last time we tried to do that was in 1990. I was a Member of this House on the occasion and it took so long that we had to come back in the middle of the summer to pass sections 7 and 8 dealing with the beef business. The adviser to the Minister of State, the Director of Corporate Enforcement, states: "the inclusion of the CLRG proposal as part of the planned consolidation of the Companies Acts would be likely to give rise to substantial delay given the size of the new Bill". He wants it done now. We have done all that.

My amendment raises the threshold so that some small and medium-sized enterprises are not required to do this. It is only for larger companies. This makes it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises.

We had great discussions on the job done and not done by the Financial Regulator. There was much misinformation about the regulator who became the scapegoat and whipping boy. In a radio interview, the Green Party spokesperson on finance gave the example that the regulator did not act to block 110% mortgages. I challenged him on this afterwards. He and I, as well as any of us who cared to read the legislation, know the reason for this was very simple. We never gave the regulator the power to do that. We absolutely and determinedly prevented the regulator from interfering with any financial product on sale. It could speak about it and give advice and guidance but it could not block such products.

There were people on both sides of both Houses, from Fianna Fáil, Fine Gael, Labour and Independent backgrounds, talking about the regulator not doing its job. When the business came through the House five or ten years ago, we did not follow it through. Representatives from the regulator's office came before the Joint Committee on Economic Regulatory Affairs and we had all the hard men from the Dáil and Seanad flexing their muscles and having a go at these public servants one way or another for what they did or did not do right. I sent this to the committee two weeks ago and told it that this was what was wanted to force the directors to say they were compliant, or take action to be compliant. It would also ensure that auditors of companies make sure a true and fair reflection is made.

I am asking that directors of banks and other places say at the end of a year that during the course of the year they put in place the proper structures adequate to ensure they were compliant with revenue and tax laws, that the company traded properly and clearly, and that anything which is important is reflected in the accounts. That did not happen with Anglo Irish Bank. This is a way in which such action can be blocked.

The Minister of State has not objected to the points I have made but he has said he will not accept the amendment. Perhaps it will be like St. Augustine's prayer, and he will say "not yet". He may accept it in the spring or some time close to that. If the amendment is good it should be implemented now. There were three groups with a problem, including the company law review group and the Revenue Commissioners.

I have put a proposal to the Minister of State and Government, on the same side as the Office of the Director of Corporate Enforcement, which is there for the people to ensure bankers and others act honourably and carefully or go to jail if they do not, and I am having trouble convincing people. Are we on the same planet at all? I cannot understand why the Minister of State will not accept a very simple proposal.

I will go back to where I began. Limited liability in a company, company directorship and the business of trading is something that must be done honourably and fairly. We must not fetter entrepreneurship and we should not put significant burdens on honourable people. I do not know one honourable, decent company director who would feel threatened by putting his or her hand up at the end of the year and saying the company acted in compliance with the laws of the land, paid its taxes and would sign off on that basis. This is written into the pertinent section of the 2003 Act. One cannot blame an auditor for failing to come to a conclusion on information that was not made available but we can blame the people who did not make the material available in the first place.

What comes from the company law review group, although it may not be the intention, means that a company could get Joe O'Toole to be a compliance officer in the same way that a company has an FOI, bullying or safety officer. The matter could then be dumped with such a person. We cannot do that as we live in a democracy and we want to ensure company directors act honourably, observe the law, pay their taxes and do what ordinary people are asking.

There will be no report on this discussion. We could have a media that looked closely at what was going on in the world but the Government is lucky there are not financial correspondents to look at what I am saying. I could not imagine one interested commentator anywhere disagreeing with what I propose. I regret the Minister of State will not accept my proposal, although I will not detain the House longer. I have rehearsed, replayed, restated and re-enacted my points, which are on the record. I propose that the amendment be accepted.