Section 29 prohibits a director who would obviously be in a position to avail of inside information from entering into certain speculative dealing in the options of listed shares or debentures of his company, or its subsidiary or holding company. Section 30 then extends this prohibition to the spouse and any children of such a director. However, the section goes on to provide that it shall be a defence for such a person to prove that he had no reason to believe that his spouse or parent was a director of the company in question.
The amendment proposed by Deputies Bruton and Barrett proposes to substitute "actual knowledge" for "reason to believe". If we were to accept this amendment it would considerably lighten the burden of proof on a person suspected of contravening the prohibition and wishing to avail of the defence being provided in this section. This is something I would be reluctant to do without very good reason and the comments I have heard so far from Deputy Barrett have not convinced me that such a relaxation is desirable and Deputy O'Dea has also contributed to that section. In my view the amendment would enable a person to go into court and claim that he did not actually know that his spouse, or whoever, was a director of the company concerned. This would make it too easy a defence to avail of, since such a person might not find it too difficult to prove that his spouse never actually told him that she was a director of the company.
On the other hand, under the text as it stands in the Bill, the defendant would have to prove that he had no reason to believe that his spouse was involved. This would cover situations where it was clear from the evidence that, whether the person had been told formally of their spouse's interest, he must have known about it. For example, in a family environment it would be most unusual for one member of a family not to be generally aware of what the other members of the family are involved in without, necessarily, of course, knowing the details. In such a situation the proposed burden on a person of proving that he had no reason to believe that another member of the family was a director of a company would rightly, in my view, be more onerous than proving that he had not actual knowledge that this was the case. In all the circumstances, I cannot accept this amendment.
In relation to the point made by Deputy O'Dea, there is no civil liability intended here, criminal penalties only. Deputy O'Dea made a point under section 2 in relation to connected persons. We thought the section went far enough but we will certainly look at it again, if that is the view of the committee. The same applies to Deputy Barrett's point, which I understand he expressed at the last meeting of this committee, in relation to the definition of the word "spouse", which is a fair point and my officials are looking at this at the moment. Both points are related and I will examine them before the Report Stage. But in relation to the amendment itself, with respect to the points put forward by Deputy Barrett, I am satisfied from the advice given to me that it would not be beneficial to make the changes, as proposed by Deputy Barrett and Deputy Bruton.