It strikes me that the current wording that would disqualify directors reflects a ham-fisted approach. I can appreciate that if there is a cartel and the Government, understandably, want to ensure not only that full sanctions are put in place to expose that cartel but that there are strong disincentives for future directors to act in that way. However, it seems that most other disqualification orders, particularly those relating to insolvency, do at least attach some personal blame to a particular director. The proposed wording would impose a directors disqualification across the board on all directors of a company that is found guilty of participating in a cartel. That does not seem to be the right way to proceed.

It is understandable that the full brunt of cartel legislation should be brought to bear on a company, and therefore on individuals in the company who are guilty of the offence. However, to ensure that directors, who may personally have been innocent of any criminality, are disqualified as a result of their being attached to a company that is guilty seems unjust. Such relatively innocent directors would find their careers blighted by their association with such a company in any event. A fully fledged disqualification, even for a relatively short time, from being a director of other companies seems a wholly additional and unjust penalty. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to drawing a distinction between directors of guilty companies who are relatively innocent and those who are guilty.