David Cullinane (Sinn Fein)

I am leaning towards supporting the amendment. We all accept there is a need for reform in this area but Senator O'Donovan hit the nail on the head when he spoke about the need for this State to support entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurs take a risk and often when they take a risk it can be positive for this State because they set up businesses, create jobs, pay taxes and we all benefit. Sometimes, however, people fail and when that happens in this State they are punished and it can be very difficult for those people to recover. In this period we need entrepreneurs and innovators to come forward and create the jobs of tomorrow. It is very difficult for people who take that risk to have to shoulder the responsibility of all of the costs associated with that.

Senator O'Donovan made the comparison with the United Kingdom but we could also make comparisons in regard to other countries in Europe and the United States where the bankruptcy laws are far less restrictive. While I accept proposals in this area are under consideration by the Government, the comparable legislation elsewhere is less restrictive for risk takers and entrepreneurs. Even if somebody is successful in obtaining a discharge, they will still have to pay all of the expenses of the bankruptcy and any costs owed to the person who made them bankrupt, as well as preferential costs.

I note also that the new provisions do not state how a person is to be released from bankruptcy. The Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, has rightly noted that a public announcement would be entirely inappropriate but I believe this measure would discourage people from applying. I ask the Minister to respond on that aspect.

It is also an area which needs further scrutiny and discussion. When we get the new proposals that are coming on stream, we can have a more detailed debate on it. Legislation is not unwelcome but the main point is that we are sending out a message to entrepreneurs, innovators and risk takers who take a risk but for whom things do not work out. There are people who gamble and make mistakes due to their own fault, but that is a separate issue. I refer to people who are victims of circumstance in regard to the change of markets or the business environment in which they operate who find themselves bankrupt and unable to get a second chance. That is wrong. I accept that the Government is trying to address that problem but the three year period would be more appropriate and I would lean towards supporting the amendment for that reason. We must send out a strong message to people that taking a risk is seen as a good thing by the State and that we need people to create the jobs of tomorrow. I hope the Minister will reflect on those issues.