Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail)

I wish to add weight to the arguments put forward by my colleagues on this side of the House. The debate reminds me of the question the former Minister, Mary Harney, asked about where we were as a country in choosing between Boston and Berlin as the way forward. In my experience in the House, when it comes to legislation relating to industrial development or proposals to facilitate business or the commercial world we most definitely have come down on the side of Boston rather than Berlin. Over the past 20 years, we have introduced legislation here and in the Dáil that has strongly facilitated the development of foreign direct investment to an enormous degree. Successive Administrations over the past 25 years can be proud of this.

I acknowledge that by introducing this legislation the Minister is at least addressing an archaic law which should have been addressed long before now. What we are quibbling about is the time periods. I am not au fait with the situation in the United States but I will continue the theme of suggesting we take a leaf out of its book. I understand the period of bankruptcy there is approximately two years. I am aware of a cliche that has existed for generations about businessmen from the United States whereby if one has not failed at least twice in business, one is not a success. In the United States, failure in business is seen as a badge of honour and a rite of passage rather than a failure. In this country and in western Europe in general there is a culture of holding the opposite view and this has militated against the liberalisation of bankruptcy laws. It is salutary to remind the House, as Senator O'Donovan did, that in our nearest neighbour's jurisdiction the length of time is much shorter than what is proposed here.

I agree with the points that have been made, and they need to be reinforced, on the fact that we are facing an unprecedented crisis. Even the founding fathers of the State would never have envisaged it. Certainly, it is on a parallel with the Wall Street crash of 1929 and I agree with Senator Walsh's referral to the length of time it takes to get out of recession. If my memory serves me correctly, it was the intervention of a war that lifted the United States out of recession, which raises the question as to what would have happened to various economies, specifically the US economy which was the engine of growth in the world at the time, if there had not been a war.

The Minister should be bold and take the philosophy of a legal contemporary of his who famously stated in another context that one should be radical or redundant. The Minister will hardly be redundant as I know his philosophy has been one of taking a radical approach to the law. As an expert in various aspects of the law, he does not need Senators to remind him where his duty lies in that respect. However, we are dealing here with the impact the legislation will have on commercial life. As Senator O'Donovan noted, a significant number of people with entrepreneurial skills have found themselves in the bankruptcy courts as a result of circumstances arising from the economic collapse of recent years. This does not detract from their entrepreneurial skills or ability to rise phoenix like from the ashes and make a corporate success of themselves. This will, in turn, generate more employment.

The Minister will, I believe, agree with the general philosophy behind the amendment, which is to ensure further obstacles are not placed in the way of good business people who have sound business ideas but are being prevented from re-entering the marketplace as a result of the archaic nature of our bankruptcy laws. I agree the steps he is taking are a significant advance and I am interested to hear his reflections on the contributions Senators have made on the proposed amendment.