Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister. I listened with interest to his contribution on this substantial item of legislation.

Regardless of the nature of the legislation that comes before the House, we would generally wish for more time to debate it. I accept, however, that time is not an endless resource in this instance. Of all the legislation dealt with by this and the Lower House in recent years, none has received more of an airing than that which is before the House. I am sure the Senators opposite who are members of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality will be aware that once the heads of the Bill were made available, a very substantial debate took place and that meetings were held with all of the interested parties. The Bill was then the subject of a Second Stage debate in the Dáil. Following that, and uniquely from a parliamentary perspective, the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality held further hearings in advance of Committee Stage in order to allow more people to have an input. I am obliged, therefore, to give the Minister credit for his wide-ranging engagement to date on this legislation. He has indicated that substantive amendments will be introduced and we will try to ensure that the maximum possible time will be made available in order that we might discuss these. I do not believe that any Oireachtas has ever passed the perfect item of legislation. This is the case because, alas, the necessary time, resources and expertise were never available. In political terms, what is perfect can often be the enemy of good. I am of the view that the Bill before us is a good measure. When the Minister returns with Committee Stage amendments, we will then be veering closer to perfection. However, I do not believe we will ever achieve the latter.

The Minister referred to the genesis of the legislation. He also referred to the political pressure that was exerted two years ago by the IMF and the EU. Political scholars in the future will be asked the question as to what the latter ever did for Ireland. The answers they will give will list both the pluses and the minuses. Forcing the Government to face up to and put in place a mechanism to try to alleviate personal debt will be a plus as far as the IMF and the EU are concerned. We could have kicked the can further down the road and stated that we would deal with this matter next year. However, political pressure was brought to bear on the previous Administration in the dying days of its term of office at the end of 2010. Similar pressure was exerted on the current Government in its early days in order to encourage it to respond to the issue of personal indebtedness. The Bill before the House is part of the solution in this regard and I welcome it.

There is an understanding among the citizens of this country that, in the context of our broken economy and the society to which it has given rise, indebtedness is a major problem.

Indebtedness is a considerable problem across all strata of society. There was a political response to the crisis faced by the bankers and therefore one that impacted on taxpayers. The famous Government bailout of the banks was paid for by the taxpayer. NAMA was created in order to bring a degree of certainty to the situation involving developers. The missing link in the chain is the private citizen. The Bill is part of the solution to fill in the jigsaw and put in place a reasonable, fair and balanced solution for the thousands of people across the country who through no fault of their own but as a result of the breakdown of the economy, find themselves facing unsustainable debt. It is something that is difficult to resolve.

The issue must be approached with common sense and a certain sensitivity is also involved. One can have a situation where people living side by side with the same jobs, income and level of indebtedness could approach their financial problems differently. One might have a mature, reasonable and realistic approach to paying his or her debts but a different approach could be taken by the person next door. We must have a balance to ensure that the solution which is underpinned by the taxpayer is applied in a fair and balanced way. The strategy underpinning the legislation and the three different offerings available are a positive step to resolve the problem in a fair and balanced fashion. The Bill does not claim to solve all of the problems but it attempts to do so in a reasonable, fair and balanced fashion.

Most of the public debate has focused on bankruptcy, which is a difficult, emotive and frightening word for most people. On this part of the island and under the previous regulations and legislation, once bankruptcy was applied it literally ended not just a person?s financial prospects for the future but had a negative connotation and pigeonholed the person concerned into the future. Our aspiration must be that in coming to the aid of people who are suffering financially and are in debt, we apply firm but fair rules but that we do offer light at the end of the tunnel. It is important that people can see a future in which they will again contribute to society rather than be seen as taking from it. The new legislation to provide a three-year rule for bankruptcy is a reasonable and fair solution.

The Minister was in the House previously to talk about bankruptcy, perhaps in response to an initiative proposed by the Fianna Fáil Party. He pointed out that we must be careful about reducing the bankruptcy rules from 12 years downwards because of the knock-on effects. One must take into account a person who is declared bankrupt who owes moneys to a building supplies company or a service provider down the line. It is okay for such a person to have his or her debts written off over a reasonable period but there is also the person to whom he or she owed money. One could ask what happens to that person and the next one down the line. The issue is not as simple as it would sometimes seem. Obviously Britain has a different regulation. We are aware of some high profile cases where people have taken advantage of the slightly more lax rules in Britain and are moving to that jurisdiction to resolve their financial difficulties. We are now moving from a 12-year limit to a three-year limit. That is probably as fair, reasonable and balanced as it can be.

The Minister addressed much of what I intended to say about Part 5 and personal insolvency practitioners. We have received much representation on who and what those people should be. Arguments range over whether the qualifications should be the more traditional accountancy and legal skills or whether there is scope for others such as those with expertise in the property sector. I am pleased the Minister will come back to the House next week on Committee Stage with proposals in that regard. We must try to be as broad as possible in defining who can hold such positions. Personal insolvency practitioners will have a responsible role. The Minister attended committee meetings where he heard discussions on the issue and people expressed the view that practitioners should not be confined to the legal and accountancy areas. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say next week in that regard.

I commented briefly on the bankruptcy provision. We will have much to say on debt relief notices, debt settlement arrangements and personal insolvency arrangements once we get to Committee Stage. The Minister is striking the right note in terms of fairness and what is realistic and doable. We will discuss those issues in detail next week. I welcome the Bill. It would be impossible for any Minister to introduce the perfect legislation. This is a good effort. It will make a genuine difference to many, which is as much as we can expect from most legislation passed by this House. It will help the economy to recover and to get people back to work.