Paul Bradford (Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

This debate is interesting and the contributions are following on from what was discussed on Second Stage. It all relates to the question of the responsibility of the debtor, in so far as possible, to pay his or her debts and the responsibility of creditors, the State and its agencies to be fair. Perhaps we should not be asking whether we should be chasing after the bankruptcy laws of the United Kingdom but how fair and appropriate those laws are. For every person who enters bankruptcy and has his or her financial position regulated or resolved, there is still a legacy of people who are owed money and in some cases, substantial amounts of money. Many of those people are in financial distress themselves. We must try to balance justice with responsibility. We must provide people with some degree of hope regarding the future and their ability to return to the economic sphere.

During previous discussions on bankruptcy in this House, many Senators conceded that the 12-year period was grossly long but suggested that a four or five-year period might be appropriate. A three-year limit is probably at the end of the spectrum in terms of it providing assistance, an opportunity to begin again and hope, while also sending out a message about personal responsibility. It would also send a message to creditors who would not necessarily be big banks or financial corporations but would also include sole traders, shopkeepers and so forth. In so far as one can ever get any of these imponderable questions right, a three-year limit is probably as right as we can get it. I am happy with the provision. We cannot dispute the fact that there will be bankruptcy tourism but we must focus on getting our own jurisdiction in order. The Minister's proposals are as fair and balanced as they can be.