Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Like Senator Bradford, I have found the debate very interesting. There are always two sides to any equation. I appreciate that the Minister is going to look at the issue raised by my colleagues and I ask him to clarify whether the slate is wiped clean after three years. I thought that there would be some overhang, as I think was the case with the previous 12 year term, in terms of money owing to the Revenue Commissioners and the cost of the bankruptcy itself. I am taking it that after three years, preferential creditors are not able to pin the bankrupt into a continuing bankruptcy situation and prevent him or her from trading.

The question about the three-year term is an interesting one and I would agree with Senator Bradford on the matter. I have always felt that the 12-year term was far too long. It was a throwback to the days of the law being drawn up by the privileged for the privileged. We are now in a different scenario and in that context, the reduction of the term to three years is welcome. However, we really are in unprecedented times. The level of personal and business debt in Ireland now has never been experienced before and is akin to debt levels in other jurisdictions during the Great Depression of the 1930s. In that context, there might be an argument for allowing people to get back into business. I was struck by the point made by Senator Mooney regarding the exodus of business people to Britain to avail of its one-year bankruptcy term but we must balance that against the needs of creditors. I believe that there is a case for a shorter term for a limited time. Over the next three to five years we will see quite a number of bankrupts and the sooner those people are able to get out of their current situation and back into business, the better.

Where there are trade creditors involved, many of them have gone bankrupt themselves because of the knock-on effect from the failure of others, particularly in the building sector. These people traded and did their work well but failed, perhaps because they were dependent on too few customers. Once those customers became bankrupt and were unable to discharge the debts to them, they had to close business and in some cases became bankrupt. This is a concern. Everything we have done since 2008 has been far too favourable to the banking fraternity and the banks.