Paschal Mooney (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Minister for his response and I appreciate the fact that he dealt with this on Second Stage. However, because we are dealing with this amendment, which flowed from that and because of the Minister's positive response, I want to say I applaud him for his initiative and for what he has done with this Bill. What he has said is correct. The provisions as they stood were Dickensian in their effect and this change was long overdue. I fully applaud the Minister in that regard.

I find it hard to put myself in a position where I am somehow seen to be defending a scenario wherein we are beholden to a foreign parliament, but that was not the point I was attempting to make. What I stated as fact - acknowledged by all sides of the House - is that a number of high profile business people at the highest level who owed hundreds of millions of euro found the bankruptcy laws in this country so cumbersome that they felt that they had no choice but to go to the next jurisdiction, where bankruptcy is still for a one-year period. Perhaps the British Parliament will change that, but I do not care about that. The Minister will be aware there is a legal term of "cause and effect". All I was doing was highlighting a scenario where very high profile successful people - one can argue about the morality of their situation - were motivated not so much by trying to get away from their creditors as Senator Bradford seemed to think I was suggesting, but who, because they were genuinely committed to a business culture, wanted to get back into business as quickly as possible.

It will be instructive to establish over the next few years how, with regard to the number of the people who have gone before the bankruptcy courts with success in the United Kingdom, their careers pan out over the coming years. I am not a betting man, but I suggest the chances are a high proportion of them will prove to be extremely successful in their reborn environment. That was the reason I raised the comparison between Britain and Ireland. What the Minister says is correct. What is most important of all in this debate, going back to the amendment proposed by Senators Barrett and Crown, is that the Minister understands that three years should mean three years. Once this law is enacted, I have no doubt it will help considerably the people who need to avail of it.

I fully understand and empathise with those creditors who have lost out and who if they had got any of the individuals we are talking about up against a wall, would do them harm because of the closure of their own businesses. This is an opportunity for us on this side of the House to cheer on the Bill proposed by Senator Quinn two years ago - which is still in the works - which would protect many of the people about whom Senator Bradford spoke, the subcontractors who have lost out. That legislation is simple, but effective and I plead with the Minister to give some consideration to it around the Cabinet table and to bring it forward, as it would protect sub-contractors from rogue and fly-by-night developers who walk away from their responsibilities.