Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I return to my response to the amendment. The 30% figure mentioned in public discourse on the issue refers to the estimated Circuit Court costs being 30% lower than an examinership process through the High Court owing to the legal fees element. If we do not know how many companies will go into examinership from today and 12 months hence, how can we reasonably expect to create an estimate of the cost saving? It is a hypothetical exercise. While greatly respecting the Senator's views on the issue, we would create an enormous administrative burden - another administrative layer - in compiling the estimate.

Knowing the Senator as I do, I know he would not stand over creating another administrative layer in the system that would result in Departments going out to individual companies which applied for Circuit Court examinership and then putting a requirement on them to estimate the savings from choosing one court over another. In an individual company's case it would mean in practical terms that company having to get two separate pieces of legal advice which would create an administrative burden for it. It is not reasonable to compel companies to engage in such an exercise because we would need to create a legislative framework for that. Furthermore, as I have said in the response, a report on the functioning of the Act will need to be compiled and laid in the Oireachtas Library, which should be sufficient.

The estimated savings of 30% derive from the potential difference in the legal costs between the Circuit Court and a higher court. That is where that figure comes from. I respect the Senator's views on the issue, but the Government is unable to accept the amendment.