Michael McDowell (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 5, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following: "(3) This Act shall expire at the end of the interim period and on such expiry shall be deemed to have been repealed subject to the provisions of section 27 of the Interpretation Act 2005.

(4) During the interim period the Act of 2014 shall have effect as though it is amended in accordance with Part 2.

(5) During the interim period the Act of 1893 shall have effect as though it is amended in accordance with Part 3.".

I indicated on Second Stage that I would not press the amendments for the technical reason that there are some non-temporary provisions hidden away in the text of Bill. The sensible thing is not to press amendment No. 1. To revert to the topic itself, it seems the Minister of State has an opportunity. He will be bringing the Bill to the Dáil and if he and his officials can think of a formula to include in section 1 or section 2 that will see the temporary provisions evaporate automatically and not have to be repealed at a later stage they should attempt to do so. There will be only a very tiny delay if the Bill comes back as amended from the Dáil to here. It would be nodded through, I presume, without further debate. The time constraints we are under do not really prevent the issue from being addressed. As I said earlier, I was concerned as to whether we can achieve the effect of a repeal in legislation. I looked at a number of legislative drafting books and I am convinced it can be done in a way that at the end of this period leaves the text clean. Obviously, the Minister of State would have to differentiate between the permanent amendments and the non-permanent amendments he is making but it seems that it can be done.

I want to make a point on the discussion on the threshold of indebtedness for winding up a company. Generally speaking, the petition to wind up a company for non-payment of a debt is a bit nuclear in its use. Quite frequently, a petition to wind up a company because a person is owed €5,000, €10,000 or whatever is ultimately a threat to cause serious damage to the company if it does not pay its debts. Sometimes it is almost blackmail to a company that is going through a cashflow problem. I appreciate this point very much. On the other hand, if the thresholds are raised too much it will leave people with no chance of getting their money back. If small creditors, such as somebody owed €10,000 damages or compensation from a workplace commission, cannot use leverage on the company to get paid, in the end he or she will be left without. Theoretically the sheriff can be sent out but sending a sheriff to a company in the IFSC is a bit impractical as a solution. Sometimes people are owed money and sometimes there has to be pressure on debtor companies to actually pay up to small creditors. The small sums may not mean much to very wealthy people but they can be hugely important to people of very modest means. If the Minister of State is considering making permanent changes to the thresholds I ask him to bear in mind that small creditors also need to be protected because they can frequently end up with no practical way of extracting money from companies that just keep trading and ignoring their letters and demands.