Jim O'Callaghan (Dublin Bay South, Fianna Fail)

The reason I am here is to seek approval from Seanad Éireann to allow Ireland to opt in to a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings to replace its Annexes A and B. I have a detailed speech, but I will give a succinct overview of what is involved to save Senators from having to listen to me for ten minutes.

Essentially, what happened was that in 2015 the EU enacted a recast insolvency regulation. That regulation concerned judicial co-operation on a civil matter, namely insolvency because of that Ireland had to make a decision as to whether we should opt in or not. Due to the fact that it is an issue relating to insolvency and we recognise that there has to be co-operation between European Union states on the issue, we decided that we would opt in. We did so in 2015 under Protocol 21.

The recast insolvency regulation contains two annexes, namely, Annexes A and B. If Senators look at Annexe A, they will see that it identifies the types of insolvency that obtain in each country in the European Union. When they look at Ireland - it is obviously listed alphabetically - they will see that the type of proceedings in Ireland covered by the regulation are those relating to the winding up of entities or bankruptcies. Annexe B deals with the type of insolvency practitioners that are authorised in member states. When Senators look at Ireland, the will see references to liquidators and official assignees.

The reason the regulation is being amended is because Slovakia and six other EU countries have slightly amended their rules on EU insolvency. They have amended their domestic rules, rather, in terms of increasing the number of insolvency practitioners and the type of insolvency actions that are covered in insolvency in their countries. There is a minor change that is proposed to Annexes A and B. For instance, Slovakia wants to change the nature of the types of insolvency and wants to make changes in respect of insolvency practitioners. Similarly, six other countries want to change their arrangements. We think we should agree to the amendment. If we do not agree, it would make it difficult for us to collaborate with those other seven EU countries that have changed their laws in respect of insolvency.It makes sense that we recognise the need to amend the recast insolvency regulation. It also makes sense that we opt in to it. We cannot agree to those amendments unless we opt in. There are very many reasons we should opt in. First, these amendments and the recast insolvency regulation are an important and well established part of civil justice and co-operation between member states. Second, the regulation ensures a more coherent and predictable approach in cross-border insolvency cases. Third, the amending regulation is a useful, updating measure to ensure the effective and efficient operation of the recast insolvency directive throughout the EU.

Since it is a regulation that concerns company insolvency, and so that colleagues and Senators are aware, I can confirm that my colleague, the Minister for enterprise, has noted this technical amendment and he supports the opt-in. It is desirable that Ireland opts in to this. It makes sense. It is a minor amendment to the insolvency regulation. We have opted in before and want to remain part of it. We should opt in again.