Amendment No. a1 is in the names of Deputies Barrett and Noonan.
Bankruptcy Bill, 1982: Report and Final Stages.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. a1:
In page 7, line 12, after "day" to insert "not later than 1 January, 1988".
I welcome back the Bankruptcy Bill to the floor of the House. I sympathise with the Minister for Justice who has had a very difficult week and an extremely difficult day. Bankruptcy legislation is not the easiest matter to be dealing with at this hour of the night.
Agreed.
(Limerick East): Since it has been around for a long time, we have become very familiar with the title of the Bill at least, but it takes a good deal longer to become familiar with the details. This amendment in the names of Deputy Seán Barrett and myself is an attempt to make a provision on the face of the Bill which would conclude proceedings which have gone on since 1962.
In 1962, the present Taoiseach, when Minister for Justice, decided to set up a committee to look into our bankruptcy legislation, to update it and to consolidate existing legislation. The main legislation which is being consolidated is contained in the Irish Bankruptcy and Insolvent Act, 1857, the Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment Act, 1872, and the Preferential Payments in Bankruptcy (Ireland) Act, 1889. It was time in 1962 to have a look at those old Statutes in an attempt to update and consolidate them. They were supplemented by the Bankruptcy Court Rules which are now incorporated in the Rules of the Superior Courts, 1962, as amended, as well as by a number of statutory provisions relating to bankruptcy which are contained in legislation concerned primarily with other matters.
The committee which was set up reported in 1972. The recommendations were not acted upon at that stage because it coincided with our entry into the EEC. This imposed certain obligations on us. There was an obligation that bankruptcy and liquidation proceedings, for example, commencing in one state could be proceeded with and I understand that these issues are still being debated in Europe.
The effect on this Bill was that the report of the committee was left lying there for some time until work began in the Department of Justice to put this Bill together. The Bill, substantially as it is now before the House, was first published in 1982. Again, it was left lying there for some time. Then we took Second Stage on 8 February 1983. On Second Stage, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Deputy Lenihan, spoke on behalf of the Opposition and agreed we should refer it to a special committee of the House to deal with Committee Stage. The Committee Stages in the Dáil and Seanad were taken by an unusual provision, which established a precedent; they were dealt with by a subcommittee of the Joint Committee on Legislation which was set up in this House. It was the first — if not the only — time that a subcommittee of the committee dealing with legislation took the Committee Stage of a Bill of this magnitude and dealt with the Dáil and Seanad Committee Stages.
We are now debating the Report and Final Stages and I presume they will also have to be passed in the Seanad. The Special Committee commenced their sittings in November 1984, continued to the summer session of 1985 and sat again in the autumn. It was a very long and intensive Committee Stage and it is appropriate that, as I was Minister at the time, I should thank the people who took part in that committee. Committee work in the House is thankless enough but Committee Stage dealt with by a special committee is totally thankless because there is no public awareness of the work done. The people on that committee worked very long and grinding hours. They did an extremely good job and put us in a position where this legislation can finally pass through the Dáil tonight without much controversy or delay.
The reason I put down this amendment is that section 2 of the Bill provides that this legislation will come into effect on such a date as the Minister sees fit. When something has gestated, gone through the formation and discussion period for 26 years, it is a good idea to put a final date on the proceedings.
Hear, hear.
(Limerick East): Instead of leaving it in the hands of the Minister for Justice — well disposed as he is to bankruptcy legislation — we should amend section 2 of the Bill to say that in any event the Minister will bring this into law not later than 1 January 1989. The amendment should not read “1988” because, skilful as the Members of the House are, they have not yet succeeded in making the provisions of the Bill retrospective. Maureen Potter suggested on one occasion that the contraceptive Bill should have been retrospective. I do not want to pursue that line because I will be ruled out of order.
I know that bringing this into law by 1989 will present some difficulty to the Minister because he is not only empowered but obliged to publish and bring into being a series of rules which will run parallel with the Bill and without which it cannot work effectively. The work on the rules is probably reasonably complete in the Dapartment of Justice and if the Minister thinks there is sufficient time between now and 1 January 1989 to complete proceedings in the Seanad to finalise and publish the rules and regulations and to bring them before the House by way of motion, to enable him to finally bring the Bill into law on 1 January 1989, it is a very good idea. It is normal to leave a Bill open-ended at this stage. I appreciate that but, because it has gone on so long, it would please everyone if a final date was agreed. Certainly, the officials who worked intermittently for a great number of years would have a sense of achievement if they knew, leaving the House before the summer recess, that the Bill would become law on 1 January 1989.
Other considerations arise in dealing with this Bill. It has gone on for so long that other areas of law have passed it out. There are matters which, if we were starting afresh, would be incorporated in the Bill. I am thinking of the changes that have taken place in family law, particularly the legislation in the mid-seventies which dealt with the family home. In certain circumstances, where the only asset of the bankrupt is the home, obviously the rights of wives are relevant to this legislation. When I was proposing Committee Stage it was the intention that another Bill, which was being prepared in the Department of Justice, would deal with these matters. That dealt with the area where spouses jointly owned the family home and the intention was that the updating measures, in so far as the family home was concerned, would be incorporated in that legislation rather than in this Bill. I have an amendment later on which draws attention to that fact and I should like the Minister's comments.
So much work has gone into this Bill that it would be proper to let it go through because if we try to make it better now we may lose our enthusiasm and in three years' time someone else may be trying to get it through. I put down this amendment at a very early stage of the Bill because it will give other Members an opportunity to refresh themselves on the issues in section 2.
We sometimes have to remind ourselves that it is 1988. When I was a student in Kings Inns in 1973 I went down to buy the report on which this Bill is based, to be part of what was then my growing law library. I remember thinking, looking at the beginning of the report, that it was amazing that in late 1973 or 1974 when it was published, this document had been the product of a committee which had been set up about 12 years previously, in 1962. I also remember reading the foreword of the report in which the chairman of the committee said that in 1927 the Dáil had a first canter over the course and had set up a committee to revise the bankruptcy law but that nothing had been done on foot of the report.
It is amazing that 26 years after the Government of the day decided to ask Mr. Justice Budd and the committee which he chaired to investigate bankruptcy law and 16 years after that committee reported, we should still be discussing whether this Bill will become law. The amazing feature is that it was not a difficult one to deal with as soon as the committee reported, because the committee went to the unusual extent of not merely furnishing heads of Bills at the end of the report, as the Law Reform Commission do now, but it drafted every last line of the Bill they were proposing to consolidate and amend the law in relation to bankruptcy.
They even went so far as to put a facsimile of the harp on top of the section of the report that sets out the Bill's provisions. Worse still, they even set out the rules of court which they thought would be necessary to bring it about. They went into the matter in such detail that they set out in the foreword to the report in 1973 that they decided that as the result of their research was so interesting they should publish it in a full form. It became a student text book and is still a practitioners text book because it surveys so comprehensively the law which exists with a view to deciding what was wrong with it that it is valuable as a text in itself. It is amazing that this House, so long afterwards, is putting its final signature to this Bill.
In relation to bankruptcy law in general, it is worth reminding ourselves that in legislation it is necessary to provide for adequate remedies for the recovery of debts. One of the things that is a huge scandal about Irish law is the fact that there is no means of recovering small debts and bankruptcy which was always regarded as a last resort is increasingly becoming a first resort because it embarrasses the person against whom the process is initiated. It is effectively a sledgehammer to crack a nut in many cases. In many ways because of slowness on the part of county registrars and sheriffs in recovering sums due to creditors, court proceedings without the bankruptcy code behind them are totally useless. It is virtually impossible to persuade the court messengers and officers to recover on foot of court judgments. The Government of the day ran away from the issue when they appointed revenue sheriffs to do collection work on a separate basis. Now the ordinary Joe Soap is faced with a system which does not collect on judgments.
Since the administration of justice is something that is set out in the Constitution it is undermined if we do not provide an effective system of execution in respect of debts adjudicated on by the courts. At the moment, irrespective of the bankruptcy provision the method of recovering debts here has collapsed completely and many Irish solicitors tell their foreign clients there is no way of recovering debts. If we do not provide an adequate method of recovering debts, in the last analysis we undermine the right of property guaranteed by the Constitution because there is no point in allowing a judge to adjudicate on property issues if his decree is a worthless piece of paper. That is why Deputy Noonan's amendment is a good idea in theory. I do not think the Deputy will press it very far because he is relying on the Minister's good faith in the matter and we want to get on with the matter and finish it once and for all. The Minister does not need a statutory time limit to get on with it and possibly the best thing the House can do is to encourage him to get on with it by having a short debate here tonight.
I do not intend to obstruct or prolong this debate. I agree with Deputy Noonan that there are many things in this Bill which have now become dated, but let us put them into operation in so far as they are being capable of being put into operation now. I agree with Deputy Noonan that one of the problems in relation to the family home is that the 1970s legislation does not seem to find a mirror in the provisions of this Bill. That is true, but on the other hand we in this country have a bit of a hang-up about the family home. We should get our priorities straight. The 1976 Family Home Protection Act does not prevent people from running up debts and having their house sold to pay for them. There are several High Court judgments to the effect that a judgment mortgage does not amount to a conveyance on the Family Home Protection Act and, therefore, a spouse whose home is sold out by another spouse running up debts does not find protection by virtue of that Act alone. It would not be right to provide that people could sit in large and substantial houses immune from any process while small creditors and businessmen who dealt in good faith with one or other of the people who live in that house find themselves without remedy.
In Ireland, we are a bit over-romantic in our view about the significance of the family home. If one owes somebody money and is sitting on assets, one cannot excuse one's liability to pay on the basis that these assets are used to house the debtor and his family.
I hesitate to interrupt Deputy McDowell but I am anxious that we should avoid rather long speeches on this Report Stage.
This will be my only speech of the evening. Deputy Noonan has put down a number of amendments suggesting an updating of the figures last fixed in 1985. They were originally fixed in the Bill in 1982 at £500 and in 1985 they were amended to £1,000 and Deputy Noonan is now suggesting £1,500. I am sure the Minister will see that that is a reasonable updating of the figures in question.
As far as I am concerned the time has now come to put this Bill into law. We have gone through every possible permutation and combination of the legislative process to consider it, to amend it and to improve it. We have the most detailed report on which this Bill is based. This Bill may have imperfections but it is about time it became law.
If this House used select committees more and if as part of the select committee procedure it set out a pre-setting consultation where the civil servants or whoever is promoting the Bill sat down with the people who would be on the committee and went through the Bill to study the provisions and the merits of the amendments, we would have fewer problems on Committee Stage. People think that if one does not put down amendments on Committee Stage one is lazy and failing in one's duty and people put up paper amendments on Bills——
(Limerick East): Like priority questions.
It is like priority questions, indeed, and the Sunday Tribune is not here to record us now. However, people think that unless one snows down the Minister with a raft of verbiage and nitpicking amendments one is not doing one's duty or that one is not showing sufficient interest in the measure. It would be far better if this House decided to use select committees more often and if the members of the select committees sat down together and considered the legislation informally without a stenographer present, so that they could decide the issues of principle on which they differed. That would shorten the debate considerably. Having said all that and having probably abused the latitude extended to me by the Ceann Comhairle, all I am saying is that I want this to pass as soon as possible. After 26 years it is about time we allowed the Bill to be passed.
I thank Deputy Noonan and Deputy McDowell for their contributions. Like them, I am pleased it is here this evening. I am very happy and pleased that it is here this evening. I will never be in a position to take credit for this Bill. It is there for a long time and many Ministers for Justice have had a hand in it, at some stage in the last 20-odd years. The holders of that office could say that over the years they brought it some part of the way, but in fairness great credit is due to Deputy Michael Noonan for the part he played in bringing the Bill to the present stage. I acknowledge publicly the hard slogging work which he did because a select committee is nothing other than slogging work. The extent of that work is indicated by the reports which I went through to try to get a better understanding of what is involved in the Bill and to come to grips with the Bill. It is a technical and detailed Bill at which one has to slog fairly hard to get an idea as to what it is about. One can readily say, and I publicly say this to Deputy Noonan, that but for his own personal input into this Bill — and he was a very busy Minister — we would not be at the stage, as we are this evening, of seeing it concluded. I am in a most peculiar position in that, whereas Deputy McDowell said if people do not put down amendments to legislation they can be taken to task by the members of the press for whatever they want to take you to task for — it is not too difficult for them most of the time — I find that all the amendments put down, even the official amendments, with the exception of one in my name, are Deputy Noonan's. They have emerged from Committee Stage. I do not think anybody will take me to task for that. The only dilemma I have is that I do not know whether to ask Deputy Noonan to move them for me or to move them myself but I suppose I had better comply with the strict procedures of the House.
I would also very briefly like to mention the fact that if we conclude this Bill tonight — and I hope it will go to the Seanad next week for Report and Final Stages — a tribute will be due to the Members who served on that committee and did the hard slogging work in the early sixties under the chairmanship of the late Judge Budd. Those who are alive now, the majority are dead, will be glad to see the fruits of their labour being used as they would want them to be. I will not mention any names because one could easily forget somebody. It is nice to know that even on my right our principal adviser was a member of that committee at that time although he denies it has anything to do with his age.
On the first amendment proposed by Deputy Noonan to add "not later than 1 January 1989", I fully appreciate the intent of that amendment. Deputy Noonan is correct in saying that the Bill can only come into operation as soon as the bankruptcy rules are made by the Superior Courts Rules Committee. I cannot compel them but I anticipate that these rules will be made and concurred by me before the end of the year. I am in a position to accept the amendment and it will act as a spur on all of us if the date is there because it is going on so long. I will insist that that particular amendment which I am now accepting will ensure that I be given a place on the Seanad agenda for next week. These are the little things that help us along the way and we will make this Bill a reality as soon as we possibly can.
Thank you very much.
Amendment put and agreed to, subject to the substitution of "1989" for "1988".
Amendment No. 2 is in the name of the Minister. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are consequential on amendment No. 5 and I am suggesting that we take amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 5 together.
On a point of order — I will not make another speech because I said I would not — I suggest that all the amendments in relation to the trustees and bankruptcy be discussed at the one time because I think it is the same principle and the same issue and I do not think there is any difficulty in the House on these issues.
What amendments is the Deputy referring to? I want to be clear in my mind as to what we are doing. I suggested we take amendments Nos. 1, 4 and 5. What other amendments is the Deputy suggesting we deal with? I would prefer to keep to the sequence we have before us. Agreed.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 7, line 17, to delete "44 (3) (b)" and substitute "44 (5)".
These amendments arise from discussions which took place in regard to section 122 which provides that it will be an offence for a bankrupt not to disclose after-acquired property, that is property which comes to him after his adjudication. The question was raised in the sub-committee as to the position of rights of action in respect of injury to the person or character of the bankrupt and of damages recovered by a bankrupt in such actions, that is actions of personal torts. It was pointed out that while rights of action of the bankrupt, generally speaking, vest in the official assignee, those in respect of injury to the person or character of the bankrupt do not and, furthermore, the damages recovered by the undischarged bankrupt for personal tort do not vest in the official assignee. In practice this means that if a bankrupt obtains an award arising out of a personal tort the damages cannot be intercepted by the official assignee and so long as they retain the character of damages he cannot lay claim to them as after-acquired property. There is a wide variety of cases involving awards for injury to the person or character of the bankrupt, awards for injury to his person and to his property and awards arising out of actions for personal earnings after bankruptcy. It is the purpose of this amendment to ensure that the provisions of the Bankruptcy Bill which, in principle, vest in the official assignee on adjudication all the property of a bankrupt, do not interfere with or prejudice the established case law and practice governing these rights of action and the awards deriving from them. The new subsection (5) proposed to be inserted is based on the saving clause common to Statute Law Revision Act of 1896 section 1 and the Statute Law Revision Acts of 1962 and 1983, section 2 in each case, where its purpose is to emphasise that the mere repeal of statute does not effect any established rule or practice based upon it. The first and third amendments then are consequential.
(Limerick East): During the discussions on Committee Stage on section 122 it was agreed by all sides that there was a problem in the legislation as published and as presented. The Minister has now moved an amendment to meet this problem. I am happy with the amendments and I accept them.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 2:
In page 9, line 12, to delete "begins to keep house" and substitute "evades his creditors".
This is just a drafting amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
We now come to amendment No. 2a in the names of Deputies Seán Barrett and Michael Noonan (Limerick East). Amendments Nos. 2b and 2c are related. I am suggesting, therefore, that we debate amendments Nos. 2a, 2b and 2c together. Is that satisfactory? Agreed.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 2a:
In page 9, line 35, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
Paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum comes to the core of what I want here. Section 8 repeats the conditions at present required before a debtor's summons, now "bankruptcy summons", may be issued. It makes statutory the existing requirements that the debt must be a liquidated sum and introduces a requirement that a notice in the prescribed form requiring payment of the debt must have been served on the debtor. Under existing law a debtor's summons may be issued for a debt of £20 although a debt of not less than £40 is required to fund the creditor's petition for adjudication in bankruptcy. This anomaly is being removed by providing that the minimum amount of the debt for which a bankruptcy summons will be issued is the same as that required to enable a creditor to petition, that is £500. That was the position as published. On Committee Stage the figure was up-dated to £1,000 in 1985. If there are no other considerations apart from simple indexation, I think the fact that we are finalising the Bill three years after the decision to raise the figure to £1,000 justifies raising it further.
It is unlikely that the Minister for Justice will come back into the House quickly to change the figure. Even though £1,500 now is over indexation relative to £1,000 three years ago, when we take into account that there will be no great rush back here, it is a reasonable sum to settle on.
It is wrong that somebody can be hauled into bankruptcy at the moment for a debt of £40. This has given rise to cases where arguments, personality clashes, and quarrels between people result in their ending up in Stubbs Gazette for £50 or £60. People who are quite liquid have their reputations paraded around the country and become an object of gossip in the Bar Library and in the Bar for the sake of £40 or £50 simply because of some personal disagreement. That is not right.
Does the Deputy never read Stubbs Gazette?
(Limerick East): When the Bill was published in 1982, £500 was reasonable and £1,000 was reasonable when we agreed in Committee in 1985 that it be updated. I think £1,500 now is going a little ahead of the market but the market will catch up fairly quickly. I am unsure whether there are other considerations apart from the amount. The officials might advise the Minister and the Minister might advise the House on whether considerations of comparability with the provisions of company law arise or whether it is purely a matter of indexation. I am putting forward the amendment purely on indexation and the same applies to the consequential amendments.
I thank Deputy Noonan for this group of amendments. On receipt this afternoon of these additional amendments we examined all aspects of them and we have no difficulty in accepting them. We are thankful to the Deputy for helping us because this is a worth-while group of amendments and we accept them fully.
Amendment put and agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 2b:
In page 10, line 32, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 2c:
In page 11, line 30, to delete "£1,000" and substitute "£1,500".
Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 2d:
In page 12, line 8, after "newspaper" to insert "in circulation in the area where the bankrupt resides".
This amendment is to section 17 which deals with notice of adjudication and statutory sitting and provides that in certain circumstances the court shall cause notice of the adjudication to be given as soon as may be in the prescribed manner in Iris Oifigiúil and in at least one daily newspaper. There are so many daily newspapers at the moment, both onshore and offshore in their origin, that in parts of the country particular daily newspapers do not circulate. This amendment is to add after “daily newspaper” the words “in circulation in the area where the bankrupt resides” so that it is brought to the notice of all concerned——
You have ruined The Irish Times.
(Limerick East):——in those areas. I presume this will add enormously to the usage of the first official language in certain tabloid newspapers. The amendment is put forward in good faith. I do not think it is a major concept but it might be helpful.
The provision in this amendment is a very good idea and I am thankful to Deputy Noonan for bringing it to our notice because it will be helpful. It is very practicable and I have no hesitation in accepting it.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 2e in the names of Deputies Seán Barrett and Michael Noonan.
Amendment No. 3 on the main list of amendments has the same intent perhaps as amendment No. 2e.
Yes, amendment No. 3 is an alternative. It is in the name of the Minister.
Can you marry up amendment No. 2e and amendment No. 3?
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 2e:
In page 13, line 6, after "bankruptcy." to insert "Failure to comply with this provision will be punishable by imprisonment.".
Will the Minister explain this amendment?
I will. It reads:
In page 13, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(4) A bankrupt who fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence.".
This amendment has been introduced following discussions in the sub-committee whose view was that the failure to comply with a duty imposed on a bankrupt should be made an express offence in the section creating the duty. This is also in line with the bankruptcy law committee's view. That is why it is there.
(Limerick East): Is the Minister suggesting this is additional to or a substitute for my proposal?
A substitute.
It is substitute.
(Limerick East): That is fine. It makes the point I wanted to raise. I wanted this to be an offence and I realise I have not drafted it technically in a correct manner. I withdraw my amendment and will accept the Minister's amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 13, between lines 13 and 14, to insert the following:
"(4) A bankrupt who fails to comply with any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of an offence.".
Amendment agreed to.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 3a.:
In page 13, line 34, after "person" to insert "or company".
Again, subject to the Minister's advice, the issue is that section 22, admission of debt due to bankrupt, refers to a person. Is it possible to extend that to a company simply by the addition of the words "or company"?
The subject matter of the amendment was discussed at the sub-committee on 13 March 1985 where it was intimated that the term "person" in the section would include a company. I can confirm that this is the position.
(Limerick East): Do I understand from the Minister that the section unamended has the same effect?
It has the same effect.
(Limerick East): In that case I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
(Limerick East): I move amendment No. 3b.:
In page 17, to delete lines 41 to 44 and in page 18, to delete lines 1 to 22.
I appreciate that the amendment and the manner in which it is drafted will not be acceptable to the Minister because in effect it removes a crucial section from the Bill. I would like to hear the Minister's views on the family home and the issues which arise where somebody is declared a bankrupt and the only asset he has is the family home but then under the Family Home Protection Act the wife's position has to be protected. Is that protected position incorporated here in this section? Serious doubts were raised by Deputy Shatter, Deputy O'Leary and Deputy Taylor in the Special Committee on Committee Stage and I think it is an extremely important question. We should ensure that we do nothing on this Report Stage which would cut across the social advances which have been made in the legislation introduced by Deputy Cooney when he was Minister for Justice in the mid-seventies where the rights of spouses were not only recognised but enshrined in law and the position of married women in relation to the family home was protected.
Various other legislation has been put through the House which raised questions about this matter and this House and the Seanad have always been enormously careful not to move backwards in respect of those rights. I hope that what we are doing here tonight will ensure that the rights of wives under the family home protection legislation will still be protected. I think this comes under section 44. I would like to draw the attention of the House to what Deputy Shatter said on Friday, 29 March 1985, at page 75 of the Parliamentary Debates, Joint Committee on Legislation, Subcommittee on the Bankruptcy Bill, 1982. It is worth quoting the Deputy because he is a recognised authority in these matters as a practitioner before the High Court and the Supreme Court, as well as being an eminent Member of this House. He said:
Property here includes all the property of someone who is adjudicated bankrupt. If a husband and wife are living in a family home and the home is in the husband's sole name the home can be taken into the bankruptcy and can vest in the Official Assignee. Ultimately, the sale of the home could come about. The problem of someone being adjudicated a bankrupt who owns the family home is mirrored by the problem that is created where, for example, the husband owns the family home and he incurs debts, and a judgment mortgage is lodged against the home which can force its sale. The Official Assignee or the person who is entitled to the benefit of the judgment mortgage are not persons under the Family Home Protection Act who require the consent of the spouse residing in the family home to sell the family home. The Official Assignee can bring about a realisation of the assets without, under section 3 of the Family Home Protection Act, needing the consent of the non-bankrupt spouse.
There are two particular situations that can arise. The first situation is where a wife believes her husband is throwing away the family funds, not operating correctly in his business, gambling, creating a large number of debts and is not paying bills. The husband may, in those circumstances, behave in that way deliberately because the marriage has broken down and he wants to force the situation where there is a sale of the family home and the wife will not consent. The husband behaves in that way, either deliberately or because he has a problem; he may be an alcoholic or a compulsive gambler. If the wife learns of that before there is a bankruptcy adjudication or before a judgment obtained against the husband has been launched as a judgment mortgage, she can bring proceedings under section 5 (1) of the Family Home Protection Act, 1976, and ask the court to make a property transfer order to protect her and her children's interests and to have the family home transferred to her. There have been cases in the courts where the husband is incurring large debts in which property transfer orders have been made and the court under the Family Home Protection Act, 1976 has transferred the house into the wife's sole name and in so doing has sought to transfer the beneficial interest in the house into the wife's sole name. If a wife moves quickly, if she knows of the debts, incurred by her husband and if she has efficient, competent lawyers, or sufficient money to pay for competent lawyers, she can bring about a situation whereby the home is transferred to her by the courts which apparently protects her currently in the context of a possible bankruptcy adjudication.
The bankruptcy legislation has not tried to come to terms with the Family Home Protection Act, or how the bankruptcy legislation works in this context and equally is not coping with the judgment mortgage problem. If the wife does not move quickly, if her lawyers are a little bit incompetent or are not familiar with the position and if the creditors move that bit quicker, they will get in with their act of bankruptcy which automatically will produce the situation where the asset — the family home — is gone to the Official Assignee. In those circumstances the courts will not transfer the home to the wife and she and the children can be rendered homeless.
This is a double barrel issue. Can the wife and children be made destitute if the family home is vested in the official assignee in a bankruptcy case? Alternatively, if there is collusion between husband and wife in matters of bad debts, can a competent legal team succeed in transferring the one asset which remains into the sole name of the wife so that significant assets can be removed from bankruptcy proceedings in a deliberate attempt to evade responsibility for debt? Consequently can the efficacy of this legislation be undermined? This is a real issue which was raised in committee but is not being met by any amendment tonight. I want to highlight this issue in the only way available to me, without having the skill to draft at enormous length amending amendments by suggesting the deletion of the section.
I can assure the Minister I will not be pressing that proposal but I want both sides of this issue aired. I want to air the possibility of the wife's rights being eliminated and the family home being vested in the official assignee and, consequently, the wife and children becoming destitute where everything is bona fide. On the other hand, where there is collusion between husband and wife, can a competent legal team ensure that assets are ringfenced from creditors and isolated from the proceedings of a bankruptcy because they are assets represented by a significant property? Both points have to be met. I see Deputy McDowell nodding in agreement, and perhaps he would like to comment.
I was involved in litigation which concerned judgment mortgages. It was decided by the High Court that judgment mortgages applied to a family home and that you cannot get the fact that you owe money by talking refuge in the Family Home Protection Act if a judgment mortgage is registered against your interest in a house. What Deputy Noonan is saying has some merit, but my suggestion is that we should not address that issue in the context of a Bankruptcy Bill. The 1976 Act left so many questions unanswered I am always amazed because it erected certain rights in respect of spouse and family home, but it did not deal with any of the problems. It must have been put through the House very much on the nod because there are so many problems arising out of that legislation I think we should address it separately on another occasion.
It is all very well to provide protection but I have seen many cases of people with a house of £250,000 who invoked the Family Home Protection Act to evade their creditors. That is all right where the creditor is a bank, but where the creditor is a small trader, I have grave misgivings about the justice of a case when a man whose only asset is his house, can insulate himself from any form of legal execution. As I said, we should address the Family Home Protection Act separately. The Minister should produce a White Paper and a discussion document on it which would deal with the family property in family homes.
I agree with Deputy Noonan that if we try to introduce a protection here we will introduce an engine of fraud for people who want to avoid paying their obligations. The courts lean over backwards for a genuine spouse by way of giving stays on execution and the like, but if we give a statutory right of immunity in respect of one class of property, we create injustice.
I do not have any assets apart from a house and my car. My house, in so far as I own it rather than the building society, should be amenable to my creditors and my wife's section of the house should be available to her creditors too. We have to say, realistically, that most people's assets are bound up in their family homes. Most "Joe Soaps" should not have their only assets made immune from legal execution because it means in most cases there will be nothing left for the creditors.
(Limerick East): Does the Deputy intend discussing that with his wife on Report Stage.
It might have helped the discussion if we had dealt with section 61 and amendment No. 10. Be that as it may, I agree fully with what Deputy Noonan is trying to do. I would like us to achieve his objectives, but I do not think we can do so by deleting section 44. This is a very complex area and when we come to section 61, which deals with the family home, we will see how we can protect the rights of the family and reconcile the rights of the family with the rights of creditors. This is a very difficult one. I am advised that if this amendment were accepted it would cause quite a number of difficulties for us.
(Limerick East): The amendment was put down to enable us to discuss the issue. I appreciate that its acceptance would punch a serious hole in the Bill. That is not intended. I withdraw the amendment and look forward to hearing the Minister in regard to his own amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 4 in the name of the Minister was discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 18, to delete lines 8 to 12.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 5 was also discussed with amendment No. 1.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 18, between lines 22 and 23, to insert the following:
"(5) Without prejudice to any existing principle or rule of law or equity, established practice or procedure in relation to damages or compensation recovered or recoverable by a bankrupt for personal injury or loss suffered by him, property which is acquired by or devolves on a bankrupt before the discharge or annulment of the adjudication order (in this Act called ‘after-acquired property') shall vest in the Official Assignee if and when he claims it.".
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 6. Amendment No. 20 is consequential. I suggest that we debate amendments Nos. 6 and 20 together.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 20, to delete lines 22 to 30, and substitute the following:
"(2) The reference in section 284 (2) of the Companies Act, 1963, to section 331 of the Irish Bankrupt and Insolvent Act, 1857 (repealed by this Act) shall be construed as a reference to subsection (1) and accordingly the reference in the said section 284 (2) to the filing of the petition shall be read as a reference to the date of the adjudication.".
These are purely drafting amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment No. 7. Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 are related.
I move amendment No. 7:
In page 23, lines 48 to 50, to delete "or a settlement made on or for the spouse or children of the settlor of property which has accrued to the settlor after marriage in right of the spouse,".
The reason for amendments Nos. 7 and 9 is to get rid of certain exceptions to provisions which enable the official assignee to overturn transactions made by a bankrupt prior to adjudication. The exceptions are no longer relevant in the light of modern legislation relating to the status of married women or to the succession rights of children. The sub-committee questioned their relevance and on examination I have decided to delete them. Amendment No. 8 also arises from discussions in the sub-committee. The ten years limit in section 59 (1) (b) was considered excessive and it was felt that it should be reduced, first, to lessen the onus of proof and, secondly, to follow current trends in other jurisdictions which allow shorter periods in these cases.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 24, line 1, to delete "ten" and substitute "five".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 24, lines 14 and 15, to delete "and not being money or property in right of the settlor's spouse,".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 26, between lines 9 and 10, to insert the following:
"(5) On an application by the Official Assignee under this section for an order for the sale of a family home, the Court, notwithstanding anything contained in this or any other enactment, shall have power to order postponement of the sale of the family home having regard to the interests of the creditors and of the spouse and dependants of the bankrupt as well as to all the circumstances of the case.".
This amendment arises out of discussions in the sub-committee on certain sections of the Bankruptcy Bill, notably those dealing with the vesting of the bankrupt's property in the official assignee, the avoidance of transactions entered into by the debtor before adjudication and the official assignee's power to sell or otherwise dispose of a bankrupt's property.
Concern was expressed about the position of the family home in the event of a bankruptcy taking place and the question of the inter-relationship between the Bill, the Family Home Protection Act, 1976 and the Succession Act, 1965 was raised. It was submitted that the Bankruptcy Bill was not the appropriate place to amend the Family Home Protection Act and that there was no need to alter the official amendment to section 61, which required the prior sanction of the court to any sale or disposition of the family home. It was also pointed out that the family home was vested in the official assignee subject to any interest attaching to it and, secondly, that the Family Home Protection Act, 1976 did not deal with ownership of the family home. Thirdly, it was pointed out that a proposed Family Home Bill in course of preparation was intended to provide for joint ownership of a family home by both spouses.
The sections of the Bill referred to were approved but it was agreed to re-examine the position in the light of the comments made by the sub-committee. The various options in relation to the family home were considered in detail and it was decided to include in the Bill guidelines for the exercise of the court's discretion so as to allow the court to postpone the sale of the family home where appropriate, having regard to the interests concerned and all the circumstances of the case. This amendment will not affect the balance between secured and unsecured creditors or materially alter the position of a judgment mortgage. It is an option that goes as far as possible, in the absence of a family home Act, to meet the points made by the sub-committee and at the same time to conform to changes made in the law by the Status of Children Act. It also follows trends in other jurisdictions in allowing the interests of possible dependants of the bankrupt other than children to be considered, for example, grandparents.
(Limerick East): I understand the intent and I agree that it is rerunning the same issues that arose in our discussion on section 44. Perhaps the Minister for the benefit of the House and of those who read the Official Report would explain the amendment itself in a little more detail rather than its intent. I am not sure how the amendment actually works to achieve the Minister's intent.
The amendment relates to an application by the official assignee. Does that include an application by a trustee? We are about to give powers to a trustee. Does it cover that?
The answer to Deputy McDowell's question is yes. In reply to Deputy Noonan, this is a very complex matter and no perfect solution has been found, even in jurisdictions where there exists legislation which provides for the joint ownership of the family home by both spouses. As it stands, the family home cannot be sold without the sanction of the court and in practice the court will delay the sale where hardship would be caused. The difficulty is to strike a balance between doing justice to the creditors and treating the spouse and family fairly. Circumstances can differ greatly. One family home may be worth £200,000 and another £25,000. While a sale might be justified in the former case, with the spouse and family transferring to a modest dwelling, it would be unfair in the latter case, especially where the solvent spouse had made a big contribution to the home by looking after the family for many years.
Since the discussion in the sub-committee, various options have been further examined. The first option is to exclude the family home from the bankrupt's assets and the second is to exclude a family home below a specified value. The third option if to sell the family home and apply part of the proceeds towards alternative accommodation. The last option examined was to allow the court the same discretion as it has at present and to give statutory effect to it by laying down general guidelines.
The first three options were rejected because they would involve in varying degrees unfairly prejudicing the interest of creditors in favour of those of the family, discrimination between bankrupts where the family home formed the major or sole assets and those where it represented only a small part, acting as a disincentive to potential creditors who would be slow to give credit or loan facilities to small traders or businesses, leaving untouched the position of secured creditors and thus further weakening the position of unsecured creditors.
The fourth option is the most realistic one in the absence of legislation which would provide for a system of co-ownership of the family home. To go further at this stage could have implications for judgment mortgages since the benefits conferred on the solvent spouse in bankruptcy in relation to the family home would outweigh those available to a judgment mortgage seeking to realise his security in similar circumstances. The complexities involved in this whole area were emphasised by the sub-committee and there seems to be general agreement that what was required in the Bill was to give some guidance to the court in the exercise of its discretion. That is the purpose of the amendment.
(Limerick East): I would like to ask two questions.
Ordinarily on Report Stage we would not allow this, but having regard to the very co-operative ambience here we will just allow it on this occasion. I would remind the House again in respect of Report Stage that apart from the mover of the amendment Deputies have the right to speak on only one occasion.
(Limerick East): The Minister refers to three options. The fourth option is to leave it in the hands of the courts. Once it is left in the hands of the courts, have the courts the right to look at those options? For example, could a court dispose of a family home worth £250,000 and assign £40,000 to provide accommodation for a wife? Does the court have that flexibility within option No. 4? If not, what is the nature of the flexibility which the court has in disposing of the family home?
Would the Minister comment on his intention as regards the legislation to put family homes in the joint names of husbands and wives? Does he intend proceeding with that legislation? If so, what stage of preparedness is it at at the moment?
In reply to the second question, that legislation is with the Attorney General and I have been camping on his doorstep——
I thought we were getting short of legislation. I was getting worried.
We are not getting short of legislation. I am like a machine. I understand the necessary safeguards enshrined in that legislation which was prepared by my predecessors in office. It is with the Attorney General. I can truthfully say that I am making sure that it will be well up on the priority list and we will have it in here as quickly as possible.
Why does the Minister not issue a White Paper on it?
(Limerick East): Is it on its way from the Attorney General or on its way to?
It has not come out from the draftsman.
The Minister could do a White Paper on it.
We certainly will not establish a committee to look into it because it would take 26 years. I take the point. With regard to Deputy Noonan's first question, the first three options would not be ones the court would be likely to follow in exercising discretion as there are somewhat doubtful constitutional validity problems there.
I am not certain from the Minister's answer if it is possible for the courts to have discretion, say, where a house is worth £250,000 to sell the property and leave aside a sum of money to provide reasonable accommodation for the family. If there is not some sort of discretion of that nature what eventually happens is that the unfortunate wives and children, who in most cases are the ones to suffer, have to be provided with a house by the local authority, paid for by the taxpayer to the tune of £30,000 or £35,000. Is it possible for the courts to have that discretion or is it that the only power they have is the power to delay matters, to delay the disposal of the property or delay taking a decision, hoping that things will come right at the end of the day?
The matter would be before the High Court. The court would have to have regard to the constitutional problems that could arise and to the spouse's interest. The practice has been that the court can delay to give the spouse an opportunity to make other arrangements. They would have to have regard very definitely to the constitutional validity of decisions they make.
Amendment agreed to.
I must advise you now at this stage that the matter on which you have cajoled the Chair into tolerating a breach of Standing Orders was exceptional and not to be taken as a precedent. From now on the Minister will move, each Deputy will speak once and the Minister will conclude. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 may be taken together by agreement. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 27, line 47, to delete "a prescribed bank" and substitute "the Central Bank of Ireland".
These amendments are being introduced as there would be an advantage in having the accounts of the official assignee dealt with by the Central Bank rather than having them handled, as at present, by one commercial bank, namely, the Bank of Ireland.
(Limerick East): That is a welcome amendment.
I have my doubts about it. I would like privatisation.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 32, lines 1 and 2, to delete "a prescribed bank" and substitute "the Central Bank of Ireland".
Amendment agreed to.
On amendment No. 13, amendments Nos. 14, 15, 16 and 17 and 19 are related. It is therefore, proposed to take amendments Nos.13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 19 together. Is that agreed? Agreed.
I move amendment No. 13:
In page 38, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"PART V
Winding up by Trustee
110.—If, at the statutory sitting referred to in section 17 (3) or at any adjournment thereof, at least three-fifths in number and value of the creditors voting at the meeting, either in person or by a person authorised in writing in that behalf, by resolution declare that the estate of the bankrupt be wound up by a trustee and a committee of inspection, and appoint for that purpose a trustee and a committee of inspection of not more than five creditors qualified to vote at the meeting, the Court, on application being made to it in that behalf, may order that the property of the bankrupt be so wound up.".
The object of these amendments is to include in the Bill what are called the trustee clauses of the 1972 Bankruptcy Act. These 35 clauses allow a bankruptcy to be administered by a trustee and a committee of inspection rather than by an official assignee. One of the major recommendations of the Bankruptcy Law Committee was that the clauses should be dropped since no trustee had been appointed for over a century, and this was given effect when the Bill was introduced. However, in 1984 a trustee was appointed in a rather complicated case and subsequently the Incorporated Law Society asked that the clauses be reinstated to provide for particularly complex bankruptcies or those where the amounts involved were considerable. The matter was also raised on the sub-committee and it was agreed that the procedure be looked at again.
More recently a further case occurred of the bankruptcy court making an order that the bankruptcy be wound up by a trustee and a committee of inspection. I understand that the size and complexity of the case would have imposed an inordinate burden on the official assignee's office. In the circumstances, and having regard to the increase in the number and the size of bankruptcies, I have decided to retain the trustee clause procedure as an alternative to the administration of bankruptcy by the official assignee in appropriate cases.
(Limerick East): That legislation was originally published in 1982 arising from the recommendations of the 1972 report. It was reasonable to drop the whole concept of a trustee and a committee of inspection and their particular rights from the Bill. As the Minister has pointed out, a trustee had not been appointed since the last century and, in effect, powers which might be exercised by a trustee on a committee of inspection had become redundant through lack of use. I know that the Incorporated Law Society have a fairly strong view and have made fairly strong representations as a result of the trustee and committee of inspection to which the Minister refers in a particular case in 1984. I accept what the Minister is saying.
There are complex bankruptcy cases involving large amounts which would take up an inordinate amount of time of the official assignee. There is another consequence which is worth remarking, that if the official assignee has to give an inordinate amount of time to a particularly complex case he will not be available to deal with the commonality of cases which affect many more people and are of far greater general concern than the one complex one that he might get tied into.
I accept the Minister's amendment. There is just one point I want to clarify. As I understand it the bankruptcy court, by order, would be the initiator and it would be the bankruptcy court that would appoint the trustee and not any other agency. Would the committee of inspection be appointed by the bankruptcy court or would it be put together by the trustee? When replying perhaps the Minister would elaborate on the circumstances in which the court would make an order for the appointment of a trustee, how the creditors would get involved with the committee of inspection, how the two would inter-relate and what the relative powers are in respect of the trustee and the committee of inspection. A second issue which the Minister might deal with when replying is what the position would be once it is tracked into that particular process. Would it be possible at a certain point when the proceedings have moved into an area of less complexity to assign it to the official assignee or would it be the case that once it is made the responsibility of the trustee and the committee of inspection, that responsibility would remain with them until it is concluded with in effect the official assignee being out of the game once the bankruptcy court appoints a trustee and the creditors come in with their committee of inspection.
Let me try to explain the position as best I can to Deputy Noonan. A number of amendments have been tabled. Amendment No. 13 deals with the order of the court winding up a bankrupt property by a trustee and the committee of inspection procedure would simplify the existing procedure for doing this. Amendment No. 14 would divest the property of the bankrupt out of the hands of the official assignee and vest it in the trustee. Amendment No. 15 would combine a number of provisions at present in the trustee clauses so as to give effect to the underlying principle that since the property of the bankrupt is vested in the trustee, as if he or she were the official assignee, the powers of the trustee should correspond so far as possible with those of the official assignee. Parts IV and VI are excluded because they deal with arrangements under the control of the court, which is a pre-bankruptcy procedure, and with the administration in bankruptcy of estates of deceased insolvents. The remainder of the Bill would apply as appropriate.
Subsection (3) (c) of amendment No. 15 is intended to cover provisions relating to vacancies in the office of trustee and the committee of inspection as well as procedural matters which can, where necessary, be dealt with by the new bankruptcy rules to be made by the superior courts rules committee.
Amendment No. 16 covers the discharge of the bankruptcy and the release of the trustee when the estate has been realised. Amendment No. 17 would give the court the power to make such orders as it could make if the bankruptcy had been administered by the official assignee. Amendment No. 19 is consequential on the retention of the trustee clauses and gives the reference in the Arbitration Act to a trustee and the committee of inspection.
Would the Minister be willing to look at the sections he is now putting in with a view to ensuring that he would be giving the court adequate power to remove a trustee who was not functioning?
I will.
Can the Minister tell us whether there would be cases where it would be mandatory on the court to appoint a trustee?
I am advised that the decision would be made by the creditors but the order would be made by the court. It is the creditors who would make the decision.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 14:
In page 38, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
111.—On the making of an order under section 110 the Official Assignee shall be divested of the property of the bankrupt vesting in him under this Act and such property shall vest in the trustee.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 15:
In page 38, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
112.—(1) In the winding up the trustee shall be subject to the control of the Court and have regard to any directions given to him by the committee of inspection or by resolution of the creditors at the statutory sitting or any subsequent sitting.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), the trustee shall have all the powers and may perform all the functions conferred by this Act on the Official Assignee in relation to property vested in him and the provisions of this Act (other than those of Parts IV and VI) shall apply, with any necessary modifications, in relation to the winding up of the property of a bankrupt by a trustee and a committee of inspection as they apply in relation to the administration of such property by the Official Assignee and the trustee shall be substituted for the Official Assignee in such provisions where appropriate.
(3) The statutory sitting shall make provision for:
(a) the remuneration of the trustee,
(b) the making of regular reports by the trustee at subsequent sittings in relation to the winding up,
(c) the procedure to be followed by the trustee in the lodgment of moneys received by him,
(d) the audit of the trustee's accounts, and
(e) such other matters as may be prescribed.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 16:
In page 38, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"113.—When the bankrupt's property has been fully realised and a final dividend has been paid to the creditors, the trustee shall report to the Court, and the Court, if satisfied that the estate has been fully wound up, shall declare the bankruptcy discharged and order that the trustee be released.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 17:
In page 38, between lines 40 and 41, to insert the following:
"114.—Where an order is made under this Part for the winding up of the bankrupt's property by a trustee and a committee of inspection, the Court shall, subject to the provisions of this Part, have power to make such orders and give such directions in relation to the bankrupt, his creditors, debtors and property and in relation to the examination of persons (including the bankrupt) and other matters as it would have had if a trustee and a committee of inspection had not been appointed under this Part.".
Amendment agreed to.
Recommittal is necessary for amendment No. 18 since it involves a potential charge on Revenue.
Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 18.
I move amendment No. 18:
In page 40, to delete lines 39 and 40, and substitute the following:
"(f) fails to file or deliver a statement of affairs as required by section 19 (c) or makes any material omission in any statement relating to his affairs, or".
During discussions in the subcommittee on section 20 and related sections of the Bill the view was expressed that if an obligation or a duty was imposed on a bankrupt by a particular provision, it should be an express offence to fail to comply with the terms of the provision. For this reason the offence at present set out in section 118 (1) (f) has been expanded to include failure to file or deliver a statement of affairs as required by section 19 (c).
(Limerick East): This amendment is acceptable to us. Duties are now being assigned to the official assignee. Up to now the thrust of the Bill seemed to be that matters would be simplified by centralising the role of the official assignee. I must say that the Minister's reply to Deputy Barrett surprised me slightly. This was to the effect that the amendments which we have just accepted would give an initiating role to the creditors rather than to the bankruptcy court and that the creditors would take the initiative to make the trustee central to the issue rather than the official assignee. That runs counter to the thrust of the Bill as presented and I ask the Minister when replying to deal with that problem. I understood the Minister to say in reply to Deputy Barrett that the creditors would now be able to decide whether the bankruptcy would be dealt with by a trustee and a committee of inspection or by the official assignee. I understood the thrust of the Bill up to now was to centre everything on the official assignee but the Minister's reply has made me feel uneasy.
I am sorry if I misled the Deputy but let me say that the court would have to give approval to an application made by creditors. I am advised that the creditors would select the trustee but the application would have to be approved by the court.
(Limerick East): Would the court have the discretion to say that it will not appoint a trustee but rather it will appoint the official assignee instead?
It has.
(Limerick East): Are any guidelines laid down for the court?
No guidelines are laid down. It would be for the court to decide.
Is the Deputy happy with that?
(Limerick East): I am not.
Perhaps I should advise the Deputy that because of the nature of this amendment it is treated in the same way as an amendment on Committee Stage and the Deputy would not be in breach of anything if he were to ask another question. It was necessary to recommit this amendment.
(Limerick East): I only want to be in order.
The Chair appreciates that.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment reported.
I move amendment No. 19:
In page 49, opposite the reference to the Arbitration Act, 1954, in the Second Schedule, to delete the matter set out in the third column and substitute:
"In section 11 (1) the words from ‘and includes' to the end of the subsection.".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 20:
In page 49, in the third column of the Second Schedule opposite the reference to the Companies Act, 1963, to delete "Section 284 (2)".
Amendment agreed to.
Question, "That the Bill, as amended, be received for final consideration", put and agreed to.
Agreed to take Fifth Stage today.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I would like to say that like Deputy McDowell, I do not propose to make a speech but I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who have contributed to the debate on this Bill to date. As I have said, this is complex legislation and the contributions which were made have been of tremendous help, particularly those made on Committee Stage by the members of the subcommitee who showed great understanding of the technical aspects and the practical problems associated with bankruptcy law and procedure. In this regard I would like to thank especially Senator Maurice Manning for his excellent work as chairman of that subcommittee.
It is inevitable in a Bill of this length that there would be criticism of some of the provisions and following debate both in the subcommittee and in this House we have made several amendments to the Bill with the result that I now consider the Bill to be much improved. I would like to thank Deputies Noonan, Barrett and McDowell for the contributions they have made here this evening. These were extremely helpful and beneficial. I thank them for their co-operation which was very much appreciated.
(Limerick East): I should like to thank the Minister for bringing this legislation before the House. It would have been easy enough to let it lie there and I appreciate that it required initiative to bring it in. I do not think the Minister will get any political credit or kudos for doing this because it is the kind of donkey work which frequently passes unnoticed in this House.
I should also like to thank Senator Manning who chaired the committee very effectively and all the members of the committee. In particular, I should like to thank the officials at the Department of Justice——
Hear, hear.
(Limerick East):——because they——
Will retire in peace and happiness.
(Limerick East):——have invested much of their time in this legislation.
On a point of information, I think I should put it on the record that the three officials on my right had to stay up all night last night in order to have the legislative programme for today.
They look very fresh.
Believe me, they should not look fresh. I know that on a previous occasion Deputy Noonan was involved in a similar situation and I believe we should recognise their input.
Hear, hear.
(Limerick East): I appreciate very much what the officials have done. I thought the Minister for Labour would be in the House tonight because this will leave such a gap in the Department of Justice that the skills of the Minister for Labour will be required on job creation programmes for the officials who will be made redundant now that this great body of legislation has been removed from them.
It is not applicable in the Department of Justice.
After all those pleasantries it is hardly necessary for me to ask if the Bill is agreed.
Question put and agreed to.