Forming a Lobbying group for Bankruptcy term reduction

It's so sad that we are effectively exporting yet another problem to our neighbouring island. And in this case it's totally unnecessary - nobody benefits from the current dysfunctional system.

My heart goes out to anybody that has to leave behind their support structures and "take the boat" simply to put what must be a very difficult chapter in their lives behind them so they can finally move on. I often wonder how much stress and hardship are we inflicting on people as a result of our failure to implement such obvious reforms? It's odd considering how generous we can be as a nation in so many other respects.

A friend who had been through UK bankruptcy - his Irish creditors didn't even respond to his IVA proposal - summed it up perfectly when he said about his UK ordeal 'it changes you'. My wife and I found it to be a harrowing experience.
 
"The Cabinet has given approval to Minister for Justice [broken link removed] to refer a proposal to cut the bankruptcy term from three years to one to an [broken link removed] committee."
If the Finance Committee, chaired by [broken link removed], agrees to reduce the length of the bankruptcy period, legislation would be introduced early in the autumn."

This is what was reported back in May.
In July the Committee (Justice Committee in fact) did agree to reduce the term and sent their recommendation to the Minister.

Now the Minister simply sits on the bill and says she will consider it in due course.

Why did she refer the bill for consideration by the Justice Committee and agree to introduce it in early autumn if they approved when it appears she had no intention of doing so?

Politics, especially the messing behind the scenes would really sicken you sometimes.
 
Indeed, Averil Power was door-stepping my area at the weekend and said that was her understanding of the issue; labour were for it and FG against it.
Honestly I don't get it (FG's opposition to it) if they are as pro entrepreneurship as they state. I will never start my own business again under the current set-up, it's still draconian.

Fine Gael's only 2 policies re. entrepreneurship that I can see are the reduced vat rate for certain service industries and their FDI inducements. Even the Back to Enterprise Allowance from the Dept. Of Social Protection, designed to get people off the dole has been cut from 4 years to 2 years - even though it takes at least 3 years for most businesses to begin to turn a profit (in addition, it's impossible to get the dole if the business fails).
 
I've had a similar response from the Minister and from Michael Fitzmaurice TD who recently raised a PQ on the topic. Was good to hear Willie Penrose on Newstalk yesterday trying to get it back on the agenda.

If this doesn't go through, my family and I will be Oz bound despite the fact we'll have 2 years of the bankruptcy term done in Feb.

Another 3 years of this if you take into account a 2 yr income order for example isn't worth it just to stay near family & friends.
 
I've had a similar response from the Minister and from Michael Fitzmaurice TD who recently raised a PQ on the topic. Was good to hear Willie Penrose on Newstalk yesterday trying to get it back on the agenda.

If this doesn't go through, my family and I will be Oz bound despite the fact we'll have 2 years of the bankruptcy term done in Feb.

Another 3 years of this if you take into account a 2 yr income order for example isn't worth it just to stay near family & friends.


Thanks MikeL,

Do you have a link or even the slot in which Willie was Penrose was interviewed?
A big worry I have is he seems isolated, Labour look lost and toothless.
It's as if they got their concession on no November election and were told "now get lost, you're not getting another thing this Dail"

Fitzgerald and Noonan make my blood boil after openly backing the proposal in the Spring it's now clear as mud they are blocking it.
Is it any wonder people simply do not trust a word that comes out of politician's mouths.
 
Newstalk today with Yates, he mention from his contacts that Justice and Finance are totally opposed to any change and therefore he said it won't happen.
 
Newstalk today with Yates, he mention from his contacts that Justice and Finance are totally opposed to any change and therefore he said it won't happen.
to which Penrose added that his contacts in Finance said it would...who to believe? Very frustrating
 
Newstalk today with Yates, he mention from his contacts that Justice and Finance are totally opposed to any change and therefore he said it won't happen.

Hi Bronte,

Did Yates discuss this again today?

Yates discussed the topic Tuesday with Ross Maguire and Wednesday with Willie Penrose and expressed cynicism that elements within Justice and Finance would continue to block it.
Maguire and crucially Penrose expressed high degrees of confidence it would be law by year end.
Penrose said "watch for white smoke by end of Nov"

I still have faith in Penrose, we all know there are elements in Finance and Justice who oppose this (despite publicly supporting it!).
Yates is just saying what Willie knows "I know those lads, they are tricky and will try to continue to block you" because they are old school FG heads whose form and trickery he knows too well.

Penrose is a fiery and passionate character who wont back down and I doubt Noonan and Fitzgerald will fancy being publicly rebuked for lying on a guarantee because if it isn't done by end Nov, I fully expect Penrose to do just that.
Equally important, he is well liked and respected in Labour and they won't let him be humiliated.
 
Not 100% it was yesterday. But I'd say Yates is bang on.
it was in wednesdays interview. Yates said to Penrose; my contacts in finance and justice are opposed to it - or something along those lines.
To which Penrose said; I'm sure you have good sources but I'm surprised at Finance, I know that they have no objection to it. (again paraphrased)

on another note... a well known financial figure messaged me to say that he believes that senior people who were opposed to the measure have changed their tone in recent discussions with him and that it is now very close to coming in.

Personally, having previously worked in media and interacted with government departments on media projects, i believe that nothing is ever brought out to air without approval or purpose. I would not be surprised if the recent exposure to this is to fly a flag and see if there is any major/high profile objection to the notion. Here's hoping.
 
I'll be glad when it's all done with. Seems like this proposal has been around for ages now.

Is anybody else guilty of this> [broken link removed]

I'd been driving myself around the bend!
 
I'll be glad when it's all done with. Seems like this proposal has been around for ages now.

Is anybody else guilty of this> [broken link removed]

I'd been driving myself around the bend!
Yep...I do that a lot.
 
Great news for all those currently undischarged and for those currently considering bankruptcy!

It does beg the question as to why it's taken until now to sort out this mess.

Why were FG - and in particular, Finance, so implacably opposed to the one year discharge period in the first place? Are we to assume that they got it wrong or that political expedience has taken over? The reality is that it took the entire life time of this Government to arrive at the one year discharge period - even though our closest neighbours have had a one year discharge period for years. The Government's dithering has no doubt caused untold additional hardship for people. It centainly did for us!!
 
Last edited:
Does that mean that one is now discharged after a year and then 5 year payment order kicks in? Or is it 1 year plus 4 more after that?

Whichever it is, five/six years living on the "reasonable" living expenses is still a might tough pill to swallow!
 
Does that mean that one is now discharged after a year and then 5 year payment order kicks in? Or is it 1 year plus 4 more after that?

Whichever it is, five/six years living on the "reasonable" living expenses is still a might tough pill to swallow!

Hi Outsider,

An income payment agreement (IPA) will only be sought if you income is above the guidelines for your particular situation. Generally, the OA will assess your income a few weeks after you have been adjudicated bankrupt. If your income is over the set level, the IPA will last from 5 years from that date. The IPA is reviewed on a 6 monthly basis and any alterations, in times of unexpected expenses for exmaple, can be managed by email with the OA.

It is my understanding that the bill proposed by Deputy Penrose runs along the same lines but the maximum IPA is 3 years. In theory, this means a newly adjudicated bankrupt who is liable for an IPA should be assessed as early as possible and they will be free of the IPA pretty close to 3 years from the time they were adjudicated bankrupt.
This would be the same as the UK.
 
Great news for all those currently undischarged and for those currently considering bankruptcy!

It does beg the question as to why it's taken until now to sort out this mess.

Why were FG - and in particular, Finance, so implacably opposed to the one year discharge period in the first place? Are we to assume that they got it wrong or that political expedience has taken over? The reality is that it took the entire life time of this Government to arrive at the one year discharge period - even though our closest neighbours have had a one year discharge period for years. The Government's dithering has no doubt caused untold additional hardship for people. It centainly did for us!!

They probably feared the banks were too fragile earlier to sustain a widespread crystallisation of losses if they brought in 1 year bankruptcy and it was widely used. At this stage of the game, I think it's a case of the political planets aligning in our favour. I doubt many of them ever counted the human cost.
 
Hats off to Willie Penrose.

This was always the correct decision but unless a senior politician is willing to commit time and effort to a reform, without an obvious political dividend, it simply wouldn't happen.

I am genuinely curious about the politics of this issue. I remember Alan Shatter being asked by journalists why the bankruptcy term was not being reduced to one year (as promised in FG's manifesto) and thinking that the response was wholly unconvincing.

Did the Department of Finance really think the banks couldn't bear this reform? I have my doubts.

I wonder does Eamon Gilmore's memoire shed any light on discussions at the time on this issue?
 
Back
Top