Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will conclude on this. In the context of amendment No. 7, it was something that was suggested during the debate on the Personal Insolvency Bill. I cannot accept the amendment, however, because I do not think the courts could properly impose on mortgagers the costs of a personal insolvency practitioner. For example, the personal insolvency practitioner may well, having consulted with the debtor, conclude that there is no possibility of putting in place an arrangement because there is no financial base on which it would be possible for creditors to agree to a personal insolvency arrangement. One could not then require the financial institution to pay the personal insolvency practitioner's fees.

It tends to get forgotten that the legislation is not only about mortgages when one is dealing with the 2012 Act, it is also about creditors generally. I suspect that there would be serious constitutional difficulties in picking out one of the creditors simply because it was a financial institution, and saying it must pay the personal insolvency practitioner's fees, but all the other creditors have no obligation. It could well be the case - I re-emphasise that this is an insolvency Bill - that someone may have greater debts with creditors other than the creditor concerning their family home. They may be in difficulties with their family home, but they may have other creditors to whom they owe substantially greater sums of money, other than a financial institution.

This particular proposal would, in those circumstances, be seen as inequitable. I do not believe the courts could travel that route.