Stephen Donnelly (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Just to be clear, the scenario in question involved the write-down of the mortgage, so at the end of the three years the lady in question was put back on a sustainable footing. I am aware of the example. However, most of the examples I have seen do not include write-downs, and those that do last for six years. I want to highlight that the Minister was very clear that it is possible for a PIA to keep a borrower in his or her house and to include a substantial write-down of the mortgage to a sustainable level, and if there is no public good to be served by this person's being in a process for six years, there is no reason he or she could not exit. Indeed, the Minister suggested that it would be appropriate for that person to exit the process with the write-down intact after just three years.

I ask Mr. O'Connor to give his opinion on why anyone would not continue to use the bankruptcy system in the UK, where the total period for discharge of bankruptcy is one year, with the potential for a payment order for another two years. This compares to three years of bankruptcy here and the potential for an additional five years. My understanding of the UK system is that not only is it one year compared to three years, but if a person has been in arrears for six months, the magistrate will take that into consideration as part of the 12-month period. A person who has been in arrears for six months could move to Belfast, Derry, London or Manchester and be back here, discharged of all debt, in just six months. This is not meant to be a leading question, because I am genuinely interested. Why would people avail of the new bankruptcy regime here if they had the wherewithal to get to Belfast or Derry for six to 12 months?