Alan Farrell (Dublin North, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the representatives. I wish to follow up on a point raised by Deputy Finian McGrath, as Deputies we all have had dozens of individuals contact us in the past 12 to 18 months, particularly since the establishing of the ISI. I find it extraordinary that after this period - this is not a criticism - I am repeating to individuals that they go and to talk to the ISI, MABS or to get some independent advice as to their predicament because they are not doing that. That applies to at least 50% of the families or individuals who have contacted me. I find that surprising at this stage of the post-economic collapse for no reason other than they were unable to get a job and found themselves in awful scenarios, which is very stressful for families and particularly children who are the innocent victims. I am sure the ISI has come across many such individuals whose situation is way beyond their control.

The point made by Mr. Christopher Lehane in appendix 3 was interesting. It concerned the automatic discharge period so the discussion on the one year changed to the bankruptcy term. I saw one of the arguments in favour of a reduction as being a negative as it would increase the willingness of individuals to hand back their keys. I know he has qualified that by saying this might result in an increased number of lending institutions actually engaging with them in a meaningful way and, presumably, either arrive at an arrangement to extend the terms or write down part of the debt. However, in a later paragraph, 3.3, as an argument against the reduction in the bankruptcy term, he stated that there is no certainty that a reduction in the bankruptcy term will improve the prospects of a bankrupt retaining their family home. Perhaps I misunderstand, but I would have thought that those two points, one in favour and one against, resulting in the same outcome of the prospect of losing one's family home, and the basis upon which it is the ambition of every Deputy and Senator to keep as many people as possible in their homes, are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For that reason I was slightly confused as to that approach. I appreciate it is the job of the ISI to attempt to get the best possible outcome for the families. I am aware it was mentioned that 70% of people who enter into arrangements lose the family home but he qualified that again by saying that they did not necessarily have to lose the family home but it was a decision that was in the process. I would like Mr. Lehane's view on that issue.