Mr. Christopher Lehane:

The argument there relates to the Government being minded to reduce the bankruptcy term on the basis that it believes that the reduction of the term will make it easier for people to stay in the family home. I have elaborated in the summary on that argument, pointing out that this is not what happens in reality. The reduction period going to one year, but with a three year income payment period, will not help that person at that moment in time. The moment in time for a person who is going to lose the family home will be when they go bankrupt. Then, they will ask me, to allow a set mortgage payment within the bankruptcy. If that mortgage payment is €4,000, I will not allow it when making my assessment. They and the bank will have effectively agreed a deal and I must assess that €4,000 mortgage payment. The person's entitlement to stay in the house will be based on my assessment of the reasonable living expense and an accommodation expense that is reasonable for the family. If the mortgage payment they are proposing to me is way above what I know they can secure in getting a rental of a property in that area, I will not allow it. Therefore, it would be wrong to think that the mere reduction in the bankruptcy period in itself would assist a person to stay in the family home.