Mr. Lorcan O'Connor:

We have made it aware of our suggestions. I understand that other parties have done so as well. The legislative amendment is basically to change "may" to "shall". I accept that passing legislation has its challenges. I would implore the banks to work within the spirit of the legislation. If they were availing of that opportunity, they would not need to be compelled.

When a protective certificate is issued, which is the beginning of the process, it is a bit like examinership, in that it offers 70 days for the practitioner to work out the best deal for both sides. The practitioner is independent of the debtor and creditor and is there to find some common ground. Currently, practitioners must do that in the dark because creditors are not telling practitioners what is likely to work for them and with what they are willing to live. Instead, creditors sit back, wait for a proposal to be developed in the dark and then seek ways to challenge it. The point I am trying to make is that it would be far better for all sides to sit down in week 1 of the three-month period, with the creditor examining the summary of the debtor's financial situation that has been presented and, understanding that the debtor wants to stay in the home, saying how far it can go and asking whether the other side can make that work. Alternatively, it might suggest that we focus on this type of solution rather than that type. Hopefully, agreement can then be reached instead of waiting for a proposal and finding ways to reject it.