Mr. Christopher Lehane:

The first question the Deputy asked was related to proceedings. If he looks at page 18 of the document circulated, he will see that it refers to section 136 of the Bankruptcy Act which effectively states the rights of secured creditors are not affected in bankruptcy, while the first Schedule sets out the various options. To answer the question directly, when a person becomes a bankrupt, a set of mortgage possession proceedings which are wrongly called repossession proceedings - the banks have never been in possession of the house - are taken. My position is that on the basis that the banks are taking repossession proceedings, people must be in a situation where they have been unable to repay their mortgage. In moving into bankruptcy they are fully entitled to go back to the bank in that regard. Sometimes I come across possession proceedings that are historical. In terms of people who have gone bankrupt, in repossession proceedings there is a period in which the wife can go back to the bank and say her capacity has improved and the possession proceedings are withdrawn.

Would I prevent repossession proceedings going ahead? The answer is no. Under section 136 of the Bankruptcy Act, I am the official signee. I move and have the same rights as the debtor. I do not have any power to stop them proceeding to take the house. All I can do is facilitate the man - the classic situation - to make the payments and if they are not grossly above what would be a reasonable amount for the house - this answers the Deputy's second question - I will not stand in the bank's way. The repossession proceedings go ahead because I am only an assignee of the individual's rights.

On the second issue regarding the mortgage and the rent, we consider the household requirements of, say, a man with four children. He needs a four-bedroom house. If it is in any way reasonable and within close proximity - we do not have a rigid figure - we will not force a family out of a house. We will allow this as a mortgage payment and allow them stay in the house. We do not get down to pettiness of valuing the video recorder but, unfortunately, it is an issue. The bankruptcy inspector views the house and considers items above the value of €6,000.

That €6,000 is the man's share of the house contents. Equally, the wife will have €6,000. That amounts to €12,000 as the value of contents. There is a lot of flexibility. It is not reinstatement value; it is second-hand value. We do not find ourselves taking out, as, unfortunately, did happen years ago, the video player, and sometimes even bikes and other such items. Nothing is that petty.