Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will respond to amendments Nos. 13 and 14, following which Deputy Mac Lochlainn can then come in. Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 seek to raise the limit for the amount of disposable income above that permitted for necessary household expenses from €60 to, in the context of Deputy Mac Lochlainn's amendment, €80 and in the context of Deputy Collins' amendment, €150. With regard to the €60 provision, that is the limit of the qualifying amount of money left to the debtor after meeting reasonable household living expenses in the context of the legislation. Effectively, it is a sum perceived to be surplus to reasonable household living expenses. Certain assets that an individual would use in his or her daily lives are expressly excluded from being regarded as relevant in the context of their circumstances when facilitating the write-off of debt. Where a person has money in excess of his or her reasonable expenses it is reasonable to expect that it be used to discharge some of his or her debt to creditors, including local traders or a local credit union.

Deputy Collins is proposing that where a person, having met his or her reasonable expenses at the end of the specified period, has additional money he or she should be allowed to retain €150 to spend as they choose rather than, for example, repay at least a portion of the debt to the local credit union. I cannot agree to that. I do not believe that is fair, in particular to other members of the credit union or to a local shop owner in respect of debt run up by a family in financial difficulty to whom he or she gave some leeway. Is it reasonable, where a substantial debt has been run up, that people should retain €150 as discretionary spend and not be entitled to use any portion of it to discharge any portion of debt? I do not believe that is fair.

I have greater sympathy with the proposal put forward by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. It is a matter of subjective judgment as to whether the amount should be set at €60, €70 or €80. There is no monopoly of wisdom on this. It is somewhat arbitrary but not entirely arbitrary, as I will explain. It is important that this legislation is not seen in isolation from everything that is relevant to it. There are issues which we must address to ensure the legislation does not affect detrimental unintended consequences. This is effectively a balancing act. There are subjective judgments to be made as to what is the appropriate sum.

As I said, I have greater sympathy with the proposal put forward by Deputy Mac Lochlainn. It is not acceptable to permit people to retain €150 of discretionary money and to ignore their creditors. Whether the amount should be set at €60, €70 or €80 is debatable. Following considerable consideration of the matter, the Government determined that the appropriate amount should be €60. While I cannot accept the proposed amendments, I will keep this matter under review prior to enactment of the Bill.

Amendments will be tabled in the Seanad, and I will make reference to these later, which will bring the Bill back to this House. Certain issues will be dealt with in the Seanad. It was the Government's considered view that in the circumstances €60 of discretionary income after reasonable expenses had been met was a reasonable sum and that thereafter it would be unfair to creditors. In the circumstances I must oppose the two amendments.

See this speech in context