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

This was an issue Members raised on Committee Stage, at which point I gave an undertaking to consider it for Report Stage. Deputy Niall Collins's amendment No. 24 raises the issue of a special exemption in the asset test for the debt relief notice in respect of books and materials for primary and second level students. I hope the Deputy will accept my proposal in amendment No. 30 which was drafted under advice from Parliamentary Counsel and is specific to educational needs. It provides that primary and secondary level books and equipment necessary to the education of the debtor or his or her children will be exempt from the assets to be taken into consideration for the purposes of the debt relied notice application. I mentioned my concern on Committee Stage that small computer devices such as iPads which are now widely used by students at primary and second level to assist in their class work and homework assignments might be included inadvertently as an asset of the debtor. Amendment No. 30 puts this matter beyond doubt.

Government amendment No. 88a is a technical drafting amendment to improve the language used in the Bill.

Deputy Pádraig Mac Lochlainn's amendment No. 91 seeks to add further qualification to the fact of the debtor being insolvent. I am advised by Parliamentary Counsel that the additional words are not necessary to qualify the concept of being insolvent. Sections 53 and 88 of the Bill have been drafted such that the eligibility criteria for entering into a debt settlement or personal insolvency arrangement are objective and factual and not based on opinion. The likelihood that a person would be able to become solvent in the years following the implementation of an insolvency arrangement is, by its nature, opinion based, if not based on prophecy. Section 50 refers to the personal insolvency practitioner's statement of opinion, including in regard to the matters set out in section 50(d). Section 53 refers to this in subsection (1)(d). In other words, the eligibility criterion under section 53 is that the personal insolvency practitioner has given an opinion under section 50 on the likelihood of the debtor becoming solvent in the next five years. In the circumstance, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment.

Government amendment No. 92 proposes to replace subsection 53(1)(d) with an improved text setting out the eligibility criteria. It refines the existing text by reference to the provisions of section 50 in regard to the debtor's financial affairs. The existing text contains provisions already set out in some detail in section 50. Government amendment No. 93, which arises as a consequence of amendment No. 92, proposes the deletion of subsection (2) of section 53 as it is no longer required.

Deputy Niall Collins's amendment No. 94 seeks to add a reference to section 53 to assets necessary for the education of children under 18 years of age. I am advised that the addition of this reference is not consistent with how the debt settlement arrangement process is designed to operate. Section 53 sets out the key eligibility criteria in regard to the insolvency of a debtor to which the debtor and his or her personal insolvency practitioner must have regard in seeking a protective certificate or thereafter negotiating an arrangement offering a certain repayment capacity to creditors. As I explained, it is not likely that creditors would accept assets being put off limits by the device of designating them educational. For this reason, I cannot accept the Deputy's amendment. In so far as he is anxious to ensure that educational materials used by the debtor or his or her children are exempt, our amendment effectively covers that.

Government amendment No. 134 proposes to replace section 88(1)(f) with an improved text setting out the eligibility criteria. Similar to amendment No. 92, it refines the existing text by reference to the provisions of section 50 in regard to the debtor's financial affairs. Government amendment No. 137, which arises as a consequence of amendment No. 134, proposes the deletion of subsection (2) of section 88 as it is no longer required. Government amendment No. 137a is a technical drafting amendment required to ensure consistency in regard to the terminology used in the Bill.

See this speech in context