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

Everything else disappeared in its entirety and this became the issue. I disagreed with Deputy Collins on Committee Stage for seeking to exempt from the debt relief notice asset test items of jewellery of ceremonial significance. I did so both on the basis that ceremonial significance is very difficult to discern, varying as it might from person to person. In addition, Deputy Collins did not include any limit as to the monetary value. His latest proposal regarding these difficult situations is to require the Minister to determine them by regulation. I note with some interest that he is not proposing any monetary value. I feel that this is a task that neither I nor any Minister would wish to have imposed on them to undertake. I do not think the retention of valuable jewellery is a priority in seeking debt forgiveness under the debt relief notice. It is certainly nowhere near being on a par with the exemption we have agreed in regard to education, which is a very important issue.

My stance on this issue is well known. I do not believe that modest items of jewellery should be required to be sold, unless the debtor wished to do so to repay debt. Many debtors may wish to do so. I am also of the belief that creditors would be unlikely to seek the surrender of low or modestly valued items of whatever significance in an enforcement action prior to any application for the granting of a debt relief notice. I would not expect there is any reality in creditors pressing that issue. However, in seeking a full debt write-off of up to €20,000 a creditor may very likely seek to enforce the surrender of a valuable item of jewellery which could pay some or all of the debt owed - perhaps originally related to the purchase of the very item of jewellery an individual might want to retain as being ceremonially significant. That is the reality of the situation. The debt relief note is not designed to put assets, which are not essential to maintain a basic reasonable living standard, beyond the reach of creditors.

Deputies might be wary of seeking to have anyone, let alone the Minister of the day, set out valuation targets in this area. Perhaps it would be better to remain silent on this issue and assume that creditors would not have any interest in a very modest item - of jewellery, for example - that in practical terms would generate very little money or value of any description should someone seek to force its sale.

While I cannot accept the amendment, I do have some sympathy in this area in the context of items, or at least an item, that is not necessarily ceremonial but of emotional significance to an individual, while being of very modest value. I would ask the Deputies to tell me what is a modest value in circumstances where one is writing off €20,000 of debt. Is a modest value, say, €200, €300 or €400? The moment a Minister designated a value at any particular level, he or she would be accused of being parsimonious and would be asked why he or she had not added another €200 to it.

It is noticeable that Deputy Collins has not put a value on this. It may well be an issue left to the common sense of individuals in these circumstances, and to their creditors. However, if Deputy Collins wants to suggest to me what the value should be, I will listen to him with interest. I will keep the matter under review in the Seanad when we will still be doing some fine tuning to this Bill. There will be a couple of major Parts to be inserted in the Seanad, which will then have to come back to this House. I will be interested to hear what the Deputy might have to say on the value issue.

See this speech in context