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

I am a little confused by this proposal. Deputy Collins raised a similar point on Committee Stage in regard to adding a reference to the debtor being able to object to the court in regard to the issuance of a protective certificate. The only reason a protective certificate would be issued is to protect the debtor. Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the debtor would object to being given the protection he or she requires. My answer to this proposal remains as it was on Committee Stage. There is no need to extend this appeal facility to the debtor as the debtor would not be aggrieved by the issuance of a protective certificate sought on his or her behalf by an insolvency practitioner. The provision of such a certificate is essentially for the benefit of the debtor, and it is not to his detriment. If the certificate were not issued, it would leave the debtor vulnerable to a court application or court proceedings in respect of an outstanding debt he was trying to have dealt with through debt settlement procedures.

I do not understand how this issue arises. I appreciate there may be a misunderstanding over it. We touched on it on Committee Stage. What is proposed in the amendment would make no sense and would erect a barrier to effective discussions to bring about a settlement of debt issues. Therefore, it would practically defeat the purpose of the protective certificate mechanism and substantially undermine any role that might be undertaken by an intermediary to bring about debt resolution.

The Deputy seeks to make a further addition in regard to how the court should make orders, taking into account all the circumstances of the debt. First, it is objectionable to suggest the court would not operate on a just and reasonable basis. Second, the Deputy's proposed addition might risk a court rejecting the protective certificate sought for the protection of the debtor. We must remember the protective certificate is only a temporary remedy to create an environment that might facilitate debt resolution. I do not believe the Deputy really desires to achieve an outcome that might encourage courts to reject protective certificates. I do not want to score some cheap political point by suggesting that is his intention as I believe there is a misunderstanding over this matter.

See this speech in context