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

I will deal with all this group of amendments, beginning with Seanad amendment No. 25. They provide for miscellaneous amendments to Chapter 1 of Part 3, which deals with the debt relief notice process. Seanad amendment No. 25 makes clear the debt relief notice process concludes when the debtor's application for debt relief notice is withdrawn, deemed to be withdrawn or refused or when the debt relief notice issued with regard to the debtor ceases to have effect. The text as currently presented in the Bill is not sufficiently clear and requires further refinement for the avoidance of doubt.

Seanad amendment No. 28 proposes the deletion of paragraph (f) of section 24(2). This deletion arises as a consequence of Seanad amendment No. 35, which proposes the deletion of section 24(8), regarding the treatment of goods on hire purchase in the context of the debt relief notice process. Having considered the comments made in the Seanad on the matter, as well as comments from relevant organisations, and having consulted with the Parliamentary Counsel, I have decided to remove the provision from the Bill to offer greater flexibility to debtors.

I am advised by Parliamentary Counsel that the matter can be left to the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act 1995 and there is no requirement for an explicit provision in the Bill.

Amendment No. 31 is in response to concerns raised by Deputies and Senators on items of personal jewellery. Deputies will be aware that setting a value for such items is difficult and invidious to a degree. I am now providing an exemption from the asset test of €750 for one item of personal jewellery, provided the application does not seek to settle the purchase cost of the item as a qualifying debt. The Minister may, by regulation, review the amount of the value of the item.

I listened to Deputy Mac Lochlainn's contribution on this matter, on which I recall there was an inordinate focus in the House previously. I note this particular issue attracted the attention of Deputy Healy-Rae who has not exactly been engaged in the heavy lifting in the discussion of the details of the legislation. It is, however, an issue that is always good for a headline. No matter what figure was included in the Bill, Deputies would have tried to raise it. I am sure Deputy Niall Collins will correct me if I am wrong but it is my recollection that it was in an exchange with him or his colleague, Deputy Calleary, that a figure of €500 was suggested to me.

See this speech in context