Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill and I thank the Technical Group for allowing me some of their speaking time to talk on the matter.

The reform of our insolvency laws is long overdue. When we look back on the way we have dealt with debt and people who are in a state of crisis we can see that it was very much a requirement for new legislation to be brought before the House.

Broadly speaking, I welcome the efforts of the Government, and I thank and compliment the Minister and the people working in the Department for the work they have done. I would not say that the Bill goes far enough. I can see inadequacies in the Bill and problems that may arise with it but at least a serious effort is being made at reform and change. This legislation should have been brought before the House by the previous Government and it should have been brought here earlier in the term of this Government but I welcome it.

The change in the bankruptcy period from 12 years to three years is most welcome. Unfortunately, many good business people run into financial difficulties and must declare bankruptcy. They always say it is a very good man or woman who goes down and comes back up again, and everybody in business realises only too well, especially those with a small business or those struggling to keep people in employment, that they can run into difficulties. It is welcome that such people will be given a second chance but we must ensure that the people who are owed money are offered every protection possible as many small businesses are going under because they are unable to collect money that is properly owed to them.

The extent of the crisis in Ireland is frightening. In terms of people's personal finances, I have always stated that the most important financial institution in Ireland is Mom's purse because everything depends on what is in Mom's purse on a Monday, Wednesday, Friday or Sunday. If Mom's purse was okay, everything in Ireland was okay but, unfortunately, in recent years the amount of money going into Mom's purse every week has been growing smaller and smaller, and that is the most important financial institution in the country.

What young people are going through at present is frightening and it is affecting their physical and mental health. In that regard I want to thank and compliment the different agencies, including MABS and the Citizens' Information offices, which do untold good work in helping people with their finances. There are MABS offices throughout the country. In my role as a member of the Citizens' Information Board I was glad to be one of the first people to suggest that we should have a new MABS office in the town of Killarney because its growing population and those of the surrounding villages and parishes more than entitled it to have an office of its own. I welcome the work that has been done to bring that to reality.

I take this opportunity to compliment charitable associations such as the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which is doing untold work in the background in providing vital assistance. When families are in debt and have difficulty getting social welfare there is an interim period in which they do not have money to put food on the kitchen table. Those are the cases that I see first-hand. I do not want to mention the different towns but I compliment the Society of St. Vincent de Paul and other such organisations for the excellent work they do every day in the towns in my constituency in both south Kerry and north Kerry. Their volunteers give freely of their time either by fund-raising or by distributing fuel, helping people with groceries or helping them to pay for ESB bills on which they have fallen behind. Their work is to be appreciated by every one of us.

I said at the outset that I have problems with the Bill. I am worried that some people may be left behind. Will our banking and other financial institutions deal fairly with the people who, to be honest, in many cases they led up the garden path, so to speak? We must be clear about that. Young people went into their banks looking for, say, €150,000 and were persuaded to leave with €200,000 or €250,000. They were told it was okay to bundle other loans, be they car loans, loans to carry out renovation works or anything else. They were even told they could include money to be used to go on holiday in their bundled loan. That was ridiculous, irresponsible and out-of-control banking, yet these are the people dealing with the customers who are put to the pin of their collar and facing desperate circumstances every day of the week in trying to repay these massive debts. That is the reason I am fearful that the banking institutions will have a veto when dealing with people. Will they be as fair and lenient in dealing with their customers now as they were when they were over-generous in giving out the money in the first instance?

We all have our own horror stories of individual cases of people being led up a merry path by those working in the banking institutions. I do not want to tar everybody with the same brush because very fine people work behind the counters of banks every day but, unfortunately, they are facing the brunt of it in terms of actions taken not by them but by their bosses and people higher up along the chain. In some cases the clerks and other people dealing with the customers on a daily basis are being wrongly blamed for the reckless banking by some of our banks and some of the people working in them.

I was not happy with comments made last week by the Minister, who told people they would have to sell their bits and pieces of jewellery and so on. It was not helpful to tell people that they should sell off items such as their wedding rings. That was not a sensible or prudent thing for a Minister to state. I say that having already complimented him on the work involved in preparing the Bill and going as far as he has. However, that was not a prudent thing for a Minister to say. People are in such dire straits that they want sensible talk from Government and helpful suggestions, not to hear such nonsense.

To return to the bones of the Bill, I again compliment those who ensured the Dáil would sit later than usual to process the Bill before the recess. If the Bill is to be helpful there must not be undue delay with it. I thank and compliment FLAC, the free legal advice centres, and Chartered Accountants Ireland who have raised concerns about the fact that there is no outline of a code of conduct audit or disciplinary processes. They have stated that the Oireachtas must address each of those concerns during the legislative process with the Select Committee on Justice and Equality in the vanguard.

I compliment FLAC on its helpful comments and on the initial submission it made that was very well put together and most helpful and informative. I wish to pay particular attention to one aspect of its submission, namely, that it expects MABS to continue to be very busy in terms of the core work it carries out, being the first point of repair for indebted people. It stated that MABS must be properly resourced to carry out the vitally important work of income maximisation and negotiation of affordable repayment of creditors. I welcome the fact that it made this important point. FLAC also went on to say that the extent to which MABS will be involved in proposing plans under the legislation remains to be seen but, regardless, MABS and other groups working for and on behalf of indebted people will play a critical role in helping people to understand and evaluate their options. In the context of the latter point I am concerned at how the banks and other lending institutions will deal with the cases of individual customers and will direct them to the appropriate services. Given the complexity of the legislation, FLAC states that it is also evident that comprehensive legal advice will be necessary before debtors commit themselves to availing of their potential options.

The Bill states that a period of three years will be required before a person can be released from a state of bankruptcy rather than the previous 12 years. Since the downturn in the economy we saw the ridiculous situation where we exported the problem in that some of the big players in terms of financial indebtedness who went to England were able to come back and operate again in a matter of 12 months. Exporting such problems to England or Scotland is not the way to proceed. Time will tell, but the Government did the correct thing in setting a duration of three years. A year might have been too short and anything more than three years would have been too long because while those concerned had financial problems, if they are going back into business we want them to do their business in this country rather than setting up in England which would mean we would lose out on the jobs they might help to create. Not everyone has the wherewithal to create jobs. Such people are few and far between. That is why we want to create a situation where those people can come back, start up their businesses again and begin to create sustainable jobs. If they did it before, I hope they will be able to do it again. We do not want to lose the work ethic of some of those people to other parts of the world.

I have problems with the Bill and we will see which way the vote will go later tonight. Overall, it would be helpful for the Bill to go through, which it will, but I will have problems voting for it because it does not go far enough. I compliment those who work so hard every day on a voluntary basis to help people to try to overcome the difficulties in which they find themselves. We must ensure that people's mental health is protected. I am aware from my clinics of the pressure debt imposes on young families in particular. They were never under such pressure. Our forebears were reared with no money. They had no money but at the same time they did not have the bills or the indebtedness. That is the big difference between the past and the present. In the 1950s we had mass emigration from this country. The people who left did so because there was no work and no money but they were not up to their eyes in debt in the way people are today. There is a mental pressure on people today that did not exist previously. This is unprecedented. We are in uncharted waters. Young couples are starting out in life with young families that are literally buried underneath an avalanche of debt. We must ensure that the State does everything to protect those people.

I have always stated that just because people are heavily in debt does not mean they are lesser people. It does not mean that they do not have to be treated with respect. I am adamant that the banks and lending institutions must treat their customers properly. Just because they are in debt does not mean they can treat them in a disrespectful way. I have seen high-handed actions by repossession companies. Famous cases were highlighted in the Chamber by Deputy Mattie McGrath of people going out in the dark of night repossessing machinery at the orders of banking institutions. In some instances they even got so carried away they repossessed and took machinery on which not a penny was owed; they took the wrong machines. That is what happens when ones goes out in the middle of the night. Such behaviour must not be allowed. If people are in trouble with debt, it must be dealt with in a proper, respectful fashion. The people who incurred those debts were enticed to do so. In many cases they were only trying to better themselves, create employment, improve family farms or in the case of contractors they were trying to buy machinery to get more work. If things went wrong it does not give people the right to go out in the middle of the night under the cover of darkness to act in a totally improper manner. I hope, particularly because of the cases highlighted in this Chamber, that such a scenario will not happen again. It should not be allowed to recur because were such carry-on to be condoned or allowed, it would give rise to a bad situation. Moreover, horrible things could happen because of it, as tempers would be high and one would not know what might happen. As no one wishes to see such situations develop, it is better for the banks, the lending institutions and so on to be calm and thoughtful when dealing with their customers, that is, the people who they enticed in the first instance to bury themselves in this sea of debt. It is to be hoped such occurrences will never happen again.

I spoke about what I called the biggest and most important financial institution in the country, namely, Mom's purse. Over time, it is to be hoped these young struggling families will find themselves in a position in which the weight and worry bearing down on them at present will be lifted and the level of indebtedness in which they find themselves will be reduced. Members have seen the bailouts for the banks and all the big people. Where is the bailout for the young couples who are buried in debt? Where is the assistance for them? Hopefully, such assistance will start in this Bill but it must go further. In addition, the Government must go further to ensure that all possible assistance will be made available to the people concerned.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is way over time.

Michael Healy-Rae (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I again plead with the Minister that people awaiting important payments should receive them as soon as possible and every effort should be made in dealing with those applications.

Dominic Hannigan (Meath East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

With the permission of the Leas-Cheann Comhairle, I wish to share my time with Deputy Alex White.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this long-awaited legislation. While the Bill is a complex item of law, it has the ability to change the lives of many citizens for the better in a way other Bills cannot. If Members make this Bill as good as it can be, it has the potential to help families sleep at night. This is one of the recurring themes to come up each time I canvass or speak to people in my constituency of Meath East. Many people are afraid they will lose their homes or personal property because of debt and this is a huge concern nationwide. Such debt can range from a credit union loan to credit card debt to large negative equity mortgages. People ask me what the Government will do about it and when will the Government do something to help them out. I believe this Bill will help to do something positive for them. It will give people a way of dealing with their debt, which they have not had the opportunity to do heretofore. Each settlement arrangement enables the debtor to go through a step-by-step process that can result in him or her coming to an agreement with his or her creditors to pay off the outstanding debts over a longer period and this is to be welcomed.

However, I have some concerns in that some steps that must be taken will be extremely complicated, which is regrettable because it is essential to make this process as easy as possible for everyone to use and understand. People who are already facing serious levels of debt have enough to be getting on with without additional stress and pressure from trying to work out precisely how they should work their way through this system. As all Members are aware from their experience of helping people through the difficult, archaic social welfare system, complicated systems only add to people's frustration and sense of despair. This new legislation provides the opportunity to develop a system that will not do this but will help people in a sensible, coherent and easily understandable way. Let a system be created that is easy to use, fair and transparent for all to see and the mistakes that have been made in the administration of some social welfare schemes should not be recreated.

Another issue that has been raised with me is the possibility of people who acted as mortgages brokers during the boom times now being hired to act as the intermediaries between the insolvency service and debtors. This possibility was first reported in a Sunday newspaper many months ago and from speaking to people afterwards, I am aware it was greeted with mixed feelings. I remember one of the first cases I dealt with after being elected was for constituents who approached me about their mortgage debt problem. They were given a mortgage ten times their salary to buy a house in Ashbourne and are now in serious trouble trying to make ends meet and trying to keep up with their repayments, while at the same time trying to maintain a decent standard of living. While this Bill hopefully will help them, the situation is an example of the reckless lending that has led to the urgent need for this legislation in the first place.

People must trust this new service and if they think the people running it are the same individuals who recklessly lent them money five years ago, the Government might have a problem in gaining the public's trust on this issue. This is a point on which I wish to expand on further. The public must have faith and trust in this measure. They must trust that it will help them in a fair and equitable manner. While a new service can be created, were the first few cases to go through it not to be dealt with appropriately and fairly, the danger would be the people's trust would not be gained in the first instance. As Members do not wish to create a folly, it is incredibly important to listen to the concerns of groups and individuals who are making comments on the settlement process at present in respect of what are the potential problems and how it could be made better. They must be listened to and their concerns must be taken into account and responded to through the Committee State debate. Moreover, Member should make changes to the legislation when so doing would make it better. It has been stated by many that this Bill is the most radical solution to personal debt that has been tried by a country. If this is the case, Members must make sure it is easy to access for those who need it. If they can manage that, they can give people the opportunity to get back on their feet in order to move forward with their lives.

Alex White (Dublin South, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate on the Personal Insolvency Bill 2012. As Deputy Hannigan noted, it is complex legislation and is a vital element of the response of the Government and the Oireachtas to the broader issue of debt and debt resolution faced by so many people and which is faced at a macro level by the economy. As Deputy Hannigan suggested, it deserves close scrutiny. However, I wish to begin by reflecting on the process associated with this legislation. As I stated, it is a highly complex Bill that is a response to a real need. In addition, part of the context of the Bill is that historically, Ireland's bankruptcy laws have required reform for many years or decades. It was only when we entered into the crisis that in many ways we had no choice but to address the shortcomings and flaws in our insolvency regime.

It is important to reflect on the point that this legislation has had the benefit of a considerable amount of debate and discussion, which is only right and absolutely proper. However, one often hears about the process in the Houses of the Oireachtas and the Dáil and the relationship between the Government and the Parliament. The point is made, albeit perhaps more often in television and radio studios than anywhere else, that the Government determines what is the legislation and what is the law and there is little or no participation by Parliament or anyone else. Whereas that criticism sometimes is well made and well taken, this Bill constitutes an example in which there has been genuine participation and input by Members of the Dáil and the Seanad. Moreover, there has been an increasing number of such examples over the short lifetime of the present Administration thus far. Members should not forget the heads of the scheme of this Bill were published in January 2012 and the Bill has had the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny in the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. This is an initiative I am happy to state the Government has been developing in respect of legislation across the board. As Chairman of the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Finance, Public Expenditure and Reform, I am pleased to have been involved in a similar type of process in respect of the protected disclosures legislation, which is another element of the Government's reform programme. It allowed for that kind of input; not just of committee members, but also of the various stakeholders, NGOs and interested persons who had an interest in how the legislation should look. This delivered on an undertaking by the new Government to ensure that there was scrutiny prior to the publication of legislation. That is one of the shortcomings that we have had in the past as parliamentarians. Legislation is published and to a great extent, much of the work has been completed at that stage and it has been relatively difficult in the past to persuade the Minister to persuade the Government to look at possible changes. However, I commend the Minister for allowing this Bill to breathe in the committee. The Minister has had the benefit of the responses of the various members of that committee and the representatives of the bodies invited in during the course of that hearing. It is especially important for a Bill such as this.

There are many citizens who are interested in this Bill and who are affected by our current insolvency regime. There are also non-governmental organisations that have had a very useful input into the Bill already. They may not have been entirely ad idem with the Minister on all aspects of what is proposed, but at least they had an opportunity to have an input prior to the publication of the Bill. I know that their voices will be listened to in the next few months when the Bill is on Committee Stage.

The banks and the credit institutions have also been consulted. When people reflect on that fact, they are critical of the idea that the banks would have an input into this Bill. There is no point in believing that we can exclude the banks and the lending institutions from an assessment of the proper balance between the needs of debtors and the position of the creditors and the lending institutions. We in the Parliament and the Government in particular have to establish what that correct balance should be. I notice that in the Bills digest prepared by the very helpful Library and Research Service, the objectives of the Bill from an economic viewpoint are set out. There are four such objectives and it is written in very helpful but perhaps rather stark, cold economic language, although it makes sense. The first objective is to allow sufficient repayment to creditors that lenders are willing to lend, if not to the insolvent debtor, at least to others in the economy. The second objective is to reduce the disincentive to work for insolvent debtors. The third objective is to prevent creditors from harming debtors by racing to be the first to collect. The final objective is to provide debtors with partial consumption insurance, which means if a person reduces outstanding debt, it frees up cash to be spent on consumption in the economy.

On Second Stage we often talk about the philosophy of legislation, rather than its detail. Part of what we need to do is to have regard to the viability of the lending institutions. We should say that clearly. We are parliamentarians and representatives and we have seen in the community many pressurised situations faced by citizens. Our principal focus is on the citizen, the debtor and the person who is in financial difficulty. Nobody should apologise for that being our principal focus, but we must answer other questions. What do we say about the lending institutions? What do we say about the viability of the lending institutions? There is always the temptation to say that we use every opportunity to punish the lending institutions and God knows they deserve punishment for many reasons outlined in the House. However, do we want to continue to have viable lending institutions? That is to say nothing of the fact that the particular institutions we are talking about are owned by the taxpayer; therefore, there is an additional reason to ensure they are viable. I do not make that point to take away from the necessary focus on the dilemma and the situation faced by debtors. We should be looking to ensure we have the best possible protection for them. The three stage process outlined in the Bill seems appropriate to me, but there is no point ignoring what we think the banks should be able to do in the future.

There has been much talk about the veto and there is some disagreement as to whether the voting powers, percentages and so on outlined in the Bill can be described as a veto. There is the possibility for lending institutions to block agreements in certain circumstances. For that reason, the attitude taken by the banks in the future will be absolutely crucial to the success of this legislation. It is very clear that the banks will be required to take the most flexible and sensitive approach to these debtors and the agreements and settlements proposed.

The chief executive of Permanent TSB was before the finance committee this afternoon. We look to what people do with greater interest than listen to what they say, but if he is to be believed on what he said, I thought there was quite a flexible, sensitive attitude being displayed by PTSB on this Bill. However, it will be actions that will speak rather than words. All eyes will be on the banks and the lending institutions. There will be a very high expectation that they will come across for the working out of this legislation for individual debtors and proposals. I know that all Members will want to see that addressed properly.

I welcome the Bill. Although we have had this pre-legislative scrutiny, much work has been done. Considerably more work needs to be done to go through the Bill line by line. It is enormously complex. It is a very important reforming Bill introduced by this Government, and is one of a raft of laws brought forward to address the crisis and the impact of the crisis on ordinary citizens. I congratulate the Minister once again and wish the legislation well in the course of its passage through the House.

Tom Fleming (Kerry South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cautiously welcome this Bill, which is long overdue. The basis for the Bill is the recommendation from the Law Reform Commission, published in December 2010, which outlined the reform of the legal system on how our society manages and deals with problems of indebtedness. The recommendation of the LRC makes sense and represents a breath of fresh air in an area of law that has long been forgotten.

The main thrust of the recommendations are contained in the insolvency Bill, but there is a need to tease out many issues in it to figure out the best options available to citizens when the Bill finally becomes law. I welcome the fact that the Bill will permit those who no longer service the debt to seek a remedy outside of the courts through the non-judicial route. These trustees will play a crucial role as a go-between for the mortgage holder who applies for one of the non-judicial options and the various creditors. There should be penalties and sanctions to ensure the personal insolvency practitioners remain 100% impartial in their dealings with clients. How will the Government ensure these practitioners remain independent?

The proposal to reduce the term of automatic discharge from bankruptcy from 12 years to three in the case of a judicial petition for bankruptcy is a progressive step. The new mortgage arrears support unit should be integrated with the money advice and budgeting service, MABS, whose existing structures are invaluable. Such a move would also ensure more one-to-one contact because MABS has the personnel available with the required experience. It seems that with the proposals for the new unit, the emphasis will be on electronic communications with uncertainty regarding staffing levels and the unit's staff being available to meet with mortgage holders in difficulty.

A new consultation paper on reforming the credit reporting system argues the State should take control of it. If and when the new credit register comes into force, how will people be protected from this new State body forcing people to pay non-credit bills such as property taxes and the like? Could the State use the new system to blackmail people to pay their property taxes against a threat of a bad credit reference?

How will people be protected against unscrupulous banks which may unfairly reject their payment plans? The banks and financial institutions will have to show compassion. The veto option for the banks and financial institutions will have to be amended. All the Bill's provisions must leave ample flexibility to ensure citizens are engaged in an affordable and working debt resolution process.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank all the Deputies who contributed to what has been a very lengthy Second Stage debate. There were many and positive contributions spanning across a range of issues in respect of the legislation, in particular with regard to the serious difficulties many of our citizens are confronted by with regard to indebtedness. It is clear from the various contributions made by Members that they are often at the forefront of hearing of these difficulties and seeking ways to resolve them. n recent years every Member has had to deal with constituents under substantial financial pressure who cannot see any light at the end of the tunnel.

I am pleased to present the Personal Insolvency Bill which is significant and legally complex legislation providing for the comprehensive reform and modernisation of our insolvency law and practice. It provides for new and more flexible options to address the circumstances of insolvent debtors. It addresses in a balanced and proportionate way the obligations of debtors as well as the rights of creditors, having regard to the financial reality of individual circumstances. It will incentivise both parties to come to an agreed solution.

The Bill's purpose is to provide for the reform of personal insolvency law and introduce three non-judicial debt resolution processes, namely, the debt relief notice, the debt settlement arrangement and the personal insolvency arrangement. To protect the constitutional rights of all concerned, the Bill makes provision for enhanced oversight by the Circuit Court or the High Court in cases where the debts concerned exceed €2.5 million.

Deputies will appreciate reform of our personal insolvency regime is not a simple task. It is a very complex area of the law and one in which the consequences and implications of new policies need to be carefully assessed. We must get the balance right between the legal rights of the various parties involved. The system has to be fair to both creditors and debtors alike. Otherwise, we risk making worse a situation which is already difficult for the parties concerned. In this debate it seems it is always assumed creditors are financial institutions. The reality is that in many instances creditors are ordinary individuals owed money by other individuals in financial difficulties. Often, it also puts them into difficult financial circumstances, resulting in them being weighed down by debt. It is extraordinary how little of that aspect was addressed during the debate, with the sole focus instead being on financial institutions. The debt resolution process must provide solutions which are appropriate to the level of an individual's indebtedness and based on his or her ability to make payments.

A great number of Deputies contributed to the debate; certainly too many to be able to refer to every individual point raised. I hope those Deputies whose contributions I do not mention specifically will forgive me for not doing so. There are some Deputies' contributions to which I do intend to refer specifically. The issue of the bank veto was raised by many of the Deputies who criticised the Bill as giving an effective veto to banks which would impact on personal insolvency arrangements and debt settlement arrangements. This is a somewhat simplistic reasoning and misses a major point. While there is no denying that creditors can veto the reaching of a personal insolvency arrangement through the weighted provisions with regard to voting at creditor meetings, the new measures taken by the Government also give the debtor a veto. This comes in the form of a significant change to the bankruptcy law. This change has been gainsaid by some Members as not being a balancing factor. I very much suggest, however, it will be in the future operation of debt resolution and will be a very particular and important balancing factor to the benefit of debtors.

We have seen in recent times the so-called bankruptcy tourists travelling to the UK to be declared bankrupt there because bankruptcy in Ireland has been so harsh. By reducing the term of automatic discharge from bankruptcy from 12 years to three, it greatly strengthens the hand of debtors in their dealings with the banks. If a creditor refuses to engage fully and fairly where debts become unsustainable or refuses to agree a responsible personal insolvency agreement, then there is the option for the debtor to file for bankruptcy and, if successful, he or she can be relieved of the unsustainable debts within three years. The reality is this legislation will force financial institutions to take a more realistic view of how to address issues of unsustainable debt in circumstances where substantial sums are owed and individuals are simply unable to pay them. This seems to be a matter some Deputies are unable to grasp.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There is not a hope of that provision working.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Many Deputies spoke about developing some form of non-judicial independent agency or process to adjudicate, arbitrate or act as an appeals process in a binding fashion in regard to debt settlement between creditors and debtors. However, the new debt resolution processes are designed to operate on a voluntary basis with common sense and enlightened self-interest in mind rather than coercion. I know of no such example of the type of body that appears to be demanded by some Members or suggested in a recent Private Members' Bill existing in any jurisdiction. No Deputy has been able to give an example of such a body. There is good reason for that. Such a body would be struck down by the courts as a gross interference in the rights of parties to conduct their affairs. Perhaps those preparing Committee Stage amendments in this regard will enlighten us in due course.

They might also address what they now propose will impact on individuals who are creditors and entitled to moneys outstanding and due to them as a consequence of work they have carried out, services they have provided or products they have manufactured or sold. That is a point which no Deputy who raised this issue attempted to address at any stage. The State cannot impose a settlement on parties to a private contract involving the provision of goods, services or capital. The concerned parties must seek agreement. The only potential State involvement is in the provision of the judicial bankruptcy process. Either agreed arrangements are entered into or we have a courts system in which adjudications can take place in the context of bankruptcy. It is not possible to have something that is both agreed and compelled simultaneously.

Reference was made to personal insolvency practitioners. These individuals will have a key role to play in the negotiation of realistic, workable and mutually acceptable agreements between debtors and creditors. I expect that when the new debt settlement arrangement and personal insolvency arrangement processes are up and running, there will be a very high agreement rate. Why will this be the case? It is because it makes sense and is the best option likely to be available. The alternative option may be bankruptcy. I am sure most persons involved in debt resolution processes would agree that the latter is best avoided.

When financial institutions finally come to address the position of debtors in a serious way, they may discover that they will recover greater sums through agreeing personal insolvency arrangements rather than forcing them into bankruptcy. The benefit of the personal insolvency arrangement for debtors revolves around the specific provisions contained in the legislation which will facilitate homes being retained and debtors being allowed to reside in them, with the prospect - after a period of years - of finding themselves back in a sustainable and viable financial position. In that context, the Bill specifically provides for enhanced protection for a debtor in regard to his or her principal private residence. Many speakers who were critical of the provisions contained in the Bill appear to have missed this point. In fairness, it was addressed by the majority of Members who fully understood the important implications of that particular provision. In the case of the Opposition, Deputy Stephen Donnelly did valuable work in producing a Private Members' Bill relating to this matter and has recognised that what is proposed is a genuine and real protection for those who have homes, are in financial difficulty and require assistance. The provisions contained in the legislation send a very specific and particular message to financial institutions.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister has acknowledged the work of a member of the Technical Group. That is amazing. Miracles will never cease.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy is back with us. There is always a logical, coherent and intelligent contribution to be made by him.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I cannot believe the Minister is acknowledging work done by a member of the Technical Group. Miracles will never cease.

Simon Harris (Wicklow, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Stephen Donnelly is a member of the Technical Group.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I know that and cannot believe the Minister is acknowledging his work.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I wish to clarify that the proposal of a personal insolvency arrangement in respect of a principal private residence is not limited to financial institutions. It could concern housing provided by local authorities, for example, in the context of shared ownership schemes.

The proposed regulation of personal insolvency practitioners was raised by a number of Members. I indicated in my opening contribution that further provisions would be necessary for these individuals. Personal insolvency practitioners will be central to the negotiation of debt settlement and personal insolvency arrangements. Part 5 of the Bill includes an enabling provision relating to these practitioners. As stated, I will be bringing forward more detailed proposals in respect of them on Committee Stage. These proposals will deal with the type of persons who will qualify for regulation - whether by designated professional bodies or otherwise - as personal insolvency practitioners. It is clear that a broad probity test and proper indemnity will be required. However, I would be wary of seeking to, as some Deputies suggested, bar people based solely on their former roles in different financial sectors. While I understand the sentiments expressed, such a course of action would likely give rise to a judicial review and consequent difficulties in implementing the legislation.

The issue of the payment of personal insolvency practitioners also - properly - arose during the debate. Such practitioners are normally paid from the product of the insolvency process. Their fees will be subject to negotiation by the creditors and have to be set out in a transparent manner for all concerned. I would be opposed to fees being charged as a percentage of an outstanding debt. I do not believe that would be tolerated by either debtors or creditors.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Get the Taxing Master involved.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Fees should be charged on a proper professional basis. Deputies may be aware that this issue has settled down in the context of the operation of the United Kingdom's individual voluntary arrangement which is similar, in practical terms, to our proposed debt settlement arrangement.

A number of Deputies raised queries about the debt relief notice, DRN. I am happy to offer further clarifications in this regard. Effectively, a DRN is a lower level, cost-effective alternative to judicial bankruptcy in respect of certain qualifying debts, primarily those involving unsecured credit up to a maximum of €20,000. A debtor will be able to make an application through an approved intermediary such as the MABS, setting out in detail his or her financial circumstances. On examination and verification by the insolvency service, this will be deemed to be in order and sent to the court for approval. Once approved, the debts covered by a DRN will be forgiven in full and no repayment will be required. This is the important point. However, in line with the revised period of automatic discharge from bankruptcy and also in view of the rights of creditors, there will be a supervision period of three years. If the debtor's circumstances improve during that period by whatever means, he or she may be required to offer repayments up to a total of no more than 50% of the full forgiven debt for the benefit of creditors. This is a very sensible and humane approach and will offer hope to those who have little prospect of getting out from under what seem to them to be crushing debt burdens. Strict conditions, including those relating to fraudulent behaviour, are prescribed.

The amounts applying in respect of allowable disposable monthly income, namely, less than €60 after payment of reasonable living expenses and assets with a value of less than €400, were criticised by Deputies as being too low. However, the purpose of a DRN is to specifically help those who have very little and not those who may have certain assets which could be sold in order to make some repayment to creditors. By assets, I do not mean essential household items required for normal living. We may ultimately be obliged to provide some indicative guidance in this regard but I am of the view that the range of such items can be easily comprehended.

Creditors will not only be financial institutions - I include credit unions in this regard - but may also be local supermarkets, co-operatives, tradesmen awaiting payment for goods or services or a wide variety of individuals whose own personal circumstances are threatened and detrimentally impacted upon by the failure of a debtor to make payments for work done.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will people have to sell their-----

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps such creditors, many of whom are barely holding on at present, did not share some of the false outrage at the requirement that those holding relatively valuable assets might dispose of them in circumstances where they are seeking debt forgiveness of up to €20,000.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Will people have to sell their wedding or engagement rings?

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does it include jewellery?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be ludicrous to provide that a person-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about their wedding rings?

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Order, please.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am only asking a question.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy may enjoy playing the role of parliamentary clown, but perhaps he might have the courtesy to allow me to conclude my contribution.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is outrageous.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

As it is coming from a fool, I do not mind.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One voice, please.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should withdraw that remark.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not mind. It was uttered by a fool.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be ludicrous to provide that a person could seek to be forgiven the debt-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said people would have to sell their rings.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is making his concluding remarks.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He said it.

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Mattie McGrath should have some manners. His superior is speaking.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

If Deputy Mattie McGrath calms down, I will continue.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am very calm. The Minister previously stated people would have to sell their jewellery.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, I did not say that. The Deputy said that I had said it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister said it.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy said that I had said it.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is on the record.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No, the Deputy said that I had said it.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Perhaps the Minister might provide clarification.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, we need clarification. The remark is on the record.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will repeat for the Deputy what is on the record.

Michael Kitt (Galway East, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is a different issue altogether.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The position is simple. It would be ludicrous to provide that a person could seek to be forgiven the debt arising from a purchase of, for example, a high-end computer, a smart phone-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Or an engagement ring.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----or expensive jewellery, while seeking to retain ownership of that item. I remind the Deputy-----

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does that include wedding rings?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Yes, what about wedding rings?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Deputy believe an individual who owes €5,000 or €6,000 to a local tradesperson and owns a wedding ring valued at €200,000 should have his or her debt forgiven? There is an interesting question.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Come on, Minister.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should come back to the real world.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am in the real world.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister is not living in the real world. He is living in his own version of the real world.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What I put on the record-----

Luke Flanagan (Roscommon-South Leitrim, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who pays €200,000 for a wedding ring?

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Do the Minister's friends pay €200,000 for wedding rings?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Some €200,000 for a wedding ring.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is that what the Minister would pay for a wedding ring?

Niall Collins (Limerick, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One could buy a house for that.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He should stop making outrageous statements.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

One could buy a house for €200,000, never mind a wife.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is too late now.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I will not. It is too late.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputies chose to misrepresent what I had said on Second Stage and play games with it. I will remind them of what I said after it was suggested all "jewellery should also be exempt from the asset test for the debt relief notice". They seemed to have missed my response.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We were talking about different jewellery.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I said I was "mindful of the sentimental, as much as actual, value of items such as engagement rings".

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Are wedding rings not of sentimental value?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I made it clear that "given the potential for misuse of such a possible exemption, I would need to hear very convincing arguments as to why a person applying for a full debt write-off of up to €20,000 from his or her creditors should be allowed to retain expensive items of jewellery which might be sold to repay some of the debt incurred". Is anyone seriously suggesting a wedding ring which cost €200 or €300 would fall into the category of an expensive item of jewellery?

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Who has such an item?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Of course it would not.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What would?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In legislation such as this, one cannot allow people who were of substantial worth and continue to have jewellery of substantial worth-----

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister rejected the cash for gold Bill.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are individuals in this State who have jewellery worth hundreds of thousands of euro.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I do not know any of them.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is anyone seriously suggesting that their jewellery should be exempt-----

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Does the Minister know them?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

-----from a debt relief mechanism or from this personal insolvency legislation?

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would say he does.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I challenge the Deputies to discover a single jurisdiction anywhere in the world which exempts all jewellery from having to be realised in order to ensure moneys which are genuinely owed in cases of insolvency are paid.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Minister should ask the cash for gold merchants what they think.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

There are jurisdictions in which modest items of jewellery are exempt from being included in this process. There is no jurisdiction in which what the Deputies are proposing - that all wedding rings should be exempt - is in place. Of course they are just playing games with this issue.

John Halligan (Waterford, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

No.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It is a serious question.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It would be great if it was asked by a serious person.

Joan Collins (Dublin South Central, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is very insulting.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

A number of Deputies raised the issue of the development of reasonable living expenditure guidelines in the context of the insolvency process. I agree that this is an important element of the process. I also agree with those Deputies who noted the difficulty of setting down definitive amounts to apply to all cases, when we know that insolvency must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. The issue of guidelines will have to be addressed. I would take a particular view of any financial institution that adopts a practice of concluding that the funds to be retained by an individual for living purposes should equate directly with what he or she would receive on social welfare. An individual who is earning an income must have the capacity to retain a reasonable lifestyle and to be rewarded for the work he or she does.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

It depends if they are married or divorced.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

This issue is of great importance in the context of this legislation. I am concerned by reports that some financial institutions, in addressing issues of indebtedness and seeking to enter voluntary arrangements with customers who are in major financial difficulty, have suggested that an adequate income for individuals who are working should be no more than what they would receive on social welfare. I think that is entirely unacceptable. That is one of the reasons we may need to put guidelines in place in this area. The sum that an individual will normally retain as part of this type of arrangement - a personal insolvency arrangement, a debt settlement arrangement or a bankruptcy - will vary on the basis of his or her circumstances. It will depend on a range of issues including: whether the person is married; has a dependent spouse; or has any children and, if so, how old they are. The issues that arise should be dealt with on a subjective and individualised basis. Guidelines might be needed to ensure individuals are protected from unreasonable demands being made on them. I would not underestimate the difficulties involved in dealing with this issue. In countries that have more advanced insolvency legislation than we have had to date, this issue has been worked out in practical terms once the legislation has settled down.

I wish to deal with a number of other issues. The external insolvency environment, particularly in the context of the United Kingdom, was mentioned during the course of the debate. Issues relating to insolvency are not confined to what occurs in the UK. For example, the European Union intends to bring forward proposals later this year to amend the current insolvency regulation, as agreed in 2000, which deals with both corporate and personal insolvency. I await the proposals of the European Commission with interest. I will be vigorously involved ensuring the best possible measure is put in place to apply across the European Union. Our efforts in this Bill could provide a very useful blueprint. I noted the concerns expressed by Deputies about the different approach taken to insolvency, particularly with regard to bankruptcy, in our neighbouring jurisdiction. This is a matter over which we have no control. All indications are, frankly, that bankruptcy law in the UK is unlikely to change in the short term.

I am pleased to assure Deputies that the proposed insolvency service, while under the broad remit of the Department of Justice and Equality, will be an independent body and will carry out its required functions with regard to the determination, processing and registration of the new debt resolution processes, in a professional and impartial manner. That is as it should be, given the absolute need for confidentiality and the fiduciary duties that are involved. I emphasise that there will be no role for intervention by a third party, even a public representative or a Minister, in the operation of the debt resolution processes. Allowing any such potential intervention in an individual case could contribute to a negative result. The service will produce a strategy statement and business plan. Its director will appear as required before relevant Oireachtas committees. This is similar to the operation of other agencies. Like other Deputies, I would like to commend the work of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality.

My colleague, the Chairman of the committee, Deputy Stanton, published a review of the draft scheme of the Bill in January. The text of the published Bill reflects in large part the concerns of the committee. While I understand the committee may wish to revisit the insolvency area, I am conscious of the tight timetable that will be ahead of us in the autumn. We hope to propose appropriate amendments to the Bill as early as possible following the convening of the Dáil after the summer recess. I hope they will be addressed on Committee Stage, which will take place within the joint committee. It is at that stage that all further issues of a substantive and technical nature can be properly teased out. I believe this Bill is a comprehensive package. I have no intention of taking out the bankruptcy element, as suggested by at least one speaker, and enacting it as separate legislation. I do not believe this would be a good idea.

Some Deputies mentioned the potential impact of this reform on credit unions. Unfortunately, credit unions, like all other financial institutions, have made some poor lending decisions in recent years. They will face repayment difficulties as a result. I have no intention of providing special treatment for them over and above any other creditor. I agree with those Deputies who were rightly critical of past and current behaviour of Irish financial institutions. In many cases in the recent past, the poor and insensitive responses of the institutions have compounded the distress of debtors who have found themselves in difficult circumstances. We need the Irish banking sector to get its act together rapidly and to engage fully and professionally with its clients to arrive at solutions that can work to everyone's benefit and that of the wider economy. As one Deputy remarked, we need them "to get real". The banks have assured us that they will be up to the task of working the new insolvency process. That remains to be seen. It remains the position that when the banks try to engage voluntarily with customers, consistent options are not available to them. Different options are provided by different banks. The reality remains that the banks, separately and internally, have no consistent policy for dealing with those who are totally weighed down by indebtedness and are facing circumstances in which is appropriate to write down debt. In the context of the personal insolvency arrangement, in some circumstances it will be appropriate for some level of debt to be written down if banks are to recoup some portion of the money they lent and if individuals are to get back on their feet.

It is time banks came to terms with this reality in the context of stress testing of banks and the recapitalisation, which included provision for this as a possibility for those whose debts are unsustainable and who genuinely cannot pay and where, without such write-down, there is little prospect of people getting back on their feet without the bankruptcy option, which should not be necessary.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not what the banks are saying.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issue of the review period of the operation of the Bill, of ten years, was raised. It was reasonable for Deputies to make the points they made in this regard. In the context of the complexity of the legislation, the new non-judicial debt relief arrangements proposed and the novelty of the personal insolvency arrangement, which does not apply in other jurisdictions, it is reasonable to review this legislation within a period of less than ten years. Within three to four years of the legislation being in place, it will be necessary to review it.

I specifically refer to points made by some Members that I have not addressed in my general comments. I made reference to Deputy Stephen Donnelly's speech, where he detailed his support for the Bill but raised a number of issues he hoped we will address. I responded to that in the general comments made. Deputy Michael McGrath read out a letter sent by a financial institution to a constituent. I share his concerns about the nature of the correspondence. During the course of the debate, other Members referred to correspondence sent by banks. In circumstances in which individuals are in two or three months of mortgage repayment arrears, it is not appropriate that the first communication from a bank is a letter that threatens to repossess the house. The current bank guidelines do not anticipate banks conducting themselves in this way and there must be more constructive engagement than that initially. Individuals in difficulty with repayments of the loans should not wait for the bank to contact them; they should contact the bank to see if difficulties can be addressed. There are substantial numbers of individuals not making capital and interest repayments on mortgages where they are in genuine financial difficulties and banks have entered into temporary arrangements. The worst case is where the payments cease and the customer does not engage directly with the financial institution. It is important that the initial engagement by the bank is more constructive than an immediate threat to repossess.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Is the Minister going to force them to do it?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy David Stanton made a point with which I agree, making reference to the need to ensure consistency of approach across financial institutions and the need for an overarching bank protocol. The banks and financial institutions each have an individual legal identity and may have different approaches in certain circumstances. There is a need for consistency within the banks because I have heard reports that when two people in financial difficulty approach their local bank managers, the response in one part of the country is better than in another part. There is a particular need for consistency, expertise and awareness of how to deal appropriately with individuals genuinely unable to pay, doing their best in genuine difficulty and who, if they are given some initial assistance, have a reasonable prospect of working their way out of the difficulty if new arrangements of a practical nature can be agreed.

I refer to the contribution of Deputy Ross, who said the legislation was dominated by bank thinking, which is curious because the Irish Banking Federation representatives expressed opposition to various parts of the legislation and appear to be unhappy with it. He suggested the legislation should break the power of the banks. That is a nice populist notion-----

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ross is never populist.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Most of us recognise it is important that we have a proper, functioning banking system. Deputy Ross's contribution could be summed up as suggesting banks should lend money to individuals, that the individuals to whom money is lent - regardless of circumstances - should never have an obligation to repay it and that the taxpayers should carry the losses incurred within the banking system.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That is not true at all.

Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question is who the banks serve.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Someone should tell Deputy Ross.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

That sums up the view of Deputy Ross and I am sure he will be delighted with the support of Deputy Finian McGrath. The contribution of Deputy Ross could be best described as populist poppycock and I expect something better from a Deputy who presents himself as a business editor in a Sunday newspaper.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Ross is not even here to defend himself.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The House appears to be still sitting so, if he had a genuine interest in the Bill, he would be here to defend himself.

Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He can only take so much of the Minister.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I would like to conclude my consideration of the main themes raised during the debate by referring to a point raised by a number of Deputies. The point can be summarised by questioning why a person paying all of his or her debts, and who did not go mad, should pay for the indulgence of others and why he or she should bail them out. That is a very fair point in the context of home mortgages. Approximately 20% of those paying mortgages are in financial difficulties or are parties to new arrangements with financial institutions. Approximately 80% of mortgage holders are up to date in their mortgage repayments. It is understandable that they would ask why should provision be made to assist those in financial difficulties. The response is: if we do not extend the hand of help, hope and friendship to indebted neighbours, who else will? We must not adopt a dog in the manger approach.

Finian McGrath (Dublin North Central, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Except for people's rings.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

We need to get the economy moving for the benefit of society and we need to recognise that individuals are in insubstantial difficulty, many through no fault of their own, and this legislation is designed to be of assistance to them. The legislation is designed to assist those who cannot pay as opposed to those who will not pay. Some of the contributions made by Members, particularly those in the Technical Group, seem to be based on the assumption that even if one can pay debts, one does not need to.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What about Deputy Donnelly?

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

In the period after the end of the Second World War, in one of the great humanitarian gestures, help was offered in Europe through the Marshall plan to friend and foe alike with the objective of getting Europe back on its feet and into productive activity. The implications and desired outcomes of the new insolvency process that I am providing in this Bill try in their own way to achieve that greater objective and to get those in genuine difficulty back on their feet to give them hope for the future. It offers a hand-up to those who need it most.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

What they need is a zimmer frame.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputies should be assured that while the Bill does not offer an easy way out, it does offer a way out by means of the proper application and implementation of the provisions contained therein.

The Bill deals with the law and procedures necessary to operate a modern personal insolvency process. While there are other matters, many of them not insignificant, connected with the problem of indebtedness, insolvency law cannot, per se, deal with them. Other relevant relief measures are being developed by the Minister for Finance, the Minister for Social Protection and the Minister for the Environment, Community and Local Government. The focus of this Bill is, by definition, confined to insolvency. It is not, however, solely concerned with those who are currently in financial difficulties. Rather, it is about dealing in the future with those who find themselves in difficulty for a wide variety of reasons and providing a new legal architecture that will facilitate addressing those difficulties in a proportionate and fair manner as between debtors and creditors.

There is much work to be done in a limited amount of time in finalising not only the text of the Bill but in putting in place the required administrative and operational guidelines and in the establishment of the new insolvency service. The benefit of the Bill is that it will assist in bringing some peace of mind to those debtors who are at their wit's end and fearing there is no hope. That is a very serious consideration in view of the research showing that financial difficulties can be a contributing factor in respect of suicides. In that context, I am obliged to comment on the extraordinary contribution by Deputy Eamon Ó Cuív.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

He is an extraordinary man.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The Deputy emerged out of the fog of past engagement in government to bewail the plight of individuals in debt without having any regard to the contribution he, as a former Minister, made to the financial disaster that has befallen this country and many individuals living here.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

You were with them at that stage, Mattie.

Kathleen Lynch (Cork North Central, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mattie and Finín.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The capacity of some Fianna Fáil Members to suffer political amnesia is extraordinary. Likewise certain errant former members of the party, such as Deputy Mattie McGrath, who no doubt-----

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Mattie is having a crisis of conscience.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

They will no doubt rejoin the Fianna Fáil Party sometime before the next election.

Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome any constructive amendments from Members which would improve the text of the Bill. I ask, however, that Deputies, before bringing forward proposals, would reflect on their implications and the extent to which they might genuinely improve the legislation to the benefit of the wider community and having regard to the rights of both debtors and creditors, as opposed to simply proposing amendments that have no basis in reality and are designed to do nothing other than make some crass political point. Any proposal must contribute to the workability of the Bill and have regard to the essential fairness required in order to ensure a balance of rights. There is little point in bringing forward proposals that may seem on the face of it to be overly debtor friendly if they have little practical chance of success and could operate very unfairly in respect of individuals who are creditors and whose own financial circumstances are placed in difficulty by the failure of others to pay moneys due to them.

I thank all Deputies who contributed to this important debate. They can be assured that the work does not stop here but will continue during the summer recess in preparation for Committee Stage. The objective is to have the legislation enacted before the end of the year, in sufficient time to ensure it is available to those who need it. In the intervening period, I hope those financial institutions which have not properly engaged with customers in genuine financial difficulty, instead of waiting for the Bill to be enacted, will now engage in a far more constructive manner than they have done to date.

Question put and agreed to.

Mattie McGrath (Tipperary South, Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The question is not agreed.