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

All of these amendments deal with the issue of excluded and excludable debts in the three new debt resolution processes. Amendment No. 1 is designed to bring more coherence to the treatment of certain types of debt hitherto dealt with in the Bill as being excluded from the new debt resolution processes. All of the debts mentioned in these amendments, with the exception of the reference to any "debt or liability arising under the Social Welfare Consolidation Act 2005", are already mentioned in the Bill.

I am now providing for the concept of excludable debts. Essentially, these are seven types of debt, mostly owing to the State in some form, that require the express consent of the creditor to be included in either a debt relief notice, a debt settlement arrangement or a personal insolvency arrangement. The personal insolvency practitioner must contact the creditor and if their consent is forthcoming, these debts can be proposed in the arrangement. The creditors will then be able to vote at the creditors' meeting. If the creditor does not consent, the debt remains excluded and must be paid or resolved outside any of the new arrangements. With the co-operation offered by the Revenue Commissioners, this can offer certain additional flexibility in seeking to agree debt resolution. Excluded debts fall into four categories. These debts cannot be proposed for resolution in a debt relief notice, a debt settlement arrangement or a personal insolvency arrangement. They must be resolved outside the new processes.

Amendment No. 13 is essentially a drafting amendment and proposes the deletion of the reference to excluded debt from the interpretation section of the debt relief notice. This is required as a consequence of amendment No. 1, which inserts new definitions in respect of excluded debts and excludable debts in section 2. Amendment No. 14 is a drafting amendment connected to the amendments concerning the proposed changes in section 2 relating to certain categories of debt. It makes clear the position regarding the status of an excludable debt, the context of the definition of qualifying debt for a debt relief notice.

Amendment No. 38 proposes the insertion of a new section providing for the explicit consent of a creditor to have his or her excludable debt as defined in section 2 included in a debt relief notice. The new section would provide that a debt relief notice shall be issued in respect of an excludable debt only where the creditor concerned has consented or is deemed to have consented in accordance with this section to the issue of a debt relief notice. In circumstances where the debtor has an excludable debt and wishes to have that debt included in his or her debts for the purpose of a debt relief notice, the approved intermediary is required to contact the creditor in question and request his or her confirmation in writing as to whether he or she consents to a debt relief notice being issued in respect of the excludable debt. The creditor is required to comply with the approved intermediary's request within 21 days and failure to respond within the specified time is deemed, under subsection (4), to be a consent to the inclusion of the excluded debt in the debt relief notice. The proposed debts in this regard are also subject to the aggregate amount of qualifying debt for the debt relief notice of ¤20,000.

Amendment No. 39 is required as a result of the amendments relating to the new treatment of excludable debts in the debt relief notice process. It would add a new section 26(2)(d)(iii), requiring the schedule of the debtor's debts to include with regard to an excludable debt a statement on whether the creditor has consented to the issue of a debt relief notice in respect of that debt.

Amendment No. 53 inserts a new section providing for certain creditors to consent to the inclusion of their particular debts in a debt settlement arrangement in respect of excludable debt as defined in section 2. The new section 54 provides that an excludable debt should be included in a proposal for a debt settlement arrangement only where the creditor concerned has consented or is deemed to have consented in accordance with the provisions of the section to the inclusion of that debt in such a proposal. It provides that where a personal insolvency practitioner proposes to include an excludable debt in a debt settlement arrangement, he or she is required to notify the creditor concerned of that fact without delay. The notification is to be accompanied by information about the debtor's affairs, including his or her creditors, debts, liabilities, income and assets as may be prescribed, as well as a request in writing that the creditor confirm in writing whether the creditor consents for the purpose of this section to the inclusion of the debt in a debt settlement arrangement.

As in the case of a debt relief notice, the creditor concerned is required to comply with the request within 21 days of receipt of the notification under the appropriate subsection. Failure to comply within the specified time results in there being a deemed consent to have the debts included in the arrangement. Where a creditor consents or is deemed to have consented to the inclusion of an excludable debt in a proposal for a debt settlement arrangement, the creditor is entitled to vote at a creditors' meeting called to consider that proposal. Where the debtor concerned is the subject of a protective certificate and a creditor to whom this section applies brings an application to the court under section 51(1) that the terms of the protective certificate should not apply to them, the time period for consent should not commence until the date on which the appropriate court determines the application. Subsection (7) provides that in this chapter, a permitted debt means an excludable debt to which subsection (1) applies, that is, where consent is given or deemed to be given.

Amendment No. 59 is a drafting amendment arising as a consequence of amendment No. 60. Amendment No. 60 proposes the deletion of paragraphs (c) and (d)of section 60(2) as the references to certain types of excluded debt are now dealt with in section 2. The deletion of the paragraphs means the cross-reference in paragraph (b) is no longer necessary and accordingly should be deleted.

Amendment No. 94 would insert a new section providing that if a certain creditor is to consent to the inclusion of particular debts in a personal insolvency arrangement in respect of excludable debt, as defined in the new section 2, its provisions are contained in a similar architecture to that proposed in amendment No. 53 relating to the debt settlement arrangement process. Amendment No. 120 provides for the replacement of section 115(3)(a). The amendment essentially improves the text by making clear how the debtor's income is to be calculated. It also takes account of the new provisions regarding excluded and excludable debts and how these are to be treated in the context of a variation in a personal insolvency arrangement.

I understand this is particularly legislation and the provisions sound particularly complex. By and large, they are provisions to tidy up and make more clear various elements of the legislation. They refer to excluded debt and make provisions for what is referred to as excludable debt, which creates the possibility of those debts being dealt with under the various forms of non-judicial debt resolution delineated in the Bill.