Ivana Bacik (Independent) | Oireachtas source

Listening to Senator Zappone, I am struck by the complexity of this and the difficulty of coming up with a model that adequately addresses the very different living arrangements for different families and households when we talk about such a broad and encompassing concept as reasonable living expenses or a reasonable living standard. There really is not a one-size-fits-all solution.

Amendment No. 6 is a huge improvement. I am glad to hear Senator Cullinane saying Sinn Féin also supports the Government amendments on this issue. It was raised at the meetings of the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality, as the Minister is aware. A big concern for many of the organisations representing the interests of debtors, such as FLAC, is the question of the minimum protected income a debtor applicant should be allowed to retain. The committee was also told it was not then clear from the heads of the Bill what a reasonable standard of living would be. This uncertainty, they said, could seriously affect the effectiveness of the Bill. It is welcome to see, in amendment No. 6 which will be the new section 23, the very clear criteria for the preparation of guidelines by the insolvency service referring to all of the different indices of poverty, official statistics and so on.

The later amendments amend sections 60 and 95. They represent an important and welcome tightening up of what is currently in the Bill. Section 60 concerning the debt settlement arrangement is currently framed in a vague way, saying the personal insolvency practitioner shall have regard to any guidelines on reasonable expenditure and essential income for debtors published by the insolvency service. The new subsection 60(4), which will refer specifically to the new section 23 and to the specific guidelines to be published by the insolvency service, represents a clearer indication for people generally as to what a reasonable standard of living and reasonable expenses will be. This is welcome and addresses some of the concerns raised with the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality when we had hearings on the Bill.