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

If an individual who has assumed a role as a PIP to resolve issues between debtors and creditors chooses to resign and not fulfil his or her duties, it is reasonable that he or she give an explanation. At a later stage we will come to the extensive provisions concerning the regulation of PIPs and issues that can arise with regard to the attainment of the position, circumstances in which there may be an inspection of their books and circumstances in which some sort of disciplinary process may take place. I do not think we can have a situation in which individuals who assume the role of PIP can simply resign mid-process without an explanation of any nature, to the detriment of both debtors and creditors.

It may well be that a person resigns on the basis that he or she is not able to fulfil his or her function, perhaps because the debtor is not providing the background information necessary to deal with matters. There would have to be some transparency if that truly was the case. It is important that we do not create a mechanism whereby individuals who are licensed to be PIPs and have assumed that duty can arbitrarily and without any explanation stand aside to the detriment of everyone concerned. Obviously, if a reason is given to the Insolvency Service that is a matter for the Insolvency Service, whether or not another individual is appointed to replace the PIP. Ultimately it will be a matter for the debtor; the resignation of one person does not prejudice engagement by another individual. Of course, the circumstances in which a resignation takes place may influence creditors, who may take the view that they will not engage as there is no purpose in the context of that particular issue.