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

Amendments Nos. 52, 75 and 77 are being taken together. I will begin with amendment No. 52. As the Senator said, it seeks to add further qualification or explanation to the fact of a debtor being insolvent.

I am advised by the Parliamentary Counsel that the extra words are not necessary to qualify or explain the concept of being insolvent. The word "insolvent" is, of itself, sufficient and there is no need for the extra wording to be added, as proposed by the Senator. Sections 53 and 88 of the Bill have been drafted so that the eligibility criteria for entering into a debt settlement arrangement or a personal insolvency arrangement are all objective, factual and not based on opinion. The likelihood that a person would be able to become solvent over the next number of years is, by its nature, opinion based. We have therefore provided for this in section 50, under which the personal insolvency practitioner makes his or her statement of opinion, including on matters set out in section 50(d). Section 53 refers to this in subsection (1)(d). In other words, the eligibility criteria under section 53 are that the personal insolvency practitioner has given an opinion under section 50 of the likelihood of the debtor becoming solvent during the next five years. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.

Amendment No. 75 proposes to change "may" to "shall" in regard to the requirement on the personal insolvency practitioner in the context of proposing a variation of debt settlement arrangement and this may seem logical. However, there may be circumstances where a debtor's financial situation deteriorates so rapidly that termination of the arrangement seems imminent. In such a case, a statutory requirement for a meeting to be called might not be desirable. However, I am conscious that we should have regard to any consistency issues that may arise in the context of a similar provision in section 115 in respect of a variation in a personal insolvency arrangement. I wish to consider this point further with the Parliamentary Counsel and I assure the Senators that any amendment necessary to achieve consistency, including their amendment, will be brought forward on Report Stage.

My amendment No. 77 is essentially a technical drafting amendment required for consistency of approach to the holding of creditors' meetings elsewhere in the Bill.