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

Amendments Nos. 79 to 82 refer to section 79 of the Bill and seek to increase the time period where an application by a creditor or personal insolvency practitioner is made to the appropriate court to have a debt settlement arrangement terminated, where the debtor has been in arrears with payment for a period of not less than "3 months" to a period of "6 months". The context of the debt settlement arrangement, where without any notification by the debtor to his or her personal insolvency practitioner a six-month payment default occurs, that arrangement is unlikely to succeed. It is important to remember that we are seeking to balance the interests of debtors and creditors in the debt resolution process.

I remain unconvinced that the period stipulated in the section should be extended to six months. It is likely that substantial arrears accumulating in the context of moneys owed to a variety of individuals was the reason the arrangement was put in place in the first instance. It would be put in place on the assumption that the debtor was going to meet his or her repayment commitments, as agreed, and would have the capacity to meet them. It would be unfair on creditors to prolong matters unduly from a three-month to a six-month period in circumstances where it had become obvious the arrangement was simply not working. I have expressed the view that a three-month period is adequate in this context. I oppose amendments Nos. 79 to 82, inclusive, on that basis.

Amendments Nos. 83 to 86, inclusive, are to section 80. They seek to increase from six to nine months the period for which the debtor must be in default before a debt settlement arrangement can be deemed to have failed and be in need of being terminated. Amendment No. 129 proposes a corresponding change to personal insolvency arrangements. I am opposed to these amendments. If there has been a default for a six-month period on a debt settlement or personal insolvency arrangement without notification by the debtor to his or her personal insolvency practitioner, it is clear that the arrangement is not likely to succeed. I am not convinced, however, that the default period should be extended to nine months. The periods prescribed in the Bill, as it stands, regarding the question of a default on each of the particular forms of debt settlement where payments have not been made, are more than adequate and appropriate. If they were to be changed, it would be unfair on creditors and might well maintain the fiction that the debt settlement mechanism is working when in reality it was not.