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

This is the issue that was dealt with previously, when I explained at some length the purpose of the personal insolvency arrangement. Basically, it provides a structure within which a debtor, with the assistance of a personal insolvency practitioner, can seek to enter into arrangements with creditors with regard to outstanding debts in circumstances in which a debtor clearly is unable to meet his or her liabilities. The Senator seeks to exclude any individual from the process whose debts exceed ¤1 million. I explained this is merely a mechanism to facilitate debt resolution and that there is no great advantage in this. While the perception has been created that this provision helps people who are rich, the reality is that it is a facility whereby if one's debts run to ¤3 million, one is in far greater financial difficulty than if they run to ¤1 million. This is a mechanism to ascertain whether arrangements can be entered into between debtors and creditors which, from the creditors' point of view, may, over a period of years, result in them recouping a greater share of the moneys due to them than they otherwise would recoup, were a debtor to go into bankruptcy.

Moreover, from the advantage perspective of the debtor, it creates the possibility that he or she may be allowed to continue to live in, own and occupy the family home of reasonable size, as opposed to a mansion, to use the phrase that suddenly has come into focus. The Senator simply is seeking to exclude the possibility of this mechanism being used by a range of people with a view to pushing them into bankruptcy if they are insolvent, where such a bankruptcy would be to the detriment of both the debtor and creditor and could affect someone who, perhaps through no fault of his or her own, has incurred large business debts, perhaps because others have defaulted on paying him or her. I do not see why such persons, if they are living in a modest home with their families, should be rendered homeless in a bankruptcy process.

I also have made the case previously that where someone is in serious debt and creditors are willing to enter into an arrangement with him or her, as the law presently stands, outside any structured process, that could happen regardless of the level of the debts. There could be ¤15 million or ¤20 million worth of debts and if agreement can be reached between debtors and creditors, they can effectively resolve issues. This provision allows the use of personal insolvency practitioners, the use of the personal insolvency arrangement structure and the possibility of orders being made by the court to copper-fasten or to approve an arrangement already approved by the insolvency service. In the context of an item of progressive legislation designed to assist people in difficulties, I must state that I regard the Senator's amendment to be regressive and lacking in understanding of the process. Consequently, for all those reasons, I am opposed the amendment.