Alice-Mary Higgins (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 3, between lines 18 and 19, to insert the following: “Amendment of section 26 of Principal Act

2. Section 26 of the Principal Act is amended—

(a) in subsection (2)(c), by the substitution of “€1,500” for “€400”, and

(b) by the deletion of subsection (5)(b)(ii).”.

This set of amendments addresses a serious problem and obstacle of concern within the original legislation. It is around the inequity of how we treat the experience of insolvency, a very distressing experience for anybody. It is treated differently in Ireland for those who are poorer and perhaps were already struggling before reaching the point of insolvency. There is a gap in the original legislation whereby a person who receives a social welfare payment, including an in-work social welfare payment, is, effectively, barred from access to the insolvency programmes set out in the Act. A person who goes over the income threshold of €60 becomes ineligible for the personal insolvency programme. It is notable that the only social protection payments which are not counted towards the income threshold are child benefit and the children's allowance, which is, of course, a universal payment to which every family is entitled. Families in receipt of the qualified child payment because they are struggling to provide for the basic needs of children, or families where the parents are working but on a low income and in need of the working family payment to supplement that income, are ineligible for insolvency by the very fact that they are in receipt of the working family payment.

There is a suite of measures and one could argue about which payments should be included and are not. In amendment No. 1, I look to increase the asset threshold to €1,500, as has been called for by a number of people in civil society. That amendment also calls for the deletion of the inclusion of social welfare payments in deciding whether somebody has crossed the income threshold of €60. That is a fundamental and general principle.

In attempting to be reasonable, as I always try to be, I considered that there are certain categories of payments that the Government is concerned would intersect with the personal insolvency payment.Amendment No. 2 states social welfare payments that have been subjected to a means test and that a debtor is qualified to receive should not be taken into account. I am referring to circumstances where people are getting a social welfare payment that has already been subject to a means test to verify that they are without sufficient means and in need of a basic payment in order to manage day-to-day and weekly costs. That is one criterion.

Another amendment requires the Minister to look to those who are seeking employment or who are receiving in-work payments. In this regard, I make reference to the jobseeker's allowance, the jobseeker's transitional payment, the disability allowance and the carer's allowance, including the half-time carer's allowance. It is not clear whether being in receipt of rent supplement or a housing assistance payment to keep one in one's home might disqualify one from participating in the personal insolvency programme or trying to file for personal insolvency. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify this.

In amendment No. 5, I narrow the focus to those payments that are specifically made where recipients may be working, including the one-parent family payment, for which there is an income disregard, and the jobseeker's transitional payment, and also payments made where recipients must be working, including the working family payment. The back-to-education allowance is also really important. There is a lot in the materials on personal insolvency designed to help people to get back on track, with reference being made to further education and new opportunities, but the families who need the State to help them with these and who do not have any cushion of any kind are being blocked from qualifying for the insolvency arrangements.

Let us look at how this plays out where a business goes broke or a business owner becomes insolvent, which is extremely sad. Currently under the legislation, if the cleaners hired by such a business become insolvent, due to the debt of the business or the non-payment of income owed to them, they do not have access to the same safety net or the same pathway back to solvency and a better future for themselves and their families. I genuinely believe this is an oversight in the original legislation. The opportunity to address this arises now because revised personal insolvency legislation is before us. I ask the Minister of State to indicate to me that he is willing to work on whichever version of these amendments he feels can be accepted and to ensure, at a minimum, that those who are working will have the same access to the insolvency provisions as the others.

Let me give a little perspective. There are 46,600 families receiving the working family payment. The recipients are working just the same as those on incomes of €50,000 or €30,000 who, under the personal insolvency legislation, might be able to keep up to €30,000 of their income while still qualifying for the personal insolvency programme. Those whose income is below what is needed to qualify for the working family payment will be denied. This is not legislation for a certain category of person whom we expect to be wealthy again because they may have been wealthy before. We must ensure it is equitable legislation that recognises the difficulties and future hopes and aspirations of every kind of person and family in the State. I urge the Minister of State to indicate to me that he is going to recognise and address this issue.