Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I will speak to the amendment in more general terms. It appears that the amendment works in theory but does it work in practice. I have heard talk of strategic defaulters and opening the floodgates but that simply has not happened, although there are some isolated examples that we could use. I am not here to give advice to debtors but, by and large, the vast majority of debtors will get much fairer treatment from a personal insolvency practitioner than from their own lender. Debtors are afraid to take that plunge as they feel it is a formal process that involves litigation and some sort of a court process. In the vast majority of cases, the personal insolvency practitioner is an independent referee. As to whether people should take their chances with a personal insolvency practitioner or a lender, by all means, let us tick the box of the lender but I am not an advocate of unilateral box-ticking and checking borrowers. When do we hold creditors to account? I know this matter can be taken into account under the section 115A provision.

Borrowers have nothing to fear because the vast majority of them do their best. A PIP would double-check this before embarking on a journey with a borrower. I am interested in hearing the Minister of State's view on that. It is not a seismic move as long as it is not an indication of a change by the Department, which I do not believe to be the case. Borrowers are the small guys and they do not run off to a personal insolvency practitioner. A PIP would not let them in. I accept that PIPs may have helped in the drafting of this proposal.

The personal insolvency system is to support debtors. It is slowly ringing home, however, that it is also good for creditors because they will do far worse in a bankruptcy than in a personal insolvency agreement.