Vincent P Martin (Green Party) | Oireachtas source

I have to agree to disagree with my fellow Senator on this one. I am not in favour of extending the term. I am unaware of the evidence which would suggest it is appropriate either from the point of view of creditors or debtors. Theoretically, at the moment, an arrangement can take place, if a person is very prompt about it, inside one day, and although that is theoretical, I think it happened once. I understand 60% of arrangements are agreed and done inside three years, and the current legislative provision provides for an extension of one further year, if required. I do not see the merit to either the debtor or creditor of extending it beyond such a relatively long period.

In this country, not so long ago, bankruptcy was a lifelong sentence. People took it to the grave. Slowly but surely, incrementally and positively, we have brought it down to the stage where a former Deputy, Willie Penrose, was instrumental in bringing us into the real world and having the same bankruptcy period that is enjoyed in the UK. I do not see the benefit to society or to individuals. I know where the Senator is coming from and the idea is that if we give the borrower an extra four or five years, perhaps we are throwing them a lifeline. However, I am unaware of the evidence that would suggest this is the case.

I would also be concerned that if we were to have such long periods of bankruptcy straddling the full arrangement, we could theoretically have an unsecured debt that is being repaid. For the duration of that unsecured debt that is being repaid, the debtor - the borrower - is less likely to get back in the real world as soon as possible. That is the whole ethos of the legislation. All over the world, people get into trouble but they have to get back in the world and support their family as best they can. The State, in this fair legislation which strikes a balance, can allow people not just to get back, as we do now, but to get back in a feasible, practical and fair period of time and not have an observation period of ten years plus over a borrower.

I know what is intended. Perhaps the motivation behind the genuine concern here is the elephant in the room that is not in the Bill today, which is to get rid of the current €3 million threshold, which some practitioners were expecting. Maybe it is due to Covid, but the Minister of State kept the Bill tighter.I know how slow legislation moves, and while a Bill in this respect might be indicated for the autumn, that is a long time away. That is a priority of mine, I respectfully suggest, because there are cases where people cannot qualify for this excellent service if the secured debt is over a €3 million threshold. To all intents there might be a mast in a person's name on a piece of land that is long since gone, but it is keeping it all from happening because the legal process has not caught up and the person is way over the €3 million in secured debt. There are such people, they have families, like the rest of us, and they are trying to return to the economy to make a contribution to society but at the moment the personal insolvency legislation is not for them. I understand the Department is open minded on that. It is a win-win for society. There is nothing easy about this and it is the last place a debtor wants to be.

I do not believe that personal insolvency practitioners would support this amendment, although I have no evidence to suggest that. It is such an extended period that, though well-intended, it could be counterproductive to the ethos and whole motivation behind putting the personal insolvency regime on a statutory footing and what that is intended to do for the country and the people.