Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

The first question to be addressed is whether we have a debt problem in this country. I am sure no one will deny that at this stage. The figures speak for themselves. The ratio of personal debt to disposable income has more than trebled over the past 12 years. The figure was 48% of disposable net income in 1995 and is more than 170% now. That is the issue but is the Government in denial about that problem?

I will cite some other figures to bring the message home. We remember the parables from the Gospels long ago. I am going to tell the parable of the people who are sent to jail because they cannot pay their debts. I tabled a question some time ago to the Minister on the number of committal orders over the years, either for non-payment of debt or fines. The Minister was only able to give me the figures from recent days, but they were startling. In 2007, 1,335 people were committed to prison for non-payment of fines. One may say that is an outrageous figure, although I will not go into the details. In 2008, however, the figure increased by 50% to 2,154. In 2007, the number of people committed to prison for non-payment of debt and committal orders was 201, and the figure rose to 276 last year.

These figures highlight the fact that there is a serious problem. I have always contended that people do not go to prison if they can afford to avoid it. Most of the people in prison should not be there, and certainly not just because they are poor.

Deputy Flanagan's Bill refers to modern collection methods that have been developed in recent times. We have seen vultures and vipers who threaten vulnerable people, but are we going to do anything about them? Will we really continue to allow vulnerable people to be exposed to these strong-arm tactics? It is easy for the Minister of State to say, as he did in a recent reply, that they can go to the Garda but he is three steps removed from reality. Does he not know that they are unable to go to the Garda because they are fearful and worried the strong-arm tactics will become worse and that they will be knee-capped? Many of those involved in the strong-arm tactics have past experience of knee-capping methods.

The real question is what can we do about it. Deputy Flanagan has made an honest effort but I do not believe the Government can be proud of its reaction to that effort. I am not saying Deputy Flanagan's Bill is 100% right. Any Bill produced with the limited resources available to the Opposition cannot be 100% correct. We do not have the facilities of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel or the Attorney General's office. However, it is a decent Bill that is worthy of fair consideration, yet it has not received that from the Government.

The Minister of State, Deputy Barry Andrews, damned it with faint praise. He said it was worthy of debate. A serious reaction would have been to agree Second Stage, put it into Committee and deal with the kind of issues he dealt with in his speech, which I thought were mealy-mouthed. His approach was nit-picking. He said there was nothing in the criteria for specific mention of previous convictions, but the bailiff is the problem. That is utterly ridiculous. He talked about the cost but the measure would be self-financing because if someone was seeking a licence, the person would have to pay for it. One could fix the licence fee to cover administrative costs. The Minister of State also referred to significant financial and staffing resources, but that is a smokescreen for inaction.

The view of the Department of Finance is so ridiculous as to hardly be worthy of mention, but I will mention it anyway. We were told that the Minister is of the view "that the collection of debts as an activity is not necessarily comprehended in respect of the provision of financial services". What in the name of God does that mean? That is no way to address a serious Bill such as this.

There is a serious flaw in the system which must be addressed, but the Government is in denial about the problem. It has not given this worthy effort a fair hearing and it deserves to be condemned for that. Its attitude to the banking system was that everything was fine, the fundamentals were sound and the regulatory system was fine. They were proved to be wrong and they will be proved wrong again on this matter.

See this speech in context