John Paul Phelan (Carlow-Kilkenny, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I note that Deputy Bernard J. Durkan has a huge script from which he will no doubt make his contribution.

I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill. I did not hear much of Deputy Mick Wallace's contribution, but I listened to most of the other speakers in the debate. During my time as a Member of the Oireachtas which has been longer than I care to remember at this juncture the system of imprisoning people for non-payment of debts and fines has been criticised by Members on both sides of the House. The Bill ensures people will no longer go to prison for non-payment of fines by providing for attachment of earnings orders. As Deputy Catherine Murphy noted, those who are a menace to society should be behind bars, but those who pose no threat should not be. I agree with the broad principle that nobody should end up in jail over a small amount of money. It does not make sense from the point of view of the State or the individual concerned.

The Bill implements a number of recommendations made by the Law Reform Commission which the Minister outlined.

The legislation's provisions allow the courts to judge each circumstance independently, as the suitable level of attachment could differ significantly from person to person. I welcome these provisions.

That the Bill will give small and not-so-small business owners an avenue through which to recover payment for goods and services that they have provided is to be welcomed. I was astounded that an Opposition Deputy who read a lengthy script into the record listed a number of items that, by implication of her comments, she believed should be free, including petrol and food. In an ideal world, perhaps they should be free, but the majority of people live in a world where they must pay for them. Thankfully, most do pay. This legislation should probably have been passed years ago. The matter has been discussed many times in my 14 years - God help us - as a Member of the Oireachtas.

I strenuously object to the commonly held view raised by several Deputies that legislators can stand up in Parliament and elsewhere and tell the general public to disobey the law because they do not like it. We live in a democracy, thankfully. The payment of water charges came about through unhappy circumstances for the State, but the reality is that a significant proportion of the population has been paying for water for many years. Most live in rural areas and provide their own water, be it through private wells or group schemes. Not only do they not understand, but they object to the idea that others who can pay for water choose not to and that representatives in this House would stand up and claim that it is okay for people to act like that.

I agree with Deputy Mitchell that there should be provision for people who find it difficult to pay because of their circumstances. We should not be heartless in determining how Irish Water bills are paid in future. Situations may arise that cause people to be unable to pay. Such provision is allowed for under this Bill, but what is not allowed for is the notion that people will not follow a law simply because they disagree with it. That is not what people are elected to this House to achieve.

Deputy Mitchell referred to the new provisions in respect of the rental sector. A significant imposition is being placed on landlords. I have not been lobbied by any landlord, but once landlords provide their tenants' details, any comeback on the landlords thereafter for the payment of water is not desirable. Relative to other European countries, we have a small rental sector, but it is significant in certain parts of the country, not least this city. Even the amended provision could do with a further change.

This legislation is a welcome step. For the past 14 years, Deputies from all political parties and none have sought to have the law changed so that people would not end up in prison for the non-payment of small fines and debts. I welcome the fact that this Bill contains such workable provisions, in that each case will be considered on its merits by a judge before such an order is granted.

See this speech in context