Liam Twomey (Fine Gael)

I welcome the Minister of State. A former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform once said that if one is not radical, one is redundant. Unfortunately for him, he was made redundant. The essence of what he was saying was that when one has a chance to do something about an issue, one should think about it radically. At the very least, one should examine such matters broadly to see if they can be changed. This legislation gives us an opportunity to consider the imposition of fines in a different manner.

Historically, people have been thrown into jail when they have incurred debt. When one could not get access to the money, goods or services of one's debtors, one made them pay up by threatening them with imprisonment or by throwing them into jail and forcing their families to pay up. We are using the opportunity presented by this legislation to maintain the status quo that has existed for the last 200 or 300 years. There is nothing radical about saying we will throw people into jail if they do not pay up. The Government should have used this opportunity to consider whether there is a different way of proceeding in cases of this nature.

People end up in debt in two ways - indirectly, when they lose their jobs or their ability to earn money and thereby pay their debts; and directly, when they decide they do not care less about their debts. People in the first category can be pursued through the courts when their debts need to be recouped. People in the second category contributed to the housing crisis in the United States when they defaulted on their first mortgage payments. Similarly, certain people in this country defaulted on their second or third car financing payments. It is clear that many people who end up in this position have decided to throw caution to the wind so they can get what they want. They have no interest in discharging their debts one way or another. I suggest that people in this latter group are probably in the minority. The legislation before the House might be needed to threaten such people with jail if they do not pay their debts. I emphasise that those who could not care less are in the minority.

Many Senators have spoken about the tendency for people to say "over my dead body will I give up any of my money" when their families, marriages or partnerships break up. In many cases, people do not go to court to get maintenance payments or orders against their former spouses or partners. They know that if payments are ordered but not made, they could be left in a much more difficult position. For example, they might not qualify for social welfare payments on the basis of the so-called maintenance orders that are made by the courts. It is often easier for them to forget about their ex-partners and get the State to pay for their upkeep and that of their children instead. The Government should have proposed the reform of this system.

The manner in which people are paid has changed over the last 200 years. Nowadays, many people have forms of income, goods or property that could be relatively easily accessed by the State, if necessary, if minor changes were to be made to the law. It may be more difficult to access such moneys in the case of the minority of people who are self-employed or who do piecemeal work. Most people have a regular income. Some of the clients about whom I am talking get their income from the State. It seems logical to take the Fine Gael approach - to seek an attachment to earnings order - in most cases. Our legislation should facilitate that to be more easily done. Most of these people are paid by the State, or are receiving monthly cheques or payments into their bank accounts from other employers. There is nothing to prevent the Government from trying to secure faster access to such direct payments when that is required. It may be possible to do the same thing in the cases of people who are self-employed or have an irregular income stream. Many such people own property or other things of value. If the State made more legislative changes over time it could get quicker access to a person's assets to make him or her pay up. The only option that the State has allowed itself over the last 250 years is to throw people into prison.

Other aspects of the legislation should be examined, such as attachment of earnings orders or how property and goods may be confiscated. There may be constitutional issues in that regard, and no doubt the Minister of State will point these out when he is responding. Nonetheless these are the areas the Government should be looking at. If somebody has no property, regular income or savings that may be accessed, he or she will never be in a position to pay, either under this legislation or any provisions that we might propose. In effect, these are lost cases. Therefore the argument for throwing people into prison is both old-fashioned and out of step with what might be regarded as the modern way to run a justice service. It is not just a question of affronting people's human rights, not even in terms of an extreme right wing perspective, as regards getting value for money and delivering a good service. We should move away from just throwing people into jail and look at other remedies in terms of getting access to their incomes or property and using those assets to pay off whatever debts they may have incurred. Normally, these are the people who are probably slow to pay up anyway. Many others, who just find themselves in difficult positions, are willing to do something to address their problems.