David Norris (Independent)

I welcome the Bill. However, I deplore the fact that the Minister of State, who is a decent man, is complicit in undermining the constitutional role of the Seanad, since we will not have proper time to investigate this issue fully and table appropriate amendments. I shall not go on about this, though, because it means I would be wasting my time.

This needed to be addressed for a very long time. The House will know that I have tried various methods to attack the situation whereby people were being put in jail for debt. For example, on the Broadcasting Bill I said - the then Minister of State in charge agreed - that it was appalling that people were being put in jail on a regular basis, including a woman in Cork with a family of young children, on the basis of non-payment of a television licence. The Minister of State then indicated that this Bill would be brought before the House and that it was more appropriate to deal with this type of question here.

I was surprised to have been the only Member of the Oireachtas to attend a very good briefing by FLAC. I commend the Free Legal Aid Service and I know some of its representatives are in the House today. It performed a very useful service by giving detailed and clear briefings to all of us. There may be many reasons why my colleagues could not attend, and I am aware they were circulated with the brief, which in some ways is just as good. However, by not being there they missed part of the human face. It was very striking to listen to the calm and dignified story of Ms Mary Coughlan, a remarkable artist. She spoke about her experience as an artist because the entertainment business suffers a series of fluctuations and people are not always careful. We know of so many tragic stories in show business, where people do not always read the small print in the legal documentation.

Ms Coughlan signed something quite blissfully having made, as she said, a transmission almost instantly from very poor rental accommodation to a magnificent palatial house in Baily, with tennis courts and all the rest until suddenly, one day, two years into her enjoyment of these premises, she found herself in debt. Suddenly there were bailiffs and she was threatened with jail. Only the intervention of Sir Richard Branson, who was on the point of signing her for a major record deal, saved her. He managed to negotiate with the bank, and she was very happy to give the name, National Irish Bank. One has only to look at the way NIB operated so disgracefully itself, so shame on it for pursuing someone such as that. The interesting point is that Ms Coughlan had neither the competence nor the muscle to extricate herself from this situation. Sir Richard Branson did and managed to negotiate what amounted to a 50% deal. He paid off half the debt and that excused the entire deal, but Ms Coughlan is still left with the aftermath because her credit rating is gone. She is paying €1,800 a month rent on a three-bedroomed house in Bray, which is significantly less than the mortgage she would be paying on a proper house for her family, with all the amenities. No bank will give her the money, however, because her credit rating is gone. That is an appalling situation and I hope this will be taken into consideration as well.

Much of this legislation was spurred by the McCann case in the High Court, as the Minister of State indicated in his speech. I commend not alone the principle in this case but also the Northside Community Law Centre. It was only with the law centre's assistance that this remarkable and courageous woman was able to take her case.

The legislation is clearly intended to remedy some of the defects highlighted by the McCann case. Unfortunately, however, although the changes are welcome, they only really look at the last step in what FLAC describes as the complex and less than user-friendly procedure that takes place in open court and is need of comprehensive reform generally. I say to the Minister of State that the first step is very good, but we need an urgent and more comprehensive review of the entire situation. I recommend to his attention, as I am sure others have, the very detailed submission by FLAC, called "To No One's Credit".

The changes in the Bill will mean that in some circumstances it will put an end to the imprisonment of a debtor in his or her absence from the court. That was an appalling business. However, the Government with the other hand is creating a situation with the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill where exactly that can happen, so there is an incoherence in its approach. The onus of proof is being altered so that it is now up to the creditor to establish the debtor's failure. In other words, it is important that guilt is no longer assumed on the part of the debtor. The Bill provides for some degree of legal aid. Section 2 sets out to amend section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1940 and the intention is that a debtor will be obliged or encouraged to attend the court etc.

Since there is so little time, it would be helpful if, because under this new legislation the judge is capable of varying an instalment order, there should be a clear statement to the effect that a debtor "may" seek such a variation. This should be made clear to debtors at all times, but in the Bill this does not necessarily happen. However, I very much welcome the fact the intention in law is to ensure people are informed of the situation in clear and ordinary language. Subsection 6(3) empowers the District Court judge, where the debtor fails to attend, to issue a warrant. Again we have one of these classic "may" versus "shall" situations and perhaps my colleagues have spoken on this. However, this is a dangerous area and I appeal to the Minister of State to examine and amend it.

I do not know whether the appalling manner in which business is handled in this House means that this cannot necessarily be amended here. Nonetheless, I ask the Minister of State to introduce an amendment because the consequences could be very serious. If the judge "may" do something, that implies, linguistically, that he or she may not do it. If neither of these options is exercised, then it appears the debtor could still be imprisoned or an order could be sought to that end.