Seanad debates

Tuesday, 7 July 2009

Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill 2009: Second Stage

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Dan BoyleDan Boyle (Green Party)

I will not criticise the Cathaoirleach's percussion techniques. Given the nature of the recent High Court decision that brought this amendment Bill into being, this Bill has to be narrow in focus. There is a legal situation that must be remedied and the Bill has been put forward in this regard. That does not mean there is no need for wider and more comprehensive legislation. The Members of the House are right to put those reservations on board and seek such legislation at the earliest opportunity.

Imprisoning people for debts is something many Members of this House and members of society believe is an unnecessary punishment in the times we live in, although in some circumstances it cannot be avoided. There is a certain irony, given the times we live in, that there are those in our society, particularly in white collar crime, who have accrued far higher levels of debt but who remain untouched and unpunished. Given what is likely to happen in our judicial systems and, hopefully, in our prosecution systems in the next few years, I will let that inference lie because this House has no business referring directly to those matters.

The history of penal institutions in this country once saw debtors' prisons as separate buildings. We have come a long way from that, and the degree of people being imprisoned for debt is now a lower proportion of those imprisoned. In line with the request made in this House on many occasions, particularly on the Order of Business on many days, about the nature of imprisonment, we must ask questions about how we can bring the level down to the nth degree. We also need to have a debate on debt, what qualifies as debt, how people are brought into judicial proceedings and what they are being asked to repay.

In recessionary times we know people are being asked to use lenders of last resort and the nature of debt compiled by individuals who are brought before some kind of judicial assessment is that people are being asked to repay debt that is many times the original principal because of high and unsustainable interest levels. As a result, we need better definition in our legal code to ensure that if this option is being considered, and it is one which should rarely, if ever, be considered, it is not on the basis that a person is being asked to pay for something he or she never borrowed in the first instance.

As we examine the ethics and morals of our financial institutions and those involved in the often odious business of moneylending, these questions should inform a debate such as this. Given the nature of putting in force corrective legislation on short notice on foot of a legal decision, we do not have the time and opportunity to do it before the end of this session. In requests for amendments and requests for legislation to deal with attachment of earnings, I hear a call for wider legislation in this area. As and when the House, with a Governments sponsored Bill, approves this legislation tonight, I ask that such legislation would come into being at the earliest possible opportunity.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.