Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I was dealing with subsection (3) of section 17, dealing with the regulations to be prescribed by the Minister for Social and Family Affairs. To reiterate, the regulations may include provision as follows:

[T]hat, before making an application, the court shall make an enquiry as to the debtor's means ... allowing or requiring adjudication as regards an application, and provision as to appeals and reviews ... as to the circumstances and manner in which and the times at which sums are to be deducted and paid ... as to the calculation of such sums ... as to the circumstances in which the Minister is to cease making deductions ... requiring the Minister to notify the debtor, in a prescribed manner and at any prescribed time, of the total amount of sums deducted up to the time of notification ... [and] that, where the whole amount to which the application relates has been paid, the court shall give notice of that fact to the Minister.

The Minister of State indicated that the Courts Service estimates that in the first six months of this year approximately 4,300 applications were made to the District Court for enforcement orders and in the same period 186 people, less than 5% of the total, were imprisoned. We know that many people are imprisoned for failing to pay minor sums. The fatal flaw in this legislation is the absence of a procedure to facilitate such persons to avoid such a scenario through attachment of earnings. This is the constitutional point made by Ms Justice Laffoy in her judgment and one that appears to have been overlooked by the Government in its rush to address the matter. While I understand the importance of addressing the many other flaws in the 1940 Act, the failure to take account of this finding of the judge is the fundamental flaw of the Bill.

The amendment is designed to provide for a procedure to substitute for imprisonment. It would render imprisonment a genuine last resort and comply with the findings of Ms Justice Laffoy in the High Court. I referred to the figures indicating that 2,000 people are imprisoned for non-payment of fines or debts in any one year and that 40 to 50 people are in prison at any one time for failure to pay a fine or debt. This problem can be avoided.

Senator O'Donovan's point that the courts are reluctant to order committal is correct. However, the courts frequently do so because they do not have available to them intermediate procedures providing facilities, such as attachment of earnings, that would assist people to resolve the issue. In addition, such facilities would enable creditors to obtain some satisfaction for the debts due to them in circumstances where they do not have an interest in seeing a debtor imprisoned and do not seek punishment but instead seek some return of the moneys due to them or a contribution to the debt. That is the purpose of the exercise. The Minister has failed to appreciate this fundamental finding of Ms Justice Laffoy in the High Court.

I ask the Minster of State to consider accepting this amendment which complements the other remedies in the legislation dealing with the rights of an individual against whom procedures are initiated for non-payment of debt.