Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I wish to support the proposed amendment, which is eminently sensible since it proposes a different regime as an alternative to the sanction of imprisonment being imposed upon a debtor. Rather than imprisonment, it envisages an attachment of income or welfare order that would be made to address circumstances where somebody is unable or unwilling to pay debts. It is in keeping with the recommendations of FLAC, as other speakers have mentioned. In its report published on 6 July, FLAC said:

The State should examine how effective non-penal remedies should be employed in order to enforce compliance with civil debt judgments. Amongst the solutions considered should be attachment of earnings legislation.

That is what is proposed here. The idea of attachment of earnings seems a much more sensible and practical method of enforcing compliance with debt orders. It is sensible and practical because it ensures that money is paid as a result of the attachment, rather than putting people in prison with the consequence that they will be unable to earn any money or repay any debts.

It is instructive to re-examine Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment for some of the background to the need for an amendment such as this. She refers early on in her judgment to Article 11 of the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It states that "No one shall be imprisoned merely because of their inability to fulfil a contractual obligation". The principle is clear in international law that people should not be imprisoned merely because of their inability to fulfil a contractual obligation. We are clearly in breach of that. Although there are improvements to the current situation in this Bill, which were necessitated by the McCann judgment, the fundamental principle upon which the current system is premised - that people can be imprisoned for non-payment of debt - remains in place. That is the fundamental objection we have to this Bill; it does not envisage any other method of enforcing compliance with contractual obligations.

It is also worth noting page 18 of Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment, which refers to the personal background to Caroline McCann, the applicant in the case. She was described in the judgment as being a single woman in her mid-30s, with two children - boys of 14 and ten - who lives with her mother in council housing. She was one of nine children who left school at 14. The judge referred to her literacy as being poor. She was unemployed and owed €18,000 to the credit union. She had a history of alcohol abuse and psychiatric illness. This was the woman whom, prior to her brave challenge, the system would have imprisoned for a month with no consequent improvement in her ability to pay the debt owed to the credit union. Senator Regan has already read out the judge's comment as to the complete pointlessness of imprisoning somebody in Caroline McCann's situation. That sort of situation would be fairly standard for many of those who come before the courts as debtors, or people who are brought before them and ultimately subjected to a committal order without having engaged in the process. FLAC has described the links between ill health and literacy in terms of building up debt. We must be mindful of those facts and also mindful of the personal backgrounds of the debtors we are speaking about.

We need to examine other methods of enforcing such orders. The method proposed by Senator Regan should commend itself to the Minister of State as being a far preferable, more practical and more humane approach to securing compliance with court orders. This amendment in its complexity and in the different issues it seeks to address, deserves more time than we have here. It deserves a gap between Second and Committee Stages so that we might all have more opportunity to look at it in more detail and reflect on how it relates to the Laffoy judgment. In particular, the Bill deserves more time from the Minister of State. I fail to see how it is possible to give it the consideration it deserves in the truncated time allowed, which is subject to a guillotine. It is a shame, given the real situations facing people like Caroline McCann, who will be affected by this legislation.