John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I acknowledge the detailed and specific amendment that has been tabled by Senator Regan. As I said in my opening speech, at this time the Government has limited the Bill before the House to the introduction of the protections and safeguards that were identified by the High Court in the McCann case. The Government intends to return to this subject, with the benefit of the Law Reform Commission's review, at a future stage.

I acknowledge the views of Senators who have suggested that deeper reforms are necessary. I believe the rigorous work that has been undertaken by the commission will greatly assist us in striking the balance that is necessary in these matters. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed about the speed with which this Bill is being introduced. I remind the House that the High Court judgment I have mentioned, which drew our attention to the specific gap this legislation is designed to fill, was issued less than three weeks ago.

Many Senators asked questions about the imprisonment of people for the non-payment of debt. While nobody wants that to happen, it is important that we maintain a balance in this legislation between the rights of creditors and debtors. The Law Reform Commission, which is reviewing this matter, as I said, will issue its recommendations in due course. All of its recommendations will be considered by the Minister. A couple of Senators suggested this Bill does not provide for an alternative to imprisonment. They claimed the only option that will be available will be to throw people into jail, but that is not true. The specific aim of this legislation is to ensure that people who cannot afford to pay their debts will not be subject to imprisonment. Those who can afford to pay but simply choose not to, however, will continue to face imprisonment. It is important that this Bill allows imprisonment to continue to be seen as a threat in such circumstances. It is not the first option, by any means. Specific alternatives, including mediation and variations to instalment plans, are provided for in this Bill. We have spoken about the role of the Money Advice and Budgeting Service. The legislation is specific in that regard. It is to deal with one narrow issue that has changed in the past three weeks.

On the question of attachments, the substantive basis of the amendment, the whole area of attachments to earnings and to social welfare had been considered by the Government both in this Bill and in the Fines Bill, which is before the Houses. The conclusion, however, was that it would be problematic and difficult to operate fairly. The amendment also acknowledges that it would be necessary to include attachments to social welfare payments and this might not be the best time to try to do that. There would also be practical difficulties that would need to be overcome where persons in temporary employment are concerned.

The position in family law is well established to the effect that attachment is a well-established practice. It may be possible to formulate another model closely along those lines. Specifically, Senator Regan referred to the figures in my opening statement to the effect that there were 4,300 applications to the District Court for enforcement orders in the first six months of the year, and in the same period 186 people were imprisoned. It is worth nothing, however, that approximately half of those imprisoned at any time related to maintenance debtors where this option of attachment exists already. Therefore, it is far from being a panacea.

Senator Bacik referred to the report from FLAC which says:

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

The Senator stopped there but the next line says: "However, any such measure must be regarded as a last resort." It is important we look at it in that context.

As I said earlier, the Law Reform Commission will be reporting and it has the opportunity to examine this among other issues in the context of non-judicial methods of dealing with debt enforcement. The Government would prefer to await that report before dealing specifically with the area of attachments. The purpose of the legislation, as brought before the Seanad today, is specifically to remedy the situation following the High Court case in the middle of June. In that regard I will not be accepting the amendment.