Jerry Buttimer (Fine Gael)

Listening to the Minister's reply and his earlier speech, we have not gone any way towards remedying the Laffoy judgment, as Senator Regan said. Senator Regan quoted from the judgment, which is cogent and makes clear that there is a flaw in this Bill. I am not a law person but I would not be surprised if we were back here when it is found that the Bill is unconstitutional. FLAC said the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Bill confines itself to remedying the constitutional difficulty.

The Minister's speech rightly refers to the creditor. We should acknowledge that the creditor deserves reference here but the Minister is forgetting that the debtor is here for a reason and is an individual. This is about people falling into debt, bad provision and people being unable to manage money or falling into difficulty financially for whatever reason. Yesterday I had in my office a recovering alcoholic who had a gambling problem and was in debt with the local credit union. The amendment allows for recompense to be paid to the credit union in the case of what Senator Regan proposes.

In terms of the attachment of income orders, the amendment is a very manageable and precise way of allowing people in debt to pay back money. The amendment adds a section, 8(2)(b), which specifies that an attachment of earnings order "shall operate as a direction to that person to make, at such intervals as may be specified in the order, deductions of specified amounts". The amendment takes on board the person's ability to repay.

I am a little concerned, as Senator Alex White said, and Senator Regan just referred to, about rushed legislation. I do not understand why we cannot take our time today and why we run the risk of the Bill being unconstitutional. Does the Minister of State, Deputy Curran, want to preside over this? I do not think he does. I do not think the Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, wants to, but that is what he is trying to do. The Fine Gael amendment seeks to rectify the situation by inserting the clause on failure to comply with the order. The second part of the amendment deals with compliance with attachment of earnings orders. It is very clear that there is an obligation on the debtor to repay.

When the Minister of State mentioned that in this economic climate the attachment of a court order or income order would be the wrong way to go, I laughed, with respect. At this moment his Cabinet colleagues are about to, if they have not already done so, sit down at the Cabinet table to discuss taxing social welfare. They are talking about taxing the most vulnerable people in society. The Government has already taxed the over-70s, with the removal of the medical card and it is purported to be about to unleash a massive attack on the women of Ireland by taxing child benefit, yet we are talking about putting people in jail.

Senator Regan gave figures. I take issue with the fact that the Minister said that in the first six months of this year there were 4,300 applications for enforcement orders but in the same period only 186 people were imprisoned. The figures in my mind do not justify what the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill, given the cost of imprisonment. In the Government's Bill the entitlement to free legal aid under section 6A is a further cost on the State. If I am in debt I could cost the State a fortune, whereas Senator Regan's amendment is a fool-proof way of getting money back. I am not sure there is joined-up thinking.

I commented on how credit unions do their business. The Acting Chairman, Senator Boyle, was involved in the credit union movement in his area of Turner's Cross. Credit unions are able and willing to meet people. There is a provision for bad debt in all credit unions and banking institutions, and that is fair enough, but we should be talking about helping people to repay. As I said, I fully subscribe to the notion that one must have a sanction, but can the Minister justify to me that imprisonment is the way forward?

I was taken by the Acting Chairman's very measured contribution. I hoped his colleagues would listen to him because it was a very fine contribution.