John Curran (Dublin Mid West, Fianna Fail)

I will confine my comments as directly and specifically as possible to many of the points raised and will deal with them in no particular order. I will conclude by responding to the key point raised by Senators Regan and Alex White.

In regard to the FLAC report, the sanction of imprisonment should be removed immediately from the instalment order procedure for those who are unable to pay their bills. I contend that the aim of the Bill is to ensure that people who cannot afford to pay will not be subject to imprisonment. That is my contention and the Government's perspective, regardless of whether the Senators agree with it.

I reiterate that this is a relatively small Bill to address specifically the issues that arose in the McCann case in the High Court. I appreciate a number of other issues were raised. I said that the Law Reform Commission is preparing a report. It is the Government's position that this report will be considered in full. We understand it will deal with a range of issues, including non-judicial methods of dealing with debt enforcement. The Government has indicated it will await that report.

One or two Senators referred to imprisonment and I want to clarify the position. There is a perception that one of the reasons there is overcrowding in our prisons is that they are cluttered with debt and fine defaulters, but that perception is false. At any one time the number of such persons held in custody is only a fraction of the overall prison population and generally at any one time the number is in single figures. It is important to put that in the correct context.

The role of MABS was raised. While it is not mentioned specifically in legislation, I referred to it in my opening address. I am aware that the impact of the legislation is being communicated to MABS, which I acknowledge has a key role to play and it does so significantly.

The issue of a person with limited resources and goods and essentially the issue of proportionality was raised. Those with resources are probably dealt with in various ways, whether by way of a variation to the instalment order or in terms of MABS and so forth. Even in this section where there is reference to an imprisonment order, there is the option of deferral for a range of reasons.

The other aspect is separate, namely a person who might have finance and cash. That person could be dealt with by way of an instalment order or an amended instalment order.

I refer specifically to the subsection (8)(b) which refers to the option to seize goods. I am informed that the Attorney General has considered this question specifically and advised that subsection (8)(b) is sufficiently a proportional approach.

The area of attachment orders has merit and should be considered further. I do not believe it is the panacea people might expect it to be. I reiterate that it is worth noting that approximately half of those imprisoned at any given time relate to maintenance debtors, where the option of an attachment is already available. This aspect requires further consideration. The area of attachment in particular will be considered in the context of the findings of the Law Reform Commission report as well as other non-judicial methods of dealing with debt enforcement.