Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I am taken by the arguments made by my colleagues, Senators Regan, Alex White and Bacik. I would have thought it was fundamental in a democracy such as ours that we would pay all due credence to the prompts, guidance and judgments of bodies such as those mentioned in this instance, namely, the Irish Bankers Federation and the free legal advice centres, FLAC.

As Senator Bacik said, this is about proportionality. I would have thought this was a sine qua non in our system. Sadly, in this instance the Government, for whatever reason, has not paid due attention to the Laffoy decision in the McCann case. Where attachment of income is possible, that is the prudent course to embark upon. What is the point of imprisoning a person and depriving them of income and ability to earn? It serves no great purpose.

Ms Justice Laffoy's decision, which is at the nub of this amendment, states that in circumstances in which a debtor has some resources to meet the debt, a statutory scheme which does not require creditors to seek redress by attaching those resources does not impair the debtor's right to liberty as little as possible. It would have made more sense to attempt to attach the debtor's resources such as social welfare payments thereby rendering the application for committal a last resort. That is what imprisonment should be - a last resort. This is required in the application of the doctrine of proportionality to the constitutional right to liberty. These are fundamental points of great importance to us all.

The judge is not entitled to make an order for committal unless he or she is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt, on the evidence established by the creditor, that the debtor has no goods which could be taken in execution under any process of the court by which the judgment order or decree for the debt was given. The process arising out of this Bill does not involve an attachment of monetary resources such as social welfare payments or income from employment. For example, it does not seem to envisage a garnishee-type procedure. Given that this is what was suggested by the plaintiff in the McCann case and given that it was what Ms Justice Laffoy had in mind in her judgment, a difficulty arises, as adequately and more eloquently outlined by my colleagues given their qualifications. This provision is fundamentally flawed and is the purpose of the amendment to this section of the Bill. I look forward to hearing the Minister of State's response.