Alex White (Labour)

I support Senator Bacik's amendment and support it for the reasons she has outlined. The point she made at the end of her contribution was a particularly compelling one: in the spirit of ensuring that debtors and persons subject to court procedures have all relevant information available to them, the risks of their situation and the possibilities of resolution should be outlined at every available opportunity, within reason. That is what Senator Bacik described as using a carrot as well as a stick. The proposed section 6(2) outlines four different items which should be included in such a summons: that it be issued by a District Court clerk; that it contain details of the consequences under the section of failure to comply with an instalment order and, in particular, the possibility of imprisonment - nobody could object to this; that it state that the debtor may be arrested if he or she fails to appear before the District Court as directed - again, no one could object to this being included; and that the summons be served on the debtor by personal service - there is a separate amendment dealing with that aspect.

The point covered in Senator Bacik's amendment is important. As I indicated, where a person is at risk, the extent and seriousness of that risk should be outlined in the summons. Clearly the possibility of imprisonment is one such serious risk. Therefore, the effort to ensure that the person's risk and exposure is communicated to him or her is entirely consistent with the policy, which appears in this proposed new section, that the summons should also communicate to the debtor that he or she can use the opportunity of the hearing to seek a variation of the instalment order. It is arguable that in many, if not most, cases this would encourage people to attend court if they see a real opportunity to improve the situation. Carrot and stick is a fair characterisation of this approach. The summons makes clear what the risk is, but the person is also told there is an opportunity to improve the situation by turning up in court. It is a good and clear proposal and I see no reason it ought not to be included in the Bill.

I also support the second aspect of the amendment, which proposes that the summons provide information in ordinary language to the debtor of the consequences of not appearing at any future committal hearing and the possibility of variation being granted at those hearings. This backs up the first part of the amendment. The point made by Senator Bacik with regard to section 6(3) is important because, as identified by FLAC, it appears that if the amendment is not made there will be only a provision whereby people who are arrested would receive notification in ordinary language of the consequences of not appearing at the hearing and the possibility of variation at the hearing. What FLAC is proposing, which is fair, is that all persons at risk of imprisonment should receive notification of the consequences of not appearing and the possibility of variation of the order. It seems inconsistent to provide for this in one case and not in the other, that is, in section 6(5) but not in section 6(3). What does the Minister have to say about that? Will he explain why a decision appears to have been made to include such a provision in one set of circumstances but not in the other?

In general terms, I support the amendment. The desirability of a debtor's having all information available to him or her, particularly with regard to the risks but also with regard to the possibilities available to improve the situation necessitate the inclusion of such provisions in the Bill. I support the reference in the Bill to ordinary language, which is the phrase that is used, although "plain English" was the phrase the Minister used in his speech. The Bill itself refers to ordinary language. That is an objective we all support. There have been improvements over the years with regard to the language used in those documents. They should contain ordinary, readily understandable language, not jargon or incomprehensible or inaccessible language such as would put people off or pose the risk of the recipient's not understanding the true situation facing him or her or the application to be made in court. The risk of imprisonment is obviously made worse by an inability to understand the words on the page. Many people who are not in a position to obtain legal advice will, understandably, be put off by the language used, which may of itself be a disincentive for people to come to court. They may think what is written in the summons sounds awful. It will be headed "Dublin Metropolitan District Court" or similar, and recipients will think that things look bad for them if they do not understand it. Even the language that is used may of itself be a disincentive to people to come to court and to make whatever effort they can to improve their situation.