Ivana Bacik (Independent)

I am disappointed by the Minister of State's response, particularly his refusal to contemplate the insertion of information for debtors about the possibility of a variation of attachment orders. I ask for further clarification in respect of the concept of balance to which he referred. I contend that simply setting out in the legislation the procedure that is to be followed will not interfere with any rights of the creditor.

There is clearly a strange anomaly in the different levels of information that will be provided to different categories of debtors at different stages. The only situation in which a judge is obliged to tell a debtor anything under section 5(6) is where the debtor fails to appear under section 6(3) and a warrant is issued for his or her arrest, in which case the judge must then explain that the debtor is entitled to apply for legal aid and must attend the court, and must explain in ordinary language the consequences of non-appearance. However, there is no provision for a debtor who comes before the District Court either because he or she simply turns up on foot of a first summons or, under section 6(3)(b), on foot of a second notification. A debtor who turns up in court in either of those circumstances is apparently not to be given information under section 6(5). Such persons will be told under section 6(6) that they are entitled to apply for legal aid and of the consequences of non-appearance, including the possibility of imprisonment. In other words, a different level of information is provided under this subsection.

It is interesting that neither an arrested debtor nor a non-arrested debtor is to be informed at any stage of the possibility of variation, yet under section 6(7), the judge may treat the proceedings on the summons as an application for a variation. Anyone who has been present at or done work in the District Court knows how difficult it is to follow what a judge is saying because of the way the court is set out and so on, particularly where there is no lawyer present. Therefore, debtors who come to court may not realise what is happening. Even if they come to understand that the proceedings are being treated as a variation, they will have had no opportunity to prepare for that and will have had no knowledge that such an eventuality might arise.

I see no problem with simply informing persons of the procedure that may be adopted at a hearing of the summons. I do not see why different levels of information are provided, depending on the way in which the debtor comes to court. It would be entirely in line with the Laffoy judgment and with the public policy behind this legislation to ensure that the maximum level of information be provided to debtors as early as possible in the process, that is, through the summons served on them at the start of the process. If information is provided at that stage in a balanced, neutral way and accessible way, in language that is easily understood, they will be encouraged to appear before the court, which is, after all, the purpose of the legislation, and to answer their creditors' demands. It is very much in the interests of all, including creditors and the State, that we encourage debtors to appear before court. A summons simply informing them they are to be arrested and possibly imprisoned without offering any prospect for a positive outcome from the hearing is much less likely to encourage them to appear before court than a summons that contains fuller and more balanced information. As I said, it is not in any creditor's interest if debtors are discouraged from appearing before the court. Creditors want debts to be repaid, rather than that debtors be imprisoned, and that is what the legislation purports to achieve. We are trying to improve the relevant provisions so that the procedure for enforcement of debts becomes more robust.