Ivana Bacik (Independent)

In light of the Minister of State's response, I fail to understand the reason the summons should not state that a variation may be sought and, further, that mediation may be sought. It is interesting that the Minister of State referred to balance. Like Senator White, I fail to comprehend the argument being made in this matter. The legislation stipulates what is required to be included in the summons under section 6(2). This information appears to consist of many sticks and no carrots. It provides for the consequences of failure to comply, namely, the possibility of imprisonment and arrest. The section provides for all the State's sticks but does not include carrots which would induce or encourage somebody to come to the court.

I fail to understand how it is in the interests of a creditor to withhold from a debtor the information that a variation of an instalment order may be sought if the debtor comes to court. That is not to say the judge will grant such an order. The judge will still adjudicate in an impartial manner and if he or she considers that the debtor is, as one judge has said, playing ducks and drakes with the court, he or she will not grant a variation.

We are discussing a person who is facing imprisonment for non-payment of a debt, a fundamental premise of the Bill of which many of us have been critical. However, given that imprisonment for up to three months remains a sanction, as a bare minimum we should seek to encourage people to try to avoid imprisonment, if possible, and, as a first step, to try to avoid the issue of an arrest warrant. It is not in anyone's interests that an arrest warrant is issued or that people face imprisonment.

I indicated earlier that what is being done borders on criminalisation. I have since re-examined Ms Justice Laffoy's judgment and on page 70 she states that there is no rational basis for treating differently a person facing three months for non-payment of debt and a person facing three months for a criminal charge. The judge is pointing out that the person is going to prison and therefore faces the most severe consequence the State can offer. In that context, I fail to see how one can talk about balance because the information that can be provided in the summons is rather imbalanced, as the section stands. Even if one accepts the concept of balance, I fail to see how it impedes in any way the right of a creditor to include in the summons information about the possible positive as well as negative outcomes of the court hearing. The negative outcomes, namely, the imprisonment consequence, are provided for, which is appropriate given the importance of informing the debtor of this potential consequence. It is also important, however, that the debtor be told that it is not inevitable that he or she will be imprisoned and that other outcomes are possible. I ask the Minster of State to reconsider his position on the matter.