Alex White (Labour)

I move amendment No.2:

In page 4, between lines 5 and 6, to insert the following:

"(3) Where a judge of the District Court is satisfied that the debtor is avoiding personal service, the judge may make such order as is appropriate to compel the attendance of the debtor before the Court.".

It has been correctly stated during the course of these debates that creditors also have rights. Most of the force of the argument on this side of the House has been to seek to ensure the rights of debtors and the position faced by debtors are properly provided for in legislation. Every single opportunity should be afforded to a debtor who, unfortunately, finds himself or herself in that difficult position to make good the debt and not face the ultimate consequences that still obtain in those circumstances. However, many people who are creditors also face genuinely serious difficulties in extracting money owed to them by debtors. One of my colleagues on the other side of the House made the point that not all creditors are large financial institutions or large retailers. People running small businesses and other individuals are owed money and find it difficult to have it repaid to them. We must acknowledge this.

When we are seeking to scrutinise this Bill, especially in the context of the Laffoy judgment, we should make no apology for concentrating on the position that faces debtors in circumstances where they are threatened with imprisonment. This amendment deals with a situation that seems to arise by virtue of section 6(2)(d) where one of the requirements of the summons about which we spoke earlier is that it be served on the debtor by personal service. I have no difficulty that it should be served by personal service, but it does not include any provision for substituted service with which we are familiar in the system generally. Where there is no provision for a substituted service, there is a possibility or risk that a few people might seek to avoid service of a summons on them. From the kind of provisions that are in this Bill, it follows that there should also be a provision where the court would have some form of residual discretion to compel the attendance of a person who might be seeking to avoid personal service. One way of doing that is to provide for substituted service, something that is used frequently across the system. I will be interested to hear what the Minister of State has to say on this.