Eugene Regan (Fine Gael)

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 8, before section 3, to insert the following new section:

"3.—The Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926 is hereby amended by the insertion of the following section, after section 17:

"17A.—All instalment orders made under the aforementioned section must be served, personally, on the judgment debtor and must contain a notification of the consequences of failure to comply with such an order, including the possibility of imprisonment pursuant to section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 1940, as amended by section 2 of the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 2009 and the District Court Rules applicable to such proceedings may make.".".

The amendment provides for an amendment to the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1926, as distinct from the 1940 Act. It is designed to deal with the type of issue raised by Ms Justice Laffoy in her judgment. It relates to personal service and the alerting of an individual to the possibility of imprisonment if he or she fails to comply with the order. This relates not to a summons, as such, but to an instalment order in the first instance. The amendment proposes a new section in the 1926 Act, that, "All instalment orders made under the aforementioned section must be served, personally, on the judgment debtor and must contain a notification of the consequences of failure to comply with such an order, including the possibility of imprisonment pursuant to section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders (Amendment) Act 1940, as amended by section 2". The order must be served personally on the judgment debtor and must contain a notification of the consequences of failure to comply with such an order, including the possibility of imprisonment pursuant to section 6 of the Enforcement of Court Orders Act 1940, as amended by section 2 of the Bill. The idea is that this endorsement of the order will inform the debtor that failure to comply could result in the issuing of a committal summons, as a result of which the instalment order could be varied. The court may order mediation or attachment, as is proposed in the Bill. The court may also order imprisonment with or without a stay of execution.

The reason the amendment is important is that Ms Justice Laffoy highlighted it as a weakness in the system. In page 82 of the judgment she says similarly the failure to impose on the creditor pursuing an application for an order for arrest and imprisonment the obligation to go through an order 46B type process, including personal service of an order with penal endorsement, does not impair the debtor's right to liberty as little as possible. Again, it is a reference to the proportionality test. It is in the light of that ruling of Ms Justice Laffoy that one has to go back to the instalment order itself and ensure it is personally served on the debtor, and that does require an amendment to the 1926 Act. I commend the amendment to the House.