Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

Attachment to income is a good principle and one which Senators discussed on Second Stage. It is a less costly way to address the issue of debt than imprisonment. Senator Quinn cited a case of a person who was imprisoned for a debt of €1,700 at a cost of some €23,000. From the perspective of the State, an attachment to earnings procedure is clearly a good idea.

Where a debtor is liable by virtue of an attachment or instalment order, such orders should cover more than the debt owed. I have listened to what my colleagues, some of whom are barristers, have said about the Laffoy judgment. The amendments to the 1940 Act will ensure a debtor who is in breach of an instalment order must come before the court and be advised that he or she may face imprisonment. In addition, the Act has been amended to shift the onus of proof and require the creditor to show that the debtor has the assets and capacity to pay the debt. This provision must overcome the constitutional difficulties arising from the McCann judgment.

During the Second Stage debate, the Minister of State indicated that the Law Reform Commission is examining issues surrounding debtors and creditors with a view to producing recommendations. We should await the report of the commission for a number of reasons. Issues such as social welfare fraud and certain aspects of tax fraud, albeit not cases involving excessive amounts, and other matters should be brought within the attachment order procedure. We must simplify the system for recovering debts, whether they are due to the State or another citizen. While I am taken with the concept of attachment orders and support the principle involved, the amendment is premature.