David Norris (Independent)

I support what Senator Regan has said and I am not satisfied by the Minister of State's reply. I do not think he answered one element of the question I raised. The whole idea of attachment goes back much further than the 1980s. One can find it in novels by Charles Dickens. It was a feature of the Victorian era in Britain, where earnings and so on were attached. However, that does not matter. These are swingeing powers.

In his reply, the Minister of State gave us a kind of humanised sketch of a series of situations. That may very well be true. There may very well be decent, kind, loving, caring, Christian, Jewish, Muslim or ethical people employed in the Revenue Commissioners. I am perfectly certain there are because I personally know that some of them fit those headings. On the other hand, that is just a little dramatisation. We are here as legislators, not as auditors of a dramatic fantasy of the Minister of State. We must look at the possible applications of this Bill. I have pointed out that there appear to be no limits whatever. The Minister of State has not indicated that there are any limits. I indicated that it appeared to be possible that the entire income of a citizen could be so attached. In other words, the citizen would be left with nothing on which to live or to support his or her family. The Minister of State has not said that there are any limitations. He did say that there was recourse to a Revenue appeal. I have no doubt there are principled officers who are given this unusual and onerous responsibility, as suggested by my colleague Senator Harris. I thank him for that rhetorical flourish but there is a good and substantial point underneath the rhetoric. It is a huge responsibility, particularly if it means extinguishing the entire income of a citizen. Why do these powers need to be so extraordinary if the people operating them are of such a sensitive nature that they will never require the full armoury provided by this legislation?

I would like the Minister to explain the following point to me. I do not want any little playlets, just a reply to the point. Is it possible, even theoretically - until it is applied this law is theoretical - that in its application this section could envisage, contemplate and bring about the removal of the entire income from a citizen? That is the principal question I would like to ask. I will not muddy the waters and invite further excursions into the imagination on the part of the Minister. I would just like him to answer that question. Is it possible that under this proposal the entire earnings of a citizen could be removed?