Brian Ó Domhnaill (Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, to the House for the Second Stage of this Bill. I acknowledge the work of Minister Fitzgerald and her officials in bringing forward the Bill. In the general scheme of things, we should welcome bringing striking a balance and bringing Ireland into line with other international jurisdictions in terms of what was outlined in the 2009 FLAC document, "To No One's Credit". We would all support that.

However, there have been issues raised by FLAC and others about this legislation which are a cause of concern. The Minister has mentioned the Law Reform Commission recommendations in this regard which, in their general thrust, form the largest part of this Bill. However, it would appear that the Law Reform Commission recommendations were adopted à la carteinto this legislation because other protections that had been proposed by the commission have been omitted. If I have time, I will get to them here on Second Stage or, alternatively, on Committee Stage.

Ultimately, it would appear that the legislation will give creditors the opportunity to apply to the court for an order enabling either an attachment of earnings or deductions from social welfare. Alarmingly, that includes utility companies, as the Minister has mentioned, including Irish Water, and Irish Water was referred to here yesterday. The end of imprisonment for non-payment of debt is being introduced and is a welcome step. This was debated in the Dáil last evening and the Minister mentioned that safeguards have been put in place against imprisonment for non-compliance of court orders on debt. FLAC raised concerns in this regard. Perhaps they have now been addressed and if they have, I very much welcome that.

The other issue is to whom the debts would apply. Financial institutions, credit unions, and mortgage and credit card companies and so on are excluded, but there has been speculation that the Bill is, partly at least, intended to recover payments for State levies, such as unpaid water charges through the attachment of a person's income or a deduction from his or her social welfare.Under the definition of "debt" in section 1, the attachment of earnings will not be available to a lender authorised by the Central Bank. That is fine, but what about unregulated lenders like loan sharks and so on? Are they included in this legislation?

The debt situation in Ireland is of concern. MABS has compiled a report covering the first quarter of 2015. Some 4,872 new clients approached it in that time, 63% of whom derived their primary income from social welfare payments and 37% of whom derived their primary income from self-employment. The latter are not included in this legislation. Is there a reason for that? The Minister mentioned hardware stores. I know of many in my county that were done out of money as a result of small builders going to the wall, yet that is not included in this legislation. It seems that the State is protecting itself, particularly in terms of new establishments such as Irish Water that are not covered by debt recovery measures under older legislation.

I went through the figures relating to the people who approached MABS in the first quarter of this year. Approximately 80% would not be covered by this legislation, as most of their queries related to personal loans with financial institutions, credit cards and mortgages. Comprising the other 20% were queries relating to utility companies like providers of telephone and electricity services. Water has not been charged yet, but it will be included under this Bill. Of the 4,872 new clients, 221 approached MABS regarding moneylenders, although I am unsure as to whether those were regulated or unregulated lenders. Will people with overdrafts, hire purchase loans for cars and so on be covered by this legislation? Are landlords and catalogue companies included? I would like the Minister to expand on the types of debt that will be covered.

Questions arise about ability to pay, which is an issue that the Minister mentioned. I agree with her, in that there are people who have the ability to pay but, for political or other reasons, choose not to. They take an ideological stance, which is their right. However, I am unsure as to how a court will determine ability to pay. The procedure involves the District Court. Section 7(1) outlines that the court will assess the capacity to pay and the debtor will be offered an opportunity to make representations to the court on his or her behalf. However, the section makes no reference to the court defining what constitutes a reasonable living expense. The Minister mentioned that deductions in earnings would allow for reasonable living expenses. The supplementary welfare payment is €186 or so for an individual. Presumably, this figure will be considered the reasonable living expense. Nothing requires the District Court to include such considerations in its determination on an attachment of earnings, though. The Free Legal Advice Centres, FLAC, are concerned that the District Court will not have the necessary expertise on financial, budgetary and over-indebtedness matters to deal with them appropriately. This issue must be addressed and I would be interested to hear the Minister's comments on same.

As to deductions from social welfare payments, those payments are often nothing more than survival payments. Given the society that we live in, is it right to reduce the money given to those who are in survival mode? I am not sure that it is.

I welcome aspects of the Bill. The Law Reform Commission, LRC, has made recommendations regarding a number of matters, for example, employees' deductions being made through their employers. This will be a major issue down the road, with employers branding or castigating employees based on court orders requiring the former to deduct money from the latter's wages because of bills that were left unpaid. People will be branded wrongly, leading to them becoming nuisances for their employers, who will take the easy way out and discharge them. Nothing in the Bill would protect the employee in that instance even though it is a key recommendation of the LRC. That is a mistake. If an attachment order was made against an individual and he or she applied for a job, the new employer would have to deal with the order within ten days of the person getting the job. Will attachment orders become the subject of an interview question? Issues such as this have not been thought out or address in the Bill. As a result, we will introduce amendments on Committee Stage. While we support aspects of the Bill, we will vote against it in its current format, given its lack of protections.