Aodhán Ó Ríordáin (Dublin North Central, Labour) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Senators who decided to be constructive in their contributions. The Civil Debt (Procedures) Bill represents a balanced measure which provides creditors with improved enforcement mechanisms for modest debts and provides strong safeguards for debtors. The Bill abolishes imprisonment, an important point to stress and something I assume people would generally be in favour of, and provides two new District Court measures for the recovery of modest debts between €500 and €4,000 in value. The provisions of the Bill will be available to a wide range of creditors, although some seem to be obsessed with Irish Water. The measures are fair and balanced and ensure consideration of a debtor's ability to pay a debt is the key element of the court process. The Bill ensures debtors will not be subject to an attachment or deduction order that would bring their income below a reasonable standard. The Bill does not target any particular group. Debt enforcement and the recovery of moneys owed is part of any normal economic activity. If it were not the case, how would businesses survive? The Bill ensures those who owe money and have the capacity to pay something towards the debt do so. Those who cannot pay are protected by the very significant safeguards the Minister outlined in her opening speech.

There have been a number of gross exaggerations, including a suggestion that compliance with an attachment of earnings order would be a bureaucratic nightmare for employers or undermine employer-employee relations. Employers have either in-house or outsourced access to payroll systems. In the operation of these systems, deductions and pay-over is an everyday occurrence, whether for taxes, union subscriptions or credit union payments. Attachment of earnings systems are working in a range of other jurisdictions and have not caused the sky to fall in regarding employer-employee relations. In such situations, employees are protected by employment law protections such as those against unfair dismissals.

Some Senators have suggested the legislation makes attachment and deduction orders a first resort rather than a last resort, which is untrue. Before a creditor can go to court for an attachment or deduction order, he or she must first have obtained a court judgment order in respect of the debt. Before this happens, the debtor will have had a full opportunity to make an arrangement with the creditor regarding payment of the debt. Following that, the creditor must go to court a second time to secure an attachment or deduction order. The debtor will have had another opportunity before this to make arrangements to pay the debt. The Bill specifically provides that the court may adjourn an attachment or deduction application if it believes the debtor will pay the debt within a reasonable period. If an attachment or deduction order is made under the legislation, it will be the culmination of a substantial series of processes within which there will have been extensive opportunities for a debtor to make arrangements to settle the debt. The Bill represents a balanced measure on the enforcement of debt and will be a welcome addition to the existing measures available to creditors to seek repayment of moneys owed to them.

I will address some of the more constructive questions that were asked. I was not here for all of Senator Ó Domhnaill's contribution, but will respond to his point about the establishment of a debt enforcement office. We regard this as an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy in the context of the measures. A number of the core issues regarding attachment of earnings and deduction of social welfare, which were raised in the LRC report, are reflected in the safeguards in the legislation.

Senator van Turnhout made a point about the courts guidance on reasonable living expenses, and many people are asking why, if it was included in the personal insolvency legislation, it is not included in this Bill. They are two different concepts. The personal insolvency legislation is framed on the assumption that the creditor is insolvent and is seeking to have some or all of his or her debt written off. The concept of "reasonable living expenses" has a different context in that scenario. This Bill deals with debtors' capacity to pay money they owe to creditors. The provisions ensure courts have sufficient information available on people's financial circumstances. Courts are also obliged to take into account any representations debtors may make about their circumstances. For example, obligations towards family members might be taken into account in assessing their ability to repay debts.

The courts already have a body of expertise on the matter. For example, the District Courts have considerable experience of living expenses regarding attachment orders which arise in the context of family law proceedings. It is preferable to allow the court full discretion in assessing a debtor's capacity to repay a debt. Every circumstance will be different, as the Senator will appreciate. Individual circumstances will vary from debtor to debtor, and the courts should be allowed to make their own decisions on these matters. There is nothing to prevent a court from having regard to the insolvency service's guidelines if it so wishes, and there is no need to make an explicit provision for it in the Bill.