John Moloney (Laois-Offaly, Fianna Fail)

): I thank all the Senators who contributed and ensured the debate was a positive and interesting discussion on the fines system in the country. The Minister, Deputy Dermot Ahern, already explained in his opening speech that the system of indexing proposed in the Bill might appear quite complex. However, I would suggest that while several tables of figures might seem at first glance intimidating, the scheme of indexation proposed in the Bill is not too difficult to understand. It is the system recommended by the Law Reform Commission in two reports and there is no realistic alternative scheme. We do not want to end up with a scheme under which a wealthy person could be fined several thousand euro for, say, throwing a cigarette butt on the pavement. Even if one believes someone who has this sort of money can afford to pay such a large amount, there would be two insurmountable obstacles. First, it is unlikely the courts would accept such a fine was proportionate to the offence committed and, second, the District Court is a court of summary jurisdiction in which there must be an upper limit to the amount of fines it can impose.

A total of 1,335 persons were imprisoned in 2007 solely for the non-payment of fines, most of whom would have had a short stay in prison. The figure rose to 2,154 in 2008 and 3,336 for the first ten months of 2009. This indicates greater enforcement of the laws on default and highlights the pressing need for this legislation.

While the issue of prison spaces taken up by fine defaulters is minor, the more important issue is ensuring persons are given every opportunity to pay their fines and in cases of default realistic alternatives to imprisonment are in place. That issue is more adequately dealt with in the Bill.

Section 17 amends the scale in section 2 of the Courts (No. 2) Act 1986 which sets out the maximum terms of imprisonment for defaulting on the payment of a fine imposed in the District Court. A maximum term of imprisonment is provided for, the length of which depends on the scale of fine default. Section 17 reduces the periods of imprisonment substantially and increases the levels of fine default in the scale. It also allows the Courts Service to publish the names and addresses of fine defaulters. Even though justice is administered in public and a fine imposed on a particular individual was published in a local or national newspaper, it might not be public knowledge that it was not paid. The section will also ensure the maximum level of compliance with the payment of fines. While a small minority may not care, most people who default on the payment of fines will no more wish to have their names on the list of defaulters than they would wish to see their neighbours and relatives see their property being seized for non-payment. The measures aimed at the recovery of fines should result in a substantially reduced level of fine default with a consequential reduced impact on the availability of prison spaces and a significant reduction in the number of warrants for imprisonment being executed by the Garda.

Senator McDonald asked if the Courts Service had the resources to implement the Bill's measures. It will involve additional work and is a matter for the Courts Service to introduce efficient procedures, including the use of modern technology, to ensure the provisions operate smoothly. Departmental officials are in consultation with the service on the implementation of the legislation. Some amendments were made to it in the Dáil to reduce the immediate impact of the system on the Courts Service.

Senator McDonald also inquired about how the receiver provisions would work. Receivers will perform similar duties to sheriffs and Revenue sheriffs, that is, seize and sell property. The main difference is that Revenue sheriffs are responsible for the enforcement of Revenue certificates under section 485 of the Income Tax Act 1967. The Dublin and Cork sheriffs are responsible to the courts for the enforcement of court orders in civil proceedings, while receivers will act on the instructions of the court to recover property to the value of an unpaid fine.

All sheriffs are appointed by the Government at the request of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform or the Minister for Finance. Their remuneration is set by the former with the consent of the latter in a fees order, last updated in 2005. They are independent agents, not civil servants. An expression of interest request to act as receivers will be drawn up and tender papers will be issued to suitably qualified candidates. An appointment to the position will be subject to contracts between the Courts Service and the receivers.

Experience in this field has been gained in the past few years. A pilot scheme ran from January 2006 to June 2006 involving the engagement of an external credit management agency to manage and attempt to collect a sample of overdue court imposed fines. The pilot scheme was considered successful and in late 2008 an expression of interest request for the collection of fines was placed to allow for the outsourcing of the collection of court imposed fines. There was a good response which resulted in the drawing up of a final tender. While the collection of overdue fines is different from the role envisaged for receivers, the experience suggests there will be no shortage of suitably qualified firms interested in the position.

Section 15(2) states a recovery order will not have effect until the receiver is informed of a default by the Courts Service. This will allow the credit management agency to make a final effort to be paid.

Senator Regan said the primary legislation should not be amended by regulation, as provided for in section 11 which is not a unique provision. For example, such a provision is contained in the British-Irish Agreement Act 1999. The regulations would not make substantive changes to the legislation but simply facilitate its implementation, should it prove necessary. On the other hand, increasing the level of fines might be regarded as a substantive change, even though they would not represent real increases.

Senator McDonald referred to the consequences for persons who did not pay on-the-spot fines. The Minister will examine this point later, as the Bill does not deal with on-the-spot or fixed fines but court-imposed fines on conviction for offences.

Senator Bacik referred to the €100 threshold for the payment by instalment provisions to apply. This is a prudent provision which will facilitate the introduction of the instalment facility and can be examined when the legislation is running smoothly.

Senator Bacik also stated persons from deprived backgrounds were most likely to be imprisoned. One reason for this is that judges may consider that for various reasons such persons are less likely to pay fines. Again, the Bill will remedy this issue. As of Monday last, there were four persons in prison for the non-payment of fines. The only alternate action in the case of default and a community service order is imprisonment.

Senator Quinn raised the recommendation made by the Law Reform Commission for a central debt enforcement office. The Bill deals with fines, not civil debts which the Minister is examining in another context. Few people are in prison for the non-payment of civil debts. The number committed to prison for the non-payment of fines is slightly misleading, as it pertains to the number in prison on any single night and is not significant. I have already mentioned that there were four.

Senator Walsh thought there was potential for unfairness in the ability to pay provisions. I emphasise that the Judiciary will retain full discretion regarding the amount of fine imposed as long as it is within the statutory limits. However, there is no point in imposing a level of fine that the person is clearly unable to pay as it could result in an injustice being done to deprived persons and would most likely lead to imprisonment. In that context, there could be a level of injustice but it would take into account the person's ability to pay.

Question put and agreed to.