Simon Coveney (Cork South Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I will make some comments because there is a misunderstanding regarding what we are trying to do. In order for an individual to get a fixed penalty notice, someone will have to carry out an inspection and go back to the local authority on reasonable grounds and a second authorised officer must approve that. Two people must be involved. Perhaps we can improve the wording but section 49(1) states that where an officer of the Minister, authorised by the Minister in that behalf or a local authority, authorised by the manager of the authority in that behalf, has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence, he or she can serve a notice on that person. This is not just one person who is trigger-happy or over-zealous. It is a system that allows a person who has made an inspection and thinks there are reasonable grounds for sending a fixed penalty notice to offer somebody the option of just paying up and forgetting about it. According to section 49(1)(c), a person is not obliged to make the payment. If a farmer or pet owner decides that he or she has done nothing wrong and will not pay, he or she will not be taken to court for not paying. The onus would still be on the authorised officer, the Department or local authority to take that person to court, as they would or would not have done if this was not there. There is no downside to this for the owner. He or she is given the option to pay the fine, fix the problem and forget about it or do nothing and let the law take its course.

We put in this section to protect animal owners, not to improve enforcement. We can take someone to court if we have reasonable grounds for believing that he or she has been cruel to the animal or responsible for significant welfare issues. We can put the evidence before the court and it only becomes evidence when it is laid before the court. It is reasonable grounds when one is putting the case together. If the person feels it is not fair to ask him or her to pay up, he or she has the option of not paying. There is no offence involved in not paying. Not paying does not affect the subsequent court case if there is to be such a case. It is made clear here. Section 49(1)(d) states that "a prosecution in respect of the alleged offence will not be instituted during the period specified in the notice and, if the payment specified in the notice is made during that period, no prosecution in respect of the alleged offence will be instituted." The question of whether one pays the money or not is irrelevant to the case if it is taken at a later stage. What it does stipulate is that if somebody gets a fixed penalty notice, he or she has the option to kill it there and then by paying up or doing nothing and when the fixed notice period ends, he or she can expect either to be taken to court or for the matter to be dropped.

The upside is for the person who committed the offence not the authorised officers. I can only think it due to a misunderstanding that people believe this to be some kind of charter for overly zealous inspectors to hand out on-the-spot fines. That is not what this was intended to do. Two people must make that decision and the decision to send out a fixed notice must be authorised in a local authority or in the Minister's office. It is then up to the person. If he or she feels that this is an unfair process, he or she can do nothing and let the law take its course. It does not cost him or her anything. He or she is not doing anything he or she would not otherwise have done under the current legislative structure whereby we take someone to court if we have reasonable grounds for believing he or she is committing an offence. We tried to introduce a system that would short-circuit us having to go to court, and bearing the cost of that, and keeping people out of court when they do not need to be there.

I understand that people might see this as a revenue-raising exercise but it is not. This is an option for people who have been caught out because they have been doing something that they should not have been doing. It allows them to deal with the problem speedily. Obviously, if they are caught a second and third time, the option may be to take them to court rather than giving them a fixed penalty notice. I find it difficult to understand why people are as suspicious as members seem to be about it.