Alan Shatter (Dublin South, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will begin by dealing with my amendment No. 5 in this group of amendments. Subsection 6(3) requires a person who is in employment and who avails of the instalment process for paying a fine to provide certain information to the court. It was intended that this information would be available to the courts for use should it be necessary to make an attachment order at a later date. On reflection, having consulted further on the matter with the Courts Service, I am proposing that this requirement be deleted. The collection of the data concerned would impose an onerous burden on either the Courts Service or any agency responsible for administering the instalments system. By the time the information is used, it could very well be out of date and unreliable. Moreover, the information in question is the same information a person would be required to provide when an attachment order is being made. There is little or no advantage to be gained from collecting it earlier. In many cases, a situation will never arise where there is a need to utilise the information.

While the amendments proposed by Deputy Mac Lochlainn all stand in their own right, it is useful to consider the regime that would result from their application, namely, one under which all fines, no matter how small, would be eligible to be paid by instalment over 24 months. In addition, the administration fee that could be applied would be set at a fixed amount of up to €50 per fine.

In my view the 12-month instalment period set out in the Bill is appropriate in the circumstances. It must be remembered that section 5 requires the court to take a person's financial circumstances - where they are known - into account in determining the amount of a fine. Putting in place a period of 24 months would prolong the entire process, particularly where a person defaults and the other provisions are engaged as a result. It is not in the interests of the administration of justice that the collection of fines should drag on indefinitely. The Bill already makes provision for a quite elongated process and I am not prepared to add a further 12 months of possible delay to that.

Amendment No. 6 seeks to change the nature of the administration fee. The Bill stipulates that the fee will be set at up to 10% of the value of the fine. Deputy Mac Lochlainn wants it to be set at a monetary amount not exceeding €50. While I understand the Deputy's thinking on the matter, I am not convinced he is correct. It is true that the cost of physically collecting either a small or large fine is the same. However, this does not take into account the cost to the Exchequer of receiving a fine over 12 months rather than immediately. When one compares the 10% maximum fee in the Bill with the Deputy's €50 payment, one discovers that the former results in a smaller fee for all fines up to €500. If, for example, a person was fined €100, under the Deputy's proposal, the fee would be €50 and it would be the same for a person fined €400. In that sense, the sum involved would be disproportionate. The reason for proposing a percentage was to provide for a fairer approach. Only 10% of fines were set at more than €500 in 2012. It is interesting that the figure was as low as 10%. If the additional fee were imposed and if the statistics in future years mirrored those for 2012, an inordinately larger extra sum would be payable by 90% of people fined. This could prove to be unfair. There is also the issue of affordability. In my opinion it is better for the fine payer, and it is more likely to result in higher levels of compliance, if a percentage is charged. I hope the Deputy will reflect on that consideration.

The key issue in the context of whether the period is 12 months, 18 months or two years or whether a percentage is charged is that something contained in the original legislation which applies to the ordering of all fines was not present until relatively recently in a legal context. In the past fines were imposed by the courts without judges being obliged to have regard to the income assets of individuals. Cases would be heard and where people were convicted, fines would be levied on the basis of what the particular judge considered to be the appropriate amount in circumstances were a fine was imposed rather than the case being disposed of in some other way. No consideration was given to the financial circumstances of the individual being fined. When the Bill before the committee comes into force, the courts will, when imposing fines, be obliged to consider people's income situations. The latter is, of course, relevant if a fine is going to be paid over a 12-month period. Judges will have to consider what is an appropriate fine to impose having regard to the nature of a case and the level of fine it is appropriate to impose in light of the financial position of the person being fined. This settles, to a great extent, the issue with regard to whether the period should be two years or 12 months.

Whereas there will be a computer programme put in place in respect of the administration of fines, individual staff will be obliged to check whether this is working and whether people are meeting their obligations. As such, there will be an amount of engagement involved. I do not believe that individuals who are given small fines will need two years in which to discharge them in circumstances where there has already been a court adjudication to the effect that the level of such fines is reasonable in the context of their incomes.

Amendment No. 7 proposes the deletion of section 6(6). This would have the effect of allowing all fines, no matter how small, to be paid by instalment. In 2012, ten fines in the amount of €1 were imposed. I am sure Deputy Mac Lochlainn is not suggesting that fines of that level should be paid over 12 or 24 months, which would be the effect of the amendment. There is a threshold for the value of fines covered by the instalment provisions below which the system is dragged into disrepute. In my opinion that level of €100 or €2 per week. Anything less would result in greatly increased administration costs and would risk bringing this new and very liberal system of instalments into disrepute. The general public would find it very difficult to understand why someone who receives a fine of €10 or €15 should pay it in very small instalments. I do not want the system to be brought into disrepute. Rather, I want it to work in a manner which seems to provide for a degree of common sense. I also want the system to be administratively efficient and I do not want it to be unfair in the context of the individuals who have had very low fines imposed on them being subjected to high charges. The relationship between the level the fine and the additional sum paid is reasonable. In a sense the latter is a fee with has regard to the administration required. When the Bill is enacted, there will be nothing to prevent any individual from making a single payment. I would have thought that there will be many people who may be fined €100 or less by the courts who, because of their financial circumstances, will prefer to make a single payment rather than being obliged to discharge their fines by instalments.