Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)

We broadly welcome the legislation, which is long overdue, and wonder why the draft Bill from 2007 has not been introduced before now. However, it is now before us. It is ludicrous that a significant number of people are incarcerated on the basis that they are unable to pay fines. It is expeditious and proper that the State put in place a system to allow people to pay their fines by instalment or other means, thus negating the need to go to prison. The case was already made by my colleague in Fine Gael that the problems that persist in prisons as a result of overcrowding are in no small way attributable to the fact that people are in prison due to non-payment of fines. This is leading to an undue burden on the State and must be rectified.

There was a previous judgment in this regard. I believe it was Mr. Justice Henchy who stated that in no circumstances should a court impose imprisonment as an alternative to a fine solely on the grounds that the defendant could not afford to pay the fine considered by the court to be appropriate. Imprisonment is the most serious punishment, and if it is not appropriate because the case is not sufficiently serious, a fine should be imposed as a lesser penalty. If the defendant cannot afford an appropriate fine, the amount should be lowered, and if he or she cannot afford any fine, imprisonment should not be considered as an alternative solely on the grounds that the fine cannot be paid. This is an important point. According to that judgment, it is better for someone to walk free without punishment rather than be punished by imprisonment just because he or she has no money to pay a fine. Otherwise we are imprisoning people on grounds of poverty rather than according to the seriousness of the offences they commit. This legislation will facilitate a process whereby those people who are unable to pay their fines in one fell swoop will be able to pay by instalments. This results in greater equity in that somebody who is convicted of a crime but is not a criminal in the classic sense of the word now has an opportunity to pay the fine in smaller instalments, which is to be welcomed.

I do not understand why, when the Law Reform Commission introduces recommendations - which in this instance date back to 1991 - the legislature does not come forward with proposals in a more timely fashion to rectify matters or make the law better. This Bill was first published in 2007 and the Law Reform Commission has been speaking on this issue since 1991. Any functioning democracy should have within its remit the ability to enact laws in a timely fashion. If one considers the cost factor alone, based on the number of people who have served prison sentences for non-payment of fines, we could have saved the State countless thousands of euro if better legislation had been introduced earlier. The Law Reform Commission, from any document I have seen, has been far-reaching in its approach to these issues. This is a matter that needs to be addressed.

I do not think it is fair that the limit above which instalments can be paid is €100. This limit should be removed so that fines of less than €100 can be also paid in instalments. There are many people out there who survive on subsistence wages or rely solely on income from the Department of Social and Family Affairs, and to whom literally every penny counts. To those people a fine of as little as €50 would be a considerable burden. Provision should be made in the Bill so that a fine of less than €100 can be paid by instalment. Daily, I deal with people who find themselves in difficulty over the non-payment of refuse charges, for example. Local authorities have systems whereby €5 per week could be paid. In many such instances, the outstanding debt could be as little as €70 or €80. The same type of principle should apply to this provision, a matter I hope can be addressed.

The legislation's net effect should be to reduce the number of impecunious offenders being sentenced to imprisonment. There should be careful monitoring of sentencing practices across the board to ensure the objective is achieved. For this reason, the Bill should provide for some form of statistical analysis whereby its net effect can be quantitatively and qualitatively measured in order that we can see the knock-on effect in terms of any reduction in the number of people presenting to prison and the success or otherwise of the legislation as enacted. If the legislation is updated in future, it is important that there be a statistical analysis. In this context, the Courts Service would be an important actor.

I refer to the Bills Digest. The Oireachtas Library and Research Service issued a good document from which it is worth quoting. It states:

A problem inherent in a system of penalties based on fines is the changing value of money over time. This can deprive a fine of its punitive nature and reduce its deterrent effect.

In terms of indexation, the Schedules are clearly set out in section 2, but we will submit some amendments that will be of a semantic nature as opposed to a substantive one. A good job has been done in the legislation's drafting in terms of the changing monetary effect that will persist in future. This is welcome.

The issue of a statement of means should be addressed. If someone presents himself or herself before the court and claims an inability to pay a fine despite possessing sound financial means, by what mechanism can the judge determine whether the person has the ability to pay? While there is provision in the legislation, should it be more prescriptive? As mentioned by the Minister of State, section 13 creates an offence of knowingly or recklessly making a statement "that is false or misleading in any material respect to a court conducting an inquiry into a person's financial circumstances". Should the section be more prescriptive in seeking a statement of means by the convicted person to prevent those with means from claiming otherwise? As there is scope for someone to misrepresent his or her position to the court, it might be desirable that a statement of means be sworn by the offender who is seeking an abatement of the fine by reason of his or her circumstances.

Two issues are not provided for in the Bill, to which the Minister of State might respond. Under the Bill, could judges be trained to analyse the types of scenario that appear before them and to work with the Courts Service to ensure efficiency is built into the system? There seems to be no specific provision regarding revenue offences. Is there such a provision?

I do not wish to repeat the points made by my colleague in Fine Gael, although I could. I would like to see specific issues addressed. The Labour Party is broadly in favour of the Bill and strongly believes that it is high time to reduce the numbers presenting to prisons for, in many instances, being unable to pay fines. It is proper that legislation be introduced to prevent such occurrences. The Government must take into account the fact that many people find it difficult to pay fines of less than even €100. We also believe that, since some people might try to misrepresent their true financial positions before judges, the Bill should have a prescriptive provision vis-À-vis the presentation of a statement of means. Judges should be trained on the Bill's mechanisms and its effect should be monitored by the Courts Service to ensure its intended impact because only by means of a statistical analysis can we measure the Bill's true impact.

See this speech in context