Pat Carey (Dublin North West, Fianna Fail)

The single figures issue refers to a particular day. Concerning non-payment of fines, most of those imprisoned would have had a very short stay in prison. The issue is not one of prison spaces being taken up by fine defaulters but of ensuring that persons are not imprisoned either because they cannot afford to pay the fine or that payment would entail undue hardship for the person and his or her dependants. That issue is more than adequately dealt with in the Bill.

Staying with the issue of imprisonment, I draw attention again to section 10, which amends the table in section 2 of the Courts (No. 2) Act 1986 that sets out the maximum terms of imprisonment for default on payment of fines imposed in the District Court. A maximum term of imprisonment is provided and the length of terms depends on the level of fine default. Section 10 substantially reduces the periods of imprisonment and increases the levels of fine default in that table.

I shall address a number of issues that were raised by speakers. Deputies Flanagan and Ó Snodaigh asked why the Bill did not deal with failure to pay a civil debt. Imposition of fines on conviction of offences and failure to pay a civil debt are two totally different concepts and I am sure Deputy Flanagan knows this better than I do. They need to be considered as such despite efforts to link them, especially in the press. A fine is a State-imposed criminal sanction while the other relates to the enforcement of court judgments in respect of contract or civil debt. There are no immediate plans to bring forward legislative changes in regard to civil debt but the legislation is being kept under review.

Deputy Flanagan referred also to several Private Members' Bills published by Fine Gael over the years, as did Deputy Crawford. The most relevant of these is the 2004 Bill which was published by Deputy O'Keeffe in 2004. It provided for a system of indexation and also for payment of fines by instalment as follows: "The Minister may, by regulation, provide for the establishment of procedures under which a court may order payment of a fine by way of instalments". That hardly compares to the detailed provisions for payment by instalments set out in section 14 of this Bill.

The relevant section 14 of the Fine Gael Bill states: "The Minister may, by regulation, provide for the establishment of procedure under which a court, when imposing a fine must take into consideration the means of the offender". In response, the Minister would say these are simply enabling provisions. The hard work starts when trying to put detail on them. There would also be a technical problem in that giving effect to those provisions in regulations would almost certainly be regarded by the courts as being too substantive to be dealt with in secondary legislation. The Fine Gael Bill made no provision for alternatives to imprisonment and therefore that Bill bears very little resemblance to the Bill we are now debating. To say it does is misleading, to say the least.

Deputy Crawford asked whether the Bill provides for the attachment of earnings. Providing for attachment of earnings would be problematic at the present time and difficult to operate fairly. It would be futile to introduce attachment legislation that did not include attachment to social welfare entitlements and this would be a particularly inopportune time to provide for that. There would also be practical difficulties with persons who are not in the type of permanent employment that has a capacity to allow attachment to be implemented. It is well worth seeing how the provisions in the Bill and other administrative sanctions that make paying fines easier work in practice before considering further options.

Deputy Flanagan also referred to section 11. That section, as the Deputy noted, is unusual but not unique. If any unforeseen difficulties arise in the implementation of the index provisions the Minister can attempt to overcome them by regulations. It is regarded as unlikely that any regulations will be necessary but it is prudent to provide for that possibility. Any regulations would be enacted only to ease implementation from an administrative point of view and would be in compliance with the decisions of the Supreme Court.

Deputy Flanagan referred also to the logistics of implementing the Bill. The Courts Service will have to make full use of modern technology in administering the legislation, especially the collection of fines. Detailed procedures will be set out in the rules of court.

Deputy Sherlock inquired as to why the 2007 Bill was not brought before the House. I believe the Minister of State, Deputy Moloney, dealt fully with that point in his opening speech. I would add that this legislation proved to be complex to prepare. Deputy Sherlock also suggested that fines of less than €100 should also be payable by instalments. The purpose of limiting the instalments provisions to fines above €100 is to reduce the burden on the courts, at least initially. The sum of €100 is relatively modest but in time it may be possible to abolish that limit.

Deputy Sherlock asked whether section 13 should be more prescriptive. This can be considered but, on the face of it, section 13 seems to deal adequately with the possibility of false statements. The Deputy also raised the question of the training of judges. Judicial training is dealt with through the Judicial Studies Institute.

I believe I have addressed all the issues raised in this debate and I thank all the Members who contributed to it.

See this speech in context