Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I welcome what the Minister has said and I welcome what he has done in addressing the heart of the Bill. We must strike a balance between those who are unable, for one reason or another, to discharge the fine and those who are unwilling to pay and respond to the court.

I accept the Minister's point that there are often difficulties. For example, it often appears that higher fines are imposed in court on persons who do not attend for whatever reason. They may have lost the summons or do not regard it as being as serious as it should be, or maybe they have received some bad advice that there is no need to attend. They are often then faced with a higher fine because the court wishes to register the lack of respect on the part of the person for his or her inability to attend. This gives rise to problems because the court has no idea as to the financial status or the dependent, family or employment circumstances of the individual involved. This can cause hardship down the line where the person who is unable to pay the fine does not have a choice, and when the garda comes knocking on the door a few months later to execute a warrant for imprisonment, that garda is unable to accept an amount less than the full payment of the fine.

We referred to this problem on Committee Stage and we pointed out that there was an element of redress some years ago in the from of a ministerial petition, which regrettably received some very bad press and was discontinued. There are circumstances in which I would still see merit in such an arrangement, albeit narrowly focused at the level of ministerial discretion. However, what we are doing now will assist in some way.

When the fine is imposed, my understanding is that instead of having the rider of seven days' imprisonment in default of payment within the period, the reference will be made to the new receiver. How will it come back on the court list? I presume there will be a return date where unpaid or undischarged fines will be listed for hearing. It will not be at the application of the person against whom the fine is levied, because that person may not know about it or may not have expressed an interest. There will be a duty on the State to have the matter listed for hearing at some later date to allow for the receiver process to take place.

The ultimate sanction of imprisonment for people who will not pay is probably unavoidable because otherwise the system will not work without the deterrent of the ultimate sanction of loss of liberty. However, the fact that almost 4,000 citizens were imprisoned last year for defaulting on fines underlines the need to bring about change, having regard to the fact that it costs almost €100,000 to keep somebody in prison. If up to 4,000 people are being imprisoned for a period either in respect of the non-payment of fines or as a result of an inability on the part of the State to collect fines, there is no doubt but that a cost arises. In such circumstances, there are no winners. In the first instance, the State does not obtain its money. In the second, it finds it difficult to recover any funds because those who are in prison cannot pursue any lawful occupations that would facilitate their making earnings which would thereby allow them to pay their fines.

I agree with the Minister in respect of the community service option. I am somewhat concerned that the courts do not appear to be invoking this option in the manner in which they might do so. Perhaps the Minister will explain why the figures relating to community service orders appear to be declining. The value for money and policy review of the community service scheme indicates that 2,500 community service orders were issued by the District Court in 2007, whereas in 2003 the figure was 2,883. I am concerned with regard to the decline in these figures. I do not have the 2009 figures in my possession. If the Minister has sight of them, perhaps he could inform the House of the position. I would have thought that community service orders were working well, particularly in light of the recent report of the probation and welfare service. It is regrettable that community service is not being used to the same extent as in the past. I understand it is only being used in respect of a proportion of offences and a percentage of the offenders to whom it is applicable.

There are a number of other issues relating to these amendments which I raised on Committee Stage. If the Minister is not in a position to provide information in respect of those issues at this point, perhaps he might forward me a note in respect of them. In that context, I do not wish to delay the proceedings of the House in any way. I welcome what the Minister is doing here because it is extremely important. The legislation was lacking in the absence of the measures he is introducing in these amendments.

Will the Minister outline the reason for mandatory fines? I refer, in particular, to revenue and customs offences in respect of which there is just one level of fine and this is somewhat on the high side. There is no scale provided but the sitting judge will have power to commute. More often than not, the latter is done immediately. However, it need not necessarily be done. The vast majority of fines handed down in the courts relate to road traffic offences. However, a scale applies in respect of such fines and this is often linked to the ability of a defendant - should he or she be present to explain the circumstances relating to the case to the presiding judge - to pay. Most revenue and weights and measures offences appear to be mandatory in nature. Why is that the case? What is the State's reasoning in respect of the imposition of such mandatory fines?

I am also concerned with regard to the compulsory assessment of means. What mechanism can be applied in respect of such an assessment? Bearing in mind that a defendant may not appear in court, would a matter be adjourned and an onus placed on the court clerk to serve further documentation on said defendant and produce registered post slips to show that every effort was made to contact him or her before any inordinate fine is imposed?

We dealt with the payment of fines by instalment. I refer here to the right or ability of an aggrieved individual to make an application to the court that a fine be paid by way of instalment. I presume that in such cases it will be necessary to engage in an assessment of means.

I welcome the amendments. If other issues arise, I am sure the Minister and our colleagues in the Seanad can deal with them at the appropriate time.

See this speech in context