Dáil debates

Thursday, 20 May 2010

Fines Bill 2009: From the Seanad

 

12:00 pm

Photo of Charles FlanaganCharles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

I support these amendments because I accept the principle of the Minister's objectives in terms of the appointment, operation and day-to-day engagement of the receiver. However, I am anxious that the message should go from this House that whatever expenses are incurred by way of professional fees, travel expenses and so on must be kept to a minimum. We are dealing with people who, for one reason or other, are unable to pay a fine. If they were in a position to pay the fine and to do so promptly there would be no need for a receiver.

The Minister draws a parallel between the receiver and the Revenue sheriff or bailiff. However, there are often difficulties in terms of the costs added on to instalments that are due, having regard to the fact that these are almost exclusively people in financial difficulty. I am aware of cases where Revenue sheriffs are setting up standing engagements to visit debtors perhaps twice a week in order to extract payments. I am not saying these payments are not lawfully due; rather that on occasion, due regard may not be given to the person's ability or inability to pay. If a receiver decides to travel, on notice, 50 or 60 miles to visit a fine defaulter on a Monday - being a regional receiver as I am sure will be the case - and return on the Wednesday or Friday, we will have a situation where the expenses of the receiver may well exceed the amount of the fine and could run to hundreds if not thousands of euro. My understanding is that the receiver will have first call in so far as his or her expenses will be discharged out of whatever sale of goods or chattels takes place.

I do not have an immediate solution to this problem but I am anxious that the Minister make a clear statement in the House that this system will not be a money-making exercise for receivers and that costs and expenses will be held within specific limits. There are already concerns at the ease with which a Revenue sheriff can clock up considerable expenses which take precedence over the sum sought in the first instance.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.