Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)

We are dealing with a new procedure. The purpose of this Bill is twofold. The first is the indexation of fines in order to bring all existing fines up to today's values. The second is to ensure the payment of fines and to obviate the need for people to be imprisoned because of a failure to pay relatively small amounts of money. There have been instances over the years where people were hauled off to prison only to be released within hours after paying the money due, both fine and costs, as ordered by the court. Others are released after a period of confinement in order to free up spaces. As I said in recent days, because of the changes in legislation we have implemented both on the civil side and the criminal side, people will no longer be imprisoned for the non-payment of civil debt or criminal fines unless they have the means and are purposely refusing to pay.

Under the current system, if a person is fined €500 in the District Court for a motor traffic offence, for example, he or she is liable to seven days in prison in case of default. In other words, if the money is not paid within a week, that person will eventually get a knock on the door from a garda to be told that he or she will be going to Mountjoy if the money is not paid. In future, however, what will happen is that the court will impose a fine and will nominate a receiver who will, if the person does not pay within the due date and where an application has not been made and granted for payment by instalments, approach the person and take property in lieu of the fine.

Obviously, there are costs involved. The issue is addressed in the primary rather than secondary legislation because during discussion of the Bill in both Houses, Members indicated this approach would be preferable.

To continue with the sequencing, if the receiver returns to find there are no goods available to take in lieu of the fine, a community service order may be made, whereby the person can repay his or her debt to the community by doing a number of hours of community service. If this sanction is not applied or the person cannot participate in community service, the final option is prison.

The concept of equality of impact is built into the legislation. In other words, there is a statutory onus on members of the Judiciary, in imposing a fine on a person within the limits laid down for the offence in question, to take into account the financial circumstances of the person on whom the fine is imposed. The first check and balance is that the fine is not unduly unfair to the person given his or her financial circumstances.

The next stage is the receiver. It is reasonable that the receiver should obtain the costs and expenses incurred in seeking to secure property in lieu of a fine. In the intervening period, the person can make an application to pay by instalments and provided the instalments are paid, there is no question that a receiver will be dispatched.

On the costs of the receiver, the objective is to ensure these mirror the costs of the sheriff. The costs are set down in the fees orders and are reasonable in the circumstances. The Department must liaise with the Courts Service in this respect. The manner in which returns are made is laid down in the primary legislation. It is a criminal offence if the person who secures the contract deviates from it or takes more than is required. In such circumstances, the contract would also be terminated. I assure Deputies the fees will be as reasonable as possible in the circumstances and will be aligned to the current fees orders that are made in respect of sheriffs when they do their business.

See this speech in context