Mick Wallace (Wexford, Independent) | Oireachtas source

It is clear from many perspectives that imprisonment for non-payment of relatively minor fines, or unwillingness to pay such fines, should be seen as a measure of last resort. In that context, the revised legislation before the House, the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Bill 2013, is welcome in so far as a serious discussion on this vexed and complicated issue needs to take place. Some of the details of the Bill represent a move or a number of moves towards a policy that may be damaging to Irish society in the long term. Most worryingly, the design of the legislation means it is likely to have a more negative effect on the less well-off.

The role, intended purpose and function of the fines system itself must be put up for discussion before we begin to debate the contents of the Bill. Does one receive a fine as punishment for wrong-doing to discourage one from recidivism? Does one receive a fine as punishment, while at the same time making a little revenue for the State? As a direct result of the failures of this Government and its predecessor to look objectively at our failed banking system, the fiscal affairs of the State are in a dire state. It is misguided to see the fines system as a credible method of generating much-needed revenue, as the Bill before the House, by its own internal logic, appears to do. Such an approach has the potential to lead to all kinds of problems at a future stage.

I accept that the imposition of short prison terms for non-payment of fines should be seen as a last alternative. Imprisonment is costly to the State and, arguably, has very little merit in and of itself. The emphasis on extending powers and expanding the recovery orders system as outlined in section 3, in addition to the application of attachment orders as covered in sections 14 to 18, seems unwarrantedly aggressive and, in the overall scheme of things, potentially counter-productive. We could take a more fruitful, valuable and effective approach to this subject by placing a renewed emphasis on the establishment of a more wide-ranging community service programme and by devoting our energies to the instalment payments service in a way that is sensitive to the means of the offender and, importantly, easy to use.

It may be the case that a community service system would be difficult to run effectively. If it received the co-operation of local communities and councils, it could be a real option to be encouraged. It could have numerous productive offshoots, including the regeneration of shared public spaces. It could give people an opportunity to learn new skills and to make reparations to the community. It could be used to integrate offenders into the community. Importantly, as an alternative to imprisonment it could be a cost-effective punishment. I should add that if we could provide for a really good community service structure, we should consider making some forms of community service compulsory in these cases, especially for those who can afford to buy their way out of their problems.

It is clear that the proposed Bill favours the use of recovery orders and attachment orders and views community service as a last alternative to imprisonment. Admittedly, the continuous downgrading of our local authorities does not help matters. This position clearly fails to engage with the real long-term benefits of community service and the potential long-term negatives that may result from the more repressive approach that is proposed. It could also be argued that this position regards capital as more important than the public good. There is a worry that the decision to put in place a system of receivers will amount to the creation of a new private industry that will, in the main, target the less well-off. It is plain to see that those who engage in public order, theft and drugs offences will be on the receiving end of this treatment. The Probation Service's research report of November 2012 states that "the three most common offences for which offenders were reconvicted were the same as the three most common original offences: Public Order, Theft and Drugs". The citizens who commit such offences are primarily those who find themselves economically at the fringes of society.

It is politically suspect, to say the least, to widen the scope and encourage the activities of debt collectors, who have the authority to forcibly enter and confiscate the property of citizens and who operate in a system that is tailor-made for abuse. Judging by a recent RTE programme, "The Sheriff and Me", one could be forgiven for suspecting that the ethical conduct of the office of the sheriff leaves much to be desired. Few, if any, members of the public welcome the possibility of a mob of State-sanctioned debt collectors entering their homes by force and extracting their possessions. It may be fair to presume that those who can afford to pay their fines will do so. In effect, this means we will help to create a two-tier system in this area, just as we are increasingly doing in many sectors of society under today's version of capitalism. Under the system to which I refer, the rich are rewarded for their ability to pay and the poor are punished for their inability to pay.

Aristotle said that "democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers". We are currently failing to live up to that definition. In a properly functioning democracy, the State would at least see its role as protecting the weak from the strong rather than erecting buttresses under the structure of inequality that is prevalent in Ireland today. This Bill in its essence represents the groupthink of those who do not give a damn about democracy or anything resembling it. This is libertarianism, with State repression thrown in for good measure. If one can afford to pay one's way, that is fine - off one goes. If not, one will be crushed. Time and again, the Government fails to appreciate that it has colluded in the largest increase in inequality this country has seen for many generations. A recent EU Anti-Poverty Network document on wealth distribution calculated that in Ireland, 1% of the population holds 20% of the wealth, 2% of the population controls 30% of the wealth, and the top 5% of the population disposes of 40% of private assets.

This legislation may help to keep some people out of prison, which is to be commended, but it will also manage to hurt those at the bottom of the ladder who are in that position because of the failure of successive Governments to understand a concept of value that has a human being built into it. Our useless, failed and corrupt banking sector has been propped up at untold human cost to this country and with little tangible return. Our schools and hospitals are overcrowded. This country's youth unemployment rate is astronomical. The Government and some right-wing Members of this Parliament think that economic growth is the answer to all our problems. In the first instance, it should deal with the huge issue of unemployment, which affects so many people in this country today.

See this speech in context