Clare Daly (Dublin North, Socialist Party) | Oireachtas source

The Bill is obviously being presented by the Minister as a positive measure and a progressive move. That viewpoint was accepted by the spokespeople for the main Opposition parties. If one can end up in jail for not paying a fine, an alternative that involves not being in jail can sound progressive. It is reprehensible that people should end up in jail for this. However, this move would be supported by even the most devout advocates of law and order because on closer examination, it is not a humanitarian move. It is not even a change in social policy. This move is primarily an economic decision.

When one looks at the figures regarding the amount of people who spend time in jail for fine defaults, with over 8,000 people being jailed in 2012 representing a whopping 48% of all committals, one can see a very solid economic logic for why the State would move away from this. There was a 10% increase in committals for non-payment of fines last year so already there is a substantial problem in this regard. By removing the possibility of jail for non-payment of a fine, one could potentially almost halve one's prison intake overnight so in that sense, it is sensible economically.

However, there is much more to this than meets the eye and we must dig deeper. I would like the Minister to expand on and deal with some of the issues posed by Deputy Wallace. The issue here should not be about whether people should have fines deducted from their wages as an alternative to jail. The discussion should really be about whether it is appropriate to have monetary penalties or fines as a mechanism for dealing with breaking the law. Is it appropriate? Is it a deterrent? Does it reduce wrongdoing or does it make citizens behave better and correct them in their law-breaking? All of the evidence would say that it does not. It is a fundamentally wrong way of looking at it and sends a totally wrong signal. In essence, it is saying that if one is wealthy, one can buy one's way out of anything and the more money one has, the more wrongdoing one can carry out and the higher the fines one can pay but if one is poor, one will be penalised for that and the State will end up making one poorer. This is a Bill for the poor and people of limited means. In that sense, it is inherently discriminatory because if one is wealthy, this Bill will never apply to one because one has paid one's fine so they will not need to come in and deduct the money from one's wages. We need to take stock of the implications of that message to people.

In the majority of cases, fines are for road and traffic offences, theft and public order and drug offences. Relatively few fines would appear in the area of sexual assault but I want to use sexual assault as an example because it shows how inappropriate it is to put monetary penalties on crimes and because it demonstrates where this approach can lead. Deputies will be aware of the controversy surrounding Judge Desmond Hogan who suspended five and a half years of a six-year sentence given to an individual found guilty of rape. The judge controversially decided that the perpetrator of this appalling crime could get out of it if he paid his victim €75,000, something which was abhorrent to the victim and her family. Less than 12 months later, the same judge ordered another guilty party to pay €10,000 in compensation to a woman he was guilty of sexually assaulting. The message is that one is putting a monetary value on crime. It sends out a message that if one can afford to, one can get away with any violation one likes. In effect, a fines system does the same and penalises poorer people. A very significant number of fines are fines for poverty anyway. They relate to non-payment of the television licence, bus fares, credit cards and so on so inflicting and imposing a fine on somebody who is enduring economic hardship will only make their financial distress even worse and could bring about a scenario whereby the only way out of it is for them to engage in crime to get the money to pay the fine in the first place. This is lunacy.

Other Deputies have dealt with the fact that the Bill offers less flexibility in terms of the instalments system which, again, is a joke, particularly in this time of economic hardship. The instalment system would have to be flexible if it was really to take into account an individual's ability to pay and let us be clear, not just an individual but their family because there are other victims when the State imposes fines because further financial hardship is imposed on poorer families if the person is the breadwinner. We need to look at what has happened in that regard. There were 242 committals for fines relating to the non-payment of a television licence. Deputies will be aware of a recent controversy which hit the headlines regarding the case of John and Angela Young, an elderly retired couple who were brought before the court because they could not afford to buy a television licence and did not have one. That licence was subsequently paid for by a benefactor but because they had been to court and fined, they could not afford the fine so the gardaí ended up on their doorstop with a warrant for them. This was absolutely ludicrous. On the same weekend, there was a stabbing in the same area so the gardaí would have had better things to do. It is this type of lunacy that is at the root and heart of the fines system.

Even taking a cursory glance at what happens in the US shows that fining people for crime can spiral for people who cannot cope with the financial burden. There is much statistical analysis which means further penalties are imposed later on and in many cases, people end up in jail anyway because their debts run away with them and they cannot catch up.

There are many individual stories that I will not touch upon but they replicate and reflect the justice system which, in the United States, criminalises poverty. The director of the justice programme and centre of law in New York University notes that nationally this is a growing programme, in particular because of the economic crisis. There is no reason for it to be different in this country. Today, roughly one third of US states imprison people for not paying off their debts, in particular those related to court-related fines, fees and so on. The American Civil Liberties Association has pointed out that this is in contravention of the United States Supreme Court and of egalitarian principles. In addition, built into the system of many states is a scheme of what might be called "poverty penalties", extra fees for people who cannot afford to pay in the first place, with interest, etc, being charged. Alabama charges a 30% collection fee while Florida allows private debt collectors to go in and add 40% surcharge in pursuing court debt. This is reprehensible. There is the ridiculous situation in North Carolina whereby people are charged if they use a public defender so poor people who cannot afford such costs do not have any legal representation.

There is a clause in this Bill - which I find to be mad - which provides for a 10% administration charge for people who require to have the fee paid off in instalments. If one is poor where one cannot pay in full and is therefore required to pay in instalments, one is penalised with an extra charge of 10%. That is a joke, but not a very funny one. It highlights the fact that this could potentially be a money-making racket for the State, putting it in the role of a debt-collection agency rather than having the courts do what they should do, overseeing justice. To reiterate, these penalties penalise. When a person is fined his or her family is also fined. It is totally unfair for poor families with young children from deprived backgrounds, or people whose parents or brothers and sisters may have to help to find the money to pay the fine. This would not affect or impact upon wealthy citizens. We must take these measures into account.

There is an area that needs to be explored further because it is a dangerous measure, one this Government is getting very fond of using, namely, seeking to make deductions, or enabling the State to pass legislation to make deductions from people's wages. The Government made a great fist out of that in pursuit of the hated home tax and gave the State considerable powers in that regard. That legislation also provides for very substantial fines for people who do not comply with it. Again, this is ridiculous, proceeding along the lines that if people cannot afford to pay the State will fine them. Guess what - now they really cannot pay. The Government is giving powers to bodies to deduct from people's wages. I note that does not apply to the Minister's court fine legislation in respect of social welfare wages, which is a good thing because people on social welfare are already on the breadline. It raises issues, however, of confidentiality and privacy. I do not believe it is acceptable that employers should be aware their employee has a court fine. This is a breach of data protection and an interference that should not be tolerated. I agree with and echo the points made by Deputy Wallace in regard to some of the concerns about the newly enhanced bailiff's or sheriff's role. It is a little ironic that we are giving extra powers to the sheriff to pursue court fines when that officer has been to the forefront in recent tragic eviction cases, and when that whole area is under the spotlight.

People should not go to prison for not paying fines. We should not have that situation. As long as the Minister has a system that allows fines to be a method of punishment for law-breaking, inevitably people who are poor will end up in prison and people who are wealthy can buy their way out of it. That is not just, transparent or even. If the Minister wants to make people correct their behaviour everybody should be treated the same way, which means money must come out of the equation. If we say that, and say also that prison is not an option - as I believe it not to be - the best method of dealing with these offences is through the area of community service. Fines are completely wrong and allowing the Minister to deduct them from people's wages is not a progressive step. We would be far better served to look at the root causes for people being fined in the first place and the offences which lead them in this direction. Many relate to theft, poverty, drugs and so on. The Minister would be far better off tackling the root cause of these offences rather than bring in this double-standard legislation which favours the wealthy.

See this speech in context