David Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

The Bill repeals and replaces Part 3 of the Fines Act 2010. It is progressive legislation, which I fully welcome. I hope the Bill will be enacted by the end of the year and operational by 2014. Its purpose is to keep the number of people committed to prison for the non-payment of fines to an absolute minimum. We want to have fewer people in our prisons.

This is in line with several recommendations that have been made, including the report on penal reform published last March by the Joint Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality. I have the honour of chairing the committee, which has made several recommendations on reducing prison numbers: commuting prison sentences to less than six months; increasing the standard remission from one quarter to one third; introducing an incentivised remission scheme; introducing legislation to provide for structured release, temporary release, parole and community return - I understand community return is working quite well; addressing prison conditions, and so on. The thrust is to consider what is happening in other countries, including some states in America and especially in Finland, which has reduced the numbers in prison substantially from 4,000 to 3,000. Crime has fallen there as a result. There are other ways of doing this.

I have met gardaí who have put it to me that it is very frustrating for them to commit someone to prison only to find that the prisoner is home before they are. This is happening time out of number. The Bill serves to address this problem. I call on the Minister to address an issue that was reported about in the newspapers this morning. An allegation was made that 649,509 summonses were not served between 2009 and 2012. That amounts to 39% of 1.7 million summonses issued by the Courts Service during that period. This is an important issue and we need to get to the bottom of it. Is that true and, if so, why is it happening? Is it the case that gardaí are so disillusioned with the current system that they do not bother to issue summonses because it is a waste of time and because prisoners can be home before the gardaí in some instances? I am not blaming anyone - certainly not the gardaí or the prison governors, because they can only take in so many people. It is simply that the system up to now has been wrong and we are now trying to change it.

The last time I spoke on this issue I referred to the community court system in New York. I have a sense that we are moving in that direction. The community court system in New York has been in place for several years now and is successful. The way it works is simple. People are arrested for misdemeanours or low-level offences. Provided they plead guilty, the following day at the latest they appear before a specially trained judge or justice in a community court. They can get a prison sentence, but in the main they get community service from the judge. They must report immediately upon receipt of the sentence to a probation service. An assessment is carried out and they begin community service straight away - that day, if possible. It may be for one or two weeks and if they are working or in college they can do it at weekends. In addition, their behaviour is monitored for six months and if at the end of the six-month period they do not re-offend, their files are sealed. I am told that recidivism over there has gone from 80% to 18%.

I visited New York last spring and I sat on the bench with a community court judge and watched the system in action. I met the people working behind the scenes and I was highly impressed with the system. The Fines (Payment and Recovery) Bill 2013 is moving in that direction because it emphasises community service and working in the community, and the Minister is to be commended on this progress. In the United States the type of work done by people on community service is worth a great deal to the communities and voluntary organisations, NGOs and so on. However, the fact that they are monitored and kept in touch with by the court and that the judge receives a periodic report on their behaviour adds to the value.

The Joint Sub-Committee on Penal Reform went through this report and the Department has a related working group in place at the moment. As part of the work we met several agencies that are doing interesting work in the area. The Etruscan Life Training & Education Centre is well worth seeing. The staff there deal with anger management and people who are addicted to drugs and alcohol and they try to get these people to change their lives. They have been quite successful. PACE deals with people who come out of prison and those working there try to ensure that they do not go back in. Care After Prison was established quite recently in the Carmelite Community Centre on Aungier Street and it has a 100% success rate in ensuring people do not return to prison in the Dublin area, a fantastic achievement that improves the quality of life of everyone. The Parole Board is doing fantastic work. A group that has interested me greatly is the Cornmarket Project in Wexford. I almost accused those involved of keeping it a State secret. I visited the project and saw what they were doing. They are dealing with people who have great difficulties in their lives and who are from the tough end of it. I understand they have a 63% success rate. There are other ways of helping people to stay out of prison, and we should be taking those into consideration.

I agree with some of the comments made earlier by my colleagues across the floor. Perhaps we should be putting more emphasis on community service. The joint committee will be examining the area of community courts later this year and I hope the Minister and staff from the Department of Justice and Equality get involved in examining the model because it has been quite successful.

An issue arises in respect of section 15, which deals with attachment orders. It appears to apply only to persons in employment or receiving an occupational pension. I will stand corrected, but I understand that fines will not be deducted from social welfare payments. The Department maintains this is not a valid option due to the cost of administration and because social welfare rules mean that only approximately €2 per week can be deducted. However, on a regular basis the Department of Social Protection deducts overpayments of social welfare when they arise.

I believe that a fine should be paid or else a community service order should be implemented - one or the other. If someone is not in a position to pay a fine, he should do community service. There should be no out simply because someone is on social welfare, and this should be made clear somewhere in the legislation. Even if it is only €2 per week, eventually over a year a person would pay back €100. Everyone should pay the fine. Allowing people to pay a fine by instalment and introducing attachments on earnings are new and important reforms to the fines collection system and should lead to an improved collection rate for fines. Ultimately, we will end up with fewer people engaging with the prison system, and that is important as well.

Mention was made earlier of white-collar crime. Section 5 relates to taking into account a person's ability to pay a fine when setting the level of that fine, and that is welcome. The Law Reform Commission recommends indexing against inflation, which is important. I understand that in some jurisdictions - particularly in Finland - if a wealthy person comes before the court, the court takes into account the nature of the person's income and fines are adjusted in accordance with the income. This means a person cannot be seen to buy his way out of a situation, and it will not be merely a fleabite in that it makes no difference to someone who is well off. Perhaps we should consider a system whereby if someone who is well off offends, the fines are adjusted in order that the person actually feels the pain to the same extent as someone at the lower end of the income spectrum and such that the wealthy person does not get off the hook by paying a fine that does not really matter because it is only small change. Section 5 relates to taking into account a person's ability to pay a fine. The thinking is that if someone has a low income the fine would be adjusted down, but perhaps we should consider providing for a situation whereby if someone has a high income the fine could be adjusted up.

I welcome the Law Reform Commission's fourth programme, presented yesterday to the Oireachtas joint committee. It was an interesting presentation. One area the commission is examining is that of white-collar and corporate crime. This is to be welcomed because we need to start examining it. Sometimes when well-off people break the law, a fine does not mean anything to them.

What does community service mean and how does it work? This is something I would like to see a report on soon.

My information is that it is extremely positive for everyone, works well and provides much work in the community and for NGOs and so on that is highly valuable. It would be useful to ascertain what is the financial benefit of community service per annum to the community in which it takes place.

The sharing of information between the Revenue Commissioners, the Department of Social Protection and the Courts Service that is provided for in section 23 will ensure that all recovery and attachment orders are accurate and are executed correctly. It also will allow for information on welfare payments, tax payments and overall revenue to be shared with the courts and will ensure all the information is accurate. This is quite important and will prevent misstatements of income and total value to reduce fines levied or cost of instalments and so on. I understand the instalment option will not apply to fines of less than €100 and some agencies, including the Irish Penal Reform Trust, consider even €100 to be a significant amount of money for some families in the current economic climate. The trust recommends that the amount below which a fine cannot be paid by instalment should be removed and it might be useful to consider this point on Committee Stage.

I refer to the appointment of sheriffs and so on and note some colleagues have mentioned a matter that has come to all Members' attention, namely, the tactics used by some debt recovery agencies. I have concerns about some of the tactics that have been reported and believe guidelines are required to ensure such agencies do not break the law or cause undue stress to people who already are stressed and that the so-called "bully boy" tactics mentioned do not occur. I appreciate there are two sides to every coin, that in some instances, people have refused to engage at any level and that this is the last resort. However, it should be the last resort and the tactics used and behaviour of such agencies must be investigated. Greater clarity is required regarding the setting of a proportion of the receiver's fees where property is seized. According to the Irish Penal Form Trust, consideration should be given to the setting of a maximum level or a proportion of a receiver's fees where property is seized and this issue may require further debate.

I reiterate my welcome for the Bill. In this context, I wish to encourage a debate on what one might call problem-solving courts, as considerably more responsibility will be placed on judges, which I welcome, to examine the lives of those who appear before them to ascertain what is the best solution. If one takes as an example the community court model in New York, this is moving into the area of problem-solving courts. Much work has been done in New York in this regard and only yesterday, the authorities there established what they call a trafficking court to deal with and specialise in human trafficking and the victims of human trafficking. I note reports this morning that the Council of Europe has expressed concern on the level of trafficking in Ireland, especially into prostitution, and perhaps we should find out how the trafficking court in New York operates. While I am straying a little from the point, this relates to the area of specialised courts. There has been criticism of such courts on the basis that they may become somewhat isolated and that they must keep in touch with developments which are in law outside of their own specialism. However, if people are aware of that need, that also can be done. I commend the Bill the House, am pleased by its introduction and look forward to its operation. Before I conclude, there was an issue about the putting in place of the proper software and computer systems to allow all this to happen. In his summing up, the Minister of State might refer to that and clarify for Members what precisely is the position regarding the software that was needed, what is its present status, whether it is in place now and is working under the current legislation as it stands or whether more time or investment is required to get it in place.

See this speech in context