Thomas Pringle (Donegal South West, Independent) | Oireachtas source

Yes, I believe so. I will be taking no more than ten minutes anyway.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate today on the Fines (Payment and Recovery) Bill 2013. When one considers that more than 8,500 people were incarcerated last year for non-payment of fines, the general purpose of this Bill must be welcomed because a situation in which so many people end up in jail for non-payment of fines is untenable and should not be allowed to continue. I believe this Bill will contribute to removing this practice from society, which is important. I have some concerns regarding the Bill itself and some of its provisions. It is interesting that many of the provisions in the Fines Act 2010 on the recovery of fines have not yet been implemented. Consequently, this Bill is not really based on a need to change legislation that already is in place because while the legislation has been passed by the Houses of the Oireachtas, it has not been implemented and this is not a good way to operate a fines recovery system across the State.

The Bill itself provides for attachment orders to be placed on the wages of those who have been fined and for it to be paid in instalments. While a number of Members already have raised this important point, the period for the payment of the instalments differs under this Bill from the provisions in the Act of 2010. Under the proposed legislation, the period is for 12 months only and the Minister must reconsider and amend this provision on Committee Stage or later to extend the provision to at least a 24 month period. People in society may not even necessarily have received very large fines for them to have difficulty in discharging them within a 12 month period and it definitely must be extended to at least 24 months. In addition, the ability of a person to be able to pay a fine of any sort must be taken into account when the fine is being levied and courts should be highly cognisant of this, particularly in the current climate.

Section 6(5) provides for the provision of an administrative charge of 10% on those who pay fines by instalment, which is excessive. I do not believe a 10% administration cost will be in evidence in respect of the processing of fines, particularly when one considers this can be done through an information technology system. While there may be an initial cost in implementing such a system, this should be carried by the State in the interest of the public good. The Courts Service should not actually make a profit on the payment of fines by instalments on foot of the retention of the aforementioned 10% administrative charge. A worrying aspect to this legislation is that in its report for 2012, the Courts Service stated it still is not in a position to be able to accept fines by instalments and it has highlighted the need for its IT systems to be updated to ensure it can do this. This is worrying when one considers that paying in instalments has been on the Statute Book since 2010, although it has not been commenced. Will it be the case that next year or in two or three years' time, the Courts Service will have been unable to step up to the mark? As this measure has been flagged for so long, the Courts Service should be ready to roll out a system of paying by instalments as soon as this Act is implemented because the system will simply collapse otherwise. Moreover, it will be completely unacceptable for the Courts Service not to be in a position to cater for citizens of this State who are willing to pay by instalments. While I am unsure whether this has been covered in the Bill, provision should be made to enable people to pay through the post office or their local council office and so on in a manner similar to car tax, television licence fees and everything else. The avenues and options available to people to make payments should be as broad as possible to facilitate them in so doing.

Section 6 also provides that fines under €100 are not eligible for payment in instalments. This should be re-examined by the Minister. A fine of €100 could place a severe burden on many families and individuals. The difficulty in being able to get €100 together to discharge a fine cannot be underestimated. For some single people living on jobseeker's allowance of €188 per week it will be impossible to pay €100 in a once-off system such as this. The level at which payment by instalments can be implemented must be looked at and adjusted. Also, I note with interest that in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the legislation there appears to be a problem in respect of social welfare recipients and whether their fines can be deducted from their payments due to the levels allowed. The social welfare Act passed earlier this year changed the level that can be deducted from people to 15% of their social welfare payment. I hope this provision is not intended to allow only people who are in employment to be able to pay their fines by instalments, but that it is also intended for recipients of social welfare so they can benefit from the instalment process. Otherwise, there would be a situation where possibly the only people who would end up incarcerated for non-payment of fines would be social welfare recipients, if they are unable to avail of payment by instalments. That is very important.

The right to appoint a receiver to confiscate property to allow for fines to be discharged is a very serious development. It must be examined and considered very carefully. There should be a minimum level of fine under which a receiver would not be appointed. As we have seen over the last few years, receivers are probably one of the few growth sectors in the State, given the amount of receivers that have been appointed to properties and companies throughout the country. Appointing another raft of receivers to recover the value of fines is something we must consider very carefully. It should only be in exceptional cases and for very high levels of fines that the appointment of a receiver would be considered, particularly as appointing a receiver will add an additional amount to the cost of the fine because the receiver's fees will be paid out of the property being confiscated to recover the fine.

Section 11 provides that where recovery of assets is not possible a community service order or imprisonment may follow. It appears the court does not have to consider that first, but can go straight for recovery of assets. I believe it should be able to consider the community service element in advance of recovery through confiscating assets. Community service means the person is not incarcerated and it can add some value to the community the person comes from in discharging the fine.

I will consider tabling amendments relating to the issues I have raised. I ask the Minister to consider the arguments I have made in respect of the problems we can foresee with the operation of the legislation.

See this speech in context