Richard Boyd Barrett (Dún Laoghaire, People Before Profit Alliance) | Oireachtas source

I welcome the objective of this legislation. It is a worthy objective to try to limit the number of people who are imprisoned for non-payment of fines.

It is not true in all cases but, in my experience, in a huge number of cases imprisonment for non-payment of fines is, in effect, imprisonment for poverty. People should not be imprisoned for poverty. What prompted me to speak on this issue was a phone call I received last week from somebody in the Tallaght area. A disabled, elderly man told me he was due to appear in court last Friday for non-payment of a television licence and was under threat of possible imprisonment. He told me something even more shocking. He was so outraged by this, because obviously somebody who is disabled is entitled to a free television licence, that in seeking to challenge it he had rung the local Garda station. I have still to confirm what he told me as I only heard it last week, but he informed me that 20 to 30 people in Tallaght in the last couple of weeks have been imprisoned for non-payment of the television licence. He alleged, and I have heard of a couple of such instances, that because people have so little money there is a type of informal but now routine arrangement where the gardaí call and advise that the person would be better off doing a prison sentence as only a few hours will be served following which the liability for the fine will have been discharged.

People are so desperate and so unable to pay that they are opting to spend a few hours or a day or two in prison rather than pay the fine, which they cannot afford. It a sad indictment of our society at present that people would voluntarily opt for prison in a situation where it is either do that or pay a fine for a television licence or another fine which they simply do not have the means to pay. The least we can do is try to minimise the rate of incarceration of people because, in a huge number of cases, they do not have any money.

I have not had a chance to study the finer detail of the Bill but I intend to table amendments as necessary. What is important is that we ensure the fullest consideration is given to the circumstances that led to people being unable to pay a particular fine. If it is genuine poverty and if, as is the case for many people at present, choices are being made between paying the mortgage, the credit union, the household bills or looking after children and in that context people let certain things drop, such as a fine or television licence, the most generous understanding of that difficulty should be extended by the court to people who might find themselves in that situation. We should find a such a way of proceeding so we do not have to waste money, time, resources, administration and so forth on, essentially, having to punish people for a situation that is largely out of their control. That is the point we must reach.

I have not had an opportunity to listen to the debate so far but, as others have probably mentioned, we all know it costs far more to keep people in prison than, for example, to give them a job. That is a huge anomaly when one considers our prison population generally. Overwhelmingly, people in prison come from less well-off or disadvantaged backgrounds. That is true not only in respect of non-payment of fines but generally. In a huge number of cases if people just had meaningful and reasonably paid employment, it would be the route out of the circumstances which led them into prison in the first place. The annual cost of keeping somebody in prison is approximately €70,000 per year.

That figure represents the jobs of two people earning the average industrial wage. This is a serious anomaly and in order to deal with it we must try to address the conditions which may lead to people going to prison, for example, poverty, unemployment, living in disadvantaged areas etc., rather than punishing those individuals for being the victims of difficult circumstances. What I have just outlined represents the general thrust of the Bill. Notwithstanding my differences with the Minister, Deputy Shatter, on many issues, I am sure that this thrust arises out of his experiences in the courts. I welcome what is being done but I am of the view that we must go even further in order to try to understand the circumstances of people who find themselves in difficulty.

Deputy Pringle's point with regard to increasing the period for instalment payments from 12 to 24 is absolutely correct. I know people who are in debt in respect of their bin charges or who are behind on their rent. In that context, it can be tough for individuals to meet the terms of arrangements whereby they are allowed to pay off their debts at €5 or €10 per week over two or three years. Discharging a fine of a few hundred euro over a period of a year could place quite a serious additional burden on those who are on the very margins in the context of their economic viability. In such circumstances, I am of the view that we should extend the time limit.

I completely agree that community service should be the first option taken in cases where it is necessary to impose some form of penalty on an individual for non-payment of a fine. Surely obliging someone to perform community service, which involves giving something back to society, would be far better than seizing his or her assets or imposing a term of imprisonment.

The Bill is extremely detailed. I genuinely welcome the fact that it has been brought forward and that an attempt has been made to deal in a progressive manner with a real problem. In some cases the nature of that problem borders on the scandalous. Successive Governments - not necessarily this Administration - have allowed it to continue to obtain for many years. I refer to ordinary people who are not a threat to society being imprisoned and the subsequent costs to which this gives rise for them and society in general. I look forward to the remainder of the debate on this legislation as it passes through the Houses.

See this speech in context