Billy Timmins (Wicklow, Independent) | Oireachtas source

When one takes into account the administration costs associated with dealing with those who do not pay their fines, including the cost of imprisoning them which is approximately €2 million per annum, it can be estimated that the non-implementation of the Fines Act 2010 has cost the State approximately €16 million in the three years since 2010. I do not know how accurate those statistics are. I have taken them from the appendix to the document on the legislation.

I wish to comment on the idea of putting someone in prison for a short period of time. The revolving door policy, which we used to speak about a number of years ago, is still being pursued. I met someone recently who was sent to prison for not paying a Revenue fine. He was picked up, brought to Wheatfield Prison in Dublin and kitted out in his new prison clothes. He was released two hours later and his clothes were put into the bin. I am sure they were incinerated so they could not be used again. It is a complete waste of money.

It is important that under this legislation fines will depend on income. A sum like €10 or even €100 might mean something to one individual but nothing to another. Some people can afford to forget that they have tens of thousands of euro stashed under the bath. It is important that these fines are relative.

The concept of attachment of earnings orders was introduced into Irish law by the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976. I would love to know how much money is collected in maintenance fines each year. I appreciate that this legislation does not deal directly with this aspect of the matter. I think fathers who have maintenance orders against them get away with murder in this country. I would like the Minister and the Department of Justice and Equality to examine this issue. I intend to table a number of parliamentary questions about the extent to which maintenance orders are being adhered to.

People have responsibilities in society and in life. That is why we have laws, regulations and rules. Very often, they are not implemented. I suspect that in the area of maintenance collection, there is very poor implementation and very little follow-up on the maintenance orders. I know from the lone parents I deal with on a weekly basis that in many cases one parent has completely abdicated responsibility and is making no contribution whatsoever. The State has to pick up the tab in such circumstances. When I say "the State", I am referring to the individuals who fund its activities.

There is an increasing disconnect in our society. Those who feel they have to carry the load are increasingly disillusioned. When I was at the National Ploughing Championships in County Laois yesterday, I heard this message frequently from people who are trying to pay their way and make a living. Now that we are hopefully coming out of recession we must learn lessons from the boom period. People often ask me why they should take on extra employees in light of the difficulties presented to them by various rules and regulations. They feel that many of the taxes they are paying are being used to subsidise a section of society that does not pull its weight.

I appreciate that vulnerable people and people who face certain difficulties cannot work. I accept that the State and society as a whole should look after them. Having said that, people must pull their weight. Perhaps Deputies read the recent remarks made by the King of the Netherlands about the importance of people making a contribution to society. This is relevant to this Bill because I believe people who do not pay fines should be tasked with community service. It is important that those who cannot afford to pay fines make a contribution in the form of community service. I am a great believer in the concept of "workfare" rather than welfare. It is more productive for the courts to provide for community service than to impose fines. It is not just a case of going through the motions and doing something non-productive. It makes a contribution to society.

The Bill contains - I stand to be corrected - maximum periods for various fines. It is phased from €1 to €500 and there is a maximum period in prison of so many days, be they five or six days. I will look at this between now and Report Stage but I wonder whether we should look at the idea of a minimum time period in addition to this. If we had a minimum time period, perhaps only two days, it would stop the idea of bringing someone in for a couple of hours and going through the ritual. One could have a minimum time period of two days for the lesser fine and increase it. I understand the maximum period in prison for fines up to €3,000 is 90 days. There should be a minimum period of ten or 15 days as well because if someone does not pay their €3,000 and gets 90 days, they may well know that they will be out after half a day or a day so it will not be a deterrent. This policy should not aim to punish people. It should be a deterrent to make sure they comply with the law. If, for whatever reason, they do not comply with the law, the mechanism should be in place to allow them to meet their obligation under the law through a payment.

I do not know if the Department has ever looked at my next point or whether it is constitutionally possible but one thing one consistently comes across is the broken window on a weekend, the bin pulled aside and plants pulled up. Is there merit in looking at a system whereby if the local superintendent knows who did it and that person is willing to own up, there is an automatic fine to compensate for the damage done? If Deputy Terence Flanagan wants a period of time, I am happy to share my time with him. I continually hear about cases where shopkeepers have their windows broken and both they and the Garda know the perpetrator. By the time the case comes to fruition, if at all, things have moved on a few years, the insurance has covered the window, which is ultimately paid for everybody, or the individual businessperson or homeowner has repaired the damage done.

In his reply perhaps the Minister could look at the concept of an on-the-spot fine when there is an acknowledgement of the wrong done. It is an issue I might raise on Report Stage. Many people break windows or pull up plants. It is very difficult to understand why they do it, people can do it when they are younger and do not see the damage they are doing or its impact on society. If, when they are pulled in by the gardaí that evening or the next day, the local superintendent can say "the cost of that is €20", which is the equivalent of a small court fine except it is done at a local level, it saves on administration and allows the court to get on with more serious issues. How much time do I have left?

See this speech in context