Ciarán Cannon (Galway East, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

As the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, is unavoidably detained at another event, he has asked me to stand in for him today. I am more than happy to do so.

I thank the Deputies who have contributed so constructively to this debate. This important legislation makes good on the Government's commitment to introduce attachment of earnings for the collection of fines. It builds on the Fines Act 2010 and ties together its provisions with attachment of earnings in a unified whole. It also enhances confidence in the fine as a penal sanction that, once imposed by the court, will be enforced by the criminal justice system. It is that confidence in the penal system that goes to the heart of this Bill.

It is important to our democracy that crime not go unpunished. For good reason, the fine is the most widely used penal sanction in Ireland. It is an entirely appropriate sanction where a person is convicted of a minor offence and is not a serial offender. However, it is only one of a number of sanctions available to the court and it is to be noted that, in most cases, where a judge imposes a fine, he or she has the option under the relevant legislation to impose a prison sentence of up to six or 12 months. That the judge chooses to impose a fine is entirely appropriate. Indeed, all of the Minister's efforts since his appointment have been in the direction of reducing the incidence of committals to prison and ensuring to the greatest extent possible that alternative sanctions, such as community service, are used where appropriate.

As the fine is the most widely used and appropriate sanction in most cases, it is important that it be collected. The Minister referred to the two types of fine defaulter - those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. Since the commencement of section 14 of the 2010 Act, few, if any, people should find themselves in the "cannot pay" category. Section 14(2) reads: "Where a person of full age is convicted of an offence, the court shall, in determining the amount of the fine (if any) to impose in respect of the offence, take into account the person's financial circumstances."

To the vast majority of people who want to obey the law and meet their obligations, I offer this advice. If their financial circumstances are such that the imposition of a large fine would impose undue hardship on them, it is in their interest to go to court and present the court with a statement of their financial circumstances. The judge is required to take this into account in deciding on the fine to impose, if any, having regard to a person's financial circumstances. The law is clear and judges are bound by it. The judge is required to set the fine at a level that ensures the effect of the fine on the person or his or her dependants is not made more severe by reason of his or her financial circumstances. That being the case, there is no reason any person should not be able to pay the fine when it falls due or, under the terms of this Bill, in equal instalments over 12 months.

I turn to those who, for whatever reason, will not pay. This is a diverse group ranging from the financially comfortable conscientious objector to the careless person who puts the fine notice to one side and forgets about it, and everyone in between. Until now, this group was dealt with through the warrant signed by the judge at the time the fine was imposed and executed on failure to pay the fine. The warrant provided for the arrest of the person and his or her imprisonment for a period of up to 90 days. The actual sentence imposed was typically less than five days.

The Bill targets this group in particular. From now on, there will be no automatic imposition of a custodial sentence in default of payment of a fine. Indeed, the current system has the appearance of an optional arrangement that could be characterised as "pay the fine or do the time." The Government does not want people to be imprisoned for failing to pay a small fine. Policy generally has been against imprisonment and towards alternative non-custodial sentences. That being the case, it is arguable that it is perverse that imprisonment is the default setting for offences that only attract the penalty of a small fine. Prison should not be the first port of call for the fine defaulter. Rather, it should be the last after every alternative has been tried. This is the approach taken in the Bill, supported by the three principles underpinning it.

The first principle is the one to which I referred, namely, no one should have a fine imposed that is too big for him or her to pay. People can avoid this easily by going to court and telling the judge about their financial circumstances.

The second principle is that it should be made easy for people to pay fines. The Bill advances this considerably by extending the instalment provisions contained in the 2010 Act to everyone on whom a fine is imposed. A fine will be set at a level that takes into account the person's ability to pay. The person can then take 12 months to pay it. The Bill includes a provision that allows for an administrative charge of up to 10% of the value of the fine to be imposed. However, this charge will only be set at a level designed to recoup the cost of providing the facility and not as a revenue-raising venture.

The third principle is that, once a fine is imposed, the State will collect it. Obviously, our preference is for the fine be collected by the due date. To be fair to all concerned, this happens in the majority of cases. Where this does not happen, it will be collected by the imposition, where appropriate, of an attachment order or a recovery order. The attachment order will require the person's employer to deduct the fine from his or her earnings and pay it over to the court. The Government is firmly of the view that attachment of earnings is a powerful weapon in ensuring fines are collected. I expect that, once the Bill is enacted, employed people will be encouraged to pay their fines by the very existence of this provision. The alternative of being forced to appear in court and run the risk of their failure to pay a fine being brought to the attention of their employers is something that most employees would wish to avoid.

The recovery order will provide for the appointment of a receiver to recover the fine, including by the seizure and disposal of the assets of the defaulter. This new receiver provision can encourage and foster a culture of compliance. Whereas the 2010 Act provides for the making of recovery orders in all cases, the recovery order in this Bill is more targeted. It will only be applied where the judge considers it appropriate to do so.

However, everyone coming before the court for the failure to pay a fine will have to disclose details of any assets they own. The possible seizure of those assets to satisfy the fine will give pause for thought to, at least, some those who would be committed to prison under the existing arrangements.

It is anticipated that most fine defaulters who present in court as employees will have an attachment order made. This is so because, once again, the fine imposed on the person should have taken their financial circumstances into account. Accordingly, it is hard to conceive of circumstances where it would not be appropriate to have that fine deducted from the person's earnings over the subsequent 12 months. Equally, it is expected that the fine defaulter who presents in court with savings, or with other assets that can be disposed of to pay the fine, will have a recovery order made. Recovery orders will provide not just for the recovery of the fine but also of the expenses of the receiver.

Where a judge decides that it would not be appropriate to make either an attachment order or a recovery order, he or she may make a community service order. A community service order may be made where the person consents and the Probation Service is satisfied that the person is suitable for community service. It is only where it would not be appropriate that a community service order be made - or where one has been made and the person has failed to comply with its terms - that the question of committal to prison arises.

These provisions taken together should all but eliminate the need to send anyone to prison for the non-payment of fines. Where it does happen, it will be as a result of the failure of that person to engage with the process and to use the process to avoid imprisonment.

The support of Deputies McConalogue and Mac Lochlainn for the principles of the Bill is welcomed. The Minister will reflect on the issues they raised concerning the administration charge and the period over which instalments can be made.

Earlier in today's debate, Deputy John Browne asked if the provisions for attachment of earnings orders were in accordance with the Data Protection Act. Similar provisions are in place concerning the local property tax and we are satisfied that there are no data protection issues here.

Deputies David Stanton and Terence Flanagan asked about the attachment of social welfare payments. While that is not provided for in the Bill, community service can be imposed in certain instances.

Deputy Stanton also asked whether higher fines might be imposed on wealthier people. This is provided for in section 5. The Courts Service is working on arrangements to put the new regime in place and it is expected that these will be in place when the Bill is enacted.

During the course of yesterday's debate, there was a rather bizarre contribution from Deputies Clare Daly and Mick Wallace. Deputy Daly was joined in her denunciation of the Bill by Deputy Wallace, who might have been expected to have made a declaration of interests before he spoke, given the fines imposed on him in respect of his conviction for offences under the Pensions Act in 2011.

Leaving that aside, both Deputies Daly and Wallace have been leading a campaign recently on fixed penalty notices. The main point of that campaign is that gardaí should have no discretion where these notices are concerned. The clear implication of this is that both Deputies believe that fixed penalty notices must be paid by everyone on whom they are imposed regardless of their means. Meanwhile, in this House yesterday, Deputy Daly made the argument that fines were inherently wrong and should never be imposed. These two positions are mutually exclusive. The Deputies are either in favour of fines or they are not. They need to make up their minds on this issue.

Of course, Deputy Daly knows that fines have been imposed by the courts for hundreds of years as an alternative to imprisonment. The majority of people on low incomes, including those on social welfare, would prefer to pay a small fine, set at a level that takes account of their financial circumstances, rather than to serve any time in prison or undertake community service. To suggest otherwise is nonsense and displays little understanding of the thinking of most Irish people.

The Bill strikes the right balance and meets its key objectives. It makes it easier for everybody to pay a fine and provides workable alternatives where a person fails to do so. It should greatly reduce the numbers committed to prison for the non-payment of a fine.

On behalf of the Minister, I thank all Deputies for their contributions to the debate. The Minister will reflect on what has been said and he looks forward to discussing the Bill in detail on Committee Stage.

See this speech in context