Paschal Donohoe (Dublin Central, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank the Deputy for his suggested amendments and for his support with regard to the overall thrust of the Bill. I propose to respond to each amendment in turn and to offer the Minister's perspective thereon. On amendment No. 1, which proposes to change the period of time from 12 to 24 months, it is the view of the Minister that the 12-month instalment period set out in the Bill is appropriate in all the circumstances. It must be remembered that section 5 of the Bill requires the court to take a person’s financial circumstances, where they are known, into account in determining the amount of a fine. Allowing 24 months would prolong the entire process, particularly where a person defaults and the other provisions are engaged. While the 2010 Act did allow for an extension of the 12 months to up to 24 months, it must be remembered there was no automatic entitlement to pay by instalments in the 2010 Act and even if instalments were allowed, the court could set any period up to 12 months initially. This Bill simplifies the process by removing the requirement to apply to the court to be allowed to pay by instalments and by allowing everyone 12 months to pay the fine, regardless as to his or her means or the size of the fine, provided it is greater than €100. In the Minister's view, this is the correct balance and it is not in the interests of the administration of justice that the collection of fines should drag on indefinitely. The Government therefore cannot therefore accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 2 seeks to set an upper limit on the amount of the administration fee. The first point is that this administration fee is intended to defray the cost of the instalment system as a whole. Some of these costs are fixed and are not related to the size of the fine. However, the cost to the Exchequer of receiving the fine over 12 months rather than immediately is directly related to the size of the fine. The bigger the fine, the more it costs the State. Second, the Deputy’s main concern appears to be that the administration fee may represent too big a burden on the fined person at certain levels. However, I point out to the Deputy that 90% of all fines are less than €500. Consequently, up to €500, there is no difference between the administration fee paid under the Deputy’s amendment and the provisions in the Bill. As for what will happen at higher levels, a €750 fine, assuming the administration fee is 10%, will cost €825, as against €800 under the Deputy’s proposal. Under the Bill, a person who is fined €800 must pay monthly instalments of €68.75, whereas under the Deputy’s proposal, they would be obliged to pay €66.67, that is, €2 less per month or 50 cent less per week. At €1,000, the difference is €4 per month or €1 per week. I therefore do not believe these differences are material in the overall scheme of things, and for this and the other reasons mentioned earlier, the Minister cannot accept this amendment.

Amendment No. 3 seeks to reduce the level of fine that qualifies to be paid by instalments from the €100 provided for in the Bill to €50. The view of the Minister is that €100 is the correct threshold. Paid by instalments, it is the equivalent of €8 per month or €2 per week. I do not believe this is too onerous and must again be seen in the context of the fine itself being set having regard to the person’s financial circumstances. I will therefore not be accepting this amendment.

I acknowledge the Deputy's earlier remarks on his agreement with the thrust of the Bill in respect of trying to make far greater use of fines and other sanctions rather than custodial sentences. I conclude by making two points, the first of which is to emphasise the acknowledgement the Bill already gives to a person's financial circumstances.

Some of the amendments to which the Deputy refers when implemented would not make a significant difference in the payment of the fine by the person on a monthly or an annual basis. I thank the Deputy for the amendments and the way they were introduced.

See this speech in context