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

Regardless of the political views that colleagues may have of the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, people would acknowledge that he takes his legislative duties and his role within this Chamber and on committees very seriously. That is why I am standing in to take this Bill and address points on it. I have to reach the conclusion that in using this opportunity, which Deputies Wallace and Daly are entitled to do, to articulate their world view, as is their right, they do so by either deliberately misunderstanding what is in the Bill or deliberately ignoring its thrust. Both Deputies have said we should not send people to prison to serve custodial sentences but we need to propose alternatives. I agree with much of Deputy Wallace's analysis of the number of people in prison and why they are there, and the different ways in which we should and could handle that. That, however, is what this Bill sets out to do. The thrust of this Bill is to give the courts the ability, and to put tools at their disposal, not to have to impose custodial sentences on people but to make different options available to them. The point the Deputies made about the need to take account of the financial circumstances of the person is put in place under section 5 of this Bill. The Deputies want a system which enables the courts not to put people in prison and gives them different options and tools to put other sanctions in place, but that is what this Bill seeks to do. That is the role of this Bill. That is why the Minister is introducing it. In response to the overall point about moving from one failed policy to another, how is that? Deputy Daly should substantiate her point. The thrust of this Bill is to give our legal system different options which, as I understand it, is exactly what the Deputies are looking for. If my analysis is wrong I welcome the opportunity to be corrected. Section 5 puts in place different options for our legal system, of which it can take advantage, which is what the Minister wants to do.

I will address each amendment in turn. Taking the amendment to section 7 first, the Deputy wants the court first to consider the making of a community service order where a person defaults on paying a fine and only to consider making an attachment order where it is not possible to make a community service order. This inversion of the provisions of the Bill would make little sense. There is a basic principle that must be understood here, that where the court decides that the appropriate action is to impose a fine on conviction, the person is required to pay the fine. If the person does not pay the fine, then, under this Bill, the State will make every effort to recover it. When a court decides that the appropriate course of action is a fine, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the person before it, the Bill gives it the ability to pursue the payment of this fine, only if the court decides that a fine is the appropriate action in the first place. If the person is in employment, then the first recourse will be to the person’s earnings. This is logical and flows from the imposition of an appropriately set fine in the first instance.

We owe it to the vast majority of people who pay their bills or fines when asked or required to do so to ensure that those who have the ability to pay debts or fines, do so.

I put it to the Deputy that the amendment would do the opposite. What we are looking to do is to put in place a legal system that will make more options available to the legal system and the courts which is what I understand Deputy Mick Wallace wants to see happen.

Amendment No. 12 is partly consequential on amendment No. 7. As I am not accepting that amendment, I cannot accept amendment No. 12. The other part of amendment No. 12, as well as amendments Nos. 13 to 16, inclusive, are consequential on amendments Nos. 5 to 10, inclusive, which were ruled out of order. These amendments, if accepted, would leave a gap in the Bill, where recovery orders were made, as there would be no follow-through where the receiver had failed to recover the fine. I am sure the Deputy will agree with me that without deleting Part 3, as he had intended, the references to recovery orders in sections 19 and 20 must remain. I am, therefore, not accepting amendments Nos. 12 to 16, inclusive.

I have visited prisons as a Deputy and seen the conditions people must face, as each Deputy has acknowledged. The Minister is committed to doing all he can to deal with the issue and reverse it, but an essential thrust is to make other options available to the courts which is exactly what the Bill seeks to do.

See this speech in context