Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Deputies that amendments Nos. 47, 48, 58 to 65, inclusive, 67 to 71, inclusive, and 73 to 78, inclusive, are related and are being discussed together.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank Deputies for their remarks on the genuine efforts we have made in this group of amendments to try to keep as many people as possible out of prison for non-payment of fines, while ensuring that those on whom fines are imposed ultimately pay what is due. We had to be careful to ensure the provisions did not give rise to a significant number of additional court hearings, a concern raised by Deputy Charlie Flanagan. For this reason, we set out to minimise the number of court hearings and ensure court time is not wasted.

If a fine of, for instance, €1,000 is ordered, a recovery order is issued and a receiver designated to take goods in lieu in the event of non-payment of the fine. At that stage, reference is not made to prison. However, if a receiver returns to the court with a nulla bona - no goods - at that point, the case would be re-entered to the court, the person assessed for a community service order and, with his or her consent, requested. The court would then make a community service order or impose imprisonment in default of complying with the order.

We considered introducing a threshold of perhaps a couple of hundred euro under which imprisonment would not be imposed. We found, however, that as there would be no sanction or onus on persons who were unwilling to pay a fine, such persons would be able to circumvent the system and avoid paying a fine. For this reason, imprisonment was required as the ultimate sanction. We also concluded that the inclusion of a threshold could result in judges increasing the fine above any threshold introduced in the legislation.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I remind Deputies that on Report Stage, the first contribution of a Deputy is openended, while the second contribution is confined to two minutes. The Minister has an openended reply.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I was not aware of that.

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I presume the clock starts now. On the recovery order in section 16, subsection 2 states: "Before making a recovery order, the court shall conduct an inquiry into the financial circumstances of the person who has failed to pay the fine concerned and may require the person to provide the court with such information as it may specify relating to those circumstances." Although I am not speaking specifically to the amendments we are dealing with now - I wish to give notice that I will not be moving amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 - they do deal with this area. We are seeking to ensure that all possibilities are exhausted concerning a person's particular set of financial circumstances. That person's outgoings should potentially be taken into account also in adjudicating on the issue before going to a recovery order. We want to ensure that a person who is not a serial offender or a hardy perennial before the courts, and who may have transgressed but who ordinarily is a very good citizen, would have every opportunity to pay the fine if they do not have the means immediately at their disposal. I would like to get further clarity on that.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Deputy Charles Flanagan raised the issue of community service orders supervised by the Probation Service. In 2009, there were 1,667 such orders, which is up from 1,413 the previous year. While there has been an increase, it is true to say that community service orders have not been used as expansively as we would like. This legislation will send a strong signal from the Oireachtas to the Judiciary in that regard. As I said earlier, there is a sequencing of the stages involved. As Deputy Flanagan would know from his time in the District Court, particularly concerning civil debt cases, the number of times somebody has to attend court to pursue a debt is laborious, expensive and frustrating. We are trying to ensure that this system is as efficient and effective as possible, while reducing the level of Garda and prison involvement for a number of reasons. The main premise, however, is to avoid imprisoning ordinary, decent people who may be coming before a court for the first time. We are trying to ensure that those who can afford to pay, but refuse to do so, will face considerable sanction.

Deputy Sherlock referred to people's ability to pay. Section 13 places an onus on the court, when imposing a fine, to take into account a person's capacity to pay. Having examined the Deputy's amendments Nos. 49 to 51, inclusive, we consider that the legislation encompasses what is required, including a person's income and outgoings.

We examined the issue of attachment of earnings whereby money would be deducted regularly from a person's wages or social welfare payments. Many people who come before the District Court are on low incomes, including those on social welfare. Nonetheless, 75% of them are able to afford a car because 75% of cases heard before the District Court concern motoring offences. If this new process does not work properly, however, I would be open to considering amending legislation to examine the issue of attachment. I am interested in the views of Opposition Deputies on that.

With regard to the question of naming and shaming, amendment No. 79 would give the Courts Service the ability to publish the names and details of fine payment defaulters.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 48:

In page 11, between lines 1 and 2, to insert the following:

""approved person" has the meaning assigned to it by section 19;".

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 52:

In page 11, between lines 27 and 28, to insert the following:

"(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (2), where a person is convicted of an offence for which a fine or a sentence of imprisonment, or both, may be imposed, the court—

(a) shall consider whether a fine is appropriate to meet the circumstances of the case;

(b) shall, if satisfied that a fine is appropriate to meet the circumstances of the case, take into account the person's financial circumstances in determining the amount of the fine to impose in respect of the offence;

(c) shall not, if satisfied that a fine is appropriate to meet the circumstances of the case but that, having regard to the person's financial circumstances, undue hardship would be caused by the imposition of a fine of any amount greater than a nominal amount, impose a sentence of imprisonment in lieu of such a fine if a sentence of imprisonment would not be appropriate to meet the circumstances of the case, but may in that event direct the payment of the fine by instalments for such period as the court shall fix, but without prejudice to the power of the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment in lieu of payment of a fine in such amount as the court considers is within the capacity of the defendant to pay.".

I take on board what the Minister has said. These amendments seek to ensure a sense of appropriateness in each individual case. I am satisfied that the Minister's position on these amendments has already been dealt with by the earlier amendments. Therefore I intend to withdraw the amendment.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 55, which arises from committee proceedings, is related to amendment No. 57 and both may be discussed together by agreement.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 55:

In page 13, between lines 30 and 31, to insert the following:"

(7) A court shall, when imposing a fine on a person, inform the person of his or her entitlement to make an application referred to in subsection (1).".

The question of the court being obliged to inform an offender of the right to apply to pay a fine by instalments was raised on Committee Stage by Deputy Charles Flanagan. I undertook to consult the Attorney General on this point. There is no legal reason why a court should not be obliged so to inform an offender. While it might be argued that offenders will become well aware of the instalment option once it becomes operational, the effect of this amendment could, in a small number of cases, avoid subsequent problems in paying the fine. Therefore, I thank the Deputy for raising this point, which will improve the Bill. I do not see any need for the remaining elements of Deputy Flanagan's amendment concerning the question of payment by instalments, which is more adequately covered in the Bill.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I agree with what the Minister has said. It is essential to have a provision for the debtor to apply to pay by instalment. That is a matter that will be adjudicated upon by the court, having regard to the circumstances. In view of what the Minister has said, it makes my amendment No. 57 redundant.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 58:

In page 13, to delete lines 41 to 47 and in page 14, to delete lines 1 and 2 and substitute the following:

15.—(1) A court shall, when imposing a fine on a person consequent upon his or her being convicted of an offence, make an order (in this section referred to as a "recovery order") appointing an approved person (in this section referred to as a "receiver") to—

(a) recover the fine, or

(b) seize and sell property belonging to the first-mentioned person and recover from the proceeds of the sale of that property a sum equal to the amount of the fine.".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 59:

In page 14, to delete lines 3 to 11.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 60:

In page 14, between lines 11 and 12, to insert the following:

"(4) A recovery order shall not enter into force unless the person in respect of whom the order is made fails to pay the fine by the due date for payment and, where the person so fails, the order shall have effect from the day immediately following the day on which the Courts Service notify the receiver concerned in writing that the person has failed to pay the fine by that date.".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 61:

In page 14, to delete lines 12 and 13 and substitute the following:

"(4) A recovery order may authorise the receiver appointed thereunder (alone or accompanied by such and so many members of the Garda Síochána as he or she considers necessary) to—".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 62:

In page 14, lines 30 and 31, to delete all words from and including "order" in line 30 down to and including "(including" in line 31 and substitute the following:

"recovery order by which he or she is appointed, including".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 63:

In page 14, line 35, to delete "functions)" and substitute "functions".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 64:

In page 15, to delete lines 6 to 22.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 65:

In page 15, to delete lines 29 to 39.

Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendments Nos. 66 and 72 are cognate and will be discussed together.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 66:

In page 15, to delete lines 42 to 44 and substitute the following:

"(a) the date specified by the court that imposed the fine as being the date by which the fine is required to be paid, or".

Amendment No. 66 is a drafting change, the effect of which is to delete some superfluous wording and to bring the tense in line with paragraph (b) of the definition of due date of payment.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 67:

In page 16, to delete lines 7 to 48 and in page 17, to delete lines 1 to 22.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 68:

In page 17, line 23, to delete "by".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 69:

In page 17, line 24, to delete "the insertion of the following definitions" and substitute "by the insertion of the following definition".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 70:

In page 17, to delete lines 26 and 27 and substitute the following:

" " 'Act of 2010' means the Fines Act 2010;",".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 17, line 28, to delete "the insertion" and substitute "by the insertion".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 72:

In page 17, to delete lines 38 to 40 and substitute the following:

"(a) the date specified by the court that imposed the fine as being the date by which the fine is required to be paid, or".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 73:

In page 18, to delete lines 3 to 10 and substitute the following:

"(c) in section 3, by—

(i) the insertion of the following subsection:

"(1A) Where a court is satisfied that—

(a) a receiver appointed under section 15 of the Act of 2010 has been unable to recover—

(i) the fine imposed by it in relation to an offender to whom subsection (2) of section 2 applies, or

(ii) a sum or sums from the sale of property belonging to that offender sufficient to pay that fine,

and

(b) that, in relation to the offender, the provisions of section 4 have been complied with,

it may make an order (in this Act also referred to as a 'community service order') in accordance with this section.",

and

(ii) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (2):

"(2) A community service order shall require the offender to perform, in accordance with this Act, unpaid work for such number of hours as are specified in the order, being—

(a) in the case of an offender to whom subsection (1) of section 2 applies, not less than 40 hours and not greater than 240 hours,

(b) in the case of an offender to whom subsection (2) of section 2 applies who was convicted on indictment of the offence concerned, not less than 40 hours and not greater than 240 hours, and

(c) in the case of an offender to whom subsection (2) of section 2 applies who was convicted summarily of the offence concerned, not less than 30 hours and not greater than 100 hours.",".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 74:

In page 18, to delete lines 11 to 18 and substitute the following:

"(d) by the insertion, in section 5, of the following subsections:

"(2A) The hours of work specified in a community service order under subsection (1A) (inserted by section 17 of the Act of 2010) of section 3 shall be additional to any hours of work specified in any other community service order made in respect of the offender.

(2B) In determining the number of hours of work to specify in a community service order under subsection (1A) of section 3 the court shall take account of—

(a) any sum or sums paid by the offender concerned in satisfaction of part of the fine, and

(b) any part of the fine, or any sum or sums from the proceeds of the sale of property of the offender sufficient to pay part only of that fine, recovered by the receiver appointed under section 15 of the Act of 2010.",".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 75:

In page 18, to delete lines 19 to 30 and substitute the following:

"(e) by the insertion, in section 7, of the following subsection:

"(6) Subsection (4) shall not apply to an offender to whom subsection (2) of section 2 applies.".".

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 76:

In page 18, to delete lines 34 to 44.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 77:

In page 19, to delete lines 1 to 6 and substitute the following:

18.—The Act of 1986 is amended—

(a) in section 2, by—

(i) the substitution of the following subsection for subsection (1):

"(1) Where a court is satisfied that—

(a) a receiver appointed under section 15 of the Act of 2010 has been unable to recover—

(i) a fine imposed on a person consequent upon his or her summary conviction of an offence, or

(ii) a sum or sums from the proceeds of the sale of property belonging to that person sufficient to pay that fine,

and

(b) that, in relation to the person, the provisions of section 4 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 have not been complied with,

it may make an order committing the person to prison for a term not exceeding the appropriate period of imprisonment specified in the Table.",

(ii) the insertion of the following subsections:

"(1A) Where a court has made a community service order within the meaning of subsection (1A) (inserted by section 17(1)(c)* of the Fines Act 2010) of section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Community Service) Act 1983 consequent upon the summary conviction of a person of an offence, it shall, if satisfied that the person in respect of whom it made the order fails to comply with a requirement specified in subsection (1)(b) of section 7 of that Act, make an order committing the person to prison for a term not exceeding the appropriate period specified in the Table.

(1B) For the purposes of determining the appropriate period of imprisonment specified in the Table, the amount of the fine shall be the fine less any sum or sums recovered by the receiver appointed under section 15 of the Fines Act 2010 whether from the proceeds of the sale of property belonging to the person or otherwise.",

and

(iii) the insertion of the following Table:

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 78:

In page 19, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

19.—(1) The Government may, upon the nomination of the Minister, approve such person or persons for the purposes of section 15, and a person so approved is in this Part referred to as an "approved person".

(2) The Minister shall not make a nomination under this section without the consent of the Minister for Finance.

(3) The Government may attach such conditions to an approval under this section as it considers appropriate.".

Séamus Kirk (Louth, Ceann Comhairle)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Amendment No. 79 must be recommitted as it does not arise from Committee proceedings.

Bill recommitted in respect of amendment No. 79.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I move amendment No. 79:

In page 19, between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:

20.—(1) The Courts Service may, from time to time, publish in such manner as it considers appropriate (including on the internet) a list of the names and addresses of persons who have failed to pay fines imposed on them by the due date for payment.

(2) In any particular case, the Courts Service shall not publish a person's name and address in accordance with this section before the notification of the receiver under subsection (4)* of section 15 of the person's failure to pay the fine by the due date for payment.

(3) In this section "due date for payment" means, in relation to a fine—

(a) the date specified by the court that imposed the fine as being the date by which the fine is required to be paid, or

(b) where a direction is given under section 14, the date by which the final instalment of the fine is required to be paid in accordance with that direction.".

This amendment relates to the publication of a list of names of persons who fail to pay fines on time. Some persons in the community fail to pay their fines and take a chance on a warrant for their imprisonment not being executed. If their warrant is executed, they may pay the fine at the last second to avoid imprisonment or may even go to prison on the basis that it will be, at most, only for a day or two. The cost to the State in Garda time and of admission of offenders to prison are substantial when calculated over a year. The changes I have already provided for in previous amendments should greatly reduce the level of default. However, it would be naive not to assume that a hard core of defaulters will continue to defy the State by refusing to pay their fines. In this amendment, I introduce a name and shame scheme, whereby fine defaulters will have their names and addresses published at regular intervals. It will be administered by the Courts Service, which can publish the list in a way most convenient to it and, possibly, on the Internet. From the point of view of this proposal, a person is considered to be in default from the date the receiver is informed by the Courts Service of the person's failure to pay the fine by the due date of payment. This is an innovative proposal aimed at attaining the maximum acceptance with court orders to pay fines. Some persons will ignore all of the other attempts to collect the fine, but I am satisfied that many of these would not want their neighbours, families or friends to know they are not paying their debt to the State. I commend the amendment to the House.

Charles Flanagan (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I welcome this amendment. I agree with the Minister with regard to every effort being made to ensure that money lawfully due to the Exchequer, following the imposition of fines after a court hearing and due process, is collected and that the law is seen to take its course. However, I am sure there are administrative consequences, in terms of an extra burden on the Courts Service. The Minister has not given specific details as to how this will work in practice. Will it work in a similar way to Revenue, and will we see publication on specified dates such as 30 June and 30 December? Have such arrangements been set in place with the Courts Service?

I refer to the point made earlier by the Minister with regard to the reluctance of his Department to proceed by way of attachment of earnings. This is something Fine Gael proposed previously, not only in this legislation. If we had a provision for attaching a court order to a person's wages or, if unwaged, to social welfare payment or entitlement, we would not need such publication, because payment would be made automatically. I welcome the Minister's statement that we will have a review in the future where the matter of attachment orders will be looked at in some detail. I assume the Minister does not have a difficulty in principle with such orders since he has said the issue will be reviewed. If the courts had such a provision available, it might only be invoked in circumstances where the sitting judge was happy that it was appropriate in the circumstances. Then we would not need the publication of a list of names of persons who failed to pay fines on time.

However, pending such a review, I am happy to accept what the Minister has said. Perhaps he is in a position at this stage to elaborate on the mechanics of such an arrangement. Will it be twice yearly? Will it be published in Iris Oifigiúil or will it be available to the newspapers by press release or will it be in the form of an advertisement in the national newspapers? Will it be published locally in the District Court area which imposed the fine?

Seán Sherlock (Cork East, Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I am not against the amendment per se, but it states that the Courts Service "may" from time to time, publish in such a manner as it considers appropriate, including on the Internet, a list of the names and addresses of persons who have failed to pay fines imposed on them by the due date of payment. I assume, since the word "may" is used that there is no obligation on the Courts Service to publish the names. Without being sarcastic, when somebody presents himself or herself before the court, there is a good chance the court reporter from The Cork man or The Leitrim Observer or any other local newspaper will publish the person's name in the following edition. I suggest the persons concerned will have been subjected to enough embarrassment through that. There may be circumstances where this imposes another administrative cost on the Courts Service. I do not think the Minister has set out how much this will cost to administer. By virtue of use of the word "may", I wonder if it will ever be used at all. That is a question, by the way.

Dermot Ahern (Louth, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

I thank the Deputies for their support in principle for this proposal. We are not obliging the Courts Service to publish this information. This is a new system for recoupment of fines so we must wait and see how it operates. The Courts Service is entirely computerised now so it is well able to get all the information. I suspect that rather than publishing it in Iris Oifigiúil at some expense it will place it on the Internet, where it will be easily accessible. It may do this periodically or on a rolling basis; I do not know. The finer details will be left up to the Courts Service. However, it should not be a major administrative burden.

This legislation is designed to focus on the hard core of people who purposely default on payment of fines. We are not trying to go after people who have difficulty repaying fines due to their particular circumstances. We must remember that even before the fine is levied by the court, the court has an obligation to consider the person's capacity to pay.

Deputy Flanagan mentioned earlier the removal of ministerial discretion to reduce fines. I have sympathy with this point of view because I know from my constituency work what has happened as a result of that change. Let us say somebody forgets to go to court. As Deputy Flanagan said, if the person does not appear in court the judge normally applies the higher end of the scale when it comes to a fine. It used to be that the person could go to the local TD, a petition was opened and the fine might be reduced. Now the person cannot do this and he or she must instead go to the extreme expense of employing a solicitor, possibly even a barrister, to appeal the fine in the Circuit Court or the Court of Criminal Appeal.

People have come to me - I have no doubt other Members have had the same experience - with fines of €1,000 or €2,000 because they missed court appearances; they have faced a Hobson's choice of, in effect, throwing good money after bad by employing solicitors and appealing in the Circuit Court, with a risk that the fines may not be reduced or may even be increased. This has imposed significant burdens on people whom I will not call innocent but who are perhaps at the wrong end of the scale of offenders. In this legislation we are attempting to ensure such circumstances are considered and to be more humane by allowing payment by instalments and so on. People will also be able to repay their debts to society through community service orders where before they would have been sent to prison.

I thank Deputy Flanagan for accepting in principle the concept of attachment, which we will consider. If we find the system we establish does not work properly, we are considering - as an alternative at the other end of the scale to imprisonment - providing the option to an offender, even after receiving a community service order or the ultimate sanction of prison, of accepting a court order for attachment of his or her earnings or social welfare payments rather than going to prison. However, we can consider this another time.