Feargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 6:

In page 11, to delete all words from "receiver," in line 35 down to and including "amount of—" in line 38 and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following:"receiver.".

The ability of a court to seize a person's property and to sell it in the event of non-payment of a fine is going overboard, is not necessary and goes too far. With this provision, the receiver shall be able to seize a person's home and gain the proceeds of the sale of the person's home.

The amendment proposes to "delete all words from "receiver," in line 35 down to and including "amount of—" in line 38 and in page 12, to delete lines 1 to 4 and substitute the following: "receiver."." When we examine legislation, we must remember what we are trying to do, which is something that is often forgotten. The Government is saying people's properties should be protected in the context of banks seizing them when they do not keep up with mortgage payments but in this legislation, it is saying a person's property could be seized and sold. On top of that, the proceeds of the sale would be given to the receiver for the relatively small offence of not paying a fine. That is a massive disparity.

How can the Government promise citizens that their homes will be protected from banks while at the same time drawing up legislation where a receiver can seize a person's house in the event of non-payment of a fine? Let us treat people like the adults they are. I also see one's home as part of one's fundamental rights.

The Minister may argue this is a last resort, which I think was the case made on Second Stage, but let us be a sophisticated country and not some banana republic as the legislation almost implies. Irish people have a particular reason for being property owners and this part of the legislation, which infringes on much of this right, is not in the right spirit. Do people know that in the legislation, there is another way for their property to be seized? How many home owners know that?

If we are to be reasonable as legislators, then this provision should be removed. We should not impose this sort of medieval legislation on citizens. I urge the Minister of State to accept this amendment and to show some common sense. The legislation relates to fines and not murder. How on earth does a person's property come into this legislation? This is over the top.

When we talked about this on Second Stage, it was said that this would not happen but it was just giving the power. I think we are all of the opinion that if somebody does not pay a fine, we should find some way to make him or her do so. However, to have the right to go as far as this is going much too far.