Fergus O'Dowd (Louth, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Quinn for raising this issue. The amendment, if accepted, would have the effect of allowing for the appointment of a receiver under section 8(1)(a) but would prevent the receiver from seizing property and selling it. This would greatly reduce the efficacy of the receiver provisions in the Bill.

I do not think the definition of property here is a house. Subject to correction, I understand the average fine is €300. It is an appalling vista that 8,000 people went to jail last year for not paying fines of around that amount. This is progressive social legislation in that people will not be sent to prison. The property is not the home but property amounting to the value of the fine.

If the property is not their home, it would be to the value of the fine. The average fine is €300 and if property is involved, it will be a much smaller item than a person's home, which is critical to them. The court is required to take the person's financial circumstances into account. When the fine is being fixed, notwithstanding the provision for same in statute, the court must take into account the person's income. The fine may under the terms of the Bill be paid in instalments over 12 months. It is only if the person fails to pay the fine in full and the court decides that it is not appropriate to make an attachment order that the receiver provisions are engaged. Even then, the court can choose at its sole discretion to make either a recovery order or a community service order. Following the acceptance of amendment No. 3, it may only make a recovery order where the fine exceeds €500.

These receiver provisions are balanced and fair. They are on the Statute Book in a less nuanced form in the Fines Act 2010. They fit with the overall architecture of the Bill and the Minister is not prepared to amend them as the Senator suggests. I hope the issues as I have outlined them may put the Senator's mind at ease.