Brian Hayes (Dublin South West, Fine Gael) | Oireachtas source

I thank Senator Quinn and Senator Barrett for allowing us to look at this issue which was raised on Committee Stage. I understand my colleague, Senator D'Arcy, raised the issue again. The debate on the amendments allows us to tease out the issue and to work through the best outcome. I propose to take amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together.

Section 8(3) provides that the recovery order shall authorise the receiver, alone or accompanied by such and as many members of the Garda Síochána as he or she considers necessary, and paragraph (a) of the said subsection allows the "use of reasonable force", where the receiver enters a premises at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing property belonging to the fined person is located. Senator Quinn's amendment No. 2 would mean that the receiver could not enter a premises, even where the occupant did not resist his or her entry, unless accompanied by a member of the Garda Síochána. I am reliably informed that Garda resources are not such that they can be deployed where they are not required. Instead, the Bill provides that where the receiver anticipates or encounters hostility or difficulty, he or she can avail of the support of the Garda. Therefore, it is not an automatic requirement where a receiver comes on a land or a property that a member of the Garda Síochána is present. Where they believe there could be some hostilities and that they could be met by a difficult situation, they can request a member of the Garda Síochána to be present. That is the explicit difference. Where the receiver does not require such assistance, there is no need for the presence of the Garda. It would tie up the Garda were that to be done.

It is important to remember that receivers are Revenue sheriffs appointed by the Government and who act on behalf of the Government in their capacity as they enter such lands. Many believe they are reasonable people who carry out important work on behalf of the State. The Minister has every confidence in their capacity to exercise their powers in accordance with the law, with or without the presence of the Garda Síochána, as the case may be.

Amendment No. 3, also in the name of Deputy Quinn, excludes the use of reasonable force to gain entry to a premises. Where one's preference is for the use of no force and for the quiet surrender of the property at issue - this will not always be the case as we know from our history - without recourse to reasonable force, as it were, the order of the court could be frustrated and the recovery provisions would quickly become unworkable. If the court makes an order authorising the seizure and disposal of property, it is difficult to see how such an order can be given effect if the use of reasonable force is excluded. One would hope that fined defaulters would co-operate with the receiver and surrender property to him or her without the need for the use of force. Where this does not happen, however, the receiver and, as appropriate, the Garda Síochána must be able to use reasonable force. The term "reasonable force" is, I understand, widely used in the Statute Book and, in this case, would be the minimum amount of force required to gain access and to seize property as ordered by the court. It is difficult to see how these provisions could operate without the possibility of the use of reasonable force. For that reason I am unable to accept the amendment.

It is the firm intention of the Government, law officers and orders of the court that for orders of the court to be upheld, people should comply. It is worth pointing out that this all follows from a decision of the courts. In that small number of cases where reasonable force has had to be used, unfortunately it has had to be used. We would all like a situation where no force would be used but to remove it, as is the intention of the amendment, would make the order of the court inoperable and, as such, unfortunately, we must retain it for that small number of cases where, for whatever reason, people are unable or unwilling to accept a decision of the court that has been granted. I stress that these are all decisions of the court that have been taken. There has to be some means where, in a tiny minority of cases, people refuse to accept the legitimacy or veracity of the court decision, this would apply. For that reason we cannot accept the amendment.