I have a few questions and observations to make. In his opening statement, which we took as read, Mr. P. J. Fitzpatrick referred to the fact that 20 court buildings had been upgraded and refurbished and that substantial maintenance improvements had been carried out to a further 80 venues. He might tell us how many venues have been closed, a matter to which he does not appear to refer in his statement. I am aware that a number of courthouses were closed last year or this year. I am not commenting on whether that was right or wrong, but I want some information on the matter. I see merit in what the Courts Service is doing. Perhaps in the past when people did not have the modes of transport that are available today, courtrooms were needed in much smaller venues. That is just a general observation.
On the question of bail and bail bonds, I am alarmed at what I have heard today, that in many cases bail is not being paid and being forfeited. This undermines and makes a farce of the administration of justice. It has been mentioned that many people have been before the courts time and again. They know that if they get bail of a small amount and decide not to pay it, that in some cases there is no comeback. Bail should not be set for small amounts. It is a long established principle that the courts should not be concerned with trivial matters. I read reports of fines of £5 and £10, but dealing with such figures makes a mockery of trying to administer the system of justice. The mere issuing of the piece of paper would cost more than the fine involved. I would like the courts to set a minimum token bail amount of a figure containing some zeros rather than a trivial amount that will merely clog up the system and bring it into disrepute.
I am concerned about what I have heard today about the use of information technology being brought forward as a proposed solution to this problem. I suspect information technology would merely add to the volume of paper. I do not know if its use would result in a higher yield. While we would have more procedures in place, I do not know if it would be effective.
With regard to the debt collection agency that was mentioned, page 69 of the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General refers to the sample of estreatment warrants returned by gardaí to the Courts Service for cancellation during a two week period in May 2002. I do not accept what is outlined in the chart in front of me. I do not believe what is printed, that no goods or assets can be levied in 149, or two thirds, of cases. All those who come before the courts have a RSI or PPS number and have assets, although they may be limited. Therefore, I do not accept that statement.
Reference is also made to the fact that an address cannot be located. Before bail is levied the person's address should be made available from his or her social welfare book or income tax records. This would short-circuit the collection procedure which can involve debt agencies, IT, reminders from one body to another with many of those involved going around in circles. It might be considered a little radical, but where a case requires it, we should consider the issue of attachment orders to the person's PPS number as the best way to proceed. I do not want members of the Garda Síochána wasting their valuable time collecting trivial fines for bail issues. They have more important work to do in crime prevention and such a use of their time must be bad for community relations. While I acknowledge that the Courts Service must operate within the rules laid down, I am troubled to hear that gardaí are spending some of their time dealing with these issues. Rather than examining the procedures involved, who is following them and what can be done about those who are not, we need to take a step back and take gardaí out of this procedure.
With regard to fines not being paid to the Courts Service after a certain period, if a person owes tax to the Revenue, it is collected through that system. If a person owes an amount to the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs, it is collected through that system. Most of the people about whom we are talking should be in the system. No one should be able to walk out of court without having given his or her PPS number. I do not accept the validity of the statement that there is no address for a person who appeared before a court. Such a person must be in receipt of some income in order that he or she can live, even a community welfare officer would be able to tell those concerned this.
I do not accept most of what has been put in front of me as a valid way of reaching a conclusion on this matter. There is a report on fines collection. It is the one issue about which we are talking. Creating more paperwork and more debt collection agencies is not the solution because those involved have far too much important work to do.
Those are my observations on the issue, which probably run counter to what has been said. We could create dozens of jobs to collect what I would call trivial amounts, but there must be a better way. While I commend the work the Courts Service is doing, I am disappointed that those involved must spend so much time doing what I consider trivial work when crime prevention must be their main priority.
