Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 3 Jul 1991

Vol. 410 No. 3

Private Members' Business. - Courts Bill, 1991: Second Stage.

"That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

The purpose of this short Bill is to extend the time provided in the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851 for the issue by district justices of warrants of committal to prison in respect of persons who fail to pay fines or to perform conditions ordered by justices of the District Court.

Orders of the District Court imposing a fine or a condition will usually provide for imprisonment in the event of failure to comply with the order. In such a case it is necessary for the court to issue a warrant, for execution by the gardaí committing a person in default to prison.

The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, provides for the issue by a district justice of committal warrants for the non-payment of fines or for the nonperformance of conditions, directly on the expiration of the time for payment or performance ordered by the court or at the latest on the next court day.

The large volume of warrants which have to be issued makes it impossible in ordinary circumstances to comply strictly with the provisions of the 1851 Act.

Accordingly, the District Court Rules have, for a considerable time past, provided that warrants may be issued at any time after default of payment or after a district justice is satisfied that a condition has not been performed and this rule has been generally followed in practice.

The present rule dealing with the time for issuing warrants dates from 1948, but it followed a rule on similar lines made in 1926, so that the practice in respect of which doubts have now been expressed, is of long standing, and has never been challenged.

District Court Rules are made by the District Court Rules Committee established under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924. Despite the fact that, under the Courts of Justice Act, 1924, the District Court Rules Committee are empowered, in carrying out their functions, to make rules for the adaptation or modification of any statute that may be necessary, doubts have recently been expressed over the question of whether or not it was within the power of the Rules Committee to provide for a time for the issue of warrants different from that provided by the statute.

The position is unsatisfactory and the Bill proposes to deal with it by extending the time prescribed in the 1851 Act to allow a realistic period — six months — during which warrants may be issued.

Following the enactment of the Bill the District Court Rules Committee will be asked to bring the rules into conformity with the provisions of the Bill so that similar doubts will not arise in the future in this area.

Section 1 (1) (a) of the Bill provides that a warrant of committal to prison may be issued not later than six months from the expiration of the time fixed by an order of the district justice for the payment of a fine or the performance of a condition. This provision will apply in the case of an order made by a district justice after the passing of this Bill.

It will also apply to orders made before the passing of the Bill where the time for complying with an order expires after the Bill is passed. I am satisfied that six months is a reasonable period of time to allow for issuing warrants and that it will be possible for the District Court to operate within this time limit in the future.

However, in order to ensure that existing orders of the District Court imposing fines are complied with and to avoid financial loss to the Exchequer which might otherwise occur if a doubt existed as to whether warrants could be executed, it is also necessary to deal with warrants which have not yet issued or which were not issued within the time specified in the 1851 Act.

Section 1 (1) (b) provides that warrants may be issued not later than six months after the Bill is passed, where the time for the payment of a fine or the performance of a condition expired between 1 July 1989 and the day before the Bill is passed.

While, on one view, there may be a doubt under the present law as to whether warrants can now issue in respect of fines which fell due for payment in this period, there is of course no doubt but that these fines are legally payable on foot of proper District Court orders. The date, 1 July 1989, will catch virtually all outstanding fines so that it is not strictly necessary to go back further than that and it might appear unreasonable to go too far back. The Bill will remove any doubt about the power of the District Court to ensure enforcement of its orders and it also provides a reasonable time for the issue of warrants in future.

This is very much a technical measure, arising from a doubt expressed in relation to the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851. The present position in relation to the 1851 Act is unsatisfactory and the Bill proposes to deal with this doubt. I commend the Bill to the House.

When I first read the Bill I was sceptical about the motives behind it. However, having listened to the Minister's speech I have been put somewhat at ease in this regard. I accept the reasons given by the Minister for bringing the Bill before the House. I want to refer briefly to the background to the Bill.

This debate will enable us to briefly review some of the difficulties in the area of justice as it relates to the issue of warrants, the committal of people to prison and other related matters. If at all possible, people should not be committed to jail. Many people who could never be described as criminals have been put in jail for the non-payment of fines imposed for very minor offences. This is an unnecessary practice in the sense that it takes up valuable space and prevents the committal to jail of people who should be detained. It is unfair that people who commit serious crimes are allowed to get out on bail. It is not unknown for rapists and other hardened criminals such as bank robbers, etc. to obtain bail under our law. One of the reasons they are able to do this is that space in our jails is at a premium. This is why I believe people who commit minor crimes should not be committed to jail if at all possible and alternative penalties imposed.

The extension of time provided in the Bill for the issue of District Court warrants of committal to prison for non-payment of fines might be of benefit in that it will give people extra time to pay fines and thereby avoid being committed to a place of detention for non-payment. I hope that this will be the case. All of us regularly meet constituents who find it impossible for one reason or another to meet the deadline for payment or to pay the fines. These people end up being committed to jail. Even though this is usually for a short period, it should not happen. The Minister should consider introducing an alternative form of sentencing for such people. Jails should be kept for people who commit serious crime and are a danger to society.

The Minister has made major strides in the area of justice in recent times. The promises he has made seem to suggest that he will bring forward further legislation over the next six to eight months. The Government seem to have made the tightening up of the law in as many areas as possible one of their priorities. While I welcome these moves by the Government they should also examine the possibility of introducing preventative measures. At present District Courts deal with many cases involving petty criminals, some of whom end up in jail. As I said, the Government should be looking at preventative measures. People who commit serious crime should be brought before the court and sentenced as quickly as possible. If the crime is of a very serious nature we should ensure that they are kept in a place of detention. In addition, there is a need to look at the origins of petty crime. I imagine——

An Leas-Ceann Comhairle:

I am sorry to interrupt the Deputy but, as I see it, this legislation is rather technical legislation which is aimed at giving de jure significance to a de facto position which existed in respect of these warrants, I am sorry to have to advise the House that we must confine ourselves to what is proposed in the legislation rather than to matters outside it.

I understand that fully. I do not wish to disagree with the Chair but the Minister was given a lot of latitude. I assume it is the practice in the House to give Ministers a lot of latitude when dealing with areas like this.

There is an implication there that the Chair has not——

Not this evening. Perhaps the lateness of the hour has something to do with it, but quite often Ministers, when they are dealing with a Bill, make long speeches about future legislation. I am sure the Chair will allow us a few minutes——

I have allowed the Deputy almost nine minutes now. I was directing his attention to a requirement which exists, that is, we must deal with what is in the Bill.

I do not think it would be harmful if we were allowed to have a brief overview of the situation which gives rise——

Standing Orders do not provide for such freedoms. A passing comment will be taken but we must confine ourselves to what is in the Bill.

——to the issuing of these warrants in the first place.

You started by saying you accepted what the Chair had indicated.

We must deal with what is in the Bill. If the Deputy proposes amendments to it or is making a case for what is not in it, he is entitled to do that but he is not entitled to ramble like Bulfin through Erin on all matters relating to the Department of Justice.

I accept your decision. However, I would have thought that we would have a certain latitude on Second Stage in this area.

I hope that the Minister and the Government will look at preventive measures rather than merely look at detention, sentencing and incarceration. Much can be done. Most of the crimes are committed by persons who come from unstable backgrounds, for example, families who are unable to order their affairs or cope, and later become serious criminals. A strong case could be made for the setting up of family support groups. I accept that this is not the responsibility of the Minister for Justice but such groups could be of help in city areas where a large number of families are patently unable to cope or order their affairs. They are in need of support from voluntary family support groups the members of which could receive training from child care specialists and specialists with an understanding of family dynamics. I would like that suggestion examined. The Minister for Justice should enter into discussions with his colleagues on the desirability of establishing such groups.

Another matter of concern is that the victims of child abuse can become criminals if they do not receive treatment because of the damaging effect it has had on them, psychologically. It is obvious that juvenile crime is on the increase. It has been described as a time bomb which is likely to blow up in our faces at some stage. Therefore, there is a need to introduce preventive measures. We must treat the symptoms at an early stage rather than the disease later.

I accept what the Minister has said. I will not oppose the Bill on Second Stage unless I learn something which would make me change my mind.

The Workers' Party will not support the Bill which has been commended to the House by the Minister for the simple reason that it is wrong to commit a person to prison for the non-payment of a monetary fine. Any legislation seeking to improve existing law which stipulates that a person be incarcerated for the non-payment of a fine, should not be supported by the House.

I should like to outline briefly the reasons we hold this view. First, the reason people do not pay their fines, even when faced with the alternative sanction of imprisonment in Mountjoy or elsewhere, is poverty and inability to pay. There is no other reason. Anyone who suggests that there is a clever class of crook in our community who would much prefer to spend time in a so-called holiday camp — prison — than to pay a fine is not treating the issue with the seriousness it deserves. I do not believe any person should be sent to prison simply because they are poor. For this reason I argue that one is being heavy-handed, unfair and unjust in an enlightened society in using imprisonment as a sanction to force people to pay fines.

The second reason we oppose the idea that people should be incarcerated for the non-payment of a fine is that it does not make economic sense. I should like to quote some figures I elicited from the Minister for Justice for 1987. On 18 June 1987 the Minister advised me in the House that for the latest year for which figures were available, 1986, 1,006 people were committed to prison for the non-payment of fines. He went on to state that the average length of stay in prison was 40 days and that the average figure involved was £238. Therefore, 1,000 or more of our citizens were obliged to spend 40 days or thereabouts in prison because they could not raise the sum of a little over £200.

Let us examine the cost to the taxpayer. The Minister advised us in the Dáil in 1988 that the average cost in 1987 of detaining a person in prison was £28,000 which worked out at £540 per week. Therefore, it cost the taxpayer £3,600 to detain a person in prison for six weeks; in other words, to collect £238 from a person who had failed or refused to pay a fine we asked the taxpayer to spend in the region of £3,600. We have to presume, given that the average length of stay was 40 days, that the figure of £238 was not collected. Does any Member seriously suggest that this makes economic sense? Is the taxpayer getting any return for their money? Would the system of justice have fallen apart if those 1,006 persons had not been sent to prison for the non-payment of a fine? This would have made economic sense, resulted in a saving to the Exchequer and provided badly needed places in our prisons. I also believe that it would not have led to anarchy.

A third reason is that the Minister should rely on the fundamental document on penal reform, the Whitaker report, which has been available to him since 1985 and to which he has referred on occasion at great length in suggesting that he was taking on board its recommendations. What that report has to say on the question of the non-payment of fines has to be examined very carefully in the context of this legislation. It is stated succinctly at paragraph 5.15 of the report under the heading "Confiscation to Enforce Fines": "Confiscation should be the ultimate penalty, not imprisonment in default of payment of a fine". That is the clear view of the commission set up by the Government to investigate the penal system and make recommendations on how to improve it. That report has been before the Minister since 1985 but, regrettably, that recommendation has been ignored.

With regard to the escalating cost of detaining a person in prison, the Whitaker Commission argued that we should get away from the idea of using imprisonment as a sanction to collect fines. They recommended, with regard to motor offences, the area where most fines are imposed, that the motor car, the subject matter of the offence, should be impounded to extract the fine from the recalcitrant offender. That recommendation merits closer examination. At least it is an indication of the direction the Minister could take if he was concerned that the fines imposed were paid. There are other ideas — for example, the concept of community service as an alternative to imprisonment which could be used as a device to enforce the payment of fines. When fining people we could tell them that if they default on the payment of the fine for the offence they would be required to work in the community and to give public service. I have no doubt that in the case of many people in employment who have means and who have a certain amount of community pride this type of sanction as an alternative to the non-payment of a fine would be pressure enough to ensure that they would pay their fine. We could then deal with the very small number who are committed to prison for non payment of fines. Indeed, they are a very small percentage of the people who come before our courts, they numbered 1,006 in 1986, and I invite the Minister in his reply to tell us something of the statistical reality of the 1990 figures, if they are to hand, of those who were committed to prison for non payment of fines. I would like to know that number, I am using the figures for 1986 to illustrate the point I am making. When we have to decide what to do with the small number of offenders who will not pay their fines I think the community would be far better served and the taxpayer would get a far better return on his or her money by having the person put to some useful function or purpose or by restricting their movement in the community and by having them put some work back into it.

These ideas are not new and should not take the Minister by surprise: they are in the Whitaker report. I would have much preferred to see something along these lines tonight rather than this meagre legislation to tidy up a perceived difficulty. These are the three basic reasons that we are opposed strongly to the introduction of this legislation tonight. We would have preferred if the Minister had come before us with a realistic formula to deal with the non-payment of fines by offenders in circumstances where they refuse or simply cannot afford to do so.

As all Stages of the Bill are being taken tonight there will not be an opportunity to deal with matters in regard to the legislation after tonight. I have to ask why in 1991 we are still relying on legislation drafted in 1851 to deal with the administrative side of justice in this country. It is remarkable that when we spoke earlier about the administrative improvement of the courts and the Minister gave a fulsome commitment that we would be making progress in this area we are now brought back to the stark reality of where we are in this general area by realising that the fundamental legislation dealing with the whole question of the issue of warrants is to be found in an Act of the Imperial Parliament of 1851. Yet we have done nothing else in the legislative area in this regard other than to produce a one page Bill tonight to cover a loophole that some genius has uncovered.

In the interim period since the State was founded we have managed to draft rules of court in 1924 and in 1948. Where is the expertise and the overview of the workings of our courts for the past several decades and what has been happening in regard to updating all our court procedures and providing in the Department a coterie of experts to work on administrative improvements of the District Courts including the legislative basis and the rules and regulations to be drafted by the courts' procedural committees? When I was in practice and had to deal directly with the Department I remember trying to have the basic legal aid form — it runs to four pages and has to be filled up when one is claiming anything up to the princely sum of £30 for appearing in a District Court case — modified, but after six years of negotiations with the Department we still could not come up with a document that could work in something less than four pages.

There seems to be a fundamental problem in the Minister's remit in the Department of getting a dynamic group of people who can look quickly and succinctly at the administrative side of the courts, make recommendations and put forward serious propositions. In this regard a very fundamental issue arises from the wording of the legislation. The 1851 Act provided that the warrant should be issued directly upon the order being made for the payment of a fine when the period of time expired. I understand that in 1851 the Legislature at the time might have thought there was no great difficulty about doing this because there were many scriveners attached to the courts, there was not such a great volume of work to be done and the scrivener would deliver the warrant to the clerk to be signed by the justice within a matter of hours, if not sooner. What has happened is that the volume of work has increased and the scrivener side has decreased to the extent that now the rules decide that it would take six months for a clerk of the court to prepare a warrant for the district justice, to fill in the blanks in the standard form. The fact that the clerk of the court would need six months to do that is a reflection of two things. The first is that the administrative side has become antiquated because they were not provided with the facilities to keep up with the present workload. Surely in this day and age, when we are talking about the computerisation of the administrative work of the courts, it should take no more than pressing a key on a computer system to have the warrant issued there and then to be signed at the expiration of the court's business at the end of the day. In 1851 this could have been met, but we have moved into a period of chaos, out of which we should be able to move with the aid of computers. I believe it is utterly ridiculous to afford six months to the courts to issue a warrant arising from a specific date, be it the expiration of the time upon which the fine should have been paid or that the condition required has not been met. For what reason should we need a period of six months other than that the Minister recognises that the administrative side is in chaos. I accept that there is a huge volume of work, but surely we should not be accommodating chaos but introducing a system of computerisation and efficient administration that will not require such long periods to meet with the simple issuing and signing of warrants.

I want to query the Minister on section 1 (1) (a) (ii) and 1 (1) (b). Does the Minister consider that this amounts to a provision of retrospection with regard to penalties under the criminal code and has he consulted with the Attorney General's Office as to the constitutionality of these provisions? It seems to me that at the time an order of a penal nature is made in the court nothing can be done subsequently to interfere with the making of that order, the effect of that order and the capacity of that order to be implemented. The conditions that existed at the time the order was made are the conditions to be visited upon the offender for all time. The Minister is addressing the period 1 July to date in section 1 (1) (b) and is perhaps retroactively tidying up what was previously untidy but to the benefit of those who would be visited with a penal sanction. Is the Minister convinced that we are constitutionally sound in respect of that retroactive provision?

The Minister said he was motivated to bring forward this legislation on the basis that a doubt had been uncovered. This position had existed since 1924 without any question being raised or challenge being made. The Minister should have graciously indicated, at least in general terms, where the spark of genius was found which uncovered the doubt. Was it within the Department or was it by some attentive District Court clerk? Was it in the Attorney General's Office or elsewhere? Whoever it was deserves a certain pat on the back for uncovering what the entire legal profession have failed to uncover over decades. I can see some people close to us in the House who could have had a part in that but I am not entitled to say more.

On behalf of The Workers' Party, I recognise the administrative difficulties which have propelled the Minister to introduce this legislation. However, we have a fundamental opposition to the notion of incarcerating people who for reasons of poverty or disinclination fail to pay a fine. For that reason we will be opposing the Bill on Second Stage.

This is a technical Bill designed to regularise matters and we will not be opposing it. It is important that we should devise some methods other than warrants for arrest and imprisonment in some instances. A district justice is faced with difficulty on almost every occasion where a case comes before him involving a person charged with driving an untaxed vehicle, failing to display a tax disc, failing to wear a seat belt or wrongfully parking a car. If a person fails to pay a parking fine a district justice will normally impose of fine of £25 or seven days' imprisonment. Failure to wear a seat belt can incur a fine of £20 or seven days' imprisonment. There must be a far greater latitude and discretion allowed to a district justice in these instances. It is important that there should be a commonsense approach. It is not right or proper that our prison system should be used to incarcerate people who fail to pay these fines. Some kind of community work should have to be undertaken for the persons found guilty of such offences. That approach would be far better for the person and more productive for the community.

The Minister will reply that it would be very expensive to set up such a system and to supervise the work carried out. It should be remembered, however, that the cost of keeping a person in prison for a week is in the region of £600 or £700. The logic of committing a person to prison for a relatively minor misdemeanour should be seriously examined and we should consider community work as an alternative to imprisonment in a case where a person defaults on the payment of a fine. I have seen a district justice impose a sentence of one day in prison for a relatively minor offence. Our prison system was designed to cater for people guilty of serious crimes against society as distinct from minor offices.

I have been in touch with the Minister's Department on numerous occasions regarding petitions. Let us suppose I write to the Minister about the case of a person who has been fined £200 for driving an untaxed vehicle or for some other similar offence. How will a warrant be affected by a petition? When a court imposes a sentence and a Deputy writes to the Minister, the Garda do not proceed with enforcement of the warrant while the Minister is investigating the representations. This procedure has not been abused over the years. The Minister and his predecessors have taken time to deal with these matters. When we were in Government I remember going into the Minister's office one night and seeing him working through files to decide where mitigation should be allowed. The hands of a district justice are tied but the Minister might be able to mitigate the fine because of family circumstances or some other aspect of the case which did not come across clearly in court. Perhaps the Minister will let us know his views with this regard.

Some attention must be directed towards the overall policy of committing people to prison for the types of minor offences I have mentioned. The Minister may have read an article which appeared in the Evening Herald on 19 June last which reported the general secretary of the Prison Officers Association, Denis McGrath, as referring to revolving door jails. When one reads an article of that nature it is necessary to weigh up exactly what it means. I have not sufficient information to comment on it tonight. The article states that more than 300 burglars, joyriders and handbag snatchers sent to jail by courts are signing on weekly in prison and then going home. They are back on the streets because the jails cannot accommodate them at a time when city suburb crime levels are soaring. Mr. McGrath said he was speaking out because the position in regard to early releases was getting worse. I am sure the Minister will share my concern if that is so. I hope it is not, but I would like the Minister to let us know the situation. On occasions every Minister has allowed a type of parole for people to see how they get on. Much of that is justified. It gives people the option of going back out into society and to re-establish themselves. A certain level of that is good, but I would be concerned if people who have committed serious crimes are not compelled to serve their full sentence. We hear of gardaí saying they brought a person to prison for some offence and the following day in the town or village they met that person back out again. Much of that can be incorrect information but I would like the Minister to ease my mind on it. That article in the Evening Herald written by Mr. Mallon and Miss O'Kelly highlights a matter of importance and needs to be clarified. I hope the Minister will comment on early releases for people who have committed serious crimes.

There is an epidemic of crime at present. I want to draw the Minister's attention to a situation that is of concern to me. I am worried about the present level of committal to prison by our courts of people who have committed offences of a civil nature. A simple example is failure to pay debts. Nightly on TV and daily on radio and in our newspapers we learn of hire purchase companies, banks, building societies and other types of financial institutions advertising attractive rates to induce people to invest their moneys with them on the one hand, and they offer very competitive terms for borrowing on the other hand. Most of these institutions are taking a calculated risk. On the one hand a person will give them security for repayment of a debt to them. We have heard of repossessions of houses by building societies and banks and repossession of farms by building societies, banks, the ACC and so on. After such repossession as a result of a court order the people concerned are later followed and are put in jail. There are people in jail who have committed serious crimes. We must be careful that our system as it is at the moment is not utilised——

I hesitate to interrupt the Deputy, but it is clear to me and must be clear to himself that he is straying considerably from the subject matter of the Bill before us. The Bill before us is a very brief Bill, very succinct, and it deals solely with the question of the time allowed for the issue of District Court warrants, committal to prison for non-payment of fines or non-compliance with any condition, and no more. The Deputy is straying into a variety of areas that are quite irrelevant to the subject matter before the House. I would ask the Deputy to come back to the Bill before us. It is a very short, succinct measure and does not give rise to dealing with the variety of matters to which the Deputy has adverted.

On a point of order, may I clarify the situation? We are having an amendment to an Act which authorises a district justice to issue a warrant for offences under the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act. People are committed to prison and sometimes have been released early because there is overcrowding in our prisons. Warrants are issued in respect of people who fail to pay fines imposed for both criminal and civil offences. We must ensure that people committed to prison are committed for serious offences. I am concerned that people may be committed to prison for civil matters and non-payment of debts. I assure you, Sir, that I do not intend——

A brief reference to such matters is quite in order, Deputy, but to go into them in anything like detail would be quite improper at this stage.

I do not intend to go into them in any further detail. I make the point — and the Minister is probably aware of this — that this is occurring. Banks and financial institutions are causing people to be committed to prison for this type of offence. Perhaps some type of community work would be imposed instead. The taxpayer is paying for the running of the prisons that are being used in that way. We should see how that can be avoided so that the prisons, which are there for criminal offenders, are not overcrowded with such people who have committed no crime. I will labour the point no further but it needed some ventilation here. I have been concerned over some people who have been committed to prison at different times for offences which were not strictly criminal.

Overall the Bill is worthy of support in the House. We are trying to rectify a situation where there can be problems. On previous occasions action was not taken in time on matters relating to the administration of our courts, so it is important to be seen to act in time. That is what we are doing in this instance.

I would like to thank the Deputies who have contributed to this Second Stage. Let me say at the outset that the question was raised by a number of Deputies as to who raised doubts about the legality of the warrants of committal issued by the District Court. The issue has been raised from time to time by some people affected and by the Garda. While I do not concede that any arguments that can be made as to the legality of warrants of commital that are issued by the District Court are well founded, I decided on the legal advice available to me to obtain the Government's approval for statutory provisions that will put the matter beyond doubt and will introduce new arrangements for issuing warrants of committal that would be apporpriate to modern circumstances.

Deputy Cotter, Deputy McCartan and Deputy Enright quite legitimately asked if we should be looking at penalties other than just committal to prison. The Committee on Court Practice and procedure submitted a report in 1990 which recommends a system of attachment of earnings and of deductions from State grants in cases where convicted persons are able but unwilling to pay fines imposed by the District Court. I am having a look at that in my Department at the moment.

I see merit in what the Deputies have suggested in relation to community service orders and the extension of the community service orders to this area. Normally it is really under the Road Traffic Acts that a large number of these fines arise, as we are all aware, and that comes under the remit of my colleague, the Minister for the Environment.

I will have a look at this area. I have spent considerable time and effort on this matter and have secured from the Government additional financial support for an extension of the probation and welfare service even in the difficult financial circumstances in which we live. I am a great believer, so far as is possible, in keeping people out of the prison system, having them work within the community or trying to bring them back as full contributing members to the community. I am not saying this will happen immediately but I give a commitment to the House to have a look at this whole area.

The question of detection was raised by Deputy Cotter. I can assure him that the Garda are doing everything they possibly can. He mentioned also bail in relation to available prison spaces. Bail is available because of two Supreme Court decisions and it has nothing to do with space in prison. I thank Deputy Cotter for his comments in relation to the efforts I am putting in and the priority which is being given to the tightening up of the law.

Deputies Cotter, McCartan and Enright raised the question of the number of people who are in prison for non-payment of fines. At any one time about 1 per cent of prison places on an annual basis is taken up with people for non-payment of fines. As Deputies will be aware they serve very short sentences. The matter of petitions was raised but there is no change in that area. Regarding inability to pay we do not have the power at present to attach community service orders. Not everybody is unable to pay. There are some unfortunately who refuse to pay and the law has to be enforced. We debate and pass Bills in this House every day which have provision for fines or imprisonment. The intention is that the laws will be enforced, whether pollution, traffic or any other laws. At the end of the day the final enforcement of the law is the threat of prison. There must be some stick as well as the fine. At present about 55 per cent of people who are fined do not pay. There are about 55 per cent of people who do not pay within the specified period. I should like to inform Deputy McCartan that there is no retrospection element because the court orders already would have been made. He referred to his experience with my own Department when he was a practising solicitor. I have served in many Departments of State. I had the honour of being Minister and Minister of State in various Departments of Government and I can say without fear of contradiction that I have not come across finer officers in the public service than in the Department of Justice.

I cannot say I agree with that.

They are committed to their job. They are most co-operative in guiding and advising the Minister of the day. I would say they are dynamic people and I take the opportunity of putting that on the record of the House and I say "thank you" to them in appreciation of everything they have done in the two years I have been in the Department. I completely refute any suggestion of their being in any way slow to move in relation to changes or advice being given to them. I thank Deputies who have indicated their support for this technical legislation and I commend it to the House.

Question put and declared carried.
Top
Share