I propose to take Questions Nos. 1, 3, 12 and 19 together.
The question of providing alternatives to imprisonment in cases of non-payment of fines or debts is under consideration in my Department and any proposals which may emerge will, of course, be announced in the normal way. It is fair to say that a certain amount of confusion surrounds public discussion of this issue and it might be helpful if I were to outline briefly the current position and give a general indication of the type of proposals which I have under consideration.
In the case of imprisonment for non-payment of debt — which I understand is the area which primarily gave rise to the concerns expressed by the United Nations Committee on Human Rights referred to by Deputy Harney — it is important to emphasise that no person may simply be committed to prison merely for the non-payment of a civil debt. Committal usually takes place only after all other avenues to enforce the debt have been exhausted. Under our law a debtor may be committed to prison only for failure to comply with a court order to make payments in discharge of a debt and such an order may be made only after examination of means designed to establish that the debtor is, in fact, financially in a position to make those payments. Accordingly, it is only those who are judged to have the capacity to make payments but who refuse to do so — rather than those who are simply financially unable to make the payments — who may be committed to prison.
Equally, in the case of non-payment of fines, it is worth mentioning that there is an obligation on the courts when imposing a fine to take into account the means of the offender.
The actual number of prison places occupied at any given time by people committed for non-payment of debt or fines tends to fluctuate at between 1 and 2 per cent of the total prison population. It would be wrong to suggest, therefore, that people in this category contribute in a major way to pressure on prison accommodation.
Nevertheless, I recognise that if appropriate and effective alternatives to imprisonment can be devised in these circumstances it would be well worthwhile proceeding with these. It is in that context that I should mention two proposals which I have under consideration.
The first relates to the use of community service as an alternative to imprisonment for non-payment of fines. However, whatever about the merits of this approach in relation to non-payment of fines, I do not believe that it would be appropriate in the case of non-payment of debt. In debt cases there is a third party to whom money is owed and one of the purposes of imprisonment in those cases is to attempt to bring about — as often happens — settlement of the debt.
In relation to non-payment of both debts and fines I am considering the introduction of a system of attachment of earnings whereby the court could order that outstanding debts or fines be deducted from a person's earnings. This would represent a form of instalment system for the payment of fines. Instalment orders are already a feature in relation to debt inasmuch as the court may order payment of the amount due to the creditor by instalments. As to the question of introducing a system of payment of fines by instalment beyond that envisaged in an attachment of earnings scheme, this matter is also under consideration in the context of the general review which I have under way in this area. That review is in line with the Programme for a Partnership Government which contains a commitment to revise the law relating to fines and, in particular, to provide for their indexation which would allow for updating the scale of fines. I propose to bring forward legislative proposals as quickly as possible in the light of the outcome of that review.
Finally, as to the part of Deputy Mitchell's question dealing with confiscation of assets where fines would normally follow conviction, I intend to bring forward legislation shortly dealing with confiscation of assets which represent the proceeds of crime. However, as part of the approach we propose to take there would not be a question of substituting confiscation for a fine. Confiscation proceedings would be designed to deprive a criminal of the actual proceeds of crime and arise only after a person had been convicted and sentenced.