I wish to share my time with Deputy O'Donovan.
Enforcement of Court Orders Bill 2004: Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome the opportunity given to us by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill to discuss the important issues relating to enforcement of debts and fines. I would particularly like to address the issue of fines but, ironically, despite the stated intention of Fine Gael that the Bill should deal with fines, its provisions are so flawed that they do not do so and in effect the Bill is confined to civil debt.
This basic flaw is not unrelated to the major flaw running through the Bill, that it is hastily conceived. In its blunt and unrefined form it has the capacity not just to fail to achieve what it sets out to achieve but in effect it could cause serious disruption of the workings of the courts and could serve to undermine the entire fines system.
It was on this basis that in 1999 an almost identical Fine Gael Bill was rejected by the Government. It is unfortunate that none of the flaws identified by the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, was taken note of and remedied before presenting the 2004 version of the Bill. Government is not just about presenting token, superficially attractive legislation. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has to live in the real world and has to live up to his ministerial responsibility and introduce only those measures which have a real chance of working and solving problems which emerge.
The Minister has been keenly interested in the problems presented by the system for imposing and collecting fines. From information available in other jurisdictions it would appear that such problems are not limited to Ireland, but can be found in many jurisdictions. It seems that despite the various approaches to solving the problems, there is no evidence of the existence of a perfect model of success. This is simply because complex issues are involved and it is essential therefore that reform is tailored to meeting the problems which exist and to finding solutions which are fair, effective and efficient.
Nevertheless, the Minister is concerned that every effort should be made to improve the fines system and, in particular, that the system should operate so as to use prison only as a last resort. Accordingly, he has been conducting an ongoing review of the fines system. In that respect, he has had available to him a number of important reports relating to the subject of fines. In general terms, a summary of the recommendations on fines from these reports is that there should be improved means assessment by the courts to ensure fines imposed are within the means of the offenders to pay them; a facility to allow offenders to pay fines by instalment; and a means of enforcing fines other than by way of imprisonment.
The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform agrees largely with these conclusions. He has already indicated that he intends to bring forward legislative proposals to reflect these recommendations. He is doing this in a phased way because he believes that it is necessary to assess and evaluate how different developments affect the overall system. As a first step he intends to bring a fines Bill to Government shortly. Although this Bill is primarily intended to update existing fines and provide a mechanism for indexation, he is also including in it proposals to strengthen the criteria to be used by the courts in assessing the means of the offenders before imposing fines. This provision is fundamental because most offenders who do not pay fines have financial difficulties. This was highlighted by the Nexus research co-operative report commissioned by the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform entitled Imprisonment for Fine Default and Civil Debt and published in 2002. The report examined some of the key issues, such as why people ended up in prison in regard to non-payment of fines or debts. It was based on interviews and the personal circumstances, opinions and experiences of a sample of 24 imprisoned persons.
The Nexus report found that persons imprisoned did not, for the most part, have the capacity to pay the fines imposed, which had to be paid in full. Most of the persons interviewed were not in permanent employment.
The Government wants to put them in jail and keep them there.
Only a very small number do not pay fines or debts on a point of principle. The idea of a payment process by instalments as an alternative to prison was broadly attractive. However, this may be of little real use in the light of the financial circumstances of those involved, which in turn highlights the need for a more effective means assessment before the fine is imposed. Similarly, in the absence of an employer for the majority of the persons surveyed, an attachment of earnings arrangement would not be a real solution. It was considered that an attachment of social welfare benefits would be problematic, particularly for people living in or close to the poverty line.
Put them in jail instead. That is the Government solution.
The Minister is putting forward a fines Bill which will address the issue of the assessment of the individual's financial capability to pay a fine. That step is being brought forward.
That is what the former Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, said. We are still waiting and people are still going to jail.
It is vitally important in the interest of fairness to these people and in the interest of efficiency in the system that fines are set at an affordable level. However, the Fine Gael Bill, focused as it is on procedures, omits the inclusion of such a provision to ensure basic fairness to the less well-off in our society.
The Government's fairness for the less well-off is to put them in jail.
The Minister, on the other hand, has said that he will provide for such assessment in the forthcoming fines Bill. Importantly, that Bill will also include provisions for the payment of fines by instalment. In that regard, it is the intention that such a payment arrangement will only be available to those who genuinely need it having regard to their financial circumstances and the amount of the fine imposed. Bearing in mind that there are over 110,000 fines imposed in the District Court annually, if every such fine could attract an instalment order, serious administrative problems could arise for the Courts Service, as Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is well aware. I agree that those who can afford to pay the fine in one amount should have to do so. However, I do not consider, as the Deputy's Bill proposes, that such a facility, which will use valuable court resources, should be available to the more affluent.
The second stage of the Minister's legislative approach will involve the proposed enforcement of fines Bill which is also on the Government's legislative programme. The stated aim of this Bill is to end imprisonment as far as practicable for non-payment of fines and to provide for new ways to enforce fines. The Minister is actively considering a range of alternative measures, but he will only introduce such measures when he is satisfied that they will improve the efficiency and fairness of the system.
In the meantime they should continue to be put in jail.
The Minister must be satisfied regarding the practicality of proposals he introduces. For example, a significant range of alternative enforcement options is available to the courts in the UK yet they are little used. The most workable solutions in that jurisdiction are the facility to pay fines by instalment and extended time to pay. Such findings have served to strengthen the Minister's view that the primary focus should be on doing all that can be done to help people to pay rather than placing an unduly strong emphasis on enforcement, particularly as such measures may have harsh consequences.
The alternative enforcement measures proposed in the legislation will not necessarily create a fairer or more enabling system for the offender.
It will keep them out of jail, which is where the Deputy wishes to put them.
The Deputy's proposal relates to procedures. The introduction of attachment of earnings and attachment of social welfare contributions without first making available a fairer procedure for imposition of the fine and its collection raises serious questions. While the Minister acknowledges there are workable alternatives to imprisonment, his primary focus is on introducing measures that will help the person to pay the fine.
The Minister's intention is then to build on the measures proposed in the fines Bill. This will provide for a more accurate assessment of what other measures are required and will permit him to take into account the impact of the proposals contained in that Bill. It will also provide for consideration to be given to the effect of other developments, for example, the impact of the increasing number of road traffic offences where a fixed payment and or penalty points is involved. This emphasises the importance of ensuring improvement measures take account of all dimensions of the operation of the fines system.
I refer to the enforcement provisions. Section 14 provides for attachment orders on amounts payable as income support. The Minister is not completely ruling out this option but it must be approached with the greatest caution.
I agree.
It may well be that attachment of earnings has a role in regard to the wealthy offender or the offender who decides it would be cheaper to spend a few days in jail than pay a heavy fine. However, it cannot be used as a blunt instrument. For instance, the Department's own research project concluded that fine defaulters tend to be unemployed or not in the labour force. An attachment of earnings mechanism would be useless in these circumstances while attaching welfare payments raises serious questions about whether such attachment provisions could push vulnerable people over the poverty line. Given that my constituency, Dublin South Central, is the economically and socially most deprived in the State, I will not support this provision.
The Deputy's alternative is to maintain the current policy and continue to put people in jail. What does the Deputy want?
The problems associated with the Bill could cause not only administrative headaches but also result in unfairness to the less fortunate among us. It is for this reason the Government must reject the Bill.
This is incredible.
However, the Minister will provide practical solutions regarding fines in the forthcoming fines Bill and enforcement of fines Bill. He will take note of the contributions by Members and the good suggestions in Deputy O' Keeffe's Bill in doing so.
I thank Deputy Ardagh for sharing time. I congratulate my constituency colleague, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, on introducing the Bill. It is important to focus on an issue, which may have been neglected for some time. While I do not fully support the legislation, what he is trying to achieve is a worthy cause. It takes great courage for an Opposition Member to go to the trouble of submitting a Private Members' Bill.
The debate gives us an opportunity to discuss important issues relating to the non-payment of fines or debts. I refer, in particular, to civil debt. Despite the best intentions of Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, due to a flaw in drafting, the Bill is confined to civil debt. It does not effectively deal with the issue of fines and what new approaches might be taken in this regard. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform has maintained that it is not the primary function of his Department or the Courts Service to take on the role of operating a debt management service for people who find themselves, for whatever reason, in arrears to banks and finance houses.
All Members will agree more effort and resources should be concentrated on the work of the money advice and budgeting service. This body has a critical role to play in helping people to address the problems of over-indebtedness, which usually result from bad management, panic attacks and so on. The MABS approach, based on the willingness of the debtor to manage his or her case and to seek expert advice, is the best way forward. This offers much better prospects of a successful resolution of the credit problem. The service maintains a special relationship with the credit unions, which is important. However, MABS gives practical finance and budgeting advice and practical assistance in helping to engage with creditors but it does not pay debts.
The key features of MABS are the resources, contacts and expertise of all relevant people in an area who co-operate to provide a special service for people who require help and advice in working their way out of serious debt. The Government makes a significant financial commitment to MABS — €11.4 million in 2004. This allows it to help more than 12,000 new clients annually. This number highlights the serious difficulties faced. I encourage the new Minister for Social and Family Affairs to continue to provide generously for this service.
This voluntary approach, through MABS, offers a better way of achieving a result acceptable to both creditor and debtor. Financial institutions prefer such voluntary alternative approaches, most likely because they have a better chance of recovering their money. However, it is often difficult to persuade persons in debt to engage in any process — they bury their heads in the sand — whether it involves voluntary mediation or court proceedings, until it is too late. We have all encountered such people at our clinics seeking advice.
I am not sure the Courts Service, which has its own different and important functions to carry out, should adopt a new role in managing a debt collection and recovery process for thousands of people imposed on it, as proposed in the legislation. If a judgment is made in a civil debt, the person can go before the District Court, file a statement of means and the judge can decide what repayment can be afforded. It is only when that person refuses to pay, thereby disobeying the court order, that an order to be committed can be sought and granted. That threat is usually enough to make most people pay. Most District Court and Circuit Court judges do not normally commit people where it is blatantly obvious someone cannot afford to pay a fine or debt. If that sanction is abolished, people may not pay at all.
A number of the technical flaws in this Bill were mentioned last night by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, and Deputy Charlie O'Connor. By redistributing the problem in the way set out by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, we run the risk of making the burden even more acute regarding how such offenders are addressed. This highlights that we must be extremely careful about how we approach changes to court procedures.
Everybody agrees that a system of payment by instalments should be introduced. However, this must be achieved in a planned way using well defined procedures. For instance, it is essential that there should be a minimum threshold for a fine below which payment by instalment cannot be used. There should also be a maximum number of instalments and a set time to complete the exercise. Should a person default on a payment within the process, a separate default procedure should be provided. These are only a few of the issues that require full consideration in bringing forward workable legislation.
Similar procedural issues arise involving the attachment of earnings provisions contained in the Bill. While it is proposed that creditors are to seek such orders, it is not clear in all cases who exactly the creditor will be. For example, in the case of the large number of fines payable to the Exchequer, who would appear before the court to request the order?
There are other concerns which come to mind. Section 4(2) seeks to provide that an attachment of earnings order should be directed at an employer, in which case it is possible that the employment of some people would be jeopardised by the Bill. Compliance with an attachment of earnings order would involve a significant level of bureaucracy for employers to deal with what in many cases would be minimal amounts. Many employers would have cause to think twice before employing people from particular backgrounds. As an employer would be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months if he or she failed to comply with the Bill, an attachment of earnings order might be good reason for many employers to consider the continuation of a person's employment, especially where that person's position was temporary. According to the Bill's provisions, an employer would be given ten days to comply with an attachment of earnings order. Even the Revenue Commissioners provide more time, typically allowing a minimum of 20 days and in some cases in excess of a month.
The problems associated with the Bill could cause not just administrative headaches but also real unfairness to the less fortunate. By contrast, the Minister for Justice. Equality and Law Reform will provide practical solutions in the forthcoming fines Bill through provisions to strengthen means assessment and payment of fines by instalment. He will also bring forward further sensible proposals on the enforcement of fines in the enforcement of fines Bill. I have no doubt that in doing so he will note the contributions of Members and in particular some of the solid provisions outlined in Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill. While the Deputy's Bill may not be entirely to our liking, certain aspects of it deserve the Minister's close attention.
The use of prison is, of course, undesirable and incarceration has significant social consequences. However, while it provides an effective deterrent, prison should not be used as an automatic sanction for every crime. Much as the Opposition wishes to claim otherwise, the figures for the use of prison to sanction non-payment of fines and debts are exaggerated. Last night, we heard that there were only 37 persons so imprisoned. No person should have to go to prison for the non-payment of a fine if it can be established to the satisfaction of the court that he or she genuinely cannot afford to pay.
I welcome the real proposals outlined in the Government's legislative programme. The Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform will introduce two new Bills to deal with fines issues. I acknowledge the enormous efforts made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and his predecessor on the prison building and modernisation programme. Under the rainbow coalition, we had a disastrous policy of revolving-door prisons for criminals, but those doors are revolving no longer.
While Deputy Jim O'Keeffe's Bill contains many salient provisions, I oppose it for a number of reasons. However, I urge the Minister to take into account some of the very solid proposals Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has expounded.
While I commend Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on introducing this Bill, as the Minister of State stated yesterday evening, the Government cannot support it. The Bill is very similar to the Private Members' Bill proposed in 1998 by then Deputy Jim Higgins and rejected by the Government on the basis that its proposals could undermine the existing system for the payment of fines, result in significant administrative costs and create an excessive administrative burden while having little or no effect on the prison population. While similar problems and issues arise in the Bill before us today, this debate has been extremely useful in giving all of us an opportunity to consider and discuss the issues raised. I am sure regard will be given to the valuable and important points made during this debate when future measures in this area are being formulated.
Since the 1999 debate on this issue much important work has been carried out on fines. The Government cannot be accused of inaction. Yesterday, the Minister of State outlined to the House the various reports which have recommended the introduction of improved means assessment by the courts to ensure fines imposed are within the means of offenders to pay, the introduction of a facility to allow offenders to pay fines by instalment and the implementation of enforcement methods other than imprisonment. Clearly, proposals by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to introduce enhanced means assessment and payment by instalment in the fines Bill represent the first stage in addressing these issues.
The 2000 report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and the report of the high level interdepartmental group have also been key in forming a basis for consideration and action. The high level group, which was formed on foot of the Comptroller and Auditor General's report, submitted a detailed report and recommendations to the Committee of Public Accounts in November 2001. The report was considered briefly by the committee in November 2002.
There are two key points which I consider it worthwhile to restate. First, the overall objective of the fines system is to reduce the level of offences committed. Second, it is clear that to achieve good enforcement, we must first ensure that we have a system in place which provides for appropriate fines to be imposed, structured support for paying fines and improved enforcement mechanisms. The Minister of State has outlined in detail developments which I do not intend to restate now in the areas of clamping, penalty points, the fixed charge processing system, measures taken by the Courts Service to reduce delays in dealing with cases and issuing warrants and the introduction of information technology systems in the courts and other agencies to improve current systems.
Further initiatives are being introduced such as the measures in the proposed fines Bill which will include proposals to strengthen the criteria to be used by the courts in assessing the means of offenders before imposing fines. The Bill will also include provisions for the payment of fines by instalment for those who genuinely need such a facility in the context of their financial circumstances. In terms of strengthening means assessment, this is an extremely important provision. It is vital from the perspectives of fairness and efficiency that fines, while of course reflecting the seriousness of the offence, are also set at an affordable level.
We must be realistic. Many offenders who do not pay fines are experiencing financial difficulties. This realisation constitutes a fundamental omission from the Fine Gael Bill which fails to provide for provisions to strengthen means assessment. This observation is borne out by the fact that the Nexus research co-operative report commissioned by the Department concluded that offenders for fine default tend to be unemployed or not in the labour force. The provision of other measures such as attachment of earnings and even arrangements to pay by instalment are of little use if a fine has not been set at a level that the person in question can afford. While the Fine Gael Bill makes provision for payment by instalment, it does so impractically by proposing that such a facility should be available to all offenders regardless of their circumstances. As the introduction of instalment arrangements will increase the administrative work of the courts, it would be a waste of resources to allow those who can easily afford to pay a fine in the normal way to avail of such an arrangement.
The Minister of State pointed out that it is intended to adopt an incremental approach to this issue. It is interesting to note that while in the United Kingdom there is a wide range of alternative enforcement options available to the courts, they are not extensively used. The options which work best are the facility to pay by instalment and the provision of extended time in which to pay. Clearly, this is a lesson from which we can learn. The United Kingdom example reinforces the approach being taken by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Throwing a range of solutions at an issue without first assessing the impact of individual measures is not always effective. Where this happens, it is certainly not efficient. The introduction of the specific measures proposed in the fines Bill will allow the Minister, in developing proposals for the enforcement of fines Bill, to take into account the impact developments such as relating the amount of a fine to a person's means, the facility for payment by instalment and the increasing number of road traffic offences where a fixed payment and-or penalty point is provided, have had on the effectiveness of the fines system. It is important that the emphasis be on helping people to pay the fine rather than on enforcement procedures.
The issue of attachment of earnings as proposed in the Fine Gael Bill requires careful consideration. The proposal is particularly lacking in that it does not take into account factors such as to whom and in what circumstances attachment should apply. While it may prove to be a suitable mechanism for better off offenders or for those who choose not to pay a fine it may be of little or no benefit to those on low incomes. Attachment of social welfare payments raises serious questions for those sections of our community who may already be living near the poverty line.
Various issues have been raised in this debate regarding committal to prison for non-payment of fines and debts, including whether it is appropriate that persons who do not pay their fines or debts are committed to prison and the effect on spaces available within the prisons. It is important we are realistic in considering this issue. As pointed out yesterday by the Minister of State, the number of people in custody for non-payment of fines or debts tends to be in the region of 1.2% of the prison population because sentences for such offences are generally short. In addition, some defaulters make payment either on committal or shortly afterwards. Even if the Bill had theeffect that no fine or debt defaulter took up prison places in future, which is unlikely, the result in terms of prison places would be so minor as to be of no significance. Also, as many defaulters are held in open prisons there is no guarantee there would be suitable prisoners in closed institutions who could be transferred to take up these places should they become available.
Although fine and debt defaulters represent only a tiny fraction of the prison population at any given time, the numbers committed places a heavy administrative burden on prisons. To place that burden on the Courts Service and the Garda, as the Bill appears to do, would not be the solution. While imprisonment should be a sanction of last resort and while it is clear that issues such as those raised in the Bill need to be addressed, to put this measure forward as having substantial positive implications in terms of prison accommodation is unsustainable.
The Government, like many Deputies, is concerned about this type of imprisonment and its undesirability. I am sure Members will agree that many of the measures taken and proposed by Government will be of benefit in this regard. Of particular relevance will be the proposals to ensure that fines imposed, while taking into account the seriousness of the offence, will be set at a level that reflects the financial circumstances of the person and that payment of fines by instalment will be available for those who require it.
A mechanism for payment of debts by instalment already exists and the court goes through extensive procedures before making an instalment order and, if necessary, a committal order. On the use of community service orders and supervision of offenders, it is clear that valuable resources such as the probation and welfare service should be carefully targeted where they are most effective and should deal with more serious offenders.
The problems brought about by debt are ones of which I am sure many Deputies are keenly aware in dealing with their constituents. Our society has developed in such a way that credit is widely available but, unfortunately, some in our communities experience difficulties by over extending their borrowing arrangements and mismanaging their financial situations.
I wish to share time with Deputies James Breen, Healy, Cuffe and Ó Snódaigh.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I can claim a little expertise on this issue as I was jailed in Mountjoy Prison for failure to pay a fine. However, in my case I had refused to pay a fine as a protest in solidarity with women street traders who were being driven off the streets of Dublin and prevented from earning a living selling apples and flowers as generations of their families had done. Big business, the Garda and the courts had combined to break the will of these impoverished women and when all else had failed large fines of £400 and £500 were imposed on them, fines that accumulated leaving them unable to pay. They were then taken to Mountjoy Prison to serve terms of imprisonment.
When in Mountjoy Prison I was amazed at the number of prisoners there for non-payment of fines. It seemed to everyone that this was incredibly unjust. While the revolving door was in full swing at the time the only prisoners who seemed not to benefit from it were those judged to be in contempt of court because of their inability to pay fines. I am well aware that the system has changed but the principle remains the same. That is why I have some sympathy for the spirit of the Fine Gael Bill before us. However, I wish to respond to the assertion in last night's debate by the Minister of State at the Department of Finance, Deputy Parlon, that the policies of this Government have succeeded in reducing crime. I reject that claim which is out of touch with reality.
On Tuesday evening last, I attended a meeting of approximately 200 residents of the Clonliffe Road-Tolka Road area of my constituency. There had been a surge in house burglaries during the previous three weeks. The gardaí in attendance stated they had a list of nine reported break-ins in the area in the past month. The residents claimed the number of break-ins was more than twice that number but that many people failed to report the incident to the Garda because they felt it was a waste of time. One woman said one would be considered lucky if the Garda called back to take fingerprints but would not hear a word more on the matter. The residents wanted action. At a minimum they wanted regular Garda foot patrols as a deterrent.
Crime has been on the increase in other parts of my constituency in recent weeks. Residents along the Royal Canal in Phibsboro are under siege in their homes at night with gangs of youths roaming the canal bank, hurling rocks at windows and attempting to rob and vandalise cars. Again, the residents want regular Garda patrols. Not far away a gang drinking on the pedestrian footpath of the Royal Canal bank savagely attacked a Lithuanian man and left him near dead. In parts of Cabra, gangs of youths of 12 to 15 years of age are causing problems for residents who say the Garda are slow to respond. Many people have lost faith in reporting these activities to the Garda. Painting a rosy picture of crime statistics, as the Minister of State did last night, only serves to infuriate people all the more. I call on the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform to recognise the reality of increasing lawlessness on our streets and to take action to deal with it.
I welcome the Bill. I have held the view since entering public life 19 years ago that imprisonment for non-payment of fines is not right and should be imposed only as a last resort. I believe hardened criminals should serve their term in prison without remission.
The imprisonment of approximately 60 people a day for the non-payment of fines is a drain on Garda resources. We must also take into account the cost to the State of pursuing the matter in court, dispatching gardaí to take the person to prison and of keeping that person in prison. We must put in place facilities that allow people to pay fines by way of instalment. I know of families who have been awaiting court appearances for many years. Often people experiencing severe hardship get involved in petty or serious crime in an effort to make ends meet. People in such circumstances should not be imprisoned for non-payment of fines. A person who cannot pay for a television licence through poverty, illness or a broken home should not be sent to prison. Overcrowding in the prison system must be tackled and the Judiciary should be mindful of this when handing down sentences. Often it appears to the public that the punishment does not suit the crime.
In my constituency a number of gardaí are due to retire this year and the superintendent in the area is concerned that these gardaí will not be replaced. Where are the 2,000 extra gardaí promised by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform before the last general election? There is no sign of them. The Minister, however, has done a good job. When Michael Flatley retires, the Taoiseach can take his place because he dances to every tune called by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Tánaiste.
We have heard that this Bill is similar to the 1998 Bill. That may be the case but there has been very little movement in this area since then and the assessment of earnings, attachment orders, payment by instalments and the use of community service instead of imprisonment are excellent ideas that should be pursued.
The Government has suggested that crime levels have fallen significantly in recent times. There may have been a reduction in the reporting of crime but that is because many people now believe that there is little or no point in reporting a crime to the gardaí when nothing will be done about it. Regularly I am told by people that they have contacted the gardaí about crime and anti-social behaviour to find that they either do not respond or arrive so late that it is not worth coming. That is not a criticism of the gardaí but of the number of gardaí available. In Clonmel, only eight gardaí are available at any one time, including those on duty in the station. There is no way such a small number of gardaí can deal with anti-social behaviour, a problem that exists throughout the country and that has been caused by a Government that has created a two tier society. I call on the Minister to ensure additional Garda resources are put in place, particularly gardaí on the beat, liaison officers and community gardaí, to ensure the scourge of anti-social behaviour is controlled.
The Green Party welcomes the Bill and feels it is a step in the right direction. It is madness that in the 21st century, citizens of this State are incarcerated for non-payment of fines. If we look back 200 years, there were debtors' prisons in every large town but those prisons belong to a bygone age. It does not make sense to incarcerate someone for the non-payment of a fine, to tell someone he is being put in jail for not paying a sum of money. It demeans the whole idea of prison and prison sentencing. It is madness that someone who does not pay his television licence can end up in Mountjoy. Society must come up with better ways to deal with the non-payment of fines.
We agree wholeheartedly with the broad thrust of this Bill. Much of it would have to be worked out on Committee Stage but the Government will not give it the chance to reach that Stage. It is worth reflecting, however, with the numbers in the prison system at an all-time high, that the Taoiseach said yesterday he would be tough on crime but neglected to use the Tony Blair line that he would also be tough on the causes of crime.
After an unprecedented period of change, the divisions in Irish society are wider than ever before and the State must address those divisions and ensure people do not end up in prison for the non-payment of fines. It must ensure that Fianna Fáil's dalliance, its fling with Fr. Seán Healy, is more than that. It should be the start of a long-term relationship rather than an overnight affair in Inchydoney. I call on the Minister of State to make a commitment on behalf of Fianna Fáil to social justice rather than flirt with it for a few hours in west Cork. It is not good enough to say that Fianna Fáil will be tough on crime if it is not determined to address the underlying causes of crime and address why people are being imprisoned for the non-payment of a fine.
There is provision in section 5 of the Bill that the Minister can make a request in exceptional circumstances for the sentence to be served if there are less than six months remaining. Those circumstances must be clarified. It is all very well to mention them but the Bill should detail the circumstances under which the Minister can say that a sentence must be served. Similarly, under section 7, the person arrested must be brought before the High Court as soon as possible. The ambiguity there should be clarified, with a definition of the timeframe involved.
In section 8, a person arrested under a warrant must be brought before the High Court as soon as possible and the High Court must remand the person in custody pending the production of the Minister's certificate. The Bill states that if a certificate is not produced within 18 days, the person must be released. That seems too long a period in the 21st century, with the availability of fax machines and e-mail, and it should be changed.
There was confusion about section 4 of the Bill. We are specifically concerned that it allows the court to grant an attachment of earnings order directing the debtor's employer to periodically deduct specified amounts from the employee's wages at source. We are concerned at the implications of this section for civil liberties. It sets up a relationship between a third party and the State that is not correct and it has massive implications for employer-employee relations. It allows the employer to know the private business of the individual and he or she could then use the information to manipulate the employee. The MABS bureau model would be suitable in this regard because it allows the individual being fined to make provision for that, and perhaps Fine Gael will look at this.
We support the Bill and commend Fine Gael on bringing it to the House, although we are concerned about section 4.
I welcome this Bill as a constructive contribution to justice legislation. A similar Bill was promised by the Government but has been long-fingered by our Minister for injustice and inequality who is more concerned with chasing down immigrants and their children, having yesterday published his fourth Bill concerning immigration law in two years.
I particularly welcome Fine Gael's proposal in the explanatory memorandum to end the practice of people being sent to jail for failing to pay fines. Whatever this states about a lack of consistency and coherence in policy orientation between the former Fine Gael spokesperson on justice, Deputy Deasy, and his successor, the new approach taken by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe is refreshingly progressive and I welcome it.
We know that imprisonment of fine defaulters is neither economically nor socially cost effective. We also know that sending debtors to prison costs us roughly half the amount owed and that, even after jail time has been served, the debts remain largely unpaid. Therefore, the practice makes no economic sense. Moreover, the persistence of this policy and practice is a litmus test of the unjust orientation of our so-called justice system which continues to discriminate against offenders, particularly those who are poor.
Two gratuitous cases in point have been reported in the media since this Minister took office in 2002. In one case, Mr. David Gartland, an illiterate unemployed man, was jailed for ten days having failed to pay a €12 dog licence because he could not read the regulations. The second case involved Ms Marie Connolly, a full-time carer for seven children and a disabled partner who was supporting her family on unemployment benefit and carer's allowance. Seven years ago, she failed to pay a television licence and defaulted on a payment of €160 which would have amounted to almost half the family's weekly income. She was prevented from paying the fine in instalments and served five days in Mountjoy Prison.
These are the "dangerous" criminals in respect of whom the Taoiseach yesterday endorsed the Minister's plans to create more prison beds instead of the hospital beds which are needed. If we cleared the prisons of these non-dangerous offenders, we would have plenty of room for those who pose a risk to society.
I support this Bill because it is unacceptable that people who truly cannot afford to pay a debt or fine without hardship have to serve time in prison rather than the wealthy individuals and corporate tax evaders, corrupt developers, officials and politicians who deliberately and with malice cheated the people out of millions of euro.
I have a number of questions about this Bill and some provisions need to be amended. For example, I am not convinced that those in receipt of social welfare payments or on very low wages should have their payments garnished by the court. I would like to see community restorative justice principles applied to the provisions in sections 4 and 14 to introduce a greater use of community service orders in place of wage or welfare payment garnishing where a garnish would cause undue financial hardship taking into account the specifics of an individual's circumstances.
I am concerned that section 4 should give the court greater guidance on how to determine what level of income the individual needs to maintain himself or herself and his or her family as the current formulation of a protected earnings rate is vague and possibly overtly discretionary. The many criticisms to which I and others have referred, in particular Deputy Ardagh's, could be dealt with by Committee Stage amendments rather than waiting for the moveable feast which is the raft of Bills referred to in the legislative programme.
I was elected in 2002 and the fines and enforcement of fines Bills were promised for 2003. However, in the latest incarnation of the Government's legislative programme for autumn 2004, the fines Bill is earmarked for 2005 and it is not possible to indicate when the enforcement of fines Bill will be taken. We have an opportunity now to progress this procedure in order to deal with this issue. We should take the opportunity to give the Bill a Second Reading and deal with the concerns raised on Committee Stage to deliver, I hope, worthwhile legislation.
I wish to share time with Deputy Ring.
Is that agreed? Agreed.
I welcome this Bill and compliment Deputy Jim O'Keeffe on publishing it and moving Second Stage. The principle behind it is to provide an alternative to jail for people who cannot afford to pay a fine or debt. The two key elements are to apply attachment of earnings orders so that employers are obliged to deduct part of employees' salaries to pay outstanding fines and the application of attachment of welfare orders on social welfare payments.
I was amazed at Deputy Ardagh's claim that the Bill would victimise people in receipt of social welfare benefits since the Government already has in place such arrangements for the overpayment of social welfare benefits. Moreover, it has consistently been a reasonable procedure of the Department of Social and Family Affairs and most people would agree it has been very fair and balanced. However, when a similar suggestion is proposed by Fine Gael, Deputy Ardagh states that it will victimise social welfare recipients when the exact opposite is the case.
Under current Government proposals, social welfare recipients are victimised in respect of the non-payment of fines because most of them end up in jail. This is the Government's solution to the problem. Up to 1,000 people a year, the majority receiving social welfare, end up in jail for the non-payment of fines. Therefore, it is disingenuous of Deputy Ardagh to make such a point.
The proposals in this Bill will radically change the manner in which the courts enforce and collect fines and represent a positive development. Approximately 50% of all fines issued cannot be collected. Statistics in Dublin show that 45% of the fines imposed are never collected. Based on the 1998 figures, €6.3 million of fines were uncollected which, when added to the €3.7 million per annum it costs to jail people for non-payment, amounts to an additional €10 million which could be invested elsewhere. For example, it could be invested in badly needed increased Garda resources, in funding for people with disabilities or diversion programmes for young offenders. The money would be better spent focusing on those areas rather than in loss of income to the State and it having to pay €225 per day to keep a prisoner in jail for the non-payment of a fine which, in some cases as Deputy Ó Snodaigh pointed out, may be as little as €12. It seems a relatively paltry figure compared with the huge cost to the Exchequer.
The Bill provides for the payment of debt or fines by instalment which is a great step forward because it is not possible at present. It causes huge problems for many low income families when a fine is imposed. The fine may be small but there is no mechanism to pay it in instalments. The Department of Social and Family Affairs is prepared to take repayments by instalments. It works well within one Department so I cannot see why the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform cannot piggyback on it. It is a balanced proposal which would have positive implications.
It is irresponsible of the Government to oppose the Bill since it has no imminent plans to address the problem. The previous Private Members' Bill on this issue was tabled in this House six years ago and the Government has done nothing since to address the problem. All the speakers on the Government benches have referred to technical flaws in the Bill. We accept such flaws exist but Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has made it clear that he is prepared to amend the Bill on Committee Stage. The issue is whether the Government is prepared to accept the principle of the Bill. It would be a positive development if the Government accepted the principle and allowed the Bill to progress to Committee Stage since the very purpose of Committee Stage is to address the technical flaws and other problems which have been highlighted.
A number of speakers referred to examples of crazy situations in regard to imprisonment for fines. An example from an area in which I have a personal interest is the collection of road traffic fines.
It is amazing that Ennis Town Council can pursue a northern or UK driver across the Border and collect a fine for non-payment of a parking ticket in Ennis, yet the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform cannot pursue someone who exceeds the speed limit in this jurisdiction. This crazy situation in which a town council can pursue fines while the Department cannot has resulted in Northern Ireland drivers getting away scot-free with road traffic offences south of the Border. In some instances, these drivers have been involved in fatal road accidents. Is it surprising that the Border counties have the highest incidence of road traffic accidents and fatalities? Nothing seems to have been done about the slaughter we witnessed on the roads of County Donegal this summer. It is extremely frustrating that a town council can pursue a northern or UK registered driver for a parking fine while the Department cannot pursue them for a speeding fine. The problem must be addressed.
The Fine Gael Party proposals present an alternative to prison. Prison should be for convicted, dangerous criminals who need to be behind bars, not those who have not paid a dog or television licence. Prison places should be freed up, additional places created and resources provided for programmes for prisoners. As the Minister has informed the House ad nauseam, space in our prisons is at a premium. We can no longer tolerate the crazy revolving door system by which people convicted of serious crimes are released to allow people who have not paid a dog licence be put in prison.
Included in the Bill are proposals such as shortening the time window within which vehicle changes may take place, which is tied in with recommendations made in the report of the Comptroller and Auditor General published on Tuesday. It highlighted the problem associated with pursuing people for penalty points. Garages must be held responsible for ensuring that the proper registered owner of a car is registered in the vehicle registration unit in Shannon.
I am aware of the case of a middle aged woman who has been hounded by penalty point notifications issued to her in her name, despite the vehicle in question having changed ownership six months ago. Her garage is supposed to sort out the problem but nothing has happened. This area needs to be tightened by making garages responsible for ensuring cars are properly registered.
If fines were registered against a vehicle, it would also ensure that the fine could be collected when motor tax on a vehicle is renewed or its ownership changes and fines would no longer accumulate as is currently the case. I hope this will be addressed.
We are all aware that Garda resources are limited. The Minister's commitment in the run-up to the general election to recruit an additional 2,000 gardaí was a fig leaf and has yet to be met. We need to remove gardaí from behind desks and put them on the street. Transferring the collection of fines to civilians would be easy and would not cause legal complications. I urge the Department to act on this issue. Gardaí are needed to ensure our streets are safe. They should not be positioned on every yellow box along both Luas routes. I am sure the Department is not being reimbursed by the RPA or Connex for the costs it is incurring. Garda resources could be better allocated and something must be done.
The position regarding the computerised penalty points system is crazy. The system, which was supposed to be in place on 1 January 2002, will not operate until at least the middle of 2005. The reason is that the pilot scheme, while finally up and running in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, has still not been integrated with the PULSE system. We appointed contractors to do a job, for which the Department specified criteria, yet it is still not tied in with the PULSE system and will not be in place until mid-2005. This illustrates the bureaucracy in the Department and its lack of a proactive approach.
Gardaí across the country are shuffling paper rather than policing the Road Traffic Acts and ensuring our streets our safe. Instead of having to go out with a bench warrant to take people to court or jail for the non-payment of fines, a matter addressed in the legislation, gardaí should tackle the serious crime and assaults taking place on the streets. Even the smallest towns and villages have serious problems with anti-social behaviour and it appears nothing is being done. Instead, gardaí are choked with more paperwork and less resources for day-to-day policing. I commend the Bill to the House.
I compliment my party's spokesman on justice, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe. His Bill should be accepted by the Government. One aspect of politics that annoys me is to see Deputies on the Government side congratulate Deputy O'Keeffe on producing a great Bill before reading from a script provided by the Department setting out 100 reasons for not voting in favour of it. Government Deputies have made every excuse for opposing a reasonable Bill. If there is a problem with the legislation, the Government could propose amendments on Committee Stage. I wish the Minister of State was the senior Minister as he would be more reasonable.
Benchmarking awards were paid to civil servants last year to upgrade procedures. I will outline to the officials present an experience I had last week. One of my constituents, who is separated from her husband, had reason to be in court. She receives a payment from her husband every week but must wait for him to pay the money to the court clerk, who then sends it to her. When I wrote to the court clerk on the matter, he informed me that no procedure is in place to allow payment by direct debit or for the money to be debited from the husband's account.
Benchmarking was paid in order that services could be provided and to ensure civil servants were retrained and acquired new skills. It would be simple for a Government office to establish a procedure to facilitate direct debits from a client's account. The courts, in making awards, have asked that this be done. We are going back 50 years rather than going forward 50 years if a court must first receive a cheque, lodge it in a bank and then send it out. Why are there no direct debit arrangements? I ask the officials present to note this problem and discuss ways to rectify it. This is 2004, not 1916 and it is reasonable to expect a solution to this matter.
As a politician, I deal with people every day. If a person who has been unable to pay a fine is prosecuted for non-payment and fined a further €600 or €700, how can we expect him or her to have the money to pay the fine there and then? It has upset me over the years to see members of the Garda Síochána calling at houses to tell people they must immediately pay fines of €600 or €700. If they did not have the money on the first occasion, they will not have it the second time.
The problem always affects women. In most cases, men receive the fines but do not worry about them, leaving the matter instead to be dealt with by their wives and families. Gardaí seeking payment of a fine refuse to allow people to pay in instalments. This approach is wrong and must change.
The Bill Deputy Jim O'Keeffe has brought before the House is very reasonable. There is only one place for serious criminals in this country, namely, in jail. I refer to murderers, rapists and those committing serious crimes on a regular basis. The Minister and Minister of State should note that the gardaí always go for the soft target, such as a person who cannot pay a fine for having no television licence or dog licence or for drunken driving. Of course the gardaí can call to the houses of such people, arrest them and put them in jail. However, where are the serious criminals in this and other cities? They are not working, they have big houses, they are driving around in Mercedes cars and do not demonstrate that they have means, yet they are not in prison. These are the people we should be targeting. They are causing problems for decent, honest people who are trying to make a living, and they are selling drugs to our young children.
As I was coming to Leinster House via the quays some nights ago I saw five gardaí with a camera trying to catch those exceeding the 30 mph speed limit. One would be very lucky to have a free run up or down the quays at any time in this city, yet the gardaí had pulled in one or two drivers for exceeding the speed limit. I do not like that and I spoke about it in the past. The gardaí should be targeting the guys who are driving at 70, 80 and 90 mph and killing people at 3 o'clock and 4 o'clock in the morning. The poor devil the gardaí had pulled in on the quays some nights ago was probably going to work and might have been doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone. If he tried to drive on the quays today, tomorrow or the next day, he would not get down them for an hour. It often takes me two hours to drive three or four miles down the road if there is bad traffic in the city.
I support the Garda and law and order, but I do not support the trend to go for the easy target all the time. I want to see the serious criminals behind bars. I want to see the criminals who are making our lives and those of our families a misery being targeted, particularly those who are smuggling drugs into the country. We have seen that the Garda can deal with some of these serious criminals when given the resources, but there are many more of them who have not been caught. We should be targeting the guys driving around in expensive cars who have big homes, do not work or draw social welfare and have no way of showing what means they have. These are the people who should be behind bars, not those who owe €600 or €700 or those who do not pay their television licence fees or cannot afford to do so.
Deputy Naughten is correct. I am spokesperson on social welfare and I note every day the areas where there is a problem. In some cases, it is the Department that makes the mistake but the people to whom I refer do not have the resources to bring it to court. In some cases they notify the Department about a problem, yet the Department, when it discovers that it has made a mistake six months or a year later, adds an attachment to their social welfare.
Those responsible for social welfare take only what people can afford and this should be the case in regard to fines. If one has been fined €600 or €700, an attachment order should be served on one's earnings or social welfare at a reasonable rate that will not have a major effect on one's family, rather than putting one in jail. In this regard, consider the case of a woman who came into my clinic some years ago who said her husband got caught for drunken driving and received a big fine. She added that he would keep drinking and she would have to keep paying. She claimed the garda came to her door with a certificate stating the extent of the fine. She was not able to pay it on the day and she is not able to pay it now.
This is a reasonable Bill that might lead to progress in this area. The Minister of State and the Government should accept it and not simply read the scripts of the departmental scriptwriters. Let us deal with whatever faults or weaknesses are in this Bill on Committee Stage.
I regret that I cannot accept the invitation just offered to me by Deputy Ring. Deputy Jim O'Keeffe proposed this Bill and I am sure that from the time he started as a practitioner before the courts, the following words have echoed through his mind: "Fine £100 one week in default". A fundamental problem with legislation in this area is that there has to be an ultimate option regarding the collection of fines. I accept that an attempt has been made in this Bill by Deputy Jim O'Keeffe to try to examine how we can make that ultimate option more palatable.
The Bill is based substantially on a similar Bill that was introduced in 1998 by the Fine Gael interest in the House so this is obviously an area of long-standing interest to the party. However, as my colleague, the Minister of State, Deputy Parlon, explained yesterday evening, the Government cannot support the Bill, but its introduction has allowed us to examine a number of issues to which the Bill gives rise. I reiterate the commitment that the Government will have full regard to the points raised in this debate when it brings forward its own proposals in this area.
Deputy Broughan expressed grave misgivings yesterday about the terms of the proposed section 14, which would allow the courts to direct the Minister for Social and Family Affairs to deduct sums from amounts payable to a defaulter. I very much share the misgivings of the Deputy.
Under the Bill as it stands, people in receipt of welfare payments with only a limited amount of income could have money deducted from them. The Bill also imposes the additional administrative burden on the Minister for Social and Family Affairs of setting out a protected rate of welfare payments. The costs involved with these proposals, to employers and the State, could create a significant problem. Therefore, Fine Gael has some lessons to take yet in the caring dimension as it embarks on its new arrangements with other parties in the House. Section 14 as it stands cannot be sustained.
The Minister of State should not be overcome by Inchydoney.
We certainly could not agree with that section.
Wait until Fr. Seán Healy gets the Minister of State.
Fr. Seán Healy did not give the Minister of State a good——
Fine Gael will have to do deeper research——
Fr. Seán Healy got to the Minister of State.
——and engage in further liaison with its prospective partners before it countenances the introduction of a section of this character.
Deputy O'Keeffe's Bill would place very substantial administrative burdens on the courts and the Garda Síochána, involving expenditure substantially disproportionate to the amount of the fines involved. It is no solution to attempt to solve the problems caused for the prisons by the need to deal with people who default on fines or debts just to create a host of problems for other agencies in the criminal justice system. I noticed that many Deputies in their contributions referred to the pressures on the criminal justice system and the commitment of the Government to substantially increase, within its lifetime, the number of personnel in the Garda Síochána. The reality is that no matter what alternatives to imprisonment are introduced for such cases, prison will have to remain as the ultimate sanction in relation to the enforcement of fines or debts. However, I agree with those who said imprisonment must be the ultimate sanction, to be used only as a last resort. If there are practical and inexpensive ways to address these matters — Deputy Ring mentioned one in his contribution — they should be explored and developed.
There may well be some scope with regard to the introduction of a carefully targeted attachment of earnings scheme in regard to non-payment of fines or civil debts. Deputy O'Dowd referred to the similar mechanism that exists in the context of the payment of maintenance under the family law legislation. However, the experience of the Courts Service is that the attachment of earnings orders under the Family Law (Maintenance of Spouses and Children) Act 1976 has been extremely time consuming.
Deputy O'Dowd expressed concern last night for the plight of Deputy Joe Higgins, who, he argued, could have availed of such an arrangement to pay his local authority service charges rather than going to jail. I do not know if this is another attempt to extend the rainbow coalition even further, but I should point out to Deputy O'Dowd that Deputy Joe Higgins was not imprisoned for failure to pay his service charges.
I visited him in jail.
He was imprisoned because he was found to be in contempt of court through disobedience of a court order. Therefore, the coercive machinery of justice had to be brought to bear on him to comply with the orders of the court. Deputy O'Dowd's putative rainbow was wrongly positioned in that respect. I note that Deputy Broughan visited Deputy Joe Higgins while he was in detention. It is one of the corporal works of mercy and I commend him for it. I regret to say that I did not visit my constituency colleague, but I was a Minister in the Government at the time and I could have been removed from office for not showing due regard to orders of the court, which we are obliged to uphold in this House and for which other Members have been censured due to their failure to obey on occasion.
Even if the provisions of the Bill were practicable, it would be wrong to suggest that they would have an appreciable effect on the existing availability of prison accommodation. The number of people being committed to prison each year for non-payment of fines or debts is, as pointed out to the House already, in reality small, about 1% of the prison population or about 40 persons. It is right that we should examine what can be done to reduce this number. The Government is committed to bringing forward practical measures in this regard. The Minister's contention is that the proposals before the House do not represent workable solutions in this area. The various expert reports have effectively concluded that we need to introduce improved means of assessment to ensure that fines imposed are within the means of the offenders to pay them. To this must be allied a facility to allow offenders to pay fines by instalment thus allowing a means of enforcing fines other than by way of imprisonment.
Since the last Fine Gael proposal in this area in 1998, the Government has been active. The Government's legislative programme, published this week, contains two proposed Bills to deal with fines. The fines Bill, while providing primarily for the updating and indexation of fines, will also provide for a mechanism to strengthen the means assessment procedure——
Nothing has been done in six years.
——used by the courts in assessing a person's ability to pay the fine. The Deputy is well aware that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform is a powerhouse of legislation. Any fair examination of the annual volume of the Statute Book will demonstrate the enormous legislative production line of that Department.
The second Bill is the enforcement of fines Bill and it is intended to end imprisonment where practicable for inability to pay fines and to provide for new ways of enforcing fines. The Minister is considering a range of alternative measures, but will only introduce such measures when he is satisfied they will improve the efficiency and the fairness of the system. The Courts Service is also examining a range of payment options for fines, including payment by credit and debit cards on the Internet, in banks and post offices, and by phone using lo-call numbers.
The Minister intends in the near future to bring to Government the fines Bill. This Bill will be primarily intended to update existing fines and provide a mechanism for indexation, but the Minister will also include proposals to strengthen the criteria to be used by the courts in assessing the means of the offenders before imposing fines. As I have said, the Minister's proposed fines Bill will include provisions for payment of fines by instalment. It is the intention, however, that such a payment arrangement will only be available to those who genuinely need it having regard to their financial circumstances and the amount of the fine imposed. More than one hundred thousand fines are imposed in the District Court annually. It would be untenable to suggest that every such fine could attract an instalment order. Huge administrative problems would arise for the Courts Service.
I am delighted to get a chance to say a few words on this Bill. I will take up on a couple of points the Minister made. First, he claims the Government has been active on this issue since it last came to prominence in 1998. This is 2004 and we are going into 2005. I would not call it action, but rather six years of inaction. The last time a Bill was brought in here was the Private Securities Bill 1999 by a colleague of mine from County Meath, John Farrelly, under the same Department. As it came from this side of the House the Government decided it could not pass it. Six years later the Government brought it back and it was passed, but it is still not law. That is inaction. The people elect us. The Minister mentioned that the whole legal Department is a powerhouse of law. This House is a powerhouse of people who are here to make decisions. If we are allowed to make decisions we can change things. We are not allowed to make decisions and this is like schoolboy politics. The Government will not accept it because it comes from the Opposition. There is nothing wrong with this Bill. There might be a few technical things we can change if we work together.
The Deputy wants to deduct fines from social welfare payments.
That is not a defect. It is a solution to a problem and we are willing to discuss parts of it. Yet because of the Government, there will be no discussion of it. This is wrong and is a pity. People elect us to do things, not to sit around here and play games.
The Minister prefers to put social welfare recipients in prison, which is what is happening currently. We need a few solutions.
I am so annoyed as a young person to see that clever, common sense Bills cannot make it through. They have to be thrown out because it is an Opposition thing.
The Minister said prison should be the last resort and that if only 40 or 50 people go to prison because of inability to pay fines, that is no big deal. Prison is meant to be only for people who are a danger to society. It is fundamentally wrong to commit any 40 or 50 other people for any other reason. We should do all in our power to change that. We do not know what happens when people go into prison; they either become better citizens or worse citizens. I would prefer not to run the risk of them becoming worse. However, the Minister seems to be happy to put 40 or 50 people into prison every year for non-payment of fines because there are 1,000 places. That is not even to consider the cost of going to prison. We have to find a solution to this and I welcome this initiative. We have many other Bills being brought forward to reform the justice system, which is more than I can say about the Government. If we got the chance, we would act on them.
The Minister claimed that the cost of implementing this Bill would be too high. Where are the figures to show that? The Minister should ask representatives from the Courts Service, the penal system, the Garda Síochána and the Department of Social and Family Affairs. If cost is his argument in refusing our Bill, then he should prove it. Before this Bill is refused the Minister should talk to the people it will affect. I guarantee that he has not done that. He will not do it, he will oppose for the sake of opposing it.
The cost of prison is massive, as is the effect on people's lives. We have to do all in our power to keep people out of prison. Fines constitute positive equity, as someone will make money out of them. We are turning this into negative equity, as it is costing us money through the loss of the unpaid fine and the cost of prison. That is bad economics if nothing else and it has to be sorted out. This Bill shows how we can get these fines through other ways and through time. I am not stupid, I know someone can make an arrangement to pay a euro a week. A judge must also apply some common sense. There are other ways of getting the value of a fine out of a person on social welfare. I have no problem with the fact that a person might be on social welfare. We can get a number of hours of work out of that person. We have to start thinking up new ideas and it is time we started swapping information and working together, or we will get nowhere.
There is a big problem with prison spaces. We all know there is a shortage of places for criminals in our prisons. Any initiative that frees up places in prison has to be welcomed. We all know the problem that prison is not necessarily acting as a deterrent to many of those who go there. Two or three days does not really affect the hardened criminal. A big problem is that the criminal knows that he will not be in prison for a couple of years. Prison will have an effect if it happens soon after a criminal commits a crime, if it is an instant reaction. The person who commits the crime knows it will be a couple of years before he has to go to prison and so can almost book himself in. Therefore, prison is not having an effect on that criminal. If the same criminal thought that within a week of committing a crime he could be in prison, it would be a different story. That has been proven. We need to have prison spaces freed up. We need to get out of prison the 40 or 50 people who are not a danger to anyone.
There are other areas where people are in prison for the wrong reasons. We need to welcome any opportunity to change that. This Bill is a step in the right direction. To knock the Bill because it comes from the Opposition is wrong and a shame. Ireland, as a young country, wants to move fast. We in this House are the slowest organisation in the country, yet we are in charge of running it. We just do not work together. We have to oppose for the sake of opposing, which is schoolboy and childish politics. It does not get things done.
Members now have a clear choice. They can vote to continue a system that involves sending people to prison for non-payment of fines or debt. There were 37 individuals in prison last night because they could not pay fines or debt. That is the system this Government wants to continue. Well over 1,000 people will go to prison this year for that reason. Six years ago, Fine Gael proposed to change the system. Since then, more than 10,000 people have gone through the doors of our prisons because they could not pay fines or debt. That is the system this Government tells us we should retain.
I want to change that system. It is wrong, unfair, inefficient and costly. I cannot understand a Government that will not accept the principle of a Bill that aims to change that system by putting an alternative in place. Telling me that it will undermine the current system for collecting fines and that is why it must be rejected, is unacceptable. Of course it will undermine the current system. It will put a stop to the system whereby people are going to prison because they cannot pay fines. It will put in place a different system whereby they can pay by instalments or an attachment of earnings can be sought. I believe that is the better system because anything is better than the existing system. I am infuriated by what the Minister said in response to this Bill. He spoke of the need to be fair to the less well-off in society. What is fair about putting them in prison? That is the Fianna Fáil-Progressive Democrats prescription for fairness for the less well-off.
I acknowledge this is not a perfect Bill. The Minister accepts there is need for reform with regard to three different elements: first, improved means assessment by the courts to ensure fines imposed are within the means of the offenders to pay them; second, a facility to allow offenders to pay fines by instalment; and third, means of enforcing fines other than by way of imprisonment. This Bill contains provisions numbers two and three. I accept that it could be improved by an amendment in respect of improved means assessment by the courts to ensure fines imposed are within the means of the offenders. I am prepared to accept an amendment on that ground.
Very legitimate points were raised on this side of the House, in particular by my colleague, Deputy Broughan of the Labour Party, and by other colleagues, including some within my own party, in respect of the attachment of social welfare payments. I accept that section 14 of the Bill may have to be amended somewhat. I am particularly taken by the argument from Deputy Broughan in respect of the UK experience and the need to ensure that subsistence incomes are not interfered with. I have no interest whatever in putting people on the breadline. My fundamental interest is to ensure that those people are not put in jail. I am prepared to accept amendments on Committee Stage which will improve this Bill and ensure a minimum subsistence income for those whom I will keep out of jail. I cannot accept the argument made by the Government that we should continue with the present system of putting them in jail as a fairer way to treat the less well-off.
The main purpose of this Bill is to ensure that fines are collected. These fines are imposed by the courts and they are not penalty points-type fines, not dockets issued by the Garda Síochána. They are fines imposed by a court where there is seven days or 14 days imprisonment in default of payment. The line coming from many of the Fianna Fáil backbenchers, fed by the script factory, is altogether incorrect in its presentation. They have taken speeches that were delivered six years ago when the then Minister, Deputy O'Donoghue, promised to change the system. It was to be changed immediately. The Opposition was asked to hold its breath and withdraw the Bill because it was to be done immediately. That was six years ago and nothing has happened. Instead upwards of 10,000 people were put in prison since that promise was made.
We are being promised two further Bills and being asked to wait for them. Six years later I do not accept the Minister's promises about legislation. There is no Bill listed in the legislative programme to be published this session. No heads of Bills have been approved. At the back of the list, there is one Bill that may be produced in 2005. There is no publication date for the other Bill to which the Minister referred. Those are the promises of the Government. In the meantime another couple of thousand people will be in prison as a result of the absolutely uncaring approach of the Government. I say, stop this practice, let this Bill through. I am prepared to accept reasonable amendments but let us be fair to the less well-off and let us put in place a system where fines, in particular, and debts can be paid and collected in a reasonable, humane manner. This practice of putting people in prison because they are poor must be stopped.
Question put.
The Dáil divided: Tá, 51; Níl, 64.
Tá
- Allen, Bernard.
- Boyle, Dan.
- Breen, James.
- Broughan, Thomas P.
- Bruton, Richard.
- Burton, Joan.
- Connaughton, Paul.
- Coveney, Simon.
- Crawford, Seymour.
- Crowe, Seán.
- Cuffe, Ciarán.
- Deasy, John.
- Durkan, Bernard J.
- English, Damien.
- Gilmore, Eamon.
- Gogarty, Paul.
- Gormley, John.
- Gregory, Tony.
- Harkin, Marian.
- Healy, Seamus.
- Higgins, Michael D.
- Hogan, Phil.
- Howlin, Brendan.
- Lynch, Kathleen.
- McCormack, Padraic.
- McGrath, Finian.
- McGrath, Paul.
- McHugh, Paddy.
- McManus, Liz.
- Mitchell, Gay.
- Mitchell, Olivia.
- Morgan, Arthur.
- Moynihan-Cronin, Breeda.
- Naughten, Denis.
- Noonan, Michael.
- Ó Snodaigh, Aengus.
- O’Keeffe, Jim.
- O’Shea, Brian.
- O’Sullivan, Jan.
- Pattison, Seamus.
- Penrose, Willie.
- Quinn, Ruairí.
- Rabbitte, Pat.
- Ring, Michael.
- Ryan, Eamon.
- Sargent, Trevor.
- Shortall, Róisín.
- Stagg, Emmet.
- Stanton, David.
- Twomey, Liam
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Ahern, Dermot.
- Ahern, Michael.
- Ardagh, Seán.
- Blaney, Niall.
- Brady, Johnny.
- Brady, Martin.
- Browne, John.
- Callanan, Joe.
- Carey, Pat.
- Carty, John.
- Cassidy, Donie.
- Cooper-Flynn, Beverley.
- Coughlan, Mary.
- Cowen, Brian.
- Cregan, John.
- Davern, Noel.
- de Valera, Síle.
- Dempsey, Noel.
- Dempsey, Tony.
- Dennehy, John.
- Devins, Jimmy.
- Ellis, John.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Fitzpatrick, Dermot.
- Fleming, Seán.
- Gallagher, Pat The Cope.
- Hanafin, Mary.
- Haughey, Seán.
- Jacob, Joe.
- Keaveney, Cecilia.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kelly, Peter.
- Killeen, Tony.
- Kirk, Seamus.
- Kitt, Tom.
- Lenihan, Brian.
- Lenihan, Conor.
- McDaid, James.
- McEllistrim, Thomas.
- McGuinness, John.
- Martin, Micheál.
- Moloney, John.
- Moynihan, Donal.
- Moynihan, Michael.
- Mulcahy, Michael.
- Ó Cuív, Éamon.
- Ó Fearghaíl, Seán.
- O’Connor, Charlie.
- O’Dea, Willie.
- O’Donnell, Liz.
- O’Donoghue, John.
- O’Donovan, Denis.
- O’Flynn, Noel.
- O’Keeffe, Batt.
- O’Keeffe, Ned.
- O’Malley, Fiona.
- Power, Peter.
- Power, Seán.
- Roche, Dick.
- Smith, Brendan.
- Smith, Michael.
- Treacy, Noel.
- Wallace, Dan.
- Wallace, Mary.
Tellers: Tá, Deputies Durkan and Stagg; Níl, Deputies Kitt and Kelleher.
Question declared lost.