In the Committee Stage of this Bill Deputy Johnson raised a question as to the power given to impose a fine in addition to a sentence of imprisonment, and contended that in some way that provision militated, or might militate, against the poor man, against the man without money, and in favour of the person who had money and who, in that way, could, as it were, buy off a term of imprisonment. It is not contemplated that the provision could or would have any such effect. I take it that the judge or justice hearing a case, and deciding to make use of this permissive provision, would have regard to the circumstances of the accused person and to his ability to pay a fine in addition to a period of imprisonment.

In consultation with officials of my Department I have decided that there is really no case for a change in the provision as it stands. I consider that it is a useful power, that these cases vary very much in the degree of guilt and in all the attendant circumstances. You can have under this particular Act offences ranging from the merest technical breach in the law to offences of a very serious nature. Much would depend on the motive for which a person might be supposed to have improperly and illegally a lethal weapon without the knowledge or the consent of the proper authorities, and judging each case in that way in its perspective and in its attendant circumstances, it was thought wise to enable the magistrate to inflict a fine, in addition to a period of imprisonment, if he thought that the circumstances warranted it. I could understand the objection to this provision if it were mandatory, if it were a hard and fast or binding provision, but I must say that I cannot understand or appreciate the objections when it is purely a permissive section.

The Minister has not met the question as to why a £20 fine in paragraph (a) of Section 6, should be equal to two months' imprisonment without hard labour, and then in paragraph (b) £100 should be equal to six months' imprisonment without hard labour. The method of calculation has escaped me, and perhaps it would be of assistance to the Dáil in coming to a judgement if we could have the Minister's explanation of the difference in value per month in money of imprisonment without hard labour.

There was no intention to take the thing on a strict mathematical basis in that way, and set £20 against six months or £100 against twelve.

The Minister is misquoting. It is £20 against two months and £100 against six months.

You mean in default? You see, the £20 in paragraph (a) is a maximum, and fines within that amount may be inflicted. Similiarly, the £100 mentioned in paragraph (b) is also a maximum.

Is not the imprisonment a maximum also?

Yes.

Perhaps I can assist the Minister. £20 is the fine which may be imposed in addition to six months without hard labour, but if the fine of £20 is not paid, then additional imprisonment not exceeding two months may be imposed, in default of the £20.

Of the £20 or less.

Yes, not exceeding two months and not exceeding £20. That is to say, £10 a month—£2 10s. 0d., or a little less, per week. In the second case the fine in addition to the imprisonment may be up to £100, but in default of payment of that £100, or lesser sum, a further imprisonment of not exceeding six months may be imposed. What I want to know is the relation between £20 equalling two months, and £100 equalling six months, and how is the difference arrived at.

I do not know how the difference is arrived at. I was never any good at mathematics. If the Deputy has any suggestion for a change I would be willing to consider it, and, possibly, to have it moved elsewhere.

Of course, I have suggested the elimination of these additional sentences.

Yes, but the Deputy did not make a case against an additional sentence. He did make a case against the mathematics, and I think it is a good case, which seems convincing.

I suppose it is perfectly clear that if nobody offends none of these impositions will be placed upon him.