The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:†
Bryant,
Chris (Rhondda)
(Lab) †
Carmichael,
Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland)
(LD) †
Cohen,
Harry (Leyton and Wanstead)
(Lab) †
Connarty,
Michael (Linlithgow and East Falkirk)
(Lab) †
Creagh,
Mary (Wakefield)
(Lab) †
Djanogly,
Mr. Jonathan (Huntingdon)
(Con) †
Foster,
Mr. Michael (Worcester)
(Lab) †
Harman,
Ms Harriet (Minister of State, Department for Constitutional
Affairs)†
Hollobone,
Mr. Philip (Kettering)
(Con) Howarth,
David (Cambridge)
(LD) †
McCafferty,
Chris (Calder Valley)
(Lab) †
McCarthy-Fry,
Sarah (Portsmouth, North)
(Lab) †
Pelling,
Mr. Andrew (Croydon, Central)
(Con) Redwood,
Mr. John (Wokingham)
(Con) †
Waltho,
Lynda (Stourbridge)
(Lab) Watkinson,
Angela (Upminster)
(Con) †
Wright,
David (Telford) (Lab) Miss
Welfoot, Committee Clerk †
attended the Committee Third
Standing Committee on Delegated
LegislationThursday 8
June
2006[John
Cummings in the
Chair]Draft Collection of Fines (Final Scheme) Order 20062.30
pm The
Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Ms Harriet
Harman): I beg to
move, That the
Committee has considered the draft Collection of Fines (Final Scheme)
Order 2006. The order
will bring into force the final scheme for the collection of fines,
which offers an improved system for the collection of financial
penalties imposed in magistrates courts. It changes the way fines are
enforced, gives new roles to courts staff and provides new sanctions to
ensure that offenders comply with the orders of the
court. More than 1
million fines are issued each year in the magistrates courts, so it is
essential that the judiciary, the public and offenders all believe that
such sentences are effective. Magistrates must be confident that fines
will be paid and rigorously enforced and that offenders will be
punished for the crimes they commit. The new scheme, together with
other projects, has already brought about significant improvements to
fines collection during piloting and the first few months of national
implementation. I am
seeking the Committee’s approval for a statutory instrument made
under the Courts Act 2003. We have already piloted the scheme—a
statutory instrument was enacted to provide such a power—and
have begun national roll-out in three phases. The order will make
permanent that national roll-out, which was based on our experience of
the pilot and which makes permanent something that should be happening
already. The
order improves the ability of magistrates courts to trace defaulters
through access to the police national computer, the Department for Work
and Pensions customer information system and the credit reference
agency, Equifax. We are creating a national enforcement service to
oversee improved enforcement and compliance with orders of the court
and a distinct and clearly identifiable body of enforcement
professionals, who will focus on improving performance across all
aspects of criminal
enforcement. In the
past few years, the collection of fines has improved significantly from
what we all agree was a woeful payment rate of 55 per cent. in 2002-03
to a much better but not-there-yet 83 per cent. in 2005-06. The new
scheme will help to continue that improvement and ensure that fines are
paid and that compensation is collected and paid out promptly to
victims. The scheme includes several important changes to the way in
which financial penalties are enforced.
I apologise to members of the
Committee that the statutory instrument is not in the form of plain
English. The coroner reform Bill, which will be published on Monday,
will be accompanied by a document that it is possible to read from
beginning to end and know exactly what it means. Unfortunately, we were
not in a position to prepare such a document in this case, so I shall
go through the order and explain what it
does. The new role of
the fines officer will involve managing the enforcement process and
making use of the new powers to set the time to pay after the offender
is sentenced, to vary payment terms in favour of the offender, to
decide on the most appropriate sanction or next step in the case of
non-payment and to refer cases back to court. As the majority of those
responsibilities were previously undertaken by magistrates in a fines
court, there will be savings in court time, which will allow the bench
to deal with more serious or complicated
cases. Once the court
has imposed a fine, enforcement will primarily be an administrative
process. By making enforcement decisions themselves, fines officers
will ensure that those who attempt to dodge their fines are dealt with
quickly and required to pay through new and strengthened sanctions. For
those who genuinely cannot pay fines, the fines officer will be able to
vary payment terms in their favour or refer them to the court to make
an unpaid work order in lieu of the
fine. There are also
several new sanctions available to the fines officer and court. If an
offender has already defaulted on an existing fine, the court must
consider making an attachment of earnings order, which will require the
offender’s employer to make deductions from the
offender’s salary to pay the sum owed. If the offender is
receiving benefits, the court must consider making an application for
deductions from benefits. Deductions of up to £5 a week may be
taken by the DWP from jobseeker’s allowance and income support
to pay the fine. Those two methods of deduction can also be used with
the offender’s consent, and offenders often choose to pay that
way, because it is evident how the payments are
structured. Those
sanctions can also be considered by the fines officer if the offender
subsequently defaults on their fine. Before the Courts Act 2003, those
measures were used infrequently, but during piloting they have proved a
simple and effective way of ensuring that offenders pay their fines in
compensation. In addition to those enforcement measures, the fines
collection scheme includes new sanctions that the fines officer can
apply if the offender fails to pay their fine. For example, vehicles
can be clamped and then sold if necessary to pay fines, and piloting
has shown that that approach is effective. Often, the mere threat of
clamping, which applies regardless whether the original offence was
motoring related, will elicit payment from the
offender. Names can be
added to the register of orders, judgments and fines, which might
affect the ability of offenders to obtain credit and access other
services or employment. Again, that sanction proved to be useful in the
pilot, with the threat of being added to the register being sufficient
to make many offenders pay their fines in full. Existing sanctions are
also now available to fines officers, such as issuing a distress
warrant to seize an offender’s goods to the value of the fine,
instead of being available only to the courts. If the fines officer has
exhausted all those measures and
payment is still not forthcoming, they can refer the case back to the
magistrates court for further enforcement action, which could mean
increasing the fine or considering whether imprisonment is appropriate
for the most serious and wilful defaulters. As has been said, the changes
have all been extensively piloted. From March 2004, the fines
collection scheme was piloted in five areas—Cambridgeshire,
Cheshire, Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, and South Yorkshire. The purpose
of the pilots was to test the measures in the scheme and to assess
their impact on enforcement before national implementation. The pilot
evaluation showed that the measures were a success. Halfway through the
six-month pilot, the payment rate in pilot areas was 95 per cent.
compared with a rate of 80 per cent. in non-pilot areas. At the end of
the pilot, the payment rate had risen to 100 per cent., whereas the
non-pilot area rate was 78 per cent.—the rate can reach 100 per
cent. because some fines were from previous
years. Aside from
improved levels of fine collection, there were further benefits. Court
time has been saved through the transfer of business from fines courts
to fines officers, and better quality financial means information has
also been made available, enabling an improvement in subsequent
enforcement. Enforcement is now more structured and rigorous, thanks to
new sanctions and powers for fines officers, and fines officers can
help defaulters and, if necessary, point them towards debt
advice. The order also
contains new provisions to speed up the payment of compensation to
victims. When sentenced, if an offender is ordered to pay compensation,
the court must make either an attachment of earnings order or a
deduction from benefit order, if appropriate. That differs from the
existing scheme, in that the order is made regardless whether the
offender has defaulted. The point of making such an order is to ensure
that the victims receive compensation more quickly and with more
certainty. The proposal will also contribute to our aim of a criminal
justice system in which the needs and concerns of victims and witnesses
are central. The new
scheme has been proven. It offers a better way to ensure that more
fines are collected in the magistrates court and will also ensure that
compensation is paid to victims of crime more quickly. The scheme has
the support of the magistrates courts and their enforcement teams, and
I commend the order to the Committee.
2.38
pm Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I thank the Minister
for her full explanation of the process in the plain English that the
order lacks and for her explanation how the pilot has worked in
different parts of the
country. Non-payment
of court fines is a matter of grave concern not only in terms of
criminals not paying the penalties for their crimes, but in terms of
lost revenue for the Minister’s Department. I was pleased to
hear that collection has increased in the past financial year. The
Minister said that the rate has increased to 83 per cent., which is a
dramatic improvement on the lamentable performances in previous years.
However, I
would be grateful if the Minister were to expand on how much money was
not collected in the past year and how much money was written off in
the past few years, which will allow us to see the scope of the
problem. Given the overspend in her Department, the problem has
presumably been exacerbated. Will the Minister also give the
Committee some idea of her predictions for collection once the new
arrangements are in place? She has mentioned that collection rates have
increased to 100 per cent. through the pilot, which is commendable, and
I congratulate the staff in her Department who produced that result,
which would be a fine outcome in any organisation. Is it now proposed
that collection rates should go up to 100 per cent. as a target across
all court recovery services? And will the cost of the administration of
the new provisions in terms of additional staff or infrastructure to
introduce the mechanisms that she has mentioned be covered by the
expected additional
recovery? 2.41
pm Mr.
Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): I, too,
broadly welcome the provisions. There is no dispute with the underlying
premise that the collection of fines should be an administrative rather
than judicial procedure—I have spent too many dreary afternoons
as a criminal duty solicitor for the Legal Aid Board putting people
through fines courts not to know the truth of
that. If the process
becomes administrative, I hope that proper safeguards will be
introduced through guidelines and that the decisions on the more
severe, albeit necessary, penalties, such as car clamping, will be
taken by somebody within the structure who is of a sufficiently senior
grade, because in my experience there can occasionally be a slightly
oppressive attitude among the lower grades when it comes to fine
collection. What procedure will be put in place to deal with complaints
against fines
officers? I also
welcome the provisions on compensation orders. My professional
experience over many years was that compensation offers were often made
but not collected, which increased the sense of grievance felt by
victims of crime as a result of their dealings with the criminal
justice system. Anything that improves the early payment of
compensation orders is
welcome. 2.43
pm Ms
Harman: The answer to how much was not collected in
2005-06 is £282 million. We are talking about considerable
amounts of money, and, although there has been a big increase in
collection, a substantial amount is still not collected.
We all agree that the matter
involves more than money. If a police investigation and a prosecution
have taken place, and if the magistrates have sat and made an order,
people become exasperated if they think that people are just walking
out of court and taking no notice. The most important thing is the
question of confidence in the criminal justice system, although the
money certainly comes in handy. The Treasury’s Consolidated
Fund, where the money goes, is always ready and will be waiting for the
extra millions that will be rightfully coming in. The answer to the
question
where the money goes when it is collected is that it goes to the
Consolidated Fund and does not come straight back to the
Department. Mr.
Djanogly: I appreciate that the money does not come back
to the Minister’s Department, but we are talking about an amount
that is roughly double her Department’s overspend, which is
significant.
Ms
Harman: I do not think that that point has gone unnoticed
by those whose responsibility it is to look after the Consolidated
Fund. That is the situation in respect of fines. Of course,
compensation for victims goes straight back to victims rather than via
the Consolidated Fund.
I have been asked for our
prediction of the collection level. We set a collections target rate
for 2006-07 of83 per cent, which leaves 17 per cent.
uncollected. Most ordinary people in the street would think that we
have a long way to go, but we expect to exceed that rate, in which case
we shall no doubt set a further target. We have no plans to introduce a
100 per cent. target, but there is a great deal of enthusiasm for
improving the way in which the work is done. I join the hon. Member for
Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) in thanking those staff who have recognised
the importance of collection and worked incredibly hard on
it. Mr.
Djanogly: Are staff incentivised to
collect? Ms
Harman: There is no financial incentive, and staff do not
take a percentage cut of what they
collect. The hon.
Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is right about the
processes. The order takes out of the judicial process something that
should more rightly be an administrative process. There must be proper
safeguards, training, guidance and a complaints system, and that will
be the case. All fines
officers will be trained. I know that this sounds like a clichA(c),
but there is a new enforcement culture and a pride in the
professionalism with which officers go about their work. After all,
they are trying to ensure that there is more confidence in the criminal
justice system.
Michael
Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): As a Scot, I
am happy to help improve the English system of justice. I have trained
as a justice of the peace, which would be called a magistrate in
England and which involves serving on the bench rather than defending
people, and I echo the comments made by other hon. Members about the
difficulty of getting fines and, in particular, compensation orders
paid. The measures
will clearly add cost to the process. Under the Scottish system,
sheriff’s officers are independent and are given the duty of
collecting fines under a sheriff’s order, but they impose
charges. If someone does not pay their fines or compensation,
sheriff’s officers charge them every time they have to
intervene. That approach has clearly not been considered, because
training officers to collect money places an additional burden on the
courts system and brings a cost. Why should that cost not be borne by
the recalcitrant person who has been fined or who has a compensation
order to
pay? Ms
Harman: I will deal with that point in a moment. Costs are
added where there are distinct expenses, such as clamping and distress
warrants, according to a standard fee. However, the pilot has shown
that it costs the system less overall to have the process handled in
the right way and by the right people, instead of incurring the costs,
which are not quantified, of returning to the magistrates. It is much
cheaper to have a dedicated set of enforcement professionals in
addition to trying to ensure that people pay their fines before they
leave court, which a lot of courts do now. Courts are getting quite
handy at ensuring that people do not walk out with money in their
pocket. Magistrates courts now have chip and pin, because people used
to walk out of court with money on them, saying that they could not
pay, which local communities and, in particular, victims found
incredibly
annoying. Question
put and agreed
to. Resolved, That
the Committee has considered the draft Collection of Fines (Final
Scheme) Order
2006. Committee
rose at eleven minutes to Three
o’clock.
| 
