Draft Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
† Benyon, Richard (Newbury) (Con)
† Burstow, Paul (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
† Clarke, Mr Tom (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
Clwyd, Ann (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
† Coffey, Ann (Stockport) (Lab)
Donaldson, Mr Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
† Doyle, Gemma (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)
† Henderson, Gordon (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
† Hinds, Damian (East Hampshire) (Con)
† Horwood, Martin (Cheltenham) (LD)
† Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
† Lancaster, Mark (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
† Lopresti, Jack (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
† McCartney, Karl (Lincoln) (Con)
† Munn, Meg (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)
† Soubry, Anna (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence)
† Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
† Wollaston, Dr Sarah (Totnes) (Con)
Mark Oxborough, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Second Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 4 December 2013
[Mr George Howarth in the Chair]
Draft Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013
2.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry): I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Howarth. There is one statutory instrument for the Committee’s consideration today. The order is required because, having introduced arrangements to set a term of imprisonment as a means of ensuring that fines are paid, we must be able to reduce that term in proportion to any reduction of the financial penalty at a later date. The order provides for that, reflecting the position of the criminal courts.
Fines are meaningless unless there is a mechanism to ensure that they are paid. The risk of imprisonment will help to deter those who otherwise might default on their fines, but for those who fail to pay their due, it is only fair and reasonable for them to expect any consequential terms of imprisonment to be proportionate to their fine.
To put this mechanism into the service context, the alternative period of imprisonment comes into play only when a financial penalty enforcement order is made. The services have mechanisms in place to recover fines from serving personnel through deductions from their pay. Financial penalty enforcement orders are the mechanism to recover fines from those who have left the services.
Financial penalty enforcement orders apply to a person who is neither subject to service law nor a civilian subject to service discipline, but they also apply to certain personnel who are subject to service law as a special member of a reserve force. Financial penalty enforcement orders may be made by the Service Personnel and Veterans Agency when such persons have failed to pay all or some of the financial penalty that has been awarded against them. The financial penalty enforcement order may be registered with the relevant court—in England and Wales, a magistrates court—to be enforced. In due course, if the fine continues to remain unpaid, the person may be imprisoned for a time in proportion to the fine outstanding.
By way of background, the Crown court in England and Wales must fix a term of imprisonment to be served in default of any fine imposed on a defendant aged 18 or over. That is necessary and of course right to enable fines to be enforced. Separately, the civilian courts also have the power to reduce or remit entirely a fine, following a review of the offender’s financial circumstances. Where the court does so and a default term of imprisonment has been fixed, the courts must proportionately reduce that default term of imprisonment.
If I may say so, Mr Howarth, this is standard fare—forgive me: I am relying on my experience in my previous life—in the criminal division in England and Wales.
Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op): But it is not our experience.
Anna Soubry: I know; the point is taken.
Basically, when a defendant is sentenced and is ordered to pay a fine as a punishment, they know that if they default on their fine, it is open to the court to sentence them to a period of imprisonment because they have not paid it. As you might imagine, Mr Howarth, that often has the effect that we would want on a defendant. They know that they have got to pay up, or they will get banged up, but everything is laid out properly for the defendant. They know exactly where they stand, and if they are in any doubt, their counsel or solicitor will explain it to them.
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab): I am not blessed with the Minister’s special knowledge of this subject. The explanatory memorandum to the order says:
“This order amends section 267 so that where a court exercises its power to remit the whole or part of a fine, a term of imprisonment fixed under section 269A must be proportionately reduced.”
I am reading that as though the whole imprisonment sentence can be reduced if it can be proven that the individual has no means of paying the fine. Am I correct or incorrect?
Anna Soubry: It is an important point. That is pretty much the case. Let us imagine that someone has been ordered to pay a fine of, say, £1,000 and a period of imprisonment has been set in the event that they default in any way, and that they have paid half the fine. I am not saying that they will get half the term of imprisonment by any means, because it is still open to the court to decide what the amount of time served should be. The courts always have that sort of flexibility and, in determining all that, they may well take into account a change in financial circumstances and so on. In all these things, the courts always try to make defendants realise, understand and appreciate that, in some instances, they have charge of their future in the sense that if their financial circumstances change, they must let the courts know. These things will be taken into account. In other words, the current system in the criminal division works well. In many ways the order tries to replicate what already exists. I hope that answers the question. If it does not, I undertake to write to the hon. Lady to make it absolutely clear.
The court martial already has a similar power to reduce or to remit a fine but, until now, it has not been required to set a default term of imprisonment when fining a defendant. The power, which exists in the Crown court, has not existed in the court martial system. However, the Armed Forces Act 2011 inserted two new sections, 269A and 269B, into to the 2006 Act, and the first of those new sections requires the court martial, when it imposes a fine on a person aged 18 or over, to specify a term of imprisonment to be served if the fine is not paid and an enforcement order is made.
Similarly, the second new section enables the court martial, when making a service compensation order against a person aged 18 or over, to specify the maximum term of imprisonment that may be imposed if the
compensation is not paid. The compensation could be to somebody who has been the victim of an assault, or it might be in relation to some damage that has been caused to property. Those new provisions, which have come into force, are modelled on those in the equivalent civilian legislation. The order completes the necessary legislative framework for the services in dealing with financial penalties.Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD): The terms of the order are very narrow but I want to clarify whether there are circumstances in which other matters would be material to deciding whether a fine is to be continued. The order refers to being able to make inquiries into financial circumstances. Would health circumstances, such as the mental health of an individual, be material and would they be dealt with under other regulations?
Anna Soubry: If I am wrong I will correct myself and I do not have experience of the court martial system, but I think I can say with some confidence that before anybody was sent to prison, all matters that could be advanced on their behalf, including any deterioration not only in their mental health but in their health generally, would provide the sort of mitigation that could mean that they would not be sent to prison. I hope that helps. If I am wrong—I would be surprised, which probably means that I am—I will write to my right hon. Friend.
Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con): Forgive me, because it is not my area of expertise either, but could the Minister clarify whether the debt is then discharged if a custodial sentence is imposed for non-payment?
Anna Soubry: It is indeed. Certainly it is in what are known as the civilian courts. I know that I should not really go into all those things but it may be of interest to Members to know that some defendants say, “Well, actually, I’ll take the time rather than pay the fine.” Knowing criminals in the way that some of us do, one can understand why someone might want to do that. In recent years, the number of people in the services who have been in that situation is extremely small. I believe only four people have found themselves in the position that we are now trying to rectify. In service life this is extremely rare; it is a bit different in the rest of life. But I digress, Mr Howarth. Please forgive me for that.
Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab): I am slightly confused by the explanatory memorandum. In paragraph 4.2 there is a reference to England and Wales, but paragraph 5.1 says:
“This instrument extends to the United Kingdom”.
Can the Minister clarify exactly what territory we are discussing this afternoon?
Anna Soubry: I am very grateful to have been provided with the answer, which is that an order made under section 269A has effect as if the fine had been imposed by the Crown court in England and Wales. Where the relevant court is situated in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the order has effect as if the fine had been imposed by the Crown court in England and Wales, and transferred to Scotland or Northern Ireland. That is in line with the civilian position. In short, in the civilian justice system, if somebody has committed an offence in England and they default on the fine that has been imposed, it can be transferred to the Scottish criminal justice system. The Scottish courts have no difficulty with that; they will enforce it.
Exactly the same system will be enforced in relation to courts martial. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. Gentleman. There is not a problem, because the ability to remit something exists in the current criminal justice system, and it will be exactly the same for the courts martial, which will be able to remit to the Northern Ireland system or to the Scottish system, which I know is different, but in this instance it does not matter because the effect will be exactly the same.
If I am wrong or if there is any more information to be supplied, I will have no difficulty with that. The position is exactly the same for the power under section 269 in relation to the ability to remit to what some would say is another jurisdiction, because Scotland has its own separate legal system.
In conclusion, I am grateful for the support that the Committee has given to the draft Armed Forces (Remission of Fines) Order 2013, which brings the Armed Forces Act 2006 into line with the equivalent civilian provisions. If I may, I will study the official record. I am happy for anyone to intervene and I will write to anyone who has already helpfully intervened.
2.42 pm
Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): It has been a livelier sitting than I was expecting. The hon. Lady has conveniently covered all the points on which I was seeking clarification, so I am happy to say that we will support the measure.
2.43 pm
Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD): Fine.