PART III

HL Deb 14 May 1991 vol 528 cc1594-606

TRANSFER OF PROBATION ORDERS FROM NORTHERN IRELAND

10.—(1) Where, in the case of an offender of or over the age of 16 years, a court in Northern Ireland considering the making of a probation order is satisfied that the offender resides in England and Wales, or will be residing there when the order comes into force, section 1 of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 (probation orders) shall have effect as if after subsection (1) there were inserted the following subsection— (1A) A court shall not make a probation order in respect of any offender unless it is satisfied that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the probation committee for the area which contains the petty sessions area in which he resides or will reside.

(2) Where a probation order has been made by a court in Northern Ireland and—

1. (a) a court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions district in Northern Ireland for the time being specified in the order is satisfied that the offender has attained the age of 16 years and proposes to reside or is residing in England and Wales; and
2. (b) it appears to the court that suitable arrangements for his supervision can be made by the probation committee for the area which contains the petty sessions area in which he resides or will reside,

the power of the court to amend the order under Schedule 2 to the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 shall include power to amend it by requiring him to be supervised in accordance with arrangements so made.

(3) Where a court is considering the making or amendment of a probation order in accordance with this paragraph, sections 2, 2A and 2B of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 shall have effect as if—

1. (a) any reference to a probation officer were a reference to a probation officer assigned to the petty sessions area in England and Wales in which the offender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force;
2. (b) the reference in section 2(2) to treatment (whether as an in-patient or an out-patient) at such hospital as may be specified in the order, being a hospital within the meaning of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, approved by the Department of Health and Social Services for Northern Ireland for the purposes of that section were a reference to treatment as a resident patient in a mental hospital within the meaning of paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to the 1973 Act;
3. (c) the reference in section 2A(5) to the Probation Board for Northern Ireland were a reference to the probation committee for the area in which the premises are situated; and
4. (d) references in section 2B to a day centre were references to a probation centre within the meaning of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1A to the 1973 Act.

(4) A probation order made or amended in accordance with this paragraph shall specify the petty sessions area in England and Wales in which the of ender resides or will be residing when the order or amendment comes into force.

11.—(1) Where a probation order is made or amended in any of the circumstances specified in paragraph 10 above, the court which makes or amends the order shall send three copies of it as made or amended to the home court, together with such documents and information relating to the case as it considers likely to be of assistance to that court.

(2) Where a probation order is made or amended in any of the circumstances specified in paragraph 10 above, then, subject to the following provisions of this paragraph—

1. (a) the order shall be treated as if it were a probation order made in England and Wales; and
2. (b) the provisions relating to such orders of the 1973 Act and Schedule 2 this Act (except paragraphs 9 and 10) shall apply accordingly.

(3) Before making or amending a probation order in the circumstances specified in paragraph 10 above the court shall explain to the offender in ordinary language—

1. (a) the requirements of the 1973 Act relating to probation orders;
2. (b) the powers of the home court under that Act and Schedule 2 to this Act, as modified by this paragraph; and
3. (c) its own powers under this paragraph,

and an explanation given in accordance with this sub-paragraph shall be sufficient without the addition of an explanation under section 1(5) of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950.

(4) The home court may exercise in relation to the probation order any power which it could exercise in relation to a probation order made by a court in England and Wales, by virtue of the 1973 Act, except a power conferred by paragraph 3(1) (d), 4(1) (d), 7(2) or 8(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1973 Act.

(5) If at any time while the 1973 Act applies by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) above to a probation order made in Northern Ireland it appears to the home court—

1. (a) on information to a justice of the peace acting for the petty sessions area for the time being specified in the order, that the offender has failed to comply with any of the requirements of the 1973 Act applicable to the order; or
2. (b) on the application of the offender or the probation officer, that it would be in the interests of justice for the power conferred by paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) to be exercised,

the home court may require the offender to appear before the court which made the order.

(6) Where an offender is required by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) above to appear before the court which made the probation order, that court—

1. (a) may issue a warrant for his arrest; and
2. (b) may exercise any power which it could exercise in respect of the probation order if the offender resided in Northern Ireland,

and section 4(2) to (7) of the Probation Act (Northern Ireland) 1950 shall have effect accordingly.

(7) Where an offender is required by virtue of paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (5) above to appear before the court which made the probation order—

1. (a) the home court shall send to that court a certificate certifying that the offender has failed to comply with such of the requirements of the order as may be specified in the certificate, together with such other particulars of the case as may be desirable; and
1596
2. (b) a certificate purporting to be signed by the clerk of the home court shall be admissible as evidence of the failure before the court which made the order.

(8) In this paragraph "home court" means, if the offender resides in England and Wales, or will be residing there at the time when the order or the amendment to it comes into force, the court of summary jurisdiction acting for the petty sessions area in which he resides or proposes to reside.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 47. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

10.30 p.m.

Clause 16 [Fixing of certain fines by reference to units]:

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 52: Page 12, line 32, after ("above)") insert ("unless the court is satisfied that this would be unreasonable having regard to the circumstances of the offender").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the amendment was discussed in Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House replied for the Government. He did little more than reiterate what was said by Mr. John Patten in another place. The noble Lord said that he was concerned to see that the minimum of the unit fine was not set at a derisory figure. The amendment relates to the unit fine system, which we all agree is admirable. It is a system for which many noble Lords have been pressing for years. We are delighted that the Government have embraced it after carrying out a powerful experiment in four magistrates' courts in different areas of the country. Its value is proven.

We have only one quarrel with the admirable system; it is that it sets the minimum unit fine of £4 per week. There are at least two good features of the unit fine system. The first is that it enables people to pay according to their means. The second is that a unit can be set during a period of time—perhaps 30 weeks—which is affordable to both poor and rich people. Occasionally it happens that even £4 per week is too great a sum for a poor person to pay. Rather than sentence such a person to pay that amount which he cannot afford, on which he will default and in consequence go to prison, a unit of £3 or £2 is set which he can afford. In consequence he will not go to prison.

That is a simple and sensible system which was followed by all four magistrates' courts in different parts of the country. Since the Committee stage I have been in touch with the clerks of those four courts. They have written to say that they support the amendment. The clerks have not had time to consult all the magistrates involved but they are confident that they speak on behalf of the majority. All four are unanimous in saying that the amendment is necessary. Furthermore, during the interval between the Committee and Report stages the clerks held their annual general meeting and decided to offer their unanimous support for the amendment. That is a significant development.

In Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House said that a minimum unit fine was set in the four experimental areas. It is true that voluntarily the courts set themselves a limit of £3. However, it was only a guideline and not a legally binding, statutory minimum fine. Therefore, with the utmost diffidence I differ from the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who has just entered the Chamber. The four experimental areas were not operating under a legally binding statutory limit. They were operating only under a minimum which they set themselves as a guideline. Three out of the four areas departed quite frequently from that although only exceptionally when they found that the defendant could only pay at a rate of less than £3 per week.

I believe that the evidence which I have gathered in the interval between the Committee stage and now proves that those areas were not operating under a legally imposed minimum but were operating under a voluntary guideline which they set themselves and from which they departed fairly frequently, but only in cases of need.

I should have thought that a guideline is sufficient to demonstrate that a fine should not fall below a minimum standard except, as we say in this amendment, where the magistrates consider that exceptional circumstances exist. It is the commitment to prison that we are always trying to avoid.

In Committee the noble Lord the Leader of the House seized on the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, that one solution - and it is a solution - would be to extend the period of time over which the fine could be paid. It could be stretched over a period of 60 weeks rather than 30 weeks. Therefore the money could be obtained in that way. However I do not believe that it is desirable because courts could only reduce weekly instalments to realistic levels by ordering a fine to be paid over very long periods—sometimes a year or longer. That practice has been deprecated or frowned upon by the courts and, indeed, by the Court of Appeal. That course should not be followed if it has been officially frowned upon by the Court of Appeal.

Secondly, if a fine is to be spread over a year or longer, it is much more likely to result in default than a realistic fine which can be paid within a reasonable period of time. This amendment is very modest. We seek to retain the minimum fine so that there is a general guideline as to what should be the minimum. As a rule, that minimum should be adhered to and it should not be a matter for derision. However, the courts should have discretion, as in the four experimental areas, to reduce the unit to something less than £4; that is, to £3, £2 or even £1. The courts should not do that unless they are absolutely sure that the circumstances of the case merit an exception to the rule.

I do not think that I need to say any more. The evidence I have accumulated from the clerks to the magistrates of the four courts is conclusive. They are convinced that the magistrates would wish to operate in that way in the future. It is both humane and fair that the magistrates should be allowed that discretion. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.

Baroness Faithfull

My Lords, I rise to support the noble Lord, Lord Henderson. I agree with the noble Lord that the unit fine system is a good system and only in exceptional circumstances should one need to apply the provisions of the amendment. However, if a person is asked to pay more than he can manage, then in his eyes the law is brought into disrepute. He is being asked by the court to do something he knows he cannot do. There are also the side effects to consider. If a person is asked to pay £4 and his circumstances are such that he cannot do so, it often leads that person into further crime.

A point referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, was that the offender might pay over a period of time. I looked into that matter too; I believe that over a long period the law of diminishing return sets in. Offenders find that it is such a millstone round their neck that after a time they cease to find it important and do not pay. Therefore the amendment should be used only in exceptional circumstances but should be included in the Bill to allow the magistrates some flexibility.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I too support the amendment. I congratulate the Government on introducing the unit fine scheme. We on these Benches fully support it. Secondly, I should point out that in three of the experiments in particular—Bradford, Swansea and Teesside—the percentage of units calculated at less than £4 was very interesting. At Bradford 34 per cent. of fines were set at £3 or less, with 11 per cent. being set at £1 or £2 a week. At Swansea 41 per cent. were set at £3 a week or less, with 13 per cent. being set at £1 or £2. At Teesside no less than 47 per cent. of the fines were set at £3 a week or less, with 39 per cent. being set at £1 or £2. The figures for Basingstoke were slightly different. However, that is a fairly well off part of the country and few fines were below £3 a week, although even there the magistrates fined the occasional offender at £1 or £2 a week. Less than £4 a week is not abnormal in Bradford, Swansea or Teesside. For that reason I do not see why discretion should not be given to the magistrates to set the fine at those figures if they believe them to be correct.

It was suggested that one way out was that £4 a week should be accepted as the basic minimum but that the offender who cannot afford £4 a week—he can perhaps afford only £2 a week—should be given longer to pay. That is an astonishingly illogical situation. The object of fixing the unit is to take into account the minimum disposable income of the person being fined. If the fine is fixed at £4 a week but it is then decided that the minimum disposable weekly income is only £2 a week, what is being brought into disrepute is the fixing of £4, not the payment of £2. It strikes me as being an absurd system to say that an offender can have double the time to pay that he would have had if we had calculated the minimum disposable income correctly; namely, we cannot impose £2 but must impose £4 and therefore he should have twice as long to pay. It will lead to enormous confusion. A much simpler way of dealing with the matter would be for the Government to accept the thrust of the amendment we support moved by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson.

10.45 p.m.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, it is a question of sensible administration. People who have knowledge of these experiments—namely, the justices' clerks concerned—are in favour of the scheme. I find it extremely difficult to understand why the Government have been so stubborn in the past on this matter. I very much hope that the noble Earl is about to rise and tell us that he is prepared to accept the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment. It is extremely difficult for the Government to justify their position, which is opposed by all those who have direct knowledge of the system.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, does not exactly encourage me to accept the principle of the amendment when he says that we have been stubborn the whole way through. That is the last thing we have been. We have been as accommodating as we possibly can. The effect of this amendment is to allow the courts the discretion to set the value of a unit below the minimum value proposed in Clause 16(4) of the Bill whenever the courts felt that £4 a week would be too much for the offender to pay. That comes very close to having no minimum value at all. As my noble friend the Leader of the House said when this amendment was discussed in Committee, the Government believe that a minimum unit value is important to the credibility of the scheme. We think that £4 is about the right starting point for this minimum value.

It is necessary to ensure a proper balance between the need to be fair to the offender by taking account of his or her means and the need to be fair to the victim and the public at large by taking full account of the seriousness of the offence. A scheme which adopted no minimum value or a very low minimum value might easily result in fines being set at a derisory level. This would not, I suggest, win the confidence of the victim, the public or indeed the offender.

The £4 minimum value adopted in the Bill is based on the experience of the pilot projects. It is higher than the minimum value adopted in the Swansea, Teesside and Basingstoke pilot projects where a £3 minimum was used. However, when judging whether the proposed £4 minimum is sensible or not it should be remembered that the unit fine scheme set out in the Bill will not come into operation until 1992. That will be some, three years on from the period when courts in the pilot projects were using a £3 minimum. Set against this background, a £4 minimum does not, I think, seem excessive.

For some offenders £4 may be more than they can afford to pay on a weekly basis. However, the unit fine scheme is about determining an appropriate penalty for an offence. It is not about deciding how the fine should be paid. If a unit fine based on a minimum value of £4 is too much for the offender to pay on a weekly basis, the court has the discretion to allow the offender to pay in weekly instalments of less than £4. As a general rule that is, I believe, the right way to accommodate low income offenders.

I accept that in some cases that may involve an offender paying off a fine over a lengthy period. That is undesirable. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, for drawing my attention to that by his amendment. A 40-unit fine with a unit value of £4 would mean a fine of £160. If the offender can afford only £2 a week it would take him or her well over a year to discharge the fine. I cannot advise noble Lords to accept the proposed amendment which, as I said, would come close to having no minimum value at all.

Despite the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, might think that I am being stubborn, I shall be happy to look at the matter again and to bring back an amendment at Third Reading in order to help to address the point. If that is stubbornness I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will say that it is a jolly good form of stubbornness.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, certainly. I would not wish to abuse—

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord has spoken twice already.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, I am much obliged. The noble Earl will recall that on three previous occasions he has not risen to draw attention to the fact that people have been speaking after the Minister. I was about to say in response to the noble Earl that the Government have been stubborn in the past but that I hope on this occasion they will adopt a more accommodating attitude. They have done so, and I am much obliged.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, the Government have adopted an accommodating attitude, for which I am extremely grateful. The noble Earl kept us on tenterhooks for rather a long time before he came forward with his concession, for which I am duly grateful. The noble Earl spent some time defending the minimum. Perhaps he will give credit to me and to my colleagues on all sides of the House who have spoken in the debate. None of us attacked the minimum as such. All we asked for was a discretion for magistrates to depart from the minimum where they thought fit to do so. All the time that he was keeping us on tenterhooks he was defending something on which he had not been attacked at all. Never mind, I have no doubt that it was good for us to be stretched on tenterhooks. We are very much obliged to the noble Earl for giving us this lollipop. We look forward to the amendment at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 53: Page 13, line 9, leave out from ("Where") to ("the") in line 10 and insert ("the offender—

1. (a) has been convicted in his absence in pursuance of section 11 or 12 of the 1980 Act (non-appearance of accused); or
2. (b) has failed to comply with an order under section 18(1) below,

and (in either case)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 54. These amendments deal with a potential difficulty in the operation of the unit fine scheme. The difficulty arises when, as sometimes—

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, I think the noble Earl said that he would speak at the same time to Amendment No. 54.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, I said Amendment No. 94. I shall try to articulate a little more carefully so that the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, can hear properly.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, the noble Earl was mistaken. He did in fact give the wrong number.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, all kinds of funny things can happen. I looked and saw the number 94 and I thought I had said 94. However, I am quite happy to receive again the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.

The difficulty arises when, as sometimes happens, a defendant is convicted in his absence. He may be absent because he simply failed to turn up at the hearing, or because he chose to plead guilty by post. Sections 11 and 12 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 enable a court to sentence an offender in his absence.

If the court wants to impose a unit fine, it will need information about the defendant's means. In practice, defendants will probably be invited to provide information about their means before the hearing. If they do not do so, it may be obtained by asking questions in court. This was the practice in the courts that took part in the unit fines pilot project, and it seemed to work fairly well.

If an offender does not provide advance information and is convicted in his absence, the court will have no alternative but to make an order under Clause 18 requiring him to provide a statement of means. Some offenders might still not comply with the order, even though that would be an offence. Then Clause 16(8) would come into play. The court would use its discretion, in the absence of any information about the offender's means, to determine the value of a unit —and hence the amount of the fine itself—as it saw fit. Before that, however, there will have been delays and adjournments to no good end.

The amendment to Clause 16 overcomes this problem. It enables a court to set a fine under Clause 16(8) when a defendant is convicted in his absence, without first having to make an order under Clause 18. This avoids the court having to adjourn in the hope that information about means will be provided.

This does mean that offenders would be fined in their absence and in the absence of information about their means. But this could well have been the outcome anyway, even after the making of an order under Clause 18. It would be important to ensure that the offender had due warning about the desirability of providing information about his means when he was sent information about the hearing. That is the purpose of the amendment to Schedule 10. It will be in the offender's interest to provide advance information, but even so, we would expect the discretion conferred by Clause 16(8) to be used to set a reasonable fine level. There are other safeguards: if the fine were set at too high a level in the offender's absence, it could be reduced following either a means inquiry or an appeal to the Crown Court.

I am indebted to the Justices' Clerks' Society for drawing our attention to this potential difficulty. I hope your Lordships will agree that these amendments will make the unit fine scheme easier to operate in the particular cases to which they apply. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Henderson of Brompton moved Amendment No. 54: After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:

("Reasons for rejecting other methods of enforcing a fine when imprisoning a fine defaulter

. The following subsection shall be substituted for section 82(6) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980— (6) Where a magistrates' court issues a warrant of commitment on the ground that one of the conditions mentioned in subsection (1) or (4) above is satisfied, it shall state that fact, specifying the ground, in the warrant and where it specifies the ground that the conditions mentioned in subsection (4) (b) above are satisfied it shall state in open court the reasons for its opinion that all other methods of enforcing payment of the sum are inappropriate or unsuccessful.".").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, before speaking to this amendment I should like to make the observation that the Justices' Clerks' Society is having a field day. It has won on two successive amendments; namely, Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. It has indeed been a great day for the society.

Amendment No. 54 is a variant of one which I moved in Committee. I attach considerable importance to it. The proposed new clause requires that any court imprisoning a "fine defaulter" shall state its reasons for rejecting other methods of enforcing a fine. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble Lord the Leader of the House pointed out that it omitted the requirement which is currently contained in Section 82 of the Magistrates' Courts Act that the court must also be satisfied that the default was due to the offenders, wilful refusal or culpable neglect". Therefore, the proposed new clause which I put before the House tonight has been redrafted to meet that criticism. Its aim is to eliminate the imprisonment of fine defaulters, except where it is genuinely impracticable to obtain payment in any other way. I should stress that I am pursuing the same object in another context as regards the Child Support Bill.

I am sure that it is the aim of all of us to try to keep fine defaulters out of prison. However, I must point out that the current rate of such defaulters is terrifyingly high; it is just about 17,000 a year. Clearly we must attack the problem of this huge number of people in prison in every way that we can. In 1989, 22 per cent. of all prisoners entering prison, and 40 per cent. of those given sentences of six months or less, were imprisoned for fine default. The number of people entering prison poses a huge administrative burden on the system. Indeed, the processing of 17,000 receptions—that is, reception, discharge and paperwork—could be cut to the huge benefit of the system and of those who are subjected to imprisonment for fine default.

The Bill provides two measures: first, the unit fine system, which we recently discussed and which we hope to improve on Third Reading; secondly, the provision to deduct fines from income support payments. It will now be possible for courts to attach not only earnings but also income support and to distrain goods. Therefore, considering the wide-ranging powers which the courts now have to obtain payment, it should be rare in future for them to have to resort to imprisonment.

However, from the research papers which I mentioned in Committee, it seems that, although there is a considerable power for courts to search for other enforcement options than imprisonment, they do not do so. The amendment is designed to help them to do so. For that reason, I hope that the Government will consider that it goes with the grain of the Bill rather than against it.

The discipline of giving reasons in the form required by the proposed new clause would help to focus the courts' attention on the alternative enforcement measures which are available to reduce the chances of defaulters being unnecessarily imprisoned. I need say no more. I hope that the simplicity of that argument will cause the Government to agree either to this wording or to something very similar on Third Reading. I beg to move.

11 p.m.

Lord Richard

My Lords, I support the amendment. The arguments were put with clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Henderson of Brompton, and do not need repetition by me. It is a sensible amendment. The courts should give reasons. That concentrates the mind. In those circumstances the chances are that fewer people will be sent to prison for fine default. When the figure is nearly 17,000 a year, something should be done.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Henderson, accused me of keeping him on tenterhooks ort Amendment No. 52. I shall try not to do so this time. I shall come to the points more directly to minimise his frustration and his impatience. I am afraid that I am not persuaded that the law governing the enforcement of fines needs to be changed in the way the amendment envisages. The law already requires that the court must be satisfied that default is due to the offender's wilful refusal or culpable neglect and that it must have considered or tried all other methods of enforcing payment. The amendment would not add to the factors which the court must consider. It would merely require the court to state its precise masons for having concluded that all other methods of enforcing payment were inappropriate or unsuccessful. A court may well be of the opinion that an order to attach earnings would be inappropriate because it knows that the defendant is unemployed, but the amendment would require its reasons to be given in open court as regards every possible method of enforcement.

Given the variety of methods of enforcement available to a court, a requirement to state reasons for every option would considerably slow down the court's proceedings. I would not argue against such delay if I believed that it would lead to a better final decision, but, as I have said, given that all those matters must already be considered by the court, I cannot see that the requirement to give reasons in open court would have that improved result.

The noble Lord, Lord Henderson, referred to the number of people sent to prison for fine default and said that it was very high. Fines are imposed in about 1,200,000 cases a year and only about 17,000 people end up in prison for default. That amounts to about 1.5 per cent.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, is the Minister seriously saying that "only" 17,000 people are committed to prison? I should have thought that "only" was the most extraordinary term to use in regard to the very high number of 17,000.

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, if the noble Lord prefers me to omit the word "only" I shall do so. Fines are imposed in 1,200,000 cases a year; 17,000 people a year end up in prison.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, has the Minister sat down?

Earl Ferrers

My Lords, although I am standing up now, I was not standing up when the noble Lord asked the question.

Lord Henderson of Brompton

My Lords, the Minister has finally sat down, apparently satisfied that 17,000 admissions, processing, and discharging of people in the prison system is worthy of the description "only" as if it were some minor matter. It is a matter of great importance and highly costly. The figure of 17,000 is large. Imprisonment affects not only the prisoners but their families and their prospect of living useful, constructive lives subsequently.

It would be well worth it if magistrates were forced to say that they had exhausted every option before they reached a decision to sentence someone to imprisonment for fine default. I find it disappointing that the Minister has been unable to accept the amendment. It leaves a good Bill weaker than it otherwise might me. One of the Bill's objectives is to keep people out of prison. We offer the Minister some help towards achieving that end, but unfortunately he is rejecting it. Clearly I can do no more at this time of night than ask leave of the House to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 [Recovery of fines etc. by deductions from income support]:

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 55: Page 16, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 41 and insert ("In subsection (1) above-").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 55 and also speak to Amendment No. 56. The purpose behind these amendments is to make clear precisely what is meant by the term "fine" for the purposes of deductions from income support. Our concern has been to ensure that the definition of "fine" should be clearly set out in order to specify the purposes for which deductions from income support may be used.

Certain road traffic offences concerning vehicle excise licences impose penalties instead of fines. It is often the case that an offender, in addition to having a penalty imposed, may be required to pay the back duty owed on a vehicle excise licence. At present these penalties are enforced as though they were fines. We wish to ensure that such payments may also be deducted from income support to prevent the possibility that a failure to pay results in the offender being committed to prison. I think your Lordships would agree that that would be a most unfortunate situation and one which would reduce the usefulness of deductions from income support as a means of keeping defaulters out of prison. In the same way, we should not like an offender who had been ordered to pay a contribution towards his costs, which are also currently enforced in the same way as fines, to be unable to do so by means of deductions from income support, for fear that he too might end up in prison. I must emphasise that these additional items would not in any way increase the total weekly amount that could be deducted from income support to pay fines. The same ceiling would be in place to safeguard the offender.

The minor amendments to the definitions of "income support" and "prescribed" in this clause are purely technical amendments to definitions that already existed in Clause 21.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl Ferrers moved Amendment No. 56: Page 17, line 3, at end insert: ("(3A) In this section— fine" includes—

1. (a) a penalty imposed under section 8(1) or 18(4) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act 1971 or section 102(3) (aa) of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (penalties imposed for certain offences in relation to vehicle excise licences);
2. (b) an amount ordered to be paid, in addition to any penalty so imposed, under section 9, 18A or 26A of the said Act of 1971 (liability to additional duty);
3. (c) an amount ordered to be paid by way of costs which is, by virtue of section 41 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970, treated as having been adjudged to be paid on a conviction by a magistrates' court;

income support" means income support within the meaning of the Social Security Act 1986, either alone or together with any unemployment, sickness or invalidity benefit, retirement pension or severe disablement allowance which is paid by means of the same instrument of payment; prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Reay

My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.