Crime and Courts Bill [Lords] Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate
Department: Ministry of Justice

Crime and Courts Bill [Lords]

Lord Murphy of Torfaen Excerpts
Monday 18th March 2013

(11 years, 8 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Murphy of Torfaen Portrait Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

I rise fleetingly to speak in support of my amendment 1, which relates to the payment of fines. It was moved in the other place by my noble friend Lord Touhig and its purpose is to introduced safeguards to ensure that the new financial penalties imposed on people who make late or incomplete fine payments do not plunge them into poverty when they have to pay that second fine. In no way is it a wrecking amendment, but the new system should not jeopardise housing security, the well-being of children or basic household outgoings.

The magistrates court sentencing guidelines say that fines should have

“an equal impact on offenders with different financial circumstances. . .but should not force the offender below a reasonable ‘subsistence’ level.”

I do not want people to be forced to go to payday lenders—I do not believe that that is necessary—and I hope that the companies that the Government propose to engage in this matter take these things into account. Above all else, we have to understand that the reason why some people do not always pay fines is not that they are persistent non-payers, but for other very important reasons, such as debt, a family crisis or illness.

I hope that in the seconds available to the Minister, he will accept my argument and avoid a vote later this evening.

Tim Loughton Portrait Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I rise briefly in support of new clauses 12 and 14, which were put forward so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) and are supported by the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey).

A key part of the four-point action plan “Tackling child sexual exploitation”, which was launched in November 2011, was a better court procedure for vulnerable young witnesses. Too many girls, having been abused, have effectively been re-traumatised in the courtroom by a phalanx of defence barristers. For many of them, it has meant that they have not given credible evidence or that the case has not come to court and has collapsed. In many cases, the witnesses run away rather than go through the procedure and appear in court.

The two new clauses, which I hope the Minister will take away and look at favourably, are about ensuring that we get justice in our courts and, in particular, that vulnerable witnesses and victims appear to get the justice they have been denied for so many years. The cases that are coming to court now are a sign of success. They are at least beginning to be taken seriously. We want to ensure that more people come forward and that more perpetrators are nailed. The new clauses will help to achieve that.