Crime and Courts Bill [HL]

Lord Touhig Excerpts

Monday 28th May 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I will direct my remarks to Clause 20 of Part 2, the provisions in the Bill that will make offenders liable to pay new administrative costs to the Courts and Tribunals Service in cases where they do not meet fine payments in full or on time. In particular, I hope that when the Minister comes to reply he will specify the arrangements relating to consideration of means in these circumstances. The Government’s intention behind making offenders liable for administration costs—which include those incurred by Courts and Tribunals Service in recovery-related tasks such as issuing payment reminders and tracing outstanding sums—is to increase compliance with payment plans and to make cost savings.

However, unless the offender’s financial means are taken into account when applying costs, the change may not achieve either goal. Instead we will force more people further into debt, with little hope of eventual repayment. Those working with the poorest people in our communities understand that there are a number of circumstances which may result in offenders missing payment dates or not being able to meet the prescribed sum at a given point. Many of those who find themselves before the courts already face significant personal challenges. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment recognises that some offenders lead chaotic lives. Other outstanding debts, unexpected family situations or confusion about the system may cause people to default.

I am certainly not advocating that additional administrative costs presented by such situations should fall automatically and completely to the taxpayer—far from it. I believe that people should face up to their financial responsibilities. However, if the amount owed were increased without any reference to the individual’s means, it could result in unnecessary hardship, even when their intention is already to comply with payment of the initial fine.

Furthermore, as the costs will be treated as an increase to the fine and subject to the same sanctions for late payment, it is feasible that people could find themselves trapped in a downward spiral, with ever less ability to repay growing costs. No one will benefit from this. Such situations can be avoided if the new liability for costs outlined in the Bill is subject to the same consideration of means as the initial fine. These are set according to the Criminal Justice Act and the magistrates’ court sentencing guidelines, which require the calculation of fines to be based on relevant weekly earnings, disregarding housing benefit, child benefit and tax credits. The guidelines state:

“The aim is for the fine to have an equal impact on offenders with different financial circumstances; it should be a hardship but should not force the offender below a reasonable ‘subsistence’ level”.

I am sure that noble Lords will agree that the important principles of fairness and subsistence should apply also to subsequent increases in the amount payable. Should administrative costs be added at a standard level rather than through a flexible means-based formula, the poorest offenders will find themselves the hardest hit and potentially struggling to meet basic living costs—in direct contrast to the existing safeguards.

I will take the situation of a single parent in receipt of benefits who has been fined for a minor offence. The fine, according to the guidelines, will be set at a reasonable level, disregarding the benefits reserved for covering his rent and supporting his children. However, should he miss a payment for whatever reason he will be liable, under the provisions of the Bill, for extra costs. If his circumstances are again taken into account, he may have to pay slightly less than the full costs. The Courts and Tribunals Service will still recover some of the expenditure incurred through issuing reminders and managing his account, while he will continue to meet other basic outgoings for himself and his family.

However, if his circumstances are ignored and he is expected to pay the entirety of the costs or a standard sum, he could feasibly be left struggling to meet the increased repayment rate. In this case, his only recourse might be to use his housing benefit, child benefit or even a payday loan, to the clear detriment of his family. This is surely not the Government’s intention, but it has raised concerns among charitable organisations and other groups, which feel that despite the understandable principles behind this part of the Bill, inappropriate and potentially unmanageable financial burdens may fall on offenders. Caritas Social Action Network, the social action arm of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, has warned of a detrimental personal and societal effect should the change leave people unable to meet basic needs, particularly in cases where they have dependent children or other debts to cover.

I ask the Minister in conclusion to ease these concerns by clarifying what consideration of an offender’s financial means will be taken into account when deciding the level at which the new costs will be imposed. Will he also say how the principles of fairness and subsistence underpinning the current process will be protected? A great many people are anxious to know precisely what the Government have in mind.