I beg to move amendment No. 627, in

clause 148, page 82, line 42, at end insert

'and the circumstances of the offender'.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 496, in

clause 148, page 83, line 3, leave out

'the financial circumstances of the offender'

and insert

'the offender's weekly disposable income and his readily available capital'.

Amendment No. 670, in

clause 148, page 83, line 3, leave out

'the financial circumstances of the offender'

and insert

'the offender's disposable weekly income'.

New clause 5—Power to increase fine—

'(1) This section applies where a court has fixed the amount of a fine and the fine has not been paid in full.

(2) If it becomes known to the court that the offender has a higher weekly disposable income or readily available capital than was known to it when it fixed the level of the fine it may increase the level of the fine.'.

Under the amendment the provision would read ''The amount of any fine fixed by a court must be such as, in the opinion of the court, reflects the seriousness of the offence and the circumstances of the offender''. It is a wider—I will give way to the Minister, as he may pre-empt my remarks; if he does I shall have only one more little point to add.

I draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to subsection (3), which states that

''a court must take into account the circumstances of the case, including, among other things, the financial circumstances of the offender''

The point that the hon. Gentleman wishes to deal with in his amendment is already covered in the clause.

I noted that the matter was dealt with in subsection (3); however, what comes first is always thought to be most important. Our amendment would have been much tidier drafting. There is one critical point that I hope the Minister will consider. I spoke a great deal the other day about remitting fines and London fines, but the Magistrates Association has guidelines issued by a very important body that issues guidelines for fines. When looking at them I sometimes think to myself that they seem slightly unrealistic.

In the old wild west, young men had to have a horse. The same principle applies to young men in London: they must have their wheels. Thousands of young men have beat-up old heaps worth about £60—at most. They are untaxed and uninsured, but they are the modern equivalent of the horse for getting around. The problem is that most of these young men are either out of work or not saying that they are in work, and up they come for the standard no insurance offence. They probably have not had an accident because they are probably very good drivers. That is where the guidelines for the fine come in. You might be shocked to hear, Mr. Illsley, that some of the guidelines suggest fines of £500 or £600 for no insurance. That is all very well for the Minister and me if we negligently fail to insure our cars, or the Government car in the Minister's case. I have never been uninsured, apart from one short lapse when I forgot in the 70s. I digress.

I merely point out that whacking an 18-year-old with a fine for more than 10 times what his car is worth leads to the problems that I outlined the other day. Perhaps some of those present could have a quiet word with the Lord Chancellor's Department to see whether it can do anything to take into account the circumstances of the case and the circumstances of the offender as he presents them to the court. That might lead to a reduction in the huge arrears of unpaid fines.

The purpose of amendment No. 496 is to make fines more realistic by making the court take into account

''the offender's weekly disposable income and his readily available capital''.

That ties in with new clause 5(2), which states:

''If it becomes known to the court that the offender has a higher weekly disposable income or readily available capital than was known to it when it fixed the level of the fine it may increase the level of the fine.''.

It covers not only cases of deceit or concealment by the offender, but any other change of circumstances, such as winning the lottery or the pools. I would be grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

I want to speak to amendment No. 670. Just to show that occasionally I can point in the same direction as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, there is a clear similarity between amendments Nos. 496 and 670. The hon. Member for Woking has

already set out his concerns. Fines are becoming a less valuable tool in the armoury of courts, simply through the inability to relate them to the capacity to pay. I am told by Napo, the trade union for family court and probation staff, that in 1992 fines accounted for 43 per cent. of disposals for indictable offences in the magistrates courts, but by 2001 that had fallen to 30 per cent. Over the same period, the use of fines fell from, I think, 6 per cent. to 3 per cent. in the Crown court. The combination is of fines not being used as much and, when they are used, their not being paid, as we heard in a previous discussion about the level of arrears on payments. That is a direct result of the changes that were introduced and the abolition of the unified system.

I do not think that we need to have a quiet word with the Lord Chancellor. Rather, we need to have a quiet improvement of the Bill, in order to ensure that the message is put clearly to those who apply sentences on how they might administer the system better so that the fine is realistic and the chance that it is met is higher.

Let me say to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that I understand entirely the intention behind their amendments. However, the impact of the wording would be a narrowing of the scope of the financial circumstances that the court must take into account when fixing a fine, or, in the case of amendment No. 496,

''the offender's weekly disposable income and his readily available capital''.

That is too restrictive, as the ''financial circumstances'' of the offender could encompass factors other than those specified. An obvious example of that would be debts. ''Financial circumstances'' is a more useful term, because the offender might have money or assets, even though they are not working. The full financial circumstances might therefore not be fully reflected in their weekly income. They might have capital that is classed as unavailable at the point of sentence, but that might become available during the payment of the fine. ''Financial circumstances'' is broader.

We do not think that new clause 5 is necessary, because it will in any case be an offence knowingly or recklessly to make a false statement of means to a court at any stage either prior to sentence or during enforcement. There is already a penalty for falsifying means information. The offender would be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale, which is currently £2,500. Since there is already that power, there seems to be no need to increase the level of the original fine in addition to setting a new fine for falsifying means.

This has been a useful and mercifully short debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move amendment No. 549, in

clause 148, page 83, line 11, at end insert—

'( ) has failed to furnish a statement of his financial circumstances in response to a request which is an official request

for the purposes of section 20A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (c.53) (offence of making false statement as to financial circumstances),'.

The amendment affects the fixing of fines. When an offender has been convicted and the court wishes to impose a fine, it must take into account the financial circumstances of the offender before setting the amount of the fine. Under section 20A of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the court can officially request that the defendant inform the court, in the event of conviction, of his or her financial circumstances, for the purpose of determining the amount of any fine the court may impose.

If the defendant fails to respond to an official request, amendment No. 549 would enable the court to make assumptions about his or her ability to pay and to set a fine regardless of the fact that it has insufficient information about the offender's means to make a proper determination.

The intention is to ensure that the onus is on the defendant to provide, on request, information to the court about his income and expenditure before the court considers the case. The provision aims to provide an incentive for the offender to co-operate so that the court will be able to set any fine at an appropriate level. Moreover, it is more likely that the fine will be paid.

Are all fines now index-linked to inflation so that we do not have to keep amending the law?

No, they are on a standard scale.

That was a helpful intervention, albeit from a sedentary position. The answer to my hon. Friend's question is no. They are set out in a standard scale, the details of which I have with me. I shall be happy to provide him with the information.

Amendment agreed to.

Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

This part of the Bill deals with fixing the amount of any fine to be imposed on an individual offender. I would be happy if the Government were to introduce a similar provision for a corporate offender. We do not adequately consider the appropriate level of fines for corporate offenders commensurate with either the seriousness of the offence that may have been committed or the company's assets. I ask the Minister to consider whether the fining regime that applies to corporate offenders is adequate to deter inappropriate behaviour by corporations in future.

Will the Minister take away the possibility of linking all fines to inflation? If, for example, we were to have another period of Conservative Government during which inflation was rampant, the fine would diminish in real value. Rather than having to keep changing every statute law, can we introduce a provision that links all fines across statute law to inflation?

The eventuality about which my hon. Friend is concerned seems remote at present. However, I take his point and I shall draw it to the attention of my colleague who deals with those

matters. I understand what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says, but you would immediately rule me out of order were I to respond, Mr. Illsley, because his point ranges much more widely than the modest but important provisions of clause 148.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 148, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.