I beg to move amendment No. 623, in

clause 149, page 83, line 21, leave out from 'circumstances' to end of line 26 and insert

'the Court is of the opinion that it would be appropriate to remit the whole or part of the fine, or compensation or costs it may do so.'.

We are not having much success this morning in persuading the Minister to accept amendments. I urge him, with all the sincerity that I can muster, to listen carefully to the point that I shall make. Clause 149 deals with the remission of fines. Subsection (2) is unnecessarily wordy. My amendment could achieve exactly the same—and better—circumstances.

I want to leave out the question of compensation for the moment because there are big difficulties with remitting it. The wording in the amendment gives the court much broader discretion to take into account all the circumstances on the subsequent occasion.

Some circumstances might not be covered by the provision. For example, a man on a salary appears before the court in January and is fined £500, payable at £100 a month, with the first payment due within 28 days. He makes the first payment on 25 February, but does not pay a penny on 1 March. He is summonsed to come before a means inquiry and does so within a fortnight. The court then makes an inquiry into the offender's financial circumstances and discovers that he is earning exactly the same as he was when the fine was imposed. His mortgage and other outgoings are the same. He cannot produce paperwork to show that he has any other outgoings.

The court makes another inquiry and discovers that, although his financial circumstances are the same, he has a problem. A close family member is very ill and desperately needs an operation or a short holiday. The circumstance has arisen within the past few days, but the inquiry into the offender's circumstances is identical on each occasion. The court is caught by the procedure. Any sensible court will say that it remits the fine and the man should fix the holiday. However, the inquiry has been identical. Not a thing has changed—the person's financial circumstances might even have improved. Where, in that case, is the court's discretion? It is much tidier to use appropriateness as a test.

The Minister is smiling so much that he obviously has a technical answer that will bring more consistency to the Bill. It would be realistic to let the court state what it deems to be appropriate—never mind financial inquiries; they are two a penny. What is the problem with that?

I smile for a couple of reasons. One, the hon. Gentleman has identified. The other is that the more of the hon. Gentleman's contributions I hear, the more I realise that were I ever to appear before the courts, I should be more than happy to appear before the hon. Gentleman; he is clearly such a decent human being.

I remind the Committee that the clause is only an issue if the offender is not upfront and honest with the court about his or her circumstances. That is what it is about.

Is it?

Yes, it is. The previous clause makes that clear. In the circumstances described by the hon. Gentleman, the provisions would apply in addition to the existing wide power to remit, which—as in the hon. Gentleman's example—is based on a change of circumstances since the fine was imposed. That is provided for under section 85 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.

As regards compensation, the amendment is unnecessary. Section 133(1) of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 provides for the offender to apply to the court to have a compensation order reduced or discharged. There is not a similar provision in relation to costs. However, guidelines state that

''an order for costs to the prosecutor should never exceed the sum which, having regard to the defendant's means and any other financial order imposed on him, he is able to pay and which it is reasonable to order him to pay.''

In addition, defendants can make representations regarding the amount of costs, under section 17 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, which should ensure that they are not disproportionate to their means.

I am sure, Mr. Illsley, that you and I are both greatly comforted by the Minister's remarks. In view of the important debates that lie ahead of us, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 149 ordered to stand part of the Bill.