Official Report search · Parliament Workbench

Committee

Justice 2 Committee, 19 Nov 2002

19 Nov 2002 · S1 · Justice 2 Committee

Item of business

Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill: Stage 2

Aitken, Bill Con Glasgow Watch on SPTV

Amendment 72 deals with the vexed question of unpaid fines. The minister and I have crossed swords on this in the past, particularly when I raised with him the 25,961 means warrants lying unexecuted in the Strathclyde police area. Too many fines are not being paid. Not only does that result in a loss of money to the Exchequer, it results in people going to prison unnecessarily. In a response to me, the minister once highlighted the fact that there were some 7,000 prison admissions last year in respect of unpaid fines. The period that persons spend in prison for non-payment can, in some cases, be as little as two days. When one bears in mind the fact that the custodial alternative to a £200 fine is seven days in prison, which is reduced on remission to three days, which can result in the prisoner being released after two days—given the administrative arrangements in prisons—it is hardly surprising that many people do not see the necessity to part with money rather than serve the custodial alternative. It is clearly socially undesirable for people to go to prison if they need not do so. If the offender had committed a crime or an offence that had merited a custodial sentence, the court would have imposed such a sentence. It is clear from the fact that it imposed a fine that the court did not consider such a measure to be appropriate. I regret to say that the fact of the matter is that many people have greater priorities than the paying of fines. Sometimes those priorities are genuine and pressing. People who have lost their job subsequent to the imposition of the fine and who are short of money might feel that their priority is to pay their fuel bill—to a greater extent, that is understandable. Others, however, regard drinking, smoking, gambling and the use of illicit substances as a greater priority than paying fines that are imposed by the courts. I have lodged amendment 72 to enable us to deal with those sorts of people.As members will be aware, if a fine is imposed on someone who is of limited means, the court will order that the fine be paid in instalments. It is not uncommon in cases in which the accused's sole income is based on benefit for that to be in instalments of £3 per week. However, it is regrettable that that money is not forthcoming in many, many cases. If that happens, the accused will be summonsed to attend a means inquiry court, but the summons is usually ignored, which results in a means warrant being issued.I lodged amendment 72 to seek to make fines count—to make the penalty that is imposed by the courts bite. At the same time, I am seeking to stop people going to jail unnecessarily. I was interested to hear in the Queen's speech last week that the United Kingdom Government is seeking to introduce into English jurisdiction the measures that I am proposing today. It is arguable that the UK Government already has those powers under existing law, as English law gives scope to obtain fines by civil diligence. I understand that that is frequently done.I am seeking to rescue the minister from a potentially difficult political position. I do not wish to see him singing from a different hymn sheet from the Home Secretary down south. It is clear that the English recognise the problem. In fairness to the minister, I believe that he, too, recognises it. I know that he is far from happy about the number of people who go to jail for unpaid fines. I share his unhappiness. The proposal in amendment 72 would give the minister the ideal opportunity to avoid dispute with England and to ease the problem of overcrowded prisons.I move amendment 72.

Search Hansard contributions

Justice 2 Committee, 19 Nov 2002

In the same item of business