---

Coroners and Justice Bill

The Government are committed to the principle that those who are convicted and can genuinely afford to pay towards their costs in criminal proceedings should do so. This underpinned the introduction of means-testing in the magistrates’ courts in 2006 and the recent consultation on extending it to the Crown Court, the pilots for which will begin early next year. It is of course essential, if you are to have a scheme for means-testing under which certain defendants are required to pay towards the cost of their case from their disposable income, that such a scheme is backed up by an effective and efficient scheme for collecting and enforcing contributions. If it is not, people will not pay. The Government have a clear responsibility to make sure that the contributions are collected and we are proposing to take fast, effective and firm action to enforce payment. Only those defendants with disposable income and/or capital assets above a generous threshold will be required to contribute to the costs of their defence—and, of course, only if they are found guilty. We estimate that three out of four defendants will continue to receive representation without having to contribute. The means-testing scheme includes a range of allowances based on actual expenditure, weighted to reflect individual circumstances. As a back-stop, there is a hardship appeal route for those who do not qualify. We are as confident as we can be at this stage that the new scheme will accurately and fairly identify those who can genuinely afford to pay. As I say, appropriate sanctions must be an integral part of an effective enforcement system. There will be, in the nature of things, defendants who just wilfully fail to comply with contribution orders. The proposed power to add the cost of enforcement to a defendant’s outstanding liability, which the first part of Amendment 191DA would remove, will act as a deterrent and also ensure the cost-effectiveness of the scheme. It will be made clear at the earliest opportunity to those people who are liable for contributions that they will face additional costs based on any enforcement measures which become necessary. This is a necessary part of enforcement. I have already explained to the noble Lord that I will consider again the part of that amendment that applies to new subsection (2A)(b) in Clause 136(3)(b), about, ""the withdrawal of an individual’s right to representation in certain circumstances"." We have been explicit throughout the consultation process that we do not intend to withdraw representation in response to non-payment of a contribution order. This is an essential part of the scheme we are setting up. Amendment 191DB relates to the provisions for the making of motor vehicle orders contained within Schedule 16. It would insert, ""that making such an order would not cause substantial hardship to any person"." We consider this addition to be unnecessary. The new means-testing scheme is itself designed to identify whether a defendant has sufficient disposable income and/or capital to contribute to some or all of his costs. If a defendant assessed as being liable for a contribution still feels that they just cannot afford it, they may apply to the hardship unit. Clause 136 already makes it clear that applications for orders can be made to the court only in cases where a defendant has wilfully or culpably neglected to comply, and only at the end of the collection and enforcement process when other methods have failed. However, the real buck-stop is that orders can be made by the judiciary only when they are satisfied that they are appropriate and proportionate. Any orders made under the new scheme will be subject to the same safeguards as the existing scheme for the enforcement of court fines. We are confident that this recovery process works well and has sufficient administrative and judicial safeguards. Amendment 191DC would also amend Schedule 16, but, in this case, so that orders could be applied for only in relation to vehicles in which the defendant had "a substantial" interest. It is not clear how "a substantial" interest would be defined, and it is not the wording used in existing regulations for other enforcement schemes. However, the court would have to be satisfied, before it granted any order, that it was a proportionate and necessary step at the end of any enforcement process. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendments. Regulations will deal with the position of co-owners and are likely to follow existing provisions on control of goods of debtors that apply in the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007.