I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his observations in relation to these regulations and for his agreement on the part of the Opposition in relation to them. It is true that we were responsible for laying regulations in June 2014 and then withdrawing them. They would originally have uprated the amounts of Levels 1 to 4 fines as well as Level 5 fines. The Government took the view that further consideration was needed in relation to the appropriate amounts at Levels 1 to 4, but the priority
was to give magistrates the power to deal with the most serious Level 5 offenders, which is why we have taken the most important step first in removing the £5,000 barrier. We are giving further consideration to Levels 1 to 4 fines, which cover the less serious offences. We are also giving consideration, by way of a review, to driving offences and penalties, many of which would be within Levels 1 to 4, although an offence such as driving without insurance is a Level 5 offence. Any proposal to change these fine levels requires agreement from both Houses of Parliament. It does not mean—if that was the inference, and I am not suggesting it was—that we are taking a soft line on Levels 1 to 4 offences, it is simply a question of prioritising Level 5.
The noble Lord identified the dilemma that faces many sentencing tribunals in finding the right penalty and, in the case of repeat offenders, the unreality sometimes of having to impose fines that reflect both the seriousness of the offence and the sentencing guidelines. The problem is very often that those who commit these offences do not necessarily have the means to pay, the fines become unrealistic, and whether it is appropriate to continue imposing fines at that level becomes questionable.
Of course, the Government do not purport to tell sentencing tribunals what is appropriate in a particular case, and among the matters taken into consideration
will be the means of the particular offender, not withstanding the guidelines, which are only guidelines. The courts will sometimes have other options, such as community penalties or even imprisonment, if the imposition of fines that are not being paid is becoming unrealistic. It is a matter for the individual tribunals. The Government respect the independence of the judiciary in this and any other field. I understand the dilemma the noble Lord identifies, but we feel that this change will give magistrates in appropriate cases the power to impose large fines, often on people who are, in fact, in a position to pay them.
The Secretary of State can ask the Sentencing Council to consider amending guidelines on specific matters if necessary, and the council is independent of the Government. Guidelines already cover in detail how fines are set in relation to income, and we like to follow carefully the way the Sentencing Council works and its sentencing guidelines. In fact, I am attending one of its meetings tomorrow, although not on this particular subject. It is important that the Government are at least aware of what it is doing. I hope that the noble Lord is satisfied with the answers to his questions.