David Ford
South Antrim · Alliance Party · Northern Ireland
“All I can say is that I remember officials coming back into the Department and saying, "You wouldn't have been very pleased with what Trevor or Stewart said at the Committee yesterday, Minister".”
“<BR /> <BR />When I listened to the start of the debate, I welcomed the comments that Mr McGuigan made, but, as Alex Attwood said so forcibly, even when he intervened and asked what had changed, there was an inability on the part of the Sinn Féin representative to explain anything other than to say that there is an election in six weeks'…”
“<BR /> <BR />No doubt, what we saw from in/out Ministers not so long ago and the failure of the outgoing First Minister to accept her role when she was Minister in DETI to deal with the issue has further added to that.”
“There is an inability in all that we face at the moment to recognise the public disgust at the behaviour of certain people in this place and, most particularly, in the Executive.”
“On a point of order, Mr Speaker. In his question to the Minister on that statement, Mr Paul Girvan suggested that some judges spin out cases inappropriately in their own financial interests.”
“Less than the full truth emerged and facts were eventually slowly dragged out from the bunker, sorry, from Stormont Castle. It is a classic example of why people have lost trust in the way that this place operates; it is a classic example of why the ministerial code needs to be enforced at least as rigorously as we enforce procedures agai…”
The complete record
Every one of 2,469 lines we hold for David Ford, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 12 of 50.
“<BR /> <BR />Other changes will allow the Chief Constable to grant a firearms certificate to a 16- or 17-year-old for the acquisition and possession of a firearm, be that an airgun with a kinetic energy in excess of 1 joule or a shotgun, for sporting purposes or for pest control under supervision. A further reform to the current arrangements for 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds will allow them to have access to a shotgun in the same circumstances as an adult can at present. Even without a firearm certificate, they may shoot for sporting or pest control purposes so long as they are under appropriate supervision by a person aged at least 21 who has held a firearm certificate for that type of firearm for at least three years.”
“I am pleased now do so in the form of new schedule 4, which makes changes to the 2004 Order that have been consulted on with stakeholders and considered and agreed by the Committee for Justice. <BR /> <BR />The first changes are in the form of amendments to young shooter provisions that will permit a person of 12 years of age or older to be in possession of a shotgun in a police-approved clay target range while under the supervision of a person who has held a shotgun on certificate for at least five years. That will enable young people to have access, from a sensible age, to shotguns and to learn clay target shooting in a controlled environment.”
“My policy intention was that those cases should be capable of being directly transferred where it is decided to proceed on indictment, and I therefore believe that there is merit in amending section 9 of the 2015 Act to put the matter beyond doubt. <BR /> <BR />I move on to my amendments — amendment Nos 59 and 82 — which introduce new clause 44B and new schedule 4 to the Bill. I am sure that Members recall the amendments tabled at Further Consideration Stage of the previous Justice Bill by Mr Frew, Mr Poots and Mr McGlone that sought to make changes to the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 2004. The Members' amendments were subsequently withdrawn in response to a commitment that I would table departmental amendments to this Bill.”
“58-60, 69-73 and 82-86. <BR /> <BR />I begin by speaking to amendment No 59, which closes a potential lacuna in the direct committal for trial provisions in section 9 of the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. Section 9(3)(b) and (c) of the 2015 Act provide that the direct committal arrangements do not apply where the court is to proceed summarily with an offence under article 45 of the Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 or under article 17 of the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. There is, however, a question over whether section 9 of the 2015 Act will enable offences caught by article 45 of the 1981 Order and article 17 of the 1998 Order to attract the direct committal arrangements where the prosecution decides to proceed on indictment.”
“Whilst I have sympathy with their desire to be seen to be protecting vulnerable people, I believe that the views expressed elsewhere by Mr Ross, Mr Kennedy and Mr Dickson are accurate and the provisions are not needed. Therefore, I welcome the Chair's assurance that he will not press his amendments, on the basis of the work that is being done. I believe that the Committee and the Department are working in partnership on innovative methods that seek to ensure that the justice system works more effectively. I welcome his assurance that he will not press those amendments. I commend to the House the amendments that stand in my name, which I believe are entirely agreed by the Committee. I am afraid, however, that I must ask the House to reject the amendments that stand in the names of Mr McCartney and his colleagues.”
“At times, there is also a significant impact on those imprisoned for fine default. We are looking at ensuring that fines are paid on a lengthened timescale and with reduced amounts each week or whatever provision can be made to assist people to pay. This does not seek to take a punitive and excessive sum instantly. We are looking at how we can do this in the most reasonable way, providing protection for dependants at the same time as ensuring that, if fines have to be levied, fines are levied and can be paid. <BR /> <BR />I accept why Members from Sinn Féin and the SDLP seek to make changes, but I believe that they are not adding anything to the existing protections.”
“If it has no prospect of happening, why table it? That is the reality. I believe that it is unnecessary and without benefit. Having been criticised in the past by the Committee for adding unnecessary legislation, I will fire that back at its Deputy Chair: why propose something that is unnecessary and merely spells out, in slightly different words, what is already there? <BR /> <BR />Other issues raised about protections are covered by the points that I made about existing DSD regulations. An amendment to DSD regulations makes it clear that fine collection would come in at the end of the list of other issues that need to be covered. It seems that, for some — I accept that Mr Lynch did not quite say this — there cannot be any question of taking deductions from benefits at a lower level because of the potential impact.”
“Half a second. <BR /> <BR />When the protection is in the Bill anyway, putting it in twice achieves nothing. I give way.”
“I see no prospect whatever of that change being made, but the reality is —”
“I note also that Mr Maginness supported much of what was said by Mr Lynch. I have a significant concern about some of the points made, and I go back, in particular, to some of the terminology used. Clause 2 specifies that collection officers will be civil servants. If there were to be any attempt to change that, the future mythical, wicked Tory Minister could just as easily amend the proposed addition, which is unnecessary, as what is already in the Bill. Such an amendment could go through only with the support of the House, and I have no doubt that Members of the SDLP and Sinn Féin, probably joined by Members from Alliance and other parties, would, if necessary, table a petition of concern. Indeed, I did not sense any enthusiasm for that, even from those who cited Donald Trump in support of other aspects of the Bill.”
“I will certainly take note of that suggestion. I accept that it is a perfectly serious suggestion, although I have to be cautious about how buildings are used. The key issue, however, is one for the judiciary, and the key point is that he has specifically named the district judge in Londonderry. Mr McElhone's efforts have been very significant, and I have had recent discussions about how we replicate and build on that kind of work in different parts of Northern Ireland. Progress is being made, but, as ever, perhaps not as fast as we might wish. <BR /> <BR />Having disposed at considerable length of the points on which everybody seemed to be agreed, I will refer to the amendments that Mr Lynch spoke to and which stand in his name and those of Mr McCartney and Ms McGahan.”
“I appreciate the point, although I am a little cautious about giving a commitment on behalf of the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety. We have seen examples, specifically in the listing of domestic violence cases at Londonderry court, where the district judge has made listing arrangements in such a way as to ensure that support services are available. There are clearly issues in how perpetrators are referred to appropriate programmes as well as in how victims are referred to the support provided by groups like Women's Aid. Those are key issues to ensure that we get a joined-up approach, but, at this stage, those are for the Department of Justice and its associated bodies and are not those that apply across the justice system, as the Member said.”
“<BR /> <BR />If we are to have an Executive who will function in a better joined-up way, it will be necessary to look at some of the early intervention work and ensure that we use the opportunity presented by a difficult budgetary situation to build partnerships and find better ways of joining up so that we get the outputs that we need and recognise the benefits that one Department's work can achieve for another. There are real opportunities, but, if anyone in the Chamber at the moment is representing their party in the discussions on the Programme for Government that will take place after the election, I hope that they bear in mind Alastair Ross's words about the need to make specific improvements in how things move forward. I will give way.”
“I never cease to be amazed by the ability of some Members to read my scribbles from across the Chamber, but Mr Ross is absolutely right on that point. I cannot give a commitment on what will be in the Programme for Government, particularly when it is an issue of joining up matters, but I highlighted in my opening remarks the work that was being done in the context of the OECD report. It is absolutely clear that that is not a Justice-alone issue; it is an issue that requires joining up.”
“We have examples that are being developed, but it is not always easy to get them done. That work is being done in the Department and with partners across the justice system. <BR /> <BR />In this Building and in this Chamber, we may be fixated on the end of a mandate and a new mandate, but I assure Members that those who work in the Department of Justice will not be fixated on the mandate; indeed, when the Assembly ceases its present term, they will have six weeks entirely free of us to get on with necessary policy work without interruption by questions, Assembly debates and all kinds of things. I trust that whoever is sitting in the Department of Justice and on the Committee for Justice will see that a lot of good work has been done. The key issue for the next mandate —”
“I appreciate Mr Douglas's point. The reality is that there are a variety of approaches in many areas of the justice system that build on broadly similar concepts that are applied slightly differently in different places. It is a bit like some of the early intervention work that is done by a number of agencies with young people who are in danger of getting involved in the justice system. In one month, I remember seeing three projects in three different areas of Northern Ireland run by three different organisations. They were all built on the concept of establishing personal relationships, and that was what was helping young people. In the same way, there is almost an element of a personal relationship with the judge in the case management of some of the processes, and that is very significant.”
“I absolutely accept the Chair's point that we need to look at the practical effect of reducing reoffending to save costs in the future. That is why we are seeking to make that innovation. <BR /> <BR />I also had a conversation a couple of years ago with a district judge from inner London who is responsible for family courts there. The judge was specifically developing a problem-solving model to look at the needs of those with alcohol and drug dependencies in the context of the family courts. That is a massive challenge that includes significant input from people on the health and social care side as well from those in the justice system.”
“Nice try. I appreciate the point that the Member makes. The reality is that work has been ongoing in the Department of Justice and, indeed, by some of our partners across the justice system. I suspect that there may well be announcements in the fairly near future, including some that are based on discussions that I had with one of the justice agencies last week on that point. If you can calm your exuberance a little, Mr Kennedy, we may be able to show something moving on. It is not easy to reform the system in that direction. It requires considerable input from the judiciary, from a variety of agencies and from the management of the Courts and Tribunals Service, and it costs money to make some of the changes.”
“The most fascinating bit for me was that I had the opportunity to sit on the bench in Manhattan. I am not sure what court rules on allowing strangers to sit on the bench are like in New York, but I sat beside the judge as the judge dealt with a string of relatively minor offenders and did detailed case management. That was supporting the work being done by others — the equivalent of our probation service — who were managing the day-to-day work with offenders through a regular review and by ensuring that matters were not left to go wrong. That is an excellent example of how judicial case management can add significantly to work being done and how problem-solving has a part to play.”
“I certainly welcome the support that came from all sides of the Chamber. <BR /> <BR />It was noticeable in particular that Messrs Ross, Maginness and Kennedy all took the opportunity to tell us how impressed they were by their trip to Red Hook community court in Brooklyn. I am afraid that I will have to upstage them slightly and say that, three years ago, I had the opportunity to sit in Red Hook community court and speak to some of the staff there. I also visited the Midtown Community Court in Manhattan and, indeed, the court in Washington DC, and I saw similar work being done in all three. Given the snow that was around at the time that the three representatives of the Committee visited, if they had gone to Washington, they might never have got back, so it is probably as well that they did not.”
“I really do not think there is anything that needs to be said in response to add to what the Chair and I said at the start of the debate. <BR /> <BR />There is clearly a very significant issue in the amendments that were outlined by Mr Ross and the very specific support for the concept of problem-solving and finding different ways of courts operating.”
“I was not sure that I was quite accurate, but clearly I was prescient when I started off my remarks by referring to the significant agreement on the measures that were introduced by the Department — at least, in this group of amendments — and the acceptance that there had been in the Committee of the amendments that were put forward by me to tidy up matters, particularly as they were raised during Committee discussions. It is very noticeable that hardly anything was said about the substance of the original proposals or the amendments that came forward to them from the Department. It is clear that that reflects the good work that was done by my officials, before they got to Committee Stage and in conjunction with the Committee and its officials.”
“I will try not to be like a jack-in-the-box. Whilst the provision says that the Department "may designate civil servants", there is no provision for anybody other than a civil servant to be designated.”
“This is primary legislation, which can be changed only by the will of the Assembly to move away from collection officers being civil servants in the Department. Therefore, there is no prospect of that change happening without the will of the Assembly changing. I suspect that the Members sitting to my right in the Chamber imagine that they would have a veto over such changes and, indeed, those sitting behind me would also wish to oppose such changes.”
“I was merely quoting Mr Lynch, more or less.”
“So it is not merely a matter of whether a future wicked right-wing Minister, unlike the good liberal Justice Minister that we have at present, changes the regs. It would be the Assembly —”
“I appreciate the Member's giving way. Clause 2(1) says:”
“On a point of accuracy: at times, fine defaulters may have involved one third of admissions, but, given the relatively short time that they spend in custody, they have never been one third of the prison population.”
“<BR /> <BR />I agree with Alastair Ross that there are many different ways forward that we should explore. We can be more creative, and we can look to community and problem-solving solutions. I will be keen to hear the comments that he will make during the debate today, following up the comments that he has made in other circumstances and, indeed, comments made at some of the series of seminars that have been run by the Committee. I trust that the assurances that I give of work being progressed in the Department, building on the OECD report, will ensure that he does not feel the need to press his amendment today, on the basis that the principle is accepted, and we need to work to see that better. <BR /> <BR />That concludes my comments, at this stage, on the first group of amendments.”
“At the Justice Committee last week, the Chair referred to opportunities to look at different delivery models. While that is most welcome, it was a pressing need anyway, and the forthcoming OECD report, also referenced in the Fresh Start deal, will, I trust, have some interesting things to say to all of us. I have asked my Department to be involved in the OECD study, and I was grateful that one of the case studies in that process has looked at problem-solving approaches for justice. We should await the publication of that report, but I can say to the Chair and to members of the Committee that it is very much in line with my thinking and progress being made in the Department. If the political will is there to work differently for better outcomes, Justice will play its role in that.”
“I welcome that interest from the Chair and the Committee, and I would like to see more work done in the future to explore the benefits of such an approach for our justice system. However, I doubt if any existing problem-solving system can be applied here without great thought and very significant political commitment. I say that because, as the amendment recognises, many of the problems in society that bring people into the justice system will require commitment from Health, Education and, sometimes, other partners as well. The development of a Programme for Government for the next mandate is the opportunity to think strategically about the outcomes that we want for society, and I believe that problem-solving approaches will have a role to play in that. <BR /> <BR />I am not coming to this from a standing start.”
“Given the time available for the Bill’s remaining stages, it would not be possible to undertake and complete such preparatory work and make appropriate provision in regard to the Bill. I am, however, very interested in broader problem-solving and community approaches, and I know that the Chair is too. He is at least as interested in the new opportunities as I am, and, for example, he spoke of it during my Justice Committee appearance last week when we were discussing court estates. <BR /> <BR />Problem-solving approaches are in place in other jurisdictions, including other common law jurisdictions, and I know that the Chair paid particular interest to those points.”
“<BR /> <BR />I am aware that arrangements exist in New South Wales, whereby persons who are suffering from mental health or drug or alcohol addiction problems can engage in certain courses or treatment as a means of satisfying the fine, but that is not an aspect that is associated with fine enforcement arrangements elsewhere in the United Kingdom or Ireland or, indeed, in any other jurisdiction of which I am aware. <BR /> <BR />While I understand the rationale behind, and have some sympathy with, the proposal, particularly as I share the Chair’s belief that there are benefits in tailoring court disposals to the individual's particular circumstances, I believe that further research and considerable policy development and consultation would be required to evaluate the merits of that approach and to identify any resource implications.”
“I expect that the impact of the making of a bank account order on a debtor’s dependants would be a relevant consideration. I, therefore, oppose the amendments. <BR /> <BR />I also note the Committee’s amendments to create a power to allow an offender to clear a fine through addiction or mental health treatment through the creation of a work development and rehabilitation of debtors scheme and work development and rehabilitation of debtors orders. Unlike community-based sentences, by which a court may include requirements as to treatment for drug or alcohol dependency or as to mental condition, the imposition of a fine by a court is not designed to have a rehabilitative aspect. It is, rather, a pecuniary penalty imposed on an offender on conviction.”
“Nor do I think that the Members' amendments to clauses 15 and 17, which relate to the making of bank account orders, are needed. Where, rarely, an interim order is imposed under clause 15, only the amount of the outstanding fine will be frozen in the person's account. We do not want, nor will we seek, to have an offender's full assets frozen. Where an interim order is in force, in cases of hardship, clause 16 enables the debtor to make an application to have moneys released for essentials. Only the court will be able to impose a full bank account order, under clause 17, and an order will also only be made in respect of an account in the offender's own name; joint accounts will not be frozen.”
“<BR /> <BR />I have already outlined some of the protections around the use of the vehicle seizure powers. I imagine that such orders will be made rarely and, before doing so, a court must consider all the circumstances to be satisfied that making the order is justified, reasonable and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case. There will be full judicial oversight of the use of the order, and I believe that that is most important. The court will, as a matter of course, hear any representations made by, or on behalf of, the debtor and is likely to take into account the impact of making the order on the debtor's children or adult dependants. <BR /> <BR />I fully understand the intention behind the proposed amendments to clauses 6 and 18, but I do not believe that they are necessary.”
“A better solution is that set out in the Bill: that DSD, rather than the court or the collection officer, is best placed to determine whether to grant an application on the basis of the debtor's relevant benefit status. <BR /> <BR />In addition, clause 11 provides for detailed regulations to be made by DSD in relation to deductions from benefits that will include further safeguards by ensuring that payment from deductions for fines and other penalties will be placed sixth in the priority list for collection, behind housing and heating needs, for example, and only from certain income-related benefits. Those are income support, jobseeker's allowance, state pension credit and employment support allowance. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments to clauses 4 and 10.”
“Rather, the collection officer will apply to DSD, and an application may be rejected if DSD determines that an offender’s income is too low for a deduction for payment of a fine or other penalty to be made or if the offender already has the maximum number of deductions in place. <BR /> <BR />The Members' proposed amendment to clause 10 would require the court or collection officer to make a judgment on the debtor's benefit status and on the effect of a deduction, the level of which the court or collection officer is not responsible for setting, before making the application to DSD. That does not sound terribly practicable to me.”
“<BR /> <BR />Those are not novel proposals, as provision for fines and other financial penalties are simply being added to the list of debts or charges that are already capable of being collected from benefits through the statutory third-party deduction scheme operated by the Department for Social Development. There are a number of safeguards in that scheme that ensure that essential living expenses are protected; place limits on the number of deductions that can be taken at any time; and establish a maximum financial limit that can be deducted per week. The provisions in the Bill do not alter any of those safeguards. The collection officer will not be able simply to impose on the debtor a deduction from benefits.”
“<BR /> <BR />More generally, on default, collection officers will liaise with debtors to explore the person's income status, including living costs, other outgoings and number of dependants, as well as employment and/or benefits status, bank accounts and vehicle ownership and, in the first instance, will be able to grant extensions of time to pay or facilitate payments by instalments. If those measures do not prove successful, the collection officer can select an appropriate enforcement action, including exploring an application for deductions from benefits. Again, the intention is that deductions will be progressed with the offender's consent in the first instance, although consent will not be required if it is clear that they are not engaging with the collection process.”
“Subsection (2)(b) of clause 4, however, provides that that may only be done with the debtor’s consent. I understand the intention behind the proposed amendment to clause 4, but I hope the fact that the debtor's consent is required in that instance, together with the fact that a court would, as a matter of course, consider any representations made by, or on behalf of, a debtor in deciding whether an application for deductions is the right option, provides Mr McCartney with some reassurance. Again, I suggest that the amendment is unnecessary.”
“It is important to note that the new fine collection arrangements will be administered by collection officers in the fine collection and enforcement service. Under clause 2 of the Bill as it stands, collection officers must be civil servants from the Department. I do not intend to outsource these functions to any other body and, therefore, I am happy to give Mr McCartney and his colleagues that assurance. On that basis, I do not think that the proposed amendment to clause 2 is necessary. <BR /> <BR />Under clause 4, when making a collection order, a court may, if it thinks it appropriate, having first considered other available options such as granting time to pay or payment by instalments, order the collection officer to make an application for a deduction of benefits from the debtor.”
“<BR /> <BR />I now wish to address first those amendments tabled by Mr McCartney, Mr Lynch and Ms McGahan and then those tabled by the Chair of the Committee for Justice. The first set of amendments are, I understand, designed to introduce protections to ensure that the fine collection arrangements cannot be outsourced to private agencies and to ensure that payment of a fine by deductions from benefits, bank account order or by vehicle seizure will not adversely impact on children or adult dependants of a debtor or extend the sanction to dependants of the debtor. I believe that the significant number of safeguards inherent in the provisions of the Bill already, supplemented by the amendments I am bringing forward today, make those Members’ amendments unnecessary.”
“<BR /> <BR />Amendment Nos 33 and 77 to clause 24 and schedule 2 respectively then address omissions from the Bill at introduction to ensure that a supervised activity order cannot be considered as an option in default of a confiscation order given that, under clause 3(2), a confiscation order is outwith the proposed new collection and enforcement arrangements and to ensure that a warrant of commitment for default under the Bill is treated the same as a similar warrant under the Magistrates’ Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. Finally in respect of Part 1 and associated schedules to the Bill, amendment Nos 4 to 7, No 21, No 23, No 32, Nos 34 to 36, Nos 74 to 76 and No 78 are all minor and technical amendments to correct and improve the drafting of the Bill. That concludes my amendments to Part 1 and schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill.”
“<BR /> <BR />My next amendment in this group is amendment No 79, which makes an adjustment to schedule 2 to the Bill to bring the prosecutorial fine provisions created by the Justice Act 2015 into the new fine collection and enforcement arrangements. This amendment will allow prosecutorial fines to be enforced in the same way as other fixed penalties and penalty notices already included in the schedule and reflects my original policy intent. Prosecutorial fines could not be included in the Bill at introduction, however, as the Justice Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, which created the new disposal, had not by then received Royal Assent.”
“<BR /> <BR />We intend to bring forward similar legislative provision to allow Revenue and Customs to share financial information with the court or collection officer for the purpose of deciding to make, or the making of, an attachment of earnings order. It was not possible to bring such a provision forward in this Bill because, as the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 is a reserved matter, conferring power on HMRC to share information cannot be done through Assembly legislation and so we must do it through Westminster. My officials are, therefore, working with their counterparts in the Ministry of Justice to progress a similar amendment through Westminster with a view to having the necessary provisions in place to coincide with the coming into operation of the relevant parts of this Bill.”
“I now move on to amendment No 22, which introduces a new clause 12A to provide for information sharing by the Department for Social Development with a court to support the provisions in the Bill that require offenders to provide income information to collection officers, so that the most appropriate collection option can be chosen. This amendment, together with consequential amendment Nos 1 and 30, will help avoid the situation whereby a collection officer can be frustrated in their attempts to secure income details where the debtor has failed to engage with the court or collection officer. It will allow the Department for Social Development to share social security information with the court or a collection officer so that the best and most appropriate use can be made of the power to make an application for deduction from benefits.”
“It is considered that existing provisions do not allow for the recovery of these summons server fees, currently set at £13 per summons. The costs are, instead, incurred by the Department, and, in the 18 months since default hearings have been implemented, costs have exceeded £350,000. Given the cost associated with personal service, I believe that the fee should be recoverable against the defaulter in appropriate circumstances. New clause 9D will allow the court to order the recovery of the costs of bringing a person back to court for the purpose of dealing with his default, where the court considers that that is appropriate.”
“However, the power, should it be needed, ought to be available to maintain the integrity of the fine collection and default hearing process as a deterrent to those who are aware that they have to pay but might seek to frustrate the process and cannot be dealt with otherwise. My amendment Nos 16, 17 and 18, together with consequential amendment Nos 10, 15, and 26, will enable that to occur. <BR /> <BR />Amendment No 19 introduces new clause 9D to allow for the recovery of the costs of default hearings. Current practice is that fine default notices are served by post in the first instance before progressing to personal service by a summons server if postal service has been unsuccessful.”
“There are four factors: that there is no proof of service of the summons, nor that the defaulter is evading service, but the court is satisfied that a reasonable attempt has been made to serve the summons on the debtor; when the court is satisfied that the defaulter knows of the penalty and the possible consequences of not paying; when the court is considering the possibility of committing the defaulter to prison for failure to pay; or when the court is satisfied that issuing a warrant for the debtor's arrest, instead of reissuing the summons, is proportionate to the objective of securing the debtor's appearance before the court. <BR /> <BR />At the end of the new collection process, which will already have seen a series of collection options considered, the number of non-attenders at fine default hearings should be low.”