These amendments are to ensure that the court requires repayment of a prohibited payment from the offender directly to the person to whom it was paid. We've tabled these amendments again, because we think it's important that there is no room for debate here; any unauthorised fees must be repaid. Now, these amendments were rejected at Stage 2 because the previous Minister said, and I quote, 

'there is an important principle we need to consider here, which is to preserve the independence of the court. They will make such an order if they consider it appropriate under the circumstances'.

Our legal advice tells us that that is not the case. Our legal note says, and I quote: there are numerous examples of strict liability offences in law whereby the court has no discretion over levels of punishment if a defendant is found guilty of the offence in question.

So, it was quite clear to us at Stage 2 that the previous Minister was using technical legal arguments to reject an amendment, as is usually the case, knowing that the committee had no recourse to challenge this. So, it does suggest that we need to change the rules of this institution so that when legal arguments are made, a break is taken so that those checks can take place. So, I'd much prefer a debate today on the principle behind the amendments, which is that people should not be profiting from an unauthorised payment and that everyone knows full well you will have to repay those fees in court.