| Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
|
|
The Chairman: I am sure that Prynne, Bastwick, Valentine, Holles and Burton will be posthumously happy of the mention that they had. Mr. Sayeed: The amendments would strike out the regulations that provide for an offence under the Bill to be punishable by imprisonment. That leaves fining as the only penalty. I examined the fines in the Criminal Justice Act 1991, section 17(2) of which showed that the maximum fine on the standard scale for a level 5 offence is £5,000. My question is slightly different from those in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin). If the cost of non-compliance is less than the cost of compliance, will that not encourage authorities not to comply? Should there not be a greater degree of flexibility that both allows for inflation and ensures that the penalty for not complying is greater than the imposition for complying? That would mean that fewer fines would be charged because people would comply. Norman Baker: The hon. Gentleman's last point is valid, and he will see that amendments have been tabled on that important theme. A calculation has to be made, and the Minister may recall that I made that general point about the costs of compliance versus non-compliance on Second Reading. I have some sympathy for the points made by the hon. Member for Leominster about the length of the prison sentences and whether imprisonment is an appropriate sanction. The Government have presided over a massive increase in the prison population, and we now have more than 70,000 people in prison in this country, which is up from about 42,000 in 1990. It is the second largest prison population per head of population in Europe. Successive Home Secretaries, both Labour and Conservative, have indicated that they wish to prevent minor offences from resulting in prison sentences. There is considerable evidence from the criminal justice system that short prison sentences do not work; they are counter-productive and clog up the system. If we put somebody in prison, it should be for a serious offence—perhaps one attracting a sentence of four years or more. It does not seem to be sensible to put somebody in prison for three months—which means six weeks with good behaviour—for an offence under this clause. It is important that the individual responsible for any activity that is illegal under these clauses be held personally responsible. It is not sufficient for an individual knowingly to commit an offence and for the waste disposal authority to pick up the fine and to be held responsible. If an individual commits an offence, that individual should be held responsible. Can the Minister clarify how the fine regime will be applied? Will it apply to the individual responsible, or is the fine going to be levied against the waste disposal authority? Employees will be less concerned about the consequences of their actions if the authority is picking up the bill. Could the Minister also set out what sort of offences he anticipates will result in the maximum two years' imprisonment, referred to in subsection (6)? It is important that there be individual responsibility, but it is also important that we do not send people to prison for minor offences. Column Number: 090 Mr. Meacher: I recognise the concerns that have been expressed. We do not wish the penalties to be more draconian than is necessary to achieve compliance. As in all such circumstances, we hope that the penalties will not have to be used. I very much agree with the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. The penalty for non-compliance must exceed the cost of compliance if we are to tilt the market in order to ensure that compliance occurs naturally. That will come up later, as the hon. Member for Lewes said. As the Bill is implementing an EC obligation, the maximum penalty provided for in clause 8 reflects those that are permitted under the European Communities Act 1972, which are the maximum that regulations could provide for offences. In England, it will be for the Secretary of State to provide in regulations the level of penalties that will be applied to any offence created under clauses 6 and 7, depending on the nature of the offence. The hon. Member for Lewes asked about the types of offence, and I shall come to that. One example of the type of offence that might be created under the Bill would be the offence of knowingly or recklessly providing false or misleading information to the monitoring authority. That is a serious offence if an individual gains financially, or if there is a political gain. The creation of offences will be subject to consultation. There are precedents in other legislation for that type of offence to be punishable by imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or by a fine or by both, although that is not to say that we are going to utilise those penalties. However, there is precedent in the 1972 Act. I hope that hon. Members will agree that in extreme cases such offences could be serious. Mr. Hayes: The Minister is making a compelling case to the effect that it would be an exceptional circumstance, but he has not been clear about who would be liable. Would it be the councillor, the chairman of the committee, the whole council or the officer responsible for maintaining the records? Clarity on such matters is most important. Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for Leominster raised that point with some facetiousness. Mr. Sayeed: Humour. Mr. Meacher: Well, I noticed that he said it with a great smile on his face. [Interruption.] No, it is a serious point. The answer is that everything would depend on exactly what the felony was and who was directly responsible—whether it was councillors, the chair of the committee, the leader of the council or officials, for example.
10.15 amGregory Barker: Would I not be right in thinking that if an official or a councillor willingly manipulated information for financial gain, that would already be covered by criminal law under fraud or a similar offence? We are really talking about political advantage. I wonder whether that sets a worrying precedent, especially for the current Administration. Mr. Meacher: I shall sidestep the not very telling point that the hon. Gentleman made at the end of his Column Number: 091 intervention. On the substantive question of whether the matter is already covered by legislation, any official or councillor who acts corruptly is of course subject to legislation and proper penalties. However, the Bill introduces new administrative provisions that will not automatically be covered by existing legislation. If one requires councillors or officials to act in a particular way, it is important to attach penalties to those new requirements. That is the purpose of the provision.Mr. Sayeed: I understand that there need to be penalties; the question is whether imprisonment needs be a part of that penalty, which is the thrust of the amendment. Although I am not aware of it, there may be a precedent in similar but not exactly the same circumstances. Could the Minister tell us whether there is such a precedent? If there is already a precedent that has worked well, there might be no need to press the amendment to a vote, at least as far as I am concerned. Mr. Meacher: My understanding is that there is a precedent. I cannot quote it, but the means to do so might shortly be made available to me. I believe that the situation is not unique and not without precedent. I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that although there is no doubt that a penalty is necessary, the question is whether that should include imprisonment. That is a matter of judgment, but we have said that the question of penalties will be subject to consultation. We do not say that a person who knowingly or recklessly provides false or misleading information will automatically be subject to imprisonment, although we do not wish to exclude that possibility. It is probably best to leave the matter to later consultation. Mr. Hayes: The Minister has made a valuable point. I shall give him a little time to consider his precedent, but it is important that he has given the Committee an assurance. The fact that the issue is not automatic and will be subject to consultation is important and should be amplified. The Minister sees imprisonment coming up in exceptional circumstances and he leaves it available as a long-stop. That is different from our sending a signal to councillors and councils that as soon as the Bill becomes law they are likely to be banged up if they get some of their returns wrong, which will be complicated, new and confusing. The Minister has been helpful on the issues of balance about how the provisions will be applied. Mr. Meacher: I am very glad to say that under the normal provision of service here I can supply some evidence of where similar penalties have a precedent. One is the Competition Act 1998, section 44(1)(a), which says:
Section 44(3)(b) states:
There are similar provisions, which I shall not read out, in the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, in Column Number: 092 chapter 41 of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and in the Charities Act 1993.Mr. Wiggin: Does the Minister accept that the Competition Act 1998, the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Charities Act 1993 all concern money? In those cases it is essential that there should be proper penalties. The Bill concerns landfill, which is a totally different subject.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 8 April 2003 |
