Crime and Security Bill

The amendments fall into three categories. The first covers amendments 55 to 58, the second encompasses amendments 59 and 61, and the third takes in amendment 60. I shall deal with them separately. Amendments 55 to 58 are designed to alter the penalties that can be imposed in respect of offences attributable to wheel-clamping. In substance, I do not think that a sentence of imprisonment should be available in the magistrates court. So far as the Crown court is concerned, the maximum sentence should be two years, not five years. That would be the consequence of amendments 55 to 58. The justification for that view is as follows. First, we have an overburdened prison system, and we are constantly urging the courts not to send people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary. For that reason, we should be very slow to impose the potential of prison sentences for offences. These offences can be tried either summarily or on indictment. Those tried summarily—that is, in front of a magistrates court—are in my view offences that should not attract a prison sentence by definition, because they will in any event be trivial ones. However, if the prosecution authorities believe that the offence is a serious one—for example, it is a continued offence: that is, one committed previously by the organiser—that person can be tried on indictment. Although I have reservations about this, I accept that there may be some circumstances in which a prison sentence is appropriate, but it seems to me that two years rather than five are quite adequate. I have a strong suspicion that the Minister will say in response that if we look at other relevant legislation, we will find that five years is treated as the maximum for those other offences. All I would say to the Minister is that if someone sins once, it is not a reason for sinning again. I am against five years on principle, notwithstanding the fact that some previous decision might have been made in a contrary way. Amendments 59 and 61 are designed primarily to ensure that offences are committed only where there has been what lawyers describe as appropriate knowledge or mens rea. Amendment 61 deals with corporate bodies and neglect. The present drafting makes it an offence for the corporate body where there has been neglect. "Neglect" means no more than omission, which by itself, in my view, should not constitute a criminal offence. There may be circumstances where it should, but not by definition. The word "culpable" is designed to ensure that only omission or neglect that is truly criminal-worthy should be caught by the Bill. "Culpable", then, would ensure that mere oversight cannot be held to constitute a criminal offence; that is the purpose. As for amendment 59, I am basically always against strict or absolute offences, so my drafting is designed to ensure that the occupier commits an offence only if he is aware or has knowledge of the underlying facts that show that the operator is acting unlawfully. At present, the drafting allows the occupier to be held liable criminally, even in the absence of specific knowledge. It is thus a strict or absolute offence, so I am against it. Amendment 60 deals with issues of appeal. The current drafting is largely procedural. I am not saying that the requirements are exhaustive—they may not be—but what is contemplated by this part of the Bill are procedural defects. What I have in mind is that the appellate authority should be able to review on the merits whether or not the charge is appropriate. We dealt with a number of examples in Committee—some from the Liberal Democrats—of people who were marooned by snowstorms and were obliged to leave their vehicles in a particular place. A charge was levied and nobody would remove that charge, which is clearly unfair. I want to be sure that the appellate authority has the ability to form a view on the merits as to the justice or reasonableness of the levying of the charge. If the appellate authority comes to the view that it is unreasonable or unjust, it should be within its discretion to reverse the previous decision. I do not think that the Bill as drafted makes that crystal clear, and I am in favour of it so doing.