| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Swayne: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
5 pm
Mr. Forth: I will, but I hope that my hon. Friend's point is relevant.
Mr. Swayne: I believe that it is. I follow my right hon. Friend's logic, and he is making a powerful case, but I have a difficulty in principle with the amendment. Reducing the punishment for the first offence sends a powerful signal, but dealing effectively with first offences will mean that there will be no subsequent offences. That is known currently as zero tolerance. Is not the amendment offensive to the public desire for zero tolerance?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend hits me on a vulnerable spot. That is why I said a moment ago that I was grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I still believe in capital punishment, although I did not seek to include such a provision in the Bill. I believe that harsh penalties are desirable, but my argument in this case is different. I am sure that the Minister is a modernist to his fingertips, and the more modern approach is to introduce an escalation in the penalties available. The penalty for the first offence would therefore be relatively low, but the penalties would escalate for subsequent offences.
I understand that my hon. Friend may want to argue differently, as may my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border, but I hope that I have at least set the scene and posed the important questions. I hope also that the Minister will tell the House how he sees the relationships between the trade, the income accruing to traders, and the penalties that he believes will be effective.
A further matter is crucial to the question of penalties. If the Minister cannot satisfy us that the police will be able to apprehend traders under the provisions of the Bill, there is little point in a discussion of appropriate penalties, as no penalties will be imposed if wrongdoers are not caught. The Bill wants to apply the legal framework that obtains outside royal parks to people who trade within such parks. I therefore hope that the Minister will tell the House how it is that people outside royal parks will be able to trade freely, while those inside the parks will not.
A series of interconnected questions are implied by this apparently innocent amendment. They must be answered before we move on.
Mr. Maclean: I approach the question of the fine level from an angle that is slightly different from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I appreciate the argument that a lower fine might be acceptable for a first offence than for subsequent offences. My right hon. Friend advanced a powerful case for that principle, but because we do not know what the consequences of any fine will be, it is difficult to know whether the fine should be set at level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5.
Mr. Swayne: For those of us who are not familiar with criminal activity and who therefore have not memorised the scale of fines, will my right hon. Friend spell out what the levels of fine would mean to the ordinary vendor?
Mr. Maclean: I was going to set out the consequences in cash terms of the various standard fine levels, but I hope that I will not be out of order if I challenge my hon. Friend's statement that he has not come into contact with the criminal law. I seem to remember hearing him tell the House one Friday that he had once been thrown out of a public house and arrested because it had been alleged that he looked too young. Apparently, he was cleared because although he looked excessively young, he was old enough to be there. Nevertheless I trust that that was his only experience of the criminal law.
Amendment No. 1 would substitute for level 3, which carries a fine of £1,000, level 2 which carries a fine of £500. The Bill would delete level 1, which carries a fine of £200--it would replace a fine of £200 with one of £1,000. That increase is a little excessive and I recommend a maximum fine of £500 as an alternative. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst would increase the fine from £200 to £500 for a first offence and up to £1,000 for a subsequent offence.
I have outlined the main point that we have to consider when we examine the amendments. At least, it is the main point until we consider the fundamental question whether the penalties are at appropriate levels, bearing in mind the income of the perpetrators of the offences. My right hon. Friend reminded the House of that. It is alleged that beggars on the streets of London--we will not discuss their nationality; we went down that route a few years ago--can make £200 or £300 a day if they are in the right spot and bring the right sort of children or dogs with them. Current penalties for beggars or vagrants are inadequate because those people's income is infinitely greater than the penalties they incur if they face court and the rigours of the law.
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch): Has my right hon. Friend any information about the number of occasions on which the maximum permissible fine is imposed by magistrates under the current system?
Mr. Maclean: That is a valid question. It is highly unusual for the maximum penalty to be imposed in any circumstances--for first, second or even subsequent offences. Before a magistrates court imposes a maximum sentence, it has to be satisfied about the financial worth of the relevant individual and the gravity of the offence.
For the benefit of the House, I have brought a copy of Anthony and Berryman's "Magistrates' Court Guide 2000". The section that refers to sentencing principles for
the magistrates court, especially the paragraph that relates to determining the amount of a fine, is relevant. However, it would be premature to pursue that in my opening remarks. My hon. Friend has led me further ahead than I wish to be at this stage.Before we can determine the maximum penalties, we must have some idea of the level of the criminality and the nature and extent of the profit that the alleged criminals make. We did not have the benefit of Second Reading because the Government played the trick of convening a Second Reading Committee. It would have been a simple matter to arrange a debate of two or three hours on the Floor of the House--a proper Second Reading, which Bills normally receive. That would have saved us exploring the issues now in the amendments that we had to table.
We need to know roughly the income of the offenders and to ascertain the inadequacy of the current criminal law. We have read in newspapers general allegations that parks police do not find it worth while to prosecute offenders because when offenders are taken to court the penalty is apparently inadequate and they are back on the street the same afternoon or the next day, carrying on their trade and making more money.
I have heard that said and I have read it. I have not received any briefing notes from the parks police or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to confirm that it is a problem; but if it is and if people are going through the courts on a revolving door basis--paying an inadequate fine and trading again the next day--the House is right to deal with it and the Minister is right to build that provision into the Bill so that we can determine the appropriate level of fine and the confiscation provisions. We will debate those provisions later.
We are determining what are the appropriate sanctions to be imposed on individuals. The Bill has a twin-track approach: there is a fine or penalty in court and there is confiscation of equipment or non-perishable assets.
Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is seeking to establish a link between the scale of the fines and the gravity of the offence--this is intellectually relevant. I wonder whether he can clarify for the benefit of the House whether he thinks that the principle determinant of the gravity of the offence is the extent of the profits or the potency, on a third offence, of the smell.
Mr. Maclean: It is difficult for me to answer that question. The right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) has said that one of the principal purposes of the Bill is to deal with offensive smells coming from hamburger or hot-dog stalls, and that view has been confirmed in some of the things that I have read or that have been said about the legislation. If that is the case, one can deal with the bad odour. If, on the other hand, the real problem is that these people are making an awful lot of money unscrupulously, illegally or without a licence, we may have to look at a different range of penalties and offences.
I suggest, Mr. Martin, that if odour is the problem and we do not want people to commit the offence again, the confiscation provisions become slightly more relevant. On the other hand, if the problem is the fact that people are making excessive profits--however the Government may
determine that--or illegal profits by trading in one of the royal parks without a proper licence, and you will be aware, Mr. Martin, that there is nothing to stop one trading in a royal park--
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has overlooked the fact that it is normal to address the Chair as Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Maclean: I am rightly chided, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For some reason, I assumed that we were in Committee--a totally wrong assumption. Of course you are Mr. Deputy Speaker and, if I may say so without sounding sycophantic, a good one at that. We always enjoy your presence in the Chair, in particular on Fridays when you show remarkable patience and tolerance.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |