| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
10 am
Mr. Forth: I was about to agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) but when he finished I thought, "No, this won't do at all." I shall not allow him to slip into the debate as easily as that and try to get all heads nodding by saying that any limit is better than no limit at all. He did not justify that statement, which was rather unusual of him, but left it as though it were received wisdom. Frankly, the amount of wisdom received in this place is usually pretty limited and even when it is offered by my hon. Friend, with all his legal expertise, we should at least ponder it.
We could dwell on the decision to choose a period of seven years for quite some time, although it would not be especially productive. It is always interesting to
consider why great minds alight on such periods, especially because there is ample evidence that similar offences carry rather different maximum penalties, as my hon. Friend said. I hope that the combined wit and wisdom of the Minister and the promoter of the Bill will be sufficient to explain why, if my hon. Friend's analysis is right, the provision would distinguish between offences committed under the Bill and similar offences, and why seven years was picked. A bit of an explanation of that would help us out.Why is a maximum penalty being introduced at all? I am tempted to engage in a modest dissertation on whether the House should impose maximum penalties or leave that to the discretion of the courts or the judiciary, although I shall not allow myself to do so because I could stray a little wide of the amendment. Although the amendment might appear modest, it gives rise to consideration of the complex relationship that inevitably exists between the House creating framework legislation, the role of the regulations that underpin that framework, and the judicial process.
Additional information would be useful before the House rushes headlong into accepting the amendment. What do the Minister and, perhaps more importantly, the promoter envisage as the role of the provision? To pick up on what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch said, why is there need for a maximum penalty? As I said in my intervention, which I hope will not be brushed over too lightly, why is the Bill apparently more restrictive than other measures? I assume that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) wants to assist the co-operative movement and community benefit societies, so why on earth does he apparently want to introduce lower penalties than those that might apply in the profit-making world of commercialism? I know how well qualified he is to comment on such matters, so his views would assist the House.
Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) demonstrated why it is sometimes good to step back and think for a while. As my right hon. Friend said, we sometimes consider amendments that appear harmless, and there is almost an inclination to nod them though, especially on Fridays. That is regrettable because we are, after all, making law. When our constituents write to us about our consideration of private Members' Bills, they forget that such Bills actually create law and, indeed, that some create criminal offences.
I am rather confused about how the maximum limit of seven years was decided. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch talked about sending the message that a crime against a co-operative society might be considered less important than others, although I am sure that that is not the intention of the Bill. It could be possible that committing such a crime might lead to prosecution for further offences that could invoke a longer sentence.
I am always a little surprised by the way in which society's view seems to waver on whether we should sentence more or less. I plied my trade as a retailer before coming to the House and I remember when the then shadow Home Secretary—he is the Prime Minister now—said that shoplifting was not a serious offence. I
was biased at the time, but many of us in the retail trade believe that the offence takes away profit and thus people's livelihoods. The Prime Minister made his comments at that time to imply that there would be a new, liberal regime, but things have moved on and we now have a Home Secretary who is more intent on locking people up.Perhaps the promoter of the Bill or the Paymaster General will provide us with further explanation. Financial punishments might be more appropriate for such offences, so perhaps the amendment should set out levels of fines. Are those who commit such offences the sort of people who should be sent to our already overcrowded prisons? Now is not the time for a lengthy dissertation on whether we should leave such matters to the judiciary, but I would like a little more information about how the decision to use a seven-year period was reached and whether there are any provisions for financial penalties under the Bill.
Dawn Primarolo: It is important that a society's asset lock should be sufficiently robust to provide investors and society itself with the confidence that its assets will be used only for the benefit of the community. For that reason, it may be necessary to impose criminal liability on persons breaking asset-lock regulations. Penalties are already part of the legislative framework governing societies, and are an important part of the checks and balances that protect the interests of societies, their members and those who deal with the sector. The Bill currently places no limit on the maximum penalty that can be prescribed for any criminal offences created to enforce the asset lock-in.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) raised a pertinent issue. He is wearing his United States tie—he brings it out once a year on American independence day, and I am glad to see it in the Chamber today—and made a point about balancing the rights of people in society, people who depend on its resources and, indeed, people who may break the rules, which are designed to protect members' interests. He was right to touch on that point, which was also dealt with by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It considered the delegation of powers in clause 1(5)(a), and an amendment was introduced in the other place to address its concerns by limiting the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the regulations to seven years' imprisonment.
A number of hon. Members asked why that limit was imposed. Prior to consultation, it is not certain exactly what criminal offences may be created under clause 1 (5)(a), so it is important that the maximum penalty should be sufficiently high in light of the seriousness of offences that may be created and the current maximum sentences for similarly serious offences. The maximum penalty of seven years' imprisonment is the maximum penalty for analogous offences in company law—there is no reason why people in societies should be any less protected than people protected by company law—and the law relating to charities. There are therefore examples of the seven-year penalty. For example, seven years is the maximum penalty that can be imposed on persons who are knowingly party to the carrying on of any business of a company for a fraudulent purpose. The maximum punishment for the theft of a charity's assets is seven years' imprisonment.
Those offences are comparable in seriousness to an offence that may be created in regulations made under clause 1—an officer of a society fraudulently using the assets of a society for purposes not permitted by its asset lock, whether for personal gain or otherwise. Clearly, if offences created under the regulations are less serious, that would be reflected in a lower maximum penalty. However, the amendment made in the other place represents, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested, an appropriate restraint, given those examples of analogous offences, on the delegated power to make regulations. For those reasons, I am glad to give the Government's support to the amendment, and recommend it to the House.
Mr. Todd: I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her explanation of why seven years was chosen as a maximum penalty. It raises an issue that arose earlier in our consideration of the Bill—there is a desire to place co-operative and community benefit societies on the same footing as companies in their response to threats that they may face. That has been a consistent strand in our debates, so I can understand why Lord Carter recommended, albeit hesitantly—I am sure that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) is right—acceptance of the Lords amendment.
It is also worth saying that the outcome of the consultation cannot be predicted. We are dealing with a narrow group of potential offences—they relate specifically to the abuse of an asset lock on a society, and do not generally relate to fraud in the society, which is covered by other legislation—so it is difficult to predict precisely which offences will be defined after the consultation has concluded. Flexibility is therefore needed, and it may be suggested that financial penalties are more appropriate in certain circumstances. With that in mind, I commend the amendment to the House.
Dealing in Cultural Objects (Offences) Bill
Not amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
10.15 am
Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 2, leave out from 'if' to end of line 2 and insert—
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |