|
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold) (Con): I apologise to my hon. Friend for walking in in the middle of his speech—he may have already covered the point that I am about to make. He has huge experience of imposing a level of fines for a whole range of offences. Would he not take into account that some relatively serious offences carry a fine of only a few hundred pounds? One has to justify the level of seriousness of the offence against other possible offences for which a fine is levied. On that scale, these figures are unduly harsh.
Mr. Malins: My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I will draw one or two of his sentiments into some of my remarks.
The top level fine is £2,500. The problem is the same when one sits in the magistrates court—95 per cent. of people appearing have not got a bean. I tease the Government, but it is all very well their saying last
Column Number: 183
week that they will introduce a wonderful new fining system in the magistrates courts and treble fines from £5,000 to £15,000. Big deal. I do not think that a fine of £5,000 has been imposed in a magistrates court for the past 20 years, so what is the point of raising it to £15,000?
Can the Minister tell me today how many fines in the past five years have been imposed up to the maximum in a magistrates court? I bet him something that he would like to receive as a wager that there have been fewer than, to use his words, the number of fingers on his hand. In fairness, he said that in relation to Government amendments, and we know that two are coming forward at the moment with three to come. However, he has got my point.
A fine of £5,000 has never been imposed; it is as simple as that. I make the point again that even if it had been imposed, 95 per cent. of people in magistrates courts have not got a bean. I would guess that the average fine in a magistrates court is £50, £60 or £70. The average person in a magistrates court is vulnerable, dispossessed and inadequate. We cannot fine those people £5,000, let alone £15,000. That relates distinctly to my next point. Who are the people who will get this wrong—I was about to say ''commit a crime''? The answer is the inadequate.
4.15 pm
I venture to suggest that when the Minister and I find out that we are required to do something under the clause, we will probably do it. We might read about it in a good newspaper; we might listen to the radio and take on board what is said; we might get a letter, and read and understand it; and we would know how to fill out the forms. So which people will find themselves the victims under the clause?
Mr. Allan: The hon. Gentleman and the Minister will never be subject to the clause, because they will have applied for a passport. The sanction for them will be not obtaining it, so they will go and get it. The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful case: this clause will apply to the 20 per cent. of people who do not hold passports. The strength of his argument is that those subject to the clause are likely to be the vulnerable, the dispossessed and, in particular, the elderly.
Mr. Malins: The hon. Gentleman is precisely right. On the subject of passports, I am terrified about the Bill becoming law, because my wife has lost the entire family's passports on three separate foreign holidays in the past 10 years.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: That is three lots of identity cards.
Mr. Malins: I know; that would be £7,500. But the Minister understands that I am making a serious point.
Of course, there is another side of the issue that is very important. If the maximum fine is £2,500, and Bill Gates or some billionaire—or even, say, a rich drugs baron—does not co-operate in any respect with the
Column Number: 184
provisions, they will not find the odd £2,500 any trouble at all. It would be absolute pocket money, unless they are fined on a repeat basis. The Minister could tell us about that. What would it be: once a month, or once a fortnight?
Some planning laws—I am not very good at planning—impose a daily penalty. My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) will correct me if I am wrong. I am not even sure that £2,500 a day would be a penalty to some of the richest in the world. I venture to suggest that, for a rich drug dealer or someone with a lot of backing who has evil intent, even 10 times £2,500 a year is neither here nor there. The Minister may say that that is an argument to say that the maximum penalty should be greater. We come to an issue that is very important, and that I think we will discuss later: there is no provision at all—[Interruption.] I have lost the attention of the Committee, with the exception of my hon. Friends.
The Chairman: Order. I know that we have been sitting for nearly two hours now, but it is only about 40 minutes until our comfort break, so I beg the indulgence of Committee Members. If they must have sedentary conversations, could they keep their voices down, please?
Mr. Malins: What I say is particularly true given that there is no provision that I can see, in this clause or later, for the Secretary of State to take into account the means of the person who pays the penalty.
I understand that the person who imposes the penalty will have to be a junior official at the Home Office. Goodness knows what criteria they will use to impose the penalty. The whole of the Government's current thinking on fines appears to be that they are to be paid according to the means of the person concerned, and that is a throwback, as far as I can see, to the old unit fine days of 1992 and 1993. Such fines were introduced, I think, by my own party, and were an absolute disaster. I have never known such a hopeless policy. Well, that is the end of my career.
John Robertson: That sums up the hon. Gentleman's party.
Mr. Malins: I am far too kind to respond to that; I take such comments on the chin. However, the Minister knows that I approach these matters honestly, and the truth is that it was not a good policy and it was eventually dropped, as it should have been.
The Minister also knows that the current position in our courts is that those who impose fines take into account people's means. There are problems with blanket fines because many people do not even turn up to court to say what their means are.
Mr. Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Malins: Of course I will; I was drawing to a conclusion anyway.
Column Number: 185
Mr. Browne: In that case, I am sorry that I have given the hon. Gentleman the oxygen of an intervention. However, he might like to look at clause 36, as it deals with all the issues that he is concerned about.
Mr. Malins: Clause 35 deals with appeals against penalties.
Mr. Browne: Clause 36.
Mr. Malins: That is about codes of practice on penalties. I have not seen a code of practice yet; I am dealing with clause 6. We can discuss codes of practice in due course.
The Minister draws my attention to clause 36, and perhaps he is not wrong to do so. However, there is a very good argument for challenging the size of the penalties in clause 6. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants expressed strong views about the clause and the penalties on behalf of the people for whom it cares. It states:
''The bill appears to presume that the imposition of penalties on foreign nationals who fail to obtain the correct documentation is justified because such behaviour would arise solely because of a desire on the part of the foreign national to evade immigration controls.
However, there is now evidence that the difficulties in obtaining proper documentation arise because of the actions of unscrupulous employers, gang masters, and others seeking to exploit vulnerable groups of workers.''
It also states:
''The threat of punitive action by the immigration authorities against some groups of migrants for their failure or inability to obtain the correct documentation is used as an instrument to strengthen the grip of the most exploitative employers over the workers concerned, and therefore runs counter to the government's intention of combating the exploitation of the immigrant labour force.''
When the JCWI recommends a review of the level of the penalties for non-compliance, it makes points that have not so far been raised in our debate. Although the penalties are not mandatory, it thinks that if they were imposed—by magistrates, for example—at a significant proportion of the maximum level, they would be disproportionate in respect of the earnings of many migrant workers, particularly those arriving under the sector-based scheme. They may fail to comply with registration requirements purely through oversight. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) wish to intervene? No, he chooses only to make comments from a sedentary position. As the days and hours pass by, we will look forward to hearing lengthy contributions from the hon. Gentleman. He has not yet been able to contribute at any great length.
Mr. Stephen McCabe (Birmingham, Hall Green): On a point of order, Ms Anderson. For clarity, I should state that there is a parliamentary convention that normally prohibits Parliamentary Private Secretaries from contributing in proceedings such as these. Obviously, I would not want to breach that, but if the hon. Gentleman is inviting me to disregard it, I would seek your guidance.
Column Number: 186
The Chairman: That is not a matter for the Chair, but Mr. Malins may wish to respond.
Mr. Malins: Yes, I do. I held that position many years ago, and I have a funny feeling that the hon. Gentleman may be right, and if he is right I offer him my unreserved apologies. However, there was also a convention in those days that Parliamentary Private Secretaries did not make sedentary interventions, although it may well be the case that that convention has lapsed.
I know that the Minister will take on board the spirit with which I made my remarks, and I will now conclude.
| 
