Criminal Justice Bill [back to previous text]

Mr. James Clappison (Hertsmere): I defer to those who have carried out more recent research on the subject than I have. It is clearly complex and some important legal issues arise from it. When I heard the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Bassetlaw and looked at the clause, I was surprised to see that the sentence is as low as it is. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield is right in saying that we must respond to what the courts tell us about the adequacy of sentence and to judges who feel that they do not have a sufficiently high maximum sentence available to them. Mr. Grieve: I qualify my own remarks. If nobody has ever been prosecuted for this offence, it is difficult for us to establish on a reasonable basis whether the available upper limit of sentence will ever be adequate. Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In setting maximum sentences, we must have regard to the seriousness of the mischief at which they are aimed, and to public concern. I do not know whether the trade was first made an offence in 1976. It might have been legal before, but the decision was then taken to make it a criminal offence. The time is overdue to consider setting a higher maximum sentence. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's view. I appreciate that this will probably cover a wide variety of offences. If, with a higher maximum sentence, we will attack and get at the people who are making large sums of money out of trading in endangered species, I shall be sympathetic to the spirit of the new clause. I should know more about the matter than I do; it is a serious mischief, and we shall be responding to the concern of many of our constituents. They want the House to send a signal about how seriously we regard the offence of trading in endangered species. I cannot see how making it an arrestable offence would harm the enforcement of the law. Hilary Benn: This has been an important and useful debate. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw for having initiated it by tabling the new clause. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome referred to the seizure and prosecution figures. Most of the seizures are items taken from tourists returning to the United Kingdom. In those circumstances, there is no public interest in prosecuting following seizure. It might also be helpful to the Committee to point out that the penalty for smuggling offences in relation to these species is up to seven years in prison. We are considering the current two-year penalty for trading in the species. Column Number: 1200 On arrestability, police officers can enter premises where they believe that there might be evidence only after applying for and obtaining a search warrant. In the meantime—we have had representations from the police on this matter—the individual may have the opportunity to move or conceal evidence, making it more difficult for them to be prosecuted. Making the offences arrestable in the way that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) supports would give police officers stronger powers, including, when a person is believed to have committed an arrestable offence, to enter and search their premises and seize evidence without a search warrant. There have been some prosecutions under the provisions. There are a relatively small number a year—I understand that there are fewer than 10. However, it is precisely because the Government accept the argument that there is a case for increasing the penalty, for the reason that I have explained in relation to arrestability but also because of the seriousness of the offences, that the Government have already proposed that the penalties for such offences should be increased. We published a consultation document earlier in the year but have not quite finished the period of consultation yet. However, we shall soon have a clear idea of the response to our proposal. If my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw would be prepared to withdraw the motion, we shall return to the issue on Report. Mr. Heath: I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it is important that we do not miss the boat—if that is not inappropriate—because timing is critical with regard to preparing new clauses for Report. Vehicles for such legislation do not go past very often. I worry that the matter will be pushed into a tray pending a countryside Bill or a wildlife Bill, and those, unlike Criminal Justice Bills, do not come past very often at all, as we know to our cost. The issue is urgent and critical. The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to 1976. I think that 1976 was probably the time of the enactment of legislation on the basis of CITES in 1973. However, we have not taken the issue sufficiently seriously in this country for a long time, and now there is an opportunity to do so. I welcome what has been said, but please, let us not miss the boat. Mr. Grieve: I welcome the Minister's remarks and look forward to seeing the Government's ideas on Report, to which we are likely to respond favourably. Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh): I also welcome what the Minister has said. He asked us to be patient and said that things would be forthcoming, and I think that we are all grateful for that. I happen to know that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who has had a long-standing interest in these matters too, feels especially strongly on the issue, so I am sure that he will be delighted to read in Hansard what the Minister has said. John Mann: I welcome what the Minister said. I am in such an unrebellious mood this week that I perhaps was overly brief. I should have pointed out that the penalty for smuggling, which comes under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, is seven years. In essence, we have the absurdity whereby if one is caught at Customs, there is a proper penalty, but if Column Number: 1201 one gets through and starts trading in the country, one might not even get a slap on the wrist. There are a number of notorious cases in recent years in which that has been the case. The worst example that has been highlighted was that involving the shahtoosh shawls, in which 2 per cent. of the entire world numbers of a Tibetan antelope were slaughtered and imported by one London company. Those responsible were eventually caught and were fined £1,500. That was in 2000, so the case for strengthening the law and making such offences arrestable is, in my view, proven. The others who would give evidence to that effect are the wildlife crime officers. About half of British police forces have one. I hosted a reception with them here some time ago, and their view was that if they had more power—if it was an arrestable offence—they would be able to pursue those who trade in such materials more vigorously and more effectively. Finally, I have spoken to the Indian Wildlife Board about the matter and it is in no doubt that the same gangs, particularly from the far east, who smuggle people and drugs and launder money, are also smuggling those items. It is therefore not the individual entrepreneur who is breaking the law but organised criminals. I heard what the Minister had to say. I look forward to hearing a further response at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. New clause 14 Duty of Probation Officers to consult with magistrates (No. 2) 'It shall be the duty of the chief officer of each probation area to establish consultation arrangements with local magistrates' courts committees and local communities, to assist the probation service in the performance of its duties of reducing offending and supervising offenders in the community.'.—[Mr. Allen.] Brought up, and read the First time. Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The clause would re-establish local consultation between the probation service and magistrates. It also introduces an obligation for local probation areas to consult local communities, which are generally ill-informed about the work of the probation service. The National Association of Probation Officers is quite attached to the new clause. I wonder whether the Minister will consider it to be of value. Mr. Grieve: This proposal, too, appears to have some merit. I would raise a couple of points. First, does it require to be put on a statutory basis? I would hope that it could be achieved without being spelled out in statute. Frankly, if courts are not operating such a system, they ought to. Parliament has a tendency to impose a series of burdens on organisations, and it is terribly easy for the organisations to pay lip service to them, which results in their not being particularly constructive. I would be interested to hear the Minister's views. There needs to be some liaison, but I question whether it needs to be put on a statutory footing. Column Number: 1202 Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North for allowing us, with new clause 14 and other new clauses that we shall debate later, to debate other issues linked to the Bill. I hope to find considerable common ground on some of those issues, and that many other hon. Members will be able to join a constructive debate. I am absolutely clear that local liaison between the probation service, the courts and the local community needs to be improved. I am on record as saying that we may need to put it on a statutory footing, but I want to paint a slightly different picture, and I want a sort of Second Reading debate on this sub-issue in the hope that we might be able to get something on the statute book. It seems to me that four relevant agencies have a duty to be accountable to the local community; and then there is local government. I start with local government. The hon. Gentleman says that we need to establish consultation arrangements with local communities, and we shall come in a moment to new clause 15 and other linked issues. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which was generally welcomed, established the crime and disorder partnerships, which work well. They certainly work better than the previous non-existent structures. I can speak only from personal experience of London, but the Solicitor-General, I and others in our borough participated in the local police and community consultative group, which was set up somewhat belatedly after the Scarman inquiry into the Brixton riots. That scheme was eventually rolled out and used in every London borough. The three MPs in my borough are members as of right of that body; it also includes representatives of the local authority, and others are elected to it from community groups. It is a good forum, but it is better now that it is more formal. A councillor has that responsibility, but it is not a party political matter. Under Labour and Liberal Democrat Administrations, a councillor has been responsible for community safety and for leading the police-council interface and the coalition of collaboration. That is very welcome. 3.15 pm The first stakeholder—that is the word of the decade—to be included in the consultative structure is the local authority. The second group is the probation service, which has a hugely important role. To be honest, no ordinary member of the public will know who runs the local probation service; no one would know where to find the probation office; and the service is never publicly held to account in the same way as the local authority. In an earlier debate about the probation service, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome argued that community service should be more visible. He did not mean that people doing community service should be marked with their prison numbers, like prisoners on a day out, but that those supervising them should have something on their donkey jacket or whatever they are wearing which signifies that those Column Number: 1203 people are doing community service as a punishment but also as a community benefit. I am keen to increase that sort of accountability. The probation service is increasingly organised in a way that is at least compatible with the principal local authority boundaries. I guess that that is the case in Leeds and other counties, including the county that includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. One can find the local authority parallel. The third group of stakeholders is those who run the courts. My one suggestion to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the structure should not include only those who run magistrates courts. The Government are now reforming the courts system to ensure an integrated administration for magistrates and Crown courts. I support that, although I am uncomfortable about the way in which it is likely to roll out, because of the danger that it might close the local magistrates courts—I would not support that. The court system needs to be accountable, but that should apply to all the courts. To take the borough that I know best, it would be nonsense for only magistrates courts to liaise when the Southwark, Blackfriars and Inner London Crown courts clearly play a big part in the process. That would apply whether it was a permanent Crown court or one of the occasional Crown courts sitting in the area. The fourth group that should be involved is the police service, which is responsible for enforcing the law. The police are already in the system, because they liaise with the local authority in most areas, including your area, Mr. Cran, I imagine. Of those four groups—the police, the probation service, the courts and the Prison Service—the best known would be the local chief constable, commander or chief superintendent, to whom the public would look. It is normally that person who appears at public meetings or on a public platform, if people want to know about law and order and crime. The last group—they may not exist in every area, but if they do they should be involved—are those who run the Prison Service institutions. The constituency of the hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) includes Nottingham jail. I am not sure about the boundaries in Leeds, but I guess that Armley prison may be in the Minister's constituency. Wherever there is a big prison, whether it is open or secure, a young offenders institution or whatever, there is a public interest in what happens, whether it is successful, whether people are secure in it, whether they go out for day release and so on. My variation on the theme of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North is that the consultation arrangements ought to be between the five agencies—four law enforcement and criminal justice agencies and the local authorities.

©Parliamentary copyright 2003	Prepared 27 February 2003