Clause 29 - Offences

Modern Slavery Bill – in a Public Bill Committee am 3:30 pm ar 9 Medi 2014.

Danfonwch hysbysiad imi am ddadleuon fel hyn

Amendments made: 19, in clause 29, page 22, line 8, after “19(4)” insert “or 25(4) (requirement to surrender passports)”.

This amendment is consequential on amendment 20 and is rearranging existing provision in the Bill (relating to the offence of failing to surrender a passport) without changing its effect.

Amendment 20, in clause 29, page 22, line 9, leave out “25(4)” and insert—

“(Slavery and trafficking prevention orders: requirement to provide name and address)(1)”, 21(5A), (Slavery and trafficking risk orders: requirement to provide name and address)(1) or 27(5A) (requirement to provide name and address)”.—(Karen Bradley.)

This amendment makes it an offence for a defendant to fail to give notification of the defendant‘s name or address where this requirement has been imposed as a part of a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order (or an interim order).

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I beg to move amendment 109, in clause 29, page 22, line 14, leave out “not exceeding £5,000”.

Photo of David Crausby David Crausby Llafur, Bolton North East

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 83, in clause 29, page 22, line 18, leave out from “(3)(b)” to end of line 20.

Amendment 84, in clause 29, page 22, line 20, at end add—

‘(6) The court may refer to the crown court any matter relating to the order for consideration of action by the said court under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

Clause 29 provides a list of remedies to offences that could be committed in the event of an individual breaching a slavery trafficking prevention order, an interim slavery and trafficking prevention order, a slavery and trafficking risk order, or an interim slavery and trafficking risk order. The clause contains two sets of penalties for individuals who breach those orders. A person guilty of an offence is liable

“on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years”,

and

“on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding £5,000 or both.”

I think the prison terms are a reasonable punishment for breaching an order. However, I want to test what the Minister thinks about the fine not exceeding £5,000. Amendment 109 would delete “not exceeding £5,000”, so that in theory a court could impose an unlimited fine on an individual who breached an order. People trafficking is a profitable business. Although there is the potential for custodial sentences, a fine of £5,000 seems a tad on the low side for someone who breaches an order. I would welcome hearing from the Minister why she has judged that £5,000 is a reasonable level of fine.

Amendment 83 would remove the Secretary of State’s ability to increase the fine, because if we had an unlimited fine there would be no need to increase the fine from £5,000.

Amendment 84 states:

“The court may refer to the crown court any matter relating to the order for consideration of action by the said court under Part 2 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.”

I recognise that under clause 7 we dealt with the confiscation of assets under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. However, I tabled the amendment to find out what would happen if somebody had an order placed upon them, which was then subsequently breached. As well as a prison term and a fine—currently £5,000, but if my amendment is accepted it could be an unlimited sum—would the provisions of clause 7 apply to them? If we place an order on an individual and they have not had an order for the original crime, it may be an appropriate penalty to make them potentially subject, not automatically subject, to an attack on their assets. It would be quite draconian, but the offences in question are serious.

If we are serious about reducing trafficking and having strong enforcement of the orders that the Committee has already considered and approved, we need effective measures of deterrence. I accept that a five-year or six-month prison sentence is serious, but I am not sure that the £5,000 fine is sufficient to hurt people who breach their order. I am not sure whether an attack on someone’s assets is an appropriate penalty for such an offence. As confiscations are covered in clause 7, my amendment seeks to ask that question. I would welcome the Minister’s view on the level of the fine and whether measures can be taken to attack assets in the event of a breach of any of these orders.

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department 3:45, 9 Medi 2014

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for tabling amendments 109, 83 and 84, which would remove the limit on the fine that can be imposed on summary conviction for not complying with a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order and, consequently, the ability to amend that fine. The maximum fines have been set in line with existing limits on fines commensurate with the offence committed, and are in line with those for the sexual harm prevention orders and sexual risk orders introduced in the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. To ensure that the measures can respond flexibly to future changes in sentencing policy, the clause also provides for the Secretary of State to  amend or remove the maximum amount of the fine that may be imposed on summary conviction for breach of an order.

Members will be aware that the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 includes a provision that, when commenced, will remove any upper limit on maximum fines in the magistrates courts, which, on the commencement day, are set at £5,000 in the type of circumstances covered by the provision. The wording of the clause allows for amendment of the fine if the provision in the 2012 Act is commenced before the Bill receives Royal Assent in order to bring it into line with the new policy. I assure Members that the clause provides appropriate flexibility to respond to changes in sentencing limits, so the amendment is not required.

Amendment 84 suggests that we should add an explicit reference to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I assure Members that asset recovery powers are already fully effective in relation to the breach of an order. The prosecutor is already able to apply to the Crown court for a confiscation order in relation to any offence where there is a benefit, which the court would then consider. That includes a conviction for the breach of a slavery and trafficking prevention or risk order. Where there is no financial benefit from the crime, a confiscation order cannot be made. The 2002 Act is designed for the seizure of criminal assets, not the imposition of financial sanctions. That is the approach taken to all offences; no other criminal statute makes specific provision for a reference for action under the 2002 Act, and I am not aware of any issues arising from that approach. Given that clarification, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

We were just testing where the Proceeds of Crime Act fell into line with the Bill, and I did not intend to press amendment 84.

I am grateful for the Minister’s explanation in relation to the current £5,000 limit. Perhaps she could give a little more clarification on when she expects the 2012 Act to which she referred to be implemented. The clause gives the Secretary of State the flexibility to remove or increase the limit, so that does not cause a problem, but, if she is anticipating that implementation, I would be grateful if she would indicate when that might happen. My amendment would achieve the same result without the need to look at that legislation and pass a further order later on.

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

We anticipate that the commencement date will be before the Bill receives Royal Assent, but I have no further details.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

If that is the case, I cannot see why the Minister will not accept my amendment, which would leave out the £5,000 limit, because effectively it follows Government policy, and it would save a bit of parliamentary time and save her from having to produce the regulations to remove that limit at a later date.

Photo of Karen Bradley Karen Bradley The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

The right hon. Gentleman will know that the provisions in the 2012 Act need to be accompanied by regulations that will enable the new powers to work properly in practice. Such regulations will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and, accordingly,  require debates in both Houses of Parliament. We expect that to happen before the Bill receives Royal Assent, but I will reflect on his points.

Photo of David Hanson David Hanson Shadow Minister (Home Affairs)

I am grateful to the Minister. Like other members of the Committee, I wish send a strong signal to the people who will be affected by orders that there will be a penalty attached to breaching them. The orders will be in place for a reason—they will be part of a range of measures for tackling slavery, trafficking and the risks associated with those crimes. My amendment would remove the £5,000 limit on the fine for breaching the orders, which is a reasonable proposition and one that the Government have said they are considering. I accept in good faith what the Minister said, but we would save parliamentary time if we sorted this issue out today. I therefore wish to press amendment 109.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9.

Rhif adran 6 Decision Time — Clause 29 - Offences

Ie: 6 MPs

Na: 9 MPs

Ie: A-Z fesul cyfenw

Na: A-Z fesul cyfenw

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 29, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.