Clause 8 - Offences under regulations under
Waste and Emissions Trading Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Mr Bill Wiggin (Leominster, Conservative)
The reason for the amendment is that it touches on the very serious nature of some of the offences in clause 8 and on the response to them. I was of the opinion that the Bill was all about filling holes in the ground rather than filling cells. Therefore I am
unhappy with the idea that councillors or employees of a council should face up to three months in prison for committing an offence under the regulations in clauses 6 and 7 or for failing to comply with them.
Clause 6—''Borrowing and banking of landfill allowances''—and clause 7—''Trading and other transfer of landfill allowances''—deal with offences for which we should not be considering imprisonment. There is a fantastic painting behind you, Mr. Griffiths, of at least five Members of Parliament fleeing the wrath of the King. That is the sort of thing for which we should consider imprisonment. Consider the possibility of a similar painting in 100 years' time of four or five Liberal Democrat councillors from Herefordshire unitary authority fleeing because of an offence that they committed in failing to comply with the landfill tax credit scheme or the trading and transfer of landfill allowances or even the borrowing and banking of landfill allowances.
This is a serious Bill and it is incumbent on all of us to improve it. I have done so by tabling the amendments. I would happily imprison people for serious offences, but this is not the sort of message that the Committee should be sending out. That is why I tabled the amendments. We must enact positive, helpful, clear and sensible legislation. The Opposition have a duty to question the motives of a Minister who seeks to imprison people for such offences. What sort of person would the Minister seek to imprison under the regulations? I began to picture, almost like a Radio 4 show, who would be imprisoned. Would that be the whole authority? If so, that might make the Bill considerably more popular. It would be a Paul Merton-type answer that if it put loads of councillors in prison, it could not necessarily be a bad thing.
However, we should consider the problem that the Government have had with parish councillors. It has been difficult to find parish councillors as they feel that what they are allowed—[Interruption.] No, they are put off by the £25 limit on the presents that they can receive without declaring them, which puts some of their Christmas out of reach. Considering how difficult it is to find parish councillors, it is no surprise to find out how difficult it is to find county or unitary authority councillors. I know that that is true, because we have council elections in May, and the Labour party and Liberal Democrats have struggled to find enough candidates in my area. The idea that we will put them in prison for failing to comply with the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill is extraordinary. Given the nature of the Bill and of the people whom I understand would be imprisoned, community service would perhaps be a more appropriate punishment.
When the Minister replies, I hope that he will calm my fears about who will be imprisoned and outline the type of person whom he feels it would be appropriate to imprison. It is entirely reasonable to demand fines, but it is bizarre to wish to lock up people. We will debate hypothecating fines under a later clause, and that must be a better way of dealing with such an offence than worrying about prison sentences. I hope that the Minister will answer some of the probing questions and that the Committee will accept that the amendment would make the Bill less draconian.