Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 3, in clause 17, page 8, line 27, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.

The amendment would change the sentence on conviction in a Crown court from two to five years. There can be some really horrible examples of illegal employment, which can be organised by very nasty people. Some of them may deserve a condign sentence. Does the Minister agree with me?

Evan Harris (Science, Non-Departmental & Cross Departmental Responsibilities; Oxford West & Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)

It is always tempting to think of very bad offences—as the hon. Member for Woking, who is far more experienced in these matters than I am, did—and to seek to increase the maximum penalty. However, would not the sorts of cases that he mentions—we can all think of some—be covered by other health and safety measures with stronger penalties? Is it necessary—perhaps it is—for the Opposition always to seek to ratchet up the tariff on the basis of very bad cases to which we think the legislation would apply, but to which other offences, such as reckless endangerment, and therefore higher penalties, would apply?

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

In the interests of brevity: no; five years too excessive; and nasty stuff can be dealt with in other ways. For example, someone got 14 years imprisonment for the facilitation of trafficking in a really nasty case. As the hon. Gentleman suggests, other cases that are nasty, but not as nasty as trafficking and facilitation, are covered by the rest of the law. Two years is not excessive, but appropriate. That is why it appears in the clause.

Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Woking, Conservative)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.