I beg to move Amendment 55, page 92, line 1, leave out from 'conviction' to 'to' in line 2.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 56, in page 92, line 3, leave out 'or to both'.

Amendment 57, page 92, line 5, leave out 'five' and insert 'two'.

Amendment 58, page 92, line 36, at end insert

'and the occupier is aware that such activities are being carried out and that they are activities to which paragraph 3 or 3A of Schedule 2 apply'.

Amendment 59, page 92, line 39, after 'section', insert

'and the occupier is aware of that fact'.

Amendment 61, page 93, line 19, after 'any', insert 'culpable'.

Amendment 60, page 95, line 30, at end insert-

'(c) that demanding or collecting a charge as a condition of the release of the vehicle was in all the circumstances unfair or unreasonable.'.

The amendments fall into three categories. The first covers amendments 55 to 58, the second encompasses amendments 59 and 61, and the third takes in Amendment 60. I shall deal with them separately. Amendments 55 to 58 are designed to alter the penalties that can be imposed in respect of offences attributable to wheel-clamping. In substance, I do not think that a sentence of imprisonment should be available in the magistrates court. So far as the Crown court is concerned, the maximum sentence should be two years, not five years. That would be the consequence of amendments 55 to 58.

The justification for that view is as follows. First, we have an overburdened prison system, and we are constantly urging the courts not to send people to prison unless it is absolutely necessary. For that reason, we should be very slow to impose the potential of prison sentences for offences. These offences can be tried either summarily or on indictment. Those tried summarily-that is, in front of a magistrates court-are in my view offences that should not attract a prison sentence by definition, because they will in any event be trivial ones. However, if the prosecution authorities believe that the offence is a serious one-for example, it is a continued offence: that is, one committed previously by the organiser-that person can be tried on indictment. Although I have reservations about this, I accept that there may be some circumstances in which a prison sentence is appropriate, but it seems to me that two years rather than five are quite adequate.

I have a strong suspicion that the Minister will say in response that if we look at other relevant legislation, we will find that five years is treated as the maximum for those other offences. All I would say to the Minister is that if someone sins once, it is not a reason for sinning again. I am against five years on principle, notwithstanding the fact that some previous decision might have been made in a contrary way.

Amendments 59 and 61 are designed primarily to ensure that offences are committed only where there has been what lawyers describe as appropriate knowledge or mens rea. Amendment 61 deals with corporate bodies and neglect. The present drafting makes it an offence for the corporate body where there has been neglect. "Neglect" means no more than omission, which by itself, in my view, should not constitute a criminal offence. There may be circumstances where it should, but not by definition. The word "culpable" is designed to ensure that only omission or neglect that is truly criminal-worthy should be caught by the Bill. "Culpable", then, would ensure that mere oversight cannot be held to constitute a criminal offence; that is the purpose.

As for amendment 59, I am basically always against strict or absolute offences, so my drafting is designed to ensure that the occupier commits an offence only if he is aware or has knowledge of the underlying facts that show that the operator is acting unlawfully. At present, the drafting allows the occupier to be held liable criminally, even in the absence of specific knowledge. It is thus a strict or absolute offence, so I am against it.

Amendment 60 deals with issues of appeal. The current drafting is largely procedural. I am not saying that the requirements are exhaustive-they may not be-but what is contemplated by this part of the Bill are procedural defects. What I have in mind is that the appellate authority should be able to review on the merits whether or not the charge is appropriate. We dealt with a number of examples in Committee-some from the Liberal Democrats-of people who were marooned by snowstorms and were obliged to leave their vehicles in a particular place. A charge was levied and nobody would remove that charge, which is clearly unfair. I want to be sure that the appellate authority has the ability to form a view on the merits as to the justice or reasonableness of the levying of the charge. If the appellate authority comes to the view that it is unreasonable or unjust, it should be within its discretion to reverse the previous decision. I do not think that the Bill as drafted makes that crystal clear, and I am in favour of it so doing.

I think we all welcome the substance of what the wheel-clamping measures are intended to achieve. During an extensive debate in Committee, we covered many of the points made by my right hon. and learned Friend Mr. Hogg, among others.

I think that every Member has encountered constituents who have been clobbered by cowboy clampers, and we are pleased that the Government are attempting to deal with the problem. Because of the shortage of time I will not give all the examples that many of us could probably recite on the basis of Constituency experience, but I should like the Government to consider some of the points made so eloquently by my right hon. and learned Friend.

Of course we want appropriate sentences for those who are found guilty of illegal clamping under the new law. When we debated in Committee the question of whether prison sentences were appropriate, I agreed with my right hon. and learned Friend that a two-year sentence was sufficient. We did not agree on every point, but we agreed on that one. I still think that two years constitutes a legitimate maximum, but I also agree with my right hon. and learned Friend that it is a sentence that we should be slow to impose. I do not think that a prison sentence should be imposed lightly and without due attention to detail.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if intimidation, extortion, violence or some other harassment were involved in the collection or releasing of a car, those offences could be dealt with under existing Laws? We do not need a five-year sentence, and a sentence of two years strikes me as a considerable penalty for clamping offences alone.

No doubt the Minister will respond shortly, but I agree that two years should be the maximum and that a five-year sentence is excessive.

As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the insertion of the word "culpable" would clarify the difference between the deliberate commission of an offence and an oversight, which, as we all know, can happen in such circumstances. He also spoke of the merits involved in a particular situation. In Committee, Mr. Oaten described the clamping of his constituents' cars when the signs were covered by snow.

We need a system that would allow individuals to appeal and the authorities to take a sensible view based on the circumstances and on all the facts rather than necessarily following the legislation to the letter. We need flexibility and sensible judgment. My right hon. and learned Friend has made a number of sensible observations which the Government will doubtless consider, and to which the Minister will no doubt respond tonight.

The Government are trying to introduce a complex and bureaucratic procedure to deal with the problem of wheel-clamping on private land, which is often carried out by cowboys who are effectively indulging in extortion. We made that point in Committee, and experienced a glorious defeat by one vote. It would be much simpler to follow the Scottish procedure and simply outlaw wheel-clamping on private land.

Let me say in response to Paul Holmes that we had an extensive debate in Committee, and our proposals were subjected to extensive consultation. A variety of suggestions were made, including the banning of wheel-clamping. In Committee we discussed ticketing systems, and I made it clear then-as I will this evening-that we wished to license the companies that were involved in clamping. We believe that private landowners have a right to protect their land, and that although a system exists to enable them to do so, in some instances it works very badly. We therefore propose to introduce a licensing system. We have considered the proposals, but we believe that, on balance, we have got this right.

The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has been extremely consistent in his argument, and I am sure he will not be surprised to learn that I shall be consistent in mine. As I promised in Committee, I have reflected on what he has said, but the main reason why we have decided not to change our position is that we want a consistent approach to other areas that are similarly licensed. The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls this heresy, and says he would not choose it as a starting point, but I want to set out our point of view.

Amendments 55 to 57 would remove the option of imprisonment on summary conviction in a magistrates court and would reduce the maximum term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment from five years to two years. It is unclear from the short debate this evening why the proposal is for two rather than five, except that two is less than five. The right hon. and learned Gentleman described that as adequate, but what might be adequate for some will not be adequate for others, and that is the difference between us on this matter. The provision as currently drafted provides for penalties that are directly in line with those contained in section 5 of the Private Security Industry Act 2001 for the offence of using unlicensed security operatives.

That is what this is about; it is not about whether or not a vehicle has been clamped properly, or even the methods that might be used and how the law might be brought in in other ways. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talked about that, and what he said was right, but this is about using unlicensed security operatives, and I fear that if we begin to pick at that, we will end up in a situation where there is no consistency, and where there is a lack of transparency and fairness. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I start from different sides; we accepted that in Committee, and I acknowledge that again tonight.

I acknowledge that many of the cases-I hope all of them-that fall foul of these provisions will not warrant imprisonment. That will depend on how successful these provisions are, but offences against business licence requirements and the terms of the licence could be very serious. That is why we seek to retain imprisonment as a necessary option for the worst offences. Again, these penalties are consistent with those contained in section 5 of the 2001 Act for the offence of using unlicensed security operatives. Individuals involved in wheel-clamping are currently subject to those provisions, and there would be a problem in having the businesses subject to different penalties from the individuals involved in wheel-clamping. The right hon. and learned Gentleman calls this heresy. We simply disagree on the route to take to arrive at these decisions.

Amendments 58 and 59 would require that, in order to be guilty of an offence-under proposed new section 6(1A) of the 2001 Act, as introduced in Clause 42- of allowing an unlicensed wheel-clamping business to work on his premises, the occupier of those premises must know that the business is carrying out licensable activity without being licensed. As we set out in Committee, we believe that what these amendments seek is already provided for in the 2001 Act, as it already provides a defence for the occupier that he either did not know or had no reasonable grounds for suspecting that the individual in question was not the holder of a licence, and that he took all reasonable steps to ensure the individual did not carry out licensable activities when he did not hold a licence. Although the point of these amendments is clear and useful, I hope it will be recognised that their provisions are already catered for in legislation.

Amendment 61 would raise the threshold for liability for an offence committed by an unincorporated association, but why should businesses of different models be treated differently under the law? Amendment 60 deals with the issue of appeal. In our proposals, there is already an avenue for appeal for motorists in respect of release fees imposed by businesses carrying out wheel-clamping and related activities, and that would include issues such as release fees, the length of time taken, and adequate signage. Therefore, we do not see the need to accept these amendments.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about the appellant authority. We are seeking to base this upon the ticketing tribunal that already exists, where people with a legal training act as adjudicators in such cases, and there are-

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 18 January) .

The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83E), That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

The Deputy Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83E).