BYELAWS: PENALTIES (Hansard, 19 July 1968)

§ Mr. Corfield
I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 5, line 7, after 'but', insert: 1886 'except in the case of byelaws made for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment No. 8, in line 8, at end insert: 'and in the case of byelaws made for any of the purposes mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 2 of this Act no amount so specified shall exceed £500'.

§ Mr. Corfield
The purpose of the Amendment is very simple. It is to express the view that, where there is a breach of a byelaw dealing with safety regulations, a maximum penalty of £25 does not seem to be adequate. The combined effect of Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 is to substitute a much higher maximum for breaches of such byelaws.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not tell me this time that the drafting is wrong. Quite honestly, I thought that his interpretation of my former Amendment was itself erroneous. However, I will not dwell on that.
I believe that these Amendments would have the effect for which they are designed, namely, to enable a much higher penalty to be imposed in cases of the breach of byelaws affecting matters of safety. This seems to us to be important.

§ Mr. William Rodgers
I do not think that there is any fault in drafting in this case, and certainly I would not propose the rejection of the Amendment on that ground.
It is very reasonable to draw attention to the fact that, from many points of view, £25 appears to be a low figure when we are dealing with matters of safety. However, the House will remember that the figure of £25 was approved by the Home Office and the House in the case of the British Airports Authority in 1965, and it is the figure which has appeared in private Acts since then. Though I would not argue on this or any other occasion that precedent is overwhelming, it would be unreasonable to substitute £500 for £25 when the lower figure was fixed after very proper consideration such a short time ago. It would also be unreasonable to introduce a figure of £500 that would have no bearing on the position at airports managed by the British Airports 1887 Authority, which are not covered by the Amendment.
1.45 p.m.
We have received no evidence that increasing the penalties for contraventions of the byelaws would improve the safety of operations at aerodromes. For those reasons, I hope that the House will understand why I cannot accept £500 in place of £25.

§ Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop
I am intrigued by the Minister's observation, which causes me to wonder what sort of evidence he could possibly receive in advance of the penalty being increased. He has not received evidence about the results of an event which has not happened. Is that surprising? The penalty has not been increased to £500, and the Minister has not received evidence of what would have happend if it had been so increased.
Is he saying that he is completely satisfied with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws? That must necessarily follow from what he says. If he is happy with the £25 penalty, he is happy with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws, not only now but projected. It seems to me improbable that the Minister can be so satisfied. If he is satisfied with the degree of compliance with aerodrome byelaws, a lot of this Bill is quite unnecessary, because a lot of it has to do with increasing the number of byelaws and increasing the regulation of everything going on within airports.
The Minister is a man of commendable faith but less commendable judgment if he thinks that he can multiply the regulations and controls and leave the tiny sum of £25 as the maximum penalty for breaches of byelaws which are specifically brought in to promote safety. I do not think that he has given the matter the thought that he would have wished to if he had focused his attention on it.
I hope that he will notice that these two Amendments do not affect the minimum penalty. They do not cause any unnatural burden to fall upon people who, through negligence or carelessness or because they are hard pressed and busy, happen to infringe a byelaw. All that they do is give power to the court 1888 trying a case, if it decides that there has been a deliberate flouting of a byelaw brought in to promote safety on an airport, to impose a penalty which is much more in line with the possible consequences. The potential effect of breaking byelaws brought in to promote safety can be the extensive loss of human life and damage to aircraft involving millions of pounds. Looked at in that perspective, the proposition that £25 is a reasonable maximum and that £500 is an unreasonably high figure cannot be justified.
I ask the Minister to think again about this. When does he next expect legislation on the subject? With the £ depreciating at the rate that it has over the last few years, is he confident that in five years £25 will be an adequate maximum, even assuming that it is at the moment? Does he seriously expect the House to have to consume its time again in the next few years by increasing the maximum penalties? I doubt whether he thinks that that is a reasonable course of action.
For heavens sake let us adopt this very small maximum—£500 is still a very small maximum fine when considering the potential consequences of deliberately breaking regulations of this kind. Obviously, no reasonable magistrates' or other court would fine someone £500 for accidentally breaking the regulations, but, equally, to restrict the maximum penalty to £25 for a deliberate flouting, possibly followed by the consequences which I have endeavoured to illustrate, would result in the court finding itself with its hands tied. The Minister might find it very embarrassing to have to explain to public opinion why deliberate flouting of a regulation, resulting in loss of life, should be punished by a fine of only £25 notwithstanding that a few months previously he had been in charge of what in effect is a consolidation Measure on aviation law and had turned down this Amendment on the ground that he was satisfied that there would be compliance with existing and projected byelaws and that £500 was an unreasonable maximum— not an average or minimum—figure.
I hope that in the course of the debate on this matter, which should be fairly extensive, the Minister will find time to reconsider, because I do not 1889 expect that, which ever party is in office next year, it will have time to legislate again on matters of general consolidation of civil aviation law for a number of years. We are consuming enough time doing it, so let us do the job properly. This is one of those comparatively minor aspects in which it is much better to be realistic than to do half a job and then have to get into the endless Ministerial queue for legislation to amend what may now seem a comparatively trivial provision which, however, unamended will hamstring the courts from imposing a reasonable penalty in the light of the possible consequences of breaking regulations of this kind which are specifically passed to promote the safety and convenience of operations by air.