Mr. MillsI beg to move Amendment No. 19, in page 15, line 2, leave out 'one' and insert 'two'.
In Committee we promised to take a fresh look at this and we have done so. When this Clause was discussed in Committee hon. Members on both sides questioned the adequacy of merely doubling the present maximum penalty for safety contraventions to the level of £100 which is now in the Bill. Perhaps I could have the attention of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I was 1071 about to pay a tribute to the right hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Peart) and his hon. Friends. The right hon. Gentleman is always doing that to us. I want to pay tribute to the reasonable and powerful way in which hon. Members opposite argued the case for the higher figure. They convinced us that we ought to take further counsel with those organisations interested in farming safety, and we have done so. We have acted.
We have consulted the NFU, the National Union of Agricultural and Allied Workers, the National Agricultural Machinery Dealers' Association, ROSPA and the Transport and General Workers' Union. That is a fairly comprehensive review. We thought it right to send to each the full text of our debate so that they were aware of the nature and strength of the feelings of hon. Members on this subject, which is an important subject.
A word now about these consultations, because they obviously bear on the question before the House, which is whether the maximum penalties should be increased to £300 as suggested by hon. Members opposite or whether they should be £200 as the Government suggest. We consulted these organisations on the size of the penalties and there was not, as can be imagined, complete agreement among them. These differences, like those in our own debate, cut across sectional lines. There were different views between those representing farming employers and contracting employers and between those representing agricultural workers on either side of the border.
Briefly, a small minority favoured going as far as £300 or even £400. The majority, including those concerned exclusively with safety, questioned the wisdom of going beyond £100, while others believed that a further increase to £200 would be about right. What was perhaps more important was that no real case emerged for any form of differential penalties, for example between farmers and workers or between categories of offences. The House may agree with what appears to be a fairly general view among those we consulted, that these are matters that should be best left to the magistrates, and I hope that hon. Members will agree.
Nor was there any body of opinion which even suggested that there was anything to be gained by making analogies 1072 with maximum penalties in other forms of safety legislation. Quite the reverse. It was widely and strongly held that there were special circumstances in agriculture which precluded any meaningful comparison of this kind. In any case, the other safety statutes are of varying vintage and on money values we should not be comparing like with like. The Government have accepted this view.
From our discussions and from our further examination of the problem the Government have concluded that the principle of a still higher maximum penalty as argued in Committee is right. Hon. Members on both sides, including the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins), the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and several others argued this forcefully.
There are two main reasons for the Government now proposing a further increase to £200, which is four times the present figure, as against the figure of £300 suggested by the Opposition. There would be an adverse effect from having too high a penalty. The Government are impressed by the weight of opinion from many quarters that safety observance on the farm, while calling for severe measures against culpable offences, must be built largely around instinctive acceptance of precautions which flows from education and advice widely and readily given. Education rather than severe penalties is the key to achieving greater safety, and the education must be developed and distributed.
Very real anxiety was expressed to us lest swingeing penalties might prove counter-productive by putting undue emphasis on punishment in a sector where the results we all wish to achieve depend so heavily upon interest and understanding. It is a question of pitching at the right level, and we believe that that level is £200.
The Robens Committee Report on Safety and Health at Work cannot be ignored. It was referred to in Committee and we indicated that any conclusions we reached about the nature and level of penalties would have to be reviewed in the light of that committee's work. The committee has recommended that maximum penalties for safety offences should be increased but it has also proposed fundamental and far-reaching changes in the Government's whole 1073 approach to the safety of employed persons. The hon. Member for Mansfield is nodding his head, so at least he agrees with us on this. The committee considered that criminal proceedings were inappropriate for the generality of offences which arise in safety at work legislation and that they should be reserved for infringements of a flagrant, wilful or reckless nature with higher penalties for repeated offences.
This, with other recommendations in the report, calls for much consultation and discussion and I do not want to prejudice the outcome of those discussions tonight. However, it is clear that the level of penalty that we are discussing can be looked at again in the context of the Government's conclusions emerging from the study of the report. We are therefore prepared to look at this again and we hope that that will satisfy the Opposition.
There is a point about uniformity of penalties. Efforts have been made to get some sort of uniformity and standard fines of £20, £50, £100, £200 and £400. The Opposition's suggestion of £300 would not fit into this, and I am sure the House would wish to carry out recommendations on uniformity of penalties.
In the circumstances I hope that hon. Members will see in the Government Amendment a genuine effort to meet the conditions and wishes of hon. Members in Committee and that the Opposition will withdraw their alternative of an in-between penalty, because it is out of step with the desirable form of rationalisation to which I am sure we all subscribe.
§ 9.15 p.m.
§ Mr. ConcannonI thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the reasonable way in which he has outlined the Government's position. My hon. Friends and I agree with almost every word he said. Amendment No. 20 was put down as an insurance Amendment. At one time we thought the Bill would have been passed before the report of the Robens Committee was published, but, unfortunately, that has not happened. We reduced the figure in our original Amendment from £400 to £300—what is known as "an old Chinese bargain" in the trade union world.
1074 As I said at the time, the Standing Committee demonstrated committee work at its best, and what has happened today confirms this. The Robens Report has unheld our arguments in Committee on workers' participation, safety education, and so on. We shall have to come back to the Robens Report during the next Session.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting down the Amendment, which we are pleased to accept.
§ Amendment agreed to.