OFFENCES IN RELATION TO CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ROADS (Hansard, 20 June 1984)

§ Mr. Home Robertson
I was interested by what my hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) had to say about this rash of illegal road building which the Government apparently anticipate. I have studied schedule 7, which lists the penalties to be imposed for the offences listed in the Bill. It is a bit confusing, and we could do with some clarification from the Minister. Clause 21 explains that Any person (other than a roads authority)— (a) who constructs a new road … commits an offence, which shall be triable either summarily or on indictment. Schedule 7 provides that the penalty will not be set at a particular level, whereas other offences have fines set at different levels. It states On summary conviction, the statutory maximum; and on conviction on indictment a fine. Presumably that means an unlimited fine. Why should the heinous crime of building a road illegally be subject to the imposition of an unlimited fine, when the rather more dangerous offences listed in the Bill can get away with fines of less than £1,000? What is the Minister doing?

§ Mr. James Wallace (Orkney and Shetland)
The point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) is identical to the point that I wished to make. It shows that two great minds can think alike. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman's conversion to sitting on the alliance Bench is most welcome.
Had the hon. Gentleman looked at clause 124, he would have found that the statutory maximum has the definition given in section 74 of the Criminal Justice Act 1982. The Minister may have the advantage of having a copy of that Act with him, so he may be able to tell us what that means. I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for East Lothian that an unlimited fine would appear to be rather harsh. Will the Minister consider inserting a maximum? No doubt he will make the punishment fit the crime. An open-ended arrangement is contrary to many other statutory provisions which provide a maximum.

§ Mr. Maxton
Just to prove that this Bench is not in unanimity, I am not sure whether I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). We are talking, not about individuals, but about large public bodies, especially builders, some of whom the Opposition hold in high contempt.

§ Mr. Home Robertson
Name them.

§ Mr. Maxton
I shall certainly name one—it is the Barrett building company, for which many of us have little regard. We would have to impose a maximum fine of, say, 351 £100,000 to make it worthwhile. It is better that it is left open. The courts can then decide the appropriate level of fine. If anything is to be imposed, it should be a minimum, not a maximum.

§ Mr. Allan Stewart
I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of, while not agreeing with every nuance of what the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said, basically agreeing with his central point, which is that because of the potentially large development benefits that might be involved it is important that, in appropriate cases, the courts should be able to impose a severe fine. That is why the offences are made triable either summarily or on indictment.