This is difficult. In essence, we think that we have the balance right. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, but we have to be proportionate. Each Member of the Committee may have a different view. The breach of a by-law is most likely to result in localised or small-scale impacts—the noble Baroness has anticipated my response because she knows where I am coming from. However, a prosecution for intentional damage, which is a serious matter, will be brought against people who commit acts of environmental vandalism that cause significant harm to a site. That is covered in Clause 136(3) and (4), which states: ""A person who is guilty of an offence under this section is liable—""(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £50,000;""(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine"."
That, essentially, could be an unlimited fine. I shall come the point about cautions in a moment, but we have a hierarchy here and we consider that, in relation to by-laws where a fixed penalty notice is not appropriate, a level 5 fine is the right potential fine and would act as a deterrent.
On the question of enforcement, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness that there will be people who make simple mistakes, where a caution is entirely the right approach. I shall not bore noble Lords by praying in aid the Health and Safety Executive, but its approach to proportionate regulation is entirely right. The executive starts from the premise that, unless an act has clearly either caused harm or is likely to cause serious harm, everything is done to encourage people to do the right thing, and from there you can move up the hierarchy of sanctions. The noble Baroness is right about that.
I can assure the noble Baroness that we do not need to make express provision. A simple caution is non-statutory and can be administered by prosecuting authorities without the need for an express power. The conditional caution has a statutory basis in the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and Section 27 makes provision for prosecutors other than the CPS to administer conditional cautions if a need is identified for giving them such a power; the mechanism exists and the noble Baroness’s point is very well taken.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 11 March 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c1238-9 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:11:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537201
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537201
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_537201