Previous SectionIndexHome Page

Mr. Robert Ainsworth: It is good of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) to listen so carefully to what I say and to try to interpret my words as having such import. When I ask a question of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) and the right hon. Gentleman interprets it as some type of definitive statement, that departs a little from the facts. I participated in the debate, asked the hon. Member for Christchurch a question and I am fairly satisfied that we are not talking about considerable additional moneys, so I have no intention of opposing new clause 10.

Mr. Chope: The Minister's comments show how worth while the debate has been. My only regret is that he and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) did not intimate to me earlier that the new clause would be accepted; we should not then have had to spend so much time debating it but could have dealt with other amendments.

Mr. John M. Taylor: In the context of amendments and with regard to the possibility of meeting the points of view and considerations expressed by other hon. Members, will my hon. Friend say how many times he approached me to see whether I would find his line of thinking amenable?

Mr. Chope: I do not know whether that question is in order. It would probably come into the category of what

27 Apr 2001 : Column 599

we in the legal profession call "without prejudice discussions". I certainly do not want to embarrass my hon. Friend by referring to any discussions that we may have held outside the Chamber--that could get both of us into trouble.

Mr. Taylor: My hon. Friend will, I think, accept that there were none.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I think that it would probably be advisable if we returned to the content of the new clause.

Mr. Chope: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker; you have prevented me and my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull from having an open disagreement on the matter.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend and the Government accept the provision. That shows the importance of holding such debates. I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House, because I trust that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) will agree that although the new clause may not be perfect, it is certainly an improvement to the Bill. There are costs, but they are insignificant when--

Mr. Forth: What?

Mr. Chope: The costs are insignificant compared with the additional costs that would be incurred by local authorities if they had to go through the appeal process.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that a greater difficulty for my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) is the unavailability of a second teller?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Again, it would not be a good idea to respond to that intervention.

Mr. Chope: We have not got as far as that yet. I am sure that, as on many issues, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will consider the situation. I know that he is as anxious as me to get on and discuss some of the other amendments, in the hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull and the Minister will accept further improvements. I am grateful for small mercies and to have on the record an acceptance of one of my suggestions.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 11

Offences committed by bodies corporate

'.--Where an offence under this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of any person who was purporting to act in the capacity of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate without the knowledge of the body corporate, that person shall be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.'.--[Mr. Forth.]

27 Apr 2001 : Column 600

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Forth: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in clause 10, page 8, line 19, leave out "3" and insert "5".

No. 101, in page 8, line 19, leave out "3" and insert "4".

No. 33, in page 8, line 20, leave out subsection (2).

No. 75, in page 8, line 29, after "owner", insert "or occupier".

No. 102, in page 8, line 29, at end insert--

(c) he was absent at the time of the service of the notice, and during some or all of the compliance period.'.

No. 103, in page 8, line 45, leave out "3" and insert "4".

No. 34, in page 9, line 2, leave out "one-twentieth" and insert "one-tenth".

No. 105, in page 9, line 2, leave out "one-twentieth" and insert "one-thirtieth".

No. 49, in page 9, line 3, at end insert--

'(6) No person shall be convicted of an offence under this section unless the relevant authority has first exercised its power under section 11 to take remedial action.'.

No. 76, in clause 11, page 9, line 7, leave out "7" and insert "28".

No. 106, in page 9, line 7, leave out "7" and insert "14".

No. 35, in page 9, line 22, leave out "3" and insert "5".

No. 108, in page 9, line 22, leave out "3" and insert "4".

No. 110, in clause 12, page 9, line 23, leave out clause 12.

No. 36, in clause 12, page 9, line 24, leave out from "committed" to end of line 25.

No. 109, in page 9, line 27, leave out from "corporate" to end of line 28.

No. 37, in page 9, line 28, leave out from "capacity" to "shall" in line 29.

Mr. Forth: Clause 12 gave me some little puzzlement when I first looked at it. It is entitled:

It sets out properly to deal with offences committed by such bodies. It says that where an offence is:

that much is common ground--

what worries me is what follows--

It strikes me as peculiar that where a person purporting to act in such a capacity has done something without, by implication, the knowledge of the body corporate, the body will nevertheless be deemed guilty of an offence. That flies in the face of all reasonableness.

27 Apr 2001 : Column 601

The aim of new clause 11 is to eliminate what I regard as an error. I have no difficulty with offences committed by a body corporate leading to appropriate punishment. That is the thrust of my new clause, but the original wording seems peculiar. It introduces the odd new concept that a person who is purporting to act can involve the body corporate, even if by definition the action has been taken without its knowledge or approval. The original clause goes on and rather prejudges the issue by saying that the body corporate shall be deemed guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against. It is unsatisfactory. My objective is to eliminate that difficulty and correct the error. I hope that that much is uncontroversial.

Other amendments in the group relate to the important provisions in clause 8 on the appeals procedure. I suppose that it is inevitable and, as everyone would agree, desirable that such Bills must contain a mechanism to provide an appeals procedure. That much is beyond controversy, but in amendment No. 102, which refers to subsection (2)(c), I have sought to deal with the regulations that may be made by the Secretary of State to make provision for a variety of aspects of the appeals procedure.

Subsection (2)(c) will require

Again, that is unarguable, but we need much greater clarification of how such matters will be dealt with in detail under clause 10.

I am seeking to add to clause 10 what, for the purposes of this debate, I shall call a saving clause. I want to ensure that if someone can demonstrate that he or she was simply not at home when a remedial notice was served, especially during the compliance period, that must be a reasonable explanation for them to give. One of the things that bothers me throughout the Bill is that with such a complex procedure, which deals with someone who has made a complaint, someone who is complained against and a local authority--inevitably, bureaucracy will surround the process--enforcement notices of different kinds must be served at different times. That problem occurs over and again.

Considerable problems will arise throughout the process. Given that, by definition, we are talking about the owners and occupiers of buildings and about the serving of notices, and so on, I can well imagine that such circumstances will arise--for example, perhaps when a house is someone's second home. Indeed, that could even apply to hon. Members in certain circumstances. I am thinking of people who are absent from the country for long periods--perhaps they live, part-time, in another country, or are involved in extensive business travel.

There are a variety of reasons why a person who perhaps lives alone or a family may simply not be on the premises when a notice is served. When a complaint is made, there is another complication, with which we shall deal in a different context. Such people must be given an opportunity to reply. If I initiate a complaint against my neighbour, who is not present for legitimate reasons, I can envisage all sorts of difficulties in giving the neighbour an opportunity to respond and in his not being able to deal with the various notices that are served on

27 Apr 2001 : Column 602

him. He may then fail to meet the requirements of any enforcement notice that may be made, and then we get into all sorts of difficulties.

We must try to make whatever reasonable provisions we can to provide a reasonable defence, which allows people to say that they were unaware of the process, that they were not present at the appropriate time and, therefore, that they were unable properly to respond either to the complaint or to the notice. That is an important provision, which we must make. If we do not do so, there is a danger of many cases of people being complained against unjustly being dealt with in the harsh way suggested in the Bill.

Next Section

IndexHome Page