| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): I am delighted at the measures that my hon. Friend is putting through the House, but I am sorry that they do not apply to Scotland. Have there been any joint ministerial discussions between the Scottish Executive and her Department as to the possibility of having the same measures introduced in Scotland?
Ms Blears: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for these provisions. Although there have been no formal ministerial discussions as yet, I am aware that discussions are going on in Scotland around similar areas. Clearly, the matters that concern people living in England and Wales are of equal concern to residents in Scotland. Therefore, there will be discussions and, I hope, the sharing of good practice.
The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of night noise and whether her local authority could afford monitoring patrols. If she talks to her local authority, she will find that there are other ways to monitor noise, such as through the use of technology and electronic devices, which are much more cost-effective than local authority officers marauding on the streets late at night seeking out noise.
There is a serious issue here, and we want to make the powers as easy to use as we can, because the fact that they have been adoptive has militated against local authorities taking such action. Increasingly, when these powers are taken together with some of those to deal with noisy licensed premises under the licensing legislation, we will begin to have a coherent set of powers that really can help to attack the tremendous nuisance caused by excessive noise. Some people have to live with noise day in, day out—or rather night in, night out—which has a detrimental effect on their well-being.
The powers will be extremely welcome, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady will support them, although I am surprised by her enthusiasm—whether the powers be on environmental crime, tackling graffiti, fly posting or antisocial behaviour in general—which leads me to
question why her party finds it impossible to support the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I find this a very contradictory position to take: she is so supportive of all those proposals to tackle antisocial behaviour, yet her party cannot find it in itself to support the Government and the legislation.
Mr. Heath: Without any temptation to gloat at the Minister's expense, may I simply say that had her colleagues expressed their views in the way that she has this evening, committed themselves to the dual working that she has committed herself to this evening and introduced at an earlier stage those amendments that she has introduced this evening, the Bill might have taken a different course?
Ms Blears: It is perhaps more likely that we might have seen a very different response to the proposed legislation if there had been no change of Liberal Democrat spokespeople.
I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) that I understand that the Scottish Executive have published an antisocial behaviour Bill, which includes a ban on the sale of spray paints to under-16s. I am sure that there will be extensive joint working between us with regard to those issues.
I am pleased that the amendment, which I commend to hon. Members, commands the support of the House.
Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 38 agreed to [one with Special Entry].
After clause 59
Raves
Lords amendment: No 39—a new clause.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Ms Blears.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No. 40, Lords amendment No. 41 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 74.
Mr. Paice: I shall speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39. I welcome the debate on the two issues covered by this group of amendments—namely raves and dealing with unauthorised encampments. Indeed, by my recollection, both were raised in Committee and unauthorised encampments were the subject of a lot of discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I spoke at length and, if I dare say it, with some passion because of constituency experiences—this is a serious problem.
I shall take the two issues separately if I may and deal first with raves, to which amendment No. 39 and my amendment (a) are relevant. I welcome what the Government are doing about raves. Reducing the relevant number from 100 to 20 is extremely sensible. It means that organising a rave for 99 people, which I
understand has been the practice of a lot of people who tried to get just inside the law, will end. I also strongly welcome the removal of the term "open air" from subsection (2) of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. However, the purpose of my amendment (a) is to challenge the Government as to why they have not removed the same term from subsection (1).
- "This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons".
- "as respects any land in the open air, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent",
Mr. Paice: I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who may be able to correct me.
Mr. Heath: I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his drafting amendment, but I also think that passing his amendment, whose wording is simpler than that used by the Government, would make subsections (3) and (4) of amendment No. 39 redundant. Those would no longer be necessary, as the hon. Gentleman would have extended the application to an occurrence in the open air or within a closed building.
Mr. Paice: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps the Minister will persuade me that subsection (3) is indeed sufficient, but I do not see for the life of me why the Government could not have simply struck out the words "in the open air" in both instances.
Let me now deal with the other amendments concerning travellers and the 1994 Act. I think this discussion will illustrate the absurdity of automatically timetabling all our debates. The travellers issue was not debated during the main part of the Bill's passage; the Government introduced it in the form of an amendment on Report, and the timetabling meant that it was not reached. This, therefore, is our only opportunity to debate the amendments to the 1994 Act involving travellers—and because we are discussing Lords amendments, that opportunity is extremely limited.
It is a tragedy that the Government have arranged matters in this way. I am not saying that I object to the amendments, which move in a direction that I urged on the Government in Committee. I am merely saying that had the Government allowed more time on Report, when the amendments first appeared, we might have felt more certain that they were getting this absolutely right.
I am still concerned about the fact that there is nothing in the Government's amendments, now incorporated in the Bill, or in the Lords amendments to
deal with the detritus left by travellers, which was raised by almost everyone in Committee. That is a huge problem on both public and private land, but in many ways it is worse on private land, because it is for the owner of that land to pay the cost of clearing what may be huge piles of unpleasant waste. I welcome the addition of a power for the police to move on unauthorised travellers, the removal of the numbers limit, and many other new measures. However, as I said on Third Reading, I am worried about the loophole created by the Government in regard to alternative sites.The Bill seems to say that police officers can move travellers on if they are illegally encamped and an alternative site is available. The Minister kindly nods, implying that my simplistic mind has got it right in this instance. On Third Reading, I feared that the Government risked driving a coach and horses through the intention of the relevant clauses. Since then they have tabled Lords amendment No. 40, which would insert the word "suitable". That worries me chiefly because "suitable" is a subjective term. I do not want to return to the issue of what constitutes appropriate graffiti, but "suitable" is subjective as opposed to objective. One person's definition of a suitable alternative site might not be another person's definition.
I speak as one with some years' standing in the House, representing a constituency where hundreds of travellers are going in and out all the time. They and their advisers know the law back to front, and if there is a loophole to be exploited they will exploit it. The word "suitable" immediately creates an opportunity for travellers and advisers to seek to undermine the law by challenging the suitability of a site in the eyes of the law.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |