|
Mr. Ainsworth: If we are thinking about restorative justice issues, we should consider practicalities, too. People who try to deter others from littering their area by drawing graffiti or fly posting need to take effective
Column Number: 387
measures and move on. For all kinds of reasons, including those that the hon. Gentleman raises, that would not necessarily happen if the perpetrators were obliged to see to it that they put right and mended what they had done.
Caroline Flint: Will the Minister elaborate on the distinction between those over 14, for whom the fixed penalty notices may apply under the clause, and those under 14? I think that he said that the basis for the distinction was that those under 14 would not know whether they were doing wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling has told me that in 20 years of teaching, he never found a child who did not know that it was wrong to deface a wall. I want us to take the opportunity to nip bad practice in the bud. We have talked a lot in Committee about how, if such behaviour is not nipped in the bud as early as possible, it can lead to worse offences, and possibly a prosecution under criminal law.
Mr. Ainsworth: To be liable for a fixed penalty notice, an individual has to have committed a relevant offence. That takes us into the law that covers the criminal conviction of minors. Fixed penalty notices cross-reference with those laws. Although children are criminally responsible from the age of 10, those under 14 receive the benefit of a rule of common law that says that a child in that age group cannot be convicted, however uncontrollable or obnoxious his behaviour, unless he knows that what he was doing was either morally or legally wrong.
A fixed penalty notice could be issued to a child on or after his 10th birthday, but if the child was not yet 14, the issuer would have to be able to show in court that the child knew that by creating graffiti or fly posting, he was acting wrongly. We would not be providing that quick fix, because the matter would have to be provable in court. That is an issue that we need to consider in terms of the age of criminal responsibility-the age at which people become responsible for their actions-rather than as part of what we are trying to do under the Bill, which is to attach fixed penalty notices to give local authorities usable powers, rather than having to use the court system. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley said, that question is relevant to such matters, as it is to others.
I do not know whether I have covered all the points that hon. Members have raised.
Mrs. Brooke: As the Minister was speaking I became concerned that not many of those notices will be issued. Will the Minister enlighten me about whether there are similar fines over which local authorities have such powers? For example, do some litter fines come under the same categories? My experience of local authorities is that they rarely implement their fining powers. Can the Minister give me an example of something that comes under the same category?
5 pm
Mr. Ainsworth: Local authorities have powers to issue fixed penalty notices for littering or dog fouling. The hon. Lady asked about the extent to which such powers are used and the extent to which local
Column Number: 388
authorities apply fixed penalty notices. We might be able to shed some light on that when we come to Government amendment No. 244, through which we intend to allow people to keep the money that is generated and to plough it back into services. That might lead to a step change in the extent to which some of those powers are used.
I think that I have covered all the points, so I had better sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Penalty receipts
Mr. Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 244, in
clause 50, page 38, line 8, leave out from 'authority' to end of line 9 and insert
'may use any sums it receives in respect of penalties payable to it in pursuance of notices under section 48(1) (its ''penalty receipts'') only for the purposes of functions of its that are qualifying functions.
(4) The following are qualifying functions for the purposes of this section-
(a) functions under section 48, and
(b) functions of a description specified in regulations made by the appropriate person.
(5) Regulations under subsection (4)(b) may (in particular) have the effect that a local authority may use its penalty receipts for the purposes of any of its functions.
(6) A local authority must supply the appropriate person with such information relating to its use of its penalty receipts as the appropriate person may require.
(7) The appropriate person may by regulations-
(a) make provision for what a local authority is to do with its penalty receipts-
(i) pending their being used for the purposes of qualifying functions of the authority,
(ii) if they are not so used before such time after their receipt as may be specified by the regulations,
(b) make provision for accounting arrangements in respect of a local authority's penalty receipts.
(8) The provision that may be made under subsection (7)(a)(ii) includes (in particular) provision for the payment of sums to a person (including the appropriate person) other than the local authority.
(9) Before making regulations under this section, the appropriate person must consult-
(a) the local authorities to which the regulations are to apply, and
(b) such other persons as the appropriate person considers appropriate.'
The clause currently requires a local authority to pay to the appropriate person-the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly in Wales-any sums that it receives in respect of fixed penalty notices issued for graffiti and fly posting. The amendment would remove that provision and allow the local authority instead to retain the receipts and use them for qualifying functions, which are the issuing of fixed penalty notices under clause 48 and such other functions as may subsequently be specified in regulations. Those could include wide functions
Column Number: 389
relating to graffiti, such as cleaning up the mess caused in the first place.
The intention behind the amendment is to encourage local authorities to use the power. I told the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole that there were other circumstances in which local authorities could issue fixed penalty notices. Those are littering and dog fouling, which are detailed in the Local Government Bill, which is further through its parliamentary stages than this Bill. Those powers will not be available until that Bill receives Royal Assent.
Mr. Hawkins: May I make a couple of points on the amendment and also touch on the clause, because I imagine that we shall not need a stand part debate? I am slightly puzzled that such a long and detailed amendment needed to be made now. I wonder whether the Minister could enlighten us on whether the matter was missed when the Bill was originally drafted. I am sure that the mistake was not his, but given that the amendment is much longer than most Government amendments-it is certainly longer than the others tabled to this Bill so far-I wonder whether there has been a change of mind, a mistake or whatever.
In relation to penalty receipts and what happens to them, there are to be public service agreements between the Government and various authorities-in fact, such agreements might even already exist. Although I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to give me details today, will he write to me and to any other members of the Committee who are interested and set out the terms of the public service agreements that are being made? Perhaps he can also give some examples of what happens between the Home Office and local and other types of authorities.
It would be useful to know because the way in which funds are transferred is a matter of interest, as evidenced by the attention being paid in all parts of the House to the changes that have been made to the rules on hypothecation. In the past, Her Majesty's Treasury has been reluctant for money to go anywhere other than back to the Treasury. I have always believed that Government funding can operate more sensibly if hypothecation is allowed. I have argued that many times, and the Minister has heard me doing so. I hope that he will be prepared to give some examples. If he is able to write to me in that respect, it will be very helpful.
Matthew Green: I am delighted that lamp posts are protected by two different Bills. They are protected from human antisocial behaviour by this Bill and from dogs by the Local Government Bill. Lamp posts will be delighted, but I wonder why the provisions could not be in the same Bill.
The amendment is a good step forward. I hope that the principle will apply to other sections and that the provisions relating to education and truancy will be reviewed, because the money from the local education authorities could be used against truancy. As a general principle, it is good for the money from fines to be used to tackle the problems in relation to which they have been levied-so long as it is not seen as a quick
Column Number: 390
route to solving local government financing problems. The cost of administering fixed penalty notices will probably vastly outweigh the receipts from them; nevertheless, they are a good thing. I hope that the Government can reassure us that the principle will be applied to the fixed penalty notices that are issued in other circumstances.
Mr. Randall: I welcome the amendment and the clause. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath has a point-perhaps even the Minister is human and cannot always bring his wonderful powers to bear immediately.
There are two questions that I would like to ask the Minister. He keeps mentioning that the appropriate person is the Secretary of State. Perhaps I am being incredibly dense, but I wonder which Secretary of State.
The other point is that, as Committee members will have understood, I have a deep and intimate knowledge of the retail sector in Uxbridge. Not long ago, one of its well-established companies had a bit of graffiti on one of its walls. That was removed at considerable expense; as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, it is not that easy to do. Although a company-or a private individual if it is on the side of a house-will, albeit not happily, accept that such removal has to be paid for, if it knows that the fine is going to the local authority, it will be less than impressed if the local authority does nothing in return. I hope that, in the wise words of the Minister, some way can be devised-not in the legislation-to enable local authorities to report back, and that some measure of guidance will be issued. If they are going to be in receipt of the funds, the authorities should provide a service for their ratepayers, whether businesses or council tax payers.
| 
