|
Alun Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to respond to some of those questions. If I were to respond to all of them, we might be here all night, but some of the points can be covered very specifically. For example, the legislation affecting London has had similar requirements in place for a number of years. There has been a considerable amount of experience, both of the legislation being in place and its enforcement and therefore plenty of opportunity for representations from motoring organisations and others. My understanding is that there has been general support for these provisions. Indeed, there has been strong support for them from my right hon. and hon. Friends, and I believe that a similar view is shared by Liberal Democrat Members.
The experience in London having been positive and the consultation having been extremely extensive, I hope that we will have complete support for the provision when we finish this short debate. The hon. Lady says that it would be better not to go to court on the issues in subsection 4(3). I agree. If the individual is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local authority that they are not running a business, the local authority will not pursue the case. However, at the end of the day, if there is a dispute in which the local authority believes that it has evidence that someone is running a business and that is denied, it would be for the court to take a decision. The onus will be to demonstrate that a business is not being run.
Cars being repaired on the road can take up valuable car parking spaces. That in itself can be a nuisance for local people. They look unsightly and pollute the local environment. Clause 4 makes it an offence to carry out restricted works to vehicles on a road as part of a business or otherwise for reward or gain or in a way that gives reasonable cause for annoyance to people nearby. It is all about improving the quality of life in the neighbourhood. To some degree, the hon. Lady answered some of her earlier questions in a later contribution. There is clearly an exemption for repairs resulting from a breakdown or accident, provided that they are carried out within 72 hours or such time as the local authority authorises.
The term ''road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all roads to which the public have access. In many cases, it will include private roads running through estates, the very places where there is
Column Number: 61
often a considerable amount of nuisance. I therefore hope that the clause will stand part of the Bill with the full support of the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Liability of directors etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: I have a small point to make. The clause is self-explanatory. Would it be possible for the corporate body to wriggle free of the offence that is being prosecuted because the director, manager or secretary—I presume it is the financial secretary, rather than a humble, little office secretary—is deemed to be the officer responsible within the body so no charges will be pressed against the corporate body itself? How will that work in practice? Would action be taken only against the individual who can be identified or against the corporate body? Where the affairs of a corporate body are managed by its members, would only one member be prosecuted or would they be deemed to be jointly and severally liable to prosecution?
Alun Michael: The clause is intended to ensure that it is not possible for a prosecution to be avoided simply by individuals hiding behind the company or the company blaming individuals. The company could be prosecuted and the clause makes it clear that individuals could be prosecuted and therefore the provisions are comprehensive in terms of the liability. The point about the body corporate managed by its members is simply to ensure that it is not possible for a number of people to say, ''Not me, guv?'' and that it is possible for the body to be held to account so that the members—in this case—can be dealt with in the same way as the directors of a company. In general, that means that it would be a straightforward prosecution of the company, but it would be clear to the company, as well as to those seeking to take things forward, that people could not hide behind that. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady the assurance that she seeks.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Power to give fixed penalty notices
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in clause 6, page 7, line 15, at end insert—
'( ) The local authority shall provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly and request immediate assistance at any time during the issue or attempted issue of a fixed penalty notice.'.
Column Number: 62
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 25, in clause 19, page 15, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) After subsection (1) insert—
''( ) The litter authority shall provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly and request immediate assistance at any time during the issue or attempted issue of a fixed penalty notice.''.'.
No. 26, in clause 23, page 23, line 21, at end insert—
'( ) The principal litter authority shalll provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly and request immediate assistance at any time during the seizure or attempted seizure of material under sub-paragraph (1) above.'.
Miss McIntosh: I would like to discuss the narrow points raised by the amendments, before having a more general discussion on the clause stand part.
I think that I am right in saying—I will stand corrected if the Minister contradicts me—that most of the fixed penalty notices would be imposed either by the police or by local authorities. Will he confirm that? We believe that that is not clear in the original drafting. We want to see that the police will still maintain a residual authority. There is general concern about how the fixed penalty notices will apply. We believe that the amendment, which is meant in the most constructive way possible, could assist the Government in ensuring that fixed penalty notices will be applied by all relevant officers—either of the local authority or of the local police force.
Amendment No. 25 refers to clause 19, so I presume that I can address it now, but not formally move it until we reach clause 19.
The Chairman: Order. We can debate the amendment concerned. It does not have to be moved at this stage.
Miss McIntosh: On the issue of fixed penalty notices, we are reiterating the point that we raised in relation to earlier provisions: we believe that we are getting too far away from the good co-operation that we have seen between police forces and local authorities, whether in regard to nuisance car parking or, as in clause 19, the authority responsible for litter. That is why we want to state specifically—I hope that the Minister will agree to this—that the authorised officer will be given the means or equipment to
''contact the police directly and request immediate assistance''.
Some altercations and extremely unpleasant situations could arise. We understand that, in other parts of the Bill, officers such as environmental health officers or local government officers will not have the power of arrest. If that is the case, the provisions in this area of the Bill will be prevented from taking effect. If an officer cannot apprehend a culprit who is being particularly belligerent or aggressive, we believe that it is important that the police work jointly with the relevant local authority.
4 pm
Amendment No. 26 would amend clause 23, which deals with controls on free distribution of printed matter. I apologise for the typo in the amendment. The
Column Number: 63
word ''shall'' normally has only two l's—or perhaps I see three because my glasses are playing up. Again, we want the police and the local authority—in this case, the litter authority—to act together.
Perhaps it was not his intention, but it seemed that the Minister studiously ignored my remarks on the scenario in Boston and other parts of the United States, where there is seamless co-operation on enforcement between the local authority and the police. That is a federal system in which local authorities are responsible for the enforcement of provisions that are similar to those we are discussing. The local authority officials work seamlessly and jointly with police officers. I humbly submit that the provisions that the Minister is introducing in this part and this clause will be for nought if there is not continued involvement with the local police force. With those introductory remarks, I await the Minister's response.
Matthew Green: We will not support the amendments. We are slightly baffled by them, as they all ask that the local authority
''provide the authorised officer with the means or equipment by which the officer may contact the police directly''.
My understanding is that dialling 999 on a mobile phone has the effect of contacting the police directly. I am not aware that local authorities have other means of contacting the police directly in any other circumstances in which a fixed penalty is issued or in which any other form of enforcement—for example, an eviction notice—is carried out. Therefore, the amendments would result in unnecessary centralisation by the Conservatives, who would dictate to councils what they should do. They ought to leave it up to the good judgment of local authorities to decide whether they need to spend money on such devices.
Alun Michael: I have no doubt about the integrity of the hon. Member for Vale of York in tabling the amendments, so she will appreciate that I am teasing her when I say that I am not sure whether mobile phone companies and radio companies were included in the long list of interests that she declared earlier.
| 
