Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill


[back to previous text]

Miss McIntosh: The Minister is absolutely right to mention that. As a result of a recent BT division, I may now have some O2 shares, whatever good that does me. Perhaps the Minister would like to purchase them from me.

Alun Michael: I am not sure how to respond to that bid.

I do not think that we need to prescribe that local authorities must issue authorised officers with mobile phones or portable radios, or make arrangements centrally. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that the amendments would lead to excessive centralisation. Common sense suggests that an employer who is asking employees to undertake such duties ought to consider their training and ensure that they are aware of how to seek help if they need it. This is part of a general co-operative
 
Column Number: 64
 
approach at local level between the police and the local authority, above all others, but involving many other organisations as well. Indeed, that is what clause 1 is about.

In later clauses, we provide legislation that will enable the partnership to do its work. Some actions will be taken by local authorities, some will be taken by the police and some will be taken by other organisations. The seamless co-operation between the local authority and the police that we want is not hindered by anything in clause 6.

I was interested recently to see a co-operative exercise in Birmingham, where the police, the local authority, DEFRA, the Environment Agency and a variety of other agencies including the Revenue were examining vehicles and asking questions about what was wrong with them. It was interesting that the issues of overloading, safety and the use of red diesel and the possibility of criminal activity were all teased out through the teamwork of officers and officials from a variety of different central Government and local government organisations.

Rather than amend the clause, we can leave it to local authorities' common sense to ensure that their officers are properly trained and equipped. We certainly encourage that as good practice, and when I say ''we'' I mean not just DEFRA but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Home Office, as well as the Local Government Association, which is very much engaged with us in discussing the appropriate ways of ensuring that best practice is provided and spread. Co-operation between local authorities and the police is normally good; it will be further encouraged by crime and disorder reduction partnerships.

Ways of dealing with and preventing the activity that is addressed by the clauses from becoming a problem in the local area will be identified by the work of the partnership, and therefore supported by the police, although local authority officials will undertake the work. My understanding is that local authorities will cover matters such as conflict management when training authorised officers to issue fixed penalty notices. The amendments are unnecessary and rather patronising to local authorities, which will apply common sense in training their officers appropriately.

Miss McIntosh: You will notice, Mr. Taylor, that I did not refer to training of officers. I wish to consider that separately.

What the hon. Member for Ludlow said was extremely revealing and rather startling to hear from the Liberal Democrats—we have come to accept that sort of thing from Labour Members. I am very conscious of the fact that I represent an extremely rural area—probably the most extremely rural area of that represented by any hon. Member present. In my part of the world we have had great problems with mobile phone communications, to such an extent that the police radio network did not work. Both my pager and my mobile phone either have very poor reception or fail to receive a signal at all. That may be anecdotal evidence, but if one multiplies it, it can be said that
 
Column Number: 65
 
such problems arise in many instances. I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman, who claims to come from a rural area, does not understand those problems.

Alun Michael: I do not normally leap to the defence of Liberal Democrats, but the hon. Lady does not seem to know how rural Ludlow or West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire are. Rural areas are well represented in this Committee, and in my previous incarnation I was well aware of communications problems experienced by police and local authorities. The problem does not feature everywhere, so it is in the places where it does so that training should take account of the best way of communicating and ensure that officers are able to deal with any issues that arise in a way appropriate to their area.

The Chairman: Order. Interventions should not be short speeches.

Miss McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor—however interesting that intervention was.

The most alarming incident—I have never heard of this happening before—took place during the recent high winds that affected Cumbria, Northumberland, County Durham and North Yorkshire, when we lost the mobile network completely. If there is a very poor signal, it is normally still strong enough to make emergency calls, but in that instance there was no network whatever. I am sure that the Committee would join me in expressing satisfaction that that does not happen too often. I shall return to the question of training in the clause stand part debate.

I am disappointed that the Minister thought that our helpful, probing and constructive amendments were disagreeable. He referred to the crime and disorder reduction partnerships, but our concern is that the police are being excluded from them. In response to a question this morning from my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who had in mind neighbourhood watches, the Minister would not list the organisations in the partnerships. The farm watches in rural North Yorkshire make a huge contribution to reducing crime and antisocial behaviour, so I hope that he will look favourably on them. He also failed to say what the position would be with regard to young offenders and children, but we can take that up later.

Those are our reasons for tabling the amendments, but I believe that there is scope for more work on the provisions. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on the clause and on other measures in this part of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Miss McIntosh: I want to turn to the broader points on the clause, on which the Minister touched a little prematurely.

The Minister will be aware that a great deal of opinion has been expressed, perhaps most eloquently and forcefully by the Law Society, on the further
 
Column Number: 66
 
expansion of the use of fixed penalty notices, as envisaged in the clause. I hope that, from his sedentary position, he is not indicating that he has a problem with lawyers from either branch of the profession. That would put him in bad odour not only with the leader of his party, the Prime Minister, but with many others, including the Lord Chancellor.

Alun Michael: I assure the hon. Lady that some of my best friends are lawyers.

Miss McIntosh: Not many of my friends say that. I hope that the Minister will take my comments in good part.

I am sure that the Law Society will have responded to the consultation process, although, regrettably, that is not shown in the summary of responses that is available on the web. The Law Society has reservations; in its view, it is essential that only properly trained officials issue notices. As a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates, I have some sympathy with the Law Society, which says that

    ''the Bill provides local authorities''—

in England and Wales—

    ''with the power to delegate to their employees the imposition of such notices.''

However, the Bill is silent on the level of employee that is to be responsible. The Law Society goes on to say:

    ''As a result, they''—

fixed penalty notices—

    ''are likely to be issued by officials who are not fully aware of their legal significance.''

Therefore, the clause is one of the most contentious that we have considered so far.

Recipients of a fixed penalty notice should, for example, be advised that failure to pay could result in an increase in the penalty, with its conversion into a court fine and liability to prosecution. I heard what the Minister said, and I am sure that he will wish to elaborate on the response that he gave to the previous group of amendments, but the fixed penalty notices are quite substantial. Again, perhaps he will confirm whether they are discretionary.

The Government have already established the fact that a significant proportion of fixed penalty notices are not paid, resulting in court orders. The Law Society says that ''suspects''—I think that we call them the accused—

    ''should be made aware of their entitlement to appeal against a Fixed Penalty Notice and there must be appropriate procedures for such appeals to be heard.''

Clause 6 and the rest of this part of the Bill are silent about what right of appeal there will be.

4.15 pm

Alun Michael: Has the hon. Lady never had a parking ticket?

Miss McIntosh: The hon. Lady has never had a parking ticket in this country, but I confess that I got one when my husband took me on my first ever visit to the United States. It was a rather romantic interlude in West Palm Beach, in a rather nice part of Florida—
 
Column Number: 67
 

The Chairman: Order. This is fascinating, but will the hon. Lady please return to the stand part debate?

Miss McIntosh: The relevant point is that I innocently said to my husband—perhaps I should not confess this—that one perhaps did not need to pay the parking fine because the vehicle was hired and one would not be returning to Florida immediately. However, I was apprised of the fact that one would be unable to hire a car on any future visit to anywhere in the United States. That may commend itself to the Minister as a good enforcement measure. Having said all that, I shall probably now get a succession of parking fines, and I shall blame them entirely on this monstrous Government, although not the Minister personally.

Will the Minister respond to the serious point? How will those served with a fixed penalty notice be told that they can appeal? What are the appropriate procedures for that appeal? Why are they not set out in the Bill? What assurance can he give the Committee, the Law Society and all other interested parties, including future recipients of fixed penalty notices, on the consequences? What training, guidelines and regulations does he intend to put in place?

The Law Society is also concerned about the consequences for social exclusion of extending the use of fixed penalty notices, and the Minister will recall that I raised the issue when summing up on Second Reading. Unfortunately, one unintended consequence may be that those who are least able to pay will be subject to the increasing use of fixed penalty notices. This is the view of the Law Society:

    ''If the majority of Notices are issued against the more deprived members of society, their financial situation will only be made worse. The level of the Fixed Penalty Notice does not take into account the means of the recipient and could therefore have a disproportionate effect on someone reliant on benefits. The Government must weigh the risk of further social exclusion with its commitment to tackling the 'causes of crime'''—

in this case, environmental crime.

I commend the Law Society's parliamentary brief to the Minister, because it raises some serious points.

Page 86 of the Department's full regulatory impact assessment says that the provisions on nuisance vehicles—not abandoned vehicles—are expected to raise receipts to local authorities. The sums are worked out as to receipts being raised at a 50 or a 75 per cent. payment rate. As the Law Society accurately points out, the problem with fixed penalty notices is that many are simply not paid. Whose responsibility will it be to ensure that the permanent address of those issued with a fixed penalty notice is taken to guarantee payment?

Clause 6(1) states that

    ''the officer may give that person a notice offering him the opportunity of discharging any liability to conviction . . . by payment of a fixed penalty''.

Is the Minister saying that the notice can be issued only by an officer of the local authority? The provision could give rise to conviction for failure to pay, so will there be a role for the police? In the United States, there has been seamless co-operation and residual responsibility has been left with the police as to payment of such fixed penalty notices. That
 
Column Number: 68
 
eventuality did not arise in our case, because we spent half a day presenting ourselves at the local police station in West Palm Beach, Florida, to ensure that the parking fine was paid.

When a person is given notice in respect of an offence, no proceedings may be instigated before a period of 14 days has elapsed. That begs the question, what if the person issued a fixed penalty notice has fled the area? What precautions will the Minister take against that? If a severe offence had been committed, the police would normally engage in hot pursuit. Will the police be involved? How will they ascertain where the person has absconded to?

Clause 6(3) states:

    ''A notice . . . must give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence.''

Who will decide what is reasonable information?

 
Previous Contents Continue
 
House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2005
Prepared 18 January 2005