Clause 10
Offence of abandoning a vehicle: fixed penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: This is equally, if not more, testing territory. It is our assertion that because this Government have signed up to successive EU directives—for example, the end-of-life vehicles directive—the problem of abandoned vehicles has increased.
Alun Michael: I just want to get the underlying philosophy clear at the start of the debate. Am I not right in saying that at an earlier stage the hon. Lady was urging on the Government the strict and stringent enforcement of EU regulations?
Miss McIntosh: When they are able to deliver. In 10 years as an elected Member of the European Parliament and five and a half years advising the Conservatives before that, I always endeavoured, where possible, to ensure that we did not sign up to anything. As the leader of my party says, we should not make promises we cannot keep.
Alun Michael: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to be even more historical and explain how most of the regulation that was signed up to came during the time in office of her former party leader, Lady Thatcher?
Miss McIntosh: Not with regard to end-of-life vehicles, which is what we are talking about.
Let me give the Committee an idea of the scale of the problem. According to a House of Commons Library
Column Number: 76
research paper, there were only 3,100 abandoned vehicles in the north-east of England in 2000-01. That number had more than doubled by 2002-03 to 6,900. In my region, Yorkshire and the Humber, the number of abandoned vehicles in 2000-01 was 7,900. By 2002-03, it had increased to nearly double: 15,700. The national figure is not quite so graphic. The figures for England are 223,600 abandoned vehicles in 2000-01, rising in 2002-03 to 309,300.
I am sure that the Minister is aware—because it is in the regulatory impact assessment that forms part of the directive—that the relative costs and benefits of alternative implementation options for the directive have to be considered until 1 January 2007, when producers become responsible for a significant part of the costs. There are three options before the Government. On the principle that the last owner pays, the cost will be £6 million or £40 million, depending on whether the cost of collecting abandoned cars is taken into account. Under the option that the producer pays, there are various scenarios: individual contracting, £43 million; individual contracting collective scheme, £32 million; or a fund of £24 million. What is probably the Department's least favourite option—the Exchequer paying—will mean a tax on car sales of £26 million to £27 million, or a levy of £36 million, included in vehicle excise duty.
On page 32 of the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill, we are told that the cost in England of investigating, removing and disposing of abandoned vehicles was £26 million in 2002-03. If we were able under the Bill to reduce those costs nationwide by 10 per cent., it would represent a cost saving to local authorities of £2.6 million. That would be a compelling reason for the Government and local authorities to abandon such a function.
The Library note states that there are no national statistics on the number of abandoned cars, but when local authority reports are collated it suggests that about 300,000 cars are dumped every year, against the 1.8 million cars that are scrapped. As I say, it is clear from the figures in the impartial Library research paper that the position is getting worse. I would like to see Britain take its European responsibilities seriously. I work closely with Members of the European Parliament, but in this case we are seeing a blight on the countryside, particularly in rural areas.
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment was helpful in an Adjournment debate last week, being at pains to assert that the Government were not seeking to discriminate between rural and urban areas in their proposals, particularly under clause 10. We shall monitor and pursue vigorously the operation of the Bill in that respect.
We note that in the fixed penalty notices relating to businesses under clauses 3 and 6, the penalty payable to a local authority will be £100. However, under proposed new section 2A(8), the penalty payable to a local authority is deemed to be £200. It was asserted
Column Number: 77
that the reason for the fine being £100 rising to £200 was that businesses rather than individuals were involved. Will the Minister explain why the initial fixed penalty notice is higher for abandoned vehicles than for nuisance vehicles?
I understand that a period of 14 days must elapse before proceedings may be instituted. That seems a reasonable time, but I would like to know how the Government decided on that time rather than on one or two months.
Proposed new subsection 2A(3) states that a notice should
''give such particulars of the circumstances alleged to constitute the offence as are necessary for giving reasonable information of the offence.''
Could the Minister elucidate what level of information should be given in that fixed notice, and in whose view it will be deemed to be ''reasonable'' information?
It is interesting to note that the penalty may be paid by pre-paying and sending the payment by post. Is the Minister taking it on good authority that it will not be a spot fine? We are assuming, under proposed new section 2A(5), that the penalty can be paid through the post, but what proof will there be at the time of the offence that payment has been made? Should there not be more evidence of such a payment?
Proposed new section 2A(14) refers to the ''authorised officer'', who is described as
''an employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purposes of giving notices under this section''.
As the abandonment of a vehicle can regrettably have a criminal element to it, will the police have a residual responsibility in that regard, as a back-up? I imagine that that would not be required in most instances, but for the police to absolved of all responsibilities in that regard, should there not be a transfer of resources?
5 pm
Proposed new section 2A(14) says that
'''chief finance officer', in relation to a local authority, means the person having responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority.''
Is the chief finance officer responsible for confirming that payment under clause 10 has been made?
Proposed new section 2C(8), entitled ''Use of fixed penalties under section 2A'', says:
''The powers to make regulations conferred by this section are, for the purposes of subsection (1) of section 100 of the Local Government Act 2003, to be regarded as included among the powers mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.''
Is the Minister saying, to all intents and purposes, that the primary legislation—that is, clause 10—does not set out all the procedures that must be followed when issuing a fixed penalty notice for the offence of abandoning vehicles? Will he say what he assumes the time scale to be for the Government issuing those regulations? Can he confirm that those regulations, like those we discussed previously, will be laid before Parliament? The matter is not expressly clear and the reference to guidance in clause 17 does not elucidate on it further.
Column Number: 78
Will the Minister confirm who the authorised officer is under proposed new section 2B, entitled ''Fixed penalty notices: power to require name and address''? Will he also confirm that the authorised officer will have sufficient seniority to explain to the persons subject to fixed penalty notices the consequences not only of those notices, but of not paying and thereby committing further offences?
Alun Michael: I think we have heard the nearest thing yet to an apology for the barmy amendment tabled on Second Reading by the hon. Lady's party. The issue certainly affects some rural areas as well as urban ones. I could not underline that point more strongly.
The hon. Lady asks why the penalty for abandoned vehicles is distinct from that for nuisance vehicles. To a degree, the difference arises from experience and from consultation with local authorities and others on the nature of the nuisance caused. Abandoned vehicles are serious, as they cause danger to the public as well as degradation of the environment. It is important that the often serious offences relating to abandoned vehicles should be dealt with proportionately.
Matthew Green: Does the Minister agree that having an abandoned vehicle removed by the local authority imposes far greater costs than issuing fixed penalty notices for vehicles parked on the road, which local authorities do not remove themselves, but which they want the business running them to remove? The cost on the public purse is much greater with abandoned vehicles.
Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. An abandoned vehicle can also be regarded a hazardous waste. If we consider the petrol tank of an abandoned vehicle in a residential area and what can be done with a couple of matches, the seriousness of the offence becomes clear indeed. I am sure that many of us have constituency experience of the extent to which repeated abandoning of vehicles can cause enormous distress. Unfortunately, an abandoned vehicle can also sometimes cause injury to children who attempt to play with it. A series of issues lead to the appropriateness of the penalty being clear.
Mr. Patrick Hall (Bedford) (Lab): On fixed penalty notices, I made the point on Second Reading that a defence from someone receiving a fixed penalty notice may well be that a vehicle was not deliberately abandoned. I understand that the courts have had some difficulty in accepting that it can be easily proved that a vehicle was deliberately abandoned. Will the Bill provide the remedy for this?
Alun Michael: I think that goes beyond what we can do in the Bill, but I am happy to write to my hon. Friend to set out my understanding of the position. The point he raises is serious but also difficult, as it comes down to quality of evidence, what the courts are willing to accept and where the line of reasonable
Column Number: 79
doubt can be drawn. I undertake to develop on that point more fully in writing.
There are a number of matters that we think should be left to the local authority, such as the level of the employee involved and the training offered to employees undertaking such work. Generally, the arrangements are for the local authority, which is the case with the question of the authorised officer. We have always said—this is not a matter of contention between us and local government generally—that the local authority ought to consider the appropriate level of staff, the experience of the staff and what training might be needed to meet the circumstances in which people will undertake those duties.
| 
