|
Alun Michael: I regard the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), as an entirely constructive suggestion. However, introducing such provisions formally would lead us on to the hierarchy of penalties that are involved in court sentencing procedures. Also, the costs involved in supervising a community service order as an alternative to payment of a fine would fall on the public services. There would be problems with such an arrangement.
We must be clear in our sentencing system. I have been involved in the issue practically, both as a sentencer during the years I sat in the magistrates courts in Cardiff, and in the supervision of people under community service orders. I am a great fan of the idea of reparation, because it engages the offender in doing something about the outcome of their offence. However, one thing that I have learnt in dealing with criminal justice policy is that one must be clear what the sentence is, what the consequences are, how it will be administered and what the expectations of the person being sentenced are. We cannot stray into that area, almost accidentally, by accepting the amendment.
None the less, I have been exercising my imagination and wondering whether it would be possible for local authorities that wanted to adopt the approach that the hon. Lady suggests to do so; I think that it would be. It would be open to local authorities to establish voluntary schemes for people to undertake work for the improvement of the environment—indeed, many local authorities have such schemes or co-operate with voluntary organisations in their areas in order to introduce them. A few weeks ago I spent some time with a group of volunteers in St. Mellons in my constituency. Some of them were from the hostel for the homeless in south Cardiff and some were from the Fairbridge project, which works with young people in the city. They are two excellent projects, albeit not ones that would normally be associated with litter, but they were running a scheme in which quite a few
Column Number: 127
people, some young, some older, were doing something useful, engaging socially and learning about litter and fly-tipping in consequence.
If there were such a scheme, it would be possible for a local authority to make it clear that it would not serve a fixed penalty notice, or to offer to withdraw the notice, if the perpetrator was willing to put some time in. I do not think that we could create such a structure in the Bill, but I think that there is merit in the hon. Lady's suggestion, which might bring benefits, with a little lateral thinking locally,. The fixed penalty could, in effect, be the standard penalty, which would allow the offender to avoid going to court, but other options might be offered.
2.45 pm
Matthew Green (Ludlow) (LD): May I clarify one point? If a council issues a fixed penalty notice, will it be entirely at the council's discretion to commute it into some form of payment in kind—reparation might be one possibility—rather than insisting on payment? That seems to be what the Minister is saying, but I want to be absolutely clear.
Alun Michael: The point is that the local authority has two alternatives: either it gets the money from the offender or it prosecutes; it is not a question of not pursuing the fixed penalty. It would be perfectly open to the authority to say, ''Ok, if you do a bit of work, we won't prosecute.'' The form of words used would be slightly different, but the end result might be the same. The point, however, is that there would be an opportunity to do something a little different. It would need quite a bit of thinking through in terms of the messages that were being given, but it would not be impossible for a local authority that really wanted to do so to put something constructive in place in its area to encourage engagement in clearing up, instead of taking people to court.
I am trying to respond positively and constructively to what is behind the amendment. There is, however, no possibility of accepting it, because it would muddle the fixed penalty notice with sentences of the court and the hierarchy of ways of dealing with offenders through the formal court and criminal justice system. However, there might be something in the proposal that a local authority could pick up as a way of designing local provisions, which might have the benefits outlined by the hon. Member for Guildford, as well as benefits in terms of engagement and education about the impact of litter on an area.
I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, because even though I cannot accept the amendment, we do not disagree about wanting to achieve greater engagement and flexibility in dealing with offences. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that I am trying to meet her halfway and to be constructive about her suggestions.
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his positive approach to the amendments. This is an important point. When the Environmental Audit Committee
Column Number: 128
produced its report ''Environmental Crime and the Court'', two concerns emerged loud and clear from witness after witness, and from the memorandums that the Committee received. The first, which is not relevant to this debate, was that people thought that the fines given in court were not high enough and that courts were not sentencing to the level that they were allowed to. Secondly, however, people were concerned that fines were sometimes a blunt instrument, which did not take account of income and ability to pay.
I very much appreciate the Minister's points and I shall withdraw the amendment, but before I do, I want to press him a little further. Given what he said about considering a more creative approach, when the Bill becomes law will he be able to incorporate in his guidelines something along the lines of our amendment and others that will be tabled later?
Alun Michael: It might be difficult formally to include in guidelines something that is not in the Bill, although one might find ways of signposting such suggestions. A community service order would be required for someone formally to undertake a period of community service, and of course it is open to the court to impose such an order instead of a fine when the person is prosecuted and taken before it. There is therefore an avenue in the criminal justice system by which one can reach the community service order. We encourage local authorities to consider imaginative schemes and to think laterally. We are trying to avoid putting new burdens on them, but working with them to make use of opportunities. Our discussions are not just about how we implement legislation, but about how we set legislation in the wider context of doing things differently and better, and of engaging the public, including those who offend. We are trying to create a better situation for the future. My answer to the spirit of what the hon. Lady is saying, rather than to the particulars, is yes.
Sue Doughty: I appreciate those comments, which go a long way to getting on the record the opportunities that are available to councils. We are not trying to make life over-arduous for councils, but in the end persistent offending is a cost to them, as is clean-up. We are all trying to obtain practical, common-sense solutions. I hope, as a result of this debate, that the Minister will take any opportunities available to use the guidance given to councils and to the courts to tell them that it is available. There is a slew of areas in which we are looking for legislative remedies to environmental crime, so anything further that the Government can do will be appreciated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sue Doughty: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 19, page 16, line 7, after 'council', insert
'with accreditation under the Quality Council Scheme'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 72, in clause 19, page 16, line 24, after 'section', insert
'; or for conferring authorisation to give notices under this section onto his employees.'.
Column Number: 129
Sue Doughty: We touched on the content of amendment No. 69 on Second Reading, but we tabled it in Committee to elicit clarification and to ensure that the subject is clearly understood. We are concerned about parish councils—those that might not be fully elected and rely on co-option—that might take upon themselves responsibilities greater than they should reasonably be given. If we are to have democratically elected councils using powers in the Bill as proposed, that must go right down to parish level. We have looked at the accreditation within the quality council scheme and are recommending that that be incorporated.
Amendment No. 72 deals with people who are not council employees. We are concerned that people who are employed by the council to carry out environmental services, such as waste contractors, are not telling people such as dustbin men, ''You actually have the ability to issue fixed penalty notices.'' The amendment is designed to obtain clarification about council employees and contractors; we hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that the provision does not mean that a council can discharge its responsibilities through its waste contractors. There should be greater clarity about which people the council might appoint to issue fixed penalty notices.
Alun Michael: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's explanation of her amendments and for making it clear that they are probing. I will respond in a similar manner.
I have some sympathy with the first amendment and the promotion of the quality parish and town council scheme. The scheme recognises the effort put into achieving qualifications and quality, and an essential part of achieving its requirements is to have elected councillors. The reference to quality councils is therefore entirely appropriate, but the provision is a little too restrictive to be in the Bill. I personally expect it to be the quality town and parish councils that take up the powers and that have the capacity to do so. I considered such an approach of limiting the provision to quality councils when we were looking at the design of the Bill, but concluded that that was not appropriate, partly because a quality council may be very small or very large, and the difference in capacity could make a difference. In discussions with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, the general feeling was that a common-sense approach will be adopted: those councils that have the necessary employees and capacity will go for it. By and large, the councils that are ambitious to do the best for their local area are the ones that are going through the quality process. That is becoming increasingly popular and regarded as an encouragement by local authorities.
The Bill allows regulations to be made. We envisage that they will prescribe the conditions that authorised officers of parish councils need to meet before issuing penalties. We undertake to look at the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to those regulations. The regulations can set out qualifying standards that have to be met before parish councils can retain the receipts from fixed penalties. Again, that will encourage parish
Column Number: 130
councils to achieve the higher standards. To complete the circle, achieving higher standards is best reflected in the award of quality status.
The provision to prescribe conditions that have to be met by those authorised by parish councils to issue penalties applies to anybody who is authorised to issue a fixed penalty notice on behalf of parish councils, including employees of other bodies. I should make it clear that anyone who issues a fixed penalty notice on behalf of a parish council has to be authorised in writing to do so by the council itself. For that reason amendment No. 72 is unnecessary.
I welcome the thrust of what is being said about those who undertake the work, who must be appropriate people and should be encouraged to be properly trained. However, the hon. Lady should not to be too dismissive of dustmen. My teacher at Sunday school in the chapel was a street cleaner and he was a wise and far-sighted man. The general public in Llandudno would have been well served had he been given these powers. Let us not be too dismissive of the individuals who might be given them.
|
