|
The Chairman: Order. The hon. Lady is straying a little wide of the clause.
Miss McIntosh: I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion and simply ask the Minister to address the points that we have raised, in particular the implications of data protection, and to recognise that successive Governments and insurance companies have encouraged householders and owners of business premises to install intruder alarms. I am sure that the Government want to encourage that.
I have a final question for the Minister. Has his Department had a chance to discuss the provisions with the Association of Chief Police Officers? If so, has the Bill been adjusted to take its concerns into account?
Alun Michael: The Bill does not deal with wider issues of noise. I say that because the hon. Lady referred to comments from Westminster city council, which suggested that we should be dealing with wider noise issues instead of the particular nuisance of intruder alarms. That does not seem to me to be a terribly sensible comment, because the council should be aware that we are producing a neighbourhood noise strategy, which we hope to consult on later this year and which will include a thorough review of existing noise legislation. It is far too complex an issue to deal with in the context of the Bill, so a separate, full review is necessary. We are dealing here with the specific problem of intruder alarms, which has been raised with us during our long consultation on ways of improving the environment in local communities.
I was also asked whether regulations would be issued. No regulations are needed, but we will issue guidance. Therefore, local authorities will use the provisions in the Bill flexibly and in a way appropriate to the local area. The guidance will help them to decide how to do that.
10.30 am
I acknowledge that Westminster—a concentrated area with many premises involved with entertainment and late night activity—has particular problems, many of which are best dealt with in the wider context of noise, as it is widely defined, rather than under the issue of intruder alarms.
The provisions, which will replace existing requirements and London-specific legislation, will give local authorities the opportunity to provide answers for specific local problems. One example that I want to
Column Number: 261
address is the requirement that there should be two key holders in an area, although alarm companies obviously place requirements on people through their contractual arrangements. It is one thing to have two key holders in an area of high-density population, but quite another to have the same requirement in a rural area—rural and semi-rural areas might be included in designated areas—in which there might be only two houses within reasonable proximity of each other. In those circumstances, such a requirement would be inappropriate.
I could not quite follow the hon. Lady's problems regarding flexibility. Of course, the requirements of data protection legislation apply, but we are talking about the provision of information in order to contact key holders to silence alarms and avoid difficulty to the public. Sometimes data protection is discussed as though it forbids reasonable activity or common-sense use of data. It does not: it requires that data be used in a proper manner within legislation that is designed to protect the individual. That is why we had to include a provision in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to make it clear that information can be held and exchanged between bodies for the reduction of crime and disorder. I suggest that the Committee should not have a long discussion about the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, and should accept that there needs to be sensible observance of data protection legislation—that might be covered in the guidance.
I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the provisions of clause 77, but I will deal with that when we debate that clause.
In drafting these measures, we tried to achieve a balance between the interests of local authorities and the community at large, and those of individual householders. We covered one such issue when we debated the amendment about notification. It is because of that need for balance that I cannot accept new clause 8, which would impose new burdens on individual householders. The benefits it would bring to local authorities and the wider community would not outweigh the cost to individuals.
It is not necessary to require audible intruder alarms to have a cut-off device, as it is already standard for modern intruder alarms to be fitted with a 20-minute cut-off device, and it is likely that nearly all new alarms will comply. Industry standards change. We are currently considering the introduction of European standards for intruder alarms—the EN 50131 series, as implemented by the British Standards Institution—which will require a 15-minute cut-off. It is more appropriate to address cut-offs through the trade, rather than by penalising individuals. As I have said, other provisions, such as those in clause 77, provide safeguards where there are particular problems.
It is not necessary for householders to display their local authority telephone number, as that information should already be publicised and readily available. Such a requirement would impose an unnecessary burden on individuals. I am sure that the hon. Lady sought to ensure that common sense will be applied. I
Column Number: 262
have indicated that guidance to deal with practical issues will be provided, thus enabling local authorities to take appropriate steps to deal with this problem in their areas.
Miss McIntosh: I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, and I look forward to hearing his views on the later clause. There is a serious point about the Data Protection Act, and it would be helpful to know how long he expects information to be held on file.
Alun Michael: That is not relevant to this clause, but if the hon. Lady has specific concerns, I would be happy to drop her a line to outline the relationship with the Data Protection Act.
The Chairman: Order. I am grateful for the Minister's commitment, but this point is not relevant to the clause.
Miss McIntosh: I take that point. The Minister told us that there would be a separate consultation in response to the points I raised on behalf of Westminster city council. He has laid himself open to the charge that that is a knee-jerk reaction; perhaps it would have been better to have waited.
Alun Michael: The specific problem for local authorities of dealing with intruder alarms has come out of consultation. Our reaction has not been knee-jerk; it has been a responsible reaction to provide local authorities with the means to deal with that problem. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her remarks.
Miss McIntosh: I am not minded to withdraw my remarks. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the points I made earlier that in the view of at least one council—Westminster city council—the legislation is not necessary. That view is therefore held by local authorities and the industry that will be affected. They believe that the legislation could be extremely intrusive and costly to impose. We have had a good debate and we will reserve our judgment until Report stage on how the clause will apply.
Alun Michael: May I simply say that legislation should not be driven by one specific council? This legislation is not only for Westminster, or even for the whole of London, but for the whole country. The hon. Lady should search a little wider for the advice that she receives.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Withdrawal of designation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: I have a small point to make about this clause. It clearly states that, having designated an area, a local authority may withdraw that designation. On what basis will the clause apply, and how will local authorities be able to inform all those relevant and
Column Number: 263
affected, including domestic householders and owners of business premises? What will the cost of the clause be? The regulatory impact assessment is not specific: it states that there will be a cost to local authorities of maintaining a database, but it does not state how much that will be. Therefore, a double cost could be incurred under this and the previous clause.
Alun Michael: It is fascinating that the hon. Lady asks about the costs associated with a clause that deals with removing costs. If the local authority concludes that designation is no longer necessary, and that therefore the cost of maintaining it is no longer necessary, it can remove it. I would have thought that this is sensible flexibility, and I cannot understand her wish to retain an inflexible system and make local authorities maintain a designation whether or not it is still needed.
It is slightly odd that the hon. Lady is referring to costs in relation to this clause. In reference to her one source of information—Westminster city council—it is worth pointing out that the proposed system under the Bill is less costly than the London system already applied by Westminster. The logic of that, and of the authority's communications with Conservative Members on the Opposition Front Bench, seems a little curious.
Miss McIntosh: I shall try to help the Minister. His document—the regulatory impact assessment—states that there will be a cost to local authorities that maintain a database. Clearly, the database that local authorities are asked to update will easily become out of date in a year, given the number of people who change homes and the number of business premises that change ownership or tenant. The alarm systems might be changed, with the introduction of new ones and the lapsing of old ones. It was in the spirit of probing the Minister about how he imagines the database will be kept up to date that we tabled the amendment. It seems extraordinary that the Government have made no estimate of the cost of keeping such a database.
| 
