|
Sue Doughty: I thank the Minister for his commitment to leave the matter with local councils, because that is where it should be.
Having listened to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, I am a little concerned about one aspect. I appreciate that people do not want someone else going into their home, and that there should be respect for their privacy. However, if their alarm is going off, which is no respecter of anyone else's privacy, I take the tough view that that nuisance cannot be allowed to continue unabated. That might mean that someone has to get a new alarm that switches off after a certain amount of time. If people want privacy, they must also reduce the risk that their alarm keeps going off.
We have got the answer that we were seeking in respect of the amendments that we tabled, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of debate on the clause or amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 72
Nomination of key-holders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: This is a small point for clarification. Clause 71 creates a new offence and on conviction a person is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. I assume that it will be the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the provisions of the clause are brought to the attention of those who may fall under them. What happens if the responsible person, as described in subsections (4) and (5), has delegated his responsibility? What if there has been a change in the person who is responsible for complying with the provisions of the clause? Is it the
Column Number: 268
responsible person himself, the key holder or the owner of the premises if it is a dwelling or the tenant if it is business premises?
Subsection (3) states:
''A person may be nominated as a key-holder in respect of premises''
only if he meets the criteria that are set out. In the event of a disagreement where it is not clear who that person is, who interprets that part of the subsection and the other provisions of the clause?
Alun Michael: On the last point, such issues will be dealt with in a common-sense way by the local authorities. It will issue guidance and make it clear to those to whom a notice is given of the designation of an area exactly how they must carry out their requirements. It is the responsibility of the responsible person to do it properly. Clearly if the local authority spotted that it was not being pursued in the right way, it would raise that with the individual. Responsibility must rest with the responsible person.
The clause essentially provides the back-up provision to deal with those who are casual about their responsibilities and flout the interests of the local community by failing to do what they are supposed to do. I would be extremely surprised if a local authority did not first point out to someone who was failing to comply with the requirements that they were subject to a criminal conviction and invite them to comply, not least because that would avoid the cost of undertaking a prosecution. An authority could go straight to a prosecution if someone was flouting the law and clearly had no intention of complying. The court would take account of the circumstances in deciding whether a person should be found guilty and what punishment should be given out. I am certain that the proportionality of our system of prosecution would deal with those issues.
Mr. Evans: The newspapers have been full recently of the case of a lady who was stopped for eating an apple while driving. I think the case cost well over £10,000 in the end. Is that the proportionality and reasonableness that we would want to see in the clause?
Alun Michael: I have referred in the past to the time when the current leader of the Conservative party was attacked by the newspapers when someone was fined for the so-called ''mere dropping'' of a crisp packet. The circumstance of the case turned out to be quite different. I will not be driven by references to a lady eating an apple while driving when I do not know the circumstances. I certainly do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers. I am certain that in general proportionality applies. There is the odd case, which is the exception. Often with odd cases the description in the newspapers has nothing to do with the actual circumstances. I counsel the hon. Gentleman, whether dealing with arms or apples, to be sure of the facts.
Column Number: 269
As regards the hon. Lady's final point, responsibility must rest with the responsible person.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
11 am
Clause 73
Offences under section 71: fixed penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: Would it be in order to refer to clauses 73, 74, 75 and 76 together, Mr. Taylor?
The Chairman: I plan to take all the stand part debates separately.
Miss McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
I have a question about subsection (3)(a), which states that
''no proceedings may be instituted for the offence before the end of the period of 14 days starting with the day after that on which the notice is given''.
The responsible person—the home owner or business premises tenant—could be sick for an extended period and the person to whom he delegates responsibility away for a shorter period but longer than the 14 days. In some circumstances, 14 days will be seen as an extremely short period. It is a question of clarification.
I am a little concerned about the definition of authorised officer in subsection (11). Some people may fall into these categories through delegation in a company, particularly in relation to business premises. The provision is very narrowly drawn.
Alun Michael: May I point out, first, that subsection (3)(a) refers to the giving of a fixed penalty notice? It does not say that, after the expiry of the 14 days, there must be a prosecution. If there is a prosecution, that involves notification to the individual and a response, which might be ''I've been away for a month. Here's my cheque.'' Local authorities are not likely to rush to a prosecution if it is not appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that the Bill sets out a reasonable minimum period; a longer period would be inappropriate in such circumstances.
We seek to leave the designation of an authorised officer to the flexibility of the local authority, but we shall cover the issue in guidance. We would expect the local authority to ensure that an appropriate person undertook the work.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 74
Amount of fixed penalty
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 270
Miss McIntosh: Is the figure of £75 in subsection (2)(b) a minimum, a maximum or a guideline? There is concern that different levels of fine will apply in different local authority areas, which would probably not be a good idea. Can the Minister give us some guidance about that? People are worried that, as the fixed penalty will be payable to the local authority, it could be perceived as a stealth tax and a means of raising money. Can he put their minds at rest on that point?
Mr. Evans: I also seek clarification on the clause. I know that the Minister will say that the fine must be set at a level that people, if they have offended, are likely to pay rather than risk going to court. If the amount is disproportionate, such as £500 or £1,000, that is clearly a huge sum of money. The fine must be reasonable, and £75 has been deemed fairly reasonable.
Is the provision flexible for a local authority where somebody's alarm has gone off a few times because of a fault, particularly if, for instance, the alarm is reset but goes off again in two weeks because of another fault? We must incentivise the person to maintain or replace the alarm, particularly if it is old. If somebody's alarm went off and the local authority said, ''In these circumstances, we would normally fine you £100, but we will reduce that amount if you replace it or obtain a certificate to show that it has been properly maintained,'' would the arrangement be flexible, or does the local authority have to fine them? We do not want to penalise people willy-nilly; we want the problem to go away. That is what the Bill is all about, and we want the fault on the alarm fixed.
Alun Michael: The fixed penalty notice in this case is for not registering.
Mr. Evans: In which case, I will sit down.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for resuming his seat with such grace.
I do not want to indulge in tedious repetition about an issue that has already been dealt with exhaustively elsewhere in the Bill. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman answered the debate with his point that penalties must be set at a level that will make people more likely to pay them. They should not be set at a level that people would not pay and that would lead to the costs of prosecution for the local authority or at a level that is so low that it has no impact on people's behaviour. That is the simple answer to the whole issue.
The powers enable local authorities to set their own level of fixed penalty in their areas, and to treat a penalty as paid if a lesser amount is paid within a shorter specified period. That gives local authorities the flexibility to act sensibly. Those powers may be subject to limitations contained in regulations made by the appropriate person or body, which is the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly for Wales. The power is there to ensure that limitations are made if necessary. I do not think that they will be, as it is a straightforward matter.
Column Number: 271
The figure of £75 is neither the maximum nor the minimum but the default amount. If local authorities do not want to spend time considering what is appropriate in their area, £75 kicks in. We will consider the question of maximum and minimum fixed penalties and consult stakeholders on what they should be, but if it helps Members to suggest a probable range, the maximum will be about £100 and the minimum about £50. That would not preclude the local authority from allowing a further reduction for early payment.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
