Clause 75
Use of fixed penalty receipts
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: If I understood the Minister and the Government are still consulting about the range of fees, obviously what follows on in clause 75 is the fact that the income and the revenue derived from those fixed penalty receipts will vary between councils. That seems a little discriminatory. With reference to existing fixed penalty notices in existing legislation, Westminster city council has a very good record of implementing them and chasing offenders. We have noted that other councils, such as Bath, do not.
I remind the Minister and the Committee that there is an excellent table on page 86 of the Department's full regulatory impact assessment for the Bill. Will the Minister explain the basis on which it is estimated that 500 fixed penalty notices will be issued in respect of the nomination of a key holder? Let us say that the amount on a notice will be £75. Apparently, prosecutions are expected to flow from only 20 per cent. of the 500 notices issued, so 100 prosecutions is the conservative estimate. The yield on a 25 per cent. basis is, I believe, £125 million up and down the country. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that figure.
The suggestion is that for all that we have seen in this part of the Bill and for all the administration that local authorities are being asked to undertake, the income that will derive from fixed penalty receipts could vary and may not reflect the cost of issuing fixed penalty notices and pursuing receipts. I repeat that where there is a discrepancy and discrimination between local authorities, receipts will obviously be used for variable purposes. The situation is unfair for local authorities where notices do not yield so much income.
Mr. Evans: I again seek clarification because it is difficult at the moment to know what will be the burden on a local authority under clause 75 in relation to the receipts coming in and the cost of administering the scheme. As we said earlier, some areas may not designate any of their patches, because there is simply no problem, but in other areas there will be a problem. Let us say that there is a problem with one building and one firm whose alarm is going off all the time. Given
Column Number: 272
that we are considering the receipts that may be raised, can the Minister confirm whether a local authority has the power under clause 69 to designate just one building in an area?
The Chairman: Order. Clause 75 relates to the use of fixed penalty receipts.
Alun Michael: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that he has got the general message that if there is no problem, the council should not solve it. If there was no problem and the council did solve it, there would be no income, because there would be no one to prosecute. It would follow that the burden was self-inflicted, rather than imposed by the Bill.
The hon. Member for Vale of York clearly has a problem with devolution, delegation and, indeed, local government generally. She wants it all to be the same size, to have the same problems and to deal with those problems in the same way. She used the term ''discrimination'' in relation to the application of income from fixed penalties, but there are clearly differences between local authorities. A local authority that has a problem may have a certain amount of income from fixed penalties; an authority that does not have a problem will not have that income. That is not discrimination; it is simply that a local authority has to deal with whatever problems it has locally.
I am delighted that the hon. Lady's bedtime reading includes so many of the Department's excellent publications, although I must say that I would not search for massive illumination in regulatory impact assessments. It is right that we have to assess the regulatory impact of any legislation, but of course, in advance of legislation, we cannot be certain of the outcome. We have to give the best possible estimate, based on what information is available, rather than on experience after the event. Clearly, costs, as well as the nature of a problem, may vary between local authorities. It is for a local authority to decide whether and when to prosecute in default of payment. Ultimately, we favour freedoms and flexibilities for funds to be used initially in the direct area of activity, but as local authorities meet the tests and become excellent councils, they will apply the funds as they think appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 76
Fixed penalty notices: power to require name and address
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
11.15 am
Miss McIntosh: I am still suffering from shock that the Minister said that members of the Committee should not seek illumination from the regulatory impact assessment, which raises the question why the Government went to such expense and extravagance
Column Number: 273
to produce it. Conservative Members find the regulatory impact assessment extremely useful and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is a reliable source—that it is not a guesstimate, but an accurate estimate.
I seek clarification of subsection (3), which states:
''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.''
What is the proposed amount?
Alun Michael: The level 3 fine is up to £1,000, as it has been throughout our discussions in Committee. If the hon. Lady seeks illumination, I advise that she first switch the light on, because she could illuminate her own thoughts. In preparing a regulatory impact assessment, some pieces of information come from an analysis of what has happened elsewhere, and others depend on our making the most intelligent guess possible on the information available. Any regulatory impact assessment should be read in that context.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 77
Power of entry
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: The clause relates to enabling an officer to enter premises without a warrant for the purposes of silencing a problem alarm, and it sets out the circumstances in which he may do so, provided that he does not enter by force. It prompts the question that if such an offence is carried on under clause 76 and if the person is seeking the power of entry under clause 77 without using force, how can he be identified? Will he carry any written authority?
Alun Michael: May I help the hon. Lady? Clause 77(5) states:
''The officer must, if required, show evidence of his authority to act under this section.''
Clearly, he must be carrying it with him or he would not be able to show it.
Miss McIntosh: That is most helpful. It shows that the Minister is responding to our probing in his usual kindly fashion.
Alun Michael: May I point out to the hon. Lady that it means that I have read the Bill?
Miss McIntosh: So have we, which is why we are seeking clarification. Would not it be helpful to state evidence of whose authority and from whom? Is it from the local authority? Does it mean that, under this clause, there is no recourse to a justice of the peace?
Alun Michael: It refers to an authorised officer of the local authority, so clearly the authorisation lies with the local authority, as does the method of
Column Number: 274
demonstrating that authority, which in most—indeed, I think all—local authorities is in an acceptable and generally recognised form. The powers in the clause are self-evident. Were it necessary to force entry, it would need to be under other provisions. The clause refers to a straightforward situation which allows an officer to do what is necessary if he is able to gain entry without force.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 78
Warrant to enter premises by force
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: Following what the Minister said on a point of clarification, that a warrant is required and that evidence of the warrant must be shown under clause 78, would it not be normal for a warrant to enter premises by force require the identification of an authorised officer—meaning that the officer should be wearing uniform—to distinguish the powers of entry under clause 78 from those under clause 77? Clearly entering by force carries with it more severe powers and penalties than did the previous measure.
Alun Michael: The simple answer is no. Let us take a proportionate response to the clause. It relates to a situation in which an
''alarm has been sounding continuously for more than twenty minutes or intermittently for more than one hour''
and in a location where it is likely to cause annoyance to persons living or working in the vicinity. Anyone who lives in the vicinity of a repeater alarm will know exactly what that means. The clause also stipulates that in a designated area
''reasonable steps have been taken to get the nominated key-holder to silence the alarm''
and that entry to the premises without force is not possible.
So, the context is reasonable. Anyone who has experienced that irritating problem will be unamused that the hon. Lady does not support the proposal. It is not a new power. Under current law, a local authority officer can enter premises by force to silence an alarm. The clause makes the procedure simpler and faster. I commend it to the Committee.
Sue Doughty: I seek clarification. As the Minister points out, the powers have existed before. However, there have been considerable complaints, by the Noise Abatement Society and others, which say that the time before one can get into a premises and silence the alarm is too long. In his remarks, the Minister said that the procedure would become faster. For clarification, and to give us hope, will he say how long it would typically take to get into a premise using the powers?
| 
