|
Alun Michael: I am not sure that I understand the question. There is no change to the role of the Secretary of State. The clause simply defines the terms used. The phrase ''appropriate person'' is used because under the devolution settlement the powers are exercised in relation to local authorities in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales rather than the Secretary of State. In the past, the legislation would have simply referred to the Secretary of State and it would have been the appropriate Secretary of State, whether for Wales or for a Department relating to English local authorities. The phraseology is very common. It does not change anything. It is normal use. The clause is only about interpretation. It does not change the powers of any individual or body, be they Secretary of State or local authority.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 283
Clause 82
Noise offences: fixed penalty notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: This part relates to noise from premises. Will the exceptions under the Noise Act 1996 remain in place? I understand that there are some quite sizeable exceptions, whether that is noises from all workplaces and all neighbourhood noises. Most of the offending businesses relate to transport such as airports, harbours and railway stations, particularly those that operate at night and those involving freight. Is there scope to look at reducing the exceptions and extending the provisions of the Bill?
Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Lady? She may be reading too much into the clause. It simply writes into section 8 of the Noise Act 1996 the type of ability to vary the fixed penalty that we have dealt with on quite a number of occasions. There are no hidden agendas here. The clause is quite straightforward.
The Chairman: Order. The Minister has redirected us in terms of the specific provisions of this clause, which refers to fixed penalty notices. Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to move on.
Miss McIntosh: That is most helpful clarification. Under subsection (2)(b) of new section 8A, the amount of the fixed penalty is to be fixed and specified at £100. Why is the amount £100 in this case, when under clause 74, the penalty was fixed at £75?
Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Lady? We have dealt with this sort of question on numerous occasions. During consultation we sought to identify, from the practical experience of those involved, the level at which people would be likely to pay the fine—not so low that people are likely to disregard it, and not so high that people are more likely to go to court. The penalty is currently £100, so the provision makes no change except inserting the capacity of local authorities to vary the amount up or down, within reason, for purposes that I have set out on a number of occasions in relation to other clauses in which fixed penalty notices are relevant.
The Chairman: Order. I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but he should bear it in mind that lengthy interventions may not necessarily be a substitute for his reply to a clause stand part debate.
Miss McIntosh: The Minister has made a similar point on other occasions, but we have never addressed the charging of £100 in this case, and it would be helpful to know his thinking behind it. I know from the summary responses to his consultation on the Bill that there was substantial evidence that one reason why
Column Number: 284
fixed penalty notices issued under the Noise Act 1996 were not working was that people felt that the system was bureaucratic and time-consuming, and that for the amount of money involved, there was little reward for local authorities to pursue the matter. Therefore, why has he come up with the figures of £100 and £75 respectively?
I am familiar with the arguments in favour of variable charging, but I want to know whether the Minister is seeking to go down that path. To remind him, this is the first opportunity we have had to ask such questions because we have not discussed this clause before, and I would like a substantive answer. Given the categorical list of extensive responses that he received to the consultation, it is incumbent on him to address these points.
Alun Michael: First, £100 is the current figure. Given that some bodies felt that £100 remains an appropriate figure, whereas others, as the hon. Lady said, thought that there should be variation, £100 seemed to be the right starting point. There was no massive amount of evidence that the level should differ from the existing level, but this provision provides flexibility for local authorities that feel that it would make a difference to be able to implement that variation.
It is also worth saying that only comparatively recently have local authorities been allowed to retain the income from fixed penalties. That provision was contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which I think has been in operation for only about a year. That has gone some way towards local authorities benefiting from the income where fixed penalties are applied. This measure gives them greater flexibility on the level and on ways of encouraging people to pay, for the reasons that I have enunciated on previous clauses. I hope that the Committee agrees that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 84
Extension of Noise Act 1996 tolicensed premises etc
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: I seek clarification of the term ''licensed premises''. Can the Minister give a proper definition, perhaps for the purposes of the clause and schedule 1, so that we can be clear about the exact scope of the Bill and the clause?
Sue Doughty (Guildford) (LD): I am interested in how the clause will work. When I read it initially, I assumed that it related to noise coming from licensed premises, but certainly in the past week, when the public and politicians have been having quite a wide debate about the extension of licensing hours, one thing that people have remarked on heavily is that
Column Number: 285
there is noise not only from the pub itself but from the comings and goings, the chatter of people leaving, the shouting in the street and the other activities associated with licensed premises. There is noise in the environment of licensed premises as well as in the licensed premises. Will the Minister explain what he means by an extension to licensed premises? Does that include noise from associated activity as well as in the premises themselves?
Alun Michael: The clause applies to licensed premises rather than to wider issues in the street; it is not intended to deal with that. We should remember that this is an environmental Bill primarily, dealing with noise. The clause is intended to give local authorities new powers to tackle the night noise problem from licensed premises. It provides local authorities with powers to take action when the noise from licensed premises at night is causing annoyance to those in the vicinity but the problem is not severe enough to warrant serving a 24-hour closure order under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. That will make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour in a proportionate way, and responds to a number of concerns about the impact of licensing hours in terms of noise. A local authority will be able to serve a notice on a pub or club requiring it to reduce noise levels. If it does not comply, an offence is committed.
Clause 84 gives effect to schedule 1, which amends the Noise Act 1996 to extend local authority powers to take action against night noise under the Act to cover licensed premises. The powers of local authorities under the Noise Act are currently restricted to night noise from dwellings. That is the principal difference. This measure provides for an appropriate and proportionate response where there was perhaps a gap in the powers available to local authorities.
The offence of causing noise beyond the specified level after due warning has been given is applied to the ''responsible person'', who is the person in charge of the premises when the offence is committed. The permitted level of noise for licensed premises will be determined—work is taking place on this—in time for the implementation of this provision. With those words of explanation, I hope that we can agree that clause 84 will stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh rose—
The Chairman: Order. I have allowed the Minister to give that explanation, but our debate on the narrow clause 84 is turning into a debate on schedule 1, which I do not want to happen at this point, although the Minister has very helpfully set the stage for it. If the hon. Lady intends to get us into schedule 1, I ask her to wait just a moment, by which time I suspect that we shall be on to schedule 1. Is that helpful?
Miss McIntosh: Could I beg your indulgence, Mr. Forth, and ask whether the point that I was intending to raise is best made at that stage or at this stage? It concerns the relationship between clause 84 and section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.
Column Number: 286
3 pm
The Chairman: I suspect that that matter would be better raised in the debate on schedule 1.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Application of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises etc.
Question proposed, That this schedule be the First schedule to the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to have the opportunity to have a short debate on schedule 1, which is rather long. The Minister will be aware that chapter 11 of the guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides details of extended police powers
''to close down instantly individual licensed premises that are disorderly, likely to become disorderly or are causing nuisance as a result of noise from the premises.''
I understand that schedule 1 sets out additional, new measures, which set the Bill on a collision course with the 2003 Act. Could the Minister put my mind at rest that a so-called double jeopardy situation in laws for pubs or other businesses in the hospitality sector will not arise? The officials from his Department may not be as well versed in the implications of chapter 11 of the guidance to section 182 of the 2003 Act as their counterparts in the other Department. I would find it helpful to have a letter of explanation on that point.
| 
