|
Miss McIntosh: I heard the Minister's response with great interest. One issue that we did not discuss, and which might have to be covered at a later stage, is that of nuisance lighting from Christmas tree decorations. That can lead to the very type of vexatious and malicious complaint to which the Minister referred. The official Opposition do not think that it is good enough simply to say that the issue is best dealt with by other means or elsewhere. It is right and proper to state in the Bill exactly how the provisions will apply to utility companies such as British Telecom, to railways and to individuals who might feel that they have cause
Column Number: 325
for complaint. For all that I am a non-practising advocate, I believe that it is much better for all concerned that the Bill speak for itself. As little as possible should be left to interpretation and guidance.
The Minister is moving in the right direction, but it is not satisfactory that he is leaving the matter to guidance, given that, regrettably, there was not the early and lengthy consultation that many of us would have liked. At a later stage, we will seek clarification on agricultural and horticultural practices. I think that the Minister will agree that they have not been subject to a plethora of complaints. Bearing in mind that we have seen so much success as a result of grants from the Football Foundation—areas such as Poppleton in Vale of York have benefited from football pitches and in other ways—it is incumbent on the Committee to make the Bill as clear as possible.
Alun Michael: The hon. Lady strays into new territory when she refers to Christmas decorations. Perhaps I ought to respond briefly to that point, because it is important to understand the way in which that would be dealt with. If the local authority is satisfied that a statutory light nuisance exists, it will have to issue an abatement order. That will require that nuisance to be abated, prohibited or restricted, and can require that works and steps be undertaken to achieve those ends within a time scale. Christmas lights could be covered in that way, although it is unlikely given their temporary nature.
Again, it is a question of striking a balance between enjoyment given and nuisance created. As in many such instances, judgment has to be used if we are to succeed in protecting the public against a genuine nuisance while avoiding excessive restrictions. That is what is meant by the best possible means. That point also applies to agricultural and horticultural activities: are they undertaken in a way that ignores the interests of those affected—are those responsible being cavalier about the impact on others or even deliberate in those actions—or are the best possible means being used? If it is the latter, agricultural and horticultural activities will be able to continue without impact from this or previous legislation.
Sue Doughty: Referring back to our amendment and having listened to the Minister, I seek some clarity. We have no disagreement about the need for safety on industrial and commercial premises and in transport and so on, or about the fact that such places operate 24 hours a day. He referred to the opportunity to take a private action, but with a large installation such as an airport or a ferry terminal, the nuisance may be the totality of the light from sites such as Poole ferry terminal, which has been mentioned.
The cause of the problem can be lights on tall columns, which should be directed more to the area that they are supposed to illuminate but in fact cast light unnecessarily far and wide. Of course one wants safety—that is not disputed—but some areas in a airport, such as sheds, do not need large amounts of light. I have already mentioned car parks. We have
Column Number: 326
some voluntary agreements, but I am still concerned about how we mitigate the unnecessary light coming from those installations. Although I am minded not to press the amendment, I would do so only following some reassurance from the Minister that everything possible is being done to minimise the pollution from those large installations.
Alun Michael: The hon. Lady puts her point reasonably, but in a way she also answers it. As she says, big transport installations such as ports and airports are not just about the direct light nuisance but about the volume of the activity. However, as she also said—I think that this is another point of agreement—the economic value of those activities, their importance to the infrastructure of the nation and the safety considerations that she acknowledged mean that they are not the intended target in a Bill that concerns local neighbourhood nuisance and the direct impact that I spoke of earlier.
There are issues to be addressed; she is right about that. It is one of the Government's concerns to see technical improvements and the minimisation of the impact of large installations, but that is way beyond what it is possible for us to deal with in this Bill. In the spirit in which the hon. Lady made her comments, I acknowledge that there are issues to be dealt with, but her amendment is not the way to address them.
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.
Division No. 5]
AYES
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Ruffley, Mr. David
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
NOES
Bradley, Peter
Doughty, Sue
Drew, Mr. David
Hall, Patrick
Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Mr. Neil
Wright, Iain
Question accordingly negatived.
Amendment proposed: No. 104, in clause 102, page 75, line 16, at end insert—
'(k) a playing field, playing pitch or other outdoor facility used wholly or mainly for sport.'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.
Division No. 6]
AYES
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Ruffley, Mr. David
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
NOES
Bradley, Peter
Doughty, Sue
Drew, Mr. David
Hall, Patrick
Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Mr. Neil
Wright, Iain
Question accordingly negatived.
Column Number: 327
9.30 am
Amendment proposed: No. 105, in clause 102, page 75, line 37, at end insert—
'''playing field'' has the meaning given in Article 3 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996;''playing pitch'' means a delineated area which, together with any run-off area, is 0.4 hectares or more, and which is used for sport;'.—[Miss McIntosh.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 8.
Division No. 7]
AYES
McIntosh, Miss Anne
Ruffley, Mr. David
Simmonds, Mr. Mark
NOES
Bradley, Peter
Doughty, Sue
Drew, Mr. David
Hall, Patrick
Michael, Alun
Tipping, Paddy
Turner, Mr. Neil
Wright, Iain
Question accordingly negatived.
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 amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question agreed to.
Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 104
Contaminated land: appeals against remediation notices
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: We are told that the clause is intended to improve the process of contaminated land appeals. Under section 78L of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, as amended by the Environment Act 1995, appeals against remediation notices under the contaminated land regime are heard by magistrates, except for special sites for which appeals are heard by the Secretary of State. This measure will effectively amend section 78L so that appeals will be made to the Secretary of State, bringing the regime more in line with other environmental regimes.
I seek clarification on a number of issues. I understand that in the original ''Clean Neighbourhoods'' consultation, although respondents were mostly supportive of the measure, a number of them objected. Most of those objecting took the view that appeals were best taken by local magistrates, and that centralising the appeals procedure could slow down the process. There were also concerns about
Column Number: 328
moving decision making away from the local level, as it is generally recognised that local magistrates have a better understanding of local situations.
Alun Michael: May I assist the hon. Lady? My reaction on first reading this proposition was similar to hers. However, I then discovered that there has only ever been one appeal. Therefore, the expertise of local magistrates would be rather limited in this area of activity.
Miss McIntosh: That is most helpful. We would not wish to open the floodgates for further appeals. I seek clarification of why the Minister thinks that the Secretary of State would be better placed. The history of the contaminated land and the remediation order would be better known to local people and the local magistrates. Only where a notice had been served by a local authority under section 78L of the Environmental Protection Act 1990—a good Act, which I commend to the Minister's Department—are appeals heard by inspectors appointed for that purpose. Those inspectors make the decision or send the case to the Secretary of State to decide upon.
Presumably the inspectors will by definition not be local and will be drafted in for their expertise in the subject matter rather than the local area. Given the number of sites that may be used for alternative purposes in future, the problem will become an increasing issue.
I am interested to know what representations were made during consultation and what regard the Minister has paid to those representations.
The Minister said that there had been only one appeal to date under section 78L of the 1990 Act. What is the level of appeal to the Secretary of State in matters to which the new procedure already applies?
How will the inspectors be qualified and trained? Is there a ready pool available, or will the inspectors be newly created? If so, will that impose an additional burden of cost, presumably to borne by the Department rather than local authorities, and will it lead to more bureaucratic procedures? At the moment there is a straightforward recourse to the magistrates court. If every owner of contaminated land appeals to the Secretary of State, how long will it take for those appeals to be heard and for the land to be cleaned up? We are particularly wedded to the 1990 Act, as it was passed on our watch and we believe that it has served extremely well.
How does the clause relate to the duty of care under earlier provisions in the Bill, particularly those in which the Government have requested that the duty of care should be actively promoted in the business community and that there should be a general recognition, albeit quite low, of what that duty is?
Subsection (7) relates to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales. Will there be a separate pool of inspectors to cover Wales or will one pool cover England and Wales? What is the situation in Scotland? It would be nice to think that the provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland were broadly similar to those in England and Wales.
Column Number: 329
| 
