Schedule 4
Minor and consequential amendments
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fourth schedule to the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: I seek guidance from the Minister about how the provisions relating to the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, specifically those on graffiti and fly-posting, will be interpreted.
It might be opportune to inform the Committee that it would appear that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of fly-posting and do not wish such posters to be removed. According to a ''Focus'' leaflet that was recently circulated in Romsey, they think it is terrible that fly-posters that are illegally advertising charitable events should be torn down. It said:
''All of these would be torn down''.
It invites support and seems to be a classic case of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing in one part of the country and something different in another.
Sue Doughty: I find it slightly rich that those on the Conservative Benches, where there is opposition to the whole Bill, feel able to make any comment about those who support it.
Miss McIntosh: It gets better, because I can quote from the ''Focus'' leaflet. It said:
''We know that strictly speaking it is illegal, but we believe that most signs are temporary and do not obstruct the pavement or highway and provide a valuable community service. Tell us what you think, send back the slip.''
That brought a rare smile to the Minister's face. We will pursue the matter.
Sue Doughty: The hon. Lady has dealt with the issue by saying that the leaflet was inviting opinion. It said:
''Tell us what you think''.
Column Number: 333
It did not say, ''Do it right or wrong''. It invited opinion and, coming from a party that likes to consult people, I think that that is a reasonable question.
The Chairman: Order. I am now going to tell the Committee what I think, and that is that we should move on briskly to consider schedule 4.
Miss McIntosh: A rare moment of agreement between the Government and the official Opposition has occurred.
Might I draw the Minister's attention to concerns that were raised, particularly by Network Rail, about the Government's guidance on the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 with regard to fly posting and graffiti? It was clear and was welcomed by both parties. Network Rail is particularly concerned that that guidance, with the amendments that the Minister is seeking to introduce in paragraphs 12 to 19 of schedule 4 and the regulations that were referred to in other parts of the Bill, might detract from the very clear guidance that has been given in other regards. It affects not only Network Rail; we have had representations from London Underground, Metronet and other transport operators.
Paragraph 14 states that a fixed penalty will apply. As was mentioned earlier, graffiti is often no sooner removed than it is replaced. It is an ongoing activity that all transport operators take extremely seriously. I am sure that it does not apply to trains alone; buses in London and other urban centres can have great difficulties as well. Will the Minister take the opportunity to explain how the guidance issued under the 2003 Act sits, and will he confirm that this schedule will not contradict it?
Can the Minister clarify how he expects new subsection (4A) inserted by paragraph 3, which concerns the imposition on waste disposal authorities of a duty to make payments, to operate? What burdens will it place on the waste disposal authorities and what representation and expressions of concern has he received from those authorities in that regard?
Paragraph 4 refers to a waste disposal contractor. The Minister will be aware that there have been successful moves, particularly by unitary authorities such as City of York, but also jointly, for example with Yorkshire county council, to contract out to a waste disposal company. Those arrangements are not uniform across the country. There are provisions in the Bill that would make it impossible to contract out to tender—I think that the Government wish to keep that within local authority control. I hope that, where there have been positive developments, the Government will not seek to eradicate them. They have been to the benefit of taxpayers as well as of local authorities. With these short remarks, I invite the Minister to clarify the issue.
Alun Michael: May I make something clear? The hon. Lady seemed take comfort in my quiet smile of appreciation as I listened to the exchanges between her and the hon. Member for Guildford as though my smile somehow indicated agreement between
Column Number: 334
Government and Opposition. It was more a result of my observation of the private grief between the Opposition parties. It was also a result of my amusement, because it is clear that both hon. Ladies and, indeed, their parties should be paid-up members of opportunists anonymous.
10 am
The hon. Lady made a series of detailed points, which relate back to the clauses and to the principles that we have sought to apply. For instance, on the removal of the obligation to contract out local authority services, we are seeking to remove a specific requirement so that authorities can achieve best value. We are seeking a more flexible arrangement that allows them to target their activities and ensure that they get the best value from their council tax payers' money. The consequentials do not take us back to that principle, which is very clear and which I outlined when we dealt with the earlier clauses.
Essentially, as the heading suggests, these are minor and consequential amendments; they do not raise points of principle. Their purpose is to ensure that legislation is consistent and that any changes that the Bill introduces are consistent with the generality of the law. I do not believe that there is a problem with the guidance under the Anti-Social Behaviour Act, but I shall certainly look at the issue in the light of the hon. Lady's comments—especially if she wants to raise specific points, rather than make a general plea that we achieve consistency, which we would, of course, seek to do.
On the hon. Lady's point about graffiti, there is always a problem where there is an inclination for the activity to be repeated as soon as cleaning has taken place. Again, however, the broken windows theory applies: quick action to deal with the nuisance and protect the environment helps to eradicate the activity and reduce the likelihood of it being repeated. However, it is also important to have proper penalties in place. In that way, there will be both a carrot and a stick—environmental improvement and, where appropriate, prosecution and punishment.
These are minor and consequential amendments, which play their role in implementing the principles that we debated at length in relation to what I might call the parent clauses.
Miss McIntosh: It may help if I write to the Minister on the issue, because it is quite substantial. I have pages and pages from, among others, Network Rail, which believes that the costs and the time involved in implementing the schedule and the earlier provisions will be substantial.
Alun Michael: I would be happy to have some bedtime reading of the sort that the hon. Lady describes and to respond to her after the Committee if that would help.
Miss McIntosh: It would be very beneficial if I could take up the Minister's kind offer, although I do not want to come between him and his sleep. That shows that he has been listening and is aware of these concerns. If I write to him in detail and he feels that
Column Number: 335
something merits consideration on Report, perhaps the Government, rather than the Opposition, could introduce a proposal.
Alun Michael: Obviously, I could not commit myself without having seen the points that the hon. Lady wants to raise, but I shall certainly take seriously anything that she sends to me.
Miss McIntosh: I hear what the Minister says, and I shall take up his kind offer.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 5
Repeals
Question proposed, That this schedule be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: This is a small point, but I notice from page 94 that the whole of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, and substantial sections of the Dogs Act 1906, the Dogs (Amendment) Act 1928 and the Local Government Act 1988 are to be repealed. I should be interested to know what discussions the Minister has had recently with the groups representing the interests of dogs and dog wardens to discuss the proposals to repeal the provisions. Those groups raised concerns about the extent of the repeals and would have appreciated having the Minister's ear at the earliest opportunity. Has he had a meeting with those groups, particularly the National Dog Warden Association, between the consultation paper being published and the Bill coming into Committee?
Alun Michael: I had a very satisfactory meeting with the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which covered those considerations, to which I referred in Committee when we considered the relevant clauses of the Bill. I am not sure what point the hon. Lady is making. One or two other organisations have written in subsequently, probably as a result of publication of the views expressed to Members of Parliament by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust. I have written to a few organisations giving them similar advice and assurances. As I said, we were able to respond positively to all the points raised by the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust, which will be dealt with in regulations and guidance rather than in the Bill.
We will come shortly to the one outstanding issue that those organisations were concerned about: the transfer of resources in order to transfer the arrangements and responsibilities between the police and the local authority
I also referred in an earlier sitting to the only other meeting I have had: a discussion at the margins of a meeting about policing in Cardiff about how the police deal with stray animals, with particular reference to some of the complications that arise for the police in
Column Number: 336
satisfying the present requirements, which reinforce the sense of the changes we propose. I hope that my reply is sufficiently detailed for the hon. Lady.
| 
