|
Miss McIntosh: It is, indeed, helpful. The record will show that, regrettably, the Minister was not able to meet the National Dog Warden Association.
Alun Michael: I am not in the habit of meeting organisations that have not asked for a meeting unless there are clearly concerns such as those that arose on the matter we discussed earlier and were put in writing by the Football Association. I have had no request for a meeting from the National Dog Warden Association.
Miss McIntosh: My point is that the repeals of existing Acts under parts 5 and 6 are substantial and transfer not just resources but responsibilities from the police. The National Dog Warden Association will be charged with policing stray dogs following the repeals. The Minister might look favourably on a request to meet representatives of that association before Report.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 108
Commencement
Alun Michael: I beg to move amendment No. 120, in clause 108, page 78, line 43, at end insert—
'(da) section 68 and Part 6 of Schedule 5;'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 121, in clause 108, page 79, leave out line 22.
Alun Michael: I referred to the amendments a few minutes ago because they change the proposed commencement arrangements for clause 68 on stray dogs. Instead of coming into force two months after the adoption of the Bill, it will be commenced by order of the Secretary of State. The reason for the change is very simple: it is the assurance that I gave to the Committee.
When we discussed clause 68, I gave an assurance that sole responsibility for stray dogs would not be transferred to local authorities without an appropriate transfer of resources. I also indicated that discussions on the amount to be transferred are in progress. Although I do not expect there to be any problems or delays, it would be wise to cater for the remote possibility that they might occur. The amendments would enable us to ensure that local authorities do not take on sole responsibility for stray dogs until the necessary funding has been transferred. Commencement will be by order of the Secretary of State, rather than the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, because responsibility for police matters has not been devolved. In this case, the Secretary of State is the correct designation. I need not delay the Committee any longer. As the amendment delivers the assurance that I gave, I am sure that it will be commended on all sides.
Column Number: 337
Miss McIntosh: May I commend the Minister's openness and helpfulness? He gave the Committee an assurance, and responded to our real concerns that the transfer of resources would not take place. He was good enough to tell us that the discussions were ongoing. When he moved the amendments, I understood him to say that police matters had not been devolved. Can he clarify whether he means that they have not been devolved as of today, or that they are not being devolved under the provisions of the Bill?
Alun Michael: Police responsibilities are not being devolved. There are local authority responsibilities that lie with the Secretary of State in England, or with the National Assembly for Wales, and police responsibilities have not been devolved. That is why the commencement powers lie with the Secretary of State—in this case, the Home Secretary.
Miss McIntosh: That is very helpful. Without pressing him too far on the point, which is obviously pertinent to clause 109, can the Minister give an indication of what he thinks the pertinent start date under clause 68 will be? When does he believe that the Secretary of State will be able to bring forward orders in that regard?
Alun Michael: Very simply, those are conversations between two Departments—the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister—to which I am not party. However, everybody agrees about the principle of transferring the responsibilities and therefore the resources. I do not expect a long delay. Perhaps the amendment that I moved this morning was not necessary, but it merely makes it certain that the undertaking that I gave earlier would apply, and that, if there were any delay, the provision would not automatically be enforced before the resources were available.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 121, in clause 108, page 79, leave out line 22.—[Mr. Michael.]
Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 109
Money
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Miss McIntosh: The Minister referred to clause 68 and its transfer of resources. Throughout the Bill, there have been significant transfers of responsibility—albeit discretionary in most cases—raising real concerns about how local authorities and the Environment Agency, as appropriate, will be asked to implement their discretionary responsibilities under the Bill. We heard that the hypothecation—for want of a better term—of fixed penalty notices will help to defray some of the costs. We also know that this year, and presumably in subsequent years, if there were no change of Government at the general election, the
Column Number: 338
Government would continue to impose a 5 per cent. cap on any increase in local authority council tax charges in any one year.
Without going through them significantly, there are going to be substantial costs under each part of the provision. We heard from the Home Office at departmental questions yesterday that there is a minimum 30 per cent. non-payment rate of fixed penalty notices.
10.15 am
There is a raft of new offences to which fixed penalty notices will apply: free literature, nuisance vehicles, noisy licensed premises, nomination of a key-holder to deal with audible intruder alarms and interfering notices. Penalty notices will be increased for some existing offences: abandoned vehicles, street litter control notices, the duty of care in relation to waste disposal, waste left out in the street and dog control offences. According to the Government's own projections, if 50 per cent. of fixed penalty notices were paid—if the name and address was given and they were paid on time—nationally it would yield £3,248,750.
For the first year or two, that is quite a high return, but it does not take into account the cost of the planning inspectors whom the Department will have to employ and the training of officials to hand out fixed penalty notices and inform the public. I therefore have severe doubts about approving clause 109: the Government's sums do not add up. These tremendously costly provisions will hugely increase the burden on resources if each and every one of the responsibilities—albeit discretionary—provided under each part of the Bill are to be paid for.
I do not believe that local authorities—Westminster city council at the top end or Hamilton district council or rural parish councils at the bottom end—will be in a position to apply the Bill's provisions. I therefore want to be satisfied that this money provision will allow for a transfer of resources not just for stray dogs but for the vexed question of abandoned vehicles.
A debate on hazardous waste will be held tomorrow in Westminster Hall that I am sure Committee members will wish to attend. Local authorities and the Environment Agency are being asked to apply a raft of EU directives independently of the Bill. With the greatest will in the world, I do not believe that local authorities will be able to meet the discretionary responsibilities in the Bill.
Alun Michael: We all knew before the hon. Lady made that curious speech that the Conservatives are against cleaning up the local environment and that they do not care what happens in rural areas. They do not even seem to know that several of the issues with which the Bill deals are of great concern in rural areas. I promise the hon. Lady that at every opportunity we will hang the Conservatives' reasoned amendment around the neck of her and her candidates in every part of the country.
The clause refers specifically to money needed to deal with the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Lady does not seem to have addressed the question of what she thinks should be substituted for the clause. Does she
Column Number: 339
think that expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Bill should be plucked out of thin air? Does she think that increases attributable to the Bill in the sums payable should not come out of
''money so provided under any other Act''?
Frankly, the hon. Lady makes a fool of herself by the attempt to turn this simple clause dealing with expenditure into a platform for an attack on the principles of the Bill itself. The Bill arises out of extensive consultation and has considerable support from local authorities across the country. It is clear why it has their support: in the long run it will save money, reduce bureaucracy and help local authorities to be more effective. It will help them and us to deliver the improved neighbourhoods that we all want to see in our constituencies.
The hon. Lady again refers to Westminster city council, which seems to be the only source of local government information available to her. It is a rather curious choice since, judging by the correspondence, Westminster city council does not seem to be terribly concerned about any of the provisions, other than those on chewing gum, which it has misunderstood. I counsel her against accepting advice from the only quarter that seems to be available to her.
I believe that town and parish councils are able to judge whether to use the provisions that enable them to improve the quality of the environment in their local area. Let us trust parish and town councils to work in co-operation with the principal authorities to implement the Bill's intentions: ensure that people can safely and securely enjoy cleaner, safer and greener neighbourhoods.
| 
