---

Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. Many varied and different points have been made this evening. Noble Lords have spoken of their enthusiasm for different parts of the Bill. In particular, I was struck by the right reverend Prelate's description of community and, indeed, individual initiatives that make up the "dynamos"—I think he called them—of what makes communities tick in a positive way. I join him in paying tribute to Liverpool City Council, which has taken so many good initiatives to try to help its communities.

I would introduce only one slightly negative note. Most of the Bill would be unnecessary if during the passage of the Local Government Bill in 2000 the Government had listened to the wise words of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and given councils the general power of competence to carry out a vast swathe of these things in a way that suited their own locality and not in a "one size fits all" kind of way.

I accept that the LGA supports the Bill. It does because it is used to, through Conservative and now Labour Governments, accepting whatever crumbs fall from the Government's table in terms of additional powers. But at some stage in the future it will be time for local government truly to have the power to act as it thinks fit within its neighbourhoods. In that way citizens would get a much better deal. But we know that this Government are reluctant in the extreme to give local authorities any such wide powers. So I suppose that this evening I must join others in being grateful for the legislation. I can genuinely say to the Minister that I welcome the new powers that the Bill gives to parish councils.

Given those reservations, I support the outcomes that the Bill aims to achieve. I was slightly surprised that the Conservatives opposed the Bill at Second Reading in the Commons. No doubt the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will explain why they did so.

One of the most interesting parts of the Bill is that which deals with vehicles. In my time as a local councillor, to which my noble friend Lord Greaves referred, some of the most difficult cases to solve and the thing that inflamed local neighbour disputes the
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 200
 
most was the nuisance produced by thoughtless people or the deliberate misuse of public space by people with their vehicles. Some of those neighbour disputes were very violent and difficult. The powers in the Bill will do much to diffuse that kind of situation.

Part 3 of the Bill deals with litter and refuse. Do the Government consider that fixed penalty notices in every case are the best way of dealing with this problem? I believe that in many instances a community order would be a better way of dealing with such an offence. I think that community orders would give greater scope for individual reflection on why the environment is important and how thoughtless and deliberate actions can damage it.

On chewing gum, I, too, received the briefing from Wrigley's. I was very pleased to see that innovation may well be the way to solve this problem. The costs of gum removal seem to be ridiculously high. I believe that unless the industry can innovate quickly to make gum biodegradable—hesitant as I am, and this is a purely personal point of view and not a party one—a chewing gum tax would be the only way forward. I hope that the industry makes very rapid progress in developing its biodegradable chewing gum.

I am also happy to see that open air littering will cover litter on beaches. Currently, local authorities do not have the power to enforce the clearing of litter from beaches in private ownership—even when the private owner profits considerably from renting out two or three of his fields for car parking, often for as much as £5 to £10 a day. He takes plenty of money off the public, but then fails to clear the space where they have been. He is not in the business of forcing the public to take their litter home. The Bill provides the powers to ensure that the public do not litter that beach space and if they do—if the rules have not been enforced—then the owner should come under the power of the local authority, enabling it to make sure that the beach is cleaned up.

In saying all of that, I must pay tribute to the Marine Conservation Society. It has been absolutely fantastic in organising beach clean-ups and raising public awareness of the difficulties of beach and marine pollution, and the damage that it can do—not only visually, but also to wildlife.

I will not add anything to what noble Lords have said about graffiti, other than to welcome the powers that local councils will get. Fly-posting, however—I am speaking from the Front Bench but I emphasise again that this is my personal view, which I must express—is one of the means that many young people have to communicate their community's events. That is not entirely to defend the nuisance it causes, and I am glad to say that most young people, being so much better than us at using the Internet, are finding other ways to post important information to each other. Indeed, they are using mobile telephone texting.

Some countries, however, have a far more generous provision of municipal notice boards, on which people can put notices about their own events. I am not referring to the one or two foot square parish notice boards. In towns and urban areas there is a need for
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 201
 
communal notice board space for people who currently fly-post. I hope that some of the best practice in other European countries, providing both fixed notice boards and the sort that can be wheeled away, is something that local councils and the Government could have a think about.

I agree entirely with the noble Lords, Lord Cameron and Lord Grantchester, that there seems to be a strange contradiction about fly-tipping. I am sure the Minister, having heard what they both said, will clarify that point for us.

I pay tribute to my colleague in another place, Sue Doughty, who tried her very best to introduce something into this Bill about waste minimisation and packaging. Her amendments were, of course, resisted by both the Government and the Conservatives. Nevertheless, she made some very important points and I hope that the Government will return to the issue of packaging and waste minimisation.

On dogs, several noble Lords have mentioned the issue of funding this evening. Adequate funding for all of this is a theme that runs through almost every contribution. I would welcome the Minister's comments on what sort of funding level local authorities can expect for taking on the extra responsibility for stray dogs. Even if they are imaginative in the way that they police it, and have dog wardens who double up doing other things, it will still be quite an expensive provision for them to put in place.

Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of the Bill is Part 8, on architecture and the built environment. The Minister said that he welcomed it, but it merely shifts around quangos and will do nothing to enhance the quality of the built environment. It is perhaps the part most lacking in ambition but which offered the most opportunity for imaginative improvement.

The role of architecture and the built environment is still massively undervalued by the Government, despite the presence on their Benches of the noble Lord, Lord Rogers, who can offer them unparalleled advice, as he did in his report. Much of his report's recommendations on the quality of the built environment have still not been implemented, which is deeply to be regretted.

Insects are dealt with in Part 9, entitled "Miscellaneous". I hope that the Minister can reassure me on a very important issue that Buglife, a conservation charity dedicated to invertebrates, raised in the other place. It felt that the Bill's provisions on insects might encourage excessive pesticide use in rural areas, where it was not appropriate and might threaten biodiversity. The charity has been in correspondence with Alun Michael, whose officials suggested that the Government might table an amendment to deal with the issue. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.

I think that we have heard all sides of the argument on lighting. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, who said that in many cases it was a waste of energy. My bête noire is security lighting mounted by individuals on pavements that already have street
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 202
 
lights; it shines in your eyes and blinds you as you walk innocently along. Such lights enhance the safety of nobody other than the individuals who erect them. It is a fairly selfish move in community terms.

However, I agree that sport lighting is important. I cannot imagine any towns with keen football clubs having to suffer the removal of lighting that enables their teams and young players to practise in the evening. That sort of thought is insupportable. Many other sports, such as tennis, are equally important, especially at a time when the Government talk about the importance of physical activity in counteracting all sorts of conditions, including obesity.

The outcomes envisaged in the Bill are certainly to be welcomed. I hope that the Bill's detailed way of imposing on local authorities requirements about how to arrive at those outcomes will not be our eventual means of enabling them to act. In the mean time, I welcome the Bill.

8.43 p.m.

---