| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I had high hopes for the Bill. I still have high hopes, but they rest on the interpretations and commitments that the Minister will give us in the course of its process. So we give the Bill a reserved welcome.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, asked why my colleagues in another place tabled a reasoned amendment. They recognised clearly that the Bill needed improvement; it was one way of raising the issue on the Floor of the House.
I propose to tackle the Bill subject by subject and then to look at certain themes. Before I do, I wish to say what a good debate we have had. We have had contributions from more urban-based noble Lords and from those of us who have to look after the countryside—the practical keepers—and who will be affected by the Bill.
I was particularly grateful for the right reverend Prelate's contribution. When he talked about regeneration, it reminded me, sadly, of when we pulled down a whole wodge of terraced houses in Leicester. It broke up the community because they were moved away, and families were split. There was an actual, practical effect on local communities, and one cannot easily rebuild something that has been destroyed in that way. It is a real issue which we need to bear in mind and, if we can, try to prevent from happening again, although that is not within the Bill's remit.
My noble friend Lord Kimball highlighted three issues: lighting and horticulture, which I shall touch on later; stray dogs, which is common to all of us; and vehicle registration, which I look at in a slightly different way. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, for his excellent and understanding interpretation of the problems that those of us who have land, particularly in rural areas, are now faced with on a daily basis.
22 Mar 2005 : Column 203
The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, highlighted the difficulties in the way the Bill has been constructed with regard to the wording in Clause 20 and Clause 50. They clearly do not sit happily together, and I hope the Minister will touch on that.
My noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith highlighted the scale of the problems we face. I will not quote the figures he included in his speech, but we are talking about tonnes and tonnes of rubbish, at huge cost. The theme that has emerged from all the speakers so far has been: who will bear the cost? Will there be enough money? The Government, rightly, in their view, have said it is the local government's responsibility. I declare an interest here, as my brother is a county councillor and also a parish councillor. At the end of the day, if the Government pass down those responsibilities, they must ensure that adequate funding is given to local councils. I have grave doubts that, under these circumstances, the Government would give sufficient funds.
Gating orders are already being used by many councils, as we heard earlier. Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, they could also close rights of way that are being used for the pursuit of crime or serious public nuisance. My honourable friend Anne McIntosh raised this issue in an amendment on the question of gating measures. I hope that is something we shall pursue again in Committee.
The Bill will allow a significant expansion in the number of highways that can be shut off. Or will it? Special, trunk, strategic and classified roads will be exempt, as will roads and "highways of such other description" as the Secretary of State may prescribe. Will the Minister tell me what other road types are imagined being closed, other than those I have mentioned? Perhaps it is just rights of way that will be left on the list of highways eligible for closure. It is not clear in the Bill as it stands.
In Part 2, the prohibition of vehicle sales from the public road is obviously welcomed, and is long overdue. However, the Bill relates only to the road. Will it cover sales from strips of grass between roads and on the pavements to be found in many of our older towns, particularly spa towns? Will it also cover the sales in villages and rural areas where a householder lines up vehicles on the grass verge outside his house, and the parish council then has a fight over the next two or three years to get that verge back into proper order?
Litter-clearing notices are to be doled out wherever a principal litter authority is satisfied that the land concerned is defaced by litter or refuse,
As is often the case with such Bills, I am struck by the lack of a built-in appeals system that would allow everyone who is served with a notice a fair hearing. Notices will not apparently have room for instructions on how to appeal, even though an appeal must be made within 21 days of the notice being served. Will the Minister reassure me on that? The grounds on which an appeal may be made require a fair bit of
22 Mar 2005 : Column 204
work, and 21 days might not be long enough if one has to find out how one goes about appealing in the first place? That is not clearly laid out in the Bill.
From litter, the Bill moves on to waste and site waste management plans. The relevant clauses are obviously targeted at the building industry generally. Like other Members, I welcome them. I welcome anything that can reduce the clutter that so often seems to surround sites, especially those devoted to renovation rather than to new-build.
Apparently, however, not all councils will be constrained by the same terms. Or is it the case that not all building projects will be bound by the same rules? It appears that the Secretary of State will be able to vary the uses to which certain local authorities put the fines for breaches of waste management plans. Is that associated with the demolition plans for northern England? Will the Minister explain the thinking behind Clause 54(5)?
I welcome the controls on noise pollution, but how will they be utilised to encompass noise from certain vehicles with loud, booming sound systems? In hot weather in particular—we are told that it will be hotter more often—entire streets of slumbering citizens, minding their own business, are awoken by such mobile cacophonies.
While on the subject of being awoken by noise at night, I am amazed that the Bill has nothing to say on night flying. I come from the East Midlands, which is seeing an increased level of night flying and—it is welcomed by some—an increased number of freight aircraft. Unlike Heathrow and Gatwick, East Midlands Airport neither has, nor has sought, derogation. If the Government's air transport plans are to continue to encourage more air freight in the East Midlands, will the Minister explain why our airport is not considered in the same way as Heathrow and Gatwick?
I turn to the question of light nuisance. We too would like the Minister to explain why the Bill has not excluded horticulture from the controls on the use of light. As my noble friend Lord Kimball clearly said, the horticulture industry is being encouraged to extend its season to increase the production of British food, which we want to see. I suspect that it would be caught by the Bill as it stands. Will the Minister respond to that?
The Bill refers throughout to fixed penalties, which may be used to avoid to a court case. The suggested tariffs vary from £75 to £300 according to the offence. However, local authorities will have the power to accept less and the right to use the fines in a prescribed manner over a given period. As usual, we shall not know the detail until the inevitable regulations appear. The Secretary of State will have the right to annex unspent receipts at the end of a period. Should that be so? The Local Government Association certainly wishes to see those moneys retained for the completion of more enforcement work. I wonder how many people will be committing offences under this legislation. How many will be caught? What proportion of those will opt for a fixed penalty? Has any research been done by the Government on their expectations within this section?
22 Mar 2005 : Column 205
I cannot resume my place without registering my disagreement with the little section removing 24-hour police protection from stray dogs, to which other noble Lords have referred. Some dogs are left to roam free daily. They are accustomed to it. Many others, however, stray by mishap—as the result of car accidents, burglaries or abandonment. It is not their fault. In replacing the role that the police have, will the Minister consider having some place to which it would be common for all members of the public to be able to take stray dogs? The Bill clearly gives flexibility in this field, but there is then a worry about knowing which authority does what, and which system they are operating. It is a great mistake, within the Bill, to remove the current coverage without agreeing a recognised system to replace it.
I have looked closely at the ministerial Written Statement given earlier today in another place. I again wish to record my dismay that it is in the form of a Written Statement, rather than an oral Statement that we can discuss. The Minister, Alun Michael, said in his comments:
"will be issued explaining what local authorities will need to do to comply with this requirement. The issues the guidance is expected to cover include"—
"how local authorities can ensure that facilities of a suitable standard are in place to take stray dogs at any time. These could be provided by local authorities themselves".
However, some local authorities:
"may prefer to contract the service out to local dog boarding kennels, animal welfare organisations, the police or veterinary practices".
Secondly, that these arrangements will need to be set in place:
"to inform anyone who finds a stray dog where to take it. As with other local authority responsibilities, such as social welfare or child care, we would expect good arrangements with the local police to assist the public in making contact with the right person when a problem is reported".
That seems to be putting the cart the wrong way round. Will the Minister clarify it for us tonight? The Written Statement does not really answer the many queries raised when the Bill was debated in another place.
Finally, the Minister will not be surprised if I express my concerns, together with those of other noble Lords, regarding Clauses 20 and 50. I will not repeat what has already been said. I should declare my interest as a land owner who has been troubled with dumping; with illegal fly-tipping and burnt-out cars. It is ridiculous that our lane, which goes down to a beauty spot, is regularly used by youngsters who go up and down the lane to burn out cars. If those cars are left burnt-out on the roadside, the local authority has to remove them at its own cost. If, on the other hand, the people
22 Mar 2005 : Column 206
committing the offence open the field-gate, push the car into a field and do exactly the same thing, that land-owner has the cost of removing that vehicle. I would have thought that the Bill would have addressed that inconsistency, but it does not. Certainly, with the difference in wording between Clause 20 and Clause 50, this is something important to which we will obviously return in Committee.
The dumping of waste has become a business. Given the increasing charges incurred in landfill, I believe that the problem is set to get worse. The Government have reflected on the enormity of the issue, but I return to the comments made by many other noble Lords. This matter goes back to the costs and who is going to bear them. That must be acknowledged now because if this Bill does not progress any further because of a general election, the onus is on the Minister to try to respond tonight to some of the questions which definitely need clarification.
Just before she finished, the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, turned to the very important question of what I would call "good" bugs. Our wildlife out there needs bugs. I, too, have been lobbied on this matter. While some insects need to be controlled around sewage works and so forth, a balance must be struck. Unless we are careful, I suspect that the provisions on this issue may upset that balance.
I end by giving this Bill a reserved welcome because, as other noble Lords have explained very clearly, some real concerns need to be addressed. With those words, I look forward to the Minister's response.
9 p.m.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |