---

Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what has been a very constructive debate. By and large, all sides of the House and all parts of the country have welcomed these measures. It would be accurate to say that the welcome has been less warm from the Tory Front Bench than from elsewhere. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said that she gives the Bill a "reserved welcome", while the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in not quite welcoming the Bill, approached it by saying that its provisions in certain respects should go considerably further. Yes, but I do not think that the noble Lord objected to many of our proposals. Most people recognise that the issues which the legislation attempts to address—which it does quite effectively—are those which are of great concern to people living both in our countryside and in our towns, and ones which our local authorities and other enforcement agencies either do not have the powers fully to address or need to have those powers properly clarified.

Much of the criticism of the Bill concerned funding. Noble Lords know that it is rare for any legislation to attach funding to it, and it is important to recognise that, with limited exceptions, the Bill provides for
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 207
 
powers rather than duties. It is therefore difficult to know how local authorities are going to interpret those powers and duties and what priority they will give them.

As my noble friend Lord Grantchester pointed out, local authorities can generate new income streams in a number of areas. Fixed penalty notices and various elements of cost recovery are built into the Bill. In addition it is important to recognise that funding is available from existing sources, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I cite, for example, neighbourhood renewal grants, the Police Community Support Officers Fund—to which the noble Lord favourably referred—the second generation of local public service agreements, and the Safer and Stronger Communities Fund. All those can be drawn on to fund some of the activities covered by the Bill. So while one does not wish in any sense to pre-empt either future public spending settlements or the annual discussions with local authorities on their funding, there is already scope for significant resources to be made available to local authorities and more built into the Bill. Therefore I do not think that resources will be a constraint.

Two or three new duties are provided where it is clear that some specific allocation of funds could be said to be appropriate. One duty relates to addressing the issue of stray dogs, to which I will return in substance in a moment. However, it is clear from the Bill that the additional costs involved would be funded by a transfer from police budgets to local authority budgets. The other two duties, one relating to artificial lighting and insect control and the other to assessing the scale of the graffiti problem, would involve minimal additional costs. They would not generate significant new costs as the result of a clear new duty being imposed on local authorities. As I have said, the vast majority of these provisions will be covered by funding already available to local authorities through various funds and through their normal funding.

Some noble Lords seem to think that the chewing gum measure constitutes an additional burden. I believe that the position of Westminster City Council vis-à-vis chewing gum has been slightly misrepresented. That council indeed incurs great cost in relation to chewing gum, and its removal is an expensive business. However, the point of the Bill is not to impose that cost but to clarify the fact that chewing gum when thrown away is litter. That needs to be clarified following ambiguity in previous enactments in that regard and will be followed up by codes of practice to make the matter absolutely clear. The removal of chewing gum is not of itself an additional cost in the way that has been suggested. Indeed, the LGA very much supported the clarification.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked whether additional costs would be incurred through people being employed by local authorities to enforce fixed penalty notices and other new powers. Clearly, local authorities already enforce fixed penalty notices in some areas for litter, graffiti and fly-posting. The Bill gives them greater flexibility in using those fixed
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 208
 
penalty notices. They will decide who they designate to carry out that work. Many councils already employ litter wardens and other wardens to carry out that work and I am sure that will continue. There will be some new income streams to help cover that.

The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, asked a number of questions—some of which were repeated by others—with regard to lighting. The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, also mentioned lighting, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, claimed that there were too many exemptions with regard to statutory nuisance, including artificial lighting. I understood that he was complaining about street lights situated six miles from his back window. However, I am sure that such situations arise. It is important that as regards highways bad lighting of any kind is dealt with through good practice in preference to further regulation. However, intrusive lighting is dealt with in the Bill.

The lighting exemptions relating to sporting facilities and events have been welcomed. There is no complete exemption in relation to horticulture because the general view is that best horticultural practice results in the lighting for most horticultural activities not of itself constituting a nuisance. It is recognised that the horticultural industry needs additional lighting. It is important that we recognise that. However, that should not result in an open season for horticulture or other near industrial activities to indulge in the kind of lighting which would fall foul of the statutory nuisance provisions. As I say, there is no complete exemption with regard to horticulture.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others queried the vehicle provisions. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred to the need to ensure that two vehicles which are for sale are parked on different roads; that is, parking one round the corner. A degree of interpretation may be needed on that provision.

The noble Lord, Lord Kimball, referred to repairing cars on the street. I believe that the offence would be restricted to repairs carried out over a period of 72 hours. I hope that that would be sufficient time to repair the noble Lord's car. If that is not the case, I suggest that he takes it to a place with more facilities.

The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and others discussed the extent to which gating orders could be used. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, returned to that matter, as did others. Clarification will be issued on the matter as the gating order in the Explanatory Notes relates to alleyways. The problem may extend beyond alleyways, but access to rights of way during periods when those premises are normally used as rights of way will not be allowed to be restricted. That could apply to other highways. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, read out the list of strategic exemptions. Clearly, strategic highways and main roads would not be covered, but
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 209
 
one can think of many cul-de-sacs, suburban and urban roads, and maybe some country lanes, where there is a possibility of crime and environmental damage being caused, which could be restricted by a gating order. It is not restricted to alleyways and byways; it includes some of the more substantial highways as well.

I was grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Liverpool for his reference to how things are being dealt with in that city. He said how important it is that we see this as part of the translation from neighbourhood—which is in a sense a passive term—into community. We recognise the need to ensure that local authorities attract and retain people in those areas, along with others from the community and from voluntary organisations, to help to deliver what we are trying to do by backing it up with regulatory action in the form of this Bill. At the end of the day, all the provisions are about people and the way in which people live. We can go over the minutiae of the regulations, but they must go into a cultural and a social environment where there is support for such provisions and changes of behaviour.

Noble Lords throughout the Chamber have recognised fly-tipping as one of the biggest problems facing us. There has been a substantial increase in the penalties faced by fly-tippers—from a maximum of £20,000 to a maximum of £50,000. Clearly, the main target for the fly-tipping provisions is to stop and deter the fly-tipping of the quasi-criminal kind that exists in urban areas and country lanes and farmland, and which has defaced many neighbourhoods.

There is some degree of confusion about fly-tipping, which my noble friend Lord Grantchester referred to, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The allegation is that there is a contradiction between Clause 20 and Clause 50, and I shall clarify that. Clause 20 deals with litter and refuse, and it is intended to allow councils to deal with the accumulation of litter. For example, in the gardens of a number of urban areas where there is an empty house, a derelict garden is used to dump substantial amounts of litter. That becomes cumulative when there is not an occupier of those premises. Whereas the present provisions can require the occupier to deal with it, they cannot require an absentee owner to deal with it. That is what we have changed in this clause.

That is dealing with litter and refuse. Clause 20 is not intended to deal with controlled waste, which is primarily the issue in relation to fly-tipping. Clause 20 should not be used in relation to fly-tipping on agricultural land, for example. The defence in Clause 50 would not be appropriate for accumulations of rubbish, if there is a separate defence in Clause 20, if action is unfair or unduly oppressive. There is a distinction between the two clauses rather than a contradiction. I hope that clarifies the situation somewhat.

The question of fly-tipping more generally requires action not only by local authorities, which is covered by Clause 20. Rubbish-tipping is covered by Clause 20,
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 210
 
and that is a local authority responsibility, whereas fly-tipping, and the powers involved, is largely an Environment Agency responsibility.

My noble friend Lady Thornton referred to local authorities already taking initiatives in dealing with litter and environmental damage. It is clear that the LGA is encouraging such innovation and creativity and that the use of ASBOs in certain circumstances has already benefited local authorities and is delivering results. With this Bill, we want to give authorities greater and more flexible resources and powers to make sure that they can continue to tackle the problems.

I return to fly-tipping for a moment in relation to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, who also thought that there was a contradiction in the clauses. Enforcement is and will become increasingly possible. Deterrents can become increasingly effective. I agree with him that many sites can be identified and that their policing can be more systematic, particularly sites substantially close to the road in the open countryside, where there are significant problems. It is important that the penalties involved are sufficient as a deterrent, and the maximum penalties to be enacted in the Bill should go some considerable way towards ensuring that.

Dogs were mentioned by several speakers. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Kimball, and others object to the transfer of the powers between the police and local authorities. At the moment, there is confusion. Local authorities and police both have powers and responsibilities on the issue, and both have provisions and facilities. The suggestion that is acceptable to the police and local authorities, and the Dogs Trust and the RSPCA, is that the responsibility should be clearly with the local authorities to deal with stray dogs on a 24-hour basis.

The duty does not have to be changed; in a sense, it is already there in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, there will be a requirement for local authorities to take on what has hitherto been seen as the responsibility of the police to ensure 24-hour coverage. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to the statement by my right honourable friend Alun Michael that guidance to carry out the responsibilities would ensure that the facilities were there for a suitable standard of premises to take stray dogs at any time of day or night.

Those facilities may be provided directly by the local authorities or subcontracted, but it is the duty of the local authority to deal with that. In some cases, it might be subcontracted to the police, but it is primarily the local authority's responsibility. That needs to be clear to the public, who would normally now go to the police station to look for their dogs, if they went anywhere. Police stations are not always open 24 hours a day, particularly
 
22 Mar 2005 : Column 211
 
in rural areas, so that service is not always there at present. It is important that we establish that someone takes that central responsibility. We propose that it be the local authorities. The Dogs Trust, the RSPCA and the Kennel Club have been reassured by the statement to which the noble Baroness referred and by the information that we gave them behind it.

---