Anti-social Behaviour Bill

House of Commons, 17 November 2003.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

I draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendments Nos. 14, 28, 45 to 48 and 54, which are to be considered today. If the House agrees to these Lords amendments, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 13 — Injunctions Against Anti-social Behaviour on Application of Certain Social Landlords

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8, 62, 64, 72 and 73.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

Many of the amendments are for clarification. The aim of amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 is to clarify who is eligible to be protected by injunctions under new section 153A of the Housing Act 1996. The intention, which remains unchanged, is for social landlords to be able to apply for injunctions to protect tenants, leaseholders and anyone else who occupies property owned or managed by a relevant landlord, and to protect staff providing housing management and related services on behalf of the landlord.

Gerald Kaufman (Labour, Manchester, Gorton)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the votes cast a few minutes ago by the Liberal Democrats to prevent the Bill from becoming law this Session are consistent with the votes they cast in the summer to prevent it from becoming law at all, and consistent with the votes of the Liberal Democrats on Manchester city council, who voted against the Bill and said that too much antisocial behaviour legislation is already on the statute book?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My right hon. Friend is right. Many Liberal Democrats have opposed a large number of the Bill's most important measures during its passage through this House and the other place. I am sorry to hear that the Liberal Democrats on Manchester city council have taken a similar line. We often find that those working most closely with local people and communities are most strongly aware of the difficulties faced by people who live on local estates where there is severe antisocial behaviour. The strongest advocates of greater action are often local councillors and those involved in the local community.

The amendments also allow social landlords to apply for injunctions to protect visitors engaged in lawful activity in the locality, including the work force, staff or contractors employed by social landlords, and other residents in the area, including owner-occupiers and tenants of other landlords.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister says that the amendments will protect visitors to social housing. How is that to be done? As the specific reference to visitors has been removed, which parts of the clause will ensure that they are covered?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We think that the issue is covered in clause 13. The specific reference to visitors has been removed because of concerns raised by practitioners that the existing provisions might give the courts leeway to adopt a narrow interpretation and assume that the provisions apply only to visitors. The reference has been removed to ensure that the wide range of people in the area is covered and that the courts do not use a narrow interpretation. We made our intention clear throughout our debates in this House and in the other place, and we decided that it was better and clearer to remove the reference. New section 153A(4)(c) of the Housing Act 1996 deals with the matter. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter further in his remarks, I shall be happy to respond. Practitioners wanted to be reassured that the provisions would cover the full range of people in the area and that their application would not be restricted by decisions made in the courts.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for her reply, but I have to press her a bit further. If I understand her correctly, she is saying that the matter is covered by new section 153A(4)(c), which extends protection to

"a person employed (whether or not by the relevant landlord) in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's housing management functions."

I cannot see how that covers all types of visitor—friends, for example.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman is right about new section 153A(4)(c), but the overall impact of Lords amendments Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 5 and new section 153A combined is to include everyone who is visiting the area. It is important that, for example, a regular visitor to a particular area who finds himself being intimidated by antisocial behaviour is protected by decisions made by social landlords. The impact of the Lords amendments to new section 153A is to cover those who are visiting as well as those who are already resident in the area, including owner-occupiers and tenants.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 also ensure that injunctions are available to protect residents in the area, even if they are temporarily absent from their home. If someone has been forced out of their home by racial or sexual harassment, for example, an injunction under new section 153A should be available to protect them if they wish to return.

The effect of Lords amendment No. 4 is twofold: it replaces "locality" with "neighbourhood" and changes "the housing accommodation" to "housing accommodation". Those appear to be relatively minor wording amendments, but they are designed to make it clear that landlords have a responsibility for the protection of the communities who live in and around their housing stock. The new wording better reflects that role.

Lords amendment No. 6 makes it clear that "housing accommodation" refers not to single premises, but to the whole of the landlord's stock in a particular neighbourhood. It also encompasses, for example, the common parts of an estate.

Lords amendments Nos. 7 and 8 enhance the use of demotions as a tool to prevent antisocial behaviour. They require landlords to serve notice before issuing demotion proceedings and specify the information that the notice should contain. That is valuable in ensuring that tenants are aware of the sanction that is being applied, and that they are given a chance to amend their behaviour and to have a proper hearing.

Lords amendment No. 72 is designed to ensure that tenants who have the preserved right to buy lose it on demotion. The purpose of Lords amendment No. 73 is to ensure that time spent as a demoted assured shorthold tenant does not count towards the right to buy qualification or discount periods. The existing provisions of the Bill ensure that time spent as a local authority or housing action trust demoted tenant will not count towards the qualifying period for right to buy or the accrual of discount. The amendment ensures that the same rules will apply to time spent as a demoted assured shorthold tenant.

Lords amendments Nos. 62 and 64 apply to the powers of social landlords to seek antisocial behaviour injunctions. There are times when antisocial behaviour will not fall within the responsibility of social landlords. In those cases we want to ensure that local authorities have sufficient powers to tackle antisocial behaviour more generally within their areas.

Where antisocial behaviour injunctions are not available, the local authority can use other powers, including applying for an injunction under section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Local authorities already use that section to deal with antisocial behaviour, including, for example, the activities of drug dealers.

The purpose of the amendments is to ensure that injunctions that prohibit antisocial behaviour that are obtained by local authorities in such proceedings can be properly enforced. Where the conduct that is prohibited includes violence, threatened violence or a risk of significant harm, we want to give the courts a right to attach a power of arrest to the injunction. The changes that the amendments make are modest, but the practical effect is potentially significant.

Lords amendment No 64 provides that the provision will be commenced in England by the Secretary of State and in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales.

The amendments are relatively straightforward. They attempt to clarify and improve the Bill and I ask the House to support them.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining things to the House. I think that she is coming to the Bill for the first time. The two principal issues in this group of amendments, which relate to clarification, are ones that we raised in Committee, when we sought clarification ourselves. I cannot help but note that in Committee the hon. Member for Coventry North-East (Bob Ainsworth) Minister who was then dealing with the Bill—he is now the Under-Secretary of State for Transport—rebutted our concerns and said that the Bill was perfect. I am delighted that the Government have recognised since then that changes need to be made but I am concerned about some of the changes.

In Committee, I challenged the Government about the definition of "visitors", which seemed a broad term. I could see that it was a problem that, as the Minister has said, was open to interpretation by the courts. It could be interpreted narrowly or much more broadly. In Committee, the then Minister said:

"'Visitor' means what it says and the meaning is unusually clear in the law."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 May 2003; c. 241.]

It is fine that it is unusually clear in the law, but the fact that the Government have now introduced changes makes me wonder how clear other things are in the law.

The serious point is that the Minister has repeated this afternoon what Lord Bassam said in the other place. He said that part of the objective of this part of the Bill was

"to protect visitors engaged in lawful activity in the locality."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 503.]

We all want to protect visitors, but, assuming that the amendments are agreed to, I am perplexed by what the Bill will provide. It seems that protection will be extended to

"a person with a right . . . to reside in or occupy other housing accommodation in the neighbourhood of housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a)",

or to

"a person employed . . . in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's housing management functions."

I accept that effectively the Minister is making it clear in Hansard that she wishes the provision to extend to visitors, but I fail to see how the two criteria of

"a right to . . . reside in or occupy"

or "a person employed" necessarily cover all visitors, and especially the visitors about whom we are most concerned. For example, such visitors may be friends of elderly residents who come round for afternoon tea. They are certainly not occupying and do not appear to be covered.

We are in the final throes of our consideration of the Bill. I shall not take up the time of the House by opposing the amendment, but I am concerned about the implications of the Minister's proposals. I should be grateful if she would be kind enough to write to me, and perhaps put a copy of her letter in the Library, about the way in which visitors are to be protected, given that she is excising reference to them from the Bill. The provision is apparently restricted to people who reside in an area, who have a right of occupation, or who are employed in connection with the exercise of the relevant landlord's housing management functions.

The other significant issue is locality. In Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) resisted our concerns about the definition of locality, which were shared by our noble Friends in another place and by Liberal Democrat Members in the House. He said:

"At the moment, locality is determined by judicial discretion in each case. That is as it should be. It is up to the courts to decide exactly what is covered in given circumstances, and we do not intend that it should be defined as narrowly as pertaining to particular residences."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 May 2003; c. 228.]

That is precisely what the Government are doing—they are defining "locality" narrowly so that it pertains to all the residences owned in an estate by a social landlord. I am not going to revisit the arguments that we had in Committee about specifying a distance. We proposed a distance of within 100 m of a particular property, but any figure would have done, as the purpose was to challenge the definition of locality. The Minister has changed "locality" to "neighbourhood", which is defined as

"the whole of the housing accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord in the neighbourhood and any common areas used in connection with the accommodation."

That does exactly what the Government said they would not do. They define "neighbourhood"

"as narrowly as pertaining to particular residences."

I emphasise the plural used by the hon. Member for Harrow, East.

I should be grateful if the Minister explained precisely how the Government are defining "neighbourhood". At what stage, for instance, does the neighbourhood cease? If a social landlord owned a cluster of properties and, in the next street, owned another cluster of properties, would that be the same neighbourhood? Would the provision apply to the second group of houses? What sort of boundaries, borders or even horizons have been created to define a particular neighbourhood in Lords amendment No. 6?

None of the other amendments in the group causes the Opposition any great concern, so we support them. However, I am extremely concerned about the excision of the reference to visitors and the definition of locality. I support the Minister's desire to clarify the provision, but I am not sure that she has achieved that in the amendments, so I would be grateful if she could comment further.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I echo the comments of the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), as I have been reassured by what the Minister has said today but remain doubtful about the effect of the amendments on the Bill. I, too, would be grateful for clarification. On the use of "locality" versus "neighbourhood", we did indeed have a lengthy and, it appeared at the time, unproductive discussion of the issue. I therefore welcome the amendments.

In the other place, Lord Bassam said:

"We want to support landlords who wish to do more than manage or protect their own tenants and take action to tackle anti-social behaviour more generally in the neighbourhoods in which their properties are situated."

He went on to say that

"there must be a link with the housing management function."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 September 2003; Vol. 652, c. 503.]

I felt comfortable with that, because it seemed to extend the provision outside the individual residence, but it is still not entirely clear. I would welcome clarification of the matter. If the amendments reflect what was said in the other place, it would be good to put back a link to the local crime and disorder reduction partnership, as there would almost certainly be scope for working together beyond an individual residence. Will the Minister consider that?

One of my greatest concerns remains the amendments to clause 14. A demotion order can move quickly to a loss of property and homelessness. There has been a great deal of debate about that. I welcome the amendment, which requires a notice to be served, so that there is a warning prior to the demotion order. I hope that that will slow down the process slightly, but does the full amendment, including the 12-month limit specified, address the concerns expressed in both places that somebody could become homeless not purely because of antisocial behaviour, but possibly because of a technical knock-out? Once a demotion order was made, a landlord could dispossess people of their property rather easily.

Aside from those points, I generally agree with this group of amendments.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) wanted me to clarify the effect of removing the reference to visitors. This is a case when the procedures of the House and the way that documents are made available to us, with the Lords amendments on one piece of paper and the original Bill as a separate document, instead of a version that combines the two, mean that it takes longer to understand the proposals.

Let us consider the revised clause, if the amendments removing the reference to visitors were accepted. There would be a revised section 153A(4)(c) under the new wording, although the amendment is to paragraph (b) under the old wording. The new section 153A(4)(c) would read:

"The second condition is that the conduct is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any of the following . . .

(c) a person engaged in lawful activity in or in the neighbourhood of housing accommodation mentioned in paragraph (a)".

The hon. Gentleman has in front of him the original Bill. Section 153A(4)(b), which currently reads:

"a person visiting the housing accommodation or otherwise engaged in lawful activity in",

would be renumbered (c) and read:

"a person engaged in lawful activity in or in the neighbourhood of the housing accommodation".

Removing the words

"visiting the housing accommodation",

means that the reference is to

"a person engaged in lawful activity".

Someone visiting a friend in the housing accommodation under discussion is clearly engaged in lawful activity. Removing the phrase

"visiting the housing accommodation"

puts the emphasis on everybody who is engaged in lawful activity in that area, rather than on those who are visiting or otherwise engaged in lawful activity. Although we do not believe that that has a substantial legal impact on the wording, it ensures that when the courts interpret the measure, we have provided as much clarity as possible. We do not focus too much attention on those who are visiting, and have made it clear that everybody is covered. Visitors would clearly continue to be covered by the new wording.

The hon. Gentleman's second point was also raised by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and concerns the switch of wording from "locality" to "neighbourhood". Again, the impact of the change is small. "Locality" is the word used in the previous legislation. Practitioners raised concerns about the narrow interpretation of case law in particular examples such as the Enfield and Nottingham cases. "Neighbourhood" was added instead to ensure that existing case law was not simply read forward because "locality" had again been used. That has been done purely to try to reassure practitioners while providing as much clarity as possible to the courts.

"Neighbourhood" is just as flexible a term as "locality". It includes the whole area and clearly includes owner-occupied property and property owned by other landlords on multi-tenure and jointly managed estates. Changing the word does not negate any of the earlier discussions about this matter.

The hon. Lady also referred to demotions. I know that Liberal Democrat Members raised that point in Committee. We believe that demotions are a potential alternative to what landlords may currently have to do. As landlords do not have any way of providing a sanction or clear warning to tenants where there is problem antisocial behaviour, they may need to go straight to trying to evict them, perhaps making somebody homeless because of unacceptable antisocial behaviour.

The demotions have been introduced as an alternative sanction for landlords. They allow tenants one last chance to amend their behaviour by responding to the sanction. Notices should be given to ensure that tenants are aware of the threatened sanction and that they have the chance to make appropriate representations and give their side of the story. Equally, we are not discussing changing the overall approach to demotions, which provide an alternative to evictions and give social landlords a sanction to address antisocial behaviour. We know that many social landlords currently feel that they cannot act with sufficient flexibility because there are not enough measures to address that problem.

I have responded to hon. Members' concerns and hope that all hon. Members will support these relatively straightforward measures.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 24 — Interpretation

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Amendment No. 9 removes clause 24(2), which was made redundant by Government amendments moved on Report. Amendment No. 10 corrects an earlier drafting error.

Amendment No. 11 specifies that the term "guardian" in clauses 25 to 29 has the same meaning as in the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. That makes the law consistent, because that meaning is already applied to parenting orders for criminal conduct or antisocial behaviour under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Government listened carefully to the points that were made in the other place about the importance of the work of local authorities in tackling antisocial behaviour in their areas, particularly through local crime and disorder partnerships. That is the context in which we agree with amendment No. 12, which ensures that the agreement of the local authority is given before powers to disperse groups can be used. Local authorities and the police already work closely together in a whole range of partnerships to tackle crime and disorder in local communities, and are implementing strategies for dealing with many of the issues addressed in the Bill. It is right that we should expect there to be agreement on the authorisation of the powers that are used as part of that process. The amendment will strengthen the Bill and lead to even greater partnership working between local authorities and the police.

The provisions of part 4 extend to the British Transport police. Amendment No. 13 merely updates a cross-reference to the Railways and Transport Safety Act 2003.

The aim of amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16 is to give to county councils the power to apply for antisocial behaviour orders that is currently available to the police, district councils and registered social landlords. It was requested for county councils by the County Councils Network. We recognise that county councils have responsibilities that encompass tackling antisocial behaviour because in many cases they are responsible for youth services, the provision of education, and social services. The amendments therefore extend to county councils the power to apply for ASBOs on the same basis as registered social landlords, the British Transport police and, under the Bill, housing action trusts. Moreover, sometimes the main legal department for an area rests within the county council. It is important that county councils be played into the provisions, because they can often provide essential legal and technical support to district councils in terms of exercising those powers.

Amendments Nos. 17 to 22 are largely technical. They move all the clauses in part 5 to the end of the Bill, in accordance with the drafting convention that dictates that parts of Bills entitled "Miscellaneous powers" should be placed at the end. The important matters of substance relate mainly to the necessity for the police to have the agreement of the local authority in exercising the dispersal powers and to the need to include county councils to ensure that they can play an effective part in the essential partnerships with the police in tackling such matters.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that many of the amendments are entirely non-controversial and what I have always described as "technical", probably because I do not understand them.

I am, however, concerned about the amendment that deals with authorising the use of the dispersal powers that the Bill creates. The Minister clearly foresaw that, because it was the only one that she concentrated on. There is no difference between Conservative Members and the Government about the importance of the involvement of local government in dealing with crime, particularly low-level crime. We welcome the setting up of crime and disorder reduction partnerships and, as the Minister knows, have our own proposals on how to enhance local involvement in those matters. Equally, unlike Members of some parties, the official Opposition welcome the measures on dispersal powers. We believe that it is right that the Government should give the police powers to disperse groups of people in such circumstances. In Committee—the Minister will not remember this, because she was not the Minister responsible at the time—we discussed why the power needed to be restricted to a particular authorised area. We said that if the police saw that there was a problem, they should be able to deal with it there and then, rather than having to go through the panoply of procedures involved in authorising a specific area.

Nevertheless, I still do not understand why the Minister wants effectively to give local authorities the veto over an area. If, as the Government intend, the power is to be restricted so that it does not—as we contend that it should—apply across the country, the local authority should of course be consulted. But there is a great difference between consulting an authority and saying to it, "You must make the decision: yes or no. If you say that the police should not have dispersal powers in this particular neighbourhood area, that will be the final say on the matter." In all honesty, the Minister knows as well as I do that there is a huge variety of local authorities. One or two—thankfully, it is only a minority—are not always as helpful to the police as we would like. The amendment creates the risk that however much local communities and the police want to be able to use dispersal powers in a particular authorised area, the local authority may say, "No, we don't agree. We don't want the police riding roughshod over our community"—or whatever kind of language it chooses to use.

I do not wish to comment on any of the other amendments, but I stress to the Minister that I am worried that her attempt to involve local authorities through consultation, which is a worthy objective, may backfire. I fear that by saying, in the words of the amendment, that authorisation

"may not be given without the consent of the local authority",

she will add to a concern that many local people express when they tell us, as they often do: "Local authorities do not really care about us." I want local authorities to be involved, but I am very concerned about giving them a complete veto.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I am pleased to see the amendment, because we are talking about serious measures to disperse young people for their mere presence. I contend that legislation is already in place to move young people on when serious problems arise. Given the way in which the dispersal orders are to be enacted, involving the local authority means increased democratic accountability and shared responsibility for decisions. That is welcome. In some areas, there could be great sensitivities in relation to different ethnic minorities. The amendment provides a protection when the local authority needs to work so closely with the police in those circumstances. As members of the Committee will verify, I maintained throughout our deliberations that we should refer all the measures to the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships. It is not enough simply to move people on; one has to know where they will go and what they will do once they have been moved.

The amendment, by including the local authority, offers a genuine opportunity to consider what other measures we should introduce to support the dispersal order. The amendment is therefore a positive, not a stopping provision. It could encourage the inclusion of all the supportive measures about which I spoke at such great length.

The Local Government Association suggests the inclusion of county, district and unitary authorities in the Bill. It is interesting that county councils are being allowed to issue ASBOs. It makes sense to ensure that consultation takes place with the county council because in areas where there is a county council plus a district council, the former provides the youth and education services. Although I would not like the veto to be extended, the consultation element should be made clear. The amendment should be welcomed and we shall wait to ascertain the outcome: whether the new curfew orders will be used more than the previous orders and whether the dispersal orders will be greatly used.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) have shown how providing a balance is genuinely a matter of fine judgment when deciding whether there should be consultation or agreement between local authorities on the appropriate steps to take. It is my judgment that there should be a strong relationship between the police and local government in implementing the powers. I was disappointed when the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole and the Liberal Democrats took such great exception to the powers when they were originally introduced in the Bill. They could be useful in specific circumstances when antisocial behaviour occurs and local people are intimidated by others gathering in an area and causing harassment and distress.

The local authority is an essential partner in tackling crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour and it should therefore be engaged in a joint enterprise with the police in dealing with it. I stress to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that I do not like to view the amendment as a veto because if we implement section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 properly, we should not be in a position whereby one partner pulls against the other. The partnership should be strong and influence matters on the ground. From my experience, crime and antisocial behaviour are tackled effectively in places where the police, the local authority, businesses, voluntary groups and the local community are engaged together, bringing added value to the partnership and making it work. If the local authority and the police pull against each other, that is evidence of a poor partnership, which we would want to investigate further.

We do not want a veto, but if the dispersal powers are exercised in the case of very young children on the streets and they need to be taken to their home or, if they are likely to suffer significant harm, a place of safety, social services and possibly the education authorities need to be involved to ensure that the needs of the young people are taken into account.

The dispersal provisions have been controversial. I recently met members of the Youth Parliament and we had a couple of hours of useful debate during which the young people asked me some searching questions. To some extent, they put me on the spot and I thoroughly enjoyed discussing the provisions with them. I want to put on record the fact that the provisions are as much about protecting young people in the community so that they feel free to go about their lawful business without being intimidated by others as they are about tackling antisocial behaviour.

Our attempt to involve local authorities through the amendment is evidence of our twin-track approach, which is apparent throughout the Bill. That means support for those who want to change their behaviour, for parenting and for young people, coupled with tough and effective enforcement. That twin-track approach will help to tackle antisocial behaviour in our communities. I am pleased that we have come down on the side of involving local authorities and ensuring that local councils, with their elected members, play a genuine role.

I am sure that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire knows that local authorities and the police increasingly use the national intelligence model together, share information and are involved in joint tasking and co-ordination. That is another big step change in the partnerships' successful operation.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I welcome the Minister's comments on twin tracking. When we held our discussions in Committee, there was great emphasis on enforcement and not enough emphasis on support. It has therefore been pleasing to hear her comments today.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am delighted that the hon. Lady is delighted because it is important that we constantly consider the issue with the two points in mind. Our aim is to try to divert young people especially—I accept that antisocial behaviour is not confined to them—from crime and disorder. As a former public health Minister, I believe that prevention is better than cure and that if we can act to reduce crime, we should do that. I am equally convinced of the merits of tough and effective enforcement and sanctions. Any responsible policy should encompass both.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister may be delighted that I was not delighted. I re-emphasise that I agree with her about the importance of local authorities, the police and other agencies working together. I passionately believe in that. She is also right that the better they work together, the more effectively they operate. I am worried that she effectively said that if that ideal relationship is not in place, the local authority will call the tune and that whatever other agencies, community organisations and the police may say, unless the local authority consents to making an area authorised, it cannot happen. That is my only point of concern. I support encouraging bodies to work together, consultation and the rest of the panoply of relevant measures, but I am worried that the Minister claims that whatever the police or the community says, the local authority has the final word.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that we have a wide range of tools not only to encourage good partnerships but to take positive steps to ensure that they are in place. It is occasionally necessary to put our money where our mouth is. If we talk about involving local government in what we do, it is occasionally right to put that at the heart of our policy making. We have agreed to the amendment and are prepared to say that the local authority's agreement is an integral part of our ability to get the most out of the powers that we have put on the statute book. That is not only a symbolic indication of the importance of local government but something more fundamental. It stresses that the crime and disorder partnerships must have equal buy-in from every partner if we are genuinely to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour.

The hon. Gentleman also knows that we, like his party, have proposals for the future direction of the police services and community safety. At the heart of the proposals is a genuine commitment to more local involvement from the community, local authorities, businesses, the voluntary sector and all of us as citizens in taking responsibility for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour. It is occasionally right that the commitment is reflected in the words of legislation. In this instance, there should be a joint enterprise for using the dispersal powers.

I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance about the reasons for the decision that the Government have made. I believe that we have made the right judgment. I am sure that I have not convinced the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, but I am delighted to have convinced the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 22 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

Clause 48 — Dealing with Noise at Night

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 38, and 65.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

This group of amendments relates to environmental matters that were originally in the Bill: night noise, graffiti, fly posting, spray paints and data on waste. Clause 48 amends the Noise Act 1996 to end, for England and Wales, the previously adoptive character of sections 2 to 9 of that Act. From now on, all local authorities in England and Wales will have the power to investigate complaints of excessive noise at night, give warning notices in respect of such noise and, where the noise remains excessive after the service of a warning notice, either prosecute or, more likely, issue a fixed penalty notice. Those powers will now be available for all local authorities, rather than having to be adopted.

Amendment No. 23 will allow local authorities to retain their receipts from night noise fixed penalty notices for use on any qualifying functions. The amendments will encourage and support the increased use of night noise fixed penalty notices by local authorities, with resulting benefits for people who suffer noise from their neighbours at night. The provisions are similar to those for the fixed penalty notices that can now be issued for littering and dog fouling, and we feel that if local authorities can keep the income from their fixed penalty notices, they will be more inclined to use their powers to relieve the considerable nuisance caused by excessive noise late at night.

Clauses 54 and 55 give local authorities the power to clean graffiti from property owned by public utility companies and statutory undertakers. I am delighted to say that amendments Nos. 24 to 33 will allow local authorities to recover the costs of removal from the owners of that property.

Siobhain McDonagh (Labour, Mitcham and Morden)

I thank the Government, and especially my hon. Friend for her work on the amendments. They embody suggestions that I made in Committee, and I am thrilled that statutory undertakers will now be responsible for maintaining their street furniture, which when covered in graffiti not only causes offence, but makes people worried about moving about their local high streets and other areas. I am also thrilled that if local authorities remove that graffiti, they will have the power to recharge.

One of the many themes supported by Members on both sides of the Committee was that powers that are given must be workable and usable. I believe that these powers will be used, precisely because the local authorities will be able to recharge. I also think that many of the statutory undertakers will—

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

Order. [Interruption.] Order. The hon. Lady has been here long enough to know that she must resume her seat when the occupant of the Chair is on his feet, and also that there is a distinction between an intervention and a speech. However congratulatory she means to be, she must keep that balance.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

As I was saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker, amendments Nos. 24 to 33 will allow local authorities to recover the costs of removal from the owners of such property. I am delighted to pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), who has pursued this matter with such vigour, and without whose tenacity and determination these provisions might not have reached the statute book, as I hope they will.

We are aware of the concerns that have been raised about the financial impact that the amendments might have on the industries concerned. That is why we propose to pilot the measures in 12 authorities, so that they will not put an undue burden on business. The pilots will give us the opportunity to evaluate the impact of the measures, and we shall consult the companies and local authorities concerned to ensure that we get the scheme right.

The amendments also provide for guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State, or the National Assembly for Wales, on the operation of the provisions, and local authorities will have to comply with it. The guidance will be drawn up in consultation with the industries and local authorities concerned.

Hand in hand with the clean-up measures goes tougher enforcement action against the perpetrators. That is a common theme: more action, but more enforcement as well. Amendment No. 34 will increase the fine for those prosecuted under section 224 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 from level 3, a fine of up to £1,000, to level 4, a fine of up to £2,500. That increase recognises the growing incidence of fly posting, and the need for a more punitive deterrent for those responsible for that environmental crime.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

Will the fly-posting provisions apply to political parties?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Anybody who contravenes the Town and Country Planning Act will be liable to a fine higher than the current level 3 fine. I am aware that there are different provisions in different parts of the country about what kind of party political advertising can be permitted. For example, I know that in Birmingham there is a tradition of allowing posters to be stuck on street furniture. That certainly is not a tradition in my community, so the position varies from local authority to local authority. None the less, where those provisions are contravened, the fine will be up to £2,500 rather than the present level of £1,000.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

If there were a general election, and a political party—the Liberal Democrats, for example—was fined £2,500, would that be added to its election expenses?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

That would be a matter for the returning officer and the Electoral Commission; it would be determined by electoral law at the time.

Amendments Nos. 35 and 36 concern the age below which sale of aerosol paint should be restricted. The Government have been open to argument on that point throughout the passage of the Bill. We remain convinced of the need to take the tools of the criminal damage trade out of the hands of the taggers, but the precise age at which it is proportionate to restrict sale of those items is a matter for debate. Having listened carefully to arguments both in this House and in another place, we agree that an age limit of 16 is more appropriate than one of 18.

Amendments Nos. 37 and 38 relate to the Secretary of State's power to require data returns to be made by local authorities and the Environment Agency about cases of fly-tipping with which they deal. There are currently no national data on levels of fly-tipping. The Environment Agency and most local authorities already collect some data, but not in any standardised way. It is important that we develop our information base on the extent of fly-tipping, to help inform future policy development both nationally and regionally. Local authorities will also benefit from the measure, as they will be able to access reports from the database.

The amendments introduce a new wording of section 71(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 with regard to the requirement for information. The previous provisions introduced a reporting requirement only in section 59 of that Act. The revised wording will ensure that local authorities may be required to report all the incidents with which they deal, no matter which power they use to do so. This is a wider provision, and I understand that local authorities welcome the power, rather than seeing it as a bureaucratic burden, because they want access to the database that will be developed. We shall try to ensure that it is a web-based facility, which can be accessed with minimum cost and trouble to local authorities, and I think that it will prove useful in determining our future policy on waste and fly-tipping, which, unfortunately, is an increasing problem.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I broadly welcome this group of amendments, and I particularly welcome the introduction of an appeal system. It is always a matter of concern to me when we give public bodies—be they local authorities or any other public body—powers over the private sector against which there is no appeal. The matter was debated in Committee. I am particularly concerned when we create a power for an authority to take action and to reclaim moneys from the private sector, so the introduction of an appeal mechanism is extremely welcome, and I thank the Minister and the Government for it.

I was interested to hear the Minister's remarks about the money side of this question and about the fact that she is putting into the Bill the way in which local authorities will be able to utilise the money that they have raised for approved purposes. It is worth bearing in mind that my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made precisely such a suggestion in Committee and was, not for the first time, rebuffed by the Government and told that they did not believe in hypothecation and that it would not happen. Of course, they are now putting that precisely into the Bill, enabling income to be hypothecated directly for particular items of expenditure.

I cannot help but gloat a little—I suspect that the Liberal Democrats will, too—at the way in which the Minister so charmingly said that the Government had now been persuaded that 16, rather than 18, should be the minimum age in relation to the sale of aerosols. If my recollection is correct, the hon. Lady was not the Minister in Committee, but, if my recollection is correct, there are Members in the Chamber today—including the former Minister with responsibility for the police—who were around at that time, and who were members of the Committee. They will remember how totally and utterly the Government rejected the logic of the arguments put by my hon. Friends and me for reducing the age at which someone should be prevented from buying an aerosol. I remember drawing attention to the fact—I think it was on Second Reading—that someone can, at 16, use a shotgun, go into a pub and have a drink, or even get married. At that age, they can have a driving licence and buy a car, but if they bend the car, they cannot go and buy the paint to mend it until they are 18. That seems utterly ludicrous. I am delighted that the Government have heeded the arguments made in the other place, albeit at the eleventh hour, but I cannot pretend to be surprised or even disappointed that they did not heed the argument made in this place that 18 was too high an age at which to ban something as everyday as the purchase of a can of aerosol paint.

I do not wish to deny the damage that graffiti does. It is a serious problem, and my hon. Friends and I support the Government's efforts in that regard. I would also say in all honesty to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) that I do not in any way resent the fact that she has been extremely successful in getting her proposals into the Bill. As I said earlier, I support the amendments in their entirety, but I have to say to the Minister that she is extremely courageous to suggest that the Government have listened to the arguments and been persuaded on the issue of age, given the strength and volubility of the way in which several Ministers—and, indeed, Back Benchers who supported the Government in Committee—sought to decry the efforts that some of us were making to reduce the age to 16. Even at this late hour, however, this is a welcome concession, and I am delighted to support it.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I, too, welcome this group of amendments. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) welcomed the qualifying functions in amendment No. 23 in relation to what the money could be spent on. I would like a little clarification on that. In know from my past life in a local authority that sometimes, when money is ring-fenced too tightly, it cannot be spent on sensible things. Obviously, we want the receipts to be able to finance extra activity. My councils, like others, can barely afford noise patrols at the moment, for example. I wonder whether there will be any consultation before the provisions are finally drawn up.

I welcome the fact that amendment No. 29 puts guidance on to the face of the Bill. I have not seen such a provision on any other of the relatively few Bills with which I have been involved so far. I strongly support amendments Nos. 35 and 36. I well remember discussing those issues in Committee; in fact, I got the Committee report out so that I could revisit that debate. However, given the spirit in which we are discussing the Bill today, it would be unkind to quote some of the comments that were made. I am sure that these measures are the right ones. The obvious point has been made that if someone can have a driving licence at the age of 17, it is nonsense that they cannot go out and buy spray paint. Overkill such as that can be counter-productive.

I would like to make a serious point about amendment No. 30, which states that one of the grounds for appeal is that

"the defacement is neither detrimental to the amenity of the area nor offensive".

I am all in favour of collaborative work to involve young people in creating attractive graffiti, but whenever that sort of work is undertaken, it should be with the permission of the property owner or landowner. I am concerned that this provision could create a complex situation if used as a general defence. I imagine that whether the graffiti was detrimental to the amenity of the area would be a subjective judgment.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I, too, am slightly puzzled by that defence, because it appears to invite those on the magistrates bench to substitute their artistic taste for that of the local authority. That does not seem to be an entirely sound legal ground for exemption, and I wonder whether guidance will be specifically given to the bench and to local authorities as to how they should interpret

"detrimental to the amenity of the area".

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I thank my hon. Friend for making more clearly than I was the point that I was trying to make about subjective judgment. I support the measures on removing offensive graffiti, but I do not want to see a loophole that could lead to some rather strange debates about whether graffiti was detrimental to an area. I emphasise that I am very much in favour of partnership working and creating interesting graffiti, but it must be done with the permission of all the parties involved.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Can the hon. Lady come up with a single example anywhere in these broad and sweeping kingdoms of any bit of this foul, feral scrawl that we call graffiti that could possibly be described—even by a Liberal Democrat—as attractive and interesting?

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

A person who has painted something on a property could stand up in court and argue that it was beautiful. I probably would not think that it was, but if it was not obviously offensive, the person who had painted it could create a certain amount of legal difficulty. I am sure the Minister will reassure us on that.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I shall deal first with the issues raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). He argued that our decision to allow the retention of moneys from the fixed penalty notices for night noise was inconsistent. However, we are already proposing, in clause 51, that local authorities should have the right to retain the income from fixed penalty notices for graffiti and fly posting. That builds on existing powers to retain fee income from littering and dog fouling. This is therefore nothing new. We are allowing local authorities to retain the money from the fixed penalty notices issued for night noise, in an attempt to encourage them to use the powers more widely. That is why we are getting rid of the adoptive provisions and making them apply across local authorities. It is therefore not new for us to introduce a measure to enable the authorities to retain such income. There is a consistency of approach here, and probably also a read-across to the retention of moneys by the police in relation to the income from fixed penalty notices for speeding, which is ploughed back into road safety measures. The Government have a coherent and consistent approach on those issues.

The hon. Gentleman indulged in some unfortunate gloating in relation to spray paints. I never saw him as the kind of person who would gloat in such circumstances—perhaps I was mistaken—but I think that every Member of the House would acknowledge that graffiti is a huge problem for our communities. That is why we have made it a central part not just of the Bill, but of the "Together" action plan, which we issued a few weeks ago. If the hon. Gentleman has read that, he will know that we have a major programme called Operation Scrub It, which we hope will lead to the removal of graffiti up and down our land. We also have Operation Scrap It for abandoned cars and Operation Gate It for alley gating, so we have scrub it, scrap it and gate it, and our plans for tackling antisocial behaviour will be very effective indeed.

I am delighted to say to the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) that I understand that when reducing the age in respect of possession of spray paints was discussed in Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who was previously responsible for the Bill, said:

"I will continue to listen to representations, or any other evidence to show that it is not the age group that the Bill mentions that is presenting the problem. If people think that they have that evidence, they should let us have it, because I do not pretend that we have the whole picture mapped out, or that we know exactly what is going on in our society."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 22 May 2003; c. 405.]

That is perfect evidence of my colleague's open-mindedness and his willingness to listen to evidence, take a rational decision and not reach foregone conclusions.

David Marshall (Labour, Glasgow Shettleston)

I am delighted at the measures that my hon. Friend is putting through the House, but I am sorry that they do not apply to Scotland. Have there been any joint ministerial discussions between the Scottish Executive and her Department as to the possibility of having the same measures introduced in Scotland?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I am grateful for my hon. Friend's support for these provisions. Although there have been no formal ministerial discussions as yet, I am aware that discussions are going on in Scotland around similar areas. Clearly, the matters that concern people living in England and Wales are of equal concern to residents in Scotland. Therefore, there will be discussions and, I hope, the sharing of good practice.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole raised the issue of night noise and whether her local authority could afford monitoring patrols. If she talks to her local authority, she will find that there are other ways to monitor noise, such as through the use of technology and electronic devices, which are much more cost-effective than local authority officers marauding on the streets late at night seeking out noise.

There is a serious issue here, and we want to make the powers as easy to use as we can, because the fact that they have been adoptive has militated against local authorities taking such action. Increasingly, when these powers are taken together with some of those to deal with noisy licensed premises under the licensing legislation, we will begin to have a coherent set of powers that really can help to attack the tremendous nuisance caused by excessive noise. Some people have to live with noise day in, day out—or rather night in, night out—which has a detrimental effect on their well-being.

The powers will be extremely welcome, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady will support them, although I am surprised by her enthusiasm—whether the powers be on environmental crime, tackling graffiti, fly posting or antisocial behaviour in general—which leads me to question why her party finds it impossible to support the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. I find this a very contradictory position to take: she is so supportive of all those proposals to tackle antisocial behaviour, yet her party cannot find it in itself to support the Government and the legislation.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Without any temptation to gloat at the Minister's expense, may I simply say that had her colleagues expressed their views in the way that she has this evening, committed themselves to the dual working that she has committed herself to this evening and introduced at an earlier stage those amendments that she has introduced this evening, the Bill might have taken a different course?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

It is perhaps more likely that we might have seen a very different response to the proposed legislation if there had been no change of Liberal Democrat spokespeople.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) that I understand that the Scottish Executive have published an antisocial behaviour Bill, which includes a ban on the sale of spray paints to under-16s. I am sure that there will be extensive joint working between us with regard to those issues.

I am pleased that the amendment, which I commend to hon. Members, commands the support of the House.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 24 to 38 agreed to [one with Special Entry].

After clause 59 — Raves

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this we may discuss amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, Lords amendment No. 40, Lords amendment No. 41 and amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendment No. 74.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I shall speak to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39. I welcome the debate on the two issues covered by this group of amendments—namely raves and dealing with unauthorised encampments. Indeed, by my recollection, both were raised in Committee and unauthorised encampments were the subject of a lot of discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and I spoke at length and, if I dare say it, with some passion because of constituency experiences—this is a serious problem.

I shall take the two issues separately if I may and deal first with raves, to which amendment No. 39 and my amendment (a) are relevant. I welcome what the Government are doing about raves. Reducing the relevant number from 100 to 20 is extremely sensible. It means that organising a rave for 99 people, which I understand has been the practice of a lot of people who tried to get just inside the law, will end. I also strongly welcome the removal of the term "open air" from subsection (2) of section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. However, the purpose of my amendment (a) is to challenge the Government as to why they have not removed the same term from subsection (1).

Subsection (1) states:

"This section applies to a gathering on land in the open air of 100 or more persons".

The Government are making an amendment by striking out 100 and inserting 20, but they have left in the words "open air". Subsection (2) refers to

"as respects any land in the open air, a police officer of at least the rank of superintendent",

but the term "open air" is to be deleted. I cannot help but feel that that is an oversight by the Government. The Minister is looking perplexed, which leads me to think that this has not clicked with either the Government or her advisers. The number in the 1994 Act as amended by the Lords amendment will be reduced from 100 to 20 without the term "open air" being removed. It seems to me that the gathering has to be on land in the open air.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

rose—

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I give way to the hon. Gentleman, who may be able to correct me.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I think that the hon. Gentleman is right in his drafting amendment, but I also think that passing his amendment, whose wording is simpler than that used by the Government, would make subsections (3) and (4) of amendment No. 39 redundant. Those would no longer be necessary, as the hon. Gentleman would have extended the application to an occurrence in the open air or within a closed building.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Perhaps the Minister will persuade me that subsection (3) is indeed sufficient, but I do not see for the life of me why the Government could not have simply struck out the words "in the open air" in both instances.

Let me now deal with the other amendments concerning travellers and the 1994 Act. I think this discussion will illustrate the absurdity of automatically timetabling all our debates. The travellers issue was not debated during the main part of the Bill's passage; the Government introduced it in the form of an amendment on Report, and the timetabling meant that it was not reached. This, therefore, is our only opportunity to debate the amendments to the 1994 Act involving travellers—and because we are discussing Lords amendments, that opportunity is extremely limited.

It is a tragedy that the Government have arranged matters in this way. I am not saying that I object to the amendments, which move in a direction that I urged on the Government in Committee. I am merely saying that had the Government allowed more time on Report, when the amendments first appeared, we might have felt more certain that they were getting this absolutely right.

I am still concerned about the fact that there is nothing in the Government's amendments, now incorporated in the Bill, or in the Lords amendments to deal with the detritus left by travellers, which was raised by almost everyone in Committee. That is a huge problem on both public and private land, but in many ways it is worse on private land, because it is for the owner of that land to pay the cost of clearing what may be huge piles of unpleasant waste. I welcome the addition of a power for the police to move on unauthorised travellers, the removal of the numbers limit, and many other new measures. However, as I said on Third Reading, I am worried about the loophole created by the Government in regard to alternative sites.

The Bill seems to say that police officers can move travellers on if they are illegally encamped and an alternative site is available. The Minister kindly nods, implying that my simplistic mind has got it right in this instance. On Third Reading, I feared that the Government risked driving a coach and horses through the intention of the relevant clauses. Since then they have tabled Lords amendment No. 40, which would insert the word "suitable". That worries me chiefly because "suitable" is a subjective term. I do not want to return to the issue of what constitutes appropriate graffiti, but "suitable" is subjective as opposed to objective. One person's definition of a suitable alternative site might not be another person's definition.

I speak as one with some years' standing in the House, representing a constituency where hundreds of travellers are going in and out all the time. They and their advisers know the law back to front, and if there is a loophole to be exploited they will exploit it. The word "suitable" immediately creates an opportunity for travellers and advisers to seek to undermine the law by challenging the suitability of a site in the eyes of the law.

Lords amendment No. 41 seems to constitute an attempt by the Government to define a suitable alternative site, although it does not say as much. It states that a police officer

"must consult every local authority within his area the land is situated as to whether there is a suitable pitch for the caravan . . . in the local authority's area."

That seems to me to restrict the scope of clause 61 dramatically. If, for example, travellers were encamped in a local authority area but close to its border, the officer would have to consult that authority. If there were no alternative site in the authority's area, the powers in the clause could not be used. There might, however, be a suitable alternative site only a mile away, in the area of another authority that would not have to be consulted.

My constituency shares its boundary with two other counties, as well as the rest of Cambridgeshire. We have serious problems with unauthorised encampments, often within a mile or two of the Essex and Suffolk borders. There may be very convenient alternative sites in those counties, but if I understand the Bill correctly, the authority that must be consulted is the one whose area contains the illegal encampment. I am being parochial here, but I would hope that we all know our constituencies better than anywhere else.

The Minister will confirm whether "local authority" means a county or a district authority—

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Both.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

In any event, because South Cambridgeshire borders many miles of the Essex boundary, if there is no alternative site in the rest of Cambridgeshire—which there may well not be, because of the large number of travellers—but there is one just over the border in Essex, that cannot be taken into consideration.

I do not pretend that I have necessarily got the drafting right in my amendment, but it is too late to change it now. Let me again use the example of South Cambridgeshire. You will know the adjoining district of Uttlesford, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is in your constituency. I suggest that if it contained an alternative site, its authority should be consulted.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point, which I fear we will not able to resolve at this late stage. Will he also consider county authorities which, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, made provision for transit sites covering all district council areas within their boundaries? Those sites will be discounted for the Bill's purposes unless they happen to be in the same district council area as an illegal encampment.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. The Minister said a moment ago that the county area would be covered, but what worries me is the possibility of a site's being just outside the county area. I could have framed my amendment to include all adjoining counties—indeed, I suspect that many of my constituents would have preferred "adjoining countries"—but I am trying to be reasonable, and to propose an amendment that the Government might consider acceptable.

Eric Martlew (Labour, Carlisle)

In my county of Cumbria, there is a transit site very near my constituency. From the south of the county, it is 90 miles away. I suspect that it would not be suitable to ask travellers to go 90 miles.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that I made earlier about the use of the term "suitable". What is suitable? How far is suitable? Is 90 miles suitable? I do not know. It will require a court eventually to decide. As the hon. Gentleman knows, travellers are fully aware of every aspect of legislation affecting them and they will test it.

I come back to the issue of alternative sites and what may be a suitable distance. It would be easy to suggest that a suitable alternative site should be one within five, 10, 15 or even 90 miles, whatever distance one chose. Rather than have a debate about how far is suitable for an alternative site, I suggest merely that we should ensure that all adjoining districts to the district in which the unauthorised encampment is located should be taken into account. Please do not think from my earlier comments, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I am entirely desirous of deporting all the unauthorised encampments in my constituency to yours. I simply use it as an example of what I am trying to get across with the amendment.

I fear that what has happened is that the Home Secretary and indeed the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), the previous Minister who dealt with the Bill in Committee, were determined to be tough but that, since the Government tabled their amendments, there have been voices urging that they be weakened. I fear that amendments Nos. 40 and 41 do weaken the original proposals, even though, as I said earlier and as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) said, this is the first time that we have debated them; we did not have a chance to debate them in earlier proceedings. The purpose of my amendment on travellers is simply to ensure that, where we are searching for what may be a suitable alternative site, not just that district or the county but all adjoining districts are consulted, so that, if the unauthorised encampment is close to a county boundary, we ensure that the other districts surrounding it are also consulted under new subsection (3B) in amendment No. 41.

This is in many ways the most important group of amendments that we shall discuss this evening. I hope that I have managed to explain to the Minister the import that I attach to them and the reasons why I tabled them. I look forward to her response.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

I will be brief and make a few remarks on the amendments to clause 61. I listened with interest to what the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said. I personally am pleased to see these clauses in the Bill because they enact a strategy that was announced during my time as a Home Office Minister. If time were not pressing, I might discuss why they did not get into the Bill at an earlier stage, but I will leave that for another occasion. However, I am pleased that that approach is being taken.

I can see both sides of the argument. The difficulty is that far too few local authorities, including district councils, have made provision for the type of temporary move-on site that I take to be meant by "suitable". I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure the House that we are talking not about an all-singing, all-dancing long-term residential camp site but about a suitable site to which someone can be directed, with the basic facilities that are necessary. Without an incentive for local authorities to make that provision, it is unlikely that they will do so. The police will be hampered in the use of the power by the lack of any facilities in the surrounding area.

I agree that in an entirely sensible and utterly co-operative world the position taken by the hon. Gentleman—that all provision should be taken into account— would make sense, but we are at a period when district councils must be focused on making that provision. It is an argument that needs to be advanced. In my local authority area, the cost of clearing up just two encampments in the past year has been £50,000 and we are not yet at the end of the financial year. We need to get local authorities—the incentive is in the Bill—to invest that money in the sort of move-on facilities that can cut the costs that they are incurring on clearing up waste. I think that what the Government are doing will provide the incentive for local authorities to act and not just to say, "We assume that someone else will deal with the problem and the police can direct people in that direction."

The issue may need to be revisited when there is an adequate pattern of provision in every area, and it is logical to look at everything that is available in the whole of Hampshire, in my case, but we are not in that situation at the moment. Therefore, provided that the term "suitable"—I trust that there will be Government guidance—clearly means basic, hard-standing chemical soak-away facilities, a standpipe or whatever, and not the all-singing, all-dancing residential complexes, for which it has been difficult to get planning permission, the Bill will take us a significant way forward.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I raised Committee concerns I had in respect of my constituency, which abuts Hampshire. Does he recognise that there are considerable difficulties even in areas where there is substantial local authority provision? Chobham in my constituency, a small village, was hugely over-run by a massive new site being created in breach of all the planning rules, even though there was already an existing proper site provided by the local authority, so a local authority-provided site does not necessarily solve the problems.

John Denham (Labour, Southampton, Itchen)

Of course, there are problems. The difficulty ever since the original Act has been that local authorities have been reluctant to provide the transit move-on sites that are necessary. The Bill and the logic of the approach says, "Here is a power that is available to the police but only if the local authority in that area acts to make suitable provision." Without that early incentive, we will not see an expansion in the type of facilities that need to be available, and then in practice the much faster move-on powers will not be available to the police.

As we all know, it can take weeks to move on an unauthorised encampment. In one case in Southampton recently, there was a dispute as to whether the landowner or leaseholder should take action. Things dragged on even longer, so I welcome the moves that are being taken, even though I suspect that, if we are successful at providing more temporary camp sites, there may be a case in years to come to revisit the debate that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire has started.

While I am on my feet, may I say to the Minister in supporting the overall approach that is being taken that I was a little disconcerted to find last week that the guidance coming from the Home Office on the use of antisocial behaviour orders and the new powers to deal with travellers is not exactly extensive? If we wish to see the police use the new ASBO power against travellers, some extended guidance from the Home Office on how to do it, how to collect evidence and how to get the ASBO to court would be enormously useful. I am convinced that that complements the measures in the Bill well but we need to ensure that it can be used at local level.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I await with interest the Minister's response on amendment No. 40 and amendment (a). We had an interesting exchange. It is a matter of waiting for her pronouncement on that.

On the amendment on travellers, I was interested in the interpretation by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I had not realised before he spoke that there would be an incentive to provide transitional sites. I understand the logic now that it has been expressed in that way, but I question whether that is sufficient incentive. I suspect that it will take a lot more and a lot of persuasion to get local authorities to do something about what is a serious issue for all our constituents.

I favour amendment (a) to amendment No. 41. It seems to make a lot of sense. Indeed, I do not see how one can argue against it. If we have a site 100 yd over the border, surely it needs to come into play. There must be some wording that could pick that point up.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 could have greater longer-term significance. The principle of making local authorities work together is surely another way forward because some local authorities will argue that they simply have not got places, whereas a number of different types of council, covering larger areas, can truly work together. County councils were specifically mentioned. I represent part of the unitary authority of Poole, which is in the county of Dorset, although it is a separate authority. We would have big problems with moving travellers on without that amendment because of the proximity of the unitary authority boundary and the county council boundary. So I very much support that amendment and await the Minister's comments.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I wish to respond to the Opposition amendments that have been tabled to Lords amendments Nos. 39 and 41.

During previous stages, hon. Members mentioned the problem of raves, so the Government took the opportunity in the other place to introduce measures to deal with that important issue. The Lords amendments will change existing legislation to include indoor trespassory raves, reduce the numerical threshold for action from 100 to 20 people and make it an offence for a person on whom a direction has been served to attend another trespassory rave within 24 hours of the direction being given. Those three trends, which show how legislation was being gradually undermined, were identified by our work with the Association of Chief Police Officers. People were organising events for just under 100 people, events that took place one after another in similar places and an increasing number of indoor events.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39, tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), may appear attractive at first sight, as its wording is simpler—the words "in the open air" would be omitted—but I assure hon. Members that section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Bill, will address the problem both of raves in the open air and of indoor trespassory raves. I emphasise that fact. If we were to agree with the hon. Gentleman's proposal, we would catch all indoor events—for example, house parties where people were not trespassing and were present with the agreement of the person organising the event. I cannot imagine that he wants to include a provision that would catch people who were not trespassing. The Bill is intended to catch people who are trespassing on other people's land.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

I have been reading section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act. It applies only where serious distress is being caused to the inhabitants of a locality, so there is still a heavy qualification.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Yes, but Lords amendment No. 39 will meet the requirements that we want to achieve to address the trends, which ACPO identified, that are undermining the existing legislation. We want to deal with events that are organised indoors and that still have all the elements of the unacceptable raves that were being organised outdoors. The Government's proposal will do that, and the hon. Gentleman's proposals would go wider than would be appropriate for the legislation. I hope, therefore, that I have assured the hon. Gentleman that Lords amendment No. 39 will achieve what he wants and that he will not press amendment (a) to a Division.

I turn now to the amendments on travellers. Lords amendments Nos. 40 and 41 provide swifter eviction powers to deal with trespassers on land when an alternative site is available. Again, those amendments were tabled as a result of the Government listening to concerns that were expressed in the Lords. Lords amendment No. 40 will ensure that, before the police issue a direction for trespassers to leave land, a suitable pitch will be available on a local authority site.

Hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), asked what sites might be suitable. A transit site could certainly be suitable. If such issues are the subject of litigation, the courts will ultimately decide what falls within the ambit of a suitable site. We would expect and hope that a fairly pragmatic view would be taken in respect of the practicalities. We will certainly offer guidance on the meaning of the phrase "suitable site". The guidance will not be legally binding, but we will try to give as many indications as we can about what we think falls within that definition.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I mentioned in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I have a big constituency interest in this issue, as the Minister knows. Does she recognise that there is great concern among local authority chief executives, including those in my area, that the Government's proposals may allow a loophole that will make it more difficult to obtain the orders that we were discussing in Committee? Indeed, Labour Back Benchers raised the issue in Committee.

Does the Minister also recognise that it would be very helpful if the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper)—who is sitting on the Front Bench with the Minister—agreed, further to what she has already written to me, to talk to her predecessor about what Front Benchers discussed after one of the later Committee sittings, because we need joined-up Government on this issue?

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Under-Secretary will explore those matters. I understand that she has been in correspondence with the hon. Gentleman and that she is certainly happy to consider those issues.

Determining whether a site is suitable is a matter of getting the balance right. Travellers have an interest in gaining access to proper facilities, but hon. Members have clearly expressed views about the rights of the community not to be subject to some of the damage, distress, costs and waste that result from illegal encampments. It is crucial that we get that balance right. I wonder whether there is a fundamental philosophical question about whether a site can be an alternative if it is not suitable; the courts, rather than me, will probably have to decide that. In considering whether a site is suitable, certain factors will have to be taken into account that make it a realistic alternative to which people can be directed. That is a serious matter for us to explore, but getting the right balance between the various interests is very important.

The new powers in the Bill to deal with trespassers on land aim to provide an additional police power in areas where local authorities have provided authorised sites and there is space on those sites. It important to say that it is an offence for those who are given a direction to leave an unauthorised site to return to that local authority area as a trespasser. That is the incentive in the system for local authorities to make the necessary provision. They can then avail themselves of that power, in addition to the current public order powers, which will allow them swifter eviction and make it an offence for people to return to the area in future.

It is worth pointing out that, where no space is left on local authority sites, the police still have the power to direct trespassers to leave land under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994—so the police are not left without any power if there is a high degree of antisocial behaviour and problems are caused to the local community.

Amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41, tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, would widen the consultation requirements on the police before exercising those new powers. Under amendment (a), rather than simply having to consult the local authorities in whose area the land is situated, the police would also have to consult all adjoining local authorities.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

Districts.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

The hon. Gentleman has accepted that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 may well not be drafted perfectly—it is a very late amendment—in relation to who needs to be consulted. I have already confirmed—I am happy to do so again for the record—that the existing provisions require consultation with local authorities in the area, so the county and the district authority would be involved in a two-tier area. We believe that that amendment would unhelpfully break the direct link between the provision of sites for travellers in a local authority and the availability of the new powers.

Those new powers are a key part of the Bill, but they will be available only where local authorities have proper provision. If we were to accept amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41, we would allow a local authority to rely entirely on a neighbouring authority's site provision to deal with unauthorised encampments in its area. That would remove the incentive for local authorities to provide suitable sites for travellers.

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire asks about cases where local authorities might have extensive provision that is full and suggests that his amendment is necessary to direct people into a neighbouring area. Equally, I am sure that he would accept that amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 would allow authorities that had made no provision to direct people into a neighbouring area. It is crucial to strike the right balance between the interests of travellers in gaining access to facilities and those of the community to be protected from some of the undoubted problems that flow from unauthorised encampments. We have to keep that link. If that link were broken, it would undermine the way in which those powers could be exercised.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister seems to be saying that the rights of whoever owns the land on which travellers are camping without authorisation, which she seemed to be espousing, should be secondary to the obligation of the local authority to provide traveller sites of some form. With respect, I do not think that many people in this country would agree that it is down to the local authority's decisions whether travellers should be able to park illegally on private or perhaps public property on which they are not meant to be parked. That is the gist of what she suggests.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

Most people in this country would not welcome the position whereby those in a neighbouring local authority who had not made provision for travellers were able to offload their problems on to the residents of a neighbouring local authority that had complied with a responsibility to provide at least minimum services for people in such circumstances. As the hon. Gentleman knows extremely well, making legislation in this place is always a matter of balancing the rights and competing interests of many different groups. Most people would want the Bill to maintain the incentive that encourages local authorities to make appropriate provision. They would view askance the prospect of a local authority, perhaps not one like his, that did not have any provision whatsoever being allowed to direct travellers in their area to a neighbouring local authority, which would have to pick up the bill for providing those facilities.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

The Minister has not dealt with constituencies such as mine, which are close to a county boundary. A substantial part of my constituency border runs along both the Surrey-Hampshire county boundary and the Surrey-Berkshire county boundary. Surely it cannot be right that, once the Bill becomes law in its current form, only the authorities in Surrey would be consulted, and facilities that might be only a mile or two away but that were just over the county boundary in Berkshire or Hampshire would not be considered. That cannot be common sense.

Hazel Blears (Labour, Salford)

I think the Bill strikes the right balance, whereby the district council and the county council of the area concerned would be consulted. That is an appropriate balance.

The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) made a good point about local authorities co-operating, which we are always keen to ensure. She referred, however, to councils being made to work together. We are not in a position to make local authorities work together in those circumstances—again, I am sure that she would share my view about democratic accountability and ensuring that local authorities can take decisions locally. In response to the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I am prepared to consider, with the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), whether the guidance to be issued in relation to travellers' sites can encourage more co-operation and joint working to resolve some of these matters. Clearly, that would enable the police to take advantage of the compulsory sanction available in the Bill, but if we can express in the guidance our will for local authorities to co-operate where appropriate, we shall certainly do that. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), I should say that we will keep the matter under review; there may be further proposals that we can introduce.

We are keen to ensure that we get the balance right in this important area of law. I am delighted that these matters are now within the ambit of the Bill. They will provide welcome extra powers for the police and the community. We still feel, however, that maintaining the link between the provision of sites and the ability to have this expedited power is essential. There is a dearth of provision in this area in local authorities up and down the country, and if we are to manage things so as to avoid the chaotic situation that existed in the past, more provision is important.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen, in some welcome, supportive remarks on the Bill, mentioned the issue of guidance to the police and how they can use the antisocial behaviour powers in relation to travellers. I am more than happy to consider that. I want to place on record my view, which is firmly held, that the standard of behaviour that we expect in this country is the same for people wherever they come from, whatever their background, and whatever lifestyle they have adopted. They have a responsibility to live their lives in a decent manner that does not impinge on the rights of the vast majority of people in this country to go about their lawful business. It is essential that everybody, from the range of sections of the community, adheres to the standards of decent behaviour in this country. On that point, the travelling community is just as subject to the provisions in relation to fly tipping and waste disposal as anyone else. I am only too well aware of the enormous costs that have sometimes been faced by local authorities in clearing up the remnants left by unauthorised encampments. Plainly, everybody in this country should be subject to the same legislative requirements in terms of living with other people in the community. I commend amendments to the House.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

First, may I address the Minister's response to my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 39 on the issue of raves? I bow to the legal advice that she has received, which is far wider than that available to the Opposition. If she believes that the problems in relation to the open air are covered better by her way than by mine, so be it. I will not pursue that.

I want to respond, however, to the hon. Lady's comments about travellers and my amendment. I welcome the comments of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the work that he did in pursuing the problems and issues related to travellers to ensure that they are addressed in the Bill. I would be interested on another occasion to hear why the provision was introduced at such a late stage that we have not had a chance to debate it properly in the House, but I welcome its inclusion nevertheless. I wholly agree with the Minister that there is a need to take action, for which I was pressing in Committee.

I find myself at odds with the Minister, however, in relation to her argument against my amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41. It is slightly disingenuous of her to imply that my amendment also relates to counties, as it refers specifically to a district or unitary authority: the adjoining district or unitary authority to the site. Of course I understand her point and that of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen that not every authority is as good as, in my case, Cambridgeshire—and its districts—in providing both permanent and transitory sites. Of course some authorities do not make such good provision. I would argue strongly, however, that other avenues are available to the Government, including the district auditor, to make sure that local authorities fulfil their obligations.

I feel passionately that the people who will suffer if the Government resist my amendment are the landowners—perhaps small or public landowners—on whose land such people descend and park without authorisation. Even if there is no site in a district, but there happens to be one a mile or two over the district boundary in a different county, the Minister says that that cannot be taken into account. It is that landowner who will suffer. I am more than happy to see alternative measures to encourage local authorities to provide satisfactory campsites.

In relation to the Minister's last remarks, picking up the point about antisocial behaviour orders, of course she is right—everyone in this country has a right to go about their daily life and live their lives without interruption, intervention, harassment and intimidation from other groups of people behaving antisocially. However, I have to tell her that nowhere is that more apparent than in some—I stress the word "some"—cases in which travellers are involved. In constituencies such as mine and many counties such as Cambridgeshire, there are areas in which some—again, I stress the word "some"—travellers make life a misery. All that we tried to do in Committee was to change the Bill to reduce that misery a little.

The Government have gone some way towards doing what we wanted, but if they resist amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41, they will continue to provide a loophole in the law. I fear that the loophole will mean that the powers will be rarely used. That is worrying and it negates the import of what the Minister believes she is trying to do. For that reason, I shall press amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 41 to a Division. I realise that we must first dispose of the other business and, to expedite that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 40 agreed to.

Clause 61 — Power to Remove Trespassers: Alternative Site Available

New Clause

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Alan Haselhurst (Deputy Speaker, Saffron Walden)

With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 61, 63 and 66 to 71.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The amendments give local authorities the power to deal with complaints about high garden hedges that cannot be settled by negotiation and to take action if necessary. They import into the Bill the provisions so ably championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) in his private Member's Bill, the High Hedges (No. 2) Bill. The Government are extremely pleased to incorporate those measures in this Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend on doing so much to pursue the cause and to raise the concerns of people who are troubled by high hedge disputes.

There have been seven private Members' Bills on the subject. Most received broad support, certainly from Labour Members. Opposition Members also wrote to the Government on behalf of their constituents. The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) introduced one of those Bills. Baroness Gardner of Parkes recently introduced two Bills on the subject and we have responded to the concerns that she raised in the House of Lords. The Government backed the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North and looked for other ways to pursue it when it was talked out by a small number of Conservative Back Benchers. We have also responded to Members of both Houses who asked whether the measures could be incorporated into this Bill, which we decided was the right thing to do.

Unreasonably high hedges can block out light from neighbours' houses and gardens. Hedgeline estimates that there are 10,000 cases across the country of neighbours who are in dispute over the height of a hedge. We are all aware of problems such as bungalows crowded out by towering leylandii. We know that that makes neighbours' lives a misery, especially if the hedge owner refuses to respond. It is unfair on those who are suffering from the problem to leave them with no mechanism for appeal or adjudication.

Greg Knight (Conservative, East Yorkshire)

On fairness, my reading of the new clauses is that they would also apply to a case in which a new property is built on a plot of land next to an existing high hedge. Why should the owner of a high hedge have to cut it back because of a property that is subsequently built next door? Would it not be more reasonable to exempt those cases that arise when the house comes after the hedge?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

We hope that neighbours will resolve such problems themselves. Local authorities can take a wide range of considerations into account when addressing such disputes. They have discretion to respond to the nature of the circumstances involved and to direct remedial action. They may, however, decide that although a hedge has an impact on a house, remedial action is not appropriate in the circumstances. We will consult further on the guidance and the implementation of the measures.

The problems involve disputes between neighbours that we hope they will resolve. If they do not, the fundamental principle is that it is right to have a dispute resolution mechanism and some way of sorting out the problem. In truth, to those who suffer the most extreme forms of the problem, it can be just as antisocial as graffiti or noisy neighbours. We should not accept the stereotype that antisocial behaviour is only about teenagers on low-income estates. People face a wide range of antisocial behaviour and it is right that we can address problems relating to high hedges in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill.

John Horam (Conservative, Orpington)

Following on from the intervention of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Knight), I think it important that in this respect we keep the Bill as simple as possible. I strongly support and greatly appreciate the efforts made by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) to bring the issue to the attention of the House through his private Member's Bill, and I am delighted that the measure has all-party support. However, we need to keep things simple and rely as far as possible on common sense and neighbours sorting the problem out between themselves. If we make the provision too complicated, with too many exemptions, we will land ourselves in serious trouble.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Furthermore, we should allow local authorities to take the most appropriate decision in the circumstances, because every case will be different. It would not be appropriate to try to prescribe in legislation the types of hedges that people should have, nor to set down blanket provisions. The approach taken should be one of dispute resolution—finding a way to solve the problem.

Jim Cunningham (Labour, Coventry South)

I agree with my hon. Friend. These are human situations in which emotions are involved, and there has to be some form of resolution. That should be achieved primarily through conciliation, but if that does not work, something has to be done.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

My hon. Friend is right, and I pay tribute to him as one who piloted two of the Bills on high hedges through this House. He has championed the cause strongly in the past few years. We in this House have had many hours of debate on these issues—

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

Twenty-one.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

As my hon. Friend reminds me, we have had 21 hours of debate during the passage of the many private Members' Bills on the issue. We know that hon. Members receive huge numbers of letters about high hedges from their constituents, and we at the Department have received many as well. The Government are keen to get the measures on to the statute book as rapidly as possible, and I am pleased that the Anti-social Behaviour Bill has provided a mechanism by which to achieve that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

The Opposition called for a provision to deal with high hedges in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Will the Minister say what the regulations, which I understand are not yet published, will contain? Will they be based on the current Building Research Establishment guidelines? Will she say something about costs? How much of an extra burden will be placed on local authorities?

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

That is the purpose of the consultation. We aim to have regulations published and out for consultation as rapidly as possible. We will consult over the course of next year, with the aim of having the measures fully implemented toward the end of 2004 if possible. Fees and the guidance that is to be issued are precisely the type of thing on which we shall consult. I do not think that they are appropriate matters to deal with in the Bill—we should consult on and deal properly with such details through regulation.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

As the Minister rightly says, high hedges have taken a great deal of the House's time throughout the years that I have been a Member. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who is present on the Treasury Bench, and I entered the House at the same time, I think, and we have witnessed most of the innumerable debates that the Minister described. The hon. Lady is right to say that the issue is one that has featured in every MP's postbag—except perhaps that of the hon. Member for Western Isles (Mr. MacDonald), because there are not many hedges in his constituency.

Shona McIsaac (Labour, Cleethorpes)

Or in the City of London.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

The Minister's Parliamentary Private Secretary is being wholly improper in speaking in the Chamber, given that her Minister is in charge of this issue.

High hedges are of huge concern to many people, but although the fact that they can be a problem is indisputable, views vary on the best way to tackle it. Several attempts have been made to deal with the problem in private Members' Bills—not all of which were the same—but the most recent and, if the measure is passed tonight, the most significant attempt was that of the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).

When scrutiny of the Anti-social Behaviour Bill started many months ago, few of us realised just what a Christmas tree it would become. In Standing Committee, my hon. Friends and I and the Liberal Democrats thought that we were pushing our luck in trying to introduce measures to deal with animal rights activists, travellers and raves, but all those things are now well and truly in the Bill, and I am delighted about that. The Government's decision that high hedges constitute an antisocial activity and therefore come within the compass of the Bill was a surprising, albeit worthwhile, piece of initiative on their part.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) said, the Opposition have supported measures to deal with problems of high hedges, and we shall not oppose this provision tonight. The Government have taken an opportunity to address the problem—I was going to press my luck by saying "Once and for all", but rarely does any piece of legislation solve any problem once and for all. However, for a period, the Bill will address the problem of high hedges and the Government are right to have acted.

I do not want to sound churlish, but I should sound a note of caution. Picking up a private Member's Bill and adding its provisions to a major public Bill is not an idea that I want to be taken up often, because it is not necessarily the right way to legislate. Despite the number of hours spent discussing this issue, most people accept in their heart of hearts that scrutiny of private Members' Bills is not always as robust as scrutiny of public Bills, simply because of the number of right hon. and hon. Members present on the days when private Members' Bills are discussed.

None the less, the subject has had a great deal of time devoted to it, and the Government have taken the opportunity to do something about a problem that besets all our constituents—or at least constituents of us all—and have done so in a way that I hope will deal with the problem without being over-burdensome and over-intrusive.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

I am sorry to detain my hon. Friend, who is making a cogent case, but will he press the Government on one point? Hedgeline informs us that there are 10,000 outstanding cases which, if they all come to be conciliated immediately after the Bill is passed, will place a significant burden on local authorities. Local authorities up and down the land should have some form of commitment from Ministers that the Government will provide the extra resources required to resolve those cases.

James Paice (Conservative, South East Cambridgeshire)

My hon. Friend has been a Member of Parliament almost as long as I have and he knows as well as I do that Governments of all persuasions are remarkably good at giving local authorities extra jobs without giving them the resources to do them. I am conscious that even if the Government say that they will provide the extra resources, it only means that they will take the money from some other area in which they were supporting local authorities. None the less, my hon. Friend is right to point out that the measure carries a potential initial cost impact, because of the large number of outstanding cases. I have no doubt that that impact will be felt; then, as the legislation gradually settles in, use of it will decrease.

I hope that local authorities will use the powers cautiously and deal with real problems, but not enter into too much vexatious activity. I am not suggesting that they are likely to do the latter, but the power should be used sparingly, to address a problem when all else has failed. Having encountered several such cases in my constituency, I know that they can often be resolved by non-statutory means—obviously, statutory means have not been available until now. I hope that the legislative provision will be used relatively rarely, but I am glad that it will be there if all other means of resolving a case fail.

As I said, the Opposition do not oppose the Government on this matter. Indeed, we welcome the opportunity that the Government are taking to use the Bill to introduce these measures. We hope that they will fulfil the objective and reduce the postbag of most right hon. and hon. Members.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) referred to gloating in connection with another group of Lords amendments. With some difficulty, I will resist the opportunity to gloat until the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) assumes his place.

In a typically wise, generous and positive contribution, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to the Christmas tree effect. In fact, Christmas has come early, not only for me but for the 10,000 hedge victims, who can now face the autumn shades closing in and the prospect of winter stretching before them with the knowledge that, when spring comes, daylight will be allowed to break through to gardens that for too long have been shrouded in darkness at noon, in the perpetual twilight of the garden blighted by the loathsome leylandii. We have the prospect of bringing succour, relief and daylight to those people.

If I achieve nothing else in my short time in the House, which is entirely likely, the fact that I have been associated with this piece of legislation will not only be a source of immense pride for me but an opportunity that I will use to bore the pants off my neighbours, children and grandchildren in times to come.

The mood in the Chamber tonight is very different from the mood experienced earlier. These provisions were described—I rather think that the words are carved on my heart—by the hon. Member for Christchurch as representing a threat to this green and pleasant land far greater than the effects of the great storm of 1987, of Dutch elm disease and of the depredations of the Luftwaffe. The fact that we have moved beyond that to realise that before us is sensible legislation that will bring great relief to many people is a tribute to the House, and something for which I could not possibly take any credit personally.

Where credit is to be given, I remind the House of the sterling efforts of Baroness Gardner of Parkes and Baroness Hamwee, who have exhibited deft footwork in the other place. They struggled constantly to ensure that these sensible provisions are placed on the statute book, and they must be congratulated. While I am dishing out early Christmas presents—I hope that it is entirely appropriate to do so—I thank my hon. Friend the Minister in the most obsequious and generous terms for her contribution and her dedication. She has taken up the ball that was put down reluctantly by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty). That is an immense tribute to her. She has taken it so close to success—I was about to say fruition but that may be an inappropriate metaphor in this context—and that is a great credit to her.

The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) has been mentioned. I think that the House was aware that, if all else failed, he had a Bill on the stocks ready to be wheeled out. That prospect concentrated the mind of the House wonderfully. It has encouraged us in the glorious warmth and amity that we are experiencing this evening.

We should pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), who introduced a Bill similar to mine. I pillaged many of his ideas with no acknowledgement whatsoever, but I am glad to acknowledge him tonight. I do not say that because he is sitting behind me.

I must also refer to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones). I particularly regret that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) has other urgent business this evening. He and I are occasionally confused with each other. How two tonsorially challenged right wingers can possibly be confused in that way is beyond me. However, I consider that I am blessed by the comparison with the hon. Gentleman. He introduced an excellent Bill and allowed me to steal from it in the same way that I pillaged the Bill of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South. The devotion and dedication of the hon. Member for Solihull to this legislation is much to his credit. I remember his speeches when his Bill came before the House on one of those benighted Friday mornings of tender memory. They persuaded many people of the efficacy and strength of the Bill. I hope that I have included most hon. Members in the Christmas card list.

I shall take up the point raised by the hon. Member who I think represents Cotswold. Is it all of the Cotswolds?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Conservative, Cotswold)

Most of it.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I refer to the Member who represents most of the Cotswolds, the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), who talked about the burden on local authorities. Burdens on local authorities are a subject close to my heart. During my 16 years on Ealing council, I was acutely aware that I frequently added to those burdens. However, in the absence of any legislation, there is a huge burden on local authorities. When people have a dispute with their neighbours about hedges, there is no way in which the local authority can help. At the same time, the average member of the public does not believe that the local authority can help. As a result, hours and hours of officer time are spent telling people, "We can't help you." In many instances officers cannot provide that piece of information. They then have to provide reasons and justifications. There may well be a backlog. The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was entirely right and typically generous and far-sighted in his assumption that that peak will pass and that we will drift down into the sunlit uplands of a world without leylandii disputes.

David Davis (Conservative, Haltemprice and Howden)

Down to the uplands?

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am sorry. Drift up to the downlands. We may either drift down to the uplands or up to the downlands as we choose.

I wish to underscore the point that was made with great clarity by my hon. Friend the Minister. She referred to the provisions as an essential adjunct to the Bill. If there be criticism of this modest piece of legislation tonight—if there is, I have yet to hear it—it may come from those who cavil at the way in which this section of the Bill has been brought to the Floor of the House. They may say that it is not directly applicable to antisocial behaviour. I remind the House, if it needs reminding, that two people are dead as a result of fighting and feuding over hedges. There has been one murder and one suicide. The issue is that serious.

In addition, 4,000 members of Hedgeline and 10,000 people who have reported their problems to Hedgeline are in dispute with their neighbours. I profoundly hope that, once the Bill has passed through the consultation period outside the House and starts to firm up in people's minds as imminent legislation, many sensible people will say, "Let's not wait for the Bill. Let's get together, talk and sort it out." There will always be an irreducible minimum. Some people will always use high hedges as a weapon of war in a neighbour dispute. Some people will use these missile-shaped trees as missiles against their neighbour. I accept that that will happen, but it also happens in boundary disputes and disputes about parking access, for example. We are familiar with all the neighbourhood problems that we read about in our postbags.

Call me naive or call me innocent, but I hope that when people realise that Parliament takes this matter sufficiently seriously to add to the 21 long hours that we have already spent discussing it by bringing it to the House in the form in which it is being considered, they will realise also that the issue is one of great seriousness. I profoundly hope that we will end these appalling disputes over the bizarre invention of Dr. Leyland in 1882. I frequently travel outside my constituency, usually at the request of my constituents, but in doing so I have discovered that a large number of local authorities are already setting in train the mechanism to implement the Bill. There are even companies such as Haygate Engineering, one of our most entrepreneurial engineering companies, that already offer safety platforms to enable local authorities to undertake the work. Councils up and down the country are welcoming the chance, not because they wish to act like some local government gauleiter and dictate how things should or should not be done, but because they have an immense problem and have not been willed the tools to address it.

This group of amendments will will the tools. We have shown in the House that we want to resolve the issue once and for all. I am delighted that, finally, after all this effort, we are almost on the last lap, and are approaching the prospect that legislation will be made. I do not propose, unless the House insists, to go through every semi-colon and comma of the Lords amendments, which probably constitute the most scrutinised piece of legislation in many a long year. However, for the sake of the House and people outside, who may include my children but not many others, may I stress that the Bill's key aim is not to slice down leylandii? The whirr of the chainsaws will not be heard on every suburban street corner or even most of the Cotswolds. If enacted, the Bill will apply only where there is a problem. People can still have leylandii arching up to the heavens, but if the trees constitute a problem to their neighbours, they will at last have legal recourse to solve the problem.

The amendments will not mean the end of leylandii, although some of us would be pleased to see the end of that growth. However, where there is a problem, there will be a possible solution. People can still have leylandii and, if they wish, a screen at the end of the garden, but finally there will be a way of dealing with the worst aspects of the problem, such as the soil turning acid from the trees and gardens being in permanent shade. Overall, in the absence of any comments to the contrary, I hope that we accept that the House has taken a problem, addressed concerns, and proposed a resolution.

In conclusion, I pay particular tribute to the officials who have produced at great personal cost, particularly given the time that they spent in my office, which is not the healthiest environment, a terse, exact, precise, effective and workable piece of legislation. The provision may appear to be a modest piece of legislation, and may not be one of the great moments in legislative history or one of the high points of the parliamentary record, but it will make an enormous difference for the better for a large number of people. Can we ask more than that, when we come to the House, we do not do harm but good for some people? Tonight, we have the opportunity to bring relief to many who have suffered for too long. [Hon. Members: "Sit down."] I usually hear the cry of "sit down" from my own side, but tonight it has come from the Opposition. I strongly support this group of Lords amendments and again thank the officials, other hon. Members who have tackled this issue and, in particular, the Minister.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I pay tribute to the many Members who have been involved in bringing this piece of legislation to the point where, we hope, it will be passed. I congratulate in particular the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I was a bit surprised that, on Report, such a charming and eloquent Member had not gathered enough friends to ensure the smooth progress of his proposals. Indeed, I began to wonder where his friends were. However, the fact that those proposals are now attached to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill means that he must have gained their support after all, or perhaps he has friends in higher places. It is difficult to match his eloquence, but the Bill has the potential to improve many people's quality of life greatly.

There may be lots of jokes about high hedges, but they are a serious problem for many of our constituents.We must, however, put the problem into perspective; we must not sound anti-hedge, as hedges are an extremely important part of our urban and suburban environment. On Report, it was suggested that the hon. Member for Ealing, North wanted to cut down every hedge in the country, which is obviously nonsense. We are talking about hedges that affect people's quality of life. Conflicts can arise, as some people want privacy, but achieving it may result in the loss of light for others and a detrimental effect on their environment. It is therefore right to have a statutory framework in which to address the conflict, which, I hope, can be resolved through mediation.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat, Somerton and Frome)

Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure is a helpful addition to our legislative armoury? However, the greatest benefit will come after the first rash of mediation or enforcement, when people will realise that that there is legislation on the statute book and will have sensible regard for the needs of their neighbours as well as themselves.

Annette Brooke (Liberal Democrat, Mid Dorset and North Poole)

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend. If I have any concerns, they are about the enormous amount of work that will have to be undertaken in the first year or two. It will take a number of cases before clear precedents are set, because it is generally true of planning applications that it takes time to look back at other cases. Once we have reached that point, however, it should be much easier to deal with the problem, and people will be much more respectful of their neighbours' needs in the first place. However, it is important to stress that people have the right to privacy, so we must always look at both sides of the argument.

On Report, we discussed at great length an amendment that would have excluded schools, but that would have had the effect of preventing the worst case in my constituency, involving a private school with a rapidly growing high hedge, from being tackled. The owners contend that it protects neighbouring properties from balls and other intrusions from the school. In fact, it impacts on a large number of people, so it is important that some of the proposed amendments did not get very far.

I share hon. Members' concerns about the resources needed to implement the provisions, particularly in the first few years, and the burden on local authorities. There is a council in my constituency that does not have any rate support grant, so funding should be targeted so that the costs are picked up. However, the majority of people will be prepared to pay a few pence more so that the problem is addressed.

I think of the elderly people whom I have known who have had to live most of their lives in a downstairs room with an electric light on all day long. That is a tragedy when people are coming to the end of their lives and may not be able to go out much. I am delighted that we are dealing with the measure tonight. I give it my wholehearted support, as do my hon. Friends, who did their best to support the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Ealing, North.

Lynne Jones (Labour, Birmingham, Selly Oak)

I think I can claim to be the first in the House to suggest that antisocial behaviour legislation should be used to deal with the nuisance caused by giant hedges. That was during consideration of a previous Bill under a previous Home Secretary. The response that I received and the perplexed look that I was given signalled to me that, unfortunately, the time was not yet ripe for such legislation. Since then, as we have heard, private Members' Bills have been introduced by the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound).

During that period, a massive amount of lobbying and the effective group Hedgeline, which was founded by my constituent, Michael Jones, have made their mark. A matter which, I am sorry to say, was considered rather a joke eventually came to be taken seriously by the majority of hon. Members, so I am delighted that the Minister, or Ministers, whoever they were, took the decision to incorporate my hon. Friend's Bill into the antisocial behaviour legislation. They were spurred on by the excellent work of Baroness Gardner, who tabled her own less effective amendment, which was subsequently subsumed into the Government's proposals. I congratulate all those responsible, who worked so hard to bring about the legislation.

I share the hopes expressed by other Members that the prospect of the Bill coming into force will focus the minds of neighbours who are in dispute about high hedges, and that they will come to some amicable arrangement for dealing with the problems. Finally, it is now possible for me to say to my hon. Friend the Minister that the meeting that I had requested, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and Baroness Gardner had also requested, is no longer necessary, so we can withdraw the request.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

I am pleased that we will not go through every one of the amendments. At 16 pages, the measure is considerably more complicated than I remember it when I served on the Standing Committee and we rather rushed through the private Member's Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound). I am pleased that after many years the Bill will be enacted and finally has Government support. With reference to the Minister's comments earlier, I note that since August 2000 the Government have said that a new law would be introduced as soon as there was space in the parliamentary timetable.

Steve Pound (Labour, Ealing North)

I am extremely reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman in his flow, but the amendments before us are, in the words of parliamentary counsel, to all intents and purposes almost identical with the Bill that was introduced in my name, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing else has been smuggled in in the shadow of the cypress leylandii.

Adrian Flook (Conservative, Taunton)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was referring to the fact that his name will be associated not with a private Member's Bill, but with a Bill on antisocial behaviour. With his predilection for smoking, he would know something about that.

The problem of high hedges is not as gripping an issue in the Taunton constituency as it is in the leafy suburbs of Ealing, but it is nevertheless an issue, judging by the number of letters that I have received. Mr. Bernard Routley of Priorswood has been troubled enough to get in touch with me several times in the two and a half years that I have been a Member of Parliament. No doubt he will be particularly pleased by amendment No. 46 allowing him to seek a remedial notice. I am sure that that will reduce the burden on Taunton Deane borough council, which has had to keep replying to members of the public such as Mr. Routley, who feel constrained by the lack of legislation on the matter.

Even in the rural parts of my constituency such as Bishopswood, which is nowhere near Priorswood, where the houses are sparsely situated along either side of a declining road and which is at the most southerly tip of Taunton Deane, people are worried about the problems caused by high hedges. A gentleman whose house I visited there will be pleased that hedges that are affecting him from non-domestic properties are not ruled out, as I understand it.

I support the amendments, but I have some reservations. After all the work put in by Baroness Gardner of Parkes in another place, by the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), by my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) and of course by the hon. Member for Ealing, North, we still await the objective tests from the Building Research Establishment, although I acknowledge that the Minister said she would bring them in as rapidly as possible. I hope that the hon. Member for Ealing, North will make sure that that guidance about the objective tests is forthcoming as soon as possible.

I am particularly concerned for my local council, Taunton Deane, that the fees that it may be able to charge should compensate for some of the costs that it will no doubt incur. We wait to see the Government guidance on that. I should be grateful if, in the time remaining, the Minister would explain how the planning inspectorate will deal with the great rush of appeals that will no doubt materialise once the legislation is passed, as I am sure it will be.

Yvette Cooper (Labour, Pontefract and Castleford)

I shall reply briefly to the points that have been raised. The hon. Members for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Taunton (Mr. Flook) expressed concern about the financial position. They will be aware that that was one of the issues picked up in the debate about the money resolution. Fees can be levied, although consultation is still to take place about the level of those fees and whether they should be set at full cost recovery. If there is a shortfall, we will follow the established procedure for recompensing local authorities for new burdens. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole suggested that that was a concern because of the revenue support grant. In fact, since the reforms were introduced, all authorities receive a positive amount of revenue support grant.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) is right. She and many others have raised the issue of high hedges over a considerable time. I am glad that we have managed to resolve it so publicly before the meeting that she asked for. I pay tribute to her constituent and to Hedgeline for the work that they have done on the matter.

Although the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) welcomed the measures in the amendments, he said that he was not entirely happy with the mechanism and the fact that a private Member's Bill had been incorporated into a Government Bill in this way. All of us would have preferred the Bill to have passed through the private Member's Bill procedure, and many of us backed it through that procedure. We would not have done so, had it not been quite such an excellent private Member's Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.

We should conclude the debate where we started—by congratulating my hon. Friend, not just on his private Member's Bill, but on his speech, which entertained us and reminded us why we need the amendments. He pointed out that the measures had been debated for a total of 21 hours and 15 minutes. I can now say that, at the end of a total of 22 hours and 20 minutes, I hope that the House will support the Lords amendments and allow us to get the measures finally on to the statute book.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 43 to 74 agreed to [Some with Special Entry].