Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Public Bill Committee, 20 January 2005.

Standing Committee G

Clause 12 - Disposal

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I warmly welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Forth, and say what a particular privilege it is to serve under your illustrious chairmanship?

Clause 12 deals with disposal. I was slightly concerned and surprised to hear at the end of Tuesday's sitting that not only has the Minister accepted that there is no definition of ''abandoned cars'', which I had worked out for myself, but that there is no definition of ''fit for disposal''. There is, therefore, potential for confusion in implementing the clause.

Subsection (2) means that the provision applies

''in the case of a vehicle, which in the opinion of the authority is in such a condition that it ought to be destroyed''.

Will the Minister specify how authorities might have a different opinion of what condition that ought to be? Does he not find it regrettable that there may be wide variations across the country in interpreting that phrase? We certainly find that disappointing.

Some concern has been expressed by farmers, particularly through the National Farmers Union, about how disposal will be treated in urban and rural areas. In their view, subsection (2) focuses on vehicles to be destroyed after their removal from roads. Will the Minister address the particular case of disposal of vehicles in the countryside? Is the presumption that the vehicle has been placed on the land wilfully, and is therefore subject to disposal by its owner, who may not own the land? What precautions must the relevant authority take?

I have studied the clause carefully, and I cannot see anything relating to appeals, but it may be that my reading is not sufficiently accurate. Will the Minister guide the Committee as to what possibility there is to appeal? If an appeal is to be made to a magistrates court, how long will it take for it to be dealt with?

Subsection (4) covers the definition of ''licence''. How does the Minister expect that to be interpreted? In relation to clause 11, he said that a vehicle would be taken away. What means of disposal are available under section 4(1) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978? For the benefit of landowners and farmers, will he confirm that the local authority will be charged the cost of a vehicle's removal, disposal and destruction, and not those who may be innocent parties? Will he assure us that the Bill will be uniformly applied across the country, that those living in the countryside, in particular in remote areas, will be considered, and that there is a right of appeal?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I welcome you to the Committee, Mr. Forth. I know that we have to be disciplined with you in the Chair. No doubt we will be called on to be both interesting and proper, so I am sure that it will be an interesting sitting.

The hon. Lady raised a number of interesting points. We could spend a great deal of time on some of them, but in general they are not a problem because they require the application of experience and common sense to a set of circumstances. That is what local authorities and the police do, while keeping at the back of their minds the interpretation that the courts would place on their actions. Similarly, the courts deal with these issues in a common-sense way.

If things are too tightly drawn, there is always a danger of ending up with a definition that cannot be applied sensibly. The phrase that has been used on a number of occasions is ''recognising an elephant on the doorstep.'' One knows that it is not a cow or pig, but defining an elephant in precise terms is a little more difficult, at least in legal language. The application of common sense leads to a practice that is well understood by all.

I am not necessarily looking for everything to be applied uniformly. I want legislation that enables local authorities to tackle real problems sensibly and appropriately. They will do that sensibly by recognising people's expectations and what the law requires them to do, and appropriately because circumstances vary. It is not necessary to provide a definition of ''fit for destruction'' because there is no evidence that that is a major problem. There is already a requirement for actions to be taken when a vehicle is abandoned and no longer fit for use.

Clause 17 gives the Government the power to issue statutory guidance so that if there were any suggestion that local authorities were running into difficulties as a result of changes in the design of vehicles, for instance, they could be dealt with. Clause 12 deals with disposal after the car has been removed under clause 11. We have already discussed the removal from all types of land, so we have covered what happens in relation to the abandonment of a vehicle.

There is no appeals system. There can be compensation for unnecessary destruction. If a car is sold or disposed of and a sum is received for that, it would come into the equation. There are also ways of dealing with a local authority if it exceeded its power. There was no evidence in any of our discussions with local authorities, the police and interested organisations that the problems were anything other than theoretical. In practice, it is clear that people understand the situation.

By checking the vehicle register, the local authority should be able to ascertain whether the vehicle is abandoned. Vehicles with a tax disc and a registered keeper are not normally abandoned, but there are occasionally circumstances in which that is the case. Under clause 11, if the vehicle is removed, the vehicle keeper will be given sufficient notice to come and collect it. It is then in their hands to take such action as they want to avoid its disposal or destruction. The clause ensures that the local authority can take appropriate action in all circumstances. I hope that that explanation satisfies the hon. Lady.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13 - Guidance

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is the opportunity for the Minister to tell the Committee what form the guidance will take. As he said, the points that I raised on clause 12 were pertinent and could be discussed for some time, but the Committee is tightly timetabled. I did not hear what he said about appeals. Will there be scope for them?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am happy to repeat what I said; it was very short. There is not an appeal system.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That makes the guidance even more appropriate. I understand that the Environment Act 1995 sets out clearly the appeals procedure against remediation notices, that the right of appeal will exist and that an appeal would be to a magistrates court. Can the Minister confirm whether that legislation still exists, or is he saying that clause 13 will usurp it and there will be no scope for appeals at all?

It has been put to me firmly that landowners and particularly the NFU will want to be consulted before the guidance is drafted and issued. I imagine that a raft of other organisations, such as utility companies—perhaps not the best example—could be affected by the provision on abandoned vehicles. Will the Minister look favourably on the NFU's specific request? Which organisations will be consulted? Presumably, motoring organisations, such as the AA, the RAC and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders Ltd., will want to be consulted and that that will happen.

Such organisations would like the guidance to cover a situation in which an abandoned vehicle, as defined by the guidance notes on clause 13, has a current tax disc and a registration plate and is therefore road legal. Will sufficient time be allocated to tracing the vehicle owner? The Minister alluded to the relevant clause and said that the period was seven days, but will the guidance notes allow for discretion? In relation to other provisions in this part, he confirmed that all the powers and duties are discretionary. Will the guidance say that the powers are discretionary? If so, that raises the question of what purpose the Bill serves.

All local authorities are extremely alarmed—this has been expressed through the Local Government Association in particular—that the costs of removal will be extremely high and possibly disproportionate, and that is on top of the other duties that authorities are being asked to perform. Will the guidance notes make it clear to what extent this provision should be a priority as opposed to other rights and duties and the additional responsibilities that the Government have imposed on authorities over the past seven and a half years?

Much will depend on the guidance and what precautions the Minister imagines it will provide to ensure that there is uniform application throughout the country. If the provisions of part 2 are dealt with in a widely disparate way, that will negate any beneficial aspects. It would therefore help to have the confirmation that I requested. Who will be consulted? Are the Government minded to consult landowners and, in particular, the NFU?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Let me spell out where we are. Clause 13 obliges local authorities to have regard to guidance given by the appropriate person when exercising their functions in relation to the removal and disposal of vehicles under the 1978 Act. We are dealing here only with the removal and disposal of vehicles. The ''appropriate person'' in this case is the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales.

The type of the regime that the hon. Lady envisages would be extremely bureaucratic, with a massive, detailed guidance on what local authorities should do, almost down to spelling out how they should breathe in and out as they undertake their duties, which would be wholly inappropriate. I remind her that we are dealing with the destruction and disposal of vehicles, which occurs only if no one claims the vehicle within a specific period. That is where the seven days comes in. Who would appeal, therefore?

It is nonsense to create an unnecessary construct. If there are problems, the clause enables us to issue guidance without having to return to primary legislation. I envisage the guidance being simple and straightforward, addressing only those issues that are known to require it. We discussed the matter with local authorities, motoring organisations and others to ensure that we understood the problems that they face.

I repeat my understanding of how serious the problem is, and people want it to be dealt with. The hon. Lady referred to the NFU. I spoke to its president some time ago about the Bill, which deals with the problem of abandoned vehicles and the dangers they pose, and with fly-tipping and other difficulties experienced by the farming community. The clause is simple and straightforward.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to differ. The SMMT stated that if an abandoned vehicle has a current licence and registration plate, there should be a presumption that it is legally on the road, therefore not abandoned. The point of clause 12 is that it removes the need to wait until the expiry of the tax disc. It expedites the disposal process. The local authority may dispose of or destroy a vehicle that has a registered keeper.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I told the hon. Lady that in general when a vehicle is licensed it will have a keeper, who can be traced, so the issues that she is worried about will not arise. However, that is not always the case. The relative cost and value might mean a cultural change over time. There are no new duties in the provisions. They merely simplify existing provisions at the request of the Local Government Association, based on the experience of those who have to deal with the problems.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We do not want delay, but due process and fair justice. It is important that in cases for which there is no appeals process, no one is disadvantaged. As far as possible, where the evidence and the presumption is that the car is legally on the road, it should not be disposed of prematurely.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15 - Notice of removal

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I hope that a word of explanation about the clause, and about clauses 16 and 17, will help hon. Members, as we have already discussed the issues.

The Bill amends the two Acts that deal with abandoned vehicles—the 1978 Act, which covers the duties and powers of local authorities to deal with abandoned vehicles, and the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which covers the powers to the police and others to deal with abandoned and illegally parked vehicles. Clauses 11, 12 and 13 amend the 1978 Act and clauses 15, 16 and 17 repeat the changes made in those clauses and do the same for the 1984 Act. I hope that that explanation helps hon. Members.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps we could debate clause 15 before we move on to clause 16. It is not accurate for the Minister to say that we have already debated those issues. We debated the issues with regard to nuisance cars and abandoned cars. However, we are now dealing with a separate category of illegally parked vehicles. Having three separate categories—nuisance cars, abandoned vehicles and illegally parked vehicles—will lead to a great deal of confusion. It may be that, having had the benefit of scrutinising the Bill, members of the Committee have no problem with understanding it, but it will be very confusing for members of the public. Can the Minister give us an idea of the philosophy behind creating three separate categories rather than one category?

I understand from the Royal National Institute of the Blind that illegally parked cars make life extremely difficult for those who are blind or partially sighted. Where such vehicles obstruct the pavement, blind and partially sighted people may knock into them; they and other pedestrians may be forced into the road to pass them, which can be frightening and daunting and put them into greater danger. I understand the reasoning relating to illegally parked cars, but I want to know why the Minister has created three separate categories.

Does the Minister not accept that by creating those three separate categories, his Department and the Government are causing the provisions of part 2 of the Bill to become bureaucratic, burdensome and cumbersome? Moreover, will he confirm that clause 15 does not change the fact that the legislation is discretionary—that it provides only the power to act, but not the duty to do so? What, therefore, is the point of including the clause? If the clause is discretionary, what incentive will there be for local authorities to implement it, particularly if they are already up to the limits of their spending commitments, and subject to a 5 per cent. cap in the financial year 2005-06?

I invite the Minister to confirm that creating three different categories adds to the confusion and bureaucracy surrounding the Bill and that there is no real incentive to any local authority to implement clause 15 or part 2 of the Bill.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

That was more of a Second Reading speech than one dealing with the provisions of the clause. We have not just picked up previous legislation and looked for where we can insert amendments. We have examined the powers and responsibilities that exist for local authorities under previous legislation, and discussed with them, and with a wide variety of other organisations, the current circumstances and what is necessary to deal with them.

The reason why there are different categories for illegally parked vehicles and abandoned vehicles is answered by the hon. Lady's contribution. It is blindingly obvious that a vehicle that has not been abandoned may be a real pain in the neck for local residents and certainly for blind or disabled people or people pushing a pram on the pavement. It may create all sorts of difficulties.

What legislation has to do—this is already in existing legislation—is to reflect the realities of the situations that we are trying to tackle. In another outburst of excessive centralism that we are finding familiar from the Opposition Members—when they are not asking for centralisation to be removed, usually in the same sentence—the hon. Lady seems to want us to stipulate precisely what local authorities should do in a variety of circumstances. The whole philosophy behind the clause has been one of partnership.

When we launched our initial consultation, we did so by saying to local authorities, local people, local organisations, representatives of national organisations and others that we wanted to reflect reality and simplify and clarify powers, rather than create new burdens for local authorities. Local authorities have made it clear that, although they would always welcome greater contribution from central Government, they really want the powers in the Bill to enable them to do their job more effectively and efficiently with the resources available to them. I am tempted to develop that point. The message that came through from the ENCAMS report was that it was not the level of resources and how they were used that resulted in variations in performance and effectiveness up and down the country. However, I am sure, Mr. Forth, that I would not get too far down that path before being drawn back to the clause in front of us.

As I said, we have already dealt with a parallel clause, so far as the generalities are concerned. Clause 15 amends the 1984 Act by disapplying the requirement to serve a notice on an occupier where the vehicle is on the road and removing the requirement to serve a 24-hour notice where the vehicle is in such a condition that it is considered fit only for destruction. The word ''road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all those to which the public have access, and will in many cases include private roads running through estates. I hope that we can agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The right hon. Gentleman is so charming, but he is not going to get away with it. He has failed to address any of the questions that I asked him about why we need a category of illegally parked cars. He has reminded me of another issue. In clause 15, the Government are transferring responsibility for removing illegally parked cars from the police to the local authorities. Is his Department going to transfer the resources that currently reside with the police?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

No, we are not.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

So can the Minister answer one of the initial questions that I asked back on day one of the Committee's proceedings? Can he confirm that the police will maintain a residual responsibility for removing illegally parked cars?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

This clause does not change the situation in relation to the respective powers of the police and the local authorities.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I began the Committee in a spirit of generosity because I am new here, but that spirit has now expired. I remind the hon. Lady and the Minister that we are debating clause 15, which is entitled ''Notice of Removal''. That is all that the clause refers to. I invite the Committee to concentrate, laser-like, on that clause so that we can move on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am simply trying to press the Minister to confirm that the local authority will not be uniquely responsible for issuing the notice of removal, but will have a shared responsibility with the police. If he can confirm that, it will be helpful. My understanding is that there is confusion surrounding the matter, not least in the Local Government Association, which has requested clarification on the point. If the burden of issuing the notice is to be placed entirely on the local authorities, that is a new development worthy of note.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

What I said in introducing this clause was meant to cover all the points that could possibly be raised. I said that existing legislation on abandoned cars was contained in two Acts, so we had to amend both Acts. The police will retain powers under the 1984 Act; we are not creating new duties and powers. The clause does nothing more than change the requirement for issuing notices.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Disposal

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clause 16 makes similar amendments to those in the 1984 Act. It allows vehicles displaying neither a valid tax disc nor registration plates to be destroyed immediately, and removes the requirement to wait until the expiry of the tax disc in other cases. I seek confirmation that landowners and other bodies will be consulted, where appropriate, on the guidance notes on disposal and that it will not be left entirely to the Secretary of State.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The clause amends the 1984 Act, in parallel with provisions that we have previously discussed in relation to the 1978 Act, to allow for the immediate disposal of vehicles that do not display a licence or a registration mark. It also removes the requirement to wait for the expiration of a licence before disposal can take place. That is all that the clause does.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 - Extension of litter offences to all open places

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The clause extends the offence of dropping litter, contained in section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, so that it applies to all local land to which the public have access, and to all uncovered land to which the public do not have access, regardless of ownership. That includes land covered by water. So the offence extends to dropping litter into bodies of water, such as rivers or lakes, and coastal areas down to the low water mark. There will continue to be an exemption for people dropping litter on their own land or with the permission of either the owner-occupier or the authority controlling the land. The clause will remove an anomaly that the public have wanted to be removed, and will simplify the work of local authorities and others in relation to litter, which can be a problem in many areas.

The question might be asked: why is this change necessary? The answer is that the current law sends mixed messages. For example, although it is an offence to drop litter on a public footpath, it is not an offence to throw it into a neighbouring garden. We want to close the loophole, thereby making it an offence to drop litter anywhere and sending a clear message that dropping litter is unacceptable. That message is strongly supported by local authorities, the police, companies affected by litter and the general public.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. He pre-empted a question, but it was not the question that I had in mind. My question is not why is the clause needed, but who will enforce this extension of the offence? We support tackling the dropping of litter anywhere in the open air in an area of a principal litter authority, regardless of ownership, as well as in water, such as rivers and lakes. A pond in Rawcliffe overflowed and caused substantial flooding in autumn 2000, and part of the reason for that was litter. Such a scenario would be covered by the provision, which is very welcome.

We want to know who will enforce the extension of the offence and how it will be resourced. Will it be a discretionary power or an obligation on the local authority? Taken together with other clauses, it is a substantial increase in what the Government are asking local authorities to do.

Proposed new subsection (4B) sets out the definition of the land in respect of which a person may give consent. Does the clause relate exclusively to publicly owned land? What is the position in relation to privately owned land? Is it the Government's intention that different conditions should apply? The clause does not state it but the explanatory notes tell us that there are a number of exceptions to the offences, set out in section 89 of the 1990 Act, which are being amended. I understand that consent may be given only in relation to a watercourse, lake or pond if the same person owns all the surrounding land.

In the Vale of York, land belonging to different owners surrounds ponds or lakes. On the Thornborough henges, which we hope will be saved as they date from Neolithic times, the land is owned by at least two, if not three, different landowners. After it has been quarried, some of it will become a lake and the land will remain in the hands of those landowners. How will the clause apply in such circumstances?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I support the clause. Dropping litter is unnecessary and desecrates the environment. I welcome the action that is being taken, which gives a clear signal that society will not put up with litter. I am delighted that the proposal is being extended to watercourses.

In London, I live near the Limehouse basin, and I never cease to be amazed by what floats past in the river and the canal that lead into the basin. People finish what they are consuming and, because they feel they have no ownership over the packaging, they throw their plastic and glass bottles and fast food containers into the water. That is completely unnecessary. A huge expense is involved in cleaning up the rubbish, which is extremely dangerous to wildlife in and around the water. I hope the Minister will say how the clause will be enforced, so that what it intends can be delivered.

I assume that there will be a clear, exact definition of litter. People feeding the ducks throw bread into the brook in front of my home in Ribble Valley. That is clearly not litter and I hope there will be no confusion about it, but the wrapping is a problem, as now and again it is thrown into the brook.

It is not only youngsters who drop rubbish onto streets and into watercourses. I am amazed that adults, too, seem to have no sense of responsibility. I hope the Minister will say how we can get the message about civic responsibility across to the public.

Finally, we must all play our part in ensuring that there are more litter bins on streets and in the countryside. Many of the bins can be sponsored by private firms. They seem only too happy to play a socially responsible role. In some areas, there seems to be no litter bins at all. I hope that in trying to promote the clause the Government can do something more proactive to ensure that the public have an opportunity to dispose of their litter. However, in the final instance, if there are no litter bins, the public must take their litter home with them.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman highlights something that is not specific to the clause but underlies a lot of what we are doing in the Bill. We are providing legislation that enables local authorities and others to undertake the enforcement that is necessary when other things fail. He is right to suggest that members of the public must use litter bins responsibly. As he said, where litter bins are not available—sometimes it is not because the local authority has not provided them, but because of security reasons—individuals have to play their part by taking their litter home.

We have a sense of the pubic distaste for the way in which the environment is degraded by petty incidences of people chucking away cigarette packets or sandwich packaging, and of the way in which a place becomes dirtier and feels more abandoned in those circumstances. The Bill therefore strengthens, extends and simplifies what can happen so that local authorities are much less constrained by bureaucracy when they carry out their current powers and duties. We spent quite a lot of time preparing the way for the legislation and consulted the organisations that want to make a difference.

The hon. Gentleman is also right about how we need to encourage people to behave responsibly. We sponsor ENCAMS specifically because it develops campaigns that can be used by local authorities and voluntary organisations to engage the community. I spent time recently with Thames21, the charity that was encouraged, as part of national initiatives, to look at the Thames. I can endorse the hon. Gentleman's experience. I have done litter picks with young people on the banks of the Taff in Cardiff. Seeing the extraordinary range of detritus and rubbish that is found in the Thames brings home just how much stuff ordinary members of the public dispose of in a way that degrades the environment for the rest of the population. He rightly raises that point as an underlying theme that runs through much of the Bill. However, we will probably not have time to speak about it at any great length.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I asked about a definition of litter. Some people think that as long as it is biodegradable, such as an apple core—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. May I stop the hon. Gentleman there? If he looks at the Bill, he will see that he will have an opportunity to explore that when we debate clause 27.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Thank you, Mr. Forth. I simply say that I look forward to discussing it when we get to that point.

Ponds and watercourses are not easy to deal with. We spent quite a lot of time during the consultation looking at definitions of streams, still water and so on. We thought it necessary to try to make progress on that without extending the Bill to include entirely new powers or responsibilities for local authorities or others.

The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) asked how the change will be enforced. There is no change in that regard: as at present, enforcement will primarily be a matter for local authorities, the police and people such as police community support officers. We expect the extended offence to be used mainly to stop litter being thrown on to private land—for example, gardens—from land to which the public have access. Anyone with an area at the front of their house that adjoins the street will know that those who dispose of cans or any other form of litter—I shall not go into the definition of that—frequently chuck them not only in the street, but over a hedge or into a driveway. I am sure that members of the Committee are nodding at this point.

Such behaviour is clearly antisocial. Whether the litter lands on a drive, on the pavement or in the road depends on the intentions, or lack of them, of the person throwing it, and is often a matter of luck rather than anything else. There has been an anomaly and the provision deals with it by offering clarification. That shows the application of common sense, which is why I look forward to the clause becoming part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have been asked to seek one point of clarification. The clause provides for the extension of litter dropping offences to land to which there is public access. Is it the view and intention of the Minister that that weakens proposals set out in the clean neighbourhoods consultation of July 2004? In the consultation, it appeared that the offences would be extended to all land, without caveat. The Bill, however, appears to exclude land to which the public do not have access, which includes boarded or fenced-off land adjacent to railways that are maintained on behalf of London Underground by, for example, Tube Lines. Clearly, it would be beneficial if that caveat were removed. Will the Minister clarify whether what I have described is the Government's intention and exactly how the Bill will apply in that regard?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am happy to confirm that the hon. Lady is wrong. The answer is no.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 - Litter clearing notices

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 28, in clause 20, page 17, leave out lines 2 to 10.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 20, page 17, line 7, after 'served', insert

', or 56 days if the notice is served under the provisions of subsection (9) below.'.

No. 54, in clause 20, page 17, line 31, at end insert

'( ) land to which section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Powers to remove persons attending or preparing for raves) applies;'.

No. 55, in clause 20, page 17, line 31, at end insert

'( ) land to which section 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (Power of local authority to direct unauthorised campers to leave land) applies;'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister will be aware that a raft of antisocial behaviour is demonstrated by people who attend raves and other organised events illegally, without the permission of the landowner. Does he intend to amend the Bill in that regard? I shall raise several items in connection with that in the clause stand part debate, so at this point I simply request that he looks favourably on the amendment.

I have described cases of antisocial behaviour. I am sure that the Minister's Department, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Home Office are made aware of antisocial behaviour, damage, litter and so on that follow on from unauthorised and, to all intents and purposes, illegal events. Does he envisage extending clause 20 to cover powers to remove persons attending or preparing for raves at which antisocial behaviour might arise?

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

May I join others in welcoming you, Mr. Forth, and, in advance, welcome your judgments?

Amendment No. 73 is a probing amendment. We are concerned that the period within which somebody needs to act when they have been served with a notice is less than 56 days. There is a problem with absentee landlords. For example, if the owner of an area where an order has been made is overseas, even if the council knows that the owner is abroad, and even if the owner has an agent who might pass the order on to him, he may not receive it for days. He will then have to implement the actions required.

That is why we suggest a period of 56 days. We are trying to obtain an idea of what is a reasonable turnaround in circumstances in which someone may not have the information as soon as the council would like him to have it. If the problem is extensive and the individual has to get someone in to carry out the contract, or to make arrangements with the council to do the work if the owner agrees to bear the cost, how would that work if the end of the 28-day period is reached? It might be difficult for an owner to implement the order before the period has elapsed.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am tempted to refer to the hon. Members for Vale of York and for Guildford (Sue Doughty) as Scylla and Charybdis, because they tempt me in opposite directions by the amendments that they have tabled.

Amendment No. 28 would remove the requirement to clear an area within 28 days. It will be impossible for local authorities to secure a clean local environment if no time period is specified for the litter clearance. A minimum period of 28 days from the service of the notice must be allowed for the required clearing of the litter in order to give the occupier or owner sufficient time to carry out the action required. Removing that period would make the provision impossible to enforce. It would also remove local authorities' powers to specify the standard to which land must be cleared of litter or refuse. The power to make it clear to people what they have to do was strongly supported in the consultation exercise. I am not at all tempted to support amendment No. 28.

Amendment No. 73 would increase the period to 56 days. If anyone in the Committee is arithmetically challenged, that is double the period of 28 days. It seems odd to suggest such a long time. That would introduce further delays in cases in which the local environment is already degraded and where clean-up action is required. The 56-day period is a long time for people to have to continue to tolerate a situation when the local authority has concluded that an order is necessary. It is unlikely that an order is made on the first day of the problem, and it is very unlikely that an owner or occupier would come forward during the additional 28 days allowed by the amendment.

A 28-day period is reasonable. We considered much shorter periods than that during the consultation, but local people who adjoin such pieces of land often wanted that done within seven days, six days, or two days—in fact, they preferably want it done now. Of course, that is not practical. We need a time scale and we think that 28 days is reasonable, effective and generous.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I fully support councils having a time scale within which action should be taken. It is right that people should see the problem dealt with and that it does not go on for ever. However, what guidance would the Minister give to someone who belatedly becomes aware of the order and cannot fulfil its requirements because he is away, even though he would intend to take action? The individual could explain to the council that he had been on holiday for three weeks and had just opened his post and seen the order. He might agree that the council is right to serve a notice, but he could argue that he cannot take action in the next week because he has to make arrangements.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I think that one has to be careful. Subsection (6) says:

''A period specified . . . may not be less than 28 days beginning on the day on which the notice is served.''

It allows for a longer period to be given in particular circumstances, such as in summer. Local authorities could make that judgment. We have to specify a minimum period that we consider reasonable.

If someone came forward and said that they are now aware of a situation and will deal with it, most local authorities would respond by saying, ''Let's see if it happens'', and give the person a little leeway. However, local authorities also frequently have the experience of someone coming forward and putting off the evil day by saying that they will deal with the problem, but nothing happens. Such matters are best left to local judgment and the application of common sense, and that is the direction in which we would point local authorities. I repeat that we are not dealing with new issues. Local authorities have much experience of dealing with such circumstances.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I seek some clarification. When I have gone around parts of the country canvassing, I have been amazed to see the huge amount of litter that has been deposited—clearly by other people—in people's gardens. I assume that a notice could be served on someone to require them to clear their garden of the refuse even though they did not deposit the rubbish there. Irrespective of whether the required period is 28 or 56 days, if the occupier of the house is, for example, disabled, I assume that the aim is not to prosecute them, but to ensure that the refuse is cleaned up. I hope that, in such cases, local authorities would be asked to show tolerance and understanding and to help with clearing up the refuse.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman makes a sensible point. That is not the sort of standard that most local authorities apply when they are dealing, for example, with tenant obligations. He is right that the provisions can apply to private gardens. Clearly, there will be a need for guidance, but I intend to ensure that it points local authorities in the direction of experience, best practice and the application of common sense, rather than bureaucracy.

Mr. Evans indicated assent.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am glad to see that the hon. Gentleman agrees with that approach.

With reference to amendments Nos. 54 and 55, the land referred to in subsection (11) is all land that other bodies have a statutory duty to keep clear of litter. That is not the case with land to which sections 63 and 77 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 apply. The intention is that all land will be subject either to a statutory duty to keep it clear of litter or to a possible litter clearing order. In other words, we do not want accidentally to leave a gap between the two pieces of legislation. The amendments would create a gap in that coverage.

I understand the argument that a landowner should not be faced with the cost of clearing land when he is not responsible for the litter. Of course, it is always preferable that the person responsible for the littering, the deposition or any other damage that has been done should be the person who deals with it, in accordance with the polluter pays principle. However, the same argument applies in other circumstances that would not be covered by the amendment if there is a problem with which it is the landowner's responsibility to deal.

The best option is to retain the widest possible coverage of litter clearing notices and to ask local authorities to deal sensitively with situations in which the litter is not the fault of the occupier. That would cover the sort of example that the hon. Gentleman gave, in which the individual is not physically capable of dealing with the problem. I am happy that we should include that advice in the guidance. There should be flexibility both in the guidance and by ensuring that we do not leave gaps between different elements of the law in the primary legislation. I hope that, on the basis of my explanations of the damage that the amendments would do, they will not be pursued.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I omitted to say that I used to have an interest in Railtrack, although it is not registered or declarable. I am currently taking part in a placement with Network Rail under an Industry and Parliament Trust scheme.

The purpose of the amendments is to alert the Minister to the fact that, as was made clear to him during consultation, his Bill runs counter to what was achieved under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. It would help if his departmental guidance was to the same effect as the Home Office guidance. After discussions with Network Rail on the 2003 Act, a clause was included in the Home Office guidance stating that if a local authority wished to serve a cleansing notice on Network Rail, they would contact the company to discuss a suitable time frame for removal.

The Minister will be the first to pay tribute to the substantial sums that Network Rail is paying to clean up litter around tracks. However, to put that in context, the delay to trains would be significant, and that greatly concerns Network Rail. Under the performance regimes contained in its regulated track access agreements, the average cost of delay to a train is £42 a minute. That payment applies to every train that Network Rail delays. Using that average delay cost, if 10 trains are delayed for one hour while litter is cleaned up, it would cost £25,200. If a London terminal station was closed for eight hours and 100 trains were delayed, the cost would be just over £2 million. I urge the Minister to consider the problem on Report, and we will maintain our position.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his explanation about what we will do about absentees and for the short discussion on how to ensure that the requirements are not excessively onerous on somebody who genuinely cannot act within the time scale.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Street litter control notices

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister consider adding office buildings to the list of types of land to which street litter control notices will apply under sections 93 and 94 of the 1990 Act? Concerns have been raised with us about the cost of clearing street furniture and litter by local authorities and others obliged to do so.

A person commits an offence in relation to street litter control notices only if he fails to comply with an order of the magistrates court. Is the Minister saying that referral to a magistrates court would no longer be required? If there is no application to a magistrates court, will there be any possibility of appealing?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I understand the hon. Lady's point, but I am not sure that this is the appropriate time to discuss further extension of the provision. The clause deals specifically with street litter control notices. It extends the application of such notices under sections 93 and 94 of the 1990 Act to cover vehicles, stalls and other moveable structures used for commercial or retail purposes. It has arisen from the experience of local authorities, because previously those provisions applied only to fixed premises and adjacent open land. Obviously it was an anomaly that someone could drive a vehicle on to the street and would not be covered by the provisions. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that the clause clears that up.

The clause removes the requirement for litter authorities to seek a court order. The previous system required a court order, which in turn required compliance with such a notice. It will now immediately be an offence to fail to comply with the requirements in the notice without reasonable excuse. It is clear that that will be welcomed by local authorities because it will greatly streamline their capacity to get on with the job, which is what everyone wants.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - ''Litter''

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 2——Producer responsibility for litter caused by discarded chewing gum etc.—

''(1) The Secretary of State must consult on producer responsibility measures to—

(a) discourage litter caused by discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing; and

(b) provide financial redress to litter authorities for the costs incurred by removal of discarded chewing gum and the discarded remains of other products designed for chewing.

(2) The consultation must—

(a) include such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of litter authorities as he considers appropriate;

(b) include such bodies or persons appearing to him to be representative of the interests of producers and distributors of chewing gum and other products designed for chewing as he considers appropriate; and

(c) publish recommendations before 2007.

(3) The consultation must consider both voluntary and statutory schemes.'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The new clause recognises the problems of producer responsibility. On Second Reading we heard a great deal about the cost of dealing with chewing gum. Certainly no one intends to put onerous clean-up costs on to local government. We are trying to look at the whole problem of why we are in this situation and how we deal with the onset of the problem rather than the tail end. While we support other aspects of the clause, we have real problems with its provisions in that regard.

On Second Reading, we referred to the London borough of Kensington and Chelsea. We know of the enormous amounts of money that are involved in dealing with chewing gum. Community support officers in the borough issued 175 warnings for litter and council enforcement officers issued 700 fines, but they still have the problem of chewing gum. In 1994, Westminster City council found 300,000 blobs of chewing gum on Oxford street. I hope that it ascertained that by statistical means rather than by sending a man out to count. It has spent a huge amount on dealing with the problem and was involved in a huge clean-up on Oxford street, but several months later it was as bad as ever.

Chewing gum stains pavements so it is not only a problem while it is there. I had a nasty fall caused by a piece of discarded chewing gum that became attached to my foot. As I thought I was walking forward, my second foot at first failed to leave the ground, then moved very suddenly and the rest of me went straight forward. It ruined a rather nice pair of boots and my dignity and I acquired some rather bad bruises. Chewing gum does not just look ugly and horrible, but causes injuries.

We also have a problem with the market. The chewing gum market is now worth £258 million a year. That is an estimate from Wrigley's. Chewing gum sales in the last five years have gone up by 33 per cent., so it is a growing problem. I know that there have been discussions with Wrigley's about whether it could do something about introducing biodegradable gum or making gum less sticky, because it is the sheer stickiness that causes the problem. Wrigley's claims that it cannot do that, although London Liberal Democrats did some research and found out that a more environmentally friendly gum is available which could meet the demand. That sort of thing needs to be worked up because we need to put pressure on the gum manufacturers to go right back to the beginning, not only to how gum is disposed of, but to what happens to it. People just keep throwing gum on the ground.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is registered that I have a retail business that happens to sell chewing gum. We have, sadly, a minute part of that £250 million, or whatever the figure was. I hear what the hon. Lady says, and if more biodegradable chewing gum could be produced, that would do the job that people want. Surely the real responsibility, however, lies with the people who discard gum. There is encouragement on the packet, which says, ''Please put the gum back into the silver foil and dispose of it properly.'' The industry is sending the right message. It is the people who discard gum on the floor who should pay the penalty.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view. There are two problems, however. People throw it away and we need to jump on them for doing that. [Interruption.] Well, we need designated officers to jump on them. I fully support measures to deal with that.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

That will be the subject of another new clause.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Not another new clause, as the matter is perfectly adequately covered. However, the problem is the cost. It cost £200 million to remove chewing gum from London Underground's trains and stations. Given the state of our public transport system, that is £200 million of money that could be put to good use on the railways and other transport undertakings.

The problem has been going on for a long time. In 1996, the Conservative Government were asked whether the Department of the Environment was consulting manufacturers about cleaning chewing gum. That was eight years ago. At that stage, the Keep Britain Tidy group, now ENCAMS, considered the opportunities for cleaning gum up. I know that the Minister has spent a lot of time dealing with the subject, so I am telling him something of which he is already aware, but for the record, it is important that we recognise the problem.

DEFRA set up the chewing gum action group to review what was happening. It decided to find out about people throwing gum on the ground. It is not unreasonable that we must understand the problem before we can solve it. There were five classifications of people who do it. The group said that the idea of chewing gum stuck on your hair, face or shoes is disgusting, but people still throw it away. The selfish say, ''When I have finished with my gum, I don't want it anywhere near me. I just want rid of it.'' In other words, they throw it away rather than wrapping it up and taking it home with them. That is a psychological issue.

There were some interesting comments on Second Reading about whether the packaging could be designed so that used chewing gum could be put back in. The research said that people were unlikely to carry it to a bin, and I am quite happy to deal with people whom I spot throwing it away. There should be publicity saying that that is wrong. Much more needs to be done, because it is a major problem. We could consider fining chewing gum manufacturers or putting a levy on the product that would go towards the cost of cleaning up. We need more work to be done into how we can get the manufacturers to take account of what people throw away. It is horrible to find it on the ground.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It would be unfair to put a tax on chewing gum as the hon. Lady suggests. I dispute her finding that everyone who chews gum drops it on the ground. I am very careful how I dispose of chewing gum, which I use from time to time, and I am sure that the hon. Lady is, too. Why tax people who are not going to break the law just to pay for those who take no responsibility? We should jump on those people, as she said, not on everyone.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The hon. Gentleman has a good point. We have not tabled an amendment on the subject, as we do not necessarily subscribe to that solution, we merely say that such a suggestion could be considered, and we need to look at what can be done about the problem of chewing gum. The hon. Gentleman and I throw the stuff in the bin, carefully wrapped up; there may be a problem with the sample from the statistics taken by the chewing gum action group, which found that sooner or later, everyone throws their gum on the ground. The hon. Gentleman and I may be the exceptions; the problem is widespread.

The purpose of the new clause is to ask the Government to get much tougher with the manufacturers, and to look for appropriate solutions that deal with people who throw chewing gum on the ground. There is a huge problem, which will continue if we do nothing about it, as shown in Westminster, where things got just as bad again soon after the stuff was cleaned up.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am glad to have the hon. Lady's endorsement of what DEFRA, ENCAMS and the action group to which she referred are doing. I am grateful to her, too, for promoting DEFRA's fascinating and illuminating research, which gave an insight into people's behaviour. I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) who said that it is people's behaviour that turns the wrapper into litter and its contents into a stain that is enormously difficult to remove.

The first instinct of legislators is to legislate, but that is not always the answer to a problem. The clause is simple and limited; I will refer in a moment to the definition of chewing gum, which will assist in controlling the process of transition from its being in someone's mouth to becoming a stain.

Chewing gum deposition is an increasing problem, and gum is harder to remove than other types of litter. I have looked at the problem personally and talked to the councillors who are responsible for devising a policy on the cleaning-up process, and to operatives in city centres and local authority officers who have to put the policy into practice. The further one goes into the matter, the clearer it becomes that the problem must be tackled, and that it is a very complex issue, not just because of the technicalities of removing the stains, but in terms of how we get people to behave in a different way.

In the end, it is a matter of public attitudes although, retailers, manufacturers and the local authorities have a responsibility. I pay tribute to the many local authorities that take the issue seriously and try new methods and technical approaches to deal with the problem, which is what the public want them to do. They object to the stains on the pavements and the other extremely unpleasant aspects of the problem. A member of my family who asked me why we were bothering about this issue came back 24 hours later having completely changed her attitude because her skirt had been damaged by a piece of chewing gum that had been placed under a table.

The segmentation research is illuminating—more so than some research that consists only of people's opinions or who is for or against things. I shall not repeat the information that the hon. Member for Guildford gave, but she was accurate in what she reported. I found the material difficult to believe at first, because it is difficult to understand that people will talk about their attitude when it is that of the bravado user. However, on the day that we launched the research, I found myself on a radio station that had managed to capture two chewing gum users in the centre of a town, and one was a bravado user. As the conversation went on, he said, ''I'm starting to feel a bit embarrassed about this now'', to which my general response was, ''Good.''

The research showed that it will take work to change the attitudes that lead to littering and therefore staining, but attitudes can be changed. That has been shown, for instance, in relation to dog fouling, which we spoke about on Tuesday. The legislation, enforcement, the change in public attitude and the change in behaviour on the part of dog owners are leading progressively to an increasing improvement and a diminution of that unpleasant presence on our streets. I conclude that we have a big mountain to climb to turn things around on chewing gum, but I believe that we can do so and we certainly can if there is the unanimity of purpose and the wish to see the matter dealt with that I perceive across the Committee.

The hon. Member for Guildford referred to Wrigley. I have met the managing director, Gharry Eccles, and should be meeting him again shortly to talk about the engagement of that company, which is by far the biggest manufacturer and supplier of chewing gum in this country. The clause is designed to address a narrow problem: current legislation does not carry an explicit definition of litter and refuse, although the courts have considered the definition to be wide. The Government and local authorities generally agree that smoking-related materials and discarded chewing gum already fall within the definition of litter. A number of councils have recently launched well-publicised campaigns to issue fixed penalties to gum droppers, based on the fact that discarded gum is litter. Some, however, argue differently and say that discarded cigarette ends and chewing gum are not litter, and anecdotal evidence suggests that concerns about their legal status may have discouraged some of the more cautious local authorities from taking action against those who discard cigarette ends and gum. We therefore consulted widely on the issue and there was widespread support in the consultation for a provision to put the position in law beyond any doubt.

Clause 27 provides that clarification, confirming that discarded smoking-related products and chewing gum, including bubble gum and other products designed for chewing, fall within the definition of litter for the purposes of part 4, entitled ''Litter Etc'', of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That will confirm that local authorities have the ability to tackle one of the most serious problems of litter dropping. The responsibility is not new, because the Government and local authorities generally have always taken the view that I have described. The clause simply confirms that that is correct.

New clause 2 is unnecessary. The Government are already working with the industry and local authorities to address the problem of discarded chewing gum. We expect to see the first results this year, so there is no need to wait until 2007. However, I understand the sentiment behind the drafting of the new clause and I hope that that is a sufficient assurance for the hon. Member for Guildford.

The hon. Lady referred to the chewing gum action group, which I set up in autumn 2003. Its members represent the interests of the chewing gum industry—including Wrigley—local authorities, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management and ENCAMS. The group's remit is to find, through a partnership approach, sustainable solutions to the irresponsible disposal of gum. We have the results of market research conducted by the group, and industry is committed to contributing financially to the measures that the group develops. That will be complemented by work on local campaigning, innovation projects and effective enforcement.

If the hon. Member for Guildford intends to put down a marker saying that we need to return to the matter in legislation if the partnership measures are not effective, I accept that as being a reasonable and constructive warning. However, at this stage, I hope that the way to go is via the partnership approach and trying to tease out, as we did in the segmentation report, what is going on and what we need to do to change users' behaviour—the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I shall be grateful if we send the message from the Committee that that approach has strong all-party support. I shall then undertake to take that message not just to the industry but to local authorities and others with whom we work. I shall also pass that message on to ENCAMS, which I am sure will be greatly encouraged, because it has been trying to design campaign material, in the way in which it did on dog fouling with such success, to address the issue.

I hope that we will be able to go forward from the Committee with the clause, the provisions of which are a small element in the debate, because the proposed new clause has widened our discussion. The clause will clarify the legislation, but it is important to have the support of everyone in the Committee for the initiatives that we are taking to try to tackle, in a partnership approach, the problem of chewing gum.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hate to break up the cosy partnership that the Minister seeks to establish. However, I shall start in a helpful way by explaining to him where we are coming from. We have not sought at this stage to draft an amendment, but we will table an amendment on Report, if the Minister is not minded to agree with what we propose.

We propose to strike clause 27 from the Bill. I shall elaborate on why I believe that the Minister seeks to impose responsibilities on councils which it is beyond their wildest expectations that they could meet. However, I will say, in a constructive way, that there are three, if not four, ways in which we could proceed as an alternative to clause 27. The Liberal Democrats referred both to a purchase tax and to producer responsibility. Neither the Minister, nor the spokeswoman for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Guildford, referred to the other large company in the industry besides Wrigley. That company is Cadbury Schweppes, which produces Hollywood, Trident and Dentyne, and imports chewing gum such as Stimorol.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

May I make it clear that I referred in general to manufacturers and suppliers. However, Wrigley has about 95 per cent. of the product market; that is why I referred specifically to it. Given its segment of the market, it has a responsibility, which I believe that it accepts.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I accept what the Minister says. There is the element of producer responsibility. Cadbury Schweppes and Wrigley both take a responsible position. I chew gum, and I hope that I always dispose of it in a socially responsible and environmentally friendly manner.

With regard to the element of producer responsibility, I pay tribute to the work that Wrigley and Cadbury Schweppes have undertaken, particularly through the investment that they have made and their participation in the chewing gum action group. There is also the element of educating consumers, particularly the young who are perhaps keener to chew gum, including bubble gum.

There is an element of individual responsibility. The Minister must accept that if each and every one of us cannot desist from dropping all forms of litter, the Bill will have failed in its aims. There is also the option of a purchase tax. As a representative of the low-tax party, I can understand why the representatives of the two other parties would favour a purchase tax, but that would be our least-favoured option.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

If the hon. Lady had been listening she would know that we are not proposing a purchase tax, but it is an option to consider at some stage and we listed it among a range of other proposals. We are not endorsing such a tax, and I would like that on the record.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

One could get used to misrepresentation of different sorts, but I point out that on Second Reading the Conservative party seemed to think that the answer to the problem of chewing gum was precisely that of producer responsibility.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Yes, but not a purchase tax.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. There is a danger that the discussion is drifting somewhat. I remind the Committee that we are discussing clause 27, which is very narrow and focused, and also the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which refers to producer responsibility. However, I am not sure that we want the discussion to go further than that.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

There is another reason why chewing gum should not be described as litter. We have heard of the poop and scoop system to deal with dog poo, but I do not know whether the Committee is familiar with the gum pouch, which retails at £1.35, or the gum ashtray pouch, which motorists can purchase for 95p. There is an alternative way to dispose of gum, to which the Minister may like to allude.

''Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, local authorities and police community support officers already have the power to issue fixed penalty notices to those who drop chewing gum. The current level of fixed penalty is £50.''—[Official Report, 17 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 1472W.]

I point out to the Minister that in a debate held in Westminster Hall attended by the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment it was made clear that certain councils, such as Westminster city council, are already applying that penalty.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I made it clear that the immediate response when this subject was raised in consultation was that extra legislation was not necessary because it is clear that chewing gum is litter and that therefore the provisions of existing legislation apply. Only as a result of some people saying during the consultation that there might be an argument about chewing gum, did we accede to representations and explicitly refer to it in this legislation. It is as simple as that. There is no mystery that what I have said in the past applies under existing legislation because nothing changes as a result of this clause, which explicitly clarifies what is already the case.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My point is that clause 27 is nothing more than discretionary; it does not impose an obligation on councils.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Of course it does not, because all the clause does is to confirm our, and the vast majority of people's, understanding of what the law is. It merely puts the definition beyond doubt.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The point is that when councils fail to clear litter, no penalty is imposed.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Local authorities not using their powers is a different matter to the definition of litter. All that the clause deals with is the definition of litter. It is clarifying something that is already very clear in law and removing any doubt—should people feel that there is any doubt whatever. That is all that it does.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister says that that is the purpose. However, I was staggered when, in a further reply to a parliamentary question on 17 November, he confirmed that the chewing gum segmentation study commissioned by the chewing gum action group had cost £60,170. That is an extraordinary amount to spend when all the study did was look at the different ways in which people disposed of chewing gum, without coming up with any conclusions.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

That is not what it did. It looked at people's motivation, their explanations and their description of their own behaviour. If the hon. Lady fails to take the sensible steps that we have taken to understand the problem before trying to tackle it, she will continue doing what she is doing today—tying herself in knots.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

With respect, it is the Minister who is tying himself in knots. In his answer on 17 November, he said that the chewing gum action group report

''will assist by informing campaigns to change behaviour.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 17 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 1472W.]

In answer to a question on 16 November, he said:

''We will launch a public awareness campaign in the coming year with the aim of delivering the behavioural change needed to prevent gum being dropped in the first place.''—[Official Report, House of Commons, 16 November 2004: Vol. 426, c. 1243W.]

Will he confirm that that has happened? As Wrigley and Cadbury Schweppes have said, there will be no change in behaviour whatever without that campaign.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes, absolutely. It may have escaped the hon. Lady's notice, but the coming year has so far reached only 20 January; there is a considerable amount of the year to go, but a good deal of work is being done on designing the campaign. She referred to industry's involvement, and the group's work has not necessarily been easy, because the industry side obviously does not want the negatives of its product to be brought out. As was clear on the issue of dog fouling, there is a need for a challenging campaign if we are to see effective change in public behaviour, and that is precisely what we are working on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I think that it would have been helpful if such things had been in place when the Bill was introduced.

May I turn the Minister's attention to the costs involved? The hon. Member for Guildford elaborated on them, but I want to go into greater detail. Westminster city council has spoken of its concerns and sent a full response to the Minister and his Department. It said that it was particularly concerned that the proposed redefinition of gum and gum staining as litter in relation to section 89 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 would place a duty on local authorities to keep streets clean of gum at all times. It was certain that such standards could not be met without a massive and disproportionate increase in street cleansing costs. The Minister said that the clause was not imposing a duty, but simply widening the definition, so can Westminster city council be more relaxed about this?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I do wish that the hon. Lady would listen to what is said in answer to some of her comments. The clause does not place a new duty on anybody or change the definition; it clarifies the definition to make it clear that it means what local authorities and government generally believed it to mean. It merely puts the matter beyond doubt.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

But local authority representatives—not members of the Committee—are the very people whom the Minister is asking to apply the provisions, and, in their view, there are already adequate grounds for defining gum and smoking-related materials dropped on the public highway as litter.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady while she is reading word for word contributions that have come to her from lobbying organisations, but will she answer one question for me? Local authorities are issuing fines for dropping chewing gum. Does she consider that illegal? We do not. It is what the law says now. If gum is not litter, there would be no basis for those fines, but as it is litter, there is an existing statutory duty to clear it up. Does the hon. Lady not understand that?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The right hon. Gentleman must understand our frustration, expressed and recorded on more than one occasion in this House. We totally accept that councils have those responsibilities, and excellent flagship councils such as Westminster City council are applying the law already. Our frustration is that there are councils throughout England that are not. Bath council springs to mind; it has issued only one notice under a litter order. We believe either that the clause is not necessary because the powers already exist or, if the Minister is imposing a duty, that costs will increase incrementally by £9 million a year for councils that are already implementing existing provisions.

Our record on litter and keeping Britain tidy is second to none, since it was the Conservatives who set up the Keep Britain Tidy campaign. I put it on record, having had discussions with and representations from Wrigley and Cadbury Schweppes, that those companies are fully aware of their producer responsibilities, and look to the Government to come forward with the campaign that they are committed to introducing. Chewing gum can not only help to relieve stress, as I find on occasion, but has some beneficial qualities, particularly for dental health.

We have had an excellent, wide debate, but the Government must consider a range of responsibilities. To be fair, it is not this House but the producers of chewing gum who are calling for a purchase tax. There is a producer responsibility, but I also recognise individual responsibility. The Minister has gone some distance to say that we are not going to change behaviour, but there is the ''wrap it and bin it'' approach and the gum pouch approach. We believe that this clause is very damaging indeed. We have some sympathy with the Liberal Democrat amendment, but would move to strike the clause from the Bill.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I just thought that I would add my two penn'orth and seek some clarification. Clause 27 mentions

''discarded ends of cigarettes, cigars and like products'',

and it is absolutely right that we need to clamp down on that; it is litter, after all. Perhaps one of the unintended consequences of smoking bans in various places is that we see people huddled outside buildings smoking cigarettes or cigars. They do not have a right to discard their finished cigarette ends on the floor outside those buildings. They are on a public highway, so they must take seriously their responsibility to discard cigarette ends and other products connected with their smoking properly. From time to time we see people throwing their cigarette end out of their vehicle while they are driving. People should be clearly told that that is not allowed, and that they will be prosecuted if they are seen doing it. Other times, one sees someone sitting in a vehicle outside a shop, perhaps waiting for someone, discard the entire contents of the ash tray on to the highway. How piggish is that? Quite frankly, it shows no responsibility whatever, so I hope that it will be included as part of the definition of ''like products''.

I have many years of experience of selling gum, as well as using it myself. Looking at new clause 2, I agree that there has to be some responsibility for the producer to consider how the product is packaged. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York had to say about pouches, which are new to me; we certainly do not sell them, and I suspect that the vast majority of people do not use them either. Certainly, if I am using Wrigley's Juicy Fruit gum or the like, which has foil wrappers, it is easier to discard the gum responsibly.

Mostly, I hasten to add, I chew gum when I am driving so it is a lot easier, as everything is done in the car and I can clean it up at a later stage. Other gums, such as the Colgate brand, are not wrapped in foil. Stimorol has also been mentioned, and it is not individually wrapped either. That means that it is more difficult to discard the product. If manufacturers cannot come up with some way of wrapping gum individually, maybe they should consider putting pouches at the top of packs for people to wrap the gum in. Not all the gum that is available is individually wrapped, and I understand why that is the case.

To move on to the wider subject of clause 27, I mentioned apple cores earlier. Could the Minister say something about whether the public have a right to discard biodegradable stuff, or should it be included more clearly in the Bill? People often throw apple cores and the peelings from oranges, tangerines and the like down on the floor. I assume that litter includes wider things such as shopping trolleys, which seem to end up everywhere. I hope that if anyone is caught discarding one of those on the highway, they will be properly prosecuted. It should not be the responsibility of the shop or the store; it is also the responsibility of enforcement agencies to clamp down.

I hope that the hon. Member for Guildford has tabled new clause 2 to test the Minister on various ways of encouraging the industry to do more. It has a responsibility, after all, but that should finally come down on the user of the product. People buy the product and use it, and they should be responsible for putting it in litter bins either at home or on the street when they have finished with it. They certainly do not have the right to throw their litter on to the floor. The cost of cleaning it up runs into millions throughout the country, and moreover it is dangerous. It is also unsightly. I hope that the Minister can clarify some of the points that I have raised.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I look forward to clarifying a number of points, particularly those raised by the hon. Gentleman. He went to the heart of the issue of chewing gum—not the heart of the clause, which is simple and straightforward—and how we deal with a considerable nuisance that the public want to see dealt with.

I perhaps ought to recommend further conversations between the hon. Gentleman and his Front-Bench representative, since the opportunity arises for him to discover all sorts of new products that can go on to the shelves of his shop following the contribution made by the hon. Member for Vale of York.

I have in my hand a form of packaging that is designed to deal with cigarette ends without any danger to the user. It is obviously greatly preferable to simply give up, but as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, some people contribute to the disgusting appearance of the outside of some buildings as that is the place where they go to smoke. There is no need for that. If people are going to undertake such activities, it is simple for them to use an article such as the one that I am waving in the air and not to create the disgusting scenes to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The clause simply makes it clear and reminds people what the law says. It may also remind the public that if they drop a cigarette end or throw a piece of chewing gum away, they are dropping litter. It is important that that is clear.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned dropping biodegradable materials and so on. That is littering as well. Clearly, if one drops an apple in a border where it biodegrades quickly, it is less serious than dropping something that is plastic and will be around for a longer period of time. However, it falls within the definition of litter. Nobody has argued about that, so we do not need any clarification. That is why I want to underline the fact that we are not changing the law or putting any new duties on anybody.

The hon. Member for Vale of York is absolutely and factually wrong in suggesting that there are costs associated with the clause. All that it does is one simple thing—it clarifies the definition of chewing and smoking-related materials as litter, in order to make it clear that authorities can prosecute and issue fixed penalty notices for the dropping of such materials.

If we are going to prevent the problem, there needs to be either a change in people's behaviour or prosecutions for it. Prosecution does not involve the costs that the hon. Lady mentioned. If she is right that chewing gum relieves stress, I shall be purchasing it by the end of some of her contributions—I say that in the nicest way possible, because I am certainly not going to start smoking again.

I have made clear what the clause does, which is no more than what I described. There are no costs involved. There is an opportunity to prosecute people and impose fixed penalty notices. That would provide additional finances, which would be beneficial. However, the amount would be nowhere the cost of the end result of the littering, which is staining. The clause does not deal with staining, and it cannot. I hope that that is clear.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The Minister also mentioned advertising. Can he say more about the campaign to make people understand that dropping gum is not acceptable? He has talked about social and behavioural changes, which we would prefer, but if they do not happen, people will be prosecuted. Will the campaign concentrate on gum or will it include the other products to which the Bill refers?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The campaign that we are considering concerns gum. Dealing with the consequences of the littering is difficult, which is why the working party has considered the matter more widely and looked at the underlying causes. There will be a specific campaign. I cannot say more than that now, because we are at the early stages of design, with a lot of discussions about what would be most effective, what would work and what would not, and how a campaign could fit with other forms of advertising. I undertake to write to members of the Committee when I can tell them where we are and how matters are being carried forward.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

One suggestion is that manufacturers should state on the packaging that dropping gum is an offence punishable by a fine.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

As I have said, we have received a lot of co-operation from the industry. I believe that the group has discussed that idea, although I shall look at its latest recommendations to see whether that suggestion has been considered fully. The hon. Gentleman also asked whether other types of littering would be addressed in a campaign. The answer is yes. We are increasing the amount of money that ENCAMS receives, so that it can do more on littering.

We shall shortly publish the annual report of comparisons of how local authorities deal with a variety of environmental issues, including littering. For the first time we shall have a three-year comparison of whether trends are going up or down. That will contribute to the exchange of best practice among local authorities. Campaigning on gum is only part of a much bigger picture. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also increasing its work on sustainable communities.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I shall make a few brief responses to the Minister's remarks on new clause 2. First, like everyone, I am absolutely delighted with the change in public attitude to dog fouling, but I have to say that when someone is out with their pooch, it is very visible when it is pooping. It is easy to see whose dog is doing it, and local disapprobation goes a long way to changing attitudes. However, if a small amount of gum is flicked onto the pavement, it is very difficult to know who did it, and when and how.

I am very supportive of what the Minister said about the need to understand the problem. I have to say that spending £60,000 on research to find out why people throw gum away seems fairly cheap compared to the clean-up costs. We have to change attitudes. I very much welcome what he says about continuing to work on it, but we will need to see what happens. We cannot have endless discussion groups, focus groups, and warm thoughts and hope that it goes away. We could have projects, with one generation of children learning that it is wrong to throw gum on the ground, but as we have seen with other awareness campaigns, all goes quiet in the next generation.

I welcome the fact that the Government are talking with Wrigley's about biodegradable and other sorts of gum in order to limit the damage. However, we confirm that we have tabled the new clause as a marker; I think that the House will want to return to the subject if we do not see any results, because what happens now is unacceptable. Given the difficulties of identifying those who throw the stuff away, I hope that the message will get across; but it needs conviction of the mind as well as conviction of those who carry out the act.

Will the Minister say how long he will let it run before he reviews the effectiveness of the message, and what he has in mind to ensure that not only one generation of people receives it ? We need ongoing awareness.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

We want active engagement. We need to see what can be done in this year's campaign, take stock and then see what can be done in subsequent years. I believe that we have the co-operation of manufacturers and retailers. It was nice and easy in the first instance to engage them, because they hoped that the problem would go away. However, they are now fully engaged. I certainly agree with the warning given by the hon. Member for Guildford that if we are not successful or if that success does not continue, we should return to the matter with further legislation. However, I hope that we shall see progress and success.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I heard what the Minister said about the difference between littering and staining. The difficulty is that chewing gum stains almost immediately it becomes embedded in the pavement— one person drops it, another person stands on it, and already it has stained the pavement. The regulatory impact assessment states on page 40 that

''The measure does not widen the scope of the duty under section 89 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 to keep land free of litter and refuse, to include chewing gum staining.''

I do not see how the clause addresses the problem of chewing gum.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Very simply, littering with chewing gum leads to staining. If we tackle the littering, we have a chance of avoiding the staining. If we do not tackle the littering, the staining will continue to increase. Dealing with the staining once it is there is a different matter, and is nothing to do with the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That immediately leads me to say that the Government are presumably relying on an environmental officer, perhaps from Westminster city council, or a community police officer to catch someone in the act of dropping the gum. That would be nigh on impossible in Oxford street because of the volume of people.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

With respect, we have a problem with littering because a lot of it is not spotted, but a lot of it is. The success of litter wardens, for instance, is a lesson from which we have learned. Local authorities are enthusiastic and keen to pursue the policy, and it is popular with the public. Littering with chewing gum is about the act of its being dropped.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have no argument—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I remind the Committee that we resume at 2.30 pm in this Room, and that we will be sitting in this Room until the end of our proceedings.

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.

Standing Committee G

Clause 27 - ''Litter''

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am pleased to be approaching the conclusion of our substantial discussion on clause 27. I have taken the opportunity to ask further advice. Westminster city council is delighted that the debate has gotten the £9 million cost into the public domain. Without detaining the Committee for too long or getting stuck on the provision, I just want to say that the Government are being accused of not listening. The council tried to make those points in consultation and it is delighted to have the opportunity to do so again through our debate on the clause. I urge the Minister to use his good offices to take a closer look at the streets, because, in my humble submission, his understanding of the situation is entirely wrong. The unsightly spots on the street are predominantly—forgive the graphic description, Mr. Forth—solid, flattened lumps of chewing gum. When they are left for a considerable time, they may be slowly worn down by passing feet, but the residue of gum lasts a very long time.

Westminster city council has measured many things, but it has not yet measured the time taken for a single piece of gum to wear away. What it cleans off is gum, so we are discussing the cleaning-off of gum, not just staining. If the council is asked to do spot clearance of gum, rather than whole paving-slab clean-up, spots usually remain. Those are clean spots, rather than stains, because the gum adhesive takes with it any general dirt left beneath on the pavement. That is why the council's preferred clean-up method is whole paving-slab clean up, which not only removes the gum but cleans the whole surface, so that it is not left spotted.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I assure the hon. Lady that I am well aware of the options—as I said earlier, I have stood in the street with operatives discussing the best way of clearing gum from our streets. But that has nothing whatever to do with the clause before us.

Miss McIntosh rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I was reaching that conclusion myself. I am being super-indulgent, as we have all just had our lunch break, but I ask the hon. Lady to wind up her remarks on clause 27.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I conclude that the Minister and I agree to disagree. We are not responsible for the costly clean-up. I think that the clause should be struck from the Bill.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I cannot allow that to pass—we do not agree to disagree. The hon. Lady is wrong. She has brought us some interesting information from Westminster city council; it sounds realistic, judging by my discussions with people at a policy and a practical level in local authorities, but it has nothing whatever to do with the Bill, and how much it costs to clear up the aftermath of litter is nothing to do with the clause. The hon. Lady should clean those issues from her mind as far as clause 27 is concerned.

It would be outrageous if the hon. Lady were to succeed in deleting the clause. Instead of clarifying that cigarette ends and chewing gum are litter, as everyone pretty well accepts now, deleting the clause would, in effect, say that they are not. What impact would that have? That is nearly as silly a political approach as the not-very-wisely drafted reasoned—or unreasoned, depending on which title we use—amendment brought forward on Second Reading. I vigorously resist any attempt to take the clause from the Bill.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

The Minister just spent a little time being deputy Chairman of the Committee. Let us move on.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 10, Noes 2.

Clause 19 - Litter offence: fixed penalty notices

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 68, in clause 19, page 15, line 36, at end insert—

'(7A) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow a litter authority to which a fixed penalty is payable under this section to treat it as having been paid if a period of community service related to environmental protection is completed.'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 63, in clause 28, page 27, line 21, at end add—

'(7) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, allow a local authority to which a fixed penalty is payable under this section to treat it as having been paid if a period of community service related to environmental protection is completed.'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

In principle, the giving out of fixed penalty notices is welcome; it has been recommended, as it immediately links the crime to the response that it is wrong. As we discussed earlier with regard to chewing gum, when we see a perpetrator committing a crime, someone should make that clear to them, there and then. Fixed penalty notices therefore have a use.

The purpose of the amendments is to identify when a financial penalty may not be the right penalty for a person on a particular income. Local authorities and others incur costs attempting to recover a penalty from someone who might not have been able to pay within the normal period. We propose that there should be other ways in which such people can meet their responsibilities—perhaps they can be given community service instead of a fixed penalty notice. The Law Society has already expressed concern about the use of fixed penalty notices. Were I, in a moment of aberration, to drop chewing gum—although I deny that I would ever do so—I could afford to pay a fixed penalty notice, although it might grieve me that I had to pay it. It would not greatly affect my ability to buy the basics for day-to-day living, although it might affect what I spent on other things. However, the financial situation of more deprived members of society might be made worse by the penalty. A fine of that the proposed level for someone on benefits is a huge proportion of their income, which should be spent on food, shelter, heating and the like. Although we, society—whose views were expressed in the consultation—and the Environment Audit Committee all agree that fines and the fact that dropping litter is a crime need to be made clear, some people would be disproportionately affected by the proposed penalty.

We want to give the Secretary of State the opportunity to allow councils to impose community service orders instead. We want those orders to be related to environmental problems and antisocial behaviour, and to link them to the opportunity to clear litter and graffiti. Councils often have rubbish-clearing events to give a much higher profile not only to the problems of rubbish, but to the fact that someone has to clear it up. There is nothing like being one of a rubbish-clearing team to bring home the impact of one's own and everyone else's litter-dropping. Time spent clearing up rubbish rather than doing something that they would prefer to do might bring home to people the fact that throwing away rubbish in the street is a bad thing.

We therefore propose community service orders, which would have to be proportionate to the fine in a fixed penalty notice to which they would be an alternative. There needs to be consultation with local authorities and the probation services on the best way of doing that, so that people are made to pay for their crime but in the best way possible. We do not prescribe how that would be done, but we want the Government to consider the social impact of such penalties.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I regard the amendment, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) and moved by the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), as an entirely constructive suggestion. However, introducing such provisions formally would lead us on to the hierarchy of penalties that are involved in court sentencing procedures. Also, the costs involved in supervising a community service order as an alternative to payment of a fine would fall on the public services. There would be problems with such an arrangement.

We must be clear in our sentencing system. I have been involved in the issue practically, both as a sentencer during the years I sat in the magistrates courts in Cardiff, and in the supervision of people under community service orders. I am a great fan of the idea of reparation, because it engages the offender in doing something about the outcome of their offence. However, one thing that I have learnt in dealing with criminal justice policy is that one must be clear what the sentence is, what the consequences are, how it will be administered and what the expectations of the person being sentenced are. We cannot stray into that area, almost accidentally, by accepting the amendment.

None the less, I have been exercising my imagination and wondering whether it would be possible for local authorities that wanted to adopt the approach that the hon. Lady suggests to do so; I think that it would be. It would be open to local authorities to establish voluntary schemes for people to undertake work for the improvement of the environment—indeed, many local authorities have such schemes or co-operate with voluntary organisations in their areas in order to introduce them. A few weeks ago I spent some time with a group of volunteers in St. Mellons in my constituency. Some of them were from the hostel for the homeless in south Cardiff and some were from the Fairbridge project, which works with young people in the city. They are two excellent projects, albeit not ones that would normally be associated with litter, but they were running a scheme in which quite a few people, some young, some older, were doing something useful, engaging socially and learning about litter and fly-tipping in consequence.

If there were such a scheme, it would be possible for a local authority to make it clear that it would not serve a fixed penalty notice, or to offer to withdraw the notice, if the perpetrator was willing to put some time in. I do not think that we could create such a structure in the Bill, but I think that there is merit in the hon. Lady's suggestion, which might bring benefits, with a little lateral thinking locally,. The fixed penalty could, in effect, be the standard penalty, which would allow the offender to avoid going to court, but other options might be offered.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

May I clarify one point? If a council issues a fixed penalty notice, will it be entirely at the council's discretion to commute it into some form of payment in kind—reparation might be one possibility—rather than insisting on payment? That seems to be what the Minister is saying, but I want to be absolutely clear.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The point is that the local authority has two alternatives: either it gets the money from the offender or it prosecutes; it is not a question of not pursuing the fixed penalty. It would be perfectly open to the authority to say, ''Ok, if you do a bit of work, we won't prosecute.'' The form of words used would be slightly different, but the end result might be the same. The point, however, is that there would be an opportunity to do something a little different. It would need quite a bit of thinking through in terms of the messages that were being given, but it would not be impossible for a local authority that really wanted to do so to put something constructive in place in its area to encourage engagement in clearing up, instead of taking people to court.

I am trying to respond positively and constructively to what is behind the amendment. There is, however, no possibility of accepting it, because it would muddle the fixed penalty notice with sentences of the court and the hierarchy of ways of dealing with offenders through the formal court and criminal justice system. However, there might be something in the proposal that a local authority could pick up as a way of designing local provisions, which might have the benefits outlined by the hon. Member for Guildford, as well as benefits in terms of engagement and education about the impact of litter on an area.

I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her amendment, because even though I cannot accept the amendment, we do not disagree about wanting to achieve greater engagement and flexibility in dealing with offences. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that I am trying to meet her halfway and to be constructive about her suggestions.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his positive approach to the amendments. This is an important point. When the Environmental Audit Committee produced its report ''Environmental Crime and the Court'', two concerns emerged loud and clear from witness after witness, and from the memorandums that the Committee received. The first, which is not relevant to this debate, was that people thought that the fines given in court were not high enough and that courts were not sentencing to the level that they were allowed to. Secondly, however, people were concerned that fines were sometimes a blunt instrument, which did not take account of income and ability to pay.

I very much appreciate the Minister's points and I shall withdraw the amendment, but before I do, I want to press him a little further. Given what he said about considering a more creative approach, when the Bill becomes law will he be able to incorporate in his guidelines something along the lines of our amendment and others that will be tabled later?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

It might be difficult formally to include in guidelines something that is not in the Bill, although one might find ways of signposting such suggestions. A community service order would be required for someone formally to undertake a period of community service, and of course it is open to the court to impose such an order instead of a fine when the person is prosecuted and taken before it. There is therefore an avenue in the criminal justice system by which one can reach the community service order. We encourage local authorities to consider imaginative schemes and to think laterally. We are trying to avoid putting new burdens on them, but working with them to make use of opportunities. Our discussions are not just about how we implement legislation, but about how we set legislation in the wider context of doing things differently and better, and of engaging the public, including those who offend. We are trying to create a better situation for the future. My answer to the spirit of what the hon. Lady is saying, rather than to the particulars, is yes.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I appreciate those comments, which go a long way to getting on the record the opportunities that are available to councils. We are not trying to make life over-arduous for councils, but in the end persistent offending is a cost to them, as is clean-up. We are all trying to obtain practical, common-sense solutions. I hope, as a result of this debate, that the Minister will take any opportunities available to use the guidance given to councils and to the courts to tell them that it is available. There is a slew of areas in which we are looking for legislative remedies to environmental crime, so anything further that the Government can do will be appreciated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, in clause 19, page 16, line 7, after 'council', insert

'with accreditation under the Quality Council Scheme'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 72, in clause 19, page 16, line 24, after 'section', insert

'; or for conferring authorisation to give notices under this section onto his employees.'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

We touched on the content of amendment No. 69 on Second Reading, but we tabled it in Committee to elicit clarification and to ensure that the subject is clearly understood. We are concerned about parish councils—those that might not be fully elected and rely on co-option—that might take upon themselves responsibilities greater than they should reasonably be given. If we are to have democratically elected councils using powers in the Bill as proposed, that must go right down to parish level. We have looked at the accreditation within the quality council scheme and are recommending that that be incorporated.

Amendment No. 72 deals with people who are not council employees. We are concerned that people who are employed by the council to carry out environmental services, such as waste contractors, are not telling people such as dustbin men, ''You actually have the ability to issue fixed penalty notices.'' The amendment is designed to obtain clarification about council employees and contractors; we hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that that the provision does not mean that a council can discharge its responsibilities through its waste contractors. There should be greater clarity about which people the council might appoint to issue fixed penalty notices.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am grateful for the hon. Lady's explanation of her amendments and for making it clear that they are probing. I will respond in a similar manner.

I have some sympathy with the first amendment and the promotion of the quality parish and town council scheme. The scheme recognises the effort put into achieving qualifications and quality, and an essential part of achieving its requirements is to have elected councillors. The reference to quality councils is therefore entirely appropriate, but the provision is a little too restrictive to be in the Bill. I personally expect it to be the quality town and parish councils that take up the powers and that have the capacity to do so. I considered such an approach of limiting the provision to quality councils when we were looking at the design of the Bill, but concluded that that was not appropriate, partly because a quality council may be very small or very large, and the difference in capacity could make a difference. In discussions with the Local Government Association and the National Association of Local Councils, the general feeling was that a common-sense approach will be adopted: those councils that have the necessary employees and capacity will go for it. By and large, the councils that are ambitious to do the best for their local area are the ones that are going through the quality process. That is becoming increasingly popular and regarded as an encouragement by local authorities.

The Bill allows regulations to be made. We envisage that they will prescribe the conditions that authorised officers of parish councils need to meet before issuing penalties. We undertake to look at the issues that the hon. Lady raises in relation to those regulations. The regulations can set out qualifying standards that have to be met before parish councils can retain the receipts from fixed penalties. Again, that will encourage parish councils to achieve the higher standards. To complete the circle, achieving higher standards is best reflected in the award of quality status.

The provision to prescribe conditions that have to be met by those authorised by parish councils to issue penalties applies to anybody who is authorised to issue a fixed penalty notice on behalf of parish councils, including employees of other bodies. I should make it clear that anyone who issues a fixed penalty notice on behalf of a parish council has to be authorised in writing to do so by the council itself. For that reason amendment No. 72 is unnecessary.

I welcome the thrust of what is being said about those who undertake the work, who must be appropriate people and should be encouraged to be properly trained. However, the hon. Lady should not to be too dismissive of dustmen. My teacher at Sunday school in the chapel was a street cleaner and he was a wise and far-sighted man. The general public in Llandudno would have been well served had he been given these powers. Let us not be too dismissive of the individuals who might be given them.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

When the Minister is talking about the people a council can authorise, will he make it clear that the council cannot authorise its own elected members to issue fixed penalty notices? There appears to be nothing in the Bill that would stop a quality parish council giving the parish council chairman the ability to issue a fixed penalty notice. I hope that that will be ruled out in secondary legislation.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Again, that is the sort of issue that we would cover in regulations. Undertaking executive duties would be confusing. The possibility had not crossed my mind. An individual might want those powers, but a council might take a rather different view, but I will look at that point in relation to the regulations. I hope that the hon. Lady will feel able to withdraw her amendment.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his response. On the subject of whether dustmen should be able to issue fines, I take his point about Sunday school teachers. I used to know a dustman who was a poet: he worked as a dustman in order to give himself time off to write poetry. Some of it was very good and some of it was set to music by Emerson, Lake and Palmer. None the less, it did not necessarily qualify him to give out fixed penalty notices. With the Minister's assurances in place, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 70, in clause 19, page 16, leave out lines 13 to 16.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 71, in clause 19, page 16, leave out lines 17 to 19.

No. 88, in clause 23, page 25, leave out lines 4 to 7.

No. 89, in clause 23, page 25, leave out lines 8 and 9.

No. 95, in clause 48, page 44, leave out lines 42 to 45.

No. 96, in clause 48, page 44, leave out lines 46 to 48.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I think we can deal with the amendments fairly quickly. They are along the same lines as the previous group and relate to the contracting out of powers to issue fixed penalty notices to contractors and their employees—we are back to the dustmen, I am afraid.

We are seeking greater clarity. The powers in clause 48 are for dealing with offences relating to the collection of waste, so we consulted the Environmental Services Association, which is a body that often deals with waste collection and disposal. The ESA made it clear that its members do not want to have the power for their employees to issue fixed penalty notices. The association said that as currently worded, clause 48(10)(b) and (c) appear to allow refuse collectors, including employees of the association's members, to issue fixed penalty notices.

Refuse collectors can have a role in offering advice to householders about their legal responsibilities and informing the local authority about badly littered areas. However, although the association recognised that co-ordination between waste contractors, local authorities and the Environment Agency could improve the enforcement of litter laws, it felt that that job should be done by full-time professionals employed by the local authority. The association wants consistency, although it is supportive of the general move and encouraged by the knowledge that the Government take the issue seriously.

3 pm

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

In so far as it is a question of people who are appropriate and have the appropriate training in issuing notices, I agree with the hon. Lady. We will make that very clear in guidance. The problem with the amendments is that they would prevent local authorities from authorising any subcontractor or the subcontractor's employees to issue fixed penalty notices in respect of various litter and waste offences on behalf of the local authority. We feel that it is important that local authorities can decide on the delivery of their services. The clause is consistent with that and with the Government's freedoms and flexibility policy for local authorities.

Local authorities, let us remember, will not be coming to this anew. They have a raft of experience of issuing fixed penalties. We would expect them to authorise only those subcontractors and their employees who are competent to undertake the work and for them to have the appropriate training. Who then undertakes the work for the local authority should be for the local authority to decide.

The clauses will give local authorities greater power to take enforcement action, because they increase the number of officers who can take action against offenders. I take the point entirely that the job needs to be done professionally, but that does not necessarily mean that only a full-time professional can undertake such activity. What is important is that it is someone who is available and competent to do the work and who has the appropriate training for the specific issuing of notices. I am certainly at one with the hon. Lady in what I understand her to be calling for. We will indeed reinforce that in the guidance.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for that assurance. The amendment was designed to draw out those facts. We would have no problem with people who are trained to do that job, even though it is part of their other duties. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to clarify a couple of points. I understand that fixed penalty notices will either be set by statute or be subject to a national framework setting maximum and minimum levels. I hope that the Minister can confirm that the local authorities that will have to implement the provisions will be consulted before those levels are set. Does he intend to set out the detail in regulations? I am sure that he will have received representations that the fine levels are set too low to be effective. Will there be a default level?

According to the Library research paper, the default level is set at £75 in unspecified areas. Could the Minister be more specific about that? The note states:

''The Bill enables local authorities to specify the amount of fixed penalty to be applied to an area.''

Will the default level be across the board?

I understand that clause 19 will create a new offence of withholding or giving a false name and address to a litter officer. What fixed penalty will be applied to that?

Parish councils and community councils will also be classified as litter authorities, which will give them the power to appoint authorised litter officers. Litter officers will no longer have to be employed by a litter authority. The Conservatives are champions of parish councils; we are delighted to see them involved as far as possible, but the Minister will recognise that parish council budgets are necessarily small, so it would be of some interest to the Committee to know how they are to be expected to pay. Who will the new litter wardens be? Will they be volunteers for the parish council, acting as litter wardens? What level of training will be given to them, and how will it be paid for?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for putting a number of questions, which I am happy to answer. Some answers apply not just to clause 19 but to others. She is right to say that some parishes are very small; indeed, I made that point earlier. That is why this clause is permissive. There is no requirement to undertake action, but if the parish council feels that something is needed in their area, it is not totally dependent on the actions of the district council in order to tackle the problem. Let us also acknowledge that many parish councils and town councils have a lot of experience in that area of activity. They undertake the running of car parks and a variety of other roles in their localities, so they will not be totally devoid of experience.

As I said, when I discussed the provision with the National Association of Local Councils, it was very clear that it expected its members to approach the matter in a common-sense way. It said that it makes sense if there is a problem in their area for councils to undertake such activities on their own behalf if they have the capacity to do so. Those are exactly the questions that it is sensible for us, having included the provision, to leave for them to decide.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Are not the only parish and town councils that could take this on those that have employees? Most of the smaller parish councils only employ a clerk to take the minutes four times a year, and are unlikely even to be in a position to think about taking action. Doing so is limited by the size of the council, and that acts as a safeguard.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman is right, although I would not preclude the possibility of a number of councils employing somebody jointly. I came across one example in one of the national parks; a council had undertaken a positive initiative in conjunction with a couple of other villages, and it was working very well. They were proud of what they were doing. If people at a local level think that it is important enough to put energy and their limited resources into that, I am happy for them to do so. I am equally sure that, to a great extent, the issue will be self-policing and self-limiting by the capacity that people have. I would not entirely rule out a small council, but in general terms, the hon. Gentleman is right.

Most of the answers to the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) are straightforward. Yes, we shall be consulting the local authorities, and they will have an opportunity to comment, and levels will be set in regulations. She is right to point to the default fine level of £75. We want the flexibility for local authorities to go lower or higher than that if they want to. With fixed penalties, there is almost an element of self-regulation, in that if the fine is too high, people will say, ''All right, take me to court then.'' If the penalties are set at a level that people feel is inappropriate, we shall end up with more litigation, which is not the purpose of a fixed penalty notice. Whatever limits we set, I think that things will generally settle down. Some councils will be able to be highly effective by exercising flexibility. I do not want to put a figure on it, but we are certainly not talking about anything like the level 3 fine, which is up to £1,000. We are talking more about something in the order of £75 or £100. As I say, I hesitate even to mention figures, but I hope that that gives an idea of the order of fines.

Should an individual fail to provide a name and address, they would be committing an offence and would be prosecuted for it. A fixed penalty notice would not be issued to them if they failed to provide a name and address; indeed, it would be difficult to so do because the whole point is that a name and address are needed in order to issue the penalty. The person would be taken down the prosecution route. It is important to do that, otherwise certain individuals who have little respect for authority will be tempted to put up two fingers to a request to provide their details. I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. Lady will feel able to support the clause standing part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am most grateful to the Minister; it is helpful to know the default level and its implications. I should like to place on record the fact that many parish councils will find such action beyond their abilities, but I pay tribute to those whose councillors often act as wardens, giving flood alerts and doing all sorts of activity that one would not normally expect of them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22 - Failure to comply with notice: fixed penalty notices

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 19, line 13, at end insert

', and that person shall be made aware that a failure to pay could result in an increase in the penalty with its conversion into a court fine and liability to prosecution for the offence'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, page 19, line 32, at end insert—

'( ) There will be a right of appeal against the issuing of Fixed Penalty Notices.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The amendments follow on closely from what the Minister said in his response to the debate on clause 19. He confirms that there will still be recourse to the courts, so these are probing amendments to elicit what facility there will be—particularly where new litter officers are acting as enforcement officers for the first time—to make an offender aware that a failure to pay a fixed penalty notice could result in an increase in the penalty. That penalty could be converted into a court fine and the offence liable to prosecution. We are extending the range of litter officers—that has just been confirmed—and many will be using these discretionary and permissive powers for the first time.

Is the Minister convinced that there will be a mechanism to ensure that an offender is made aware of the consequences of their actions, either of not paying the fixed penalty notice or of the ultimate threat of prosecution? Presumably the matter will still be subject to the right of appeal to a magistrate. In the spirit of helpfulness and co-operation that the Minister is coming to expect from Conservative members of the Committee, I suggest that we insert that there will still be right of appeal against the issuing of fixed penalty notices. We feel that it is important to state that in the Bill, rather than leaving it to pure chance. I hope that the Minister will feel able to support the amendment.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

If people do not comply with the law and do not pay the penalty, it is only right that they be told that failure to pay could result in an increase in that penalty. The clear example, which I think is punitive, is the congestion charge. The charge is £5, but if someone fails to comply, it automatically goes up to £50—10 times the amount originally charged. Ten times the amount is quite punitive, particularly when many people simply forget. I declare an interest; on 23 December I forgot to pay. I am not bitter now; I am almost over it, but not quite. I cannot think of another example where a fine rises to 10 times the amount. [Interruption.] Crushing my car might do us all a favour.

If a person has broken the law and simply fails to pay the penalty, they should know that they are likely to pay an increased fine—whether it is £75 or £100. I hear what the Minister says about wanting to get away from taking everyone to court and that is why we are looking at reasonable fines. I fully understand that. When people have dropped gum or litter but are not prepared to pay the fine because they think that it is unreasonable, they will clearly end up in court unless they have good cause. Court time will be involved. People should rightly face an increased charge when they have been convicted of deliberately dropping litter or gum and have refused to pay the fine.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Again, this matter comes under appropriate training and guidance and ensuring that all the arrangements are in place. The hon. Lady made it clear that she wanted to be reassured on those points. I am happy to give that reassurance. It would be unthinkable that the notice should not include a warning of what might follow were the fixed penalty notice not accepted. Amendment No. 51 seems to be based on a possible misunderstanding. If a fixed penalty notice is issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and is not paid, there is no automatic increase and it is not posted as a fine.

A fixed penalty notice offers an alternative to prosecution. If it is not paid, the local authority may prosecute for the original offence. That is not automatic; nor is any increase. If the individual goes to court, they might get a fine that is higher than the fixed penalty notice level. They might end up with a lower fine. It is a matter of chance. It is also a matter of a lot more administration and public money in order to reach the outcome. That is one reason for setting the right level and for ensuring that magistrates have a good understanding of the way that the local authority's policy is being developed.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I hope that the Minister has talked to the Home Office about this in view of the fines that are doled out now for a number of offences involving drunkenness. Does he know how many of those cases end up in court, or are the vast majority paid as fixed charges?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an answer off the top of my head. I am happy to check the situation and to write to him. There is a degree of variation in different parts of the country. That is where we come to the interface between cultures and people's expectations and understandings. People should understand, first, that they should not drop litter, and secondly, that if they do so they will be fined. They should know what the level will be. It has to act as a discouragement. We are starting to move towards that.

Amendment No. 52 is not necessary because no one is forced to accept a fixed penalty notice in the first place. If they accept a notice and then wish that they had not, they can simply choose not to pay it. If they choose not to pay, it is for the local authority to decide whether to prosecute for the events that led to the issuing of the notice. Either of those courses will result in the issuing authority taking a decision on whether to prosecute for the original offence.

It is important to understand that clause 22 introduces fixed penalty notices for failure to comply with litter clearing notices in clause 20 and street litter control notices in clause 21. Local authorities will be given the power to set the level of the fixed penalty in their area. That may be subject to limitations in regulations made by the Secretary of State in England or by the National Assembly for Wales. Where the power is not exercised, the amount of the fixed penalty will be £100.

This is a simple improvement in the way that fixed penalty notices can be used to good effect at local level. I hope that the assurances that I have given will satisfy hon. Members on that point.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We have had an interesting and helpful little debate. In the light of the assurances and explanation that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I seek a simple clarification and make a request of the Minister. Section 90 of the excellent Environmental Protection Act 1990—the Committee will recall that it was introduced under the previous Conservative Administration—provides for the designation of litter control areas. Subsection (1) states that the Secretary of State may ''prescribe descriptions of land'' that may be designated as litter control areas. Under section 94, the Secretary of State may prescribe by order the kinds of premises to which street control notices can be issued, but they do not include the vicinity of office buildings. Therefore, local authorities such as Westminster city council often cannot apply such measures in cases where they would be most effective, such as when smoking litter proliferates on the forecourt of an office building in which staff are subject to a smoking ban.

Does the Minister accept that one possible solution would be for the vicinity of offices to be added to the list of types of land to which street litter control notices applied? Better still, we could remove the need for the Secretary of State to approve the scheduled types of land to which they applied. I hope that the Minister sees what we are getting at. We have had more of a discussion about chewing gum, but clause 27 and, in particular, clause 22 obviously apply in this case. Metropolitan and urban councils, such as Westminster city council, are concerned that we deal with such areas in the vicinity of office buildings, which the Secretary of State may not currently deem to be premises.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I think that I can satisfy the hon. Lady on that point. Offices are premises, so they are potentially covered. That can be made clear by regulations; there is no need to amend the Bill to do so.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 - Fixed penalty notices: amount of fixed penalty

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 27, line 13, at beginning insert

'Following consultation with local authorities and other interested parties'.

The purpose of the amendment is to seek confirmation from the Minister as to whether there will be full consultation with the local authorities concerned and with other interested parties.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I can confirm that we would have to consult local authorities and other interested parties before, in England, the Secretary of State and, in Wales, the National Assembly for Wales, made any regulations in respect of the local authorities' powers to vary.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is extremely helpful. In the spirit of helpfulness, could the Minister further define who the other interested parties will be? Will they include bodies such as Network Rail, Metronet, Transport for London and Tubelines, which also have to apply the graffiti-removing powers?

Our reason for tabling the amendment parallels our reason for tabling an earlier amendment, which was suggested by, among others, Network Rail. It was generally felt that provision for consultation was written into the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 and that there would be scope to provide sufficient time for the removal of graffiti. As with litter, the sums involved in removing graffiti are very large, and the Minister will be aware of the work that is carried out in that regard.

I simply seek confirmation, therefore, that those additional bodies, and not just local authorities, will be consulted. Many of us lose sight of the fact that it is not only local authorities that are responsible for removing litter and graffiti. Evidence to the Transport Select Committee highlighted the millions of pounds that it costs Transport for London every year to remove graffiti from its trains and stations, and we had similar evidence from Network Rail, Metronet and Tubelines. It is incumbent on the Minister to confirm whether consultation will extend to those bodies, because the policy on graffiti removal affects them equally and has huge cost implications for them.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The other interested parties might well vary from place to place. For instance, the rail organisations to which the hon. Lady referred might not be appropriate interested parties in a town or village that did not have a railway service. I say that not to trivialise the issue, but to explain why we do not want to go into detail. We want common sense to apply in a public consultation. That relates specifically to consultation with local authorities, because they are the key organisations.

The clause is important because local authorities will be given the power to set the level of fixed penalties for graffiti and fly-posting. That will enable them to set the level in response to local circumstances, and that fits in with our agenda of giving local authorities freedoms and flexibilities. The same is true of their power to accept reduced amounts for early payment, which ensures that payments are made promptly, thus reducing the number of cases requiring resolution in court.

I assure the hon. Lady that the amendment is unnecessary because we shall ensure that there is full consultation on all secondary legislation resulting from the Bill. I am tempted to point out that the amendment covers only one regulation-making power in the Bill and that it is not clear why that one has been singled out, but that might provoke the hon. Lady to table another lot of amendments, so I shall take it that this is a representative amendment. With that explanation, I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It has been an interesting and helpful debate, and in view of the assurances that the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to raise the vexatious issue of persistent fly-posting and to tease out from the Minister whether he believes that the clause and the £75 default penalty that it sets will actually deal with that issue. Often, such penalties are set far too low, and the cost to the offender is far too cheap. In some cases, the penalties for those convicted of fly-posting are so low that it is significantly cheaper for companies to fly-post and pay fines than to pay for legitimate advertising space.

It is frustrating for city councils—again, Westminster city council springs to mind—that they have no sooner removed fly-posting, which is often part of the commercial operation of a company trying to set up a business on the cheap rather than the actions of an individual, than it is repeated. From March 2002 to March 2004, Westminster city council brought more than 60 successful prosecutions for fly-posting against companies. The penalties varied between £75 and £5,000, although that was an exceptional one-off case. If we compare that with the cost of advertising space in central London bus shelters, which ranges from £100 to £500 a week, we can see why once a fly-posting campaign has been removed the company simply goes back and repeats the exercise.

Does the Minister accept that if fines remain below the indictable offence threshold of £8,000, fly-posting will continue to stand outside the range of offences that can lead to a company director being disqualified? Fines well above that level are required if legal process is to provide a disincentive to fly-posting. Fines for fly-posting need to be far higher to avoid that cynical disregard for the law.

There is general concern that the penalty does not fit the crime. It may not give the right message to those who are flouting the law.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I think that I can satisfy the hon. Lady on her points. Fines for fly-posting are a different issue. Fixed penalty notices can be used only to deal with the people who put up the posters rather than the principles or companies that benefit from that activity.

The organisers of fly-posting or those benefiting from it must be prosecuted. If they are convicted, they are subject to a level 4 fine of up to £2,500. I am conscious of the fact that a number of cities have developed good practice over recent times. I have spoken to representatives of two or three in the course of the past year. Birmingham, Manchester and Cardiff are three that have sought to identify where companies benefit from fly-posting, which looked too trivial at the local level, and have gone to the main companies. A fine of £2,500, if it is added to over a period of time, and the fact that naming and shaming then starts to have its effect seem to have encouraged a constructive dialogue between many of the large companies that are involved and those who are instigating the activity. The case of those who instigate or benefit from the activity and that of those who carry out the fly-posting are quite different. That is where the fixed penalty notice will come in. I hope that that will help to take us some way in gaining agreement.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I cannot for the life of me remember whether a matter that has concerned many people has been included under other legislation—that is the insertion of cards—not posters as such—in telephone boxes, where people advertise all sorts of trades; I will not go into greater detail than that. Has that matter already been covered, or will it be covered under this legislation?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I hesitate to put on the record my understanding, but I better had and I will then correct it if I am wrong. I believe that that issue was dealt with under previous antisocial behaviour legislation. I understand precisely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making.

As far as the amount being set is concerned, if one sees it in terms of the perpetrator rather than those who benefit from the activity the level is proportionate. In any event, we are trying to allow a degree of flexibility, which will be based on the experience of local authorities. Local authorities told us that fly-posting is more of a problem in some places, where people benefit more from it. Urban areas, larger cities and places such as Westminster obviously come to mind. The flexibility allows for a differential depending on local circumstances. With that explanation, I hope that we will gain the support of the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 28 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30 - Fixed penalty notices: authorised officers

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 53, in page 27, leave out lines 40 to 42.

The amendment relates to a subject that the Minister referred to earlier: authorised officers being given adequate training. We seek to strike out from clause 30 for probing purposes the lines defining an authorised officer as

''an employee of the authority who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving notices under section 43(1)''.

Will the Minister confirm whether, when that authority in writing is given, there will also be provision for at least a minimum amount of training in respect of the power to require a name and address under clause 28 and the power relating to fixed penalty notices? Will there be a specific direction as to how authorised officers are to act in that regard?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

For authorised officers under any aspect of the clause, whether employees of the authority under proposed new section 47(1)(a) of the 2003 Act, other persons under paragraph (b) or employees of another person under paragraph (c), the training would be exactly the same. They would be people who understood what they were doing and who had the appropriate training. I wonder whether the hon. Lady can help me. I do not understand why she wants to delete the lines referring to employees of the local authority, which would mean that an authority could authorise other people to undertake the work, but not its own employees.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am really trying to establish whether the police and officers of the Environment Agency will also be involved in issuing fixed penalty notices. Can only an employee of the authority do so, or can a police officer, community support officer or an officer acting with the authority of the Environment Agency do so? I understand that those persons, particularly Environment Agency officers, would currently deal with the removal of fly-posters. Will that continue to be the case?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

What the clause allows is fairly clear. It defines an ''authorised officer''. First, it could be an employee of the authority, but not just any old employee; it must be someone who is authorised in writing for the purpose of giving notices. As we have said, we will, in regulations or in guidance as appropriate, indicate the training that we expect people to have to be able to undertake that activity.

The second element is on page 28 in proposed new section 47(1)(b). The easiest thing is to read what it says. It refers to

''any person who, in pursuance of arrangements made with the authority, has the function of giving such notices and is authorised in writing by the authority to perform that function''.

That draws pretty widely the category of those who could undertake the work, whether the arrangement happened to be a contract with a company or an arrangement with another public body or even, conceivably, a non-governmental or voluntary organisation.

The third element is

''any employee of such a person who is authorised in writing by the authority for the purpose of giving such notices''.

In other words, if an organisation does work for a council—that would generally involve a contractual relationship—its employees could be authorised to undertake the work. That seems pretty comprehensive. Subsection (2) would give power to the appropriate person—we come back again to the Secretary of State and the National Assembly for Wales, respectively—to

''by regulations prescribe conditions to be satisfied by a person before a parish or community council may authorise him in writing for the purpose of giving notices under section 43(1).''

Those requirements would deal with the issue of whom it is appropriate to allow to issue notices, and what training is required.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the Minister share my bafflement that the Conservatives appear to want to allow councils to enable virtually anyone but a council employee to issue fixed-penalty notices? Paragraphs (b) and (c) would enable the council to authorise somebody other than its employees to do so, but paragraph (a), which the Conservatives would delete, is about council employees. I am somewhat baffled, and I am sure that the Minister shares my bafflement.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Gentleman makes robustly the point that I made more gently to the hon. Member for Vale of York in an intervention. He is right, and I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I explained myself at some length. I take it that Environment Agency officers continue to be authorised to remove fly-posting because the Minister did not deny that, although he was not terribly clear. My amendment was, to all intents and purposes, a probing amendment.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

The hon. Lady should note that that is permitted.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I presume that the Minister means that the status quo will pertain. With that affirmation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 - Controls on free distribution of printed matter

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 74, in page 20, leave out lines 25 and 26.

A situation that we have had in Guildford illustrates the points on which we seek clarity. This is a probing amendment that is, on the face of it, simple and straightforward, although in practice there might be further complications. In the local government elections of the year before last, a local business man created his own political party. It was generally felt locally, and it was entrenched in his manifesto, that he thought that the Conservatives would give him a better planning deal than the Liberal Democrats. He had aspirations to build a large casino and various other things.

In fairness to the Conservatives, I should say that there is no indication that they had ever said that they would give him a better answer on planning than the Liberal Democrats had. However, the business man formed a political party—Trinity—that campaigned in marginal wards to try to drive in a wedge, so that Liberal Democrat seats would be lost. I bring the matter up because that individual regularly takes the council to court for everything possible. That is why I seek clarity.

That person runs a political party—from time to time, as the need occurs—and is a local business man, pursuing business interests. He may also be running a campaign to open a football stadium, which may be connected with his desire to set up a casino. We could have only a very blurred idea of what would go on his leaflets. In other words, he might have one piece of paper, but be caught by others when he is issuing leaflets for his very large nightclub in the middle of Guildford—another thing that he gets up to.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I seek further clarity on this as well. I know that a number of people put out what could be termed political leaflets outside election times. They contain advertisements for all sorts of things, which I assume are to the benefit of those parties. They would fall foul of this proposal would they not?

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

That is a very helpful intervention. I believe that the answer is yes. If the Trinity party were to put out printed matter containing a slogan, such as ''The best thing for town planning'', ''Free drinks at The Drink on Wednesdays, Thursdays and Fridays'' or whatever it might be, that would precisely illustrate the problem.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am not talking about people who invent political parties, but about traditional political parties that utilise advertisements from local business men. Without the funding such parties perhaps would not be able to distribute their political literature in the first place. I am thinking about the Liberal Democrats as much as any other party.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I quite accept that point. I have seen such things on literature from the three political parties that I regularly come across in addition to Trinity, which appears and disappears on a regular basis. We tabled a probing amendment and recommended a deletion because the position is untenable. We look forward to the Minister telling us how we could get round the problem.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I am sorry to break it to the hon. Lady, but it is not always possible to solve every problem in legislation. Legitimate political activity almost invariably has a fringe. There is a great danger of trying to cut the fringes off and damaging the mainstream of political activity.

I can understand the hon. Lady wanting to raise her local issues and doing so with a probing amendment. If it were a serious amendment, I would quite robustly say that it would be unthinkable to accept it. The purpose of the exception is to ensure that the human rights of individuals and their legitimate political and democratic activities are not affected by the provisions.

When we started talking about the provision and learning from the experience in London of trying to avoid excessive free literature, I was worried that it might be difficult to phrase the clause in a way that would protect rights. I believe that we have achieved that protection. Consultation raised the same concern that immediately came to my mind, which was that the control of free literature distribution could impinge on the freedom of speech and both religious and political canvassing.

By allowing the exemptions, we protect the rights of freedom of expression and freedom of thought, conscience and religion. They are enshrined under the European convention on human rights and, now, in our law under the Human Rights Act 1998. Even if they were not enshrined there, most of us would say immediately that we do not want to see a restriction on political and religious debate. That would be implied by the proposed deletion from the Bill. We must put up with some things in order to maintain the integrity of our political structures.

I understand what the hon. Lady means about campaign advertisements. Somebody stood in one general election under the title of New Labour before we wisely took control of Government and inserted clauses to stop that sort of thing happening. As she might imagine, I was in support of that measure when we started to draft it at the Home Office.

We cannot solve all problems and we must be careful that we do not go too far. I have sympathy with the hon. Lady. Everybody involved in legitimate political activity must do all they can to make it clear where the boundaries are. They should not seek individual, personal or party advantage through these types of intervention. This matter is down to the way we conduct ourselves. It would be extremely dangerous to remove the exemption from the Bill.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I have every sympathy with what the Minister is saying. If it were a case of just trying to get some clarity between the one and the other, I would fully accept what he is saying. The reality is that the clause is meant to deal with people who, for example, hand out literature outside a nightclub every Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. The stuff gets thrown on the ground. We are trying to work out the exceptions. Given that the main line of business of the individual in question is nightclubs and bars and the promotion of them, and that he is one of those whom the clause will affect directly, his instant get out is to say, ''Trinity party''.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Perhaps I can assist the hon. Lady. If someone purported to put out religious information or political material but was not really doing so—in other words, if they were promoting a business—it would be for the court to decide, as it often is, on the boundaries. The fact that the Bill does not deal with the question explicitly does not mean that someone can get away with claiming to represent a political party.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I take that point, but I am pressing for clarity from the Minister—because our debate will go down on the record—in identifying what the court would do in such a case. The person in question might say in his defence, ''Oh, no, it is Trinity party; it is just that there is an advert for the nightclub.'' Those issues come to court eventually, and I predict such a court case.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I offer a final thought; if an individual claimed in defence that he was putting out political material, it would be for the prosecution to show that that was not true, and for the court to make a judgment. Often when such issues are discussed in theoretical terms it sounds as if it might be easy for someone to get away with breaking the law, but when the evidence is looked at objectively by a court it becomes clear whether something is on the wrong side of the line. We cannot solve the individual case that the hon. Lady has raised this morning unless we table an amendment to insert the formula ''political parties, except for'' the one that she has a problem with. That would be making the Bill a little too specific.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I should not want to take exception to the activities of one party more than another; the case was a specific one. The Minister's comments about how the court might deal with the matter are helpful. If he can provide any further clarification on Report we should welcome that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 75, in page 21, line 10, leave out 'and'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 76, in page 21, line 11, at end insert

'; and

(c) post a notice on its proposal on the internet.'.

No. 79, in page 21, line 27, leave out 'and'.

No. 80, in page 21, line 28, after 'land', insert '; and

(c) post a notice of its decision on the internet for the duration of the order.'

No. 82, in page 21, line 41, after 'land', insert '; and

(c) post a notice of any revocation on the internet.'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

These amendments are much more simple. There is a typo in amendment No. 76; the first instance of the word ''on'' should be ''of''.

We are interested in how people are to get the information that they need about what information they can hand out and where it is legitimate to do so. A lot of young people get involved in handing out literature, sometimes for their own projects and sometimes because they are paid to do it. It is a first port of call for them. Sometimes they get together as a group—they may be students—and book a club and promote their own night.

They tend to know what goes on by consulting the internet, although they are less likely to read the local paper. They might be helping to distribute fliers at a club, by standing outside one that plays the same sort of music that they will play at their event. They need to be able—particularly if that is happening not in their council area but in the next borough or town—to understand what is legitimate there and what is not. By far the easiest way for them to find the correct information and avoid falling foul of the Bill would be to consult the council's website.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I take the point that as technology develops there are other ways of communicating information that are distinct from the traditional requirements. However, I would suggest that the matter is one of best practice. There is a requirement to be met, so it would be minimum practice for information to be provided on the local authority's own website. Otherwise, it is difficult to know exactly where such information should be put, in order to ensure that it is there for those looking for it. There are other ways of communicating, such as press notices, local radio, voluntary organisations and so on, all of which may be appropriate in various circumstances.

We ought to maintain a light touch, ensure a sensible minimum requirement and encourage local authorities through best practice increasingly to use other channels of communication, as people begin to use them more and more. Of course, many people still do not use electronic means of communication—I cannot think that there are any in this Room, Mr. Forth, but you never know. Posting a notice on the internet would be a perfectly reasonable supplement to the minimum requirement, but not something that we would need to include in the Bill, so I would ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

We are just concerned that often young people do not read newspapers and that newspapers themselves are sometimes extremely parochial. I take the Minister's point that the matter is down to best practice and I hope that local authorities will take note of the advice that he has provided. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 77, in page 21, line 15, leave out '28' and insert '42'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 78, in page 21, line 19, leave out '14' and insert '28'.

No. 83, in page 22, line 5, after 'paragraph', insert

'must be given in writing by an authorised officer of the authority and'.

No. 84, in page 22, line 11, after 'distribution', insert ';

(e) by requirement to clear any litter resulting from the material distributed'.

No. 85, in page 22, leave out lines 16 to 20.

No. 86, in page 23, line 43, after 'may', insert ', after 28 days,'.

No. 87, in page 24, line 6, after 'person', insert

', or any such person under whose employ that person was distributing printed matter,'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Again, the amendments are clarifying amendments. Amendments Nos. 77 and 78 concern the time scale. The main problem is the 14 days for objecting to a proposed order. In my area there is a weekly newspaper, but someone might be away when it comes out and might not read the small print at the back when they return and catch up with the news, as they are getting on with their lives again. Such things take a while and people have to ensure that they have seen the notice. That is why we want to extend the period, to ensure that everyone has a chance to see the notice. Once the proposal is discovered, the further extension to 42 days proposed by amendment No. 77 will give people a chance to formulate and submit any objections, which is a matter of practical expediency.

Amendment No. 83 proposes that someone who is given consent to distribute printed matter in a designated area may be required to provide written evidence of that consent. Although paragraph 3(6) of proposed schedule 3A to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that an authority can impose a requirement to provide written evidence of consent on demand, the best way to avoid any misunderstanding is to ensure that the authority provides written consent in all cases.

Amendment No. 84 concerns clearing litter resulting from material distributed. Given that the powers are designed to tackle litter caused by printed matter, our proposal is to give councils important additional powers over the limitations that they could place on the consent to distribute matter in a controlled area. Councils may wish to have that freedom, which amendment No. 84 would give them.

Amendment No. 85 is a probing amendment. It appears that councils are to be allowed full discretion on granting consents anyway, so why is paragraph 3(4) of proposed schedule 3A to the 1990 Act necessary? We would like the Minister to explain what sort of people are being targeted. Is the intention to stop people who are doing direct marketing for profit from gaining consent? That might be reasonable, but we return to the issue of young people promoting concerts, clubs, exhibitions and other events for all sorts of purposes, perhaps as part of a college or school project. The requirements on such young people are difficult—one strike and they are out, in trouble for ever more because they made a mistake when they were not up to speed. We would like young people to learn the lesson and understand what the law is, but we think that the Bill as drafted is a little heavy-handed.

Amendment No. 86 again concerns the problem of the time scale and allows a reasonable period for a person whose name and address is not known to contact the authorities to claim the printed matter before it is destroyed.

With amendment No. 87, we are thinking about vulnerable people, often young, who are employed to hand out flyers. Those who work for direct marketing companies generally do so only for the money. The job is not one that people do because they see a career in handing out flyers. Basically, they want some pocket money. We are concerned that such people might not know that they could receive a fixed penalty. Somebody might give them a job handing out flyers about a massive golf sale around the corner and then find it easy to take advantage of them, avoiding liability themselves.

We should also bear in mind that such employers might not be local. They might move from town to town running golf sales, Persian carpet sales or other ad hoc events. Such people can disappear and leave whomsoever they had hired for a minimum wage to be fined and face the music. We are therefore concerned that the provisions might be a little heavy-handed on people who are basically innocent.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I do not want to be unkind to the hon. Lady, but with regard to amendments Nos. 77 and 78 the slogan that springs to mind is ''Liberals do things slower''.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

If at all.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I see that I have agreement in some parts of the Room at least.

The problems that we are concerned about can build up in a fairly short period. To extend the period from 28 days to 42 days as a minimum time between giving notice and the coming into force of the designation order seems entirely out of proportion. It should be borne in mind that the local authority has the capacity to revoke such an order at any time. Indeed, it quite often happens that an order is put in place but people then have second thoughts. However, the proposals would prevent a local authority from acting reasonably swiftly on the powers in the Bill. I will resist the amendment, because the proposed increases in the notification objection time would hamper the ability of local authorities to control free literature distribution in an area that was already suffering from serious blight.

Amendment No. 83 is unnecessary because, taking all the relevant provisions into account, it is clear that the notification must be in writing. I also have problems with the term ''authorised officer'', because I think that it assumes that amendments Nos. 88 and 89 have been accepted.

Amendment No. 84 would allow consent to be accompanied by a requirement to clear any litter resulting from the material distributed. That amendment is not necessary either, because paragraph 3(5) of proposed schedule 3A to the 1990 Act would give the local authority the power to impose such conditions as it considers ''necessary or desirable'' to protect the designated land from defacement. That could include a requirement to clear litter produced as a result of distribution. There is no disagreement with what the hon. Member for Guildford is trying to achieve, but it is already covered in the Bill.

Amendment No. 85 would remove the ability of a local authority to refuse consent if a person had been convicted of an offence or had been issued with a fixed penalty notice for distributing free literature. If that amendment were accepted, it would remove from the Bill the ability of local authorities to refuse consent to those with a history of abusing those provisions. I cannot agree to that. Local authorities are not required to refuse consent, but they should have the right not to give it to individuals who have distributed free literature illegally in the past, thereby completely disregarding the requirements on them in law.

Amendment No. 86 would make changes to the procedure for returning printed matter that has been seized from a person who has committed a free literature offence. When the name and address of a person is not known, proposed schedule 3A allows the printed matter to be disposed of or destroyed by the authority, but amendment No. 86 prevents it from doing so until 28 days have passed, which means additional storage if there is a problem. The amendment is unnecessary because the requirement to return the printed material under section 6(4) and the ability to dispose of, or destroy it, under section 6(5) take effect only at the conclusion of proceedings for the offence or at the end of the period in which proceedings for the offence may be instituted. That acts as a safeguard against the material being disposed of or destroyed before the person from whom it was seized has had the chance to apply for its return.

Amendment No. 87 would change the description of a person on whom a fixed penalty notice can be served for a free literature offence so as to preclude the employer of the person from distributing the material. The hon. Member for Guildford is right about the need to be proportionate; we are resisting the amendment because the purpose of fixed penalty notices is to allow immediate enforcement action against a person who distributes free literature. Anyone who causes another person to distribute free literature, such as an employer, also commits an offence under proposed new paragraph 1(2). However, someone undertaking such activity should not be offered the alternative of paying a fixed penalty; they should be prosecuted. The proportionate response is to prosecute under that provision.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I will not go through the answers point by point, as time is short. I understand the Minister's point on amendment No. 85. The clause states:

''Consent need not be given to any applicant''.

Is the Minister is saying that these things will be proportionate and will not encourage councils to say that someone who has done something once, for pocket money, will not be able to earn pocket money occasionally again because they were in the wrong before? Does the Minister expect councils to be sensible and proportionate?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I assure the hon. Lady that that is what I am suggesting. It is difficult to write proportionality into primary legislation, but I want to ensure that local authorities have the power to deal with a repeat offender. The amendment would remove that capacity.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

In that case, as the Minister has clarified the position, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I want to press the Minister for clarification on clause 23, which makes it an offence to distribute, commission or pay for the distribution of free printed material in an area designated by a local authority without consent. It has been put to us that the existing powers available to Westminster City council under section 4 of the London Local Authorities Act 1994 have proved insufficient. It seeks the Minister's agreement to recommend that they be developed further to make them effective and to enable their successful extension beyond London. The council believes that the free literature distribution controls have proved to be ineffective, because operators can continue to distribute free literature from private forecourts, many of which are contiguous with and largely indistinguishable from the public footway. Does the Minister know about that problem, and will he look kindly on that suggestion for dealing with it?

I also run past the Minister the conclusion that he reached on page 39 in his Department's regulatory impact assessment, which sets out the quantification of costs and benefits. It states that

''the total set-up cost to local authorities would be between £450,000 and £750,000; and taking account of the costs of enforcement and the cleaning costs saved, on an annual basis there would be somewhere between a net cost of £37,500 and a net cost saving of £525,000.''

It concludes:

''This illustrates that it is not certain whether there would be a net financial cost or benefit to this measure. However, it is important to note that this is a power that Local Authorities would choose whether or not to use. They would only do so where there is an overall net benefit to using it and this is likely to be in key areas where free literature litter is a particular problem and it is a priority of the authority to deal with it.''

That is quite a negative conclusion to draw, and points to the fact that the Bill is very unlikely to meet its major objectives. Will the Minister satisfy us on those two points?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

We certainly drew on the experience in London when designing the legislation, and discussed it with local authorities that applied the London provisions, as well as with other local authorities that strongly supported the provision of these powers more widely across England and Wales, so they are not precisely the same as the requirements set down in the local government legislation that gave the powers to London.

I am always open to considering suggestions, but the problem of forecourts to which the hon. Lady referred has not been drawn especially to my attention. Perhaps she can give me further and better particulars.

In general, the approach is not at all negative, but extremely positive. It is to extend the powers and the range of options available to local authorities with the message, ''If this helps you, use it, but do not feel that you have to if it does not suit your local circumstances.'' Local authorities have generally been very supportive of the greater flexibility and simplification of various parts of the Bill, which enable them to do what they have been doing up to now but with fewer bureaucratic obstructions, at less cost and with greater ability to nip things in the bud. That, of course, is what we want to achieve.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 - Extension of graffiti removal notices to fly-posting

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I beg to move amendment No. 56, in clause 31, page 28, line 20, leave out

'which is affixed without authorisation to any surface,'

and insert 'affixed to any surface—

(a) without the consent of the surface owner; and

(b) without deemed or express consent under Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 (as amended) or which is an advertisement to which Part II and III of the Regulations do not apply under Regulations 3(2).'.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 60, in clause 31, page 28, line 20, leave out from 'affixed' to end of line 21 and insert

'to any surface without authorisation of the owner of that surface.'.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I see why the Government have provided a definition of fly-posting, but it is ambiguous. The clause states that a fly poster is an advertisement,

''announcement or direction which is affixed without authorisation to any surface,''.

To whose authorisation does the clause refer? Surely it would be inappropriate for a council to have to authorise the use of notices on, for example, BT's telegraph poles to inform residents of local work to be undertaken in their street. The Bill builds on parts of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and town and country planning regulations, and the amendment seeks to expand the definition of fly-posting to include advertisements allowed by that Act but which do not require authorisation.

Without the amendment, the risk is that all advertisements, announcements and directions that have not been authorised by the council could be deemed to be fly-posting. If that were widely interpreted, it could include paid advertising in telephone kiosks. In BT's view, kiosk advertising contributes to the long-term viability of the public pay phone network. The Minister will be aware that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is consulting on the long-term future of certain pay phones across the country, and particularly in rural areas such as the Vale of York. Therefore, it is important to me how such pay phones, which provide important local benefits, will be paid for.

The Minister will probably wish to confirm that his definition endeavours to catch fly-posting advertisements that were not allowed by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 or the 1992 regulations, rather than advertisements not authorised by a council. BT's view is that our amendment clarifies the definition of fly-posting to include advertisements which are allowed by the 1990 Act but which do not require authorisation. Without explicit reference to the 1990 Act and the regulations, the concern is that legitimate advertisements on BT pay phones that currently do not require authorisation by the council could be considered fly-posting. BT's pay phones business is declining, and one of the revenue streams to ensure long-term viability of the network in the countryside is advertising on kiosks.

The Minister will have seen the representation from ENCAMS, his Department's charitable body. It believes that a better fly-posting definition would be that used in its own annual local environmental quality survey—it is not totally impartial about that. The definition is as follows:

''any printed material and associated remains informally or illegally fixed to any structure. It excludes formally managed and approved advertising hoardings and valid, legally placed signs and notices. It includes any size of material from small stickers up to large posters—often advertising popular music recordings, concerts and other events.''

In view of representations from ENCAMS, why did the Minister prefer his own definition?

Westminster city council raised the problem of over-posting. It is particularly pertinent in the present context.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I would like to finish my point first.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

What I want to say is pertinent.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The hon. Gentleman will have to contain himself for a moment, if he can.

Over-posting is a particular problem in London, and it is a pertinent subject in the current context. Where there is a delay in removing posters, a second fly-poster is often put up over the first one, which creates a vicious circle; there is then a delay in removing both the first and the second posters.

Westminster city council's view is that subsection (3) does not address that. It is one of the 12 pilot authorities, and it has used the new power under the graffiti removal notices in sections 48 to 52 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. It considers that the additional means for the removal of fly-posting would be well used, but the process required for the pilot scheme is overlong and requires revision if it is to be effective.. Therefore, it requests that consideration be given to allowing the more rapid process that the city council is able to use by applying its local public service agreement stretch target. That relates particularly to the problem of over-posting.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We have also tabled an amendment in this group, but before I talk about it, I should point out that what the hon. Lady has just spoken about is covered by amendment No. 61 to clause 34. The issue was raised with me by Westminster city council, and I am sure that the appropriate time to deal with the specific point of over-posting is when discussing clause 34.

Returning to clause 31, there is a potential difficulty with the definition of fly-posting, because it hinges on the words ''without authorisation''. We seek clarification from the Minister that ''without authorisation'' does not cover circumstances in which something has been put up with deemed, but not actual, planning consent. As the hon. Lady explained, there are a number of circumstances in which advertising—in some cases, hoardings—has deemed rather than absolute consent.

The Minister could go further. Another set of circumstances, which I do not think he intends to be covered by the legislation, in which something might be deemed to have been put up without authorisation is the use of political posters on stakeboards during elections. In many parts of the country, such as in Birmingham, councils have set up byelaws dictating when posters can go up and when they should be taken down. However, many parts of the country, particularly rural areas, do not have any local laws governing the issue, in which case, putting up a stakeboard during an election period is technically a planning offence.

Councils do not prosecute political parties because in order to prosecute, they have to give 28 days for the offence to be remedied. As an election period generally lasts for 28 days or less and political parties are good at taking posters down, councils know that it is pointless writing a letter telling them to take the posters down because they will come down at the end of the election. However, such posters clearly do not have authorisation because they are technically a planning offence.

I am sure that the Minister does not intend that local planning authorities can issue fixed penalty notices every time a stakeboard goes up. Given that about 3,500 are used in my constituency during a typical general election, that could be a large revenue raiser for local councils. It would not just be the Liberal Democrats paying the bill, but to a large extent the Conservative party and to a smaller extent the Labour party. I hope that he will clarify that the intention is not to issue fixed penalties to political parties using stakeboards where there are no local byelaws covering their use.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I also seek some clarification on one or two matters relating to the amendments, but I am almost compelled to say that the prospect of 3,500 fixed penalty notices being issued to the hon. Gentleman is good reason for retaining the provision and perhaps directing it towards that political party and not the party of truth and righteousness—the Conservative party.

A lot of fly-posting is done on a commercial basis. In my constituency, as in a number of rural areas, car boot sales on a Sunday are usually advertised on the Saturday night. Somebody goes around in a vehicle putting posters on lamp posts without any authorisation, and after the sale the posters generally, but not always, come down. I assume that that will be covered by the clause.

I also have a problem with the word ''affixed''. Some advertisements may be freestanding on the side of a highway and not actually fixed to a hedge or anything else. I would welcome clarification on what ''affixed'' means in this context.

Every Committee member will know about the increasingly prevalent use of advertisements on vehicles on farmland adjacent to motorways. I assume that that is not dealt with as fly-posting. Vehicles are used because they are mobile and can, in theory, be moved around, although in reality they never are. Has the Minister considered that? I can see the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment nodding, which shows that everybody knows that this is a specific problem—and if it is not addressed at some stage it will, perhaps, get worse or will become regularised.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Do I take it from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would condemn any political party that used such mobile posters, months in advance of any election?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am not going to get dragged down that path, because it sounds like a huge trap.

The problem is that such advertising is currently within the law, which is why people do it. They are not putting up big billboards on farmland, per se. They have looked at the law carefully, somebody has said, ''Look at this loophole. Why don't you just shove it on to an old trailer or tractor?''—and that is what they are doing. Although the clause will not deal with that, I assume that at some stage somebody somewhere will look at it to ensure that it does not get out of hand completely.

Talking about fly-posting, now and again when we drive around, we see banners saying, ''Happy birthday Rosie, 60 today'', and so on. Would that be covered by the Bill? It is not commercial, does not promote anything and is nothing other than somebody wishing to embarrass a close relative by saying how old they are. Mostly, such banners are taken down after a short period, too. Perhaps that will be covered under the provision on the number of days, although the ownership of the banner would be difficult to work out.

To return to the point on political banners made by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), it is true that in some local authorities during by-elections they are on lamp-posts all the time. There are byelaws that cover all sorts of things like that—in my local authority area there are not—and people are not allowed to put such posters up, because they would be fly-posting if they did so.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am not referring to posters on lamp-posts, because they might be on property on which it is illegal to post and is, perhaps, owned by the council. I am talking about posters attached to a stake in a hedge, which are used extensively in rural areas and are technically planning offences, but people get round that because of the 28-day rule.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clarification on that point. A poster on a lamp-post would be covered by the legislation, but posters in hedges is another matter. We use a lot of farmland in my constituency to get posters up along major highways. Political parties are, in the main, responsible about putting posters up and taking them down, which is the most ghastly job of all and the most depressing thing after a general election, because everybody is shattered. Perhaps we will get some clarification on such posters.

When the word ''affixed'' is used in clause 31, it is

''without authorisation to any surface.''

I have already declared my interest. I own a piece of land, so I assume that I would be able to put up anything without any problems whatever, but if anyone else wanted to put something on the land in front of my shop it would be up to me to decide whether to give permission. Is that covered by the clause? There is a problem with furniture on the highways, where owners of shops or businesses want to put advertisements for a cafe, or whatever they sell, on pavements owned by the local authorities, or land owned by themselves. Some local authorities enforce measures rigidly, and with good cause, because in some cases it is to do with disabled people, those with prams and blind people getting proper access through to the highway. Will the Minister clarify whether billboards advertising particular items or services on private land adjacent to a public pavement are covered by the clause?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

We have ranged wide on a clause that is a good deal narrower than some of the issues that have been raised. It is entirely right for members of the Committee to ask whether such issues are covered under the clause, although it is more specific than the items to which hon. Members have referred. It defines fly-posting for the purposes of defacement removal notices and is linked to the relevant services defined under the 2003 Act. The way in which the explanatory notes outline the impact of the clause might be a little simple.

As the hon. Gentleman realised, vehicles on farm land stimulated a little resonance around the Room as an issue that is coming up the agenda. However, it cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as fly-posting. Environmental matters are one set of arrangements, whether fly-posting is a distraction to the highway is another and a transport issue, and permissions under the planning regulations raise yet another set of issues. I am not sure that the matter is simple to deal with, although it is easy to identify and attracts a certain measure of agreement.

Political processes have authorisation under schedule 2, class F of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992, a copy of which I carry everywhere with me and which I have in my hand at the moment. The difference in electoral material is clearly and specifically covered, not least because of the limited time to which hon. Members have referred. Advertising at election time is part of the price of democracy. Some of us have come across complications in the way in which that is regulated. Events during the Vale of Glamorgan by-election in 1989 spring to mind, as do matters with which my hon. Friend the Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) will be familiar.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

In many cases, political parties find that they do not have to take down their posters because someone else has already done it for them.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

Yes, but the trouble is that it is not always done efficiently on the day or two before the end of the election, but earlier in the campaign.

As for the definition from ENCAMS to which the hon. Member for Vale of York referred, it is more of a description that is used for a statistical survey. It does not work as a legal definition, although it says what is within a definition to be able to measure the improvement or the duration of circumstances over time.

Several important points have been made about definitions. Again, we know what we intend to stop: fly-posting. We know what it looks like, but when we come to the definition, authorisation seems to be the best way in which to deal with it as it links the issue to compliance with regulations under the 1990 Act. It is clear that what we have drafted is not as explicit as that, so it caused some of the queries that have been raised during our short debate. I undertake to look further at such matters. We have already started examining them to identify whether anything needs to be defined more clearly. I will inform members of the Committee of the outcome of those deliberations and, if necessary, I will bring forward an amendment on Report.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Will the Minister say whether we will have sight of that amendment before Report?

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

I have not yet said that there will be an amendment on Report; I said that I will inform the Committee when we reach conclusions. If that is well in advance of Report, I will share my intentions with the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Obviously, ENCAMS feels wedded to its definition. The only point to which the Minister did not respond was the representations from BT about fly-posting on its poles and in kiosks.

Alun Michael (Labour/Co-operative, Cardiff South and Penarth)

That is because that fits with the issue of authorisation. I hope that that helps.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Indeed. I am grateful for this little discussion; the Minister is now apprised of my concerns. I am delighted that he may be minded to bring forward an amendment. The mention of over-posting, and the decision to extend graffiti removal notices under the clause, shows recognition of what is happening. Given our thoughtful discussion, and the Minister's semi-commitment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 31 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 32 - Sale of aerosol paint to children

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is an opportunity for a small discussion. We welcome the provision enforcing the ban on the sale of aerosol paints to children under 18. I am sure that the Minister would wish to pay tribute to the many railway companies and others that have made massive investment, particularly on railway properties, in non-graffiti-stick materials. They are coming up with carriages and stations where graffiti paint will not take effect.

At present, local authorities rely on section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 to make advisory visits to retailers to seek assurances that spray paints are not being, and will not be, sold to children. Will the Minister confirm that, under clause 32, there will be a more positive and rigorous control to make sure that the sale of aerosol paints to children under 18 is indeed prohibited? Will the enforcing officer of a local weights and measures authority be different depending on whether we are talking about a unitary authority or a county or district authority?

I understand that it is difficult to give a precise figure for the percentage of graffiti committed by under-16s, but it is believed that they account for well over 60 per cent. of all graffiti, so the provision is potentially extremely important.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.