Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Public Bill Committee, 25 January 2005.

Standing Committee G

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 40 - Defence of acting under employer's instructions

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Taylor, in a capacity that I am not used to filling. For the benefit of today's proceedings, I am a talking Whip. I am trying to fill the shoes—some would say that it is an almost impossible job—of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), who is unavoidably detained on business elsewhere. Hon. Members may wonder how anything could be more pressing than part 5 of this Bill, and I cannot fathom why she should not want to be here.

The clause needs briefly to be put in context, so I hope that you will not rule me out of order, Mr. Taylor. It covers the defence of acting under employer's instructions, but it is in line with the other clauses of this part of the Bill, which tighten up the penalties for illegal disposal of waste and fly-tipping. Much fly-tipping is prompted by the desire to avoid existing penalties and sanctions. Many unscrupulous people think that the controls and charges associated with the disposal of waste are worth avoiding. They want to avoid paying a fee for collection by a local authority, having to have a waste licence or having to pay landfill tax. Although fly-tipping is a criminal offence, some people are not yet deterred by the penalties attached to it, which can be a fine of up to £20,000 or six months' imprisonment if convicted in a magistrates court, and an unlimited fine or up to two years in prison if convicted in a Crown court.

We all understand why, at United Kingdom and European level, there is a demand for the tightening up of penalties and the drawing of offences. However, before discussing the meat of clause 40, which provides an almost instantaneous and considerable change, we have to be mindful that tightening up the offences and the penalties associated with new offences may make it more attractive for potential transgressors to try to avoid the law. The higher the penalty, the more attractive it may become economically to try to get around the law.

What consideration has the Minister given to the possible intimidation of employees by their employers when asked to carry out unlawful activities? The clause, in effect, repeals section 33(7)(b) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Why is there a need to repeal it now? What was the reasoning for that defence for employees? What has changed in the intervening years that means that employees should get less protection? We need to have a better understanding of the position of employees under the clause.

In short, does the Minister agree that it would be unfortunate if employees were unfairly prosecuted if it could be shown that they were under undue pressure and forced to carry out such duties against their will? Are there any other legal dispensations that would give an employee who is being coerced or threatened protection against his employer, because the clause appears to render any necessary protection nugatory? There will be no statutory protection. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on those focused points.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

May I start by saying how good it is to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr. Taylor? I always enjoy serving on Committees under your stewardship. May I also welcome the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) on his guest appearance?

Clause 40 amends section 33 of the 1990 Act under which it is an offence to dispose of waste illegally. The amendment, as the hon. Gentleman rightly states, removes the defence of acting under one's employer's instructions. The hon. Gentleman said that an employee of a company may be threatened and intimidated. That is quite possible. I am sure that was the reasoning for the original provision in the 1990 Act. The problem, as hon. Members may know, is that that is used as an enormous loophole. An employee can use that defence when he has been apprehended for illegal activities. He can argue that he was simply following orders, and we all know the connotations of that. It is too great a loophole.

The court can take a genuine case of intimidation and bullying into account as a mitigating factor. It does not detract from the fact that it is an illegal activity. Someone has carried out an illegal activity, whether or not they were being intimidated or bullied. Those individuals should bear some responsibility, but the intimidation is a factor that could be taken into account by the court and that could influence the level of fine or other punishment. It is important that we do not allow this loophole to remain. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that the courts can take this into consideration. He made some valid points, but it is important to close the potential loophole.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I understand fully the Minister's argument. If a person could use the excuse that they were operating under orders and got off because of that, and no one was therefore considered to be culpable, clearly that would be useless. We want to see an end to any unlawful depositing of waste.

What guidance will be issued to employees about what rights they have? If they were to say to an employer that they would not do what they were asked, they could risk losing their jobs and their livelihoods.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. Interventions should be brief.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Anyone who is involved in the waste business and waste transfer should have a licence, and there is a duty of care that goes with that. Part of that duty of care is the responsibility of the employer to make their employees aware of the law. Each case is different, and if there are mitigating circumstances in relation to the actions of an employee, the courts can take that into account. However, even for well-meaning reasons, we must not allow a potential loophole in the legislation that the unscrupulous can exploit. Sadly, the 1990 legislation has been exploited, which is why it is important that we close that loophole.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I thank the Minister for his response. His point about mitigation relates to sentencing not to liability. If the offence has been committed the employee, even if he or she has been bullied into it, gets the criminal record. The intimidation or bullying is beside the point.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does my hon. Friend agree with me that if an employee has been threatened and feels that his job and livelihood are at stake, that employee should not be in the dock? We want the unscrupulous employer in the dock for harassing their employee to tip waste.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I agree with my hon. Friend. That is an example of the compassionate Conservatism that we on this side of the Committee now exhibit—[Interruption.] The Minister pays us compliments—at least, I think that they are compliments—from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend and I take seriously the point that unscrupulous employers—unscrupulous and ruthless business men—do a disservice to capitalism. We believe in capitalism and free markets, but we should, without fear or favour, condemn unscrupulous business practice where it occurs.

I return to the point that the Minister raised about mitigation. Mitigation is considered when sentencing takes place; it is not on the merits of the criminal case that is brought against the accused. The Minister talks about there being a huge loophole. What is the percentage of occasions on which an action has been brought under current legislation, and on which that defence was prayed in aid by an individual or company? If we have that statistic, we can better estimate the size of the loophole and, if we know the hugeness of the loophole—to use the Minister's phrase—we will better understand the need for the clause. I hope that the Minister can furnish me with that information.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Some of the figures may be difficult to extract. However, I shall respond to the other general points that the hon. Gentleman made. Prosecutions can be taken against the employee and the employer, depending on the circumstances. I would not want him to think that an unscrupulous employer who intimidated an employee into taking part in a criminal action relating to fly-tipping would get away with it, because both can be prosecuted under the law. However, it is not a defence for most offences committed in the course of someone's work that they were under instructions.

I am not unsympathetic to the points made about bullying and intimidation, because that does go on, and what the hon. Gentleman says about mitigation in relation to sentencing is of course true, but the person has committed a criminal offence. It may be easy for those of us who do not know the circumstances or the pressure that people are under to say that, but they should not commit a criminal offence, because of course that makes them liable too. They should report what is happening; there is action that they can take. The hon. Gentleman talked about the unacceptable face of capitalism. I gently remind him that we have of course been advocates of trade unions, whose aim is precisely to protect the interests of people who are put in those circumstances and to give them a defence. There is provision for such people, and steps that they can take.

There is a big loophole. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman detailed information as to the exact number of cases, and it may be very difficult to acquire that information, but I know from discussions with the Environment Agency and local authorities that they have been frustrated by people who have tried to use the defence that they were under instructions. That is why the measure is supported by the Local Government Association and the Environment Agency; because they can see that it will make the legislation more effective.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

As I have already intimated to the Minister, I can see that the current law is fairly ineffective. I imagine that, if we left the law as it is, every time someone was caught putting waste somewhere where they should not, they would plead that they were operating under orders and there was nothing that they could do, and therefore no one would ever be convicted of the offence. I therefore understand why the Minister is advancing the clause, and I am fairly sympathetic towards it. However, we shall discuss sentencing later, and there are hefty fines in relation to clause 40. Indeed, the end result could be a jail sentence. The clause could lead to someone getting a custodial sentence. That is why we must get the provision right.

I hope that the Minister will give us some assurances. I heard what he said about the licences under which people operate and the fact that there is a duty on the employer to ensure that everyone knows exactly the law under which they operate and the things that they ought not to do. The Minister is one of the more commonsensical Ministers in the Government—a rare breed—and knows the reality of the world in which certain businesses operate. Indeed, we are all realistic enough to know that there are unscrupulous employers and some businesses will say that they are under pressure to turn a profit. Given that the costs of disposing of waste legally are quite high, there may be temptations for unscrupulous employers and businesses working on the margins to dump waste where they ought not to do so. Clearly, however, that should not be allowed.

I therefore hope that the Minister will give us an assurance this morning that, despite the fact that there the employer has a duty of care, sufficient publicity campaigns will be provided. For instance, if an employer had to employ somebody, they would have to have a certificate on the wall to show what they were doing. Health and safety require posters to be displayed in relation to certain practices that have to be followed in a business. I hope that the Minister will assure us that there will be a requirement for publicity campaigns for businesses that deal with any waste, so that employers and employees know where they stand under this clause and clause 41. They must know what breaking the law will entail, what the conviction rate is likely to be, what likelihood there is of imprisonment and what fines will be imposed.

I feel for employees who are put in an almost impossible position because they come under pressure from unscrupulous employers. They risk losing their jobs, or never getting overtime because extra work goes to people who are prepared to dump waste. When employees who know what is going on decide to become whistleblowers—when they blow the gaff, which is what we want to encourage—they should know that they will have some protection, and not end up in the dock themselves. If the employer then decides to give information that the employee—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying wide of the clause.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Thank you, Mr. Taylor. I will end now. I am looking for an assurance that when clause 40 becomes law there will be protection, that there will be sufficient publicity, and that guidance will be given to employees about what they should do if they are told to do something that contravenes the clause.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we regularly meet trade associations for the waste companies; they take a very responsible position on these issues. The hazardous waste forum includes the Federation of Small Businesses and many small and medium-sized enterprises. It is true that some companies may not be part of a trade association, but the Environment Agency has programmes for ensuring that people are well aware of the law. I will talk to the hon. Gentleman about ensuring that people are aware of the changes that we are discussing today.

Whistleblowing is not within the remit of the Bill, but measures are being taken to protect the rights of whistleblowers.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 41 - penalties on conviction

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

This is an important clause, creating increased penalties on conviction for the unlawful disposal of waste. The clause proposes to increase the maximum fine on summary conviction from £20,000 to £50,000, and to increase the maximum term for imprisonment on conviction for the unlawful disposal of non-hazardous waste to five years.

The Opposition welcome action in the clause to curb the unlawful disposal of waste, as do all those who suffer the ill effects of this ghastly, antisocial and often dangerous practice. We hope that the new penalties in the clause will be a deterrent. However, we are worried that the penalties will be unenforceable because the courts will think that the penalties are a tad too draconian and will not be so willing to convict or to impose the maximum sentences.

The need for what, on the face of it, seem draconian penalties is understandable. I understand that Ministers have taken that route because this illegal practice is on the increase. It is regrettable that there is no fine-grained, detailed national data on the scale of fly-tipping, but I believe that the Government have acknowledged that there is evidence that it has increased in recent years. To understand the need for the serious increase in the penalties, we need to understand that it is a policy response to a burgeoning problem.

The scale of the problem can be gleaned from Environment Agency prosecutions and anecdotal evidence at local authority level.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does my hon. Friend believe that it would be helpful for the Minister to tell us exactly what advice he has been given by the courts, the police or the Environment Agency in setting the fines as high as they are? I am not saying that the fines are not appropriate, but I want to know what advice was received.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

My hon. Friend anticipates my point. Like him, I do not necessarily oppose the level of the fines. We need to test the proposition and understand what advice was received and from whom it came that led the Minister and his ministerial colleagues to set the penalties at these high levels. My hon. Friend's question is very much the point, and I will reiterate that before I sit down.

The Environment Agency collects information on prosecutions that it has handled, and it has noted a 19 per cent. increase in levels of prosecution in England and Wales between 2001 and 2002. In the calendar year 2002, there were 252 prosecutions for fly-tipping, resulting in total fines of approximately £228,000. From January to October 2003, there were 210 prosecutions, totalling fines of £225,000. Prior to that, the number of successful prosecutions relating to a variety of waste offences rose significantly from 141 in 1999, to 225 in 2001—a 60 per cent. increase. The trends that the Environment Agency is recording show that the problem is on the rise.

Many local authorities are also noticing and recording more incidents of fly-tipping. In 2002, the London borough of Lewisham counted 13,600 incidents, which cost more than £500,000 to clean up. That figure was 50 per cent. higher than in 2001, which in turn was 50 per cent. up on the year before that. That is an example of an inner-city area in which fly-tipping is one of many challenges and problems, but this antisocial and illegal practice also takes place in rural areas such as my constituency.

When I first became the Member of Parliament for Bury St. Edmunds in 1997—by the skin of my teeth, in that dreadful year for the Conservative party—one of the first things I noticed was how clean and tidy it was and that there were virtually no instances of fly-tipping in any parts of the town. Over the past year or so, in Eastgate street—an attractive part of an attractive town centre—there have been cases of fly-tipping, with prams and all sorts of rubbish left lying around what was formally waste ground and public land. From anecdotal evidence, it seems that more examples of fly-tipping are occurring in councils up and down the land—not just the Lewishams but places such as the beautiful, pastoral idyll that is Bury St. Edmunds town centre.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley made a point about the higher level of fines and the higher maximum term of imprisonment. It is important to know whom the Minister has consulted in setting these fines. Why have they risen from £20,000 to £50,000 rather than to £30,000 or £40,000? Why has the maximum term of imprisonment been increased? Has he spoken to prosecuting authorities or any of those responsible for the exercise of the judicial process, rather than simply the Environment Agency?

Are magistrates using the existing legislation and the fines and maximum sentences to the full? It does not make much sense to pass stricter penalties if the existing penalties are not being used in all their force and majesty by magistrates or higher courts. Any statistics that the Minister has on the existing regime and how it is being utilised would help us to understand how effective the clause might be.

Does the Department have an automatic procedure for reviewing the utilisation of new criminal penalties? Could it carry out a review after a year to see whether the new penalties were being utilised by the courts? Many laws are little used. For example, there are powers to impose orders on parents with unruly children: the law is there, yet the magistrates courts simply do not use it. Unless the Department reviews how the new regime is working, the law will be seen to be an ass. The powers will be there, but they will not be utilised. A bad set of new penalties will be passed in the clause. None of us want to see that happen. We are all in the business of passing good law. I hope that the Minister will answer my three questions on the important point of increased penalties.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I welcome you back to our Committee, Mr. Taylor. It is always interesting having two Chairmen. I am grateful to both of you for ensuring that we proceed at a reasonable pace.

My main concern about the clause is that the penalties must be set at a level that will act as a deterrent. One of the things that emerged clearly from the Environmental Audit Committee report on environmental crime and the courts is that magistrates are reluctant to fine up to the current level. Little account is taken of the profits that accrue from the crime. If we are to have hard penalties that deter people, we must ensure that the courts have guidelines.

One of the worrying things that we found in our investigation was that, because magistrates see these cases so infrequently, they do not get their heads around the fact that people are making real money. Fly-tipping is big business for some of these people. There are repeat offenders. They get up to all sorts of nonsense such as burying waste, tipping waste, causing annoyance to everyone else, simply so that they can make a profit. I want to know that the courts will bear that in mind. We need guidelines on sentencing and training. I hope that the Government will consider whether some magistrates ought to be more specialist in this area. At present they do everything and they are not on top of the problem. Burglary comes up week after week in a magistrates court, but fly-tipping does not. In fact, fly-tipping comes up infrequently. We need magistrates to understand the importance of the matter. We also need to ensure that the fines imposed on companies are substantial enough to have a real economic impact. The bad publicity should also have an impact. At present, we are not dealing properly with the people involved in committing those really wicked crimes, which pollute the environment, taint land and waterways and cause immense environmental problems.

I should like to hear from the Minister what steps the Government will take to ensure that the magistracy makes a much stronger assessment of the harm done, and of the frequency of fly-tipping, particularly by certain businesses or individuals, to ensure that there is a real deterrent. We wanted to see higher sentences in place, because previously there was no deterrent. When we discuss the next clause, I shall return to our concern about conviction. However, at this stage, I say that is no good having the deterrents if the courts are afraid to use them.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Please forgive my lack of etiquette, Mr. Taylor, in not welcoming you to the Chair. That was a lapse of judgment on my part, and I apologise. It is wonderful to have you chairing the Committee.

I support the clause, despite the fact that the penalties are high. However, that reflects the seriousness of the offence that we are discussing. It is rare for me to agree wholeheartedly with everything—or with anything—that a Liberal Democrat says, but on this occasion I will make an exception. Perhaps this is another lapse of judgment.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Withdraw.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Clearly, that will be reported back to the Whips' meeting. Illegal waste disposal is a serious crime. The hon. Lady was absolutely right to talk about the health hazards that it can cause, and about the fact that it is unsightly and can be extremely dangerous. I fear that unless we tackle the problem properly, it will increase. It needs to be tackled through deterrents—through increasing the penalties that people face if they are caught and properly convicted before a court.

We need to do something about the problem, because there is still a lot of open land around our country where tipping could take place. Fly-tipping does not just desecrate rural areas; urban areas also suffer. In urban areas, there are places where people do not go on a regular basis, although young kids might play there. People will come to know that those areas do not have CCTV cameras and that the police never go there, and will use those areas to dispose of waste illegally.

The problem may be on the increase because the costs of waste disposal are also on the increase. That increase in costs reflects, quite rightly, the environmental concerns that we all have about how much waste is produced in the UK these days. We are not just talking about hazardous waste, although I suspect that all waste, particularly unnecessary waste, could be seen to be hazardous in the climate in which we now operate. I hope that we can encourage businesses to cut down on unnecessary waste, although that is not tackled in this Bill.

As the costs are going sky high, the temptation for a number of businesses that work on the margins is to fly-tip instead of paying the costs of disposal, which could be high. They do not wish to incur those costs because every pound that they spend on waste disposal is one pound less profit for the company.

We must send the message loud and clear to those companies that that will not be tolerated, and that if they are caught disposing of waste in an inappropriate fashion they will face severe penalties. The penalties that are mentioned in the clause include a custodial sentence of up to five years, which is appropriate in the worst of circumstances, and fines of £50,000. Later in our consideration of the Bill, we shall deal with clean-up costs and the loss of vehicles. In some circumstances, the fine may be such that it puts the business in jeopardy.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

In this welcome spirit of solidarity, I ask the hon. Gentleman if he agrees that it is much more important to send out a message to those who create waste in the first place that the costs of using a product such as asbestos or undertaking demolition work must include the legal disposal of waste? Members of the public need to understand that they cannot just say, ''I have bought something new and I don't care what happens to the old one.'' It is the lifetime costs that are important.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Again, we are in solidarity not just with the Liberal Democrats but with the entire Committee. I completely agree with the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). There is a cost involved in the disposal of the products and packaging that people buy. There is too much packaging, and it should be more environmentally friendly; we must encourage that.

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the public need to know that they have a duty when they dispose of a product—they cannot just dump it in the local tip. Many local authorities bend over backwards to discourage fly-tipping by helping households to dispose of sofas, televisions and so on. However, the clause refers principally to businesses and how they dispose of the items that they produce. They, too, must recognise that they have a legal duty in that respect. The clause is important because it sends a signal to those companies. The Minister said that there will be negotiations with trade associations, which will be made well aware of the new penalties in the Bill.

The hon. Lady also rightly mentioned repeat offenders. Someone may be caught red-handed disposing of waste illegally, and although it is not the first time that they have done so, it may be the first time that they have been caught. I hope that the guidelines will state that the court should be far more severe with a repeat offender when considering whether to impose a fine of £50,000 or a custodial sentence.

The fines and the custodial sentence specified in the clause are right in certain circumstances. We do not want businesses to think that they can gain a competitive advantage over others by flouting the law. Clause 41 sends an appropriate message to let people know that fly-tipping will not be tolerated, that it is a serious crime that will be dealt with in a serious manner, with a hefty fine or a custodial sentence.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am delighted by the cross-party unity on clause 41. I am just a bit surprised, therefore, that it has taken so long to agree it. The clause amends the penalties available for offences under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It increases the maximum available fine on summary conviction from £20,000 to £50,000, and the maximum term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment for non-hazardous waste offences to five years. That makes the position the same as that on offences involving hazardous waste. There was a disparity between the penalties, but now they are exactly the same.

The point is right that there may be very small quantities of hazardous waste but huge quantities of non-hazardous waste, which can have an enormous environmental impact. The idea of increasing the penalties—£50,000 and five years are quite substantial penalties—is to send a clear message that Parliament believes, as hon. Members have emphasised, that these are serious environmental offences. They are antisocial in relation to domestic waste and domestic fly-tipping, and they are criminal in relation to commercial involvement in fly-tipping.

It is also right that there is a deliberate policy of moving away from landfill and towards treatment of waste. All over the country, respectable waste management companies are investing in sophisticated treatment. An example is on-site soil remediation, which means that hazardous soil does not have to be moved. The recycling of building waste means that it can be turned back into aggregates and reused in building. Those are examples of what we want. Incidentally, the policy also encourages a new sector of companies, which are involved in recycling and the other services that I have described. That is expensive and a big investment for those companies, and they should not be undermined by the criminal activities of people who are simply dumping waste illegally to get the profits from that. It is environmentally damaging and it is commercially damaging to respectable companies, as we are well aware.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds asked what consultation we had undertaken on the level of fines. As part of the general consultation on the Bill, we received representations from the LGA and the Environment Agency, which were keen to see the fines increased. We also had discussions with the Home Office, which of course represents magistrates and the judiciary and which was keen to see levels of fine that would allow magistrates a wide range of options. When the crime is serious, they have the option of quite significant fines and, indeed, custodial sentences. Incidentally, magistrates take note of what Parliament puts in legislation, because it shows how strongly Parliament feels about the offence. We are therefore sending magistrates a clear message on this issue.

Deterrence is also relevant. It is important that we deter people from getting involved in the activities that we are discussing. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds mentioned figures for the increased incidence of fly-tipping, and we do not dispute that there has been an increase. That is why it is all the more important that we have effective measures to tackle fly-tipping. I must sound a note of caution to the hon. Gentleman, however. There has long been a need for better data on what exactly is going on and the incidence of fly-tipping, which is why the Government have funded the Flycatcher database. All fly-tipping incidents are now reported, and we have a national database that gives us a much better idea of what is going on. The idea is that we have a better understanding of the problem and we identify hotspots. Despite the better data, however, it is difficult to make comparisons, so although we do not dispute that there has been an increase, we must be a little cautious about interpreting the figures.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

It is my understanding—I stand to be corrected if the Minister has more recent information—that only 70 per cent. of councils report incidents to Flycatcher and it is not fully implemented across every council. Can he give us more news on that?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Flycatcher is relatively new and does not yet have 100 per cent. involvement. However, it is being rolled out and developed, and we are confident that we will achieve 100 per cent. involvement. In fact, I am pleased to tell the hon. Lady that we have 99 per cent. participation in Flycatcher from local authorities, which is pretty good as it has been and is still expanding.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. May I bring the Minister back to clause 41?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Certainly. I appreciate your guidance, Mr. Taylor. I was responding to the wide-ranging debate that we have had, but you are right that we must return to the clause.

There are two points to bear in mind about how magistrates apply the provisions of the clause. First, we sponsored a very successful conference on environmental law in November, which considered training and ticketing magistrates and possibly having specialist magistrates courts to deal with environmental issues, because concern has been raised that some fines have not reflected the seriousness of the offence. Secondly, the Committee might like to know that we are working with magistrates to ensure that they are more aware of the impact of environmental crime. A guidance pack entitled ''Costing the Earth'' has been issued by the Magistrates Association to assist in dealing with environmental cases, and we welcome that initiative.

I assure the Committee that the clause is very important in establishing the level of fines and punishment.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Before my hon. Friend the Minister concludes, will he make it absolutely clear that serious fines will be a deterrent in urban fringes? He has talked about a database and deterrents through fines, but will he also confirm that the clause is part of a package of measures and that the Environment Agency is putting more resources into this area?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can confirm that this clause is part of a package of measures, because we are not prepared to tolerate environmental crimes, which are serious, damaging, and an issue of quality of life. We need to address the problem through a range of measures including the training of magistrates, raising awareness of impacts, enforcement levels, working in partnership with the Environment Agency, local authorities and the police, using technology to track down and identify offenders, data capture, and the battery of measures in the Bill, which are effective and show that we are not prepared to tolerate such crimes.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43 - Clean-up costs

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 94, in clause 43, page 37, line 35, at end insert 'and its legal disposal'.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 115, in clause 43, page 38, line 20, at end insert—

'(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations such that where an offence has been committed under section 33 of that Act and no order is made to provide compensation for clean up costs incurred following that offence, the landowner shall not be liable for the clean up costs provided that he took reasonable steps to prevent the offence.'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

You were not able to be with us during our previous sitting, Mr. Taylor, when I had to wind up rather hurriedly to allow members of the Committee to go home on Thursday evening.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

That was wise.

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

Generous to a fault.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I am all heart. Amendment No. 94 is intended to ensure that we drive home the point that clean-up includes legal disposal of waste. It may be a pedantic point, but the Bill is partly about refocusing on waste and the need to do the right thing.

The problems relating to clean-up costs come back to the lack of convictions for fly-tipping, and we are worried about who is paying for the cost of clean-up. On Thursday, we started to talk about the lack of funding for the Environment Agency, which is an important point. In some of the information provided by the agency in preparation for this Committee, it highlighted some of the issues. Tackling waste crime in England and Wales costs landowners, local authorities and the Environment Agency £100 million to £150 million each year. The Environment Agency spends about £7 million on waste-related crime. Then we get to the interesting statistic showing that it dealt with about 5,400 waste-crime incidents in 2003, which resulted in more than 50 prosecutions. It is almost trying to say that 51 is better than none. Quite frankly more than 50 prosecutions out of 5,400 waste-crime incidents does not identify a lot of polluters who should pay for the cost of clean-up. The whole principle is that one finds the person who did it so that he cleans it up.

Instead, we have the problem that I outlined on Second Reading. Farmers and others who have waste dumped on their land will be left without a remedy. That is assuming that they report it. As I mentioned earlier, they do not always report it because they get stuck with the cost of clean-up. The Environmental Audit Committee's report found that —it has also been pointed out to me locally—some of the people at the Environment Agency who are responsible for detection, conviction and prevention are not necessarily of the highest calibre. Sadly, we are even less likely to get a conviction.

The clause says that the cost of removing the waste and cleaning up the land is recovered from the offender. If the Environment Agency is not getting convictions, how will we get the clean-up costs? The Government need to explain where the money will come from for clean-up costs. Why will nothing be done for farmers who may have been innocent and who may have done all that they can to prevent someone from backing into their fields and tipping two lorry loads of asbestos or 20 lorry loads of building waste? Farmers can shore up their defences, but if someone comes at night with a dirty great lorry or a dumper and decides to reverse in, knock the gate down and go to the other side of the field, there is a major problem. What will the Government do to ensure that the innocent are not saddled with the costs? Although the clause looks good on paper, in principle it means virtually nothing if we are not going to get the worst people convicted.

Under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, landowners and occupiers who neither caused nor knowingly permitted the incident to take place can appeal against notices served by the authorities for removal of fly-tipped waste or cost recovery. That means that the farmer has to appeal against what he should have done earlier, which was to clean up the site. He will not sit there with all that stuff when the Environment Agency is on his back to do a clean-up. In practice, as I mentioned on Second Reading and as was mentioned in the debate on the Environmental Audit Committee's report, farmers do not report incidents of fly-tipping. I see nothing in the clause that suggests that they would do so, even given the much higher fines. The clause gives them no justice. They will be landed with the problem and nothing in the clause will get a conviction and make the polluter pay.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Lady's amendment and I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley shares my warm feelings towards it. A number of concerns about clean-up costs have been made widely known by the National Farmers Union. For a while, it has been concerned to see provisions aimed at addressing cost recovery, but it also has concerns about the operation of the new regime. That is why the amendment may be needed.

In particular, the NFU has been concerned to point out that the identification of the true culprit behind any illegal tipping offence can be difficult. The landowner or occupier is not always the offender, but can be the easiest person for the agency or relevant officer to approach. That is in the nature of things; the landowner or occupier is a fixed person who is easy to identify, whereas more transient beings are less easy to identify.

The experience of the NFU is that many of its members have been penalised as the guilty party under section 33 of the 1990 Act. Although landowners and occupiers can appeal against notices served by authorities for the removal of fly-tipped waste, the NFU believes that they should not have to pay for the costs of enforcement, recovery and clean-up until the final outcome of any appeal is known. Could the Minister clarify the matter of the incurring of costs while an appeal is still pending in the case of a landowner or occupier who has been found guilty of fly-tipping and is subject to a costs order for enforcement and clean-up, but who wishes to appeal because they say that they are not the culprit? It would be useful to understand that matter a bit better, because it is one of the NFU's concerns.

Although we welcome attempts to recover costs from those convicted of a fly-tipping offence, it would be useful to hear the Minister's views on how many farmers and landowners are still likely to have notices served on them in cases in which they plead their innocence. Has the Minister any figures on the number of cases of farmers who are charged with illegal fly-tipping, is that number increasing or decreasing, and what is the quantum? Are there a few dozen, a few hundred or thousands of cases a year?

I close my remarks by saying that that fine organisation, the Country Land and Business Association, which is particularly effective in Suffolk, echoes the concerns of the NFU. It questions the wisdom of any extension of liability to owners who may have no control over the land in question. It feels that, at the very least, there should be a requirement for prescribed steps to have been taken by the authorities to identify a fly-tipper before the owner or occupier of the land is served with a notice. Has the Minister received representations from the CLBA to that effect?

With those points, I shall resume my seat. I give qualified support to the amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I wish to speak to clause 43 and amendment No. 115, which I am also minded to support. We said earlier in our discussions that we want the polluter to pay, and I hope that the clause deals with exactly that issue. Clearly, the problem is catching people tipping waste. If they can be caught, they can be brought before the courts, where they will face a fine. On top of that, they will have to pick up the costs of disposing of the waste, which could run into many thousands of pounds. We are talking about separating the fine for doing something wrong from the clean-up costs, which the culprit should have paid in the first place. That would ensure that they do not get away with it.

As I am sure the Minister would concede, if we did not include a provision on clean-up costs, in cases in which magistrates had been a bit lenient the fine would be lower than the costs of disposing of the waste. In such a case, the person would clearly have got away with it. We do not want to make it cheaper for people to tip waste illegally. We do not want them to think that they can go through all the judicial processes and end up with a fine that is lower than the clean-up costs of the waste.

Having spoken in support of clause 43, I move to amendment No. 115, which deals with those who have not been convicted—those who are not responsible for the waste on their land. I hope that the Minister will at least say that the clause deals only with those who have been convicted and not with victims, because that is what they are. Farming is under a lot of pressure these days in any event and, by definition, people in that industry have a lot of land. Let us be realistic about farming in today's world. To make a go of it, farmers need more and more land. Farms have been bought up and merged—

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman return to the amendment and the clause that we are discussing?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am more than happy to do so, Mr. Taylor. Farmers who have had waste tipped on their land are victims. The amendment says that when someone has made reasonable efforts to ensure that no waste is tipped on their land, they should not be liable for any clean-up costs. That is why the amendment is important.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The hon. Gentleman is making some very good points. It is not only farmers who are affected by that practice, but other landholders, such as the Woodland Trust and the National Trust. They are equally affected.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Absolutely. I agree that farmers are not the only ones affected, but I hope that the hon. Lady will excuse my using farming as a reference point for us. I heard what was said from the other side of the Committee about urban tipping. Clearly, some people who do not live in rural areas but own a bit of waste land and keep it in good order could come back to their works to find that someone has tipped waste on their land and that they could be liable for its removal. That could affect a number of organisations, as the hon. Lady rightly says, which is why her amendment is designed to give them some protection.

As I said earlier, the Minister has enough common sense and is realistic enough to know that those things happen. We hope that there will be a deterrent under clause 41, and that clause 43 will let people know that if they are convicted they will not get away with it but will have to pay the disposal costs, too. That is absolutely right.

Furthermore, the mess made by anyone who is convicted should be cleaned up pronto, because as the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality knows, as he took the right-to-roam legislation through the House, more people have more access to more land than ever before. If the waste is allowed to remain, it will become a danger to youngsters and people walking in the countryside, and a magnet for rodents. Fridges, for example, may seem attractive to youngsters to play in, but that can end in tragedy.

Waste should be removed as quickly as possible but if it proves difficult to identify who tipped the waste, the amendment would help to ensure that an innocent party such as a farmer or a landowner does not have to pick up the extra costs when they have taken reasonable steps to ensure that their land has been protected. I hope that local authorities and the Environment Agency will encourage farmers and landowners to report incidents of waste being dumped on their land. As the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality said, we need that data so that we know how big the problem is, but people who report such incidents must know that they will not have to face a huge bill for clearing up the mess.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Again, I do not disagree with much of what has been said, but I shall explain why the amendments are unnecessary.

The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned the Environment Agency's budget, but I do not know where her figure of £7 million came from. The Environment Agency spends about £12 million on waste-related activities, and its waste management budget is £82 million, an increase from £73 million in 2000. It is about 10 per cent. of its total budget and is fairly consistent.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The figure of £7 million spent each year on waste-related crime comes from information provided by the Environment Agency ahead of the Bill.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

My figure of £12 million comes from the Environment Agency, so on that basis we will have to call it a draw. There is a resources issue, but I would not want the hon. Lady to think that the agency does not have considerable resources available; that is not to be complacent about its budget and the demands on it.

The amendments would apply when a person is convicted of illegal waste disposal. The clause will allow the courts to make an order requiring the offender to pay the costs incurred by the Environment Agency or a local authority or the occupier or owner of the land in respect of removing the waste deposited or disposed of, taking other steps to eliminate or reduce the consequences of the deposit or disposal; or both. I understand the reason for amendment No. 94, which would add ''and its legal disposal'' at the end of paragraph (a): the hon. Lady wants to be assured that steps will be taken to remove the waste and deal with it properly, which is perfectly reasonable.

Amendment No. 115 would add a new subsection providing for those cases in which no such order is made. It would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which provide that the landowner shall not be liable for clean-up costs, provided that he had taken reasonable steps to prevent the offence.

The amendments are unnecessary because the costs incurred in removing the illegally dumped waste by implication will include the costs incurred in legally disposing of it elsewhere. That must be a prerequisite in the proposal. Local authorities sometimes fall out with each other, but if one local authority cleaned up the waste and then drove down the lane and chucked it in a hedge in another local authority, it would undermine the principle involved. I do not think such activity would occur.

There is also no need to make regulations absolving a landowner of liability for clear-up costs, as nothing in the current legislation or the Bill would make him liable—there is no such provision now, and that is not changing. The only provision that will apply to landowners as a result of clause 50 is section 59 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which gives the Environment Agency and waste collection authorities powers to serve clear-up notices on an occupier of land, as has been said. However, notices would be served only if the landowner was felt to be liable in some way for the fly-tipping. The occupier would be able to appeal, and the notice would be quashed if the occupier had neither deposited nor knowingly caused or permitted the depositing of the waste. Should clause 50 stand, the same provision will be extended so as to apply, in the absence of an occupier, to landowners.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I want to get this absolutely right, because the last thing we want is to say that this will all be tested in court. That, too, would be a huge cost for farmers, and they do not want to go down that route. Will the Minister give a categorical assurance that if the farmer is not responsible for the waste that has been dumped on his land, no clean-up costs will be imposed on him under the Bill?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

Oh no, I cannot do that. I have a lot of sympathy with innocent farmers in this respect, and I have such cases in my constituency. However, there are also cases, as I shall explain in a moment, that show why it is difficult to give all landowners a complete indemnity in relation to cleaning up fly-tipped waste.

If fly-tipping occurs on someone's land—as has been said, it is not only farmers but a range of landowners who suffer this problem—the important thing is, first of all, to try to track down those who did it. If we can do that, they can, under the Bill, be made to meet the costs of cleaning up the waste, as well as facing the relevant penalties for having dumped it. If the landowner is held responsible, orders can be put on them, regardless of whether they are in an urban or rural area. I say that because some people who own property in urban areas allow their back yards to be used as dumping grounds, and that is a bit of a problem in parts of my constituency. Such landowners can be made to clean up the waste, because their property is not secured and it is their responsibility. However, if it is clear that the owner or occupier is not responsible, they will not be forced to meet the clean-up costs.

The position in the Bill is the same as it is now. If waste is dumped on private land, it is the landowner's responsibility to remove it. In some cases, the local authority will take it away, but that is a decision for the authority, not a statutory requirement. Authorities sometimes do that as part of good management, and I very much welcome that, but in the end, responsibility falls to the landowner, and I have a great deal of sympathy with them in that regard.

The problem is how we deal with the issue in legislation. Sadly, some landowners do not take steps to prevent waste from being dumped. I know from my own constituency cases of a landowner who allowed construction waste to be illegally dumped on his land without planning permission, and action was taken against him under the planning laws. He had a bit of land and allowed people to dump waste on it. He took money for that, but he did not secure the land, so people were not only paying him to dump waste, but coming at night and dumping more. It would be quite wrong to pay for us to meet such clean-up costs.

In another case, a farmer had a lot of waste stored illegally on his land. The Environment Agency told him to remove it properly and legally. The next time the agency came to inspect, the waste was indeed gone, but there was a very suspicious mound in the middle of his field. On further investigation, they found that he had just buried the waste in his field, including fridges. He was fined £20,000, which is a much more effective fine.

That farmer was also the Conservative leader of the local council, as it happens, and is currently serving three months suspension by the Standards Board. It shows that all sorts of different circumstances arise. It is very difficult to deal with that, and the Bill is trying to get that balance right.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

A landowner may get planning permission for something that involves landscaping, such as a golf course, but may have no intention of constructing that a golf course. He may allow unlicensed tipping of, perhaps, construction waste, under the guise of landscaping. Does the Minister have a view about those particular circumstances?

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The clause relates to clean-up costs.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

There is an issue of clean-up costs. That is a very difficult one, and yet another example of potential abuse that needs to be taken into account.

We have powers in the clause to enforce clean-up costs for those who are responsible, for those who have not secured their land, for those who have acted irresponsibly and for those who have acted illegally. I repeat that I have a great deal of sympathy with innocent victims, and in these crimes the vast majority of landowners are victims. The best way that we can help them is to have effective measures to deter such behaviour, to track the polluter down, and to prosecute and make them pay. That is how we have to deal with the problem. Hon. Members are worried that unreasonable costs will be imposed on landowners. If they are not responsible, costs will not be imposed. The way they deal with the problem will be a matter for them, and in some cases local authorities will assist them.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The Minister said that farmers who cause the waste themselves will quite rightly pay. I know of a farmer who had a dispute with a local authority and left rusting farm implements in a very visible area of his farm. He should quite clearly pay for the removal of that waste. Where a farmer also takes money, it is again quite right, because he has turned his farm into a tip and clearly that should not be allowed either.

In this amendment, we are fighting for the innocent farmers. The assurance we want from the Minister is that, under clause 43 on clean-up costs, if the farmer is an innocent victim he will not pay the clean-up costs.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I really cannot give that assurance because, in the end, someone has to meet that cost. The problem is that, if the cost fell on the local authority, then there is little incentive for those who are unscrupulous to secure their land, or to take steps to minimise waste. So it is a very difficult issue to deal with, even though I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of people are innocent victims. We must ensure that we take steps to stop this practice. I welcome the fact that, in many cases, local authorities work with landowners in dealing with waste.

Patrick Hall (Labour, Bedford)

I understand the point that the Minister is making. Might he consider issuing guidance, so that some account is taken of the circumstances in difficult cases when a farmer is entirely innocent?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It would not help in the end, because the issue is the removal of the rubbish. Responsibility lies with the people who put it there. We all know, however, that those people cannot always be tracked down. In those circumstances, it is the responsibility of the landowner. However, if they are not involved, the powers and orders that can be applied to force them to take steps—which can involve considerable cost—would not be applied. If they felt they were being unreasonably applied, there is the option to appeal against that.

I very much hope that I have answered all the points raised, and that the Committee can support the clause.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I would like to deal with these two amendments separately. We take on board the Minister's comments on amendment 94, that it is an intrinsic part of the regulations that legal disposal is part of the cost of removing waste. We will seek to withdraw amendment No 94, but I will move amendment No. 115 formally and press it to a vote.

One of my first questions to the Minister was about how we will get convictions in order to pay the clean-up costs. At present, we have a victim but no one pays the costs. The Minister was unable to say that if a farmer had taken reasonable steps to prevent the offence he would not be liable for the costs. He talked about tracking down the person who did it. We know already that the Environment Agency is not tracking such people down. West Surrey farmers made it clear that two things happen if they report incidents to the Environment Agency in the hope that it will try to convict the perpetrator. First, it gives up very early on in the chase, and secondly it tells the farmers to clean up, so they bear the costs. That is unjust. There is no natural justice in this whole approach. It is making the farmers the victims, and it is legitimising a practice that is already taking place.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Does the hon. Lady agree that when Ministers say that they have to incentivise farmers to make their land secure, which is covered in her amendment, they must also incentivise the Environment Agency and the other authorities to ensure that they are encouraged to track down the people who are tipping waste? If they always believe that the landowner will ultimately pay the costs of clean-up there is no incentive for them to catch these tippers.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention. That is so. When I attended a parish council meeting last week about fly tipping on Stringers common in Worplesdon, it was clear that it had given up on the Environment Agency. The agency should have installed cameras to track down those responsible for what was happening, but it was left to the local bobby and the parish council to do all that they could to identify who was doing the fly tipping. That is not adequate.

We have tried to get more funding into the Environment Agency as it will deal a lot more with clean-up. Although we may dispute whether it is £12 million or £7 million—it is an honest difference of opinion—the structure is not there to get a conviction. We cannot deal with clean-up costs in that way. The Minister has failed to get farmers, who are genuinely innocent victims, off the hook.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I shall make two points. I repeat that I have every sympathy with the vast majority of farmers and landowners who are perfectly law abiding and respectable. However, if the full costs of the clean-up fell on local authorities and local council tax payers, which is where it would go, what would prevent unscrupulous minorities in every walk of life from putting rubbish on their own land and expecting council tax payers to pay for its removal? In fact, there is even a possibility of making money out of such criminal activity.

Secondly, the hon. Lady referred to the funds available to the Environment Agency. The additional cost implications of this problem are enormous. I do not know whether this is another issue to go on the Liberal Democrat shopping list, but there are costs that she must take into account if she wants to be responsible.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

On the first point, if something is fly-tipped on to the local authority's land—on a verge, for example—the public purse already picks up the costs. This is inconsistent.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

It is the landowner, so it is consistent.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The case of the landowner who has clearly not secured his land and ends up with waste tipped on it is dealt with in the amendment. He would pay the clean-up costs. However, where it could be clearly shown that he had taken due regard to protecting the property from fly-tippers, he could not be held to blame.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

That is a powerful point. Many farmers have already secured much of their land. They have problems with illegal incursions by travellers, and in many cases protection is in place. A specific group is involved. We invited the Government to allow the Environment Agency to retain fixed penalty notice fines, and they were not having any of that. We identified a source of some if not all of the costs; but no, that could not be used. We found a way of funding or part-funding the proposal, but the Government said no. We are still deeply dissatisfied with the Government response, and we shall press amendment No. 115.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment No. 94.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 115, in clause 43, page 38, line 20, at end insert—

'(4) The Secretary of State shall make regulations such that where an offence has been committed under section 33 of that Act and no order is made to provide compensation for clean up costs incurred following that offence, the landowner shall not be liable for the clean up costs provided that he took reasonable steps to prevent the offence.'.—[Sue Doughty.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 9.

Clause 44 - Forfeiture of vehicles

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The clause deals with the introduction of a possible ruling by the courts for the confiscation of vehicles of those convicted of an offence under section 33 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

Legislation on the confiscation of property should be dealt with sensitively and with due regard to the possible effect on the person convicted. Of course someone who is guilty of, and sentenced for, illegal fly-tipping should receive the appropriate sentence. The question is whether the sentence is always proportionate. In cases for which the criminal law provides for confiscation of property, one should consider the circumstances and whether the system makes bad people worse.

I do not think that anyone would have difficulty with the idea of the courts cleaning out the bank accounts of convicted drug dealers and confiscating such property as they had. However, it is to be hoped that any court considering making an order under clause 44 would take account of the likely effects of confiscation on the convicted person's employment prospects and livelihood. I should like to hear what assessment the Minister's Department has made in that respect. Has he considered the case of someone on the minimum wage who is convicted of such an offence? A reasonable fine may be imposed on them, but then a confiscation of property order may be further imposed. Is it enough to say that magistrates will use their discretion when it comes to the forfeiture of vehicles? People could be left out of jobs and money, and families could be affected.

I wonder what examples the Minister can give from other areas of criminal law of the confiscation of vehicles or the tools of one's trade, albeit those of a convicted person. No one doubts that such people deserve punishment, but sometimes the punishment can have consequences way beyond the censure of the law and proportionate punishment. Can the Minister describe any analogous parts of criminal law to give us comfort that something as potentially serious as the forfeiture of a vehicle will not lead to destitution, unemployment and a disproportionate penalty on the convicted person? I look forward to the Minister sharing some perspectives on analogous parts of the British criminal justice system as it relates to forfeiture of property such as vehicles.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

As has already been mentioned, there is precedent for the forfeiture of vehicles in certain circumstances, such as those involving drug dealing. Vehicles can be and are seized by Customs and Excise in cases of the smuggling of tobacco products and alcohol, but I am not sure whether there is a duty in those circumstances, as there will be in this clause, to consider the impact of the loss of the vehicle on the person who will lose it. I do not know if the clause is based on that measure, or whether, when a vehicle is seized at Dover and a conviction is subsequently achieved, the courts have to consider the fact that there will be a loss of income if the person loses the vehicle because they cannot go about their lawful business. I would be interested to know if there is a precedent and how it operates in reality. It is always useful to find that out because when Customs and Excise is very zealous, people lose their vehicles, and that may well have an impact on their livelihoods.

I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds had to say about proportionality, but the clause deals with that: it puts an onus on the courts to consider the offence, the circumstances of the person before them and the value of the vehicle and its contents in order to decide whether to seize the vehicle, with or without its contents. Under the clause, the courts have a duty to consider the circumstances of the individual.

Let us look at the example of a builder. We have talked about construction waste—clearly there is a lot of waste involved with construction, which can be quite expensive because of landfill disposal. Suppose that a builder is caught disposing of construction waste illegally in his own vehicle, which will probably contain some of the tools of his trade. Under the clause, the courts will have a duty to consider the circumstances and say, ''Well, if we seize the vehicle and its contents, the builder will not be able to continue doing his construction business. That will have a huge impact on his livelihood: it could put other people out of work and put him out of business. Therefore, we will not do that because we have been asked, under clause 44, to look at the circumstances of that particular business.'' That is one person who might, under previous clauses, receive a fine and be asked to clean up waste—or the waste would be cleaned up and the cost would fall on him—but who would be allowed to retain his vehicle and its tools to go about his business.

Going back to something that the hon. Member for Guildford said in connection with another clause, if the person is a repeat offender, I assume that the courts will be able to say, ''Hold on, we have had this guy in front of us three or four times. Under the explanatory notes, we should try to dissuade him from continuing to do this, so despite the fact that he could lose his van, vehicle and tools, and therefore his livelihood, he is a serial offender and is using that vehicle to tip waste, and enough is enough.'' Under the duty in the clause, the court could consider the circumstances but still take the vehicle and its contents—or perhaps leave the tools for other people in the firm to use—so that that person would pay a price. That would be right for repeat offenders, because something must be done to dissuade them.

Some people must make a living out of using their own vehicle to tip waste illegally. They go around at 2, 3 or 4 am and have no due regard for people's private property. The hon. Member for Guildford mentioned that waste could be left on the verge of a road, so it is the local authority's duty to clean it up, but that should not enable people to get away with it. If someone's business revolves around tipping waste willy-nilly, they have to know that there is a price to pay and that they may lose their vehicle. If someone does that for a living, I have no qualms about them losing their vehicle to prevent them from tipping waste in future. It is a hefty penalty, but it will stop them.

I assume, having looked at the clause, that it does not deal with people who hire vehicles. The person from whom they hire it will not know that they are using it for tipping waste, so the firm that owns the vehicle should not lose it, and I assume that that is taken into account.

Mr. Morley indicated assent.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The Minister nods reassuringly. If that were the case, it would be a great worry to van renters around the country. However, if people have been using their own vehicle to tip waste, they should lose it.

If someone uses a private car—it does not have to be a van—to dispose of waste illegally and they are caught, either by the police or someone else, and convicted, I assume that that will be covered by the clause. I hope that the duty will be for the courts to say, ''Hold on, you knew what you were doing when you tied that sofa or mattress to the top of your vehicle''—it could be anything from a battered old wreck to a fairly new car—''took it to a piece of open land and discarded the waste willy-nilly for other people to pick up the costs of disposal. We have therefore decided you will pay a price.'' Whether that should happen on the first, third or fourth offence, I do not know, but we are seeking an assurance from the Minister that there will be proportionality under clause 44.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

Is not the price that we all pay because of serious, serial cowboy offenders the price to our environment? Am I right in thinking that the hon. Gentleman supports the forfeiture of vehicles in such cases?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I have no doubt that if cowboys are going around serially offending they should lose their vehicles. They should pay a hefty price: that is the only thing that will prevent them from offending in future. If they received a fine and lost their vehicle and its contents, I would have no doubt that they would not re-offend. I referred to changing the culture. We may look at these clauses again in a few years' time and say that we have changed the culture on the disposal of waste, just as we have on smoking in public places and so on. The first time that someone is caught tipping a mattress on a bit of open land, they will lose their car straight away—one strike and you're out. What I want, and what I think the Minister is trying to achieve in the Bill, is to get it into the mindset of the public, whether they are in business or private householders, that tipping is a serious offence and that offenders could not only receive a fine, but lose their vehicles. I therefore support the clause.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

May I start by saying what a delight it is to serve under your firm but fair chairmanship, Mr. Taylor? I shall not delay the Committee long, but I intervened on this point earlier in our proceedings and I want to reinforce it by saying that according to Colin Peake, the antisocial behaviour officer of Stroud district council, my local authority, this is the single most important element of the Bill. Colin tells me that what he finds most galling is that, although serial offenders know that they may be forced to pick up the waste and may suffer a fine, the one thing that they always get away with is the means whereby they were able to commit the offence. They keep their vehicle and can do it again.

As the hon. Member for Ribble Valley said, it could be a first-time offender, someone just taking something out of their car boot, but I would expect everyone to consider the circumstances and proportionality. The person could have taken a number of car batteries or tyres out of the back of their car. As we all know, it is a devil of a job to get rid of those items. They are hazardous waste according to every definition, so we should feel no sympathy. We should back those who try to enforce the clause, if it is passed. Linking it to clause 46, which makes a great deal of sense, we will want the authorities to be somewhat proactive. I hope that, if materials have been dumped and they know that a vehicle in the vicinity has been seen there before, there will be an opportunity to link the measures. I know that I am looking ahead from this clause to the next one, but they are inextricably linked.

I hope that we will hold the line and send a clear message that the one thing that will really hurt those who offend is taking away their vehicle. People think that they can get away with offences, whatever the level of the fines. Often, the offenders are people in the industry who think that it is a good way to save a bob or two. As I said, the one thing that will really penalise offenders is taking away their vehicle. I therefore congratulate the Government on the clause. They are absolutely right. From what I have been told, all the evidence from the people who are trying to enforce offences is that this clause will make the difference, so let us see it through as quickly as possible.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I shall not go over ground that other hon. Members have covered perfectly adequately about the importance of sending a strong message, but the Minister will recall that on Second Reading there was concern about Travellers who use their vehicles for fly-tipping. As we know, Travellers can become effective lawyers and use various defences. We are aware that occasionally Travellers use their vehicles for fly-tipping, and the vehicle that they use may be the same vehicle used for towing their caravans. On Second Reading, I asked the Government to look into how the human rights legislation would affect that area. If a Traveller said in his defence, ''I need my vehicle to tow my trailer'', what view would the Government take?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I thank my hon. Friends for the strong support that they have given. The various circumstances of confiscation are covered in subsection (7). It outlines what the courts should take into account, such as the value of the vehicle, the likely financial effects on the offender, and

''the offender's need to use the vehicle for lawful purposes'',

which probably covers the point made by the hon. Member for Guildford. However, the court's decision would depend on the circumstances. Someone may have been towing a caravan with a battered old transit van, but if it was not worth much, they could go out and buy another one. The court will take the circumstances into account, and must also have regard to whether

''the offender is engaged in a business which consists wholly or partly in activities which are unlawful by virtue of section 33.''

There is also the question of repeat offending. Someone who is a repeat offender would get much less sympathy from the court when deciding how the measure should be applied than others might.

The provision is effective. People try to avoid penalties, but if someone is engaged in illegal activities—some of which could be worth a great deal of money—the sanction of confiscating the vehicle is important. The provision also sends a clear message to people who are involved in domestic fly-tipping that that is not a minor issue, and that their car is at risk. I have already made that point in press notices to my local paper. It is a significant sanction, because we are dealing with significant offences. I hope that the Committee will support the clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Failure to furnish documentation: fixed penalty notices

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 45, page 40, line 31, leave out ''£300'' and insert ''£750''.

We have had an interesting debate this morning about the levels at which penalties and fines should be pitched, and the amendment returns to that theme. The amendment would insert a higher figure for fixed penalty notices incurred through failure to furnish the requisite documentation.

Clause 45 covers the introduction of a duty

''on any person who imports, produces, carries, keeps, treats, or disposes of controlled waste or, as a broker, has control of such waste, to secure a written description of the waste whenever it is transferred.''

That is a perfectly sensible proposition. The clause also

''empowers an enforcement authority to issue a fixed penalty notice to a person who has failed to comply with a requirement to furnish documents''

under the regulations.

I am glad to say that waste disposal companies have welcomed the introduction of the measures in the clause. They feel that those measures will go a long way towards cracking down on the cowboy element in that sector. It is to be welcomed that, at last, the fine for not having a licence will be greater than the cost of obtaining one. I believe that the cost of registration runs at around £133, and the new fixed penalty will be set at £300. It is true that the number of registered carriers dropped from 92,000 in 1992 to 50,000 in 2004; it is alleged that that is largely due to a lack of enforcement. Although the £300 fine is more than the cost of registration, we wonder whether it is still too low, and inadequate in the face of those who seem determined to make a large amount of money from the illegal transport and disposal of waste.

The Local Government Association questioned the new fixed penalty of £300 in the clause. It highlighted the large sums that can be made by unregistered carriers and the fact that a £300 fine is unlikely to act as a deterrent to those who break the law. I have some sympathy with the LGA's request for a review of the amount of the fixed penalties for failure to comply with a requirement to furnish documentation to assess the impact of the new penalty notice regime after the first year.

I should be interested to hear from the Minister, first, why his Department decided on £300 and, secondly, if he will respond positively to the LGA's request for a serious assessment, after a year, of the new regime's impact on the activities of illegal transporters and disposers of waste.

The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) is sensible, as £300 will not be a sufficient deterrent. It would be a gnat's bite on the potential daily or weekly profits from the illegal activity that the Bill tries so manfully to stamp out or curb.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I, too, want to speak in favour of the amendment. Traceability is important in respect of fixed-penalty notices for the failure to furnish documentation. We must know exactly what type of controlled waste is being disposed of and in what quantities. As a Conservative, I naturally believe in as little bureaucracy and red tape as possible, but that does not mean getting rid of all of it, as some is of great benefit to the community. I suggest that in this case the bureaucracy is useful in insuring the traceability of controlled waste.

There is an important job to be done in the first place by people who have a licence for this speciality; we are not talking about ordinary people. If those who have a licence fail to comply with the law, it is right that they should know that they will receive a fixed penalty. However, that penalty must act as a deterrent and help to ensure that the licence holders keep the paperwork up to date. They must be aware that someone could call on their business at any stage to see how much waste they are disposing of. Indeed, if some waste has been illegally tipped, they might want to discover the source—

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 45 - Failure to furnish documentation: fixed penalty notices

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I believe that I had finished what I was saying.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

We had an interesting debate, which I am sure we can all recall clearly—it is etched indelibly on the minds of Opposition Members. It is also, in absentia, etched on the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a powerful point in favour of the amendment, which states that the level of penalty should be higher than that in the Bill.

Paddy Tipping (Labour, Sherwood)

It may benefit the Committee to hear that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has just finished making powerful points in Westminster Hall.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for sharing that information with the rest of the Committee, although, as a Tory Whip, I was aware of it. My hon. Friend will be returning shortly to delight and thrill us with his contributions on the later parts of the Bill which relate to waste. If we are lucky he may share his views on the control of dogs; we all await that part of the proceedings with scarcely concealed excitement.

I conclude by saying that the amendment should be pressed to a vote. We agree, in principle, with the thrust of the clause. The amendment seeks to tighten it up, to increase the deterrent effect, and it is in that spirit that I seek to press the amendment to a vote.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Gentleman might find that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley wanted to make a couple more points, but I am not sure that he wanted to vote on the amendment, although the matter is of course entirely in the hands of the Opposition spokesman.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), but not that of my excellent but sadly absent hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The issue is the level of the fine, and it arises from a narrow aspect of the Bill dealing with documentation. A balance needs to be struck, and £300 is a considerable fine for failing to produce documents. If the fine were higher, then it is likely that people would opt to go to court, and the advantages of the fixed penalty notice—the speed and the lower administration cost—would be lost. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the amount would be reviewed. It will, like all these measures, be reviewed in due course to ensure that it is fixed at the appropriate level.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 9.

Clause 46 - Power to search and seize vehicles

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

We come to another new power in the Bill which has some merit. The Local Government Association has come out in favour of the immediate seizure of vehicles in which people have been caught fly-tipping. It seems that the current system allows perpetrators to escape with the tools of their trade, thus allowing them to commit further offences. I hope that the new powers will support the sharing of information and intelligence made possible by the new flycatcher database, and will help local authorities, the police and the Environment Agency to apprehend commercial fly-tippers. As has been said, the agency estimates that there may be about 50,000 fly-tipping incidents a year, which cost authorities £100 million or more to clean up. We must do all that we can to tackle this significant problem.

Although the Conservatives are generally happy with the thrust of the clause, I have some points to raise with the Minister about the powers to search and seize vehicles. As section 34B of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 makes clear, an authorised officer of an enforcement authority, or a constable, may seize a vehicle and its contents but, notably, only a uniformed officer may stop a vehicle on the road. I wonder in how many incidents the perpetrator is apprehended while making a getaway after the illegal fly-tipping has already taken place. In such circumstances, according to the clause, only a uniformed officer would have the power to stop the vehicle.

At one level, I understand why the power to stop a vehicle when it is being driven along the road is restricted to uniformed officers, but it would be useful if the Committee had a better understanding of what consultation went on with which bodies. Obviously, the police were involved, but were there any discussions about having a wider power to stop vehicles, not one restricted to uniformed officers?

Following on from that, my second question is whether there is scope for provision to be made for the Environment Agency and other authorised officers to have wider powers. People will normally try to get away after fly-tipping: they may see an official-looking person striding along with a clipboard about to apprehend them, at which point they will decide to leg it, even if they are halfway through committing the offence, and will get into their car and be in the process of getting away. According to the clause, in those circumstances it would be impossible for a non-uniformed officer to intervene, other than taking down the registration number. I should like some further explanation from the Minister on that point.

What consultation did the Department conduct to arrive at what is quite a narrow power for a uniformed officer, albeit one that is not extended to other authorised officers? As I said, in most cases the people committing the offence will be in the process of getting away and driving down the road, rather than sitting quietly in the passenger seat with the ignition turned off, waiting to be apprehended by an agency officer. The position would be clear if they were; it is not when someone is trying to make an exit.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can certainly explain the Bill's drafting. There has been full consultation, as the hon. Gentleman would expect, with the LGA, the Home Office and those with an interest in the Bill, such as the police. Generally speaking, it is well established that the police often work with the Environment Agency and local authorities when they suspect that a crime may have been committed or as part of normal enforcement.

The agency has, for example, been carrying out a number of high-profile spot checks, whereby the police set up a roadblock, because as uniformed officers they have the power to stop vehicles. The police then inspect the vehicles and the waste licences, to ensure that they are in order, and then, because they are police, check for road traffic offences to do with tax, insurance, condition of tyres and so on. Such enforcement exercises have been very successful and I am keen to encourage the agency, the police and local councils to continue with them.

Another example, which the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned, is where an agency or local authority officer sees a van or other vehicle leaving a scene and has reason to suspect that a crime has been committed. In those circumstances, the officer would phone the police in the normal way and they would send a mobile response unit to stop the vehicle. It would be difficult to give powers to stop moving vehicles to the agency or to local authorities, because of all the problems that go with them. Such powers are more appropriately left to the police. That shows that enforcement is a partnership issue, with the police working alongside other agencies. Such practices are quite well established and have been successful. The measures in the Bill will reinforce the effectiveness of that partnership approach.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Have there been any discussions about, for example, giving powers to community support officers to stop vehicles on the highway? The important point behind my question is that although I absolutely take on board what the Minister said—that in practice the agency will mount operations in close collaboration with the local police force, where it has the requisite intelligence—equally, we all know that the police are stretched. That is true not only in my constituency but in those across the party divide, in other counties and in other constabularies. None of us can ever say that we have enough police. It will probably never be true, under any Government of whatever political persuasion, that everyone thinks that their area is adequately policed and has enough policemen and women.

It is in light of that that I ask whether the important work of preventing, deterring and apprehending those engaging in illegal fly-tipping might be done not only by uniformed police officers stopping vehicles on the highway, as the clause states, but by community support officers. I want to tease out from the Minister whether that has been considered. It is not always possible to ask police forces to make uniformed officers available every time a vehicle is trying to get away. Were community support officers at any stage considered as adequate replacements or substitutes for uniformed officers in those cases?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that matter is within the Home Office's remit and concerns the measures that introduced community support officers. There was considerable discussion about what range of powers would be appropriate for their training and abilities. What the hon. Gentleman is asking for—a power to stop vehicles on a highway—would have wide implications, and would have to be considered by the Home Office. I am sure that it was considered in the discussions about support officers, but the hon. Gentleman should address his questions to the Home Office.

Question agreed to.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Abolition of requirement to contract out waste disposal functions

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

This seems to be an innocuous clause, because it is short, but I am concerned about why it appears in the Bill, as it represents a change of policy, based, I suggest, on some political or economic dogma on the part of the new Labour Government. I do not know whether they are desperate to show their anti-Conservative—

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am more than happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

My understanding of dogma is that it occurs where one course of action is insisted on. Whatever the politics of the clause, I should have thought that it ended dogma, because it ends a requirement that local authorities follow one particular course and leaves it up to them to choose.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I shall not detain the Committee on this point, as we need to make progress. The hon. Gentleman can talk about the control of dogma when we come to part 6, if he wishes, but I want to get to the meat of this clause.

The explanatory notes attempt to give an explanation for the clause. They say that

''Waste disposal authorities must carry out their waste disposal functions by means of letting contracts. The contract-letting procedures for waste disposal authorities required by the 1990 Act lack flexibility or the opportunity for waste disposal authorities to carry out their functions in other ways to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.''

I am none the wiser after reading that. I would be grateful if the Minister said where and why the lack of flexibility occurs.

I am not sure which bodies have made complaints or representations to the Government which have led them to repeal the relevant provision of the 1990 Act. Indeed, the information that I have received is that those working in the industry believe that the decision to repeal the Act's divestment provisions does not send a positive signal to private sector investment in new waste management infrastructure. I hope that the Minister will also respond to that point.

There are plenty of examples of private sector companies that have made long-term capital and other investment in securing some of these let contracts. What assessment did the Department make of the effect of that on some of those businesses? Will some of them that have to work out notice periods find that the investment that they have undertaken in good faith is now threatened? Will any contracts be prematurely terminated as a result of the change? What consultation did the Department have with the private sector parties to the let contracts before going ahead with this reversal of policy?

The Government rightly celebrate private sector involvement. I know that a bit of a private spat is going on between No. 11 and No. 10 about the extent to which market forces should be allowed into the delivery of public services, and that is a private unhappiness on which I do not want to intrude, but we hear about it all the time. For people in my party, the market is an invaluable mechanism for driving up standards, efficiency, economy and value for money for taxpayers. In light of that, I should be grateful for an explanation of the rather opaque explanatory note and of what consultation the Department conducted and what soundings it took in judging what effect the clause would have on private sector investors.

The public and private sectors in the part of the economy that we are discussing have worked together to develop much more integrated approaches to waste management. I have been told that Project Integra in Hampshire is an exemplar of its kind. I fear, although perhaps the Minister can allay my fears, that in making the change, the Government are jeopardising the involvement of the private sector at the margin. I am not suggesting that the private sector will run away from the contracts. That would be a ridiculous caricature of my position. However, it seems to me that at the margin, some private sector companies—small and medium-sized enterprises—may be disadvantaged by the operation of the clause. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I share the concerns about how a council will gradually move away from its current contractual arrangements if it wants to do so. We all recognise the importance of long-term investment, but a stack of issues arise from the existing position. County councils, particularly disposal authorities, are labouring under expensive contracts that are hard to change. Quite rightly, targets on waste arising from European legislation and the agreed need to recycle more and to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill change regularly, but it costs an arm and a leg to change anything in a contract.

The clause does not say that county councils or disposal authorities have to change their contract, but it provides flexibility for councils that want to consider other options. Many councils—possibly waste collection authorities within a disposal authority with which they do not see eye to eye—may want to make separate arrangements because they think that they can get a better, more sustainable deal for the residents of their area. These projects involve huge transaction costs. Local authorities face millions of pounds of legal fees in dealing with the contracts. On occasion, the cost of bidding is enormous.

There seems to be a difficulty in getting standard private finance initiative contracts that councils can use, so everyone is designing and drafting each contract anew every time. More support from the Government is needed, so that people know what should be in a PFI contract and can work much more efficiently. It is madness to waste money on avoidable legal costs because information on best practice in PFI is not provided.

We support the clause and will be interested to hear the Government's answers on any change facility. However, we also want to see much more support from the Government in ensuring that, where such contracts are put in place, any experience of, and guidance on, changes in contracts is made available, so that if a waste disposal authority wants to change the terms of its contract in light of new information or new requirements placed on it, it can do so without running up excessive costs. That should be happening now.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

On the face of it, the explanation is simple: we want local authorities to have flexibility and choice in their arrangements. That is in no way a criticism of the services provided by the private sector. I have seen a range of excellent examples of innovation and investment by private contractors working with local authorities. On my regular visits to look at rubbish tips the length and breadth of this country I have been more than satisfied with much of the work that has been done. The issue is one of dogma. My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) is absolutely right: dogma is when one takes a decision and is not prepared to consider any alternatives. The original assumption was that local authorities would not have options.

Clause 47 repeals section 32 and schedule two of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Local authorities will now be able to carry out their functions by choosing from a wider range of partnerships with other local authorities and the private sector. We are not seeking to exclude the private sector from that. I can assure the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty) that authorities will no longer be obliged to follow the prescriptive contract letting procedures in schedule 2 which add cost. We want to keep the costs and bureaucracy associated with tenders at a minimum.

In answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley), I can say that the LGA has pressed strongly for this change. We had extensive consultation on it in 2001, and it was clear that this is what local authorities wanted. The whole landscape of waste management has changed through private sector involvement. It is much more sophisticated now, and rightly so. It is part of the Government's strategy, and it requires a great deal of investment. There is an element of risk which many local authorities are more than happy to share with the private sector. Many local authorities have entered into 25-year contracts with private sector companies. Part of the rationale for that is because the companies are making a large capital investment and they require a reasonable period to get a return on it. I understand that. The detail of the contracts is a matter for local authorities.

We have spoken to the Environmental Services Association about the measure, and we sought to reassure it that we are not seeking to exclude the private sector in any way. I have a great deal of respect for the ESA, and we have a good relationship with it. We have a good dialogue about dealing with waste issues. I am pleased to see the investment that has been made to deal with waste issues in line with the policies and strategies that we have driven forward as a Government I would not wish that to end.

The clause would allow waste disposal authorities to go into partnership with each other and possibly with the private sector. There could be private sector partnerships with private waste disposal authorities. Indeed, many local authorities may decide that it is in their interests to have private sector companies managing all their waste disposal. That is fine with us as a Government. All we seek to do here is allow local authorities to choose what is best for them. We can provide support to them on the details of the PFI through the waste implementation programme.

I am keen to see common templates and to reduce the number of issues arising from the PFI programme, but many local authorities design their PFI structures to meet their local requirements. That is also part of the objective because authorities vary And there are different solutions available to them. They may choose energy for waste, in-vessel composting or one of a whole range of technologies. They may want to boost general composting, recycling or doorstep collection. That is fine. The considerable PFI funds that we make available also demonstrate that we are keen to work with and encourage both the private and the local government sector.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 - Payments for waste recycling and disposal

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in clause 49, page 46, line 26, at end insert—

'(13) In this section reusing waste means any operation by which end of life products and equipment or its components are used for the same purpose for which they were conceived for a period of longer than 12 months.'.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I think that this will be a short debate. The amendment in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York seeks to give a slightly better and fuller definition than the one in the Bill. It reads:

''In this section 're-using waste' means any operation by which end-of-life products and equipment or its components are used for the same purpose for which they were conceived for a period of longer than 12 months.''

I hope that the Minister agrees that that is a slight improvement on the deathless prose set out in the Bill by the parliamentary draftsmen. I hope also that he will accept the amendment, and if not, explain why the redrafted definition is deficient.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I oppose the amendment, because I want to speak in defence of modern art. The amendment would mean that people would be unable to re-use an item, such as turning a kettle into some bizarre sculpture, as often happens. It would rule that out because it would be the re-use of a material. If someone took down a garden shed, they could not turn the wooden components into furniture, as that would count as re-use. It seems completely illogical.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on supporting my argument and making my argument for me.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am not at all. The definition of re-use in the amendment is ''used for the same purpose''. I am arguing that re-use does not necessarily mean used for the same purpose. There are many products and materials that can be re-used, but for a different purpose than the one for which they were originally intended.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

The hon. Member for Ludlow makes some relevant points. I understand what is behind the amendment. It is understandable that credits should reward only genuine and worthwhile re-use activity by preventing waste attracting a credit payment when it is disposed of shortly after being re-used or when it is re-presented for re-use a number of times over a short period. Theoretically, it could be available for a credit on education. However, as the hon. Gentleman said, it is possible that materials could be re-used on a number of occasions, and it may be appropriate that they attract a credit. It is also difficult to link the definition of a waste item as re-used to a certain period. Monitoring and enforcing that would present real challenges.

For the purposes of recycling credit, there are practical reasons why waste should be regarded as re-used regardless of the period for which the re-used issues remain in use. The essential point is that re-use reduces the amount of waste that has to be disposed of, and that is the principal objective. That is the case every time an item is re-used: it is prevented from being thrown away. It is therefore right that recycling credit should be available each time an item is re-used rather than discarded. In some ways, it does not really matter how long it is re-used for, as long as the item is kept in use, and refurbished if appropriate.

Local authorities have expressed concerns that the provision could lead to authorities paying for re-use of the same item several times, and then paying for disposal anyway. I am not sure that that would be the case, but it is no different to recycling in which a material will be recycled several times but ultimately disposed of. Incentive payments remain worthwhile if an item is diverted from landfill by being re-used, as the item takes the place of a new item that would otherwise also be presented for disposal in due course.

There is a problem with the workability of the amendment. There is also a problem with the definition. There is a real issue about ensuring value from the payment of credits, so that they incentivise only genuine and worthwhile re-use that contributes to the sustainable management of waste. That is best achieved by local authorities operating and funding the right re-use schemes. I have visited several of those schemes, which are run by very committed people. They are often linked to training, they provide an important social function and are responsible and respectable. Local authorities can choose whether to enter into an arrangement with the various re-use schemes, and they would not do so unless they were confident that they were run by a respectable organisation. Those that I have seen are certainly that.

There is already a duty to deliver best value, which requires local authorities to be satisfied that the schemes provide value for money in terms of environmental, economic and social benefits, to ensure that they are verifiable and not open to fraud before they are undertaken, and that they are supported through the payments that they may give to third parties. That is in the hands of local authorities, so they have some control over what they do and what standards they want.

The Government are planning to consult and to publish guidance to ensure that local authorities that wish to introduce re-use schemes or to support them through credit payments can ensure best value through access to information about established good practice. As I said, many schemes have been established throughout the country and they provide a very good service. They refurbish a lot of electrical goods, which provide low-cost options for low-income families and, most importantly, they divert those products from landfill and waste and extend their useful life. It is therefore important to encourage such schemes, which is what the clause sets out to do.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I am grateful for the Minister's explanation, although I am not entirely convinced by the Liberal Democrat spokesman's logic. I should have thought that stopping more modern art being created was probably a good thing, rather than the reverse, especially when one thinks of unmade beds and so on. I am more of an impressionist man—the sort of thing that ordinary blokes can understand. The Tories are ordinary blokes on occasion.

The Minister's points are well made. I understand what he said about the possible deficiency in the definition, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 50 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Site waste management plans

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 97, in clause 54, page 49, line 20, at end insert

';

(i) targets for diversion of site waste to landfill'.

This quick amendment is designed to test whether the Government intend to do what it proposes anyway. If so, perhaps the Minister will tell us. The issue is whether the site waste management plans will contain targets for the diversion of site waste to landfill. It is a serious issue, especially in relation to the construction of houses, given that for every 15 new houses built, an entire house goes to landfill because of the waste that results. We want a considerable reduction in the amount going to landfill, and it would be helpful to set targets for such a reduction. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is not appropriate for that to be in the Bill, and I have sympathy with that view, but the amendment gives him an opportunity to say how the Government intend to drive down the percentage of site waste that goes to landfill, and what targets they intend to set.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's position. He will be aware that the framework of waste management has already brought about a big change and that there is now a financial incentive—with the regulatory framework and the fiscal incentives in relation to landfill tax—for developers to recycle building waste. A value is beginning to be attached to it. I have noticed that many waste companies have invested in grading machinery for separating the different categories of construction waste so that it can be re-used.

I think that there is a role for targets. The hon. Gentleman pre-empted what I was going to say: I am not sure that it is appropriate to put that role in primary legislation. We are working on the sustainable buildings code, for example, within which there is a target for homes built under the code to contain 10 per cent. of recycled materials. It is not quite relevant to what he was saying, but that is one way in which targets can be used.

Further details about the preparation and content of plans will be a matter for regulations, which will be brought before the House in due course. They will cover such matters as the application of the provision, what matters plans should cover, and how they should be constructed. I am not altogether sure that it would be appropriate to include targets in that material either, but I am willing to give some thought to it in preparing the regulations.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I suspected that the Minister would not want targets included in the Bill, and I accept his reasons, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I have one question about red tape, about which I hope all hon. Members on either side of the party divide are concerned. I am mindful of the fact that one would not normally want too much detail about the length and type of regulations that will dictate how site waste management plans should be produced. I do not expect the issue to be dealt with in the Bill, but it would nevertheless be useful if the Minister could share some of his thinking about paragraphs 171 and 172 of the explanatory notes.

Small businesses play a large role in the vibrancy of wealth creation, certainly in my constituency. People running small businesses—and, incidentally, there are a lot of building and contracting small businesses in my area—consistently tell me that the amount of time that they spend on paperwork and form-filling that they consider unnecessary is time not spent on creating jobs, employing people and growing their business.

A phrase in paragraph 172 of the explanatory notes really does require explanation by way of an example. It states that the regulations that will arise from the clause

''may be restricted to projects over a specified value''.

That is music to my ears, because it prefigures some caveat or exemption for small businesses. Will the Minister suggest the specified value below which the regulations would not apply?

The regulations seem rather detailed, because they may specify when the plans must be prepared, the contents of such plans, the enforcement regulations, the offences and penalties that may apply and the possibility for discharge of liability for an offence by payment of a fixed penalty. Alarm bells ring when one sees a description of what may be included in a site management plan, because of the tendency of officials at local and national level to gold-plate regulations.

We should have a better understanding as to whether small businesses will be protected and what specified value officials have in mind. They must have something in mind, otherwise they would not have used the phrase ''over a specified value'' in the explanatory notes. Will the Minister assure me that the reference will, in due course, protect small businesses, and if so, what size of small business?

As the departmental Minister, will he also assure us that he will do what he can to ensure that the regulations, which will bring into life site waste management plans, will not be another example of useless red tape and will be only as long as is absolutely necessary? They should not be so long as to incommode small business men and women who want nothing more than to run and expand their businesses in Britain and employ more people?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I assure the hon. Gentleman that the intention of the provisions is not to tangle up small projects in a great deal of red tape or bureaucracy. We will not expect people who are building extensions to their homes or garages to produce a site plan, because that would be excessive. He is right that we need to think about the arrangements to deal with the ''specified value'' to which reference was made. That requires consideration, which is why that is best done through regulations. Values of land will vary in different parts of the country, and the type of land will vary, for example contaminated land will require particular management plans. That variation can be covered by the powers in the Bill to set the arrangements for managing and disposing of waste created in the course of a project.

It is true that there is an element of regulation, and no companies like regulation. However, companies often point out to me—they made a powerful case and I have a great deal of sympathy with it—that good companies take regulations seriously. There is a cost involved in applying standards, whether they be health and safety, environmental or these new standards. Other companies undercut good companies because they bend the rules, cut corners and do not apply standards. We should not tolerate that, because it is bad not only for environmental standards, but for fair competition.

We understand the perfectly reasonable points that the hon. Gentleman makes. That is why the regulations will follow and will be scrutinised. We will consult with those to whom the regulations are relevant. The regulations will also be subject to a regulatory impact assessment, so that people can see clearly who is involved, who they apply to and what the implications are. I do not disagree with the hon. Gentleman's points, but I assure him that they will be dealt with in the regulations that will follow.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Power to make dog control orders

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I beg to move amendment

No. 107, in clause 55, page 50, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 100, in clause 55, page 50, line 19, at end add—

'( ) The appropriate person must consult with interested parties before an offence under subsection (3) is prescribed by regulation.'.

No. 110, in clause 55, page 50, line 27, at end insert—

'( ) Regulations under subsection (4) shall provide that no dog control order shall apply in respect of any working dog being used for the driving or tending of cattle or sheep.'.

No. 101, in clause 56, page 31, line 10, at end add—

'( ) The appropriate person must consult with the appropriate parties before regulations are made prescribing the procedure to be followed by primary or secondary authorities for the making of dog control orders.'.

No. 102, in clause 56, page 51, line 10, at end add—

'(c) the criteria which shall be applied to determine the necessity for the making of a dog control order in relation to any offence.'.

No. 103, in clause 56, page 51, line 10, at end add—

'(d) The procedure to be established to enable an appeal to be made by the public against a dog control order being made.'.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

We are now into the dogs section of the Bill, which will attract interest even beyond the Committee. Before going into the specifics of the amendments, I should put on record the concern that was expressed to us about lack of consultation with interested parties. The reform of the system of dog byelaws is welcome. The question is whether it is being done effectively in the provisions of this part of the Bill. It is, of course, the case that the current regime—

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

The hon. Gentleman just said that there has been a lack of consultation. I assure him that that is not the case. There has been wide and extensive consultation for a considerable period. I have circulated to the Committee a letter that follows a meeting with two organisations that had concerns about elements of the Bill. Their concerns involved misapprehensions about what needs to be in the Bill and what needs to be in delegated legislation. There has been very wide consultation.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

We may get on to some of the points that have been made later. I hope that the Minister will respond. I hear what he said. He was also courteous enough to send me a copy of a letter that relates to a later clause. I will not try your patience with it now, Mr. Taylor, but I thank the Minister for that point, to which we will return.

There is no doubt that the regime is costly and difficult to administer and that reform is called for. The clean neighbourhoods consultation set out proposals to streamline the dog byelaw system, which received almost unanimous support from local authorities. However, some authorities also said that they would welcome the chance to designate areas in which dog access is restricted, while pointing out that such a measure would need policing. That is another theme in the proposals—the adequacy of policing. That will crop up later in our deliberations.

I wonder why various bodies have said that the consultation was not exactly as they would have liked. The bodies I have in mind are the respective bodies that include certain members of the National Dog Warden Association, the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club.

Amendment No. 107 is a probing amendment, because we are not entirely satisfied that the ambit of subsection (3) is sufficiently well drawn. It has been said to us that there is some doubt as to how the powers in clause 55 will actively improve the provisions of the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which makes it a criminal offence not to remove dog faeces from designated land immediately. The National Dog Warden Association is involved in the front line of dealing with issues as specific as that. The 1996 Act was widely welcomed by those with an interest in this area of policy.

Another point arises concerning the limit on the number of dogs one person can keep in a non-commercial environment. What is the precise definition of this restriction? Is it intended that there will be a universal maximum number forming the restriction? I notice from the explanatory notes that regulations will tell us the scope of the offence, giving us the detail that is not in the Bill, but it would be useful to have some indication of what scope each of the individual new offences will have in the regulations.

Amendment No. 100 would require that the ''appropriate person'', the Secretary of State

''must consult interested parties before an offence under subsection (3) is prescribed by regulations.''

Does the Minister believe that any further consultation is necessary now or in the future if more regulations are made? The amendment would place the necessary obligation on the Secretary of State transparently and clearly in the Bill. To have that there would not be contentious.

I have other points on clause 56, relating to duties that we would like to place on the Secretary of State, but would the Minister reply to those arguments in the shape of our amendments?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We have tabled amendment No. 110 in this group, which I hope the Minister will reassure me is completely unneeded, because he can envisage no circumstances in which that could ever happen. The reason for the amendment, which was drawn up with the help of the National Farmers Union, which welcomes the new dog control orders, was concern about the extension of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

The Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, which is being repealed, specifically excluded agricultural land, moor, heath and common land from the provisions enabling local authorities to designate land to impose poop scoop requirements on persons in charge of dogs on land where the public are entitled or permitted to have access. Since then, with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act, a lawful right of access to just the type of open country that was excluded from the 1996 Act has come into force—subject to walkers keeping their dogs on a short lead at lambing time and in the vicinity of livestock.

Use of the CROW Act will likely make apparent that there are specific areas of farmland where dog control orders will be required to combat dog-related nuisance. We have in mind the immediate vicinity of a car park, which would be heavily transited by people using the countryside, or a particular piece of countryside used as a route to wider areas. Those heavily used sections could create a problem of nuisance from fouling or interference with livestock. Dog control orders might be very welcome in those areas.

However, it would clearly be absurd if the dog control order included the working dogs of the farmer managing the land. Committee members would find ridiculous the image of a farmer using dogs to round up his sheep and running behind them with a poop scoop. The amendment would exclude working dogs on agricultural land from dog control orders for that reason. There may be a need for dog control orders on areas of land that are worked by working dogs, but the working dogs themselves need to be exempt from their requirements.

That may become a problem in my constituency, as it contains a fair amount of land affected by the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and it could become a problem in other hon. Members' constituencies. Will the Minister assure us that by one means or another, whether in the Bill or not, he will resist enforcing that measure?

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

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds acknowledged that the present arrangements are costly and difficult and he said that some of his amendments were probing amendments. The hon. Member for Ludlow gave us the opportunity to respond to the concerns he raised and was not antagonistic to the results that my party is trying to achieve. I am sure that he will examine my response with his usual searching gaze. Both contributions have been helpful in teasing out our intentions and the best way of achieving the outcomes we seek.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I meant to say that although this is a probing amendment, it uses exactly the same wording as section 3 of the Dog Fouling (Scotland) Act 2003, which provides for exceptions to the poop scoop offence in section 1.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for explaining the wording of his amendment. I am sure that it will help Committee members.

It may be helpful if I set the clause in the context of the various measures that apply to dogs. Most of the provisions in this part of the Bill concern our proposals for a new system of dog control orders to replace the existing dog byelaw arrangements. The explanatory notes say that the current arrangements are costly and complicated to administer. They incur costs both for local government and for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and therefore central Government. That is why we propose to replace that system with a new system of dog control orders modelled on the present arrangements for dealing with fouling by dogs that were introduced in the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996, under which there is an offence of dog fouling that can be applied by local authorities by order in relation to designated land in their areas.

The Bill repeals the provisions of the 1996 Act because it would be confusing for authorities and members of the public to have two sets of provisions in existence at the same time. Although the repeal was not specifically consulted on, the 1996 Act is the basis of the new regime and was consulted upon widely.

Similarly, under the new system, we propose that specific offences should be set out in regulations. Local authorities will provide for those offences to apply on designated land in their areas. The system will also be available to parish and town councils, which, although they can make byelaws, cannot designate land to deal with dog fouling. It is an expression of confidence in the capacity of parish and town councils that they should be able to undertake this sort of work where they wish. Overall, the new system will be simpler to operate and will provide greater certainty for everybody concerned. Clause 68 also deals with stray dogs.

The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds kindly referred to the letter that I have made available to members of the Committee. A comprehensive briefing was sent to the Committee by the Kennel Club that raised several points about such measures. I am pleased to say that, a few days ago, I had a useful meeting with the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust and I have made available a copy of the letter that I sent to the Kennel Club after that meeting. At the meeting, both organisations made it clear that they welcomed in principle the proposals for dog control measures. We agreed with their concerns about such matters and I assured them that the issues they raised would be dealt with under regulations and guidance. I undertook to ensure that they are fully consulted on such matters before they are put in place. We can discuss their concerns about the provisions for stray dogs when we reach the relevant clause.

The Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust made it clear that they were, in principle, in favour of the change that we are proposing provided that adequate resources are made available. Of course, the transfer of resources is necessary under the new burdens procedures, which is currently under discussion. Although I cannot give an assurance on that point at this stage, I am sure that I shall be able to in due course. Again, we shall come to that matter when we reach the relevant clause.

It is worth my pointing to the fact that there is an important relationship between legislation and other actions that are taken to change behaviour. I referred to dog fouling when we were discussing litter and other issues during our debates last week. I drew attention to the work of ENCAMS in designing campaigns that can be taken up locally and which I am certain have contributed considerably to the reduction in the amount of dog fouling, which is now measurable by the comparisons that are undertaken year on year, to which I have referred.

It is in that context that I come to the specific amendments. I shall not be too harsh, given the fact that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds said that they were drafted to draw out a response to some particular points. I was not clear when reading the amendment why he was seeking to retain a separate system for dog fouling under amendment No. 107. The proposed system of dog control orders is modelled on the current system for dog fouling, but it will simplify matters for both enforcement authorities and dog owners by having a single regime for all dog offences. I cannot see the benefit of having two sets of rules, not one. A further key problem with the amendment is that existing legislation on dog fouling cannot be used by parish councils, whereas parish councils will be able to take action against dog fouling under the dog control system.

Amendments Nos. 100 and 101 are unnecessary. I give the Committee an absolute assurance that we will consult fully on the draft regulations to be made under the clause, so there is no need to single out particular aspects of the regulations in such a way. As for amendment No. 102, it is for the authority making the order to determine whether a dog control order is needed. Again, I assure the Committee that we will provide guidance on the circumstances in which a district or parish council should consider making a dog control order, but it is important that such bodies can take full account of local conditions. Guidance points them in the direction, but allows local decision making to take place. I am sure that that is the right approach.

This is not an issue on which it would be helpful for central Government to set rigid controls on the exercise of powers by local authorities. Nevertheless, clause 56(4) provides the power for central Government to do so should that prove necessary in future. There is therefore that failsafe mechanism.

For the same reason, I do not believe that the appeal system proposed under amendment No. 103 is needed. The rules of the new system will be clear, and district and parish councils will need to follow the set procedures and the model orders that will be included in the regulations. Failure to do so will invalidate the orders. Any appeal that focuses on the merits of the case for the order would involve substituting the views of an appeal body for those of the responsible council, and there is not a case for that. A decision that was manifestly unreasonable or that was not made following the correct formalities could still be challenged using the usual judicial remedies.

As for amendment No. 110, I accept the points made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. They can be taken account of in a way that is more appropriate and flexible than putting such matters into the Bill. I agree that dog control orders should not apply to working dogs, and I can give an assurance that that will be dealt with in regulations.

There are definitional problems; is a dog a working dog when it is working and not a working dog when it is not? Somebody might go walking in a different part of the countryside with a dog that is a working dog most of the time, but is it a working dog when it is visiting another area? Such issues are not easy to define, but we know what we mean in general terms. There should not be interference with the use of working dogs on farms. In the spirit of our search for agreement, I give an undertaking that this will be dealt with in regulations.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I thank the Minister for that. Farmers who use dogs will be reassured that they will not be caught up in a rather ridiculous scenario.

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

I am happy to give that undertaking.

I can give assurances that a couple of other points have also been taken into account. Reference was made to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, and concern was expressed about the lack of exclusions of land from a new regime. Clause 57(3) allows land to be exempted by order. There is also a power for exemptions under the Dogs (Fouling of Land) Act 1996 to be excluded. The fact that that is being repealed does not introduce the inflexibility that was suggested in our discussion.

Clause 55 gives local authorities and parish councils—which are respectively defined as primary and secondary authorities in clause 58—the power to make orders to control dogs. Those powers bring into play a new regime that will effectively replace the dog byelaw-making regime. That must be to everybody's benefit, as it removes bureaucracy for both local and central Government.

Clause 55(3) provides that dog control orders can be made to require owners to clear up after their dogs when they have fouled; require that dogs are kept on leads; ban dogs from certain areas; and limit the number of dogs that a person can walk at the same time. The detail of how they are applied is a matter for regulation and guidance, and it requires the flexibility that does not exist when measures are provided for in primary legislation.

In keeping with the constructive spirit in which the hon. Members for Ludlow and for Bury St. Edmunds introduced their amendments, I hope that they will accept my assurances, withdraw the amendments and support the helpful approach of this clause.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I seek two points of clarification. We suggest that criteria should be set out that would be applied to determine the necessity for the making of a dog control order in relation to any offence. In other words, there should be criteria for explaining what the trigger threshold should be. I am not entirely satisfied by what the Minister says because one could imagine a situation in which an over-zealous local authority takes a heavy-handed and disproportionate view of irresponsible behaviour on the part of a minority of dog owners—a sledgehammer to crack a nut—and that may well inconvenience the large majority of responsible owners in an area. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Department provides national guidelines to local authorities on what the threshold should be before they trigger an order.

The second point of clarification is on appeals. We require elucidation on that. With regard to the procedure for appeals, it is not immediately clear how the appeal mechanism will be established. Could the Minister give an indication of how a dog owner could mount an appeal in the face of an order under which that owner has committed an offence? That is in the context of the necessary checks and balances against over-zealous local authorities.

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

The hon. Gentleman has raised two interesting points, on which I hope I can satisfy him immediately. The first is the concept of a ''trigger threshold''. The whole point of taking that approach is to minimise the extent to which the processes are controlled by central Government, although there will be regulations and guidance to ensure that the power is not abused. Such a threshold puts local decision-making into the hands of the local authority, be that the principal authority or the parish or town council. The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we should devolve that decision-making power to the local level and simultaneously renationalise it. The enthusiasm of Conservative Members for nationalisation on a point of detail that would involve a lot of bureaucracy never fails to amaze me.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The Minister cannot get away with that. Behind the amendment is not a suggestion that there should be mandatory guidelines binding the hands of local authorities, but rather that there should be a non-statutory and non-mandatory guideline that gives everyone a clue to the level of mischief that needs to be extant before a dog control order should be introduced. It would not be direct control or centralisation on a statutory basis from the centre, but merely guidance to warn off over-zealous local authorities that use their decentralised powers inappropriately.

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

That is interesting. The hon. Gentleman now says that he wants a threshold to be non-statutory, but, if it were, it could not be on the face of the Bill. He also says it would be non-mandatory, in which case it would not even be a subject for guidance. If the threshold were neither statutory nor mandatory, it would merely be an expression of opinion. I have no objection to those on the Opposition Front Bench expressing an opinion; indeed, I am delighted to hear opinions being expressed by a Whip on this occasion, having fulfilled the role of speaking Whip myself. Speaking can be quite enjoyable if one has been suffering in silence for a long time, as happens in that important parliamentary role.

My point is that we are devolving responsibility within a clear arrangement so that local authorities can make their decisions. The powers are there for regulations and guidance to be provided in due course. If we find that local authorities are running amok with intrusive and inappropriate use of these clauses—something I think is so unlikely as to be difficult to contemplate—we would be able to issue regulations. However, if that is not necessary, let us not add to the bureaucracy.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Is this not a case where the local electorate should be trusted? If a council were so heavy-handed as to introduce regulations that annoyed every dog owner in the area, there is a fair chance that the councillors who did so would be thrown out at the next set of elections. Were a Tory council to do that, I am sure the incoming Liberal Democrat council would deregulate and remove the over-zealous arrangements.

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

It is not for me to intrude on the private grief of Opposition Members about who will do the worst in future elections, but the hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Let local authorities deal with these matters within the framework that will be set out in due course and that will give them the maximum flexibility to deal in the appropriate way with the problems in their area.

That is also the answer to the issue of an appeal. Let us be clear what we are talking about. The clause to which the amendment is addressed concerns the power to make a dog control order. The clause does not concern appeals against a fixed penalty notice or a prosecution; rather, it suggests that there should be a right of appeal against the making of an order. As I have indicated, we do not think that that is appropriate. It will be the local authority—the local elected body—taking that decision. Those bodies have all sorts of arrangements governing the way in which they take decisions. They have to act within their powers and are accountable to their local electorate, so I think that we should leave it to them, rather than adding to local bureaucracy by requiring them to create an appeals process against the making of an order.

As I said earlier, there is always a challenge if a local authority gets the process wrong; there is the ombudsman process and the process of judicial review. I would be extremely surprised if it ever became necessary to use any of those fall-back provisions. They are there in the generality of the law, however, should they be needed. I hope that, with that clear explanation, the Bill as drafted is appropriate to these measures and will have the agreement of everybody on the Committee.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I have listened to what the Minister said, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 56 and 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58 - Primary and secondary authorities

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

This clause defines primary and secondary authorities. A primary authority is

''(a) a district council in England;

(b) a county council in England for an area for which there is no district council;

(c) a London borough council''

and so on. A secondary authority is

''(a) a parish council in England;

(b) a community council in Wales.''

The definitions relate to other clauses, which state that one person will be designated to have authority in such matters. I wonder whether the Minister could clarify, before we vote on this, what happens in an area which crosses the borders, particularly between England and Wales. Who has authority over these matters where there are cross-border disputes?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Perhaps I can explain what the clause does, and then respond.

Clause 58 defines local authorities in England, and county or county boroughs in Wales, as primary authorities, and parish councils and community councils in Wales as secondary authorities. The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales—whichever is appropriate—can also designate other organisations carrying out statutory functions as being secondary authorities. It is important to note that point. Such bodies could include national parks authorities or commons conservators with existing dog byelaw-making powers, for instance, and it provides a comprehensive way of dealing with any issues in terms of what bodies should be able to exercise those powers.

I am not sure that there is an issue in relation to the border any more than arises between the border of one local authority and another—or, indeed, one parish council and another. Clearly, each has powers within its area, and it is sensible, where possible, for organisations that have a common border to talk to each other. I would not be at all surprised, for instance, if a number of parish councils sometimes worked together, took the same approach and jointly employed staff, as is increasingly happening on a number of issues. That ensures that they have both the local sensitivity that arises from having such a local body and gain benefits through working together. The hub-and-spoke model has operated in other places where a larger parish council can work with others, or a town council can work with surrounding parish councils. I envisage a similar degree of co-operation when issues arise on borders between local authorities. The same would apply if the border happened to be not only between an English county and a Welsh unitary authority, but the border between England and Wales. An authority would be responsible for the area of land within its boundaries.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I assume that similar problems have existed. We have talked about cross-border disputes in other pieces of legislation, but we are now looking at cases that could involve, as the Minister says, borders between Wales and England. However, they could also involve borders between one district and another. Working together is fine, but does the Minister foresee that the co-operation would extend to fining?

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

That raises interesting theoretical issues. Would people, for example, take their dogs across parish boundaries to foul in the areas where the fines are lower? Somehow, I do not think that such issues are likely to arise. It is likely that the issues would be similar in adjoining parishes. Such parishes would, for instance, be likely to take a common decision in equity on fines.

Of course, the border could be between a parish in one county and a parish in another, depending on what body had undertaken the arrangements. If, at the end of the day, issues needed to be addressed in regulations and guidance, the capacity to do that would remain. However, I hope that common sense would dictate most of the responses between different authorities.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Although I follow the Minister's argument about likely co-operation, is it not slightly more likely that a cross-border issue could arise? This provision would extend to much more land, including public access land, than would have been the case under previous legislation. So there is a chance, for example, that one authority could implement a dog-control order, and for there to be through-access into another authority that did not have a dog-control order. That would make things a little difficult.

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

That is theoretically possible but, in practice, most people and organisations have developed experience in dealing with such issues; we certainly found that during the consultation. There is greater public engagement and support for tackling such issues, so I am optimistic. However, as I have said, the reserve arrangements would be there if we needed them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60 - Amount of fixed penalties

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I beg to move amendment No. 109, in clause 60, page 53, line 21, from 'order' to 'is' in line 25.

I meant to speak on clause 59 stand part, but I guess that I have missed my opportunity. However, I am sure that there will be ways of raising those issues at a later date.

The amendment has been tabled because of concern raised with Opposition Committee members by interested bodies about the effects of this clause. There is concern about the principle that local authorities should set their own penalty levels for dog-control offences. Before I get to the meat of the amendment, it might be sensible to make the remarks that I was going to make about clause 59. A real burden and additional administrative work would be imposed on local authorities as a result of this regime change. I think that we can all agree on that. The fear is that there would be pressure on local authorities to raise expenditure, to put it crudely, through the over-use of fixed-penalty notices. It would be disappointing to discover that local authorities thought that way, but we are aware of how certain constabularies use speed cameras as a means of revenue generation.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The point that I had reached before we were interrupted was that there was potential for local authorities to be over-zealous and to use a fixed penalty notice regime as a nice little earner.

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

I should be interested to know whether it has occurred to the hon. Gentleman that it would be open to the population—dog owners, in particular—to frustrate any attempts by a local authority to use these provisions as a fund-raising measure simply by not committing any offences.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The logic of the Minister's argument is impeccable, but it is not a logic that has managed to operate in the sphere of car speeding. Individuals believe that they are committing offences only because over-zealous authorities place cameras where there is allegedly no safety problem—and clocking motorists for offences that, in the eyes or minds of car drivers, probably should not be taken to prosecution or a fine.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. Could I bring the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds back to Amendment No. 109 to clause 6?

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I will, of course, return to the amendment.

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

I want to make the point to the hon. Gentleman that these provisions actually require local authorities to decide where the powers will apply. They are, of course, accountable to their local communities—whereas the other circumstances, into which I will not trespass, are entirely different.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I note that my analogy is not a perfect one. The analogy that I was seeking to draw, but that I will not discuss further for fear of attracting Mr. Taylor's strictures, is that there are fine mechanisms in place outside the dog control world where authorities—in this case motor authorities, camera partnerships and so forth—have been able allegedly to generate money through the zealous imposition of fines and penalty notices. Now, there is at least a risk of that happening, though as the Minister correctly points out, there is a democratic lock on the ability of authorities to behave in that way. It would be better if authorities did not see fixed penalty notices as a cash generation device.

I note that the Kennel Club accepts in principle the new regime on penalty notices. It has not objected to extending the power to issue fixed penalty notices to other bodies—such as contractors employed by a local authority for this purpose—provided that they are competent and well trained to a national standard. That leads to the whole question of the amount of penalties in clause 60 and the amendment to it and whether there will be adequately trained officers to carry out duties on behalf of local authorities who wish to employ them. We need to have confidence that this regime will be enforced in a fair way and that the rules will be enforced sensibly. If these new powers for fixed penalties are to have the respect of the dog owning public, they must be effective. The question of those officers enforcing the law needs to be addressed in the Minister's comments.

The level of fixed penalty notices logically follows on from the regime of fixed penalty notices. The setting by local authorities of their own levels of penalty for dog control offences runs the risk that, in irresponsible authorities, dog owners will be clobbered financially—disproportionately. A fine is acceptable, but we should not welcome disproportionately high fines.

I wonder what the Minister's thinking was in deciding upon the radical devolution of the powers in question. The Bill states an appropriate level of £75 as a default position, and if that had been set as a national standard, it might have contributed simplicity and consistency to the new system. The Bill, of course, still allows the local authority a discretionary power to reduce the fine if it is paid in a certain time or if it is felt that the level has been set too high. However, I should be grateful if the Minister could share his thoughts on the matter.

There is some concern that, without the relevant proviso, some local authorities might set an amount that dog owners would consider draconian and disproportionate, as a means of generating extra income.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I oppose the amendment, which would restrict the flexibility of local government. In my normal Front-Bench capacity for the Liberal Democrats, as spokesman on the business of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I have the unfortunate task of listening regularly to the corresponding Front-Bench Conservative spokesmen. They continually talk about giving extra flexibility and power to local authorities. I should have thought that the power in question was exactly the sort of power that they would want to provide. I struggle to find the reason for the Conservatives' position. Perhaps their Whips are not in touch with their spokesmen on the matter, but I welcome the fact that the Government are giving local authorities some flexibility.

Were a local authority seen to be completely unreasonable in its approach, I am sure that the electorate would punish it harshly, just as, for instance, when a local authority overdoes the charges in its car parks, the electorate often rise up in anger. The adjoining local authority to mine is Labour-controlled Telford, where I believe that exactly that sort of thing has just happened. Indeed, I think that it led to the change of leadership of the council there. The hon. Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley), who is in the Room, may have had a tiny bit to do with that. It shows that public pressure can pay.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I hear what the hon. Member for Ludlow has to say. He must appreciate that this is a probing amendment to tease out of the Minister information as to exactly what the Government intend to do. As he will well know from former battles, I do not support in any way, shape or form the National Assembly for Wales, but I support devolution to the lowest level possible. That includes down to individuals, but the buck must stop somewhere when it comes to what the levels of fines will be.

We are all veterans of knocking on doors in local authority elections and—whether in county or district elections—I am sure that we have all seen the confusion on the faces of the public as to who does what. People are confused about where the line of responsibility lies. Sometimes I am guilty of that when I try to work out who is doing what, under agency rules, for local authorities, where it is a county responsibility, but the district operates its powers as an agency. Therefore, there are clearly problems about the public's understanding of who has responsibility in any given area.

I suspect that the clause tries to bring clarity to the amount of the fines that can be levied. The Minister said earlier that he hoped that authorities would work together to establish coherence. I also take on board the fact that, from one local authority area to another, there are different charges for other things, such as car parking. In some areas car parking is free, whereas in others there are prohibitive charges for parking for longer than three hours. Therefore, the public are already used to having to read notices when they go from one town to another so that they know what they will be liable for.

I assume that if, under the clause, the penalty can differ from area to area, the authority will have a responsibility to ensure that the public are made aware of its byelaws. If it decides to bring in notices under clause 55 to deal with fouling of land or

''the keeping of dogs on leads''

or whatever the violation is, the public will know, first, that a byelaw has been introduced and, secondly, what the fine is likely to be if it is transgressed.

Although subsection (1)(b) says that, if no amount is specified, the levy will be £75, I fully appreciate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds said, there may be extra enthusiasm on the part of some local authorities, which, let us admit it, are hard pressed for cash. If they are allowed to keep the fines, they will they have to start to pay people to enforce the byelaws, and the fine may not be £75 but a much higher figure.

Does the Minister believe that a ceiling will operate here? I know that he talked about the public's democratic abilities. I appreciate that if the great dog-owning public are scorched by an over-zealous authority, which is obsessed with trying to raise as much money as it can from dog owners who transgress the law, they will allow their voice to be heard at elections. Is there any protection for dog owners that there will be a ceiling, which will be known? I saw level 3 mentioned in an earlier clause. I hope that the Minister can assure us that, even if local authorities are given the flexibility to charge above the £75, the figure will not go to ridiculous heights.

I am also pleased that the clause provides that those who pay the fines on time can do so at a reduced level. Clearly if fines are not paid on time or are not paid, people will be liable for higher charges if the case later goes to court. It all boils down to what the Minister said earlier about the clause: as long as the public abide by the laws, they should not fear any of the penalties mentioned in the clause. However, the public must know what the law is, particularly as authorities will be able to impose different regulations in different districts.

We talked about cross-border areas earlier. If a parish council is the authority dealing with the matter, it may have a different rule from another authority, which might impose something different. It simply a question of giving the public information. Generally, I agree that local authorities, or whatever the body is, should be given the discretion to do it. That is probably good for the democratic process. It gets people more involved in decision making in their local authority areas, as long as they know what they are supposed to be doing and have protection against over-exuberant fines. [Interruption.]

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. I remind Committee members that mobile phones should be switched off.

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

It is interesting to hear the hon. Gentleman waxing eloquent and showing what I would describe as over-enthusiasm, given that he has applied that term to local authorities. I would say in passing that it is a pity that the Conservatives have to maintain their opposition to the very existence of the Welsh Assembly—with the exception of the Conservative Assembly Members who are quite comfortable in their minuscule time capsule there, engaging in the negative politics one has come to expect from them. I hope that the general inclination of the hon. Member for Ribble Valley in the direction of devolution might extend not only to Wales, but to local authorities and the parish and town councils to whom the clause is relevant.

I shall set out the general situation, which is very straightforward. If an authority sets a fixed penalty notice at a level that is unreasonably high, it is quite clear what people can do. They will refuse to pay, go to court and get a lower fine. That will be a matter for the courts, but they do not have a tendency to be over-exuberant in the level of fines that they apply, so the outcome will be fairly predictable if the level of the fixed penalty notice is too high.

The hon. Gentleman suggests that there might be an increase in activity in order to secure the money to finance that increased activity. It would be an odd authority that gambled on the likelihood that people would not notice the increased policing of the offensive activity, and would continue paying fines at a level that would pay for enforcement.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It happens with speeding.

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

The hon. Gentleman makes a comment from a sedentary position. I am sure that he is deliberately trying to provoke you, Mr. Taylor. I have already pointed out that an entirely different set of circumstances exists in relation to speeding. Speeding provisions are universal, but in this case a local authority specifies places where the problem arises and the enforcement is applied to those locations that are defined. As I said earlier, the public can frustrate any fund-raising efforts by a local authority by simply refusing to offend. That is a neat conclusion because the problem then disappears. The provisions exist to change behaviour and stop that offending.

As for the need to make regulations in that regard, I draw the attention of Committee members to clause 60(5), which states that

''Regulations under subsection (4) may (in particular)—

(a) require an amount specified under subsection (1)(a) to fall within a range prescribed in the regulations;

(b) restrict the extent to which, and the circumstances in which, a primary or secondary authority can make provision under subsection (3).

It makes plans for a change in the default figure in the subsequent part of the clause. Should there be an outbreak of collective elected insanity in our town and parish councils that leads to onerous burdens being placed on people who offend under the provisions, notwithstanding the safeguards that I described, the provisions exist to deal with that in the Bill. I hope that those provisions are never used because they are there as a fail-safe. It is an intelligent fail-safe, and it is clear that hon. Members think that it is intelligent to put it there because they asked us to include it, not appreciating that we already had.

I conclude by saying that I strongly resist the amendment. I am aware that the Kennel Club was attracted by the argument that equity would be best served by a national level of fixed penalty, but I have explained to it that a key feature of the Bill is a range of policies that give local councils the flexibility that they need to respond to local conditions. Dog control orders can be made to cover areas of different sizes, from the very specific and tightly controlled urban areas to wide areas in the countryside, if that appears appropriate to the relevant local authority. The orders can be made for different offences, and they will address many different circumstances.

The case for giving local authorities the ability to vary fixed penalty levels to suit local conditions is particularly strong. I would strongly resist any temptation to renationalise the level of fines in that way. There is a default mechanism in the clause. If local authorities, and parish and town councils, feel that that is the appropriate level and that they do not need to vary it upwards or downwards, they do not have to do so. The opportunity is there for them to do so if their local circumstances require a different level of fine in order to give the best service to the public in their area.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I hear what the Minister says and I am attracted by the argument that he makes. It is common sense that if those involved go over the top, there will be real problems for them. It could lead to their being taken to court, which would involve huge costs for them. Will he give me some reassurance that authorities will have to publicise the fines and the byelaws?

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

It is important that the authorities make that certain because the whole purpose is to change behaviour, which involves making people aware of the penalty. I hope that the publicity will not simply be about the penalty available, but will be part of a local campaign to make people realise how failing to control their animals causes a nuisance to others. I referred earlier to the work that ENCAMS has done successfully. I hope that that will be associated with any circumstances of this sort.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the Minister agree that any sensible local authority would include on any notice—say about a field—the level of the penalty for the simple reason that it wants the notice to have a deterrent effect? If the notice did not have a figure on it and just said, ''Please don't let your dog poop on this field,'' there is a fair chance that people might ignore it, whereas if it said, ''Don't let your dog poop on this field or you will pay £75,'' there is far more chance of its being enforced.

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

That is absolutely correct. I hope that, in the light of that, we will have united support for the withdrawal of the amendment and for the clause.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

Having heard what the Minister has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendment proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question agreed to.

Clause 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 61 - Power to require name and address

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

We have had similar provisions in the past that relate to people not giving their names and addresses. It is relatively easy for an officer to know when people are not giving their names and addresses, so that will be taken further. If they give a false name and address, that is somewhat more difficult to detect, particularly if the officer has not the faintest idea who that person happens to be. I hope that the Minister can say what will happen when an officer goes up to somebody and says, ''Your dog has flouted the byelaws and you have done nothing to prevent it from doing so. Give me your name and address. If you do not do so, you are liable to a fine on summary conviction not exceeding level 3.'' The officer would have to tell them what the figure is because they would not have the faintest idea what level 3 is—I have not got the faintest idea what it is.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

It is £1,000.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

It is £1,000 is it? That is quite a lot of money. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that one of the reasons why a fine is included is that it acts as a deterrent. That is quite right. If people know that if they do not give their name and address, or give a false name and address and are caught, they are liable to a fine of £1,000, it will act as a deterrent because that is a lot of money for the vast majority of people in this country. I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance that there are guidelines for officers when asking for names and addresses, and that they let the people from whom they are seeking the information know that there is a hefty fine and that they must give the information requested or pay £1,000.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the Minister reassure me that, if an officer of the council saw the offence being committed, he could take the car's registration number and would have the right to find the person's name and address? The reason I ask is that there is a problem in Ludlow relating to a playing field in Wheeler road. Typically the people whose dogs are let loose on it do not get out of their cars—they pull up in their cars, open the back door and the dog runs out. They then call the dog back 10 minutes later, once it has done its business. There are people driving their dogs to a playing field to allow them to foul. That seems ridiculous.

The issuing of a fixed penalty notice to someone in their car might be difficult, but the officer might see the person leaving. I am trying to understand whether, if the officer took the number of the car, there might be sufficient grounds to make an inquiry to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority to ascertain that person's name and address so that the council could issue a fixed penalty notice.

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

Yes, that would apply. We encourage good relationships and liaison between local authorities and the police and organisations such as the DVLA, which fully appreciates the value of such co-operation. I do not have a great deal of sympathy for people who are so obstructive that they will not give their name and address when they are being told clearly that they have committed an offence.

Reaching that level of fine requires bringing a prosecution to court, and the level of reasonableness would depend on the exact response that had been given. If it were clear that somebody had not understood the situation, a court would be inclined to give a minimal penalty or a discharge, whereas if an individual had been repeatedly warned and had told the local authority official to ''F off'' in explicit terms, I suspect that the court would take a different view. That would be dealt with by a court, so proportionality is allowed.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the Minister give me his understanding of the situation in which someone's dog is seen fouling, and the officer goes up to the person and asks for their name and address, but they refuse to give it and leave? Council officers have no powers of arrest, so what means do they have of tracking down the person who refused to give a name and address to bring a prosecution for not giving a name and address?

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

There are a variety of ways of dealing with that situation. A summons is clearly one way. Often we are talking about people committing the same offence on a number of occasions. They are the real nuisance and are well known. The individual may not be recognised, but everybody knows the dog. Taking number plates and photographs are other possibilities. If it is a real nuisance, local authorities have a number of measures by which they can be sure that they call an offender to book. The hon. Member for Ludlow posed the question in general terms. I have replied in general terms. However, I am sure that if he talks to those who have been involved in prosecuting such offences, he will find that there are a range of techniques for dealing with the issue.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The Minister mentioned photographs. Would officers have the power to take a photograph of the person if they had a small digital camera with them? Would they be within their rights under the Human Rights Act 1998?

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

I shall examine that interesting question and write to the hon. Gentleman. An area may be covered by video recorders or CCTV cameras. There are a number of different possibilities.

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

I shall not detain the Committee too long. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley touched on important issues of privacy and human rights. On the question of surveillance—that is, in effect, what is being suggested—I was advised by a senior police officer from Suffolk constabulary last Friday that he cannot post officers outside addresses where he thinks there is a mischief without a warrant. He cannot send an officer there, on the grounds that that may be a breach of human rights and privacy. That, apparently, is not some strange, arcane legal loophole, and it is a serious issue.

The Minister referred to human rights; it would be useful to get clarification on that point, because I would have thought that one means of policing the new regime would be to have officers using a cheap and easy-to-use digital camera to apprehend the offenders.

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

One of the problems that I have found since we started on the virtuous journey to incorporate the European convention on human rights into UK law is that there are almost as many crazy interpretations that can be covered by certain newspapers as there are interpretations of what the European Commission has done.

David Taylor (Labour/Co-operative, North West Leicestershire)

Order. The clause is on the power to require name and address. Surveillance and human rights are wide of the clause.

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

I am grateful to you, Mr. Taylor. I would simply say that I would not believe everything that one reads in the newspapers. I do not believe that major obstacles or concerns would arise as a result of people allowing their dog to foul or to contravene the orders that we are discussing. I am sure that the techniques that I referred to earlier would enable proper enforcement of the requirements.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 62 - Community support officers etc

David Ruffley (Conservative, Bury St Edmunds)

The Government are giving community support officers powers to issue notices. Those officers will receive special training or advice on the kind of offence that needs to be committed before a notice can be issued. I say that for one simple reason: I have been impressed by the briefings that all Committee members have received, from the Kennel Club and elsewhere, on the skill and care with which the dog warden community carries out its duties under the existing regime. It might be at the back of their mind that community support officers will be brought in to police a new regime, assuming that the Bill is passed in the form that the Ministers wish. Those CSOs may or may not be skilled in ways of interpreting dog behaviour, and in interpreting whether a dog is offending or not.

Working out whether an offence is being committed may seem to be common sense, but it is important to have the Minister's assurance that community support officers will receive the requisite degree of training and advice before they take on the new role of issuing notices.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I think that I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that community support officers and other accredited persons would, in issuing fixed-penalty dog control orders, have guidance from the Department on the procedures involved. I know that police forces welcome the role of community support officers. It is a good example of community support officers fulfilling an important role that releases police officers for other crime duties, and shows how those measures can be applied and how they can fit in with the organisation of law and order in individual areas.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I seek some assurances, because reading the explanatory notes, I understand that the chief police officer can authorise community support officers and accredit other persons. I agree with community support officers having that power, and clearly everybody knows how they dress, so there is no problem about their authority. However, we have heard that traffic wardens' powers will be widened, so the chief police officer may decide to confer authority on other people who do not quite have the same authority as community support officers or other police officers. Environmental health officers and other people out of uniform, just wearing normal lounge suits, could be authorised.

In areas where there is a neighbourhood watch the chief police officer may decide to get more people involved. As I understand it, if I see something going wrong, I have the power to make a citizen's arrest—I have never done so, although I tried to apprehend a shoplifter and got a black eye, which I nursed over Christmas three years ago. Something I saw was wrong, and I felt that I had the power to detain that person until the police arrived.

The chief police officer will authorise neighbourhood watch personnel, and they will have the authority. That is what it all comes down to: the police are officially conferring authority on people to enforce byelaws. It could mean issuing fixed penalty tickets, if that is what the chief police officer wants.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Does the hon. Gentleman harbour a secret desire to issue fixed penalty notices? It is beginning to sound like it.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am normally on the receiving end of those, but we are not dealing with motor cars in this Bill.

I am not saying that people other than community support officers will be authorised, but there is a line between the public and the person who has the authority to act. I assume that that person will have some identification that they can show to the person transgressing the byelaws to prove that the chief police officer has given them the powers to demand the name and address, so that a fixed penalty notice can be issued or the matter taken further. I seek assurance from the Minister that people authorised by the chief police officer will carry identification.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that no one would be allowed to issue fixed penalty notices unless they had proper authorisation, including identification and preferably a uniform. The hon. Gentleman must take a common sense approach, because such people will have to be made aware of the law, how it is applied and how people are dealt with. An element of training will have to be taken into account.

We were talking about community support officers. They are trained in how to deal with people, and they are given advice and support. If the power is extended, it is important that it is extended to the appropriate people. If it were extended to someone such as a dog warden, I do not know whether they would want the power or whether the extension would be appropriate. It would have to be authorised by the local authority. I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think that the provision would authorise anyone from down the road who would like some powers to issue on-the-spot fines because someone's dog has been annoying him. That is certainly not going to happen; they will need to have the proper authority and identification.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 63 to 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 66 - ''Appropriate person''

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Once again, I want to deal with the matter of cross-border areas between England and Wales, and where the delineation lies. Will the Minister clarify how the measure would pertain where there is land between England and Wales? Is it accepted that there would be sufficient negotiation between the two relevant people, and that were the authorities to bring in any byelaws they would do so together so that there would be no dysfunctional operation of the law as it stands?

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I know that the hon. Gentleman has raised this point under various legislation, such as the Water Act 2003, so he will be aware that the problem of overlap of responsibility on border areas can be resolved through concordats and direct negotiation with the Welsh Assembly. Over the years, we have established a good, effective working relationship with the Welsh Assembly; we are always careful to involve them and to ensure that they are heard in the development of policy strategies and legislation. Together, we have been successful in clarifying the most appropriate way of dealing with those occasional areas about which there has been an element of doubt.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am extremely grateful to the Minister, and fully appreciate what he has just said. That is the only sensible way of dealing with such matters. Since devolution, there has been a problem in that people do not know where the authority lies. For example, the authority to lift the ban on beef on the bone was held by the Welsh Assembly in Wales and by Ministers here: it was done at virtually the same time, which was a common-sense approach to the problem.

Elliot Morley (Labour, Scunthorpe)

I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman's comments.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 66 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 67 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Ainger.]

Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Five o'clock till Thursday 27 January at twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock.