Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Public Bill Committee, 27 January 2005.

Standing Committee G

Clause 68 - Termination of police responsibility forstray dogs

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment

No. 18, in clause 68, page 56, line 4, leave out subsection (1).

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

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

No. 21, in clause 68, page 56, line 12, at end insert—

'(5) After subsection (1) of that section insert—

''(1A) Where a stray dog taken to a local authority is ill or injured, treatment should be sought by the appropriate local authority at the earliest possible time.''.'.

No. 22, in clause 68, page 56, line 12, at end insert—

'(6) After subsection (6) of that section insert—

''(6A) In this section a ''stray dog'' is one which is unaccompanied by either owner or person responsible for it in a public place or any other place without the permission of the owner of the land or premises where it is found.''.'.

No. 99, in clause 68, page 56, line 12, at end add—

'( ) It shall be the duty of the local authorities to provide a twenty-four hour dog warden service'.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Before the Minister gets too excited about amendment No. 18, it does not, as it appears, try to prevent the transfer of responsibility to a single body, which we welcome.

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

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but is it not normal to hear the prosecution before the case for the defence?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Well, the Minister may be right, but he will notice that this amendment is No. 18 and was tabled early in the process to establish that funds would be transferred. Since then, both in the debate and in a letter that he kindly copied us in on, he has said that the transfer of responsibility will not take place until the transfer of funds. In a sense, we have got the reassurance that we were seeking, but it may be opportune if he enlightens the Committee—although he may be somewhat constrained—as to the possible scale of the funding, since there are two widely differing figures.

The Local Government Association believes that the cost will be £13.2 million. That estimate is based on having one 24-hour full-time post, which is probably excessive for many councils, so for once I will not say that the LGA is absolutely right. I am sure that that is a negotiating position, as I am also sure that the Home Office's estimate of £1.8 million is a negotiating position, since it seems too low. Given that the Minister is from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs rather than the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister or the Home Office, what will he do to facilitate the meeting of those two widely different minds?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am delighted to be back in my place and I apologise for my inexcusable absence on Tuesday. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Ruffley) was able to make such good progress. [Hon. Members: ''So are we.''] I am not used to such extremely good humour in this Committee, which I am delighted to record.

Amendment No. 21 addresses our great concern about the vulnerability of stray dogs, particularly ill or injured animals. It has been drawn to our attention that stray dogs are especially vulnerable to being run over by cars and lorries, because they are not on a lead and therefore not under control. We are probing the Government to find out what arrangements will be made as a result of the consultations, which perhaps the Minister will be good enough to confirm are ongoing; I know that he met one of the dogs bodies—perhaps I should rephrase that—one of the bodies representing dog interests as recently as this week. We suggest that treatment should be sought by the appropriate local authority as early as possible.

Stray dogs do not respect office hours and are unlikely to stray only between the hours of nine and five. The police are open all hours, but what arrangements will be made, not just for injured stray dogs, but for all strays? The police have a long and proud record of looking after stray dogs so they have proper facilities, such as kennels. How quickly will councils put arrangements in place to ensure that they have an adequate number of kennels?

Where a stray is particularly badly hurt, they may be no alternative but for the animal to be put down. Many strays are put down, although fortunately not too many. According to the Library research paper, in 2002-03 only 11 per cent. of the 104,879 strays were put down. Those are the most recent figures and they are almost the lowest of the last 10 years. There is a concern that stray dogs will be destroyed either because they are injured or because they are particularly violent and aggressive.

What facility will there be to police the kennels to ensure that people such as animal rights extremists will not attack those who are doing the excellent work that we ask them to do? The police kennels were unobtrusive and attracted little attention. Obviously one would hope that similar arrangements can be made for local authority dog kennels. The growing extremism of animal rights people is worrying.

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

Is my hon. Friend aware that rural local authorities are concerned about the long distances that will have to be travelled and the large areas that will have to be covered? In my constituency in rural Lincolnshire, stray dogs are an issue due to the activities of illegal hare coursers. When dogs are no longer fit enough to chase the hares across farmers' land, they are often dumped and left to fend for themselves. The Minister and I have exchanged correspondence on this matter. I hope that the rural local authorities' concerns are being taken into account in the changes proposed in the clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

My hon. Friend raises a pertinent point. As hare coursing is illegal, rather than be caught, the perpetrators of that crime prefer to dump their dogs. There is the additional problem that local authorities have to drive further in rural areas to find an appropriate kennel. That will obviously be a cost consideration. I am aware of the Minister's concern for animal welfare, and that of the Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment. The Library research paper describes the response to the Government's consultation on this as follows:

''The threat of attacks on kennels from the public and organisations to prevent injured strays being put down was also a real fear for some respondents. For many it is not solely a matter of capacity for stray dogs but ensuring that the welfare of the animals is protected.''

Confirming the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mr. Simmonds) , it continues:

''Respondents from remote towns and parishes thought that the proposed measure may not be practicable due to the distance stray dogs would have to be transported to be housed. For many the nearest suitable facilities would have been at the police station.''

Trying to find alternative facilities and incurring additional transport costs will put up the overall costs quite dramatically. It should be noted, as it was in the responses, that the present system operated by the police works extremely well. That is important.

My next point is probably the most sensitive one for the Minister to answer; it was touched on by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green). I appreciate that discussions are ongoing and I am sure that the Minister is being patient about hearing all sides of the argument, but if there is to be a transfer of resources, what assurance can he give the Committee and thus the Kennel Club, Dogs Trust and the National Dog Wardens Association that sufficient funds will have been transferred as of the date on which the Bill takes legislative effect?

Mark Simmonds (Conservative, Boston and Skegness)

My hon. Friend is making a very good series of points. Does she share my concern that the Government have a track record of giving local authorities additional responsibilities without providing sufficient funding to allow them to cope with that, which has a direct impact in that local people pay increased council tax? [Interruption.]

The Chairman: Order. Could the continuous conversations on the Government Benches please be curtailed?

Alun Michael rose—

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I give way to the Minister.

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

Will the hon. Lady kindly slap down the intervention from her Back-Bench colleague, who ignores the massive cuts that are promised in local authority funds and services under Conservative proposals, and will she note that it is—

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

Order. We are discussing clause 68 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I hear what the Minister said, but the prospect of slapping down such a kindly and courteous gentleman as my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness fills me with horror. On the Minister's other point, in approximately 10 weeks' time we shall have ample opportunity to discuss—

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

Oh, this is an announcement.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Well, I think that the announcement as to when the forthcoming election will be will come from the Government Benches.

Undoubtedly there will be costs for council tax payers, and I shall come to that. The Minister will know that I try to be constructive, co-operative and positive in our deliberations on the Bill. Will he look kindly on our attempt in amendment No. 22 to draft a definition of a stray dog? Close reading of the Bill discloses that there is no such definition, and I think that it is incumbent on us all to provide one. Having been brought up in a family in which we had dogs as youngsters, I know that male dogs in particular have a propensity to wander off to have a good frolic or for reasons of a more amorous nature. It is therefore important to have to hand a readily available definition as to the length of time—

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

Is the hon. Lady aware that legislation on stray dogs has existed for some 98 years without the need for a definition, and that the intention of dogs in going to places other than where they should be has existed for much longer?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I note with interest the points that the Minister makes, but just because something has existed without a definition for 98 years does not mean that it makes good law. It is important to put it on record that the Bill is riddled with such omissions. We have already identified at least two in earlier proceedings. We have tabled the amendment purely in a helpful and constructive way. We believe that our definition of a stray dog as

''one which is unaccompanied by either owner or person responsible for it in a public or any other place without the permission of the owner of the land or premises where it is found''

would work. That leads to the matter of the microchip. There has been some disappointment that only a small percentage of animals that have been fitted with a microchip, at considerable expense, are returned to their owners? Will the Minister comment on that? Why are fewer strays reunited with their owners, even though dogs can now be fitted with microchips?

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

Perhaps I am being slow, but could the hon. Lady tell me where in her amendment is the reference to microchips?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is not in the amendment. We are keeping an open mind on the subject; I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman.

Our modest amendment No. 22 would help the Minister. The fact that a dog had a microchip or a collar with its name and address—the sort of detail that can identify the owner—would lead to the presumption that the dog was not a stray.

We urge the Government to accept amendment No. 99, which states:

''It shall be the duty of the local authorities to provide a twenty-four hour dog warden service''.

It might seem blindingly obvious what the Government are asking local authorities to do, but it is well known and understood that the police operate a 24-hour dog warden service and that kennels are open for 24 hours, too. Council offices are usually open only between 9am and 5pm and only certain councils will operate a 24-hour service. Will the Minister elaborate on the additional responsibility of providing an entirely new dog warden service? What estimate has his Department made of the cost of providing a 24-hour service and of the transfer of resources from the Home Office to local authorities? As has already been established in Committee, this will be additional funding for local authorities. Does the Minister envisage that central taxation will fund the 24-hour service which amendment No. 99 makes clear is a de facto requirement of the Bill?

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am fascinated that the hon. Lady believes that councils will have to have a 24-hour service. In my constituency, which is about the size of greater London, stray dogs are few and far between. Most stray dogs are found on farmland and farmers have a brutally effective way of dealing with them. It would be an over-requirement on local authorities to require them to have a person sitting there for 24 hours a day, waiting for a call that might come once every three weeks.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the discussion, and to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness, he would know that the illegal activities that result in stray dogs often take place in the winter. If drag hunting is allowed to continue, there will be hounds that go astray. I do not suggest that there should be a 100-strong, 24-hour dog warden service, but a service should be available 24 hours day.

I have reserved one or two points that I would like to make on clause stand part.

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

Order. May I point out to the hon. Lady that I am minded to use my powers under Standing Order No. 68 not to allow further debate on clause 68 stand part?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Perhaps I could make those points on this group of amendments then. What powers will be transferred to the local authorities? This is not a discretionary power; it will be a duty. There will be resource implications. Will the Government ensure that sufficient resources are transferred from the Home Office to local authorities up and down the country?

The point of this group of amendments is to probe the Minister on whether amending the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which the Government are seeking to do under clause 68, is sufficient. Will he confirm that the powers that I believe exist already in London—will be transferred across from the police? In Swansea there is already a detailed record in that regard and substantial costs have been run up. It would be valuable to know from the Minister whether in his view the costs are sufficiently clear.

Will enough kennels be available? Will the Minister confirm that they will not be vulnerable to attack from animal rights activists and that any stray dog that is injured will be brought to the appropriate local authority at the earliest possible time? If there is not to be 24-hour cover, what is the maximum delay that his Department would countenance before such a stray dog was treated? If injured animals were not treated promptly, it would obviously reflect badly on the Government.

Apparently there are no comprehensive figures for the number of dogs impounded by the police across the country. In the city and county of Swansea, which has a population of about 225,000, during 2004 the local authority collected 925 dogs, while the police collected 397. The local authority in Swansea has an agreement with the local police to collect impounded stray dogs out of hours until 8.30 pm on weekdays and 24 hours throughout the weekend, which perhaps answers the point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow. There are substantial numbers of dogs running around during the weekend and out of hours.

The authority takes the dogs to private kennels, with which they have a contract agreement. It does not have its own kennels or reception centre and estimates that providing those would involve considerable capital costs in additional staff and administration. Does the Minister expect that individual local authorities will have to set up their own kennels or reception centres and what estimate has he made of that cost?

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

The hon. Members for Ludlow and for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) have both asked about the transfer of powers and resources. The hon. Member for Ludlow rightly said that we have already referred to this and that I had assured the Committee that there would be a transfer of resources between the Home Office and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to reflect the transfer of responsibilities from the police to local authorities. He went too far, however, with his scurrilous suggestions that the police might estimate a low level of expenditure to keep any transfer of funds to a minimum, and that the Local Government Association might effectively demand money with menaces by exaggerating the burden that would be placed on it. Any figures discussed between those organisations and between two Government Departments would involve an objective assessment of the responsibilities that currently fall on the police, and what would be involved for local authorities to make sensible arrangements to cover the requirements of the Bill. That discussion, especially when it reaches the highly intelligent and competent Ministers who have responsibility in the two Departments, will lead to a sensible and satisfactory outcome.

It must be pointed out that the Government and the Deputy Prime Minister have been keen to emphasise that when responsibilities are transferred, responses should follow. The new burdens approach is sensible from the point of view of an orderly movement—often a devolution—of responsibilities to local government from central Government, and for ensuring that appropriate resources are transferred. I am sure that that will happen in this case. However, as the hon. Member for Vale of York suggested, discussions are going on—I do not like describing them as ongoing, because that makes them sound disorganised and confrontational, whereas these matters are dealt with in an orderly manner—and I am certain that suitable arrangements will be made.

Some of the comments made have almost been contradictory, which is reasonable enough if hon. Members are trying to probe exactly what is intended. For example, the provision of dedicated kennels or a 24-hour service is not the only way to deal with stray animals. Appropriate local arrangements must be made, not least because the extent of the problem differs considerably across the country—it may be a major problem in one city, but a relatively minor one in another. As the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness pointed out, there are big differences between dealing with the problem in an urban area and a rural area, where occasional problems may arise and distances may be considerable. That is why we want a degree of local flexibility.

It may make far more sense to have a contractual arrangement with a vet to provide overnight cover, or with a charity or commercial organisation, as already happens in both rural and urban parts of the country. One of the representatives who came to speak to me about these issues when the Kennel Club and the Dogs Trust came in was a vet who had provided such cover as part of his practice arrangements. It is important that the service is effective and is appropriate for the area, that it deals with the nuisance and that it is carried out in a way that deals with the animal welfare issues.

The point has been made about strays causing a nuisance or being injured in a car accident. I will not regale the Committee with all my experiences in the 1989 Vale of Glamorgan by-election. There were many interesting experiences, but one of them involved a cat in the early hours of the morning, and a lot of cleaning up having to be done in the car when we had finished our journey.

We know that, on the ground, dealing with such issues is complex; that is also the experience of the police. One of the examples given by the Dogs Trust and the Kennel Club in their contributions, which I believe have been circulated to members of the Committee, described what has happened in Cardiff. Last Friday, I met the chief superintendent and some of his colleagues in Cardiff and discussed some of the problems that the police have had there. They include having to hold animals in wholly inappropriate circumstances, such as in the back of a van, because facilities are not available, the disruption of activities and vehicles therefore not being available for police use, perhaps at times of pressure. That is clearly is not a sensible use of resources.

Against that background, the hon. Member for Vale of York referred to the amendments that she had tabled. I was a little surprised by those drafted in conjunction with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, so I spoke to the RSPCA last night. It seems to have woken up from an uncharacteristic slumber in order to rush in a couple of amendments at the last minute, without thinking about them properly, and without discussion.

The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about the transfer of resources. However, the lead amendment—amendment No. 18—would delete part of the Bill and would therefore retain a power given to the police under previous legislation. I think that that is due to a misunderstanding, which I would like to clarify.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

The Minister will also notice that when I spoke, I made it clear that the amendment had been tabled to provoke a discussion on the transfer of funds, because that seemed the appropriate way of doing so. The Minister will understand that various techniques can be used in Committee, and that that is one of them. He therefore does not need to go into great detail as to why the amendment might not work—he can spare the Committee that.

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

Well, I do not know whether the Committee should be spared. The hon. Gentleman's amendment was not about the transfer of resources; it was about what police powers will continue to exist under the new legislation. I want to make it clear that the police will retain their existing powers to deal with dangerous dogs. Section 5(1)(c) of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 enables a constable or an officer of a local authority to seize any dog that is dangerously out of control in a public place. The fact is that the police have the same right as anyone else to take charge of a dog that does not have an obvious owner; that is why I oppose the hon. Gentleman's probing amendment, which would delete that power.At present, under section 150(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, anyone who takes charge of such a dog has to return it to the owner or deliver it to the police or local authority. When the Bill is enacted, the police and others will have to take the dog to the local authority or return it to the owner.

I shall give an assurance. The question might arise as to what happens when there are no local authority representatives to deal with a stray. If it is clear that the situation needs to be dealt with immediately for the benefit of the local community, the police would be able to get hold of that dog. They could, if appropriate, use their power under the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. However, the Association of Chief Police Officers has also confirmed its view that the police do not require specific statutory power to seize stray dogs. The police regularly round up strays of other species such as horses and sheep, without having a specific statutory power to do so. I will ensure that the guidance needed to spell out how these parts of the Bill should be enacted will point to the existing powers and practice so that there is no misunderstanding or a feeling that the police cannot do anything about this as a result of the Bill. That is not the case and I hope that that provides the clarity that the hon. Gentleman sought.

10 am

For those reasons, it is not necessary to retain the power that is being deleted in the Bill. The police will be most unlikely to make use of that power. Indeed, they have asked for it to be removed, despite having clarity about what they will continue to be able to do, which is referred to in the ACPO representations.

While I appreciate the reasons for tabling amendment No. 21, I can assure the Committee that it is unnecessary. Any local authority faced with a sick or injured dog would seek to have it treated immediately. It is worth reminding the Committee that this is not a new duty for local authorities, but the extension of an existing one. Local authorities are under a duty under sections 149 and 150 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 properly to feed and maintain stray dogs that they seize or that are delivered to them. That includes and covers treating sick and injured dogs. The provisions of the Animal Welfare Bill will make a seminal improvement to the way animals are treated in a variety of circumstances.

Amendment No. 22 is also unnecessary, although I note that it was moved in an extremely constructive manner by the hon. Member for Vale of York. As I indicated in my intervention, stray dogs have been provided for in legislation for at least 98 years. During that period, the lack of a legal definition of stray dogs has not created major problems for those dealing with them, and I do not think that we need a legal definition to describe what is a matter of common sense and normal English usage. I am sure that the hon. Lady, given her legal background, would accept that the injunction to legislators, ''If it ain't broke, don't fix it'', is useful. There are often unintended consequences in constraining the ordinary common-sense meaning of various words, which the courts and organisations such as the police and local authorities are well used to interpreting.

The hon. Lady referred to microchipping. This is comparatively recent technology. I have been at pains to encourage, but not to require, the use of microchips for horses, for instance. They can be very valuable animals. Use of microchips has also been encouraged by organisations such as the British Horse Society. It is required by some of the breed societies that deal with particularly valuable animals. This is a progressive arrangement. Microchipping of animals by owners and the use of microchips by authorities to identify animals is likely to continue and to accelerate. It is being used in Cardiff to deal with stray horses and I was discussing that with the police last week—

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

Order. May I point out to the Minister that the clause deals not with the microchipping of horses but with the termination of police responsibility for stray dogs?

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

Indeed. I pointed that out in an intervention earlier. I was simply explaining that the issues raised by the hon. Lady are reasonable, although outside the scope of the Bill. This Bill is not the appropriate place to make a step change in requirements for microchips although I am sure that they will continue to be important.

It would not be appropriate to accept amendment No. 99. I will explain why. Clause 68 makes local authorities solely responsible for stray dogs. It will be for local authorities to make arrangements to ensure that there are facilities to deal with stray dogs at all times, including at night. It is up to local authorities how they do this. Providing a 24-hour dog warden service may be one way, but it could be costly. So could providing dedicated or council-owned kennels. Those are not necessarily examples of the right way to do it, although it is up to the local authority to decide. In a large rural district, those examples might well be an expensive way of providing the necessary cover. However, making arrangements with local vets would be one good way.

I made the point to police officers when I spoke to them last week that often, even though there may be a dedicated service, the first stop for many people will be to knock at the door of the police station or to ring the police. It fits well with the crime reduction approach that has been encouraged for arrangements to be made locally so that information is readily available. On all those grounds, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

As I said, the amendment was designed to provoke a discussion, rather than to be pressed to a vote, because we do not oppose the measure to make the local authority the responsible party in this instance.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments, although my softly-softly, charming approach is not working quite as successfully as I thought, so I might try a more aggressive approach as the morning proceeds. I understood him to say that he thought that amendment No. 99 was the work of the RSPCA, but in fact it was suggested by the Kennel Club, because local authority dog warden services tend to operate a standard, nine-to-five working day, Monday to Friday, with no weekend cover. I understand that the Minister said that as recently as Friday he was still having discussions, presumably on the resources and on the level of cover, but we would still prefer the matter to be dealt with explicitly in the Bill.

We pay tribute to the Kennel Club, the Dogs Trust and the National Dog Warden Association for the work that they do. For the record, it is important that we accept that certainly the members of the NDWA already work long hours for modest pay. If local authorities are to rely on them, they will probably want more resources to be made available. I ask the Minister also to take note of the fact that Westminster city council believes that the consultation document and the Bill are still light on detail. It would prefer the responsibility to remain with the police. With those remarks, and given that we have had a lengthy debate, I shall conclude.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

We have said far too much on this. 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 debate on the amendments 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 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 69 - Designation of alarm notification areas

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 118, in clause 69, page 56, line 34, leave out from 'area' to end of line 35.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 119, in clause 70, page 57, line 12, leave out from 'area' to end of line 13.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

Again, this is a probing amendment. We are really considering how the designation of alarm notification areas will work. The Bill requires local authorities to send written notification to the address of every premises in their area. Our amendment would remove that requirement. Our concern is whether it is practicable to mail every address, especially in view of the in-fill building that is going on; if someone was not notified, they could have a reasonable objection to the alarm notification later on and say that they had not received a letter about it.

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

I appreciate that this is a probing amendment; we will provide clarification when we can. I can clarify the point that failure by the post to deliver notification to all addresses in the area would not invalidate an order designating an area, provided that a genuine attempt had been made to notify people. There is no question of a clerical error or a mistake on an address invalidating the order. I am happy to give the hon. Lady that assurance.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his assurance.

Constituents often tell their MPs that they were not told about a planning application because the information was not extended to a wide enough area. How does the Minister expect people to be notified? It may be burdensome to send the notification by post to every area, and there will be costs, unless the mailing is sent out with the council tax bills, for example.

The Minister has already responded to the other point that I wanted to make. The amendments provide an opportunity for him to expand on how the proposal would work.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. I am happy to give her the explicit clarification that she seeks. The creation of an alarm notification area creates a legal obligation on anyone in that area with an audible intruder alarm to register with the local authority; it will be a criminal offence not to do so. In those circumstances, it is important that everyone likely to be affected is told of the plans to create an alarm notification area and of the decision to designate such an area. That is the reason for the provision that the amendment would delete.

As I said, failure in a mailing round, if that is the means adopted, by accident or exception, would not invalidate the order. Individual notification by mail is not the only way in which the information could be given. Individual notification at the outset of designation or undesignation would not necessarily have to be a dedicated mailing; notice could be included in council tax bills, as the hon. Member for Guildford suggested. I confirm that that would be acceptable within the provisions of the Bill. The notices could also be included with news letters or other mailings, provided that they were likely to be received in advance of the decision to designate or undesignate an area taking effect.

These are common-sense provisions that people should be aware of the requirement on them which it will be a criminal offence not to observe. If there was a prosecution, the court would take into account matters such as the fact that an individual had been unaware of the requirement. An individual omission could be dealt with in that way. It is surely sensible to ensure that as far as is practicable everyone in an area knows that they have that obligation, not least so that they can observe it and the nuisance to the neighbourhood can be avoided.

I hope that, having heard my explanation, the hon. Lady will accept my assurance and ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the matter; it was the information we sought. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 8—Installation of intruder alarms in alarm notification areas—

'(1) A person who installs an intruder alarm on or in any premises in an alarm notification area, shall comply with any regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(2) Regulations for the purposes of subsection (1) above may in particular include—

(a) requirements for an automatic cut-off mechanism to terminate the sounding of the alarm after a specified period; and

(b) requirements for the suitably visible display on the alarm or the premises of a telephone number by which the local authority can be notified of a noise nuisance from the alarm.'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The new clause is intended to clarify matters. We already have some legislation in London relating to the issue. For example, it has been a requirement to register the name and address of a key holder with the local authority since 1991. In London, two key holders are required and there is a 20-minute cut-out system on alarms. Local authorities were made aware of that through the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993. However, little use has been made of the legislation.

We want to ensure that those who may be ignorant of the person whom they need to contact when an alarm is causing a nuisance, can ring up somebody and say, ''We have a problem here.'' If the number is displayed somewhere prominently, it is easier for people to get on with the job and decide who to call. It is not much fun at 3 o'clock in the morning to be wondering who to contact. We are concerned that if the number is not displayed, people may ring the emergency services and waste their time. If someone is being driven up the wall by an alarm, they want to know whom they should ring, rather than disturbing people who do not have a duty to do anything about it.

The new clause is intended as clarification. The cut-off mechanism, which we believe is in place in London, is included, and mention is made of a telephone number so that the local authority knows who is causing the problem and can deal with it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to discuss clause stand part, which will put part 7 in context. My understanding is that the clause sets out what the local authority must do to designate an alarm notification area. In particular, subsection (5) provides that an authority

''must consider any representations about the proposal''

to make a designation, and subsection (8) provides that when the authority decides to make a designation it must send notice of that decision to all premises in the area. Under subsections (8) and (4), the Bill makes it clear that

''The specified date must be at least 28 days after the date on which the notice is published''.

Elsewhere in the Bill, there are provisions for the nomination of key holders. To what extent will the obligation be on the local authority to inform the designated key holder? Or will it be for the householder or the business on whose premises the alarm is fitted to comply with the clause?

We have received a number of representations on that issue—not least from Westminster city council. The council responded to previous Government consultations and in its view a fundamental review of noise legislation is required to address what it sees as glaring deficiencies. I wonder why the Government chose to go down this path, rather than holding the fundamental review that Westminster city council would have preferred. The council does not consider that the minor proposals in the Bill, and which are addressed in the current consultation, meet the scale of the problem.

The Government's ''Clean Neighbourhoods'' document concluded that excessive noise is still regarded as a major problem by members of the public. The Library document includes the number of complaints. The latest figures show that in 2002-03 environmental health officers who, I understand, are those responsible for noise matters, received 224,502 complaints about noise at domestic premises and 305,090 complaints about noise in total. Confirmed nuisances for 2002-03 on domestic premises were 25,791 and complaints on all premises were 35,484. It is a big problem.

Westminster city council already has a 24-hour lawyer service responding to over 16,000 reports of noise problems a year. Its representatives are concerned that existing legislation provides insufficient disincentives to prevent excessive noise and that proposed measures fall far short of what is needed.

The city of Westminster council has found that the Noise Act 1996 has not provided much assistance. It relies largely on the application of statutory nuisance powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to deal with noise problems and therefore it does not see much benefit in extending local authority powers under sections 8 and 9 of the Noise Act. Would the Minister comment on that point?

The council points out that the noise service operated by Westminster city council costs £927,000 a year. The service is well used, respected and appreciated by local people and it is all that they have to protect them when they are subject to unacceptable noise.

The local authority has to maintain that personal data and therefore it is responsible for amending or deleting it, depending on the designated status. Will the Minister share with us the implications of the Data Protection Act 1998? We are led to believe as regards our constituency case files that it is normal to keep information for a maximum of three years.

For what length of time does the Minister expect that such information will be kept, bearing it in mind that in areas such as Westminster there will be substantial changes of ownership during a three-year period? Is it the Department's intention to ask local authorities to have and hold that information for one or two years or for the maximum three-year period, which is my understanding under the Data Protection Act?

A potential discrepancy in the Bill also brought to our attention by the British Security Industry Association is that, while only audible intruder alarms in alarm notification areas need to register key holder information, audible intruder alarms outside the designated areas can still cause a nuisance. We come to that matter later under clause 77. The authorised officer will have no key holder to contact while retaining the same powers of penalty as in alarm notification areas. Was it the wish and the intention of the Minister's Department to have that discrepancy? Should both clauses 69 and 77 apply in the same regard?

Owners of monitored audible alarms that are eligible for police response already incur additional costs and face possible penalties under the Association of Chief Police Officers' security systems policy for false alarms, which also requires them to register key holder details with their alarm receiving centre. As a result, owners who are in a designated area will have to notify both their alarm receiving centre and the local authority of key holder details. Would the Minister be minded to exempt them from the Bill?

Whereas in the past British Security Industry Association companies could advise customers to notify the local authority about alarm installations and the police about key holder information, they will now have to establish, via the local authority or the customer, whether the customer is in a designated area. That is subject to change at relatively short notice—28 days under the clause.

The clause introduces another level of bureaucracy for alarm companies and their customers, who already contend with a great deal of non-statutory regulation from the police. Local authorities may see it as an opportunity to raise funds by charging for the registration of key holder information. Will regulations be introduced setting out detailed provision for that? The Minister will understand that such a move would be strongly resisted by the security companies, because it could be seen as a stealth tax on individuals who are investing in the security of their homes. We all know that where there is an intruder alarm on domestic premises, the insurance premium is slightly lower. I am sure that the same applies to business premises.

A disparity could also arise between local authority charges.

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

Order. The hon. Lady is straying a little wide of the clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion and simply ask the Minister to address the points that we have raised, in particular the implications of data protection, and to recognise that successive Governments and insurance companies have encouraged householders and owners of business premises to install intruder alarms. I am sure that the Government want to encourage that.

I have a final question for the Minister. Has his Department had a chance to discuss the provisions with the Association of Chief Police Officers? If so, has the Bill been adjusted to take its concerns into account?

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

The Bill does not deal with wider issues of noise. I say that because the hon. Lady referred to comments from Westminster city council, which suggested that we should be dealing with wider noise issues instead of the particular nuisance of intruder alarms. That does not seem to me to be a terribly sensible comment, because the council should be aware that we are producing a neighbourhood noise strategy, which we hope to consult on later this year and which will include a thorough review of existing noise legislation. It is far too complex an issue to deal with in the context of the Bill, so a separate, full review is necessary. We are dealing here with the specific problem of intruder alarms, which has been raised with us during our long consultation on ways of improving the environment in local communities.

I was also asked whether regulations would be issued. No regulations are needed, but we will issue guidance. Therefore, local authorities will use the provisions in the Bill flexibly and in a way appropriate to the local area. The guidance will help them to decide how to do that.

I acknowledge that Westminster—a concentrated area with many premises involved with entertainment and late night activity—has particular problems, many of which are best dealt with in the wider context of noise, as it is widely defined, rather than under the issue of intruder alarms.

The provisions, which will replace existing requirements and London-specific legislation, will give local authorities the opportunity to provide answers for specific local problems. One example that I want to address is the requirement that there should be two key holders in an area, although alarm companies obviously place requirements on people through their contractual arrangements. It is one thing to have two key holders in an area of high-density population, but quite another to have the same requirement in a rural area—rural and semi-rural areas might be included in designated areas—in which there might be only two houses within reasonable proximity of each other. In those circumstances, such a requirement would be inappropriate.

I could not quite follow the hon. Lady's problems regarding flexibility. Of course, the requirements of data protection legislation apply, but we are talking about the provision of information in order to contact key holders to silence alarms and avoid difficulty to the public. Sometimes data protection is discussed as though it forbids reasonable activity or common-sense use of data. It does not: it requires that data be used in a proper manner within legislation that is designed to protect the individual. That is why we had to include a provision in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to make it clear that information can be held and exchanged between bodies for the reduction of crime and disorder. I suggest that the Committee should not have a long discussion about the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998, and should accept that there needs to be sensible observance of data protection legislation—that might be covered in the guidance.

I think that the hon. Lady has misunderstood the provisions of clause 77, but I will deal with that when we debate that clause.

In drafting these measures, we tried to achieve a balance between the interests of local authorities and the community at large, and those of individual householders. We covered one such issue when we debated the amendment about notification. It is because of that need for balance that I cannot accept new clause 8, which would impose new burdens on individual householders. The benefits it would bring to local authorities and the wider community would not outweigh the cost to individuals.

It is not necessary to require audible intruder alarms to have a cut-off device, as it is already standard for modern intruder alarms to be fitted with a 20-minute cut-off device, and it is likely that nearly all new alarms will comply. Industry standards change. We are currently considering the introduction of European standards for intruder alarms—the EN 50131 series, as implemented by the British Standards Institution—which will require a 15-minute cut-off. It is more appropriate to address cut-offs through the trade, rather than by penalising individuals. As I have said, other provisions, such as those in clause 77, provide safeguards where there are particular problems.

It is not necessary for householders to display their local authority telephone number, as that information should already be publicised and readily available. Such a requirement would impose an unnecessary burden on individuals. I am sure that the hon. Lady sought to ensure that common sense will be applied. I have indicated that guidance to deal with practical issues will be provided, thus enabling local authorities to take appropriate steps to deal with this problem in their areas.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I listened carefully to the Minister's comments, and I look forward to hearing his views on the later clause. There is a serious point about the Data Protection Act, and it would be helpful to know how long he expects information to be held on file.

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

That is not relevant to this clause, but if the hon. Lady has specific concerns, I would be happy to drop her a line to outline the relationship with the Data Protection Act.

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

Order. I am grateful for the Minister's commitment, but this point is not relevant to the clause.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I take that point. The Minister told us that there would be a separate consultation in response to the points I raised on behalf of Westminster city council. He has laid himself open to the charge that that is a knee-jerk reaction; perhaps it would have been better to have waited.

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

The specific problem for local authorities of dealing with intruder alarms has come out of consultation. Our reaction has not been knee-jerk; it has been a responsible reaction to provide local authorities with the means to deal with that problem. I hope that the hon. Lady will withdraw her remarks.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am not minded to withdraw my remarks. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the points I made earlier that in the view of at least one council—Westminster city council—the legislation is not necessary. That view is therefore held by local authorities and the industry that will be affected. They believe that the legislation could be extremely intrusive and costly to impose. We have had a good debate and we will reserve our judgment until Report stage on how the clause will apply.

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

May I simply say that legislation should not be driven by one specific council? This legislation is not only for Westminster, or even for the whole of London, but for the whole country. The hon. Lady should search a little wider for the advice that she receives.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 70 - Withdrawal of designation

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a small point to make about this clause. It clearly states that, having designated an area, a local authority may withdraw that designation. On what basis will the clause apply, and how will local authorities be able to inform all those relevant and affected, including domestic householders and owners of business premises? What will the cost of the clause be? The regulatory impact assessment is not specific: it states that there will be a cost to local authorities of maintaining a database, but it does not state how much that will be. Therefore, a double cost could be incurred under this and the previous clause.

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

It is fascinating that the hon. Lady asks about the costs associated with a clause that deals with removing costs. If the local authority concludes that designation is no longer necessary, and that therefore the cost of maintaining it is no longer necessary, it can remove it. I would have thought that this is sensible flexibility, and I cannot understand her wish to retain an inflexible system and make local authorities maintain a designation whether or not it is still needed.

It is slightly odd that the hon. Lady is referring to costs in relation to this clause. In reference to her one source of information—Westminster city council—it is worth pointing out that the proposed system under the Bill is less costly than the London system already applied by Westminster. The logic of that, and of the authority's communications with Conservative Members on the Opposition Front Bench, seems a little curious.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall try to help the Minister. His document—the regulatory impact assessment—states that there will be a cost to local authorities that maintain a database. Clearly, the database that local authorities are asked to update will easily become out of date in a year, given the number of people who change homes and the number of business premises that change ownership or tenant. The alarm systems might be changed, with the introduction of new ones and the lapsing of old ones. It was in the spirit of probing the Minister about how he imagines the database will be kept up to date that we tabled the amendment. It seems extraordinary that the Government have made no estimate of the cost of keeping such a database.

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

If I am right we are dealing with clause 70, which has nothing to do with the maintenance of a database; it has more to do with ceasing to have to hold a database, because of ceasing the designation. It is logical that the removal of a designation, which we have already discussed, should be notified to people in the area. I am sorry, but I cannot follow the logic of the hon. Lady's contribution, probing or otherwise.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 71 - Notification of nominated key-holders

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I beg to move amendment No. 111, in clause 71, page 57, line 22, leave out 'a key-holder' and insert 'at least two key-holders'.

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

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 112, in clause 71, page 57, line 25, leave out 'key-holder' and insert 'key-holders'.

No. 113, in clause 72, page 57, line 35, leave out 'a person' and insert 'at least two persons'.

No. 114, in clause 77, page 61, line 32, leave out 'key-holder' and insert 'key-holders'.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

The Minister touched on this matter in his remarks on previous clauses. We would like more information. In paragraph 13(2) of schedule 3 to the Noise and Statutory Nuisance Act 1993, it states that

''key-holders'', in relation to an alarm, means—

(a) two persons, other than the occupier of the premises . . . or

(b) a company which holds keys sufficient to obtain access to those premises, from which those keys can be obtained at any time''.

The Minister suggested that a requirement for two key holders in a rural area might be excessive. I understand his concern about that. In London two key holders are specified—but there are other place apart from London, as the Minister pointed out. Surely it would be better to allow councils to decide on the number of key holders, rather than arbitrarily to provide that there should be one or two. A council might want a requirement for only one key holder in an alarm notification area in a rural place.

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

There is nothing to prevent a local authority from asking or suggesting that people should nominate two key holders as best practice at local level. However, it seems inappropriate to require that under the Bill. Local authorities can keep as much information as they wish, provided that the minimum requirement under the Bill is met.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for that clarification, which is helpful. I hope that it will be in the guidelines.

I should like to understand a little more about rural areas and difficulties; perhaps the Minister would expand a little on the information that he received, which led him to make the change to a requirement for one key holder.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I have reservations about the entire issue, although I understand the Minister when he says that there is a problem. I do not want to go into too much detail about my own security, but clearly I must declare an interest, in that I have an alarm in my property in Ribble Valley. Two years ago, the alarm went off. No one had broken into the premises. It is common sense, in any event, to get someone else to hold a key, and that is what I did. I gave my key to somebody I trust and they telephoned me, because I was not in the Ribble Valley, and said ''Your alarm has been going off for the last half an hour''. They had checked the premises to ensure that nobody had intruded, and I then gave them the code to switch the alarm off.

I suspect that that often happens up and down the country as a matter of course. A homeowner will give their key to somebody they trust, particularly these days when people are out at work and the house is vacant for most of the working day, unlike 20 or 30 years ago. If people go on holiday for two weeks at a time, there may be nobody on the premises. There is common sense in giving the key to a designated person who regularly checks that the house is okay, looks to see whether there is anything urgent in the mail and feeds the goldfish, or something like that.

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

The hon. Gentleman is describing common-sense and fairly universal requirements. Many of us have alarms and would be in that situation. This requirement only applies where the local authority has identified that there is a problem and has designated an area.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I fully appreciate that the local authority may not have a problem. We will not know until this legislation becomes an Act how often the notification will be used. There may be more of a problem in a residential urban area than in rural areas. In many rural areas the practice I have spoken about happens anyway.

I am not happy with the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Guildford, which go further than the one key holder that has already been notified. There must be a lot of publicity going out with this, so that everybody knows the obligations that will be placed on people with alarms.

Has the Minister considered the possibility that the police could be key holders in certain circumstances, so that they would have access to somebody's premises if the alarm went off. They could switch the alarm off themselves. That may be good practice in rural areas where houses are far apart, and it may be that the key holder is a relative who does not live anywhere near the premises. They may live on the other side of the city or town. In certain circumstances, instead of somebody designating a key holder, their mobile phone number could be logged somewhere, so that they could be notified that their alarm had gone off and could come back and switch it off.

It is the issue of privacy which bothers me. People may not want to give their keys to anybody, for all sort of reasons that may be of genuine concern to them. As the Minister has intimated, the only time that this provision will ever come into effect is if it is a designated or notified area and the alarm goes off. There is a problem in that case, because there is no key holder around and nobody knows who the notified person is. I know we talk about access to buildings in other clauses.

Clearly, forced access is not allowed. To require more than one key holder is going to cause problems. We will have enough problems as it is, because some people will say that they do not want even one person to have their key, not even a relative. They are just not interested. Their home is their castle, and they want to keep it that way, even if it means the alarm going off and disturbing people, as it would do if it went off for a long time. I am more of a mind to support the idea of best practice being that the available alarms switch themselves off after a certain amount of time, whether it is a quarter of an hour or 20 minutes. I guess the real problem with that is that some people will have alarms that are 10, 15 or 20 years old. They would need to replace them, which would clearly lead to costs. If the hon. Lady does press these amendments, I certainly will not be supporting them.

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

We have responded to local authorities and others, because there has been nuisance in some areas and they wanted the problem to be addressed. We have also considered the requirements in the light of the experience in London. As I indicated earlier, the requirements that we will put in place are likely to be less costly and have more of a light touch than the arrangements that have applied in London. They will be more flexible and therefore more appropriate in a variety of circumstances.

In response to the comments made by the hon. Member for Guildford, I indicated that there is nothing to stop local authorities from suggesting that people nominate two key holders, as best practice at local level. Local authorities can keep as much information as they wish, provided that the minimum requirement is met.

It is also worth reflecting that the technology has improved massively over recent years. Modern alarms are not subject to as many false alarms—inappropriate false alarms in particular—as was the case a number of years ago, and therefore it is reasonable to place requirements on their owners to ensure that their alarm is in good order, that there is proper notification, and that it is simple to silence those alarms when a problem arises.

Some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) are not appropriate for consideration in the legislation, nor should they be included in the Bill. However, it is a good thing for the police and people in a local area if the arrangements are simple. I would not want to see the provisions of the Bill impose burdens on the police or local authorities that go beyond what is sensible. The arrangements that we propose are based on what we have learned from the London experience, and are less costly than the alternatives that have been in place in London. I therefore commend them to the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

There is real concern that there will be an inconsistency between the situation in London, which requires that more than one key holder should be nominated, and the situation in other parts of the country. Is the Minister satisfied that those concerns have been properly addressed?

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

Yes, indeed. As I said, it is possible for a local authority to hold more than one key holder's details, and to indicate to people within a designated area that that is what it wishes to see happen, but that would not be a legal requirement. The legal requirement would be for a single key holder. The law should deal with the minimum that is necessary for an effective system to operate, rather than applying a provision that might be inappropriate in some circumstances.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I thank the Minister for his commitment to leave the matter with local councils, because that is where it should be.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, I am a little concerned about one aspect. I appreciate that people do not want someone else going into their home, and that there should be respect for their privacy. However, if their alarm is going off, which is no respecter of anyone else's privacy, I take the tough view that that nuisance cannot be allowed to continue unabated. That might mean that someone has to get a new alarm that switches off after a certain amount of time. If people want privacy, they must also reduce the risk that their alarm keeps going off.

We have got the answer that we were seeking in respect of the amendments that we tabled, so 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 debate on the clause or amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 72 - Nomination of key-holders

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This is a small point for clarification. Clause 71 creates a new offence and on conviction a person is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. I assume that it will be the responsibility of the local authority to ensure that the provisions of the clause are brought to the attention of those who may fall under them. What happens if the responsible person, as described in subsections (4) and (5), has delegated his responsibility? What if there has been a change in the person who is responsible for complying with the provisions of the clause? Is it the responsible person himself, the key holder or the owner of the premises if it is a dwelling or the tenant if it is business premises?

Subsection (3) states:

''A person may be nominated as a key-holder in respect of premises''

only if he meets the criteria that are set out. In the event of a disagreement where it is not clear who that person is, who interprets that part of the subsection and the other provisions of the clause?

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

On the last point, such issues will be dealt with in a common-sense way by the local authorities. It will issue guidance and make it clear to those to whom a notice is given of the designation of an area exactly how they must carry out their requirements. It is the responsibility of the responsible person to do it properly. Clearly if the local authority spotted that it was not being pursued in the right way, it would raise that with the individual. Responsibility must rest with the responsible person.

The clause essentially provides the back-up provision to deal with those who are casual about their responsibilities and flout the interests of the local community by failing to do what they are supposed to do. I would be extremely surprised if a local authority did not first point out to someone who was failing to comply with the requirements that they were subject to a criminal conviction and invite them to comply, not least because that would avoid the cost of undertaking a prosecution. An authority could go straight to a prosecution if someone was flouting the law and clearly had no intention of complying. The court would take account of the circumstances in deciding whether a person should be found guilty and what punishment should be given out. I am certain that the proportionality of our system of prosecution would deal with those issues.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

The newspapers have been full recently of the case of a lady who was stopped for eating an apple while driving. I think the case cost well over £10,000 in the end. Is that the proportionality and reasonableness that we would want to see in the clause?

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

I have referred in the past to the time when the current leader of the Conservative party was attacked by the newspapers when someone was fined for the so-called ''mere dropping'' of a crisp packet. The circumstance of the case turned out to be quite different. I will not be driven by references to a lady eating an apple while driving when I do not know the circumstances. I certainly do not believe everything that I read in the newspapers. I am certain that in general proportionality applies. There is the odd case, which is the exception. Often with odd cases the description in the newspapers has nothing to do with the actual circumstances. I counsel the hon. Gentleman, whether dealing with arms or apples, to be sure of the facts.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73 - Offences under section 71: fixed penalty notices

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Would it be in order to refer to clauses 73, 74, 75 and 76 together, Mr. Taylor?

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

I plan to take all the stand part debates separately.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Thank you, Mr. Taylor.

I have a question about subsection (3)(a), which states that

''no proceedings may be instituted for the offence before the end of the period of 14 days starting with the day after that on which the notice is given''.

The responsible person—the home owner or business premises tenant—could be sick for an extended period and the person to whom he delegates responsibility away for a shorter period but longer than the 14 days. In some circumstances, 14 days will be seen as an extremely short period. It is a question of clarification.

I am a little concerned about the definition of authorised officer in subsection (11). Some people may fall into these categories through delegation in a company, particularly in relation to business premises. The provision is very narrowly drawn.

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

May I point out, first, that subsection (3)(a) refers to the giving of a fixed penalty notice? It does not say that, after the expiry of the 14 days, there must be a prosecution. If there is a prosecution, that involves notification to the individual and a response, which might be ''I've been away for a month. Here's my cheque.'' Local authorities are not likely to rush to a prosecution if it is not appropriate. Therefore, I suggest that the Bill sets out a reasonable minimum period; a longer period would be inappropriate in such circumstances.

We seek to leave the designation of an authorised officer to the flexibility of the local authority, but we shall cover the issue in guidance. We would expect the local authority to ensure that an appropriate person undertook the work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74 - Amount of fixed penalty

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Is the figure of £75 in subsection (2)(b) a minimum, a maximum or a guideline? There is concern that different levels of fine will apply in different local authority areas, which would probably not be a good idea. Can the Minister give us some guidance about that? People are worried that, as the fixed penalty will be payable to the local authority, it could be perceived as a stealth tax and a means of raising money. Can he put their minds at rest on that point?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I also seek clarification on the clause. I know that the Minister will say that the fine must be set at a level that people, if they have offended, are likely to pay rather than risk going to court. If the amount is disproportionate, such as £500 or £1,000, that is clearly a huge sum of money. The fine must be reasonable, and £75 has been deemed fairly reasonable.

Is the provision flexible for a local authority where somebody's alarm has gone off a few times because of a fault, particularly if, for instance, the alarm is reset but goes off again in two weeks because of another fault? We must incentivise the person to maintain or replace the alarm, particularly if it is old. If somebody's alarm went off and the local authority said, ''In these circumstances, we would normally fine you £100, but we will reduce that amount if you replace it or obtain a certificate to show that it has been properly maintained,'' would the arrangement be flexible, or does the local authority have to fine them? We do not want to penalise people willy-nilly; we want the problem to go away. That is what the Bill is all about, and we want the fault on the alarm fixed.

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

The fixed penalty notice in this case is for not registering.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

In which case, I will sit down.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for resuming his seat with such grace.

I do not want to indulge in tedious repetition about an issue that has already been dealt with exhaustively elsewhere in the Bill. To some extent, the hon. Gentleman answered the debate with his point that penalties must be set at a level that will make people more likely to pay them. They should not be set at a level that people would not pay and that would lead to the costs of prosecution for the local authority or at a level that is so low that it has no impact on people's behaviour. That is the simple answer to the whole issue.

The powers enable local authorities to set their own level of fixed penalty in their areas, and to treat a penalty as paid if a lesser amount is paid within a shorter specified period. That gives local authorities the flexibility to act sensibly. Those powers may be subject to limitations contained in regulations made by the appropriate person or body, which is the Secretary of State in England or the National Assembly for Wales. The power is there to ensure that limitations are made if necessary. I do not think that they will be, as it is a straightforward matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 74 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75 - Use of fixed penalty receipts

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

If I understood the Minister and the Government are still consulting about the range of fees, obviously what follows on in clause 75 is the fact that the income and the revenue derived from those fixed penalty receipts will vary between councils. That seems a little discriminatory. With reference to existing fixed penalty notices in existing legislation, Westminster city council has a very good record of implementing them and chasing offenders. We have noted that other councils, such as Bath, do not.

I remind the Minister and the Committee that there is an excellent table on page 86 of the Department's full regulatory impact assessment for the Bill. Will the Minister explain the basis on which it is estimated that 500 fixed penalty notices will be issued in respect of the nomination of a key holder? Let us say that the amount on a notice will be £75. Apparently, prosecutions are expected to flow from only 20 per cent. of the 500 notices issued, so 100 prosecutions is the conservative estimate. The yield on a 25 per cent. basis is, I believe, £125 million up and down the country. Perhaps the Minister could confirm that figure.

The suggestion is that for all that we have seen in this part of the Bill and for all the administration that local authorities are being asked to undertake, the income that will derive from fixed penalty receipts could vary and may not reflect the cost of issuing fixed penalty notices and pursuing receipts. I repeat that where there is a discrepancy and discrimination between local authorities, receipts will obviously be used for variable purposes. The situation is unfair for local authorities where notices do not yield so much income.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I again seek clarification because it is difficult at the moment to know what will be the burden on a local authority under clause 75 in relation to the receipts coming in and the cost of administering the scheme. As we said earlier, some areas may not designate any of their patches, because there is simply no problem, but in other areas there will be a problem. Let us say that there is a problem with one building and one firm whose alarm is going off all the time. Given that we are considering the receipts that may be raised, can the Minister confirm whether a local authority has the power under clause 69 to designate just one building in an area?

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

Order. Clause 75 relates to the use of fixed penalty receipts.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for showing that he has got the general message that if there is no problem, the council should not solve it. If there was no problem and the council did solve it, there would be no income, because there would be no one to prosecute. It would follow that the burden was self-inflicted, rather than imposed by the Bill.

The hon. Member for Vale of York clearly has a problem with devolution, delegation and, indeed, local government generally. She wants it all to be the same size, to have the same problems and to deal with those problems in the same way. She used the term ''discrimination'' in relation to the application of income from fixed penalties, but there are clearly differences between local authorities. A local authority that has a problem may have a certain amount of income from fixed penalties; an authority that does not have a problem will not have that income. That is not discrimination; it is simply that a local authority has to deal with whatever problems it has locally.

I am delighted that the hon. Lady's bedtime reading includes so many of the Department's excellent publications, although I must say that I would not search for massive illumination in regulatory impact assessments. It is right that we have to assess the regulatory impact of any legislation, but of course, in advance of legislation, we cannot be certain of the outcome. We have to give the best possible estimate, based on what information is available, rather than on experience after the event. Clearly, costs, as well as the nature of a problem, may vary between local authorities. It is for a local authority to decide whether and when to prosecute in default of payment. Ultimately, we favour freedoms and flexibilities for funds to be used initially in the direct area of activity, but as local authorities meet the tests and become excellent councils, they will apply the funds as they think appropriate.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 75 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76 - Fixed penalty notices: power to require name and address

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am still suffering from shock that the Minister said that members of the Committee should not seek illumination from the regulatory impact assessment, which raises the question why the Government went to such expense and extravagance to produce it. Conservative Members find the regulatory impact assessment extremely useful and I hope that the Minister will confirm that it is a reliable source—that it is not a guesstimate, but an accurate estimate.

I seek clarification of subsection (3), which states:

''A person guilty of an offence under subsection (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.''

What is the proposed amount?

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

The level 3 fine is up to £1,000, as it has been throughout our discussions in Committee. If the hon. Lady seeks illumination, I advise that she first switch the light on, because she could illuminate her own thoughts. In preparing a regulatory impact assessment, some pieces of information come from an analysis of what has happened elsewhere, and others depend on our making the most intelligent guess possible on the information available. Any regulatory impact assessment should be read in that context.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77 - Power of entry

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The clause relates to enabling an officer to enter premises without a warrant for the purposes of silencing a problem alarm, and it sets out the circumstances in which he may do so, provided that he does not enter by force. It prompts the question that if such an offence is carried on under clause 76 and if the person is seeking the power of entry under clause 77 without using force, how can he be identified? Will he carry any written authority?

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

May I help the hon. Lady? Clause 77(5) states:

''The officer must, if required, show evidence of his authority to act under this section.''

Clearly, he must be carrying it with him or he would not be able to show it.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful. It shows that the Minister is responding to our probing in his usual kindly fashion.

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

May I point out to the hon. Lady that it means that I have read the Bill?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

So have we, which is why we are seeking clarification. Would not it be helpful to state evidence of whose authority and from whom? Is it from the local authority? Does it mean that, under this clause, there is no recourse to a justice of the peace?

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

It refers to an authorised officer of the local authority, so clearly the authorisation lies with the local authority, as does the method of demonstrating that authority, which in most—indeed, I think all—local authorities is in an acceptable and generally recognised form. The powers in the clause are self-evident. Were it necessary to force entry, it would need to be under other provisions. The clause refers to a straightforward situation which allows an officer to do what is necessary if he is able to gain entry without force.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78 - Warrant to enter premises by force

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Following what the Minister said on a point of clarification, that a warrant is required and that evidence of the warrant must be shown under clause 78, would it not be normal for a warrant to enter premises by force require the identification of an authorised officer—meaning that the officer should be wearing uniform—to distinguish the powers of entry under clause 78 from those under clause 77? Clearly entering by force carries with it more severe powers and penalties than did the previous measure.

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

The simple answer is no. Let us take a proportionate response to the clause. It relates to a situation in which an

''alarm has been sounding continuously for more than twenty minutes or intermittently for more than one hour''

and in a location where it is likely to cause annoyance to persons living or working in the vicinity. Anyone who lives in the vicinity of a repeater alarm will know exactly what that means. The clause also stipulates that in a designated area

''reasonable steps have been taken to get the nominated key-holder to silence the alarm''

and that entry to the premises without force is not possible.

So, the context is reasonable. Anyone who has experienced that irritating problem will be unamused that the hon. Lady does not support the proposal. It is not a new power. Under current law, a local authority officer can enter premises by force to silence an alarm. The clause makes the procedure simpler and faster. I commend it to the Committee.

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I seek clarification. As the Minister points out, the powers have existed before. However, there have been considerable complaints, by the Noise Abatement Society and others, which say that the time before one can get into a premises and silence the alarm is too long. In his remarks, the Minister said that the procedure would become faster. For clarification, and to give us hope, will he say how long it would typically take to get into a premise using the powers?

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

As I said, at the moment, the procedure is a lengthy one. It can take from three to six hours. Under the procedure proposed in the clause, an officer who decides that he cannot silence an alarm without entering the premises by force can go to a magistrate immediately. He leaves the notification on the premises and returns as soon as the warrant is obtained to silence the alarm. The procedure for getting a signature from a magistrate does not take long. It can be faster in the hours of darkness, when the poor magistrate is tucked up in bed. I have been approached in those circumstances. The proposed procedure can happen extremely quickly and will avoid the present delay.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79 - Powers of entry: supplementary

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I wish to make a small point. Subsection (4) mentions:

''The officer and any person who enters the premises''.

Only an authorised officer should enter the premises. Is the clause suggesting that someone is accompanying the authorised officer? That seems to completely contradict clause 78.

In full, the subsection says:

''The officer and any person who enters the premises with him by virtue of subsection (3) must not cause more damage to or disturbance at the premises than is necessary for the purpose of silencing the alarm.''

It adds:

''Any expenses reasonably incurred by the local authority . . . may be recovered by the authority from the responsible person.''

Will the Minister explain what happens if even minimal damage has been done to the property? Who is responsible for making good that damage? Who will pay the cost of restoring the property to the state it was in before the damage was caused by forced entry?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I want to make a similar point about clause 79(5)(b). Will the Minister say why he feels it necessary to have brackets around

''(so far as is reasonably practicable)''?

The subsection says that the officer must leave the premises

''as effectively secured against entry as he found them.''

I assume that the officer entering the premises to silence the alarm is not going to cause more damage than they reasonably need to. On the point about securing the premises on leaving them, the point of having an alarm is that people want to protect their premises. The last thing that they would want is to find out that when the alarm—

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

Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Bill

Clause 79 - powers of entry: supplementary

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I cannot with any honesty say that I remember with clarity what I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted at 11.25 am.

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

May I assist the hon. Gentleman—it is not meant entirely as a threat—in that I can remember exactly what he was saying?

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I sought guidance and wondered whether Hansard was readily available so that I could seamlessly carry on, but I am told that we may have to wait a day or two. I am not going to ask you, Mr. Forth, to suspend this sitting while we wait, so I shall press on with what I think I was last up to, which is to ask the Minister why,

''so far as is reasonably practicable'',

is mentioned in the Bill at clause 79(5)(b). I agree with clause 79(6), which states that

''the officer is not required by virtue of subsection (5)(b) to re-set the alarm'',

because alarms are different. It is reasonable not to expect officers to be able to do that.

Subsection (7) states:

''Any expenses reasonably incurred by the local authority in connection with entering the premises, silencing the alarm and complying with subsection (5) may be recovered by the authority from the responsible person''.

In certain circumstances, the authorities will be protected if they enter the premises and cannot reasonably turn off the alarm. They might not have the key or the code that is needed to turn it off, so they might cut the electricity to the alarm or, indeed, smash the alarm off the wall. If they were to do that, I assume that they would be protected in that the owner of the alarm would not then be able to come back and say, ''Hold on, you've caused damage to my alarm: it cost £500 to replace and I want that money from you''. I assume that clause 79(7) is designed to give them protection.

If the authorities have abused their power in either entering or not properly securing the premises, which they are duty bound to do under subsection (5)(b), I assume that the owner would be able to go to court if he was unhappy that the authorities had not complied with the provisions in the Bill.

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

Hon. Members have shown great imagination in discussing the clause and considering a number of circumstances that might arise. Those who drafted the clause have covered all the circumstances that have been raised. The clause describes what authorised officers of local authorities may do to silence an alarm further to their entry on to premises pursuant to clauses 77 or 78.

The clause makes it clear that the authorised officers may have other people with them and I was asked who they might be. One example might be an electrician or an expert in dealing with alarms who might, for instance, be able to find a simpler and less dramatic way of dealing with an alarm than tearing it from the wall in the way described by the hon. Gentleman. It might involve a carpenter who might be able to effect entry through a door in a tidy way that would keep damage to a minimum while ensuring that the work of silencing the alarm could go ahead. It might be a locksmith, who might be able to gain entry without physically damaging the premises at all.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Would it be possible to have a list on Report? Will the Minister comment on the fact that not only alarms but smoke bombs, which could completely disorientate the person entering the premises, are increasingly used as deterrents to intruders? A situation may be envisaged in which such devices could disorientate the expert entering the premises to deactivate the alarm.

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

I think you, Mr. Forth, would direct me fairly quickly were I to start to deal with issues other than audible intruder alarms, which is the precise problem that we are dealing with in this part of the Bill. A list would not be appropriate because of how the technology changes with varying circumstances and the type of development to which the hon. Lady referred. That might be dealt with in other legislation. It might be that officers of the local authority need different types of support in their work and it would not be appropriate to include in the Bill something that might either be left to the discretion of local authorities or, if there is a need for it, dealt with simply in guidance that indicates what a local authority ought to consider in deciding who does the work.

Clause 79 also allows local authorities to reclaim reasonable expenses arising in connection with entry to premises and provides protection from liability for the authority and its officers for anything that is done in good faith. That is sensible; officers need to be protected so that they can do the work that the clauses allow in a reasonable way and without placing themselves at risk by doing so. Subsection (6) makes it clear that the officer is not required to re-set the alarm, and subsection (5)(b) states that the officer must

''leave the premises (so far as is reasonably practicable) as effectively secured against entry as he found them.''

Were those words not in the Bill, it would require the officer to leave the premises precisely as well defended as they were before he entered, which may not be possible, given that he has had to enter forcibly. That is what the clause is about.

To put it the other way round, the clauses ensures that officers are not required to do what is unreasonable or impracticable. It is simple, straightforward and logical. By and large the words take the ordinary English meaning, which local authorities and the courts are used to applying. It gives a detailed indication of what can and cannot be done and provides practical arrangements for dealing with extreme situations, which I hope will be unusual because of the power in the clause. If those who create or commit a nuisance know that if they do not sort it out themselves their premises may be broken into in the public interest, the use of the clause may be extremely unusual or, indeed, exceptional.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 79 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 80 - Orders and regulations

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I understand that the clause extends the power exercisable by statutory instrument to supplement earlier provisions. I listened carefully to the Minister, who said that certain issues that have arisen under this part of the Bill may be dealt with in other legislation. What opportunity will there be for scrutiny of that legislation?

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

No, I was saying was that some of the issues that the hon. Lady raised may be dealt with elsewhere because they are not appropriate for this part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

With the greatest respect to the Minister, subsection (1) states:

''This section applies to a power conferred on the appropriate person under any provision of this Chapter to make an order or regulations.''

It is therefore important that we should be clear about the extent of those regulations. We should also be clear about concerns such as who any ''other persons'' should be.

Some of the new technologies used will defeat the purpose of entering premises either with or without the use of force. For example, the effects of a smoke bomb might negate any efforts to go in, and set off other alarms. I wanted to place on the record that it is extremely important for both Houses of Parliament to consider how the power under clause 80 will be deemed to be exercisable by any subsequent statutory instrument.

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

Very simply, the clause is straightforward and relates to the powers described in the earlier clauses. It is clearly appropriate for the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales to be able to make different provisions for different types of authority if there is evidence that that is necessary. That merely gives the power for flexibility in any orders and regulations that are required. The statutory instrument containing an order or regulations is subject to the processes of this House in the normal way. I am rather surprised that the hon. Lady has managed to find anything to raise on this clause. It seems perfectly straightforward, and I hope that we can agree that it stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 80 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 81 - Interpretation

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

On a small point of clarification, will the Secretary of State be involved here or will there be opportunities for the local authorities to act under, for example, the provisions of clause 69? Will the Secretary of State be involved on each occasion or will the individual councils retain a degree of autonomy? Is there any change to the role of the Secretary of State in this regard?

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

I am not sure that I understand the question. There is no change to the role of the Secretary of State. The clause simply defines the terms used. The phrase ''appropriate person'' is used because under the devolution settlement the powers are exercised in relation to local authorities in Wales by the National Assembly for Wales rather than the Secretary of State. In the past, the legislation would have simply referred to the Secretary of State and it would have been the appropriate Secretary of State, whether for Wales or for a Department relating to English local authorities. The phraseology is very common. It does not change anything. It is normal use. The clause is only about interpretation. It does not change the powers of any individual or body, be they Secretary of State or local authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 81 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 82 - Noise offences: fixed penalty notices

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

This part relates to noise from premises. Will the exceptions under the Noise Act 1996 remain in place? I understand that there are some quite sizeable exceptions, whether that is noises from all workplaces and all neighbourhood noises. Most of the offending businesses relate to transport such as airports, harbours and railway stations, particularly those that operate at night and those involving freight. Is there scope to look at reducing the exceptions and extending the provisions of the Bill?

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

May I assist the hon. Lady? She may be reading too much into the clause. It simply writes into section 8 of the Noise Act 1996 the type of ability to vary the fixed penalty that we have dealt with on quite a number of occasions. There are no hidden agendas here. The clause is quite straightforward.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. The Minister has redirected us in terms of the specific provisions of this clause, which refers to fixed penalty notices. Therefore, I ask the hon. Lady to move on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful clarification. Under subsection (2)(b) of new section 8A, the amount of the fixed penalty is to be fixed and specified at £100. Why is the amount £100 in this case, when under clause 74, the penalty was fixed at £75?

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

May I assist the hon. Lady? We have dealt with this sort of question on numerous occasions. During consultation we sought to identify, from the practical experience of those involved, the level at which people would be likely to pay the fine—not so low that people are likely to disregard it, and not so high that people are more likely to go to court. The penalty is currently £100, so the provision makes no change except inserting the capacity of local authorities to vary the amount up or down, within reason, for purposes that I have set out on a number of occasions in relation to other clauses in which fixed penalty notices are relevant.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I know that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but he should bear it in mind that lengthy interventions may not necessarily be a substitute for his reply to a clause stand part debate.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister has made a similar point on other occasions, but we have never addressed the charging of £100 in this case, and it would be helpful to know his thinking behind it. I know from the summary responses to his consultation on the Bill that there was substantial evidence that one reason why fixed penalty notices issued under the Noise Act 1996 were not working was that people felt that the system was bureaucratic and time-consuming, and that for the amount of money involved, there was little reward for local authorities to pursue the matter. Therefore, why has he come up with the figures of £100 and £75 respectively?

I am familiar with the arguments in favour of variable charging, but I want to know whether the Minister is seeking to go down that path. To remind him, this is the first opportunity we have had to ask such questions because we have not discussed this clause before, and I would like a substantive answer. Given the categorical list of extensive responses that he received to the consultation, it is incumbent on him to address these points.

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

First, £100 is the current figure. Given that some bodies felt that £100 remains an appropriate figure, whereas others, as the hon. Lady said, thought that there should be variation, £100 seemed to be the right starting point. There was no massive amount of evidence that the level should differ from the existing level, but this provision provides flexibility for local authorities that feel that it would make a difference to be able to implement that variation.

It is also worth saying that only comparatively recently have local authorities been allowed to retain the income from fixed penalties. That provision was contained in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, which I think has been in operation for only about a year. That has gone some way towards local authorities benefiting from the income where fixed penalties are applied. This measure gives them greater flexibility on the level and on ways of encouraging people to pay, for the reasons that I have enunciated on previous clauses. I hope that the Committee agrees that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 82 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 83 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 84 - Extension of Noise Act 1996 tolicensed premises etc

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I seek clarification of the term ''licensed premises''. Can the Minister give a proper definition, perhaps for the purposes of the clause and schedule 1, so that we can be clear about the exact scope of the Bill and the clause?

Sue Doughty (Liberal Democrat, Guildford)

I am interested in how the clause will work. When I read it initially, I assumed that it related to noise coming from licensed premises, but certainly in the past week, when the public and politicians have been having quite a wide debate about the extension of licensing hours, one thing that people have remarked on heavily is that there is noise not only from the pub itself but from the comings and goings, the chatter of people leaving, the shouting in the street and the other activities associated with licensed premises. There is noise in the environment of licensed premises as well as in the licensed premises. Will the Minister explain what he means by an extension to licensed premises? Does that include noise from associated activity as well as in the premises themselves?

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

The clause applies to licensed premises rather than to wider issues in the street; it is not intended to deal with that. We should remember that this is an environmental Bill primarily, dealing with noise. The clause is intended to give local authorities new powers to tackle the night noise problem from licensed premises. It provides local authorities with powers to take action when the noise from licensed premises at night is causing annoyance to those in the vicinity but the problem is not severe enough to warrant serving a 24-hour closure order under the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003. That will make it easier to tackle antisocial behaviour in a proportionate way, and responds to a number of concerns about the impact of licensing hours in terms of noise. A local authority will be able to serve a notice on a pub or club requiring it to reduce noise levels. If it does not comply, an offence is committed.

Clause 84 gives effect to schedule 1, which amends the Noise Act 1996 to extend local authority powers to take action against night noise under the Act to cover licensed premises. The powers of local authorities under the Noise Act are currently restricted to night noise from dwellings. That is the principal difference. This measure provides for an appropriate and proportionate response where there was perhaps a gap in the powers available to local authorities.

The offence of causing noise beyond the specified level after due warning has been given is applied to the ''responsible person'', who is the person in charge of the premises when the offence is committed. The permitted level of noise for licensed premises will be determined—work is taking place on this—in time for the implementation of this provision. With those words of explanation, I hope that we can agree that clause 84 will stand part of the Bill.

Miss McIntosh rose—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I have allowed the Minister to give that explanation, but our debate on the narrow clause 84 is turning into a debate on schedule 1, which I do not want to happen at this point, although the Minister has very helpfully set the stage for it. If the hon. Lady intends to get us into schedule 1, I ask her to wait just a moment, by which time I suspect that we shall be on to schedule 1. Is that helpful?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Could I beg your indulgence, Mr. Forth, and ask whether the point that I was intending to raise is best made at that stage or at this stage? It concerns the relationship between clause 84 and section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I suspect that that matter would be better raised in the debate on schedule 1.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 1 - Application of the Noise Act 1996 to licensed premises etc.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful to have the opportunity to have a short debate on schedule 1, which is rather long. The Minister will be aware that chapter 11 of the guidance issued by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 provides details of extended police powers

''to close down instantly individual licensed premises that are disorderly, likely to become disorderly or are causing nuisance as a result of noise from the premises.''

I understand that schedule 1 sets out additional, new measures, which set the Bill on a collision course with the 2003 Act. Could the Minister put my mind at rest that a so-called double jeopardy situation in laws for pubs or other businesses in the hospitality sector will not arise? The officials from his Department may not be as well versed in the implications of chapter 11 of the guidance to section 182 of the 2003 Act as their counterparts in the other Department. I would find it helpful to have a letter of explanation on that point.

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

I assure the hon. Lady that my officials are fully aware of that chapter and probably sleep with copies of it under their pillows at night, such is the seamless nature of government.

I am quite clear that there is no conflict between the Bill and the 1993 Act. As I said in relation to the previous clause about a gap being filled, local authorities always have to choose the most suitable instrument for dealing with a particular set of circumstances. It is sensible that they should be able to make a graded and appropriate response. In some circumstances, powers that allow them to close down premises may be just what is needed and may be greeted with applause from neighbouring residents; in other circumstances, the powers that are provided are much more proportionate. It is sensible for local authorities not to be put in a position where they must use a large stick, when a small stick would do.

I assure the hon. Lady that the question of overlap was discussed between the officials of different Departments, and that we do not see a problem in that regard.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is all very nice, but those discussions are, by definition and by their very nature, private. I imagine that the guidelines for the 1993 Act were set out by regulation, and that similar guidelines will be published to give effect to schedule 1, and the whole of this part of the Bill.

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

May I explain to the hon. Lady, in case she is not aware of it, that when regulations are devised, there is a good deal of discussion between policy officials, lawyers and, where appropriate, Ministers? Regulations are drafted by parliamentary counsel. A great deal is done to ensure that there is no conflict between the regulations that relate to different pieces of legislation. Those discussions take place within and between Departments; they do not take place simply in the silos of one Department.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister seems to be being particularly obtuse, and perhaps missing the point. We have been contacted by at least one organisation—the British Beer and Pub Association, in which I suppose I should declare an interest, because I go into pubs and occasionally drink beer. I should not like to say that I had no connection whatever with beer or pubs.

It is of particular concern to all the interest bodies, who have not just discussed their representations with the official Opposition, to know that they will be included at the level of drafting the regulations and setting out the guidelines. It is right and proper that individual Members of Parliament represent those interest groups, especially as we know that the deregulation of the licensing laws will affect pubs and clubs. In the market town of Thirsk, in my constituency, there is a noise problem because the pizza parlours stay open until quite late. At present, nothing can be done until the licence runs out. The only remedy is to object when the licence is up for renewal and tell the local authority that the conditions of the licence are not being respected.

As a non-practising Scottish advocate I welcome the fact that lawyers are involved. It is always wise for Departments to involve lawyers and parliamentary counsel.

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

There is always extensive consultation on regulations. There is an opportunity for interest bodies to comment, and individual Members of Parliament—whether or not they are connected with the beer industry—can make their points. There is also the formality of consideration through the statutory instrument procedure. I do not understand the hon. Lady's point. She told us the name of the organisation that prompted her remarks, but she has not taken us much further.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I do not wish to be exhaustive, as you might call me sharply to order, Mr. Forth. We had substantial responses on the matter before the Bill was published, and the summary of responses to the Department's consultation shows that there is deep unease about the extent to which the noise abatement proposals will be applied. It could be extremely controversial and lead to long delays in addressing complaints. Paragraph 5 of schedule 1 refers to a temporary event notice. There are instances where if there is a delay because of consultation or noise abatement procedure, it may well be that such a temporary event could not take place because of the period of time involved. There is a lot of meat in the schedule that the Minister is leaving to the Secretaries of State in the two Departments.

Paragraph 11 on page 83 gives the amount of the fixed penalty as £500 in the case of an offence under section 4A—an offence where noise from other premises exceeds the permitted level after service of notice. There are thus three different amounts. It would be helpful to know how the figure of £500 was reached. The Minister said that schedule 1 was entirely proportionate; I would argue that it could be entirely disproportionate in respect of applications for temporary events.

Clause 84 and schedule 1 extend the Noise Act 1996 from private premises to licensed premises and, with the other licensing deregulation provisions in the Licensing Act 2003, the Government are making substantial changes. We are leaving an awful lot to the Secretaries of State of both Departments. That is causing severe concern to a number of outside bodies; I have mentioned only one such body, but I assure the Minister and the Committee that there are substantially more.

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

The hon. Lady refers to responses to consultation, thus making my point that there has been extensive consultation, so I am not sure how that can be a point of difference between us. The responses to the consultation were, of course, taken into account in drafting both the clauses and the schedule.

The hon. Lady asked how the level of £500 was reached, and commented that three levels of fine appear in the Bill. I should think that the answer to that point is blindingly obvious: we are dealing with three different offences, and the level of penalty that is appropriate and that will work is different in each case. The level of £500 was set in the way in which I have described: it is thought to be low enough to be paid with the minimum of bureaucracy while having some impact on the offenders who cause the nuisance in local areas, and not so high as to make it likely that offenders will fail to pay thus meaning that prosecution, and all the bureaucracy that comes with it, will have to follow. None of that should surprise the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady's comment about temporary event notices in subsection (6)(b), to be inserted into the Noise Act 1996 by paragraph 4(5) of the schedule, surprised me because it would be rather odd if we had not made allowances for temporary events. Clearly, the main target of the measure is those premises where there are continuing problems, but situations also arise as a result of short-term events, and they need to be allowed for in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for the Minister's comments. He will know of a proposal, which I think is very good, that was in the list of responses to his consultation paper. It proposed that community service orders might, in certain conditions, be an appropriate penalty in lieu of fixed penalty notices under the Noise Act. Will he consider that in the guidelines?

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

It would not be appropriate to consider them in the guidelines or regulations because there is no need for detailed regulation; what you see is what you get. The schedule is full and deals with everything except the permitted noise levels, on which work continues. We are consulting the organisations that have concerns on both sides of the equation: those that will be affected by the levels of noise, and those that manage premises and therefore have to consider what is reasonable and practical.

To consider a whole raft of alternative forms of punishment certainly goes wide of what we could do in considering the schedule. When it is the responsibility of the individual in charge of premises at the time, I cannot see that a community service order would be the appropriate order for those circumstances.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is helpful as far as it goes. Concerns have also been raised about noisy vehicles, music from moving vehicles, fireworks and barking dogs, and there is particular concern about bonfire night. Could bonfire night, for example, fall under a temporary notice applied for under the terms of clause 84 and schedule 1?

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

I cannot see how it could. The hon. Lady really has lost me on this occasion.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. The hon. Lady is losing me, too. Unless she is able to persuade me very quickly that bonfires have suddenly made an appearance in the Bill, I suggest that we move on.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Bonfires might not appear in the Bill at the moment, but we might look at that at a later stage. As regards the Minister's argument that schedule 1 and clause 84 are proportionate, we beg to differ.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 86 - Deferral of duty to serve abatement notice

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I seek clarification on new subsection (2C). The general thrust of the clause is to enable local authorities to defer serving an abatement notice for seven days after it has concluded that a noise constitutes a statutory nuisance. The Government believe that that short deferral will help local authorities resolve disputed cases without imposing significant delays. Will the Minister elucidate how, under new subsection (2C), the authority must demonstrate that it is satisfied

''before the end of the relevant period that the steps taken will not be successful''

''that the nuisance continues to exist''?

What would the test be?

New subsection (2D) states:

''The relevant period is the period of seven days starting with the day on which the authority was first satisfied that the nuisance existed''.

That seems reasonable enough, but how would that apply to a temporary, one-off application, which might be time-barred and made at reasonably short notice?

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

This provision arises from a request by local authorities. The intention is to allow them to take alternative steps to resolve noise nuisance problems in cases where they think it appropriate to do so. At present, if a local authority concludes that a statutory nuisance exists, it has no option but to serve an abatement notice; it cannot do other things, such as holding discussions or exploring alternatives, that might lead to a resolution without the serving of a notice.

In some circumstances, serving an abatement notice can make matters worse and make arguments more difficult to resolve. In such cases, local authorities will be able to defer issuing an abatement notice for seven days to try to resolve the problem by further discussion. There is no requirement on the authority to pursue this alternative route; delaying for the seven days is not an obligation or a right in respect of those on whom a notice may be served; it simply gives the authority more flexibility.

An abatement notice must still be served if the nuisance is not abated within or after the seven-day period. I hope that that provides the clarification that the hon. Lady seeks.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 86 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 87 - The Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

We come now to the quango that the Government set up comparatively recently. The thrust of clause 87 is to change of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment. The commission is currently classified as an executive non-departmental public body and was incorporated as a limited company in August 1999. Its predecessor was the Royal Fine Art Commission, although it has a broader remit. The central aim when it was set up was to promote high-quality design and architecture and to raise the quality of building.

The establishment of the commission as a company was an interim measure and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave a commitment that it would seek to give the commission a statutory basis as soon as a legislative opportunity arose. That has taken six years although, as the Minister will know, a previous attempt was made in the Culture and Recreation Bill, but it failed to complete its passage in 2001 because of the general election. Let us hope that this does not happen to this Bill.

The commission is currently funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the DCMS. As it is not clear on the face of the Bill, could the Minister confirm that the funding arrangements will be changed? The initial proposal is to alter the status and to provide a statutory power to the Secretary of State to fund those activities. Why have the Government again seen fit to do this at such a comparatively late stage in a Parliament? Was the commission criticised as being too close to certain developers who clearly would have had a vested interest? If so, does the Minister agree with that criticism?

The Law Society of England urges the rejection of the whole of part 8 of the Bill. It opposes the establishment of CABE on a statutory basis. It was, as I said, originally established as a non-departmental body, but it has now assumed a voice in the planning system that is beyond its original remit. It insists on imposing its views on certain development proposals. Placing the commission on a statutory basis would serve only to reinforce its interventions in development control. The Law Society believes that design issues are often matters of subjective personal taste and should not be dictated.

Could the Minister respond to our concerns and tell us what the legal implications of altering the status—

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I have been generous to the hon. Lady so far but she is now straying, as I thought she might, into clause 88. We are on the narrow subject matter of clause 87, which is the establishment of the commission. I would rather she kept the line of argument that she is now beginning to pursue to clause 88.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

May I seek your advice, Mr. Forth? Should the question of whether the commission should continue to have charity status be reserved for clause 94?

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

I suggest that the clause 94 would be the more appropriate place. This clause is simply a paving clause for the more detailed consideration of functions, financing, staffing and so on that will be considered later.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am grateful for that advice, Mr. Forth. Setting the context purely as clause 87, it would be helpful to know from the Minister why he is seeking, against such powerful representation as we have heard from an organisation as widely respected as the Law Society, to change the basis of CABE, and what the implications of that change will be.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I rise to ask the Minister to confirm the reasoning behind giving CABE a statutory basis. I understand that it will improve its audit requirements, and we would all welcome anything that improves audit requirements. I would like him to explain whether there will be any changes beyond that, because my initial reading was, I have to say, along the lines of that of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh). It was only on further reflection that I realised that the Bill would not change anything that CABE currently does, such as advice on the planning system. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the change is for audit requirements, in which case I am sure that the Committee can speed on through this clause, which would be very welcome.

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

I am very happy to respond to the contribution from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), who has correctly understood what the clauses are about. His intervention was precise, so I am very happy to give him that assurance.

I was very interested in the remarks from the hon. Lady at the start of her questions, when she seemed to say that Conservative Members are now swinging behind the Bill and intending to support it. This massive U-turn, after her unreasoned attempt to derail it on Second Reading, is most welcome. We have had some developments after the excellent discussions in Committee, on which I will be happy to reflect.

The provision will change only the status of CABE; it will not change its functions or purpose. CABE exists to be the champion in England for high-quality buildings, places and spaces, but it will, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, improve accountability because the Comptroller and Auditor General will be able to take over the audit of CABE.

CABE was set up in 1999 as a company limited by guarantee, as the hon. Lady said, under the Companies Act. It was an interim measure, and that was made clear at the time. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport gave a commitment at that time that it would seek to give CABE a statutory basis when a legislative opportunity arose, so as ever we are keeping a promise.

The hon. Member for Ludlow asked how the provision would bring about greater accountability. The Comptroller and Auditor General is responsible to Parliament, and therefore having him as the auditor is the right way forward. It will be consistent with a general undertaking that the Government gave in response to the Sharman report—that in future, to improve public accountability, all executive, non-departmental public bodies should be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. We are keeping a promise; it makes sense; and it is the only way to bring CABE within his ambit. So it is very difficult to see how we could possibly do other than what is set out in the clause.

It is appropriate to include that measure in a Bill that is about improving the quality of the environment through the promotion of the very best in architecture, urban design and public spaces generally. That is very much what CABE is about. It achieved a great deal in its first five years, so putting it on to a statutory basis is a strong sign of the Government's confidence in its abilities and its future, as well as the wish, as the hon. Gentleman said, to see it properly accountable and properly audited.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

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

I conclude my comments on the impact of the changes by saying that there is no intention for the funding arrangements of the body to be changed, and there is no intention to create a different type of organisation. CABE will remain a small and lean strategic body, and there are no plans to expand it or change its role.

David Drew (Labour/Co-operative, Stroud)

Now that I have had time to think of a question, I am sure that I can get it right. I am seeking reassurance about the potential impact of the new CABE on English Heritage. They are parallel, almost sister, bodies, and I would like an assurance that the clause will in no way damage the effectiveness of English Heritage, which has its own statutory responsibilities.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for proving beyond doubt the existence of sentient life on the Government Back Benches of this Committee. I admire the way he has risen to the casual challenge offered to him as we left the Room for the Division.

I assure the hon. Member for Ludlow that the clause will not change the relationship between CABE and English Heritage because it will not change CABE's functions; it will merely bring it within the ambit of statutory authority and under the audit functions of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I underline that point because I suspect that there would be many theoretical questions on the other clauses relating to CABE were I not to give that absolute clarification that nothing would change except those specific alterations. I will not comment on the working of CABE itself since that will not change under the Bill.

The Law Society's attitude to the change of the statutory requirement seems odd, but I would not necessarily look to the Law Society for expertise on this matter. CABE has not assumed an unintended role in the planning system; it is fulfilling the Government's original intention that it should be the champion of good design and architecture in England. Its opinions and advice on schemes will remain non-binding so, I repeat, nothing changes. If that phrase is becoming boring, I hope that it will at least have got the point across clearly.

CABE does not insist, as was suggested by the Law Society, on imposing views on development proposals. Developers can submit their plans to CABE before planning permission, but there is no obligation to do so. However, it is easier to adapt plans and make use of CABE's expertise at that stage, rather than after a planning application has been made and comments have been passed. At all stages, CABE's opinions and advice remain non-binding, and developers and local authorities are free to follow it or not. CABE provides expertise and advice that is extremely useful to the whole process. I hope that I have said enough to convince hon. Members that this and perhaps other clauses can be agreed to.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered,

That the Order of the Committee [18th January] be amended, in paragraph (1)(e), by leaving out '9.25 am' and inserting '8.55 am'—[Mr. Ainger.]

Schedule 2 - Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The schedule relates to a number of elements of CABE, including status, membership, tenure and other sundry items. The Minister said that he was responding to a promise made, but taking six years to keep a promise is not exactly a good record of time-keeping.

I understand that the commission currently enjoys charitable status. If that is the case, I ask the Minister whether that charitable status will continue.

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

CABE does not have charitable status, so that status cannot continue.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful. I understand that CABE is a non-departmental body, but it will become a departmental body. That will obviously have significance for the independence and impartiality of the advice given.

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

I assure her that the change will not have that significance. Independence of advice is a requirement that is placed on the body as a departmental public body. As I said, things do not change as a result of the provisions of the Bill, except those things that change explicitly.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am sorry, but to me that change is an explicit one. I want to place that on the record. If the commission remained a non-departmental body, there would be greater clarity that the advice is impartial and independent. I believe that the status of CABE will be weakened if that changes. As it is a departmental body, I seek an assurance that service as a member of the commission is not service in the civil service of the Crown, which is stipulated in paragraph 1(3) and paragraph 4(2) of schedule 2.

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

I point out to the hon. Lady paragraph 1 of schedule 2, which answers her question.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The Minister might think that it answers my question. I was seeking clarification. The body is sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. I presume that the Minister will say that nothing has changed except what has changed, but will he confirm that the body will continue to be jointly funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister? It begs the question—[Interruption.]

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I ask hon. Members to observe the niceties of the Committee.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It gives rise to the question of why a Bill from a different Department is sponsoring this part of the Bill.

Tenure is limited to four years and committees may sit. In paragraph 5, the Bill says that

''The Commission may establish one or more committees.''

It is normal to set a specific maximum number of committees that can be set up. The Bill is silent on that. Clearly, paragraph 6 will have cost implications from the point of view of remuneration. Will the Minister state that remuneration is on the same basis as if it were a straightforward transfer?

Paragraph 10, on the provision of an annual report, states that

''The Commission must send to the Secretary of State a report on the discharge of its functions during each financial year.''

The schedule is silent as to whether that report will be published and, therefore, debatable by Select Committees in either this House or the other place. We are informed by the House of Commons research paper on the Bill that the Bill will not place any duty on the commission to publish an annual report. In our view, that raises issues of accountability. The Minister will be mindful that severe reservations were raised about accountability that were not dissimilar to those raised by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). I would like to return to the point about English Heritage at the appropriate time, but given that the Select Committee was quite critical in that regard, is the Minister minded to publish the annual report and allow it to be debated? The records produced under paragraph 12 will presumably be accessible. How will members of the public or developers with an interest have access to those records?

On the transitional provisions, will the Minister satisfy my interest? I understand that the chairman of the commission had resigned, and I wonder whether there is a chairman and whether the transitional provisions will have implications in the future when a commission chairman resigns. Those are the main points that we would like to raise.

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

Most of the questions asked by the hon. Lady have been answered already when I said that those things do not change. Our intention was to keep the promise that was made to bring CABE into the auditing scope of the Comptroller and Auditor General and to put that on a statutory basis, and no more. We could debate a lot of theoretical issues for a long time, but the legislation does not change them in any way.

May I make it clear that CABE will remain a non-departmental public body on a statutory basis? Secondly, it is not normal to set a limit on the number of committees that can be established by such a body, not least because that depends on the functions of the body. It may be an organisation that does not need to have committees or sub-committees of any sort. It may be a body with a variety of engagement with expert opinion. My guess is that that is very much part of the warp and weft of CABE's work. CABE looks at the built environment and has done some excellent work on urban parks and such things, and would want to engage the advice of a variety of people and experts.

There will be a duty to publish an annual report. I can only say that the House of Commons Library research paper is wrong about that. I could wax eloquent on what the organisation does and should do in the future, but none of that has any relevance to the limited purposes of the clauses and schedules.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I am not sure that I am entirely satisfied. I know that the Minister meant to be helpful. The regulatory impact assessment, on which he has told me not to rely, states that the Secretary of State will have a statutory power to fund the activities conducted by CABE. I understood that to mean that the Secretary of State for DEFRA would be responsible.

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

No. This is a general point. It does not relate to the Bill. The normal pattern of drafting legislation is to refer to ''the Secretary of State'', which means the appropriate Secretary of State. In previous legislation ''the Secretary of State'' might have referred to the Secretary of State for the Environment, who would deal with issues in England, and the Secretary of State for Wales, who would deal with them in Wales. We cannot use the same phraseology now, as some issues are dealt with by the National Assembly for Wales, but as CABE is an England-only body, we can revert to the simple reference to the Secretary of State.

Should Departments be reorganised, as happens from time to time, the generic reference to the Secretary of State means that it is not necessary to amend primary legislation to ensure that the responsibility transfers between members of the Cabinet. However, the hon. Lady would be wrong to infer that there is an intention to transfer the responsibility from where it currently lies to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. That is not the case. As I have said, the only changes are those that I spelt out at the start of our proceedings.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is most helpful. It leaves me with one point on the transfer of cost. Paragraph 9 of the schedule refers to accounts. Previously, the accounts were audited by a private auditor at a cost of £15,000 per annum. There will now presumably be a transfer of cost to the public purse, as I understand from the Department's regulatory impact assessment that CABE will be audited by the Comptroller and Auditor General. I fear that the cost will be more than the modest £15,000. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me what provision is made in the budget for the accounts to be audited.

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

I will simply say that that is a matter for the Secretary of State.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

That is extremely disappointing and very unsatisfactory.

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

No, it is not unsatisfactory. It is precisely where the responsibility is placed in the Bill. That is the way in which the Government work. It is for the Secretary of State to make sure that a body for which he or she is responsible has the funds to do what it is there to do. If it must do it under legislation, that makes it all the clearer what the Secretary of State must provide, so there we are.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I would just note, in the spirit of freedom of information, that it is extraordinary that we have just been told that the Secretary of State can do what the Secretary of State wants to do and that the House can be left in the dark.

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

The hon. Lady seems to be sticking her head into the dark and trying to nuzzle as far down into the subterranean depths as she can. I said that the provision gave the responsibility to the Secretary of State, so of course the Secretary of State must make sure that a body for which he or she is responsible has the appropriate resources. Primary legislation should not set out exactly what audit fees should be allowed for a particular body.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It is a very simple question. Will the audit fees be higher or lower under paragraph 9 of the schedule?

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

It is a simple question and it is a simple answer. It is for the Secretary of State to make the appropriate arrangements. These are normal matters of public accountability and audit.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

It seems extraordinary that we now have a Freedom of Information Act and we know that in the past the accounts cost a modest £15,000 per annum. There is every indication that under this provision they will cost substantially more.

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

That is not necessarily the case. CABE pays for audit now, and it will have to pay for audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General. The cost will depend on the scope of the audit, as is the case with private auditors. I do not understand why the hon. Lady does not understand that and why she is labouring a point that does not seem to me even to exist.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

The record will show that I am simply asking whether, under the new schedule, the cost will be higher or lower.

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

I am simply trying to explain to the hon. Lady that the Bill's provisions make the costs neither higher nor lower: they simply change payments to an outside auditor to payments to the Comptroller and Auditor General, which I understood from both sides of the Committee was what was wanted. It is a fulfilment of the undertaking given some time ago.

Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)

Order. I am all for probing Ministers in the appropriate way in appropriate circumstances, but I judge that the sterility of this exchange has now reached unacceptable levels. Will the hon. Lady please move on or come to a conclusion?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I shall conclude that unless the Minister can give firm evidence to the contrary, the costs will be higher rather than lower and we shall return to the matter at a later stage.

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

That seems an expression of personal prejudice rather than an attempt to assist the Committee, and I hope that the schedule can now stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 88 - General functions of the commission

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in clause 88, page 68, leave out line 4.

I am almost nervous to continue because of the dancing on pinheads we have just had. Amendment No. 15 seeks clarification from the Minister on what CABE will be charging for—it currently charges for some of its services. As the Minister has said, there will be no change. I assume that it will continue to charge for some of its services, but it might be useful for the Committee to hear which services are charged for.

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making clear the probing nature of his amendment. I would have been nervous if it was intended as a serious amendment that might lead to the removal of CABE's authority to make charges in respect of providing facilities, services and advice on architectural or built environment matters. Had the hon. Gentleman pushed it to a vote and put that capacity at risk, it would have been a bad decision.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

He would not have won.

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

The hon. Gentleman should not presume on these matters. CABE is funded primarily to provide advice and services in England, where it will have a duty to discharge its functions and currently provides most of them free of charge. However, it charges for some services; for example, training and publications. That is entirely consistent with the policy on the selling of Government services, because it enhances the use and value of public assets and exploits their commercial potential. For departmental public bodies such as CABE, such activity can generate valuable additional resources for their core objectives. The provision that is made here is similar to statutory powers granted to other bodies in this sector, for example, English Heritage.

Looking at the activities that take place at the moment, CABE has successfully sold services to a number of bodies—operating income generated in 2003-04 was over £500,000. In surveys, it scores highly for customer satisfaction, so CABE has the potential to generate useful additional resources for itself and for its purposes. CABE will also be able to operate outside England, but will not be funded with that intention. CABE's help has already been sought by devolved administrations in other parts of the United Kingdom and by foreign countries. Unless it can charge, it will either be unable to undertake some work or will have to take work out of the funding provided clearly for the purpose of giving a service in England.

So I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will be encouraged by that explanation and be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I am pleased with the Minister's explanation and on the basis that it would be nice to get through every amendment in a couple of minutes in this way, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I seek clarification because I understand from earlier contributions that this commission will be carrying out the same functions as the old commission. I have no problems with that whatever.

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

Well spotted.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

Stroke of genius, really. Clause 88(2) states:

''The Commission must discharge its functions in relation to England and may also discharge them in relation to any other place it thinks appropriate.''

I assume that that is similar to the original Act.

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

That is precisely the point that I covered a moment ago in response to the hon. Member for Ludlow. In explaining why CABE is able to charge, I said that it had already been asked for help and advice by countries overseas and by the devolved Administrations. It is not funded for those purposes, but it is important that it is allowed to undertake that work so that its expertise can be made more widely available.

Nigel Evans (Conservative, Ribble Valley)

I am grateful for that explanation. When I originally saw the word ''England'', I thought that ''other places'' meant other parts of the United Kingdom. Then I started to think more widely and I thought that the term might mean the British overseas territories and other parts of the world. I am extremely grateful for the Minister's explanation.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I was advised by your good self, Mr. Forth, that this would be the appropriate place to debate CABE's general functions. Clause 88 sets out those functions, as well as defining the built environment and intellectual property, but perhaps the Minister can clarify what specific role CABE will have in planning policy and planning proposals, because there is some debate about that.

The Library note—[Interruption.] If I could continue, the thrust of my argument will become clear. CABE's job has been to improve design, and that has included commenting on major developments at the planning stage. However, the Library note says:

''Approval by CABE may encourage a planning authority to approve an application although of course an application might be rejected on completely different grounds.''

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

I am just wondering whether the hon. Lady was out of the Room when I responded on this point a short time ago. As I made clear, CABE can offer advice on planning, and developers can seek advice in advance of a planning application, but any advice that CABE offers is non-binding. It is up to the authorities to deal with the planning application, and it is up to those making the application to prepare it. CABE is merely available as a source of advice on best practice.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I should like to press the Minister further. He did say that, but if the advice is not binding, that raises the question of what role the commission does fulfil. Subsection (3) states:

''The Commission may, for any purpose connected with the discharge of its function . . . provide, or assist in the provision of, public works, services and amenities''

''take any other steps it thinks appropriate.''

Will that have any planning implications?

The hon. Member for Stroud referred to the complementary role played by English Heritage, and it was quite vociferous in its evidence to the Select Committee in that regard. It noted that the Committee had commented in one of its reports that

''there are concerns that the functions of CABE and EH overlap and that they are not working closely enough together and providing consistent advice on planning applications . . . In some instances CABE and EH are giving conflicting advice. EH tends to favour conservation while CABE prefers a modernist approach.''

It then noted that the Committee had recommended that the position be clarified and that

''the relationship between CABE and EH needs to be reinforced in order to rationalise their operations, to minimise duplication and to ensure their advice is consistent.''

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I would be most grateful to hear from the Minister whether clause 88—[Interruption.] I am asked from a sedentary position what that has to do with the Bill. I understand that English Heritage is a statutory body. We are told that there will now be another statutory body, CABE, giving advice, which is not binding, although I think that the advice of English Heritage is binding. As those points were submitted, I believe, at the time of the consultation, that raises the question whether they were taken into account in the drafting of clause 88.

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I shall briefly speak to the clause, as the hon. Lady would not take an intervention. I struggle to see the difficulty with two bodies, coming from different areas, giving different advice. It is advice; it is not binding. When planning applications are submitted, many people give advice. Even MPs might sometimes say, ''Oh, that's a good scheme; the planning committee should vote for it.'' I therefore struggle to see why two different bodies, which were set up to do two different things, should not give separate advice. It would worry me greatly were CABE and English Heritage giving exactly the same advice, because then people would question why two different bodies existed.

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

The hon. Gentleman has given an excellent reply to the debate on the clause. The evidence of the Select Committee was given before publication of the Bill, and was of course taken into account in deciding what should be in the clauses. It was decided that CABE should be established, on the basis that it has existed as a non-statutory body. I do not see a problem. I share the hon. Gentleman's view that it is good to have particular expertise. CABE has expertise on the built environment; English Heritage gives advice on England's heritage. At times, the two may run closely together and support each other; at other times, there may be different perspectives. The fact that people do not have to take a piece of advice does not make it any less important. It is right to have advice from important perspectives, such as that provided by CABE. Like the hon. Gentleman, I do not understand the hon. Lady's difficulties, and I urge the Committee to agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have nothing further to add other than to commend the Select Committee report, which flagged up the difficulties. It clearly thinks that there is a problem. I am heartened that the Minister believes that the Committee's criticisms were taken into account. We shall return to the Select Committee and see whether we can develop the arguments further at a later stage.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 - Changes to functions of the Commission

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

I have a simple question for the Minister. In what circumstances does he envisage changes to the commission's functions being necessary? This is the second attempt in the Bill to change those functions by statute. I understand that there will be a draft order, which I presume means a statutory instrument. Will that be debatable in the House, so that the contents and the changes to the commission's functions are subject to parliamentary scrutiny?

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

An order can confer a further function on the commission only if the new function is connected directly or indirectly to an existing or former function of the commission. In other words, it would not be possible to add functions that had nothing to do with the main thrust of CABE's responsibilities. The point of the clause is to provide flexibility should other functions arise that are complementary to the commission's existing or previous functions.

It is difficult to anticipate exactly what the new functions might be, but let me give an example. The commission's role has changed since its inception. It started off promoting high standards in design and management of buildings and structures, and moved on, as I said earlier, to working on the design and management of parks and public spaces. I have seen some of its publications, which are excellent. They consider the improved use of what have sometimes been quite derelict public spaces, and make constructive suggestions. It would have been a pity if that logical extension of the work of the commission had not been possible. In placing it on a statutory basis, we want that flexibility to continue. I understand that allowing that type of development of the commission's work is the intention behind allowing the flexibility in the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 90 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 agreed to.

Clause 93 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94 - Architecture and the built environment: financial assistance

Anne McIntosh (Conservative, Vale of York)

Clause 94(4) relates to financial assistance and the form in which it may be given. I understand that if an order is made under clause 89 to change the functions of the commission, subsection (4) enables the Secretary of State to make an order amending the purposes for which financial assistance may be given accordingly, to ensure that any changes to the commission's functions need not affect the availability of financial assistance. Will he assure me that it is purely a consequential change, which will have no policy implications?

'''the built environment' includes—

(a) any structure or area built or designed for human use (such as squares, parks and recreation areas);

(b) any area available for public use which is in the vicinity of such a structure or within or in the vicinity of such an area''.

Clause 94(5) relates to that definition. Is that simply repeated? If the ''built environment'' has already been defined once, I am honestly intrigued as to why that definition would be there again. Will the Minister also say a word about what the ramifications of

''in the vicinity of such an area''

under the ''built environment'' would be?

I am sure that the House Builders Federation has been in contact with the Department and the Minister. It has said that if—its expression, not mine—

''views of relevant stakeholders could be sought in formulating and presenting to Parliament any proposals of this nature, that would be welcome.''

In particular, on clause 94, its asks that there should be ''greater transparency for stakeholders''—those concerned—such as, it points out, the federation itself. It would support the powers being drawn up in the facilitatory way proposed, since this will allow operational flexibility to respond to needs identified, within the rules of public accountability. Can the Minister confirm whether he is minded to accommodate its request for consultation in formulating and presenting proposals to Parliament? In particular, will there be transparency for bodies such as the federation in this regard?

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

First, the hon. Lady is right to suggest that the way that clause 94 is drafted is consequential on clause 89. The same definition for ''built environment'' is given. I daresay it could have been possible to draft it as a cross-reference, so that the same words only appeared once. It makes the definition in relation to financial assistance clear. I suppose it would be theoretically possible to change what the body could do without providing additional finances—it would, perhaps, be raised out of the work overseas. In that case, it would not be necessary to amend both clauses.

I am happy to assure the hon. Lady that, at present, there is clearly coterminosity and no policy issue to be raised. Were there to be policy changes, they and any concerns would relate, I would have thought, to earlier clauses. Clause 94 is simply about the financial assistance and, as I have made clear on a number of occasions, it describes what the function of CABE and the extent of its activities have been prior to being made statutory. There is no change in that regard.

''Vicinity'' is important. CABE, in addition to its work on buildings has also been involved in regeneration of—for instance—seaside towns, beach areas and the sea front. Thus allowing CABE the power to work in the vicinity of buildings, as well as in the vicinity of spaces referred to, means that it can continue such work.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 94 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 95 and 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97 - Use of fixed penalty receipts:lower tier authorities

Matthew Green (Liberal Democrat, Ludlow)

I have a couple of brief questions for the Minister. Clause 97(2)(b), says that regulations may include provision

''to pay sums in respect of those amounts to another person (including the appropriate person)'',

and the appropriate person would obviously be the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly. However, what is the real intention of the paragraph? Is it that the Minister will ensure that a percentage of receipts by lower-tier authorities is carved off and taken back to central Government? That would be my immediate reading of it. The provision is general and talks of paying

''those amounts to another person (including the appropriate person)'',

so I wonder who those other persons, aside from the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly, are.

The second question relates to subsection (2) (d), which is

''to adopt such accounting arrangements in respect of those amounts as may be specified in the regulations.''

My concern there is that, since we would like parish and town councils to be as proactive as possible, high accounting costs—as the Minister will be aware—can disproportionately affect lower-tier authorities, whose budgets are relatively small. It is something they have complained about in the past.

The Minister, in a previous debate, used an example of a group of quite small parishes clubbing together to run something similar. Clearly, if the accounting procedures are over-onerous and over-expensive it would put them off doing that. I seek assurance that those procedures will be as light touch as possible.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.