|
Miss McIntosh: One point is absolutely crucial here: where police have been responsible for applying fixed penalty notices to either abandoned or nuisance vehicles, they were in most circumstances uniformed police officers. I understand that a big change could be that the authorised officers under clause 10 may not be uniformed. This could mean that, inadvertently, a more junior officer, or even the wrong sort of officer, is involved. That could confuse the person who receives the fixed penalty notice.
Alun Michael: There are certainly many duties that have had to be done by trained uniformed police officers whose services are required elsewhere—for instance, at the back of this Room. Their training might be called on at any time, but they are undertaking fairly bureaucratic but important duties. Community support officers and the use of local authority officers in enforcement, support and wardening duties are part of trying to ensure that we not only increase the number of police officers available, as we have done, but make the largest possible proportion of the police force available for the most important duties.
Matthew Green: On abandoned vehicles, surely it is unlikely that the person will be with them. By definition they are abandoned, so a fixed penalty notice is likely to arrive in the post at the address of the person who is the registered keeper of the vehicle. It will make little difference to the person posting it whether they wear a uniform or not.
Alun Michael: It is becoming a habit to agree with the hon. Gentleman, who makes a very sensible point.
I ought to make it clear that I responded specifically to the question from the hon. Member for Vale of York on what is done by police officers and what is not. Some things that were done by police officers are now not appropriate for them to do and are best done in other ways. I should make the point that in this clause there is no change. Local authorities enforce
Column Number: 80
abandoned vehicles legislation. Police do as well, but they do not have a duty to remove abandoned vehicles, because that lies with the local authority. I hope that clarification is helpful.
The hon. Lady encouraged us to diligence and even enthusiasm on European directives, but the number of vehicles being abandoned had already increased significantly in the years before the introduction of the higher de-pollution and treatment standards required by the end-of-life vehicles directive.
The Government have taken a number of initiatives to make it more difficult for vehicles to be dumped with impunity. I am sure that is encouraged and supported by most people. From 2007, car owners will be eligible for what is described as free take-back of their vehicles at accessible end-of-life vehicle treatment facilities. Regulations will be laid before the House in the coming weeks, so the situation will be made clear. Those arrangements will provide a further disincentive to abandon vehicles.
Under the current proposals for the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive, retailers will provide finance to local authorities to upgrade their sites separately to collect the WEEE directive material. Producers will then be responsible for the costs of onward transport, treatment and recycling of those items. There is, therefore, no reason that the WEEE directive should result in fly-tipping. The arrangements proposed in the clause are sensible and I hope they receive the Committee's full support.
The penalty, set at £200, can be amended by order, but the flexibility for a local authority to accept a lesser amount—if the fine is paid before the specified date in the fixed penalty notice—is a common-sense provision that aims at encouraging people to pay and therefore increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Notice of removal
Miss McIntosh: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 11, page 12, line 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
'(2) Leave out subsection (2) (Requirement to give notice to occupier).'.
The Bill is not designed to see who is responsible for checking the ownership of the abandoned vehicle. Paragraph 52 of the Library note says:
''Currently, under section 3(2) of the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, if a vehicle that appears to be abandoned is found on land that is occupied, a 15-day notice must be served on the occupier of that land before that vehicle can be removed.''
Column Number: 81
What test and weight of evidence will the Government require to conclude that the vehicle appears to be abandoned? The hon. Member for Ludlow referred to the registered owner, but which official will be responsible for checking who the registered owner of that vehicle is? What constitutes an abandoned vehicle?
The note continues:
''If the vehicle is on a private driveway, there is no practical problem.''
However, we in rural areas find that such vehicles are abandoned on land. I have not mentioned the WEEE directive, which we shall consider later, but as the Minister touched on it he will be aware that there is now a fridge mountain, most of which is finding its way on to farmland. That same problem—
5.15 pm
The Chairman: Order. May I bring the hon. Lady back to the amendment?
Miss McIntosh: Thank you, Mr. Taylor.
The problem is the definition of a road. Section 142 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 specifies that roads could include those passing through housing estates managed by registered social landlords and other social authority housing estates. The purpose of this probing amendment is to ask the Minister whether he has considered the implications for housing estates in urban areas.
For my hon. Friends, who, like me, have predominantly rural constituencies outside London and other urban conurbations, the concern is not about vehicles dumped on private driveways, but about vehicles dumped on farm land. Who is responsible for determining whether the notice of removal goes to the registered keeper or owner? Is the Minister seeking to impose a blanket notice of removal on the landowner? That would be grossly unfair to the person who owns the land on which an abandoned vehicle is dumped, without his knowledge and through no fault of his own. That scenario may not have been the first that came to mind when the Bill was drafted.
Alun Michael: I am a little puzzled because most of the time it seemed that the hon. Lady was speaking against her amendment, which would enable a local authority to remove immediately from private land any vehicle it considers has been abandoned. That would not require the agreement or consent of the landowner. I am convinced that that goes too far. It would amount to a major interference with private property and would almost certainly be contrary to the European convention on human rights. Consultation on reducing the 15-day notice period in 2001 showed that it was strongly opposed by classic car organisations, among others.
I shall clarify the position. We want action to be taken quickly when cars are abandoned, but we do not
Column Number: 82
want to cause unintended damage to individuals as a consequence. Classic car organisations, including the British Historical Vehicle Club Federation, which represents the views of 350 organisations, which between them have 250,000 members, stated that it was concerned that one man's treasure could be deemed detrimental by a local authority. Someone could return from holiday to find that their car, which they had left on their private driveway, had been removed. A reduction, let alone the removal, of a notice period would leave the Department open to legal challenge on the grounds of proportionality, and the proposal was therefore dropped.
Some of the hon. Lady's other remarks were more about the clause than the amendment. It might therefore be more appropriate to respond to them in the clause stand part debate.
Matthew Green: It might help if the Minister could confirm my understanding of the situation, which is that when someone allows old cars to pile up in their fields, local authorities already have the power to take enforcement action and to move those vehicles off private land. I believe that the powers have been used in my constituency.
Alun Michael: Indeed. There are powers for the local authority to use, with the approval of the owner or occupier of the land. I am setting out why we cannot accept the amendment. The hon. Gentleman, in explaining some of the context, is right.
Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. If it is more appropriate, I can raise some of the issues in our clause stand part debate. He referred to the fact that these vehicles would be unceremoniously carted off. The specific point is what the situation would be on private land when the occupier had no knowledge that the vehicle was there. Also, there is the particular situation of a road going through a housing estate.
Alun Michael: Presumably the hon. Lady is referring to housing association roads and that sort of thing. Those are highways, so the legislation applies to them. As I said, I am resisting the temptation to stray outside what the amendment says and respond to all the points.
Miss McIntosh: Against that background, it was a useful debate. It was a probing amendment, and I listened with great interest to what the Minister said. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alun Michael: Perhaps I could assist the Committee more generally on clause 11.
According to existing legislation, a local authority cannot remove an abandoned vehicle from land that is occupied before the expiration of a 15-day notice
Column Number: 83
served on the occupier of that land. This causes problems, especially when the vehicle is on a road that passed through a privately owned estate, because there is confusion about who the occupier is. The local authority will therefore usually affix a notice to the vehicle to alert the owner. The notice attracts instances of antisocial behaviour, such as arson and vandalism. Similarly, a local authority must affix a 24-hour notice to a vehicle prior to removal, when it considers it to be in such a condition that it should be destroyed. That notice, again, can attract instances of antisocial behaviour such as arson and vandalism. Clause 11 therefore amends the Refuse Disposal (Amenity) Act 1978, by disapplying the requirement to serve a notice on an occupier where the vehicle is on a road and removing the requirement to serve a 24-hour notice when the vehicle is in such a condition that it is considered fit only for destruction.
Let me explain again that ''road'' is not restricted to the public highway, but includes all roads to which the public have access, and will, in many cases, include private roads running through estates. I hope that that explanation makes it clear why the clause should stand part of the Bill.
| 
