Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 4th March 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, can the Minister explain how much of a nuisance the regulatory burden is in London?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am trying to get there.

In our view, legislation should not provide for people to be issued with, or threatened with, financial penalties the first time they make a mistake. That is why we want local authorities to give householders a written warning. The requirements on people are not always obvious, particularly when they move to an area where a different collection system applies. It is right that people should find out what they have done wrong and should have the opportunity to rectify mistakes before they are asked to pay a penalty. People in London have as much right to this opportunity as anyone else in England.

Based on what we have heard from local authorities, we do not believe that this will add significant burdens compared with how the current arrangements operate. We know that many authorities already communicate well with their residents and seek to educate them if they are having difficulties with collection requirements, but if we do not amend the London Local Authorities Act, this legislation would still allow someone making a mistake for the first time in London, but not elsewhere in England, to be penalised. We do not believe that that is fair or right.

I am aware that some noble Lords consider that the system we propose is bureaucratic. Indeed, my noble friend described it as byzantine. She used the words “long and protracted” and mentioned our five-page schedule. Let me explain why I do not believe that we are introducing significantly more bureaucracy compared with the current London system.

London Councils produced a 22-page guidance document in December 2013 on the current system operating under the London Local Authorities Act. According to this, London authorities issue householders with a penalty charge notice. I quote from the guidance:

“Depending on each local authority’s policy, a verbal or written warning may be given before escalating”,

to a penalty charge notice. The householder then has 28 days to make representations to the London authority. If representations are made, the authority then has 56 days to make a decision. If it rejects the representations, a notice of rejection must be served. The householder may then appeal to an adjudicator before being required to pay the penalty. All that is under the current system in London.

Under our proposed system, London local authorities will first issue a householder with a written warning. The next time a householder makes a mistake they may issue a notice of intent. The final notice can then be issued after 28 days, taking account of any representations made. The householder may then appeal to an adjudicator before being required to pay the penalty. Is our proposed system really adding bureaucracy, compared with the current system?

As well as reducing the regulatory burden on householders, our proposals seek to ensure that the level of penalties is proportionate. Given the broad agreement that making a mistake related to household waste collection should not be a criminal offence, it would not seem appropriate for the penalty to be higher than for a criminal activity. The penalty under the London system for a breach of the rules about presentation of waste is currently set at £110, yet a shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. Under our proposals, councils in London would be able to set the penalty between £60 and £80.

We believe that this range is proportionate, but understand that some noble Lords consider that it will not act as a deterrent. We should remember that for many people in London, as elsewhere, an £80 financial penalty is certainly significant. For people who consider that £80 is insignificant, I ask whether they really consider £110 such a radically different amount that they will treat it as a significant penalty. We believe that £60 to £80 is the right level and that householders in London have as much right to be treated fairly and proportionately as anyone else in England.

Also, I suggest that it would not be right for a “harm to local amenity” test to apply everywhere in England except London. Under the Environmental Protection Act, we propose that householders should be issued with a fixed penalty only if their behaviour actually causes problems in their local neighbourhood. They could receive a penalty for leaving bin bags on the street for days on end, but not for leaving a bin lid open. If we kept the London system as it is, we would be in the anomalous position where the legislation allows local authorities to issue penalties to householders who make any sort of mistake in this area if they live in London, but not if they live anywhere else in England.

We intend to work with local government to produce advice to help local authorities implement the test with confidence. My officials are of course also happy and available to talk to representatives from London Councils and others about the practicalities of operating this system if that would be useful.

This clause and schedule, as they stand, will introduce a proportionate approach, providing appropriate safeguards for householders throughout England, including London. I therefore ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

Can the Minister tell us how many instances of the cases he has described have led to action under the London local authorities scheme?

[Lord De Mauley]

I am quite happy to do that. If I cannot do so during this debate, I will let the noble Lord know whatever information I can find for him.

Clause 44 would ensure that this best practice is adopted and that additional safeguards for the individual are available across all boroughs.

I understand that my noble friend is concerned that the process of issuing penalties will take too long. We need to get the balance right between protecting individuals’ civil liberties and dealing with behaviours which damage local neighbourhoods. We intend that this is reflected in legislation. Since the Deregulation Bill was first published in draft, we have amended Clause 44 so that local authorities will not have to issue multiple warnings to people who repeat the same behaviour of causing harm to the local amenity within a year.

We also believe in a fair and measured approach to penalties. A shoplifter committing a first offence may be issued with a £90 penalty notice for disorder. My noble friend’s amendment would levy penalties of £110 for mistakes and carelessness with Londoners’ bins. Clause 44 allows us to set the level of penalties at between £60 and £80 because we do not believe such mistakes and carelessness should be penalised more heavily than shoplifting. I understand my noble friend’s focus on London and know she would like the city to be treated as a special case. However, other cities in England have, for example, high-density housing, transient populations and student populations. I am sure she would accept that a proportionate, fair approach should apply throughout England.

My noble friend asked why the clause needed to be so wordy. We appreciate that the clause and the schedule are long and look complicated. There are two reasons for that. First, we want to be clear about the process that local authorities must go through as we do not want householders to be penalised for a first-time, inadvertent mistake. Secondly, we are looking to align two different systems, set out in the Environmental Protection Act 1990 and the London Local Authorities Act 2007.

To summarise, this clause as it stands will introduce the protection that a household needs from being punished for a simple mistake or for people throwing the wrong rubbish into someone else’s bin. It will align all of England with a sensible approach that keeps residents informed and levels of penalties proportionate.

My noble friend Lord Tope asked whether I would be prepared to meet him about this, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, asked the same question. Of course I would be prepared to do that, but I would not want to raise any expectation that the Government will change their position on this. I ask my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

Dog Licensing

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 16th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, perish the thought that I should be dismissive. My noble friend put his finger on the problem, which was that the price had not gone up and therefore it became uneconomic to continue the scheme.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, if it is acceptable to microchip dogs, why is it not acceptable to have a simple identity card system for humans?

[Lord De Mauley]

I think the noble Lord will accept that that is somewhat wide of the Question.

Flooding

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 22nd January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, one has to be realistic about this. Around 10% of England is in high-flood-risk areas, including large parts of cities such as Hull and Portsmouth and, indeed, central London. Development in areas of flood risk is permitted only exceptionally, where there are wider sustainability considerations and must in all cases be safe, must not increase flood risk elsewhere and, where possible, overall flood risk should be reduced.

[Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)]

My Lords, given that the Thames Barrier was raised only twice in its first four years of existence, but in the latest four years for which figures are available—apparently figures are not publicly available for the past two years—it was raised 24 times, are the Government really satisfied that it is sensible to wait until 2070 before considering its replacement?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the noble Lord will be aware that recent incidents, like those over the past several years, indicate that there are flood risks across our country. That is a very important one, and there are many others. We are, as the noble Lord well knows, spending a large sum of money: £2.3 billion over the current spending review period, and going on into the future. All these things are crucial and we must attend to them all according to their priority.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Wednesday 24th July 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, over the past decade studies have looked at options which include green infrastructure solutions such as sustainable drainage systems. The purpose of the Thames Tunnel Evidence Assessment, published by my department in 2012, was to ensure that due consideration had been given to the full range of evidence available on all the proposed solutions to address sewage in the Thames and to provide an assessment of the nature of that evidence.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, is not the fundamental problem that since privatisation the privatised water utilities have failed to make the investment that is necessary, including in sewers? What are the Government doing to address that in terms of the regulatory environment?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I am sorry, I simply do not accept the premise of the noble Lord’s question.

Horsemeat and Food Fraud

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Monday 11th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I will pass on my noble friend’s comments to my right honourable friend.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly said that there is no evidence of a threat to food safety, which is obviously welcome news. However, he glossed over an answer to the question asked by my noble friend Lady Crawley. There have been massive reductions in the resources available to local Trading Standards to pursue proper food safety tests. Further, the number of food inspectors has been reduced. This clearly poses a risk. If there is potentially criminal fraudulent activity involving the substitution of one form of meat for another, could there not also be criminal activity involving cavalierly ignoring hygiene regulations or the rules on additives? What assurances can the Minister give us that those matters will be addressed properly in the future?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the Government take these issues extremely seriously. The FSA has certainly not dropped its guard. As my noble friend Lord Forsyth, said, it has been doing an extremely good job in very difficult circumstances and the Government are supporting it in that. As I explained earlier, the nature of sampling is risk based and focused on protecting consumers. Staff reductions have not affected the level of testing carried out on meat. Meat produced in UK approved slaughterhouses is inspected by official veterinarians and meat inspectors working under their direction. They also ensure that meat hygiene regulations are complied with in abattoirs and meat establishments.

Thames Tideway Tunnel

Debate between Lord Harris of Haringey and Lord De Mauley

Tuesday 15th January 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a fair point, my Lords, but we believe in free capital markets.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, does the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, mean that the Government are indifferent to the extent of foreign ownership of our critical national infrastructure? Are they indifferent to the possible implications of that?

[Lord De Mauley]

No, my Lords, we are not indifferent; we take these things very seriously. As I say, however, we believe in free access to our capital markets.