Clause 99
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
10:45 am
Phil Woolas (Minister of State (Local Government & Community Cohesion), Department for Communities and Local Government; Oldham East and Saddleworth, Labour)
That is a finely balanced argument, and it is reasonable of the hon. Gentleman to make it. On the one hand, one could say that local authorities should not use the fixed penalty notice powers as an income-generating method, lest an accusation of stealth tax or some other such spurious accusation be made by the political parties that make such accusations. The real point, however, is that for a fixed penalty to carry public consent, as any law, fee or fine must do, there must be confidence that it is being levied for its stated purpose.
On the other hand, one could say, as the hon. Gentleman has, that if we are genuinely devolutionary and trust local authorities, we should allow them to make that decision and carry the can. In practice, if the ring-fenced and hypothecated approach is taken, there are problems in defining how it will work out. Hon. Members will be familiar with the difficulties of identifying fixed costs, marginal costs and so on in allocation.
The Government have taken the middle route, proposing simply that the councils should have regard to using the money generated by such fixed penalty notices to address the general problem on which the fixed penalty notice is meant to bear down, without being too prescriptive. To help to carry public consent and help the councils to carry it, it makes sense to ask the Committee to agree to the measures to put that encouragement into the Bill.
Hon. Members will be aware of the controversy surrounding fines from speeding cameras—various campaigns suggest that the fines have nothing to do with bearing down on speeding but are meant to raise revenues. I want to declare that councils have the power to bear down on offences. In that way, we can bolster local government’s ability to improve communities. That is the reason for the clause.