Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill

moved Amendment No. 225ZE: 225ZE: Clause 131, page 91, line 4, at end insert— ““(1A) But nothing in this section prevents a local authority from using its fixed penalty receipts for another purpose, where it would not be expedient to use the total fixed penalty receipts for the purposes of combating any relevant nuisance.”” The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 225ZE is a simple amendment which addresses what might potentially be a simple problem. In fact, I fear that the line numbers may have become confused as it should read ““Page 91, line 44””. This amendment seeks to address potential ring-fencing in proposed new Section 237D entitled ““Use of fixed penalty receipts””. I hope the amendment will make more sense in this context. Proposed new Section 237D places a duty on local authorities to have regard to the desirability of spending money gathered from fines and fixed penalty notices on addressing the problems of each precise fixed penalty notice. In another place, the Minister insisted that that was not ring-fencing. Indeed, on the face of it, it does not look like compulsory ring-fencing. However, I would be interested to know how the words ““have regard to”” will be enforced. My amendment would ensure that, although authorities would have regard to the desirability of spending fine money on the offences from which the fine arose, where part of that money might usefully be spent on other priorities, local authorities should have that potential. I have indicated my intention to oppose the Question that Clause 133 stand part of the Bill. I have done so to probe the Government’s thinking. How far reaching will the Secretary of State's guidance be and how constricting will it be on local authorities? Clause 133 makes clear, by inserting a new clause into the Local Government Act 1972, that local authorities, over and above all other detailed duties in this part, will be under a duty to have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance. My initial reaction to that is simply ““overkill””. I hope that it is. I absolutely agree with the Government that the authorities should not be able to use fine money as a stealth tax, but I believe in the need for reasonable leeway on this, so that they have some discretion in their affairs. I beg to move.