rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2007.

The noble Lord said: I came with a fairly short and interesting speech. When I looked at the regulations and took advice, I worked out that I could do this in no more than two paragraphs, without doing the good people who have spent a long time on this a disservice. They agreed with me.

The regulations were originally made in April 2006. The only reason they are being remade now is to take account of the changes in the comprehensive performance assessment on categories for local government. The categories for unitary and county councils have been changed through the harder test—they used to be “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “poor”—to a system of stars, from zero to four. That was introduced on 20 December for the eighth categorisation order—I am glad I did not have to do that one. District councils remain categorised under the old system, and both types of categorisation therefore appear in the regulations.

In other words, the sole purpose of this regulation is to convert the “excellent”, “good”, “fair” and “poor” system that was used for local government for enforcement offences and fixed-penalty notices, to the star categories of zero to four for county councils and unitary authorities. There is no change to the fixed penalties; more local authorities are operating them. Fixed-penalty notices are now up to about 38,000 a year, so there is more use of them as they do not involve a criminal offence. I beg to move.

Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Environmental Offences (Use of Fixed Penalty Receipts) Regulations 2007. 8th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord Rooker.)

I do not quite have two paragraphs, but I shall certainly be briefer than I was the last time. We, too, welcome the order. It encourages local action against issues that blight local communities: street litter, fly-tipping, graffiti, fly-posting and dog dirt. All are anti-social and need constant attention.

The regulations are particularly useful in that they engage and enable local authorities in the pursuit of clean neighbourhoods. They give them the opportunity not only to enforce the law on a number of anti-social activities, but to use the receipts of the fixed-penalty system for the further benefit of the community as a whole. However, I question the reasoning behind dividing local authorities into sheep and goats. The virtue of maintaining a clean environment is surely an objective in itself. It does not help to muddle that up with the quality control of local authorities, whether they have CPA star ratings or the designation of quality parish councils. These aspects are irrelevant to a local authority’s need or ability to use fixed-penalty receipt, as it will in what it sees as the community’s interest.

It is strange that Defra is discriminating against small parish councils who do not choose to qualify for the designation “quality”, as well as against other local authorities where use of the opportunities for which the regulations provide could otherwise be a positive way of working towards recovering their star status. This could be joined-up government, but why is Defra doing the dirty work of the Department for Communities and Local Government?

That is an interesting thought. I am grateful to the Minister for saying what it took me about three-quarters of an hour of scratching my head to work out what putting star ratings into the existing legislation was all about. To that extent, clearly we shall not complain about or oppose that because it has to be done.

On parish councils, are the provisions in the regulations exactly the same as they were in the previous system, or is the business about quality parish councils and so on new? That is a specific question, but I have a point of principle to make that is not really about the detail of these regulations and that refers to the point made by the Minister. Should local authorities be discriminated in favour of or against, according to their performance, when it comes to their powers to use the money that they raise? It is a matter of principle with which I do not agree. It is wrong to penalise those who, by the Government’s definition, are not performing as well. It would be far better to have systems of incentives rather than a big stick. Nevertheless, Defra doing the dirty work of the DCLG is not really a matter for further discussion today. The position is as it is, and it is absolutely right that the starred system should be in the legislation.

On the noble Lord’s point about parish councils, I understand that the regulations do not affect their position at all. There is no change. I take exception to the central point made by both noble Lords. I do not want to extend the debate, which I deliberately kept short, but freedoms and flexibilities offered to local government for increasing performance are a serious effort. Some 79 per cent of local authorities have three and four-star ratings. They know that such ratings give them much more freedom and flexibility without the heavy hand of government telling them what to do. The point is to raise standards. It is no stretch of the imagination to say that getting almost 80 per cent of local authorities to three and four-star ratings is a massive improvement on the situation a decade or more ago. There is no question about that.

That is part of the prize. If you are a well run local authority that meets all the standards, you will be inspected less frequently and have more freedom to do what you want with the money that comes your way. Our job is to get everybody raised, which is part carrot and part stick. It is not “discriminating” against local authorities—that is probably the wrong word; it is an effort to raise standards. So far, the evidence of the past few years is that standards have been raised. Local government should be congratulated for what is a success by any stretch of the imagination. The regulations do not change the policy; we have changed only the nomenclature of the words for stars. I hope that I have answered all the questions, but if I have not, no doubt I will be told about it.

On Question, Motion agreed to.