Evidence before the Committee (Questions
800-819)
WEDNESDAY 10 SEPTEMBER 2003
800. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Clarkson. Whilst
that tidies it up inside the Bill, which is obviously very useful,
quoting Mr Lester, he did say that no period of grace regarding
a licence was now given by the DVLA, whereas in the past one always
felt that there was a 14-day period of grace. Therefore, the query
is whether what is being proposed here does not appear to be in
tune with national law and I wonder whether that is in fact a
legitimate position to adopt.
801. MR CLARKSON: I believe it is in the sense
that I think there is a 14-day grace period. Can I just take instructions
on that last point as I think Mr Lewis is much more expert on
these matters than I am.
802. MR LEWIS: I am the parliamentary agent.
To be honest, I am unsure of the position as far as the DVLA is
concerned because the DVLA, I do know, has a separate power ----
803. CHAIRMAN: I am only quoting Mr Lester.
804. MR LEWIS: ---- Indeed, to take vehicles
from the street and dispose of them under separate regulations.
I am not sure, I have to say, whether this period of grace attaches
to that legislation. It certainly is there in the existing Amenity
Act, so in a sense we are preserving the position.
805. CHAIRMAN: If it is already there, that is
fine.
806. MR CLARKSON: I am grateful, Mr Lewis. He
drafted it, so he understands it. Unlike counsel, he understands
it!
807. Can I go to clause 16 if that would help
the Committee. You are most assisted, I think, in understanding
this if you go please to the unopposed clauses bundle where we
have sought to do the work to show what it is that has been amended.
(Same handed in). I have a Mr Miles from Fulham & Hammersmith
to flesh out the questions that the Committee may be concerned
about. These are the amendments set in the underlying London Local
Authorities Act and I am only going to deal with the areas in
bold because those are the proposed amendments.
808. First, "12(1)(a) serve on the occupier
of a premises, apparatus or plant", so that is brought in.
Ditto under subsection (3), "apparatus or plant". Then
the important section over the page is the recovery issue.
"Subject to such right of appeal as aforesaid,
if the person required by the notice to remove or obliterate the
sign fails to do so within the time thereby limited, the council
may themselves remove or obliterate the sign", and here is
the new material, "and, subject to subsection (6A) below,
they may recover from the said person the expenses reasonably
incurred by them in so doing." Now, that has restricted (6A):
"The council may not recover their expenses under subsection
(6) above in respect of a sign on a surface to which this section
applies if the surface (a) forms part of a flat or a dwelling
house or (b) is within the curtilage of or forms part of the boundary
of the curtilage of a dwelling house."
809. I will not read out (6B). That is saying
that if there is a dispute about that, the time for it to be raised
is not in the recovery stage, but it is before that. Then there
is reference to sections 291 and 293 of the Public Health Act.
Then (6D):
"No council shall exercise their powers to recover
expenses from any person under subsection (6) above until a code
of practice dealing with the exercise of those powers has been
published by a joint committee."
810. Then there is the run of apparatus and plant
and that is brought in in the next section. That is clause 12
as amended.
811. CHAIRMAN: Mr Clarkson, I have had it suggested
to me that instead of you taking us all the way through it, whilst
it would be immensely instructive, perhaps if Mr Blunt was just
to put the limited areas of concern that he has got, you could
reply just to those, rather than you galloping through the whole
lot.
812. MR CLARKSON: If I can, sir, could I just
put Mr Miles in who is sworn just in case there is anything that
the honourable Member wants to ask about it.
MR MICHAEL MILES, Sworn
Examined by MR CLARKSON
813. Who are you, first of all?
(Mr Miles) My name is Michael Miles.
814. What is your job?
(Mr Miles) I am an operations manager for
the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham.
815. In which specific area?
(Mr Miles) I am responsible for street cleansing
and, as part of that, graffiti removal.
Examined by THE COMMITTEE
816. MR BLUNT: The first draft of this Bill that
I saw earlier in the summer when I was selected to be on this
Committee has been amended, but on the reading of that draft it
appeared that you were seeking to recover costs from someone for
their own home. If their own home was defaced, there would be
the possibility of that?
(Mr Miles) Yes.
817. And the change which has taken place over
the summer, as far as I am concerned, though it may have taken
place at another time depending on what versions of the Bill have
been published, is that you have decided that it is unreasonable
to expect to recover costs from someone whose dwelling house is
defaced.
(Mr Miles) Correct.
818. Could you take us through, Mr Miles, the
consideration and the discussion on this. If someone owns a property
over which they have no control over whether that property is
vandalised by graffiti, by what principle is it appropriate not
to seek the costs of someone in their dwelling house as opposed
to someone who owns another building be it either a private business
or another private interest? In terms of the discussion taking
place about the rights of being able to recover money from someone
who has no control over what is happening to them, are you able
to explain to the Committee why you came to this conclusion over
the summer having taken the forward position that you should recover
costs from anyone?
(Mr Miles) I think during discussions it was
decided that it would be unfair on private residents who may have
difficulty in paying for constant graffiti on their properties
to pay. It is a case of criminal damage and, therefore, the Council
should not be asked to clear it. It should be up to the individual
to pay for the removal themselves and protect their own properties.
However, it was thought that for private individuals in private
residencies who may be on low incomes, they would be exempt from
this and the majority of problems we have in clearing graffiti
are on statutory companies and businesses, Telecom, people like
that, and they are our main concern. They are the people that
we wish to clear up, London Underground, RailTrack, those sorts
of areas.
819. MR CLARKSON: Can I just interrupt because
I think Mr Miles might have an example of how it has operated
since the Bill has been published which touches on that last point.
(Mr Miles) Certainly. Since the Bill has been
out, RailTrack have approached several London authorities in anticipation
of what might happen and have agreed to fund the cleansing of
their sites, certainly in Hammersmith and Fulham, and they are
paying for regular maintenance and regular cleaning to stop the
problem.
| 
