| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
London Local Authorities Bill [H.L.]
8.54 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. I declare my interest at the outset as a joint president, together with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, who I am glad to see in his place--not perhaps his most accustomed--of the Association of London Government. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who is a vice-president of the ALG, has sent her apologies for being unable to take part in the debate. However, the Bill has her support and we look forward to hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood.
The Bill therefore has cross-party support. It is the latest in a long tradition of Bills promoted by London local authorities; a tradition which goes back to the 19th century.I concede at once that the Bill is a good deal longer than most; indeed, it may be the longest Bill yet with 112 clauses and 70 pages. Certainly it is a formidable Bill. However, I can offer your Lordships some comfort in that by the time the Bill reaches the statute book it will be considerably shorter.
One relatively simple explanation is that the promoters intend to drop Part VIII dealing with business improvement districts. I shall comment on that in a few moments. The second reason is rather different, but it is of some interest and importance. London local authorities have traditionally used their powers to promote private legislation because they have been waiting for central government to legislate but, for whatever reason, time cannot be found for Public Bills. Some of those present tonight may remember our debate on the London Local Authorities Bill two or three years ago. It contained some important provisions about air quality. After a long campaign, in which I am happy to say I and a number of other noble Lords took part, that whole provision was taken up in what became the Environment Act 1995. Therefore, the provisions in the London Bill were withdrawn.
The Bill reflects a comparable campaigning motive; the fraud provisions in Part II. Encouragingly, those provisions have proved successful even before they have started their parliamentary passage. The preparations for this local government Bill began in November 1995 and the Department of Social Security was consulted on a draft as recently as last summer. At that stage there was not a glimmer in that department--not a twinkle in the eyes--that there was going to be a Public Bill to tackle fraud. Yet, in November 1996 it was announced in the Queen's Speech that there would be an anti-fraud Bill. It began its Committee stage in this House yesterday. Of course, it is no coincidence that the Bill covers many of the same areas. If the government Bill reaches the statute book, as everyone assuredly hopes, it will include the new powers for local authorities in relation to landlord fraud. Again, I can predict that Part II of the Bill can be made considerably shorter. A few of the provisions will be necessary because, for instance, the government Bill does not deal with the question of fraud in the education grants system.
There is a third reason why London local authorities seek new powers through private legislation; namely, many of the problems that they face are more serious or are particularly severe in London. Parking is a good example and Part III of the Bill amends earlier London legislation on the subject. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords are not too daunted by the size of the Bill because quite a lot of it will be dropped, and perhaps more if we can reach agreement on some of the matters. Nevertheless, it is a big Bill and has attracted 13 petitions as against one in respect of the Bill that I moved previously.
I turn to the Bill. It is promoted by Westminster City Council on behalf of the other London boroughs and the Corporation of London, although the borough of Barnet has decided not to participate as is its perfect right. Part I contains major definitions and the commencement provisions. I do not need to rehearse them tonight, although it is worth noting that some of the provisions come into force in an area only if there is a resolution of the council to that effect; for instance, Part VII on the licensing of buskers and Clause 100 on the transfer of school crossing patrols from the police to the boroughs.
Part II deals with the prevention of fraud and now overlaps to a substantial extent the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill. Assuming that that Bill reaches Royal Assent, it will take many of these provisions into national legislation and the promoters will be happy to amend Part II accordingly. There are one or two points of controversy. However, the Post Office has petitioned against the power to prevent it redirecting mail to another address. The London authorities are prepared to discuss with the Post Office ways of ensuring that their provisions do not conflict with the Government's provisions in their Bill.
The Home Office objects to Clause 17 which relates to powers to require information about previous convictions, including spent convictions. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State already has powers to make equivalent provision himself by order and, as I have learnt, would consider a request by councils for regulations to be made. Here, again, it may be possible for the promoters to take out this part of the Bill, but I think that I would need a very clear assurance from my noble friend on the Front Bench as to whether the Government would take such a request from local authorities seriously and, if so, can she tell the House whether such an order would be made?
Part III of the Bill covers parking and, as I said, clears up a number of anomalies and practical difficulties which have arisen since the boroughs took over most of that task from the Metropolitan Police. The new powers include the power to use remote cameras, the power to issue penalty notices by post, and clarification of powers to enforce the rules against double parking. They also make an assault on a parking attendant an arrestable offence. Intriguingly, there has to be a power for local authority officers to remove items from vehicles which have been towed away. An obvious example of that would be a live animal or perhaps something perishable such as a Camembert cheese--leave that in the sun for an hour or two and you will not be able to use your car for a week. I am told that in one case--and this is even worse than a cheese--a dead body had to be removed from a van which had been towed away. So the Bill introduces many new powers.
Part IV concerns public health and gives London local authorities stronger powers to take action against the dumping of waste in open spaces and on the highway and requires alleyways to be kept clean. I am a little surprised to see that London Regional Transport and Railtrack have petitioned against the Bill as it might be used by the boroughs to force them to keep their land clean; exactly so. I imagine that many noble Lords share
my dislike--indeed, shame--at the littered embankments and cuttings that have disfigured the railways in London for years. I, for one, look forward to seeing them cleaned up.Part V deals with filming and I should perhaps address that in slightly more detail. It gives London authorities the general power to give assistance to film makers and to make reasonable charges; it will impose a requirement on film makers to give reasonable notice to the council of their intention to film on the highway or in a public open space in the control of the council; and it gives specific powers for authorities to close a highway for the purpose of filming. However, the latter power will be limited to a maximum of two 12-hour closures per month, except on specially-designated streets where there will be greater scope for closures. For those "special film streets", closure will be limited to no more than one 12-hour closure in any one day. For all streets, one day's notice will have to be given for closures of up to two hours and one week's notice for closures of a longer period.
The intention of all that is to help film makers and to give local authorities clear legal powers to help them. Recent cases in the courts have cast doubt on whether local authorities have such powers, especially the powers to close roads. Moreover, a recent government review of road traffic legislation proposed specific powers for local authorities to close roads for film making. Therefore, my honourable and right honourable friends in the Department of Transport recognise the problem.
However, the important point to make is that those provisions were drawn up at the request of, and in conjunction with, the London Film Commission, a body with both public and private sector support. The body was established,
- "to promote and market London as a centre of excellence for film making".
The purpose of the provision is to help the industry, although of course the boroughs have to take account of the interests of their residents which is why limitations on the frequency of road closures and requirements for notice have been included.
Given the fact that the main film makers were behind the commission and supported it--indeed, some of them were involved in the consultations--the promoters were surprised to receive petitions against such provisions; for example, from the BBC and the Independent Television companies. The noble Lord, Lord Hollick, has already expressed his interest in that respect to me. It is surprising because they were all sponsors of the London Film Commission! The commission made strenuous efforts to consult the television companies on the drafting and I am told that the agents for the promoters were in direct contact with the BBC. I have a horrid suspicion that this is an example of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is doing. Indeed, the people talking to the London Film Commission must have been quite different from the people who decided to draft the petitions. The best way forward is clearly a meeting of all concerned and I am told that that has been arranged for, perhaps, a fortnight ahead. I can give the assurance that the boroughs are sensitive to the concerns
of the film industry and certainly hope to reach agreement on the details of this part of the Bill. In that event, I hope that the petitioners will be prepared to withdraw their petitions.There are other petitioners; indeed, some provisions are opposed by the Open Spaces Society. Again, the promoters will be very happy to discuss the society's concerns, though perhaps it is really only concerned with the temporary closure of open spaces. London Regional Transport and Railtrack have concerns. There, again, the promoters will be happy to discuss such concerns with them. London Regional Transport seems to want a special exemption for buses. I have to say that if a Jane Austen novel, a costume drama, was being filmed in a London street, I am not sure that it would add to the verisimilitude to have a posse of No. 11 buses going down the street half way through the proceedings. I think that some people might find that a little strange.
Part VI deals with licensing in London. When I say "licensing", I am talking about theatres, nightclubs, dance halls, music places, and so on. The provisions are complex and I shall not go through them in detail. However, the desired effect is to close a loophole. A recent court case suggested that while the withdrawal of a licence, or its amendment, is under appeal, the licence can run on even after the length of time for which it was originally specified. Clearly that is an abuse and, indeed, has given the unscrupulous licence holders every incentive to drag out the proceedings for just as long as they can, without paying the fee and without being subject to changes in the conditions.
Clauses 59 to 62 and 65 contain other amendments to London Local Authorities Acts to clear up anomalies and loopholes. Clause 64 is the clause that has perhaps attracted most public attention and has certainly generated some petitions. The purpose of the clause is to amend the legislation governing the licensing of sex shops--again to close a loophole. Noble Lords will remember that under the general law the legislation bites on shops which sell sex objects "to a significant degree". Unscrupulous sex shop proprietors can evade the controls by the simple device of stocking large numbers of, for example, Jane Austen novels or other materials--some of them even stock Bibles. But of course those materials are not sold at all; they are there merely to enable the legislation to be evaded. The overwhelming bulk of the turnover is accounted for by the sales of sex related materials. I should have thought that most people would regard legislation to deal with that as entirely desirable.
However, the petitioners against the clause are concerned that it will catch newsagents who stock what are called "top shelf" titles as they are known in the trade. I have discovered to my interest and concern that a number of noble Lords and noble Baronesses on both sides of the House know perfectly well what is meant by "top shelf" titles. The petitioners fear that this clause will bring newsagents under sex shop licensing controls. I can give a categorical assurance to those petitioners that it is not the intention of the promoters to catch bona fide newsagents with this clause. Moreover, the promoters are prepared to consider amendments to the clause if it can be shown that the clause as it stands
would bring newsagents who stock a few titles on their top shelf under the sex licensing legislation. I do not think that the petitioners could ask for a clearer assurance than that. I should add that my noble friends in the Home Office have given their support to those provisions. Of course there are some people who would like to see newsagents remove all such titles from their shelves. We may hear something of that tonight. However, that is not what is intended by this Bill.Part VII deals with the licensing of buskers. In this part there are powers available to boroughs which choose to adopt them to require buskers to be licensed. Boroughs can specify in a licence the hours when buskers can perform and can impose conditions to prevent obstruction and nuisance. There are powers for borough officers to seize the instruments of unlicensed buskers. That may be necessary in extreme cases. Many of us enjoy buskers. They can enliven the streets and they can be lovely, but of course we do not have to spend all day listening to them. If local residents or people working in an area find one or a group of such people outside their premises one can imagine that they would take a different view. The intention behind the clause is not to stop busking--although some boroughs make take the view that it is not appropriate in some areas--but to try to prevent the activity becoming a nuisance. I think our streets should be lively, and lively street entertainment is part of the fun of the city, but we should have regard to residents. That is what this clause is intended to do. Again there are objections to these provisions but the promoters will be happy to discuss petitioners' concerns.
I said earlier that we were proposing to drop Part VIII which deals with the establishment of business improvement districts. This would allow businesses in a particular area to elect to pay a little extra to receive some extra improvements or services. The Association of London Government has decided to remove this part because it is opposed in principle by two of its own authorities. Clearly a Bill of this kind needs to have the support of all authorities. There are others, notably the City Corporation, who would like to see this matter debated. There are advantages and disadvantages to business improvement districts. To this end, at the suggestion of the City Corporation, next Tuesday I shall introduce a Private Member's Bill on business improvement districts which will substantially reflect the intentions of the provisions in this Bill, but will of course apply them nationally. I hope that there will be time before we disperse for the general election to have a Second Reading. I think it is a subject which deserves an airing and so I need say no more about it now.
Finally, Part IX contains a range of miscellaneous provisions. I shall deal only with one or two that have attracted some attention. Clause 99 deals with nuisance from birds. This tends to be referred to as the "pigeon clause". However, it is not only a question of pigeons, starlings, rooks and a number of other birds can also give rise to nuisance. This provision will give London authorities powers to require the owners or occupiers of structures fronting on, or overhanging, the highway to take measures to prevent the roosting of birds if this is
a source of nuisance to users of the highway. The most common nuisance is the danger posed to pedestrians who can slip on bird droppings.The roosting of birds can present a public health risk. I see that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark is in his place. That does not surprise me because the clause has attracted petitions from the London Diocesan Fund, the British Railways Board, London Regional Transport and Railtrack. Those organisations, entirely understandably, are concerned about the potential costs to them of taking preventive measures. But pigeons in particular are a confounded nuisance and, I am afraid to say, the boroughs are unlikely to be able to offer much comfort because preventing such nuisance from birds is an issue of some importance to them and to their residents. Providing exemptions for some organisations and not for others would clearly be unfair so I fear that it is likely that the Select Committee to which I hope the Bill will go will be called upon to decide on the merits or otherwise of the clause.
Clause 101 deals with the transfer of churchyards. (We always seem to be tripping over the ecclesiastical authorities in these matters.) The clause will give boroughs powers to refuse to take over the maintenance of a churchyard unless the churchyard is handed over in decent order and they are paid a sum to cover future maintenance.
At present under the Local Government Act 1972, if a churchyard is closed, the parochial church council can transfer it to the local authority which will then be responsible for its future maintenance. That section of the Act has caused a good deal of trouble to certain London local authorities, in particular the London Borough of Redbridge, part of which I used to represent in another place, where a number of churchyards in a poor state of repair have been transferred in quick succession. Given the number of churchyards in the London area, this seems likely to become an increasing problem.
The London Diocesan Fund and others have petitioned against the provision. Their concern is the financial burden that is likely to be imposed on parish churches. However, the promoters have already had a meeting with representatives of the churches at which it was made clear that the principal concern of the boroughs is that churchyards should not be transferred unless they are in good order. It is the capital costs of bringing dilapidated churchyards up to scratch that is the real problem.
Following the discussions, the promoters are fairly confident that with good will on both sides a compromise can be reached which recognises the concerns of both parties. It is certainly their hope that this matter can be resolved before Committee stage.
I apologise for having spoken at such length, but given the bumper nature of the Bill, I am afraid that it was unavoidable. On that basis, I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading and I look forward to listening to the speeches of other noble Lords who have indicated that they wish to follow me. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.--(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |