| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
9.17 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, as this is a private Bill it may be helpful if at this point I give the House the Government's view on it. I do not need to remind your Lordships that the Bill covers many different issues and several government departments are involved in the consideration of its proposals. Many points of detail have been taken up with the agents for the promoters, as have some points of greater substance. The agents are aware that the Government are concerned with some of the provisions in the Bill and the House might find it useful if I briefly touch upon those concerns.
As my noble friend Lord Jenkin told us, the Bill contains a number of measures to counter benefit and related fraud. That is an objective which I am sure we all share. However, it will be important to avoid duplication or conflict with provisions in public legislation. I have in mind in particular the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Bill which covers some ground similar to that in the London Local Authorities Bill.
Clause 17 of the Bill seeks to make certain posts within local authorities in London exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. The Government are not persuaded that such provision should be included in local legislation. First, this is an issue which is not particular to London but is one which may apply to many local authorities; and, secondly, there are other, better means of assessing the need for exceptions to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act.
My noble friend Lord Jenkin asked me particularly about Clause 17. I must tell him that the Government can give no promises on the inclusion of these posts within an exceptions order. But all applications will be considered on their merits against well established criteria. Therefore, I invite the promoters to apply to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary for inclusion of these posts in a new exceptions order.
The Police Bill that is presently before your Lordships' House contains provisions relating to criminal records, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary will be considering applications for inclusion in a new exceptions order which will in due course be laid before Parliament.
On those clauses which seek to create an offence of assaulting parking attendants and park keepers, we have some concerns. These offences are already covered by the existing offence of common assault. Although it is not an arrestable offence at the moment, the Government have announced that they will make it an arrestable offence when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
The Government also have serious concerns about Part IV of the Bill on grounds of both policy and principle. The promoters and agents are aware of those concerns. We hope that further discussions with them will help resolve the concerns that we have in regard to the waste management licensing provisions and the duty of care proposals.
The setting aside of national legislation by a local enactment in the manner proposed by Clause 63 is not deregulatory. It could only obstruct the efforts being made by government departments to eliminate fire safety provisions from local Acts where there is national legislation.
The proposals in Clause 64 are intended to reverse the burden of proof for the offence of running a sex shop without a licence and place the onus on those businesses to show that they are not sex shops. They are also intended to lower the threshold of the definition of what is a sex shop. The Government sympathise with the Bill's aim of enabling the law to be enforced against unlicensed sex shops but will need to consider the drafting of the Bill more closely to see whether it will have the effect which is intended.
We also have concerns about the provisions contained in Clause 101 which seek to restrict the existing rights of parochial church councils. We believe that they will have a detrimental effect on the maintenance of churchyards in London.
Apart from those matters, the departments are taking their usual neutral stance on Private Bills. A Select Committee will be in a far better position to consider points of detail and to hear expert evidence on them. I hope, therefore, that the Bill will be given a Second Reading and allowed to proceed in the usual way to a Select Committee for detailed consideration.
9.21 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing this Second Reading. I always enjoy the noble Lord's contributions to debates in this House and only regret that this evening I must take issue with him on two clauses of the Bill, for there are two clauses which, should they be enacted, will affect four dioceses of the Church of England: London, Chelmsford, Rochester and my own diocese, Southwark.
The vast majority of the clauses in the Bill are to be welcomed and do not directly concern us. However, Clause 99, dealing with nuisance from birds, and Clause 101, dealing with churchyards, have the potential to impose great expense on local congregations within the capital city.
My first concern is with the lack of consultation that occurred during the framing of those two clauses. Had consultation taken place, particularly through the Churches Main Committee, of which I am presently the Chair, I am certain that an agreeable way forward would have been achieved which would have preserved that sense of partnership so often displayed on matters where Church, local authority and central government matters are concerned. Such compromise would have saved your Lordships time and would have helped towards the more speedy passage of the remainder of the Bill through the parliamentary process.
However, that did not happen early enough--although I am pleased to hear that discussions have recently taken place. So we are faced as a Church with two problems. The first is in relation to the control of nuisance birds. The provision made in the Bill will
require parishes to introduce deterrents to birds that will be costly and, on some of our buildings, unsightly. It will also lead to the possibility of dispute between the administration of faculty jurisdiction under the Care of Churches Measure 1991 and this Bill. Your Lordships will be familiar with the requirement for parochial church councils to obtain permission through the granting of a faculty by the chancellor of the diocese for any work undertaken on Church buildings.I have no objection to pigeons. They are as much part of the created order as I am. But one control which Clause 99 ignores is that of controlling the feeding of pigeons in the first place. I am delighted to learn that Westminster City Council has indicated its intention to do something about it in Trafalgar Square, but it is a city-wide issue. For local congregations to have to bear the cost of a public health problem on behalf of the local authority seems completely wrong.
Secondly, I refer to the more serious situation created by Clause 101. At present a closed churchyard can be transferred by a parochial church council to the care of the local authority under Section 215 of the Local Government Act 1972, merely by giving three months' notice, though in practice it is usual to give up to 12 months' notice. Clause 101 seeks to place conditions on the transfer which would be onerous on a parochial church council.
Paragraphs (2)(a) and (b) of the clause present us with serious problems. The conditions laid down in the two paragraphs are that the churchyard be in decent order when transferred to the care of a local authority, including the boundary wall and fences; and that the parochial church council provides the local authority with an endowment to provide for the future maintenance of the churchyard after its transference.
The reason for the present situation in which churchyards can be transferred to the care of the local authority is that they have been provided by the Church for the local community--not just for those who worship in the parish church but for the local community--without cost to the local authority for as long as there has been room for burials and in many cases for years after that has no longer been possible. Churchyards tend to be transferred when congregations are just not able to maintain them any longer, through lack of manpower or because of financial constraints. It is recognised that churchyards are amenity spaces; that they provide wildlife habitats in urban areas; and that they contain and represent that sense of history that so often enhances the feeling of local community.
The requirement that churchyards should be in decent order when transferred appears reasonable and I hope that on the majority of occasions that is already the case. But the legislation in the Bill would prevent local authorities taking over responsibility for the churchyards that have been allowed to become overgrown or whose boundaries are in a poor state of repair as a result of factors beyond a parish's control. That would result in some churches and congregations being locked into a Catch-22 situation of not being able to care for their
churchyard and at the same time being unable to transfer its care because they cannot maintain it to an acceptable standard.The second section requiring a parish to give an endowment to the local authority on the transference of a churchyard is wholly unacceptable to the Church. It is simply inappropriate to ask a group of worshippers to find monetary resources to fund both the past and the present. I believe strongly that the Church, in providing areas for burial and so relieving local authorities of the necessity of having to do so in many places, should not have to bear for ever the cost of maintaining them. To require endowments is mean-spirited and denies the generous contribution that local congregations have made over centuries in providing churchyards for the local community.
Your Lordships will, I hope, recall that I began by regretting the lack of consultation in the drafting of the Bill. Clause 101, with a little care, could have been worked on to continue a real and harmonious relationship between local churches and their local authorities. The Bill is in danger of seriously jeopardising the future of our churchyards and harms that relationship in the process.
I hope that Her Majesty's Government--I am encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said--will look again at these two clauses before an intolerable position is created for the parishes in London. I fear as well that, should the Bill as it stands become law, it will not be long before Clause 101 in particular is applied across the country, with devastating effects on our congregations in rural communities.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Cadman: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for the way in which he introduced the Bill and for the detailed explanation he gave. I must declare an interest in that I have been a lifelong supporter of railways, a consequence of which is that I have a few shares in Railtrack Plc. Also, I had the pleasure and privilege of being a member of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House which considered the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
I know that this House does not customarily oppose Bills, particularly Private Bills, at the Second Reading stage. However, I have been asked by Railtrack to express its concern at some of the provisions of this Bill. In Railtrack's opinion, those provisions have not been given proper consideration as to the adverse consequences that will flow from them so far as the railway industry is concerned. Perhaps I may briefly outline Railtrack's concerns. There are three in particular.
First, Part IV of the Bill would confer on all London borough councils, except for the London Borough of Barnet, and on the City of London Corporation extensive new powers of entry to control waste on land belonging to third parties and situated in the areas of those councils. That land would include operational land of Railtrack, such as its station approaches, land comprising or adjoining station car-parks and its lineside railway land. While I recognise that in some places a
problem exists, each council would have power to specify the standards and frequency at which that land should be swept and cleansed. Each council would be able to enter on that land to enforce those powers. However, the Bill contains nothing to ensure consistency in the standards and frequencies to be specified by any particular council. As a result, Railtrack could be put to considerable and unnecessary expense in complying with a patchwork of different standards which might be applied throughout almost the whole of Greater London.As matters now stand, litter and refuse clearance on railway land is regulated by a code of practice issued under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by a number of government departments, including the Department of the Environment and the Department of Transport. The terms of that code are enforced by Railtrack under guidelines which it has issued to its managers.
Consultations were initiated in November 1996 by the Department of the Environment to produce a revised and more comprehensive code. Those consultations were concluded in late January this year and I understand that it is expected that the revised code will be issued in April this year. Railtrack believes that the code provides an effective means of controlling waste on a national basis and that there is no need for the patchwork of controls which would be introduced by Part IV of the Bill.
Quite apart from its other concerns, Railtrack greatly objects to council employees, who would have little or no knowledge of the hazards to be encountered on railway land, having powers to enter on that land. Apart from the danger which those employees might encounter, their entry on operational railway land would almost certainly cause delay or disruption to the services provided by the train operating companies.
The second concern of Railtrack relates to film making. Clause 48 of the Bill would enable the councils which I have just mentioned to close highways, including highways providing access to railway stations, goods yards and railway depots. What is more, a film maker would be given powers to erect barriers to regulate the movement of pedestrians or vehicles on highways. Such barriers could prevent or obstruct access to and from railway stations, goods yards or depots owned by Railtrack and other railway operating companies. Your Lordships will appreciate that, however desirable it may be that film makers should make use of London as a location for their films, the operation of the railways in Greater London must come first. In other words, Clause 48 should be amended to ensure that its provisions cannot be invoked so as to disrupt the operation of the railway system.
Thirdly, Clause 99 of the Bill would confer powers on those London borough councils to control nuisances arising from the nesting and roosting of birds on various buildings, including operational railway buildings and bridges which Railtrack has a statutory duty to maintain.
Naturally, Railtrack fully accepts that nuisances caused by nesting and roosting birds are undesirable. Railtrack has co-operated with those councils to enable the councils to take preventive measures against such nuisances; and
I can assure your Lordships that Railtrack has every intention of continuing to co-operate with those councils to prevent such nuisances. Nevertheless, Railtrack is concerned that the powers being sought by the councils could conflict with Railtrack's existing duties with regard to listed buildings and other structures and to other statutory obligations imposed on Railtrack under local legislation. Once again, the requirements which could be imposed on Railtrack could be both patchwork and inconsistent with each other. What is more, there is no appeals procedure against the imposition of those requirements. Those are real concerns, especially in relation to the need to protect council employees from going on to highly dangerous operational railway lands and the attendant risk of delay and disruption to railway services.Railtrack and other railway operators have deposited petitions against the Bill. I very much hope that, when the Select Committee considers this debate and those petitions, it will pay careful attention to the concerns of Railtrack and those other operators; and that, in consequence, amendments will be made to the Bill to deal with those concerns.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for bringing this Bill to the House on behalf of the Westminster City Council. I do not wish to delay the House for long, but I wish to thank the proposers of the Bill for including Clause 64 in Part VI on licensing. Clause 64 is intended to stop bogus bookshops in Soho and elsewhere from evading the purchase of a sex shop licence. I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is desirable.
The Bill proposes amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 which says that a licence will be needed if a shop stocks,
- "more than a trifling degree",
of sex articles. I know there is some dispute about whether the clause will affect newsagents in the London boroughs so that they will need a licence if they stock pornography. But if one should walk into a newsagent with 40 different pornographic titles one may well wonder whether one has not inadvertently walked into a sex shop. If "more than a trifling degree" of their turnover comes from sex-related material, there may be an argument for making sure that they are licensed. For instance, I would not want to see the bogus bookshops turn into bogus newsagents as a means of getting around the legislation.
We know what the proposers intend by the phrase "more than trifling" but I wonder whether my noble friend Lord Jenkin can tell the House how it is intended to be applied so that the new provisions are not abused by either the local authorities or those running sex shops. I thank him again for bringing forward the Bill.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page