| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
9.39 p.m.
Lord Mountevans: My Lords, in rising to express my concerns about the implications of Part IV of the Bill for the railway industry, I declare a non-financial interest as chairman of the panel which judges the Railway Station of the Year competition.
Some 7,000 miles of rail travel during January and February last gives one a fair idea of the way that the railway operators are tackling station litter and also the much more serious problem of trackside waste. It also enables me to congratulate King's Cross on becoming Station of the Year and thus gives me the opportunity to praise an earlier London Local Authorities Act which gave powers to British Telecom to cut off the phone lines of those ladies of the night who used station phone boxes as the preferred media by which to promote their wares. The impact of that legislation, which took three or four years, was particularly strong in the King's Cross area.
There are two dimensions to the litter problem on the railways. The first is litter left on stations by the great British public. We are, all too often, untidy, and stations, like many other places to which the public has access, have an additional problem arising out of the present security situation. Notwithstanding these facts, my fellow judges and I found that the train operating companies and Railtrack were doing a good job in keeping stations clean.
Much more insidious is the problem of trackside refuse and waste left by third parties on railway embankments, in cuttings or on other railway land. Extreme examples are cars which from time to time are left on the track itself, causing accidents--near Workington in 1990 and in the Cotswolds only last month. Travel by train and one will see televisions, mattresses, sofas, traffic cones, supermarket trolleys and other material which should be cut off at source by the local authorities. In one clean-up operation near Shrewsbury, British Rail removed no less than 34 tonnes of domestic refuse. Fly tipping is also a problem.
The Bill suggests that the solution lies in the boroughs entering the relevant land and cleaning up at the expense of the operators who, I presume, would be one or more of Railtrack, London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway, the train operating company or British Rail itself, which still has residual responsibilities. I cannot readily accept the proposal.
Railways are very dangerous places and access to their land is subject to strict safety controls. Amplifying what my noble friend Lord Cadman said, lineside access is forbidden to all except those in possession of a personal track safety certificate while such work can only be carried out under the supervision of staff certificated as competent to be a person in charge of the work. One such person killed in the line of duty is one too many. There is, alas, more than one such fatality each year; and that is with people qualified in the way I have just described. I doubt whether any local authority has such people in its employ.
My second objection is that the powers sought are unnecessary. Again, as my noble friend Lord Cadman said, the problem is already governed by a code of
practice set up under the 1990 Act. I have some interest in this dimension of the Act. The code of practice gives the local authorities powers to compel the cleaning up of litter and refuse by means of abatement orders. Such orders can cover track, stations, forecourts, approach roads, car parks and, in the case of stations operated by train operating companies, track up to 200 yards from the platform ends, which seems to me fairly all embracing.My third objection is more modest. Recognising the existing problem, the Department of Transport is already consulting Railtrack and other successor bodies to British Rail about the litter duty which applied under the 1990 Act to British Rail and how the duty can be transferred to the relevant successor bodies. My source for that is a Written Answer in another place (at col. 502 of the Official Report) on 3rd March. It seems to me that central government are already tackling the problem or are seeking to find a solution.
Lastly, I wonder whether the necessity for this legislative proposal does not smack of Argentina and the Falklands, if I may be very blunt. The local authorities are diverting attention from their own shortcomings by seeking to go elsewhere. I say that because if local authorities were fulfilling their waste collection and disposal duties properly a good deal of the material we are discussing, and which so upsets my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, would not find its way onto railway land in the first place.
9.44 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his very helpful explanation, which I certainly appreciated because it gave me a lot more of the background to this Bill. In supporting it I should like to make a few scattered and fairly brief comments.
As regards Part II of the Bill, I was quite surprised that so much of it, particularly Clause 8, was not already part of the law. If a great deal of it is to be added by a central Bill, that would be very helpful.
As regards Part IV of the Bill, I would favour anything that helps to make this city a cleaner place to live in. Some capital cities overseas seem to have a higher standard than we do. I believe that the City of Westminster itself undertakes a lot of cleaning because I see many people cleaning the streets. But if the result is that the city becomes a cleaner place in which we can live, I strongly support that measure.
I turn to Part V of the Bill. If there is a dispute between film makers and residents, the question of notice, which my noble friend amplified, seems to be the answer. It is important to protect residents so that they know what is going to happen. If there is good communication between the local authority and residents so it is clear when highways are going to be closed for a limited time, then half the problem is overcome.
As regards Clause 64, which has been mentioned, I warmly support its principle. I hope that nothing will be done to change the effect of what the promoters intend. Whether the word "trivial" is right or not, I do
not know. In answer to what my noble friend Lord Ashbourne asked, I take that to mean that if one sees three magazines of the "Playboy" type on a top shelf out of, say, 150 different magazines on display, I would regard that as trivial. That is what I assume the promoters mean. I hope that the law will so decide although I am well aware that very clever barristers are able to make nonsense of that sort of word.The right reverend Prelate asked a question about Clause 99 and perhaps I may add a question of my own. The normal means of preventing pigeons from alighting is a strip of wire of some sort. I wonder whether that displayed on churches and other ancient monuments would come into conflict with the views of English Heritage. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Jenkin can answer that question when he replies.
As regards Clause 101, I did not quite understand from what the right reverend Prelate said why the deterioration of a graveyard can take place due to factors outside the responsibility of the relevant parish. I thought he was going to say that it was because only about seven people attended the church and they could not possibly afford it, but there may be other factors which the right reverend Prelate did not make clear to me.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, one factor that immediately comes to mind is vandalism.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I understand that and I am grateful for that explanation. But I believe that it is still the responsibility of the owners of the graveyard to protect against vandalism. That is a problem which every public corporation has to cope with. The question of whether a local authority should pay needs further discussion and I shall not adjudicate on it. If there is a shortage of people in the parish then I hope that he will promote church plants into those churches that are having problems of finance. I warmly commend this Bill and I hope that it will go successfully to the Select Committee.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Clifford of Chudleigh: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for allowing me to speak briefly in the gap. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, for introducing the Bill. I should like to speak briefly to Clause 64 which relates to the licensing of newsagents. I believe that it is well known that soft porn is definitely part of the package which is supplied by wholesalers to newsagents. We all know that the Daily Sport and the Sunday Sport are registered as newspapers and can be sold by newsagents because they contain the minimum one-third national or international news.
My concern, and that, I am sure, of everybody in this country, is that boys and girls aged 10 or even younger deliver those newspapers and have the opportunity to flip through them. It is daring to do so. They want to be more "streetwise" than their peers. It is tremendous to be able to get from such newspapers the addresses from which hard porn videos are advertised. Of course, they can do that just as easily by going through unlicensed
sex shops in such places as Soho or by using the Internet system, should they have access to it. I understand that schools are encouraged to present such technological advancement to their students.Perhaps it can be understood why this Bill should be applauded by everyone in this country as well as in another place, and why all parties should agree to review the Obscene Publications Act 1959, when one recalls Dr. David Goldberg's report on London's mental health, which showed that this city, which the Bill hopes to clean up, has 70 per cent. of the AIDS cases that are notified nationally. I support Clause 64 and the Bill wholeheartedly.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise to my feet in place of my noble friend Lady Hamwee who normally speaks from this Bench on such matters. I am grateful for the comments made about that by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. Like my noble friend, I support the main provisions of this Bill.
I notice that there is a certain restlessness on the Government Front Bench. Perhaps it is felt that the hour is late, so I shall be brief. I am enabled to do that because of the very full introduction to the Bill which was given by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and because other speakers, including the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, who is temporarily out of the Chamber, have spoken so well. The noble Baroness made a good response on behalf of the Government.
I turn first to the anti-fraud provisions. An interesting debate, and one on which we have not yet touched, may concern those clauses which relate to fraud in the education sector, and particularly as regards nursery vouchers. Over the year nursery vouchers can amount to over £1,000 per child. It will be interesting to see whether the fears which have been expressed that nursery vouchers may become the subject of fraudulent dealing will be realised. As Bills generally take quite some time to go through not only your Lordships' House but Parliament as a whole, perhaps we shall learn later whether that fear has been proved real.
I am particularly interested in the enforcement of the waste control provisions. Although I listened with great attention to the noble Lords, Lord Mountevans and Lord Cadman, my feeling is still very much in line with what was expressed earlier--namely, that if the railway authorities and the operating companies do not want strangers entering their land to execute orders for cleanliness, it is up to them, as major landowners in this country, and in this city in particular, to ensure that their land is kept clean. The days when the rail authorities could exempt themselves from whole tranches of duties which others had to fulfil simply by saying that it was too dangerous, too difficult or too likely to interrupt their operations are now past. We need a cleaner town and country. I very much support these provisions and hope that a way can be found to take them forward into the final deliberations on this Bill.
However, I felt a certain amount of sympathy for the spirited defence of his parishes by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. There are problems
here. It is important that these churchyards pass into public hands in relatively good condition. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, suggested in his introductory remarks--he will correct me if I am wrong--that if that was secure, less importance would be given to the need to provide an endowment. I believe that it is asking a lot of a parish to endow a piece of land for the indefinite future for upkeep purposes. I believe that that will give rise to a very interesting series of discussions, and a balance must be struck on that issue.As to the nuisance from birds and so forth, here my heart is very much with the Bill rather than those who have voiced objections to it, interesting and understandable though some of them have been. If my tree overhangs a highway and somebody must enter upon my land to cut bits off it, I must pay for that because it is a nuisance that I have caused. It is generally recognised that if one causes a nuisance on a highway one is responsible for curing it. If there are simpler and cheaper ways of preventing the nuisance from birds, they should be given the greatest possible prominence. I appreciate the cost implications and fears, but I believe that a compromise can be reached.
I shall not speak any longer. There are many others in this House who know a great deal more about this matter than I do. There are many aspects of legislation or the opportunities and powers given to authorities in London which as a representative of another authority in the shire counties--I am not here in that capacity-- I wish could be extended to my authority. I believe that London has often led the way in local authority legislative provision. I wish this Bill well. I would be interested in having a chance to take part in later discussions on it at Committee stage.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin by warmly thanking the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, not merely for his presence and the duty he has performed, but for the excellent way he explained the Bill most fully--that is no criticism--so that noble Lords are well equipped to deal with it. I am also delighted to see the Government Chief Whip in his place, as he often is late at night. It is our intention to return him to the bosom of his friends as quickly as possible. I did not say "boozing". I did not realise that this debate was as important as it was until he decided to join us, and for that I am very grateful.
Of course, the House is familiar with the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, in local government, in London affairs and in this place. He and I have the great privilege to be joint presidents of the Association of London Government. My credentials go back more than 30 years to the time when I was the leader of a London borough. We are well familiar with the fact that a central body in London in effect is the vehicle that is used by all other boroughs. In this instance the lead borough is Westminster in whose name this matter is being carried forward. Nevertheless, the House will understand, as do those who follow these matters, that the Bill is
substantially a response by the ALG to the needs and desires of individual boroughs about matters which require legislative change.I have looked through my papers and I see that many other bodies have suggested to the ALG that they would like to use the Bill as a vehicle to promote their interests. That is the general situation. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, in a most apposite speech, when we speak on private measures from the Front Bench on either side of the House, we make it clear that while we may have individual views and experiences--the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, is well experienced in matters relating to London local government--we are neutral. We do not participate politically. That is the present position.
The first piece of good news we received from the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, was that it is the promoter's intention, on reflection, voluntarily to reduce the size of the Bill. That will make it a better Bill, because, as he said, it is large. No part of the Bill has escaped comment or criticism. The good news is that with a promoter such as the ALG, which is sensitive to the needs of the people concerned and is aware of our procedures whereby a Select Committee of Members of the House will take as long as is necessary to listen to the petitioners, there is every chance that when we get the Bill back here--whenever that might be--it should be in a form which is acceptable not merely to this House but to those who seek to influence the matter.
I wish to reinforce one or two of the matters that have been raised. There are clauses relating to fraud against local authorities. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said that no one would oppose any measures taken nationally or in this Bill to deal with that problem. I am a little uneasy that matters which should properly be the province of national legislation will be legislated for in the Bill. I am not arguing against the need for the measures or querying the problems or the costs caused to local authorities, but one must be careful when defining the areas of demarcation which should exist. In Committee such matters will be teased out.
All of us in local government know that parking, street cleaning and nuisances are controversial. In general, the provisions contained in the Bill are an honest attempt to deal with known hurts and the distress caused to local people. I applaud the promoter's intentions in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, took great care and time to explain the clause that deals with the film industry. Like him, I looked at my papers. I am still puzzled as to how something which was promoted in effect by the consortium which is designed to be the voice of the film industry, and which, as I understand it, sought the co-operation of the ALG and Westminster to do so, is now questioning it. Clearly as a petitioner, it will be making its views known. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, referred to my noble friend Lord Hollick who of course has interests in that sphere. He drew my attention to the fact that what he said was undoubtedly a hot potato for the film industry. I look forward to hearing the outcome of the discussions.
The views that I was given are trenchant and are not merely idle criticisms. I am told that the proposal relating to regulating and controlling licensing notices is unnecessary. Someone wrote to me saying:
- "I have worked in television for nearly 15 years. In all that time I have never known an issue to arise of there being a problem about us filming on a highway or public open space in London. Programme makers are not stupid people. We do not set up our cameras in the middle of the pavement in Oxford Street on Christmas Eve, and, if we did, as far as I am aware powers already exist to move us on for causing an obstruction. I cannot imagine not complying with a reasonable request to move".
- "Finally, there are serious civil liberties issues involved here. It is not for local authority bureaucrats to decide when and where the press should be free".
All that makes for an interesting Committee stage. People are entitled to feel strongly, especially when their livelihoods are affected. That has been established on more than one occasion tonight.
I join the general support around the House for Clause 64, which deals with what are called sex establishments. I acknowledge the right of those who make a profit from such establishments to point out their objections. However, I believe that the intention of the Bill to deal with what could be an abuse is well supported and validated.
My noble friend Lady Nicol, who cannot be here, has drawn my attention to the observations of the Open Space Society. It raises concerns surrounding the provisions relating to the film industry and busking. They were dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin. Its main concern related to Clause 101. I acknowledge the vested interests rightly and properly represented by the right reverend Prelate. The Bill seeks to turn around the 1972 legislation under which the local authority, whether or not it was able or wanted to, had to give three months notice as regards its liability to look after a redundant graveyard. We are looking at the situation 25 years later. If the argument is that parishioners are now less able to look after them, I can assure the right reverend Prelate that it is more difficult for local authorities to bear the burden in 1997 than it was in 1972. Local authorities have little cash.
I was pleased to note that a solution might be found as regards time. I understand that there has been a lack of consultation, but I know nothing about that. Clearly, better consultation might have produced a better clause, but I can see many ratepayers who, faced with the choice of accepting the liability, will say to their Members of Parliament and local councillors, "No, we will not". A problem then arises. Not far from here, Westminster Council has a history of disposing of churchyards and at what cost. No solution has been put forward in the Chamber tonight. Experience and a recognition of the problems of the Churches and local authorities should enable progress to be made.
Of course, the debate on churchyards is a grave issue--I could not resist that one, as the House will understand--and other matters will need to be considered. However, for my part, and I do not speak for my party in such matters, I am delighted to have the chance to speak. I congratulate the promoters, those
responsible for London government, on the fact that they are genuinely trying to produce better legislation and a better London. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, has done us a signal service in so very carefully taking us thus far. I hope that this repertory company will reassemble whenever the Third Reading takes place and that we will find a better Bill than the one now before us. However, I have to say at this stage that it is a pretty good Bill.10.10 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I spoke at some length when introducing the Bill but I can promise the House that I shall be extremely brief in concluding, not least because I have to speak at a breakfast meeting at 8 o'clock tomorrow morning. I listened to the debate and am most grateful to all noble Lords who took part. Subject to one or two points to which I may refer, it is my impression that no matter was raised which could not be resolved by discussion or which could not properly be put to a Select Committee. I have to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, that, having spoken on Second Reading, I do not believe that she will be eligible to sit as a member of the Select Committee. I hate to have to disappoint the noble Baroness, but I fear that that is a rule of the House.
The point that concerned me most was one that was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton; namely, the suggestion that there had been a lack of full consultation on the part of the promoters before the Bill was introduced. Like the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I have no knowledge of that and, therefore, I cannot comment upon it. However, I can say that if that is indeed the case--and I accept without question that that is the view that has been put to the right reverend Prelate and to my noble friend Lord Cadman--I regard that as a matter of regret. This sort of legislation is likely to make much more satisfactory progress if all those who will be affected have an opportunity not only to consider the suggestions in general but also to consider the drafting.
I was also concerned by the anxieties expressed by the right reverend Prelate. I am not sure that I am as worried about his concerns regarding birds as I am about churchyards. The latter is an issue of considerable antiquity and complexity. It is a fact that I was for some two years the Minister for churchyards. Indeed, I discovered that that was part of my responsibilities as Secretary of State for the Environment. It may be of interest to the House to know that that responsibility is now held by the Home Office. All I can say is that I congratulate my successors in the Department of the Environment on having got rid of it. However, I do realise that it is a complicated matter.
I have some sympathy, like others, with the worries of the right reverend Prelate about endowments. On the question of putting the churchyards in order, as I understand it, the discussions which will take place seem likely to reach a reasonable compromise. However, I have no doubt that those who are promoting the Bill will give careful regard to what the right reverend Prelate said about endowments. There must be many parishes for which such a prospect would make
the situation totally impossible--as the right reverend Prelate put it, the catch-22 situation. Therefore, without having any authority, so to speak, to offer concessions on the matter, I have no doubt that the points will be considered.I turn now to the question of birds. I was asked whether Clause 99 might result in works being requested to listed buildings. Clearly the London boroughs would wish to consult English Heritage in such circumstances. If an amendment is necessary to ensure that that happens, I have no doubt that that, too, will be considered.
The right reverend Prelate mentioned faculties and the need to get permission for works. That, again, is a matter where I tread with all the delicacy of an angel on the point of a needle because it is immensely complicated. I am sure that these matters must be discussed and there must be a proper understanding on both sides. There is a genuine problem with birds, not just pigeons as I have said, but also with sparrows. All those who are affected by that problem must take it into account. As we know, this problem is particularly acute in London; it is a scourge in London. I welcome what was said about the actions the City of Westminster is taking in relation to Trafalgar Square.
Reference has been made to the fact that it is the feeding of these birds which causes the problem. I am the chairman of a company and when I arrive at my office in the morning I am sometimes ashamed to find that someone--perhaps someone in a neighbouring restaurant--has scattered bits of bread all over the alleyway and there are hundreds of pigeons eating it. We must try to discourage that sort of thing.
As regards the provision in the Bill to deal with sex shops, I can only reiterate what I have already said; namely, it is not the intention to bring the ordinary newsagent who stocks a few "top shelf" titles within the ambit of legislation on sex shops. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and others, some people might wish that newsagents did not even stock those titles. However, the real mischief is caused by shops whose prime purpose is to purvey sex objects. Licensing is necessary for those shops. In those cases a number of conditions can be imposed which materially reduce offence to the public, such as blank windows and various other measures such as warnings. However, in the last resort I suggest that in the final decade of the 20th century it is quite unrealistic to imagine that we can protect all people in all places for all time against the risk of seeing some of these publications. They are about and they are demanded. What is intended in this
Bill is to regulate effectively the more serious cases. I think that would have the support of the vast majority of people.My noble friend on the Front Bench did not go quite as far as I would have liked in relation to my request about giving details of convictions as regards certain posts as part of the battle against fraud, but she clearly indicated that if requests were made to bring those posts within the legislation they would be considered sympathetically and judged according to the criteria that apply to everyone else. I have no doubt that local authorities will wish to note her words carefully. I believe she has gone some way to meet the case that was made.
I should say a few words about the railways. Railtrack and London Regional Transport may in the end need to argue their case before the Select Committee. I detected if not old Labour certainly "old railways" in the attitude that nothing must ever be allowed to interfere with anything that the railways do. We all accept that safety measures must be put in place. Local authorities will be happy to discuss any questions of safety. The obvious solution is that railway companies should clear up their own rubbish. Of course they have not deposited that rubbish but, equally, local authorities have not deposited the rubbish that clutters the streets but they clear it up nonetheless. If rubbish is deposited on private property, as it were, the owners of that property should take steps to clear it up. I hope that Railtrack and London Regional Transport and the Docklands Light Railway--however, the latter is much less seriously affected by this problem for obvious reasons--will take this responsibility seriously and will be prepared to recognise the pressure that lies behind this measure and the desire that they should take steps to clean up their act. I find it shaming to come into London by train and to see the appalling refuse that litters the cuttings. It is not a good advertisement for London. I believe that legislation is needed to put matters right.
I hope that the Bill will be allowed to go to the Select Committee. I hope that it will be given a Second Reading tonight and that the concerns, all of which have been properly expressed and of which proper note will be taken, will be examined and argued over, with decisions reached. As the noble Lord, Lord Graham, said, if the Bill requires improvements, they will be made and the measure will come back to the House at a later stage.
I hope that the Bill will be read a second time. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.
- House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |