---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I declare an interest as the joint president, along with the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, of the Association of London Government. I am pleased to see that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness are in their places this afternoon. This is the latest in a long line of Bills promoted by London local authorities, in a tradition that goes far back into the 19th century. Indeed, in the case of Bills promoted by the Corporation of London, the tradition is far older than that. Noble Lords may ask why London in particular, to which I say this: the fact is that London has, over the decades, faced a number of unique problems that have required, and still require, unique solutions. Your Lordships may have been startled, as I was, at the length of the Bill, with 126 clauses covering 92   pages. The first point that I would make in that regard is that the figure may be misleading, as the Bill includes a Keeling schedule, which is something that I have always welcomed in legislation. Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out the provisions of earlier legislation on the topics that the Bill covers, amended by subsequent legislation and—as it will be—amended by this Bill. That schedule is of enormous help to those who have to administer this legislation. The previous eighth London Local Authorities Bill, which became the London Local Authorities Act 2004, was first deposited in Parliament in November 2001. Nothing could have been added since then. Therefore, this Bill is the accumulation of a number of years’ desired powers, and, one hopes, coherently merged into one Bill, rather than in several. The Bill is being promoted by the Association of London Government, with Westminster City Council taking the lead on behalf of all the 32 London boroughs and the Corporation of London. For the first time, certainly in my recollection, all 33 London authorities have supported the Bill from the outset. The Bill contains a number of powers, to which I shall come in a moment, to enable London local government better to perform its duties in protecting and enhancing the quality of life of London’s citizens. Indeed, while this Bill by its very nature applies only to the Greater London area, your Lordships may have noticed that where a power has been included in previous London Bills, and where its exercise has been shown to work well in London, it has then been taken up by central government in later public legislation. For example, fixed penalties for litter offences, now included in the Environmental Protection Act 1990, and graffiti removal, now included in the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, are just two among many examples of where legislation relating to London has later become part of general legislation. Indeed, since this Bill was first deposited in November last year, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 has been put on the statute book. That occurred somewhat hurriedly just before the election but it is there. Certainly there is some overlap between the clauses that were included in this Bill last November and what was included in that Act, which became law in May. The promoters of this Bill have assured me that where there is an explicit overlap between that Act and this Bill, and where they are satisfied that the relevant provisions in the 2005 Act are to be brought into force promptly, they will be very happy to withdraw the relevant clauses in Committee. They will, of course, continue to consider all the Government’s concerns, of which I gather there are a number. I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Part 1 contains major definitions and commencement provisions, and I do not need to weary your Lordships with that. Part 2 deals with a wide variety of issues relating to public health and the environment, which is now a common feature of the work of local government, and where certain problems are having a serious effect in London. Clause 5 relates to portable advertisements. At first I thought that meant A-frames sticking out on the pavement. However, those are covered by existing legislation. Clause 5 relates to those large placards on poles which are often held by a single individual, who sometimes walks up and down the pavement. One sees these in Oxford Street, for instance, stating, ““all-you-can-eat for £5””, with an arrow indicating where you can   go to do so, or stating ““Unique Golf Sale””—I have seen the latter in Regent Street. While obviously we would not wish to interfere with a sound commercial practice of advertising one’s product, Westminster City Council, in whose locality by far the majority of these portable advertisements are found, has concluded that some of the placards are dangerous. When a large plastic sign on a substantial scaffolding pole is held by only one man, it only needs a strong gust of wind to blow the whole thing down. On a crowded pavement that could result in serious injury. These single portable advertisements, which are not subject to any existing advertising controls, also have a deleterious effect on the amenity of the local area. Therefore, Clauses 5 and 6 set out a regime to regulate such advertisements. Clause 7 relates to perhaps a rather more familiar problem—the advertisement in telephone boxes of prostitution, a regular scourge of those boxes in London. The Bill’s intention is to enable any connection to the telephone numbers displayed on the advertisements to be barred by the relevant telecommunications provider. There are objections to that from some of the mobile service providers, and I hope that their concerns may be allayed by the time that the Bill reaches Committee. In fact, calls are already barred by British Telecom acting voluntarily, which results in prostitutes not using BT services. The Bill seeks to extend that good practice to other providers. Further clauses in Part 2 cover such areas as the effective management of fly-tipping and fly-posting by giving London local authorities the powers to seize the tools—for instance, the vans and lorries—of those guilty of fly-tipping and fly-posting. At the moment, fly-posters, if caught in such practices, are liable to pay a fixed penalty or receive a warning, but are then likely to carry on after the authorities have departed. There is no power to confiscate their posters, brushes, pots of paste or even vehicles. Other provisions in that part cover graffiti, waste, litter, chewing gum, abandoned vehicles, and the establishment of new action enforcement areas where the level of penalty is higher than in the normal environment. I shall give one example. The cost of removing chewing gum from pavements and other places is a huge problem for councils, particularly Westminster. Scientists at Bristol University have come up with a non-stick chewing gum, but they say that it could take some years to reach the market. In the mean time, we need additional protection, and the Bill gives councils power to forbid the sale of chewing gum in certain sensitive areas, which it is hoped will reduce the nuisance. Part 3 deals with a number of licensing issues which I   understand are uncontentious. It will regulate the phenomenon of hostess bars or clip joints, as they are known on the street, which is a term of vague legal definition. Often tourists, and probably others I dare say, are unwittingly lured into such establishments and end their visit with a huge bill for non-alcoholic drinks at hugely inflated prices, accompanied with intimidation or a threat of violence. There have been prosecutions, but most of them have failed and the penalties when awarded are ridiculous. Clauses 44 to 46 propose to license those establishments. Part 3 also tidies up earlier legislation on street trading in Westminster. Part 4 relates to the registration of dealers in second-hand goods. The purpose is to try to limit the criminal sale of goods that perhaps have been stolen or come into the possession of the seller unlawfully. It is a wide area, covering firms trading in goods from everyday furniture to priceless antiques in auction houses such   as Christie’s and Sotheby’s. The British Art Market Federation has objected to that part, which is Clauses 87 to 97. Perhaps the substantive discussion on the clauses should be left to the Select Committee stage, where those worries can be explored in detail. The clauses require the dealers to register with the council and keep full records of their transactions. They are intended to apply only to those dealing in second-hand goods,"““in the course of the business””," and are aimed at preventing the trade in stolen goods. This is not the first time that this has been done. Similar provisions were included in the Kent County Council Act 2001. Just as the police supported that in relation to Kent, so they are supporting the clauses now. Part 5 is an interesting but, I hope again, uncontentious provision. It sets out a standard regime for the enforcement of charges for offences that have been decriminalised, so that they are no longer fines for offences but charges for breaches of the law. That makes it general and it applies not only to this Bill but to future Bills and past Acts. Part 6 contains the final substantive set of clauses and deals with a number of miscellaneous provisions, on which I have no doubt some of your Lordships may wish to speak. Clause 110 relates to an issue common to many major thoroughfares in London and many other major towns; the process that has become known as ““chugging””, which I have always assumed is a merging of the words ““charitable”” and ““mugging””. It is the problem of accosting pedestrians and asking for charitable donations. Of course they have an admirable aim of funding the good work of the voluntary sector. What concerns local authorities is the sheer frequency with which this is done, which is causing some of the problems. Some of your Lordships may be aware that this is being addressed in the Charities Bill currently before the House. I know that the Home Office has some concerns over the clauses in this Bill and their relation to the Charities Bill. The promoters have assured me that they will review the clauses once it is clearer what the final form will be of the ““chugging”” provisions in Chapter 1, Part 3 of the Charities Bill. Clause 112 relates to just one area in London; namely, Lincoln’s Inn Fields. It would not surprise me, in view of the large number of petitions put in against the clause, if one or more of your Lordships were to mention it this afternoon. The clauses will be fully considered in Committee, but I shall try to respond to any points that are raised today. Clause 114 addresses the power to disturb human remains, which is always a hugely sensitive matter. The clause is included in the Bill to enable the deepening of   graves, once the proper period of time has elapsed, to allow further bodies to be buried within one site. I   assure your Lordships that the clause provides that   human remains that are disturbed will be properly re-interred in the same grave. The promoters have also assured me, because there were anxieties at an earlier stage, that the clause is not intended to include Commonwealth war graves, and only today, I have   been told, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission has withdrawn its petition on the Bill. Clause 120 is another contested clause, which makes provision for how London local authorities are to be made aware and kept informed about water pressure variation, which is particularly relevant to councils running tall residential tower blocks. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, may raise this issue later, and I hope that either I can answer his concerns today or that they will be properly dealt with in Committee. Clearly, if the residents on the upper floors of a large block are virtually going to lose any water supply, it seems important that the local authorities running those blocks should have some advance information. I apologise for having spoken at such length, but given the size of the Bill, I suspect 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 debate. I commend the Bill to the House. Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Jenkin of Roding.)