---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord   Borrie, made a very powerful case. I have seen many of the advertisements spread over councils and boroughs by people paid to do so, with little regard for residents. It must be a good thing to deal with the time for which that form of corporate litter is left on our streets. The question that the noble Lord raised was why London should be different. I hope that the rest of the country will follow. There has been some good practice in boroughs such as Camden, where those producing fly-posters have been prosecuted. That has reduced the problem greatly. Indeed, I saw somebody using a cut-out strip to spray-paint the name of a band in several places down a street. I am certain that that was paid for by the advertising company. That is corporate vandalism that should be dealt with in the strongest possible terms. I support reducing the occasions on which that is allowed. It is an excellent Bill in many parts, but I have several issues to raise. The second issue is a minor one relating to Clause 85, which deals with the issue of special treatment and would allow a council to exempt itself from the provision in the Licensing Act 2003 limiting to 15 the number of council members who can sit on a licensing committee. I hope that the Select Committee will read in Hansard what was said during the passage of the 2003 Act. It is an interesting point that we had specific problems with local authorities having to meet such a criterion. It would be useful for the Select Committee to consider the number of councillors who could sit on the licensing committee. I have a small issue about trade in second-hand goods. I managed to get hold of the London Local Authorities Bill from the Private Bill Office only yesterday, and I have not studied it in the massive detail that, I think, many people believe that the Bill deserves. However, I raise the issue of the sale of second-hand goods. The provisions on it are excellent. One of the great blights that stop people switching from public transport to bicycles is the problem of bicycle theft, which is on an almost industrial level. Recently, I went to my local bicycle shop—Chamberlaine’s in Kentish Town—and spent about £80 on two chains to take round with me. They cost a fortune and weigh a tonne. I asked the guy behind the counter who, luckily, is very honest, ““How many hours will it take them to get through those?””. He said, ““If they have the right tools, it will take them about two and a half minutes each. If you buy three, it could take them seven and a half minutes, and they might not try””. That is the problem. There are not many security measures that will match the technology that can remove the chains. The one way of dealing with the issue is to stop the people who sell the bicycles at the marketplaces. I know that the police have tried and that the London Cycling Campaign has been a leading light, going to the markets and raising the issue, but it is difficult to prosecute the people who sell the bicycles. You have to prove where the parts came from and that they were stolen in the first place. The Bill will license that trade, and I hope that it will go through unaltered on that. The Bill says that a person is covered by the provisions if they buy the items in the borough, are resident in the borough and sell within it. I am sure that my question will be a difficult one to answer, so I do not expect an answer today, but I would like to know whether the Bill also covers transactions on the Internet through eBay. I know that eBay hides behind the fact that it calls itself an Internet information provider, not a dealer, but would an individual in London selling on eBay to somebody else in London fall under the provisions of the Bill as somebody selling second-hand goods? The last issue that I want to raise is one about which I feel particularly strongly and which my noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised so eloquently. It is always difficult to follow my noble friend, who made an excellent speech, so rather than follow the issues concerning Clause 112, I will just ask some questions. Lincoln’s Inn Fields is one of the green and open spaces within London. There is a real question whether the local authority—Camden—should be trying to amend the 1894 Act. The 1894 Act set up that green park and open space for the benefit of Londoners. I find it absolutely unacceptable that the Borough of Camden has decided that it wants to make money out of it. I understand and have no difficulty with the fact that local authorities are looking for means of revenue-raising because they are under pressure to provide good services. However, there are several question marks over the provision of Lincoln’s Inn Fields. There are all those people who use it—it is a very popular spot. There are all those businesses that will be affected, especially sites such as the nationally renowned Soane Museum, a museum of international regard, that will be faced by those large structures. I find that unacceptable. As I understand the 1894 Act, that public space was given over only because businesses gave up their own frontages. That is now being thrown back in their face and they will have to face the consequences of large marquees. My noble friend Lord Goodhart asked why; obviously, it is in order to raise money, but we must look at the record. There is a question mark over whether Camden council, which has been putting on local events in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, has been using it illegally. I was surprised that correspondence has described how the council has only been using those structures for 28 days at one time and were only considering using them for 12 weeks of the year. If it is considering that at present, my understanding is that that is breaking planning law, because you are allowed to use such a space for temporary events for only 28 days in total in one year, not 28 in one stretch. The second question is: has Camden an exemplary record in the management and control of such events? The answer is no. Difficulties have arisen, which have led to a fine on the operator and a vast number of question marks. Camden council seems to spend vastly more than any other in London on consultation, so I know that it has consulted. As it is proposing the legislation, it must have consulted fully and properly; that is the minimum that could be expected. I therefore ask the Committee to find out who it has consulted and on what basis. As I understand it, there are question marks over whether that consultation was adequate with interested parties who live in the area. My noble friend Lord Goodhart has raised many of the other points that I was going to raise. I did not realise that it had been such a racy area in the past; more recently, it has had a reputation for various things. We should not underestimate the value of that amenity to London. It is imperative that we do not allow the pecuniary interests of a council, however stretched it is and however well-meaning, to take away from the public spaces that are so few and far between. More and more seem to be built on every week. Where would the money raised from that go? Would it go to create further open spaces within London? If not, we are losing an open space and not replacing it. I therefore end by saying that I hope that that clause is struck out of the Bill.