---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thought that I had put my name on the list to speak, but I shall speak briefly in the gap. I have spoken to the National Joint Utilities Group and there are several points of principle that concern me. My first concern is directors’ liability. Under Clauses 10 and 11, after three advertising offences there is a £20,000 fine and a director can be disqualified under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986. If that sort of responsibility is to be thrown at directors, who on earth will want to sit on the board of a national utility or one of the larger telecoms companies? Secondly, the practicality of barring numbers sounds good in principle but, ultimately, people can change their number quite quickly. With all the new voice-over IP that is coming, numbers will be far more flexible and will be much harder to bar. There will be interchangeable e-mail and telephone numbers. The world could change so much by the time this comes into play that it is impractical and will put a rather onerous provision on people. Thirdly, to prevent breaches of Clause 14, are the utilities supposed to employ private police to go around patrolling to ensure no one puts anything on their surfaces or street furniture? If they have to do that because they will get done under this Bill when it becomes an Act, we should think of the increasing costs, which will mean a reduction in services in other areas or, alternatively, there will be price rises. Fourthly, Clause 20 shifts responsibility from the perpetrator; that is, from the sinner to the body sinned against. It penalises the latter with costs and financial liabilities, which I do not think is very fair. We have never tended to do that in law and should look carefully at what liabilities we are forcing on the utilities. Fifthly, the power to cut alarm cables willy-nilly outside buildings is very dangerous. What happens if the wrong cable is cut and an emergency service, control system or remote alert to tell people that there is a problem is cut off? That must be treated with extreme caution. Sixthly, why are there so much more onerous timescales in this Bill than in other legislation covering these sorts of events? What is the special case here? Seventhly, I am sure that there will be conflicts between this Act, if it becomes an Act, and other Acts; for instance, the water pressure issue has been raised and Ofwat’s role, which comes under other legislation. Noise nuisance and noise pollution Acts, and a lot of legislation, cover this already. Trying to control the whole of human life and action with increasingly complex rules means that we will get more and more conflicts, rules will do less and less controlling as they appear to become more irrational and they will conflict with each other. Of course, wrongdoers will be able to find their way around the rules because it is all laid out neatly in front of them. We are beginning to try to over-control human life and existence. The chewing gum issue is a typical example of something that people will laugh at. Eighthly, and finally, I echo the noble Lord, Lord   Borrie. Why is London a special case? Does this not happen in every city, in which case why are we not dealing with it at a national level?