---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, who, as well as introducing the Bill, has declared my interest as one of the triumvirate, if that is not aggrandising ourselves too much, of the joint presidency of the Association of London Government. Private Bills are quite a cumbersome process. Those of us who have lived with the administration of local government and have often wished for a power of general competence might say that—I am raising a philosophical point, I appreciate—if it were easier to get on with doing things instead of having to observe the need for legislation for every tiny aspect of enforcement, in some ways life might be more difficult. I do not want to tempt the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on this too much—at least, not yet. As has been said, there are many clauses in the Bill, but there are relatively few which create new obligations or give new powers. What the London boroughs seek in many cases is to tweak or update existing provisions, thus enabling them—on the basis of experience, though sometimes that is short, I accept—to apply legislation which is substantively already in place. As a matter of principle, where a proposal is local it seems best that its scrutiny is conducted locally as well. Moreover, if by historical accident legislation requires Parliament to consider whether the use of certain powers is appropriate or whether alteration is needed, in the year 2005 Parliament should consider seriously, in an atmosphere that many of us would like to see more devolved than it is, how far it should involve itself—I use that rather pejorative term quite deliberately—in consideration of such detail. As far as possible a local authority should justify itself to its own electors and residents. Whether the Bill will emerge from its process in this form remains to be seen, but there is a point about accountability here. As a general principle, I want to express the hope that the giving of powers to local authorities and how they exercise those powers should be a matter for which they are held accountable. Just before I came into the Chamber I was asked for my views on the Lincoln’s Inn Fields clause. I would say that it falls into this category: give the local authority powers and let it hold itself accountable to its own community. The Committee will hear about the general provisions on noise and so forth, which may answer some of the questions and concerns raised. I accept that open space in London is precious, but I doubt that it is for this House to pick on one piece of   open space that is within the control of another tier of government. Given that we have a regional tier of government in London, the Bill has also made me reflect on whether in the future there might be some role for it to contribute to some of these issues. The Bill reflects very much the concerns of London local authorities as expressed to them by local people. The briefing sent to myself and no doubt to other noble Lords from the Association of London Government refers to effects on tourists and businesses. For instance, my experience of listening to residents talking about ““clipping”” establishments in Soho suggests that this is not just about the effect on tourists and how they are lured in; it is offensive and distressing to the many local residents as well. The same applies to ““carding””, to which I shall turn later. Indeed, one is being introduced to a whole new vocabulary here. The Bill may look like a bit of a rag-bag, but in fact it is very coherent. It reflects on concerns about the personal environment, the public realm and its effect personally, and enviro-crime. Some topical matters are raised. We have heard about the issue of water pressure. Abandoned cars are also topical, but the timing is rather ironic given that it appears that central government are about to withdraw funding for local authorities to remove abandoned vehicles. We all experience and dislike graffiti, and here I come to my reservations about the legislation. I hope that it will turn out to be realistic. A period of 14 days does not seem to be that unreasonable a period in which to remove graffiti. Requiring it to be removed within seven days could be difficult. As to Clause 21, which relates to the placing of refuse containers and other receptacles which might be detrimental to amenities, I plead guilty to having a bin on the forecourt of the house of which my flat is a part. As with many dwellings in London, there is nowhere else to put it. One has to work within the character of London as it is—and it is a city which is crammed full. The Bill contains provisions in relation to the enforcement of the laws on litter. I often wish that I had the courage to say to someone who has dropped litter, ““You have just dropped this””. I know people who have had the courage to say that. It is a cultural issue—we have, perhaps, become too timid—but enforcement requires the consent of society. Happily, our culture is one where not everything requires regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, referred to boroughs over-regulating. I pay tribute to one piece of work which has not required regulation but has been an example of sharing standards of best practice—that is, the capital standards work, so called, which encourages boroughs not only to share best practice but to be consistent in applying it—for instance, in their attitude towards fines for dropping litter—so that the same approach is adopted across the capital. As regards chewing gum, the noble Lord, Lord   Graham of Edmonton, said that I was closer to the action. I can assure him that I am not closer to chewing gum—I almost said that as he made the point—but, like the noble Lord, I rather wonder about the relevant provisions. I did not know that the average time taken to chew a piece of gum is 24 minutes. The ““chew time”” must differ widely between different chewers. It is perfectly clear that there must be standard times for the creation of some kinds of litter. With takeaways, for instance, the litter created by fried chicken boxes is in direct correlation to the location of outlets—it takes a more or less standard time to consume a takeaway portion of fried chicken—but chewing gum is different. I doubt whether designating areas where sales of chewing gum are controlled will have any affect at all—other than to bring local authorities into disrepute, and that would concern me greatly. I referred earlier to the issue of ““carding””—that is, the placing in telephone boxes of cards advertising the services of prostitutes. I am aware that the operators of the mobile telephone industry have considerable concerns about what in the briefing—which inevitably is relatively short—they call ““litter””. The problem extends far beyond litter; many people find the cards offensive. I hope that, among others, the Select Committee will hear from the Metropolitan Police about its experience in dealing with carding. The London Assembly, which I currently chair, is about to agree—by this time in the afternoon it probably now has agreed—a report which, in part, deals with prostitute carding. Perhaps I may share a little of the report with your Lordships. It found that carding is a significant problem not only in Westminster but in many other boroughs, including Camden, Brent, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea and the Corporation of London. Its effect on tourism is also mentioned in the report. The Assembly committee heard from BT, which has tried to reduce the number of prostitute cards by the use of CCTV and non-stick surfaces; by joint operations with the police, the immigration service—the connection of these cards with the abuse of immigrants will not have escaped your Lordships’ notice—and local authorities; and by liaising with the courts, blitz cleaning and call barring. BT made the point that for call barring to work effectively, all the operators need to take part in this process. I accept that technology is moving fast, but unless all the operators take part in an operation to bar calls, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy that barring calls will not work. Finally, the committee recommended that Ofcom consider the implementation of an effective pan-industry system. My concern about portable advertisements had been for what I had guessed might be the exploitation of the people who carry them, but I am glad that they will not be outlawed. When I first came to London in   the 1960s, a fixture—if that is not the wrong word—in Oxford Street was the bearer of the portable advertisement who was concerned with the effect of beans, protein and sitting. I am sure that other noble Lords will remember him. I support the Bill which, if given a Second Reading, will go before a committee. It is right that representations on it should be heard. However, I urge the committee to leave as much as possible to local authorities, which do not lightly ask for powers. Local authorities generally try to achieve the substance of existing legislation. If they identify the need for more powers to do so, that must be taken seriously, because they are, after all, best placed to know what works best for their community.