---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding for his detailed introduction of the Bill. I am also grateful for his brief assistance when I realised that I would have to do something with it on the Floor of the House this afternoon. However, as he pointed out, since the Bill will go through a Select Committee procedure rather than a general Committee procedure, there will be ample time for detailed consideration of all the points raised in the Bill and in this debate. When I began to consider the Bill I was tempted down the road taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, regarding local authorities’ power of general competence. That issue was always around when I was involved in local government and local authorities were always begging for this power. In general, I thought that it was a good idea. However, having listened to the debate today, one begins to understand why it might not be quite such a good idea. We need to bear in mind that the Bill does not tweak powers but changes some of them quite considerably. Local authority accountability is very important. However, it is a matter of regret to me that local authorities are largely funded nationally, the standards set nationally and the finances guaranteed nationally. Therefore, on balance, I would come down against such a power. In any event, it would spoil such wonderful sport as we have had this afternoon in our very educational debate on many significant London matters. I shall run through a number of points in the Bill. I am afraid that the issue of prostitutes’ phone cards in phone boxes is going to be a problem for as long as that trade exists. I am told that it is oldest profession, although there is some doubt about that. People will find a way of communicating. More importantly, however, the number of phone boxes on the street has greatly diminished. That reduces the problem to some extent, although one should realise that there is a distinction between a BT phone line and a mobile phone. One can cut off a BT phone line very easily—it is a physical act—but with mobile phones, when a customer can change his phone very quickly, cutting off the phone line is not an effective means of prohibition. One can envisage a situation where cutting off mobile phone numbers results in more cards and more work for the people who go round removing them, because of the possibility of a much higher rate of turnover. That is a matter which can be decided only in a detailed and thorough examination in Committee. No doubt that will happen. I turn to Clauses 10 and 11. Like the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, I found myself wondering about the appropriateness of the penalties that are being suggested for unauthorised advertising. The Bill juxtaposes the disqualification of a company director where he is found guilty of three offences in five years, and increasing the maximum fine to £20,000 from the present level 4, again for three offences in five years. Are those very high penalties consistent with penalties for unauthorised advertising under general legislation? That point ought to be examined. In Clause 16, I found an interesting point about items being seized on the suspicion of someone’s involvement in illegal advertising but when no case is brought or proven. The Bill states that,"““the relevant object shall, at the appropriate time, be returned””." ““At the appropriate time”” is a very open-ended time commitment as far as I can see. That too needs serious consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, raised the issue of prohibiting the sale of chewing gum in designated areas. I cannot help but wonder how effective such legislation would be. I entirely agree that it is very offensive to see pavements spotted with chewing gum, looking like spotted Dalmatian dogs. But London is a great tourist centre, and I find it impossible to believe that banning the sale of chewing gum anywhere in London is going to make a great deal of difference. We cannot prevent people buying it in their ports, airports or towns of origin and so on. The issue goes back to what was said about culture and the need to change people’s attitudes so that it is not an automatic reaction to dump their litter or, heaven help us, their chewing gum quid on the street. That is the flaw and the cure will not lie in this sort of legislation and regulation, however much we might wish it to do so. Another issue that needs to be treated very carefully is the disturbance of graves, which is covered by Clause   114. I have some doubts about the timeliness of this provision. An acquaintance told me about an elderly relative who wanted go back to see the grave of his parents and found that it had been disturbed. I accept that the Bill requires that any bodies exhumed should be reinterred in the same grave and that it should all be done properly. But before any such disturbance takes place—because some families are very large—the timescale ought to be increased or the level of publicity given to the proposal ought to be increased. Finally, I turn to the interesting case of Lincoln’s Inn Fields. It would have been remarkable if the lawyers did not have a great deal to say on that subject; but I cannot help feeling that the proposal to turn that area into one of public entertainment—in contravention, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, and as far as one can make out, of the general development orders within existing planning legislation—would not be a reasonable thing to do. So while the Bill is welcome—and it does introduce a lot of subjects that need to be thought about—it needs to be considered in relation to existing provisions, with a very clear idea of what is actually practical and with clear consideration of what the consequences would be of passing it. With that very hesitant qualification, I am glad to support the Bill at this stage.