---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, this is a private Bill, and your Lordships will understand that, by convention, the Government will take an officially neutral standpoint. The Bill is clearly fascinating to your Lordships and it has been a fascinating debate, but it rests upon me to give you the Government’s view of the impact of its provisions, particularly in relation to other relevant legislation and policies. From the noble Lord’s opening words, noble Lords will understand that this is a private Bill which has been promoted by the London boroughs. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the breadth of the Bill, and the wide range of issues that it covers. Indeed, I have rarely seen a Bill that impacts quite so much on life’s rich tapestry, as it were—from the disturbance in Lincoln’s Inn Fields to the disturbance of human remains. Because it is so wide, it brings itself to the attention of many different government departments, with their interests and responsibilities. That includes my own department, the ODPM, the Home Office, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department for Transport, the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department of Health, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. The Government generally welcome the focus of the Bill because much of its aim is to improve quality of life in London, by strengthening boroughs’ enforcement powers to tackle some of the very important issues that can drag down the quality of life in this great city that we live in. I refer to graffiti, fly-posting, fly-tipping, litter, noise, and illegal street trading. These issues are also at the top of the Government’s agenda, and particularly my department’s agenda, and we recognise the importance of working with local authorities on those concerns. However, many of the departments that I mentioned have concerns, and in some cases these are significant objections, or they are minor points of drafting or amendment. I understand that officials have, on a number of occasions, discussed the Bill’s proposals with the promoters, and have written to them. The discussions are continuing, and I trust that the promoters will ensure that they continue as quickly and constructively as possible before this Bill enters its Committee stage in this House, which will consider the Bill’s provisions in detail. Where significant concerns remain, Ministers will wish to consider submitting a report to the Committee. At 126 clauses, this is a substantial and complex Bill, and it will need careful and thorough consideration before it goes on to another place. As the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, pointed out, there are already 26 petitions down against various aspects of the Bill. I am sure that its promoters will want to consult and negotiate where appropriate to resolve some of those issues before the Bill reaches a Select Committee. There is one aspect of the Bill in particular to which I wish to draw the attention of the House. The Government made an assessment of the Bill’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights, as we are required to do. This was sent to the Chairman of Committees on 26 January this year. There are some aspects of the Bill, to which I shall refer, where we believe that issues of incompatibility are raised. I know that the House will want to consider those concerns very carefully. I shall return to them when I outline the Government’s position on the provisions on licensing of special treatment, the provisions on disclosure of information and those on water pressure variation. I now turn to the detailed provisions. I apologise that my speaking notes are quite long. However, I believe that it is helpful to the promoters of the Bill and to the House as a whole to set out the Government’s position on these issues so that no one is in doubt. Clauses 5 and 6 relate to hand-held advertisements and advertisements displayed in other ways such as attaching them to poles and to backpacks. Clause 6 provides for a prohibition on the display of these advertisements within a ““designated area”” unless the advertisement is displayed in accordance with subsection (2). Clause 6 also defines portable advertisements as those not subject to advertising regulations. My department is concerned that the definition of portable advertisements is too broad and is considering the need to submit a report to the committee. The definition is difficult to interpret and impractical to enforce and is therefore potentially ineffective. ODPM intends to consult on new regulations later this year   specifically to exclude from the definition of ““advertisement””,"““a placard or other object borne by an individual or an animal””." These new regulations will clarify the position. I turn to a completely different area of the Bill—prostitutes’ cards and mobile and e-mail blocking. Clause 7 concerns the barring of mobile phone numbers and messages to e-mail addresses on prostitutes’ cards, for example where left in a phone box. I appreciate the educative value of the debate as I have now learnt there is such a thing as carding, which has nothing to do with the Industrial Revolution. We all benefit from such exchanges. The Government sympathise with the aim of Clause   7. Prostitutes’ cards can be offensive and a nuisance to local communities. In 2001, we introduced legislation to make it an offence to place prostitutes’ cards in telephone boxes, and we have welcomed voluntary steps taken by the communications industry to play its part in addressing the problem. I understand that Ministers at the DTI have already submitted a report to the committee. The report makes clear that the Government believe the clause is unhelpful in two respects. First, the benefits of call-barring as proposed in Clause 7 are not proven, and the costs on business have not been properly calculated. Secondly, the Government intend to address the issue of whether a statutory call-barring scheme would be feasible and effective in the coming months as part of the current consultation exercise, Paying the Price. This   will include assessment of whether the measure is compatible with the overall system of communications regulation in the UK. Any proposed measure would be subject to a proper regulatory impact assessment. The   Government believe that the measure represents poor regulatory practice and have proposed to the committee that it should be removed from the Bill. Clause 9 relates to unauthorised advertisements. Under current law boroughs can give notice to remove or obliterate unauthorised advertisements. This has led to the situation where persons have obliterated one unauthorised advertisement simply by placing another unauthorised advertisement on top of it. Clause 9 is designed to rectify the situation by providing that the   notice would have to require the unauthorised advertisement to be removed, and making it clear that obliteration of the advertisement is an alternative requirement which need not necessarily be in the notice. My department is concerned that further legislation is not necessary and is considering the need to submit a report to the committee. We consider that a second offence has been committed by covering up the first poster with a new poster. Further guidance is needed—not legislation—and we expect to consult later this year. Clause 10 exercised both the noble Lord, Lord   Dixon-Smith, and the noble Earl, Lord Erroll. This would permit a court to make a disqualification order under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 against an individual convicted of a third trade advertising offence. Such an order would mean, in effect, that the individual concerned could not run a company for up to five years. The DTI is concerned that that may be an inappropriate and disproportionate response to the problem of unauthorised advertising. Officials in the Insolvency Service have therefore raised the concerns with the Bill’s promoters and will consider making a report to the committee. I shall turn to costs to telecommunications and rail companies. There are some concerns about measures in Part 2 concerning unauthorised advertisements, fly-tipping, removal of graffiti, and other matters. Network Rail, for example, has petitioned against clauses which it believes may impose substantial costs on the railways in London. I understand that officials in the Department for Transport have raised concerns with the promoters about the practical and substantial financial implications of the proposals for the whole transport sector and are considering submitting a report to the committee. The DTI will consider submitting a report about Clauses 14, 20, 40, 41, 42 and 113, which contain measures that could be prohibitively expensive for its telecommunications stakeholders. The departments are concerned that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate that the benefits from implementing the   Bill’s measures will outweigh the costs to the telecommunication and rail sectors. I shall come to parts of the Bill that we believe conflict with legislation; the point was picked up by my noble friend Lord Borrie. Some of the provisions of the Bill conflict with existing legislation—namely, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act   2005, which received Royal Assent on 7 April. That Act provides local authorities and the Environment Agency with wide-ranging new powers to improve local environmental quality and tackle anti-social behaviour. The Act provides greater local flexibility to local authorities to issue on-the-spot fines and pursue offenders, covering a wide range of anti-social offences detrimental to the quality of the local environment. Those include littering, fly-posting, abandoned and nuisance vehicles, waste and fly-tipping, night-time nuisance noise and light pollution. The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs considers that Clauses 9, 15 to 19, 25, 26, 29, 33, 36 and 37 may contradict or duplicate the new legislation. It will consider submitting a report to the committee to that effect. Clause 9 amends Section 10 of the London Local Authorities Act 1995, which makes provision about unauthorised hoardings. Defra wishes to highlight that Section 10 is repealed by part 3 of Schedule 5 to the 2005 Act. It is intended to bring that repeal into   force by commencement order in April 2006. Clauses 15 to 19 propose powers for dealing with fly-tipping. Those measures largely duplicate new powers that have been included in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. They are therefore unnecessary. Officials have brought that point to the attention of the Bill’s promoters. Defra officials consider that Clause 25, which introduces a system of penalty charges for a failure to follow regulations on waste receptacles, is inconsistent with Section 48 of the clean neighbourhoods Act. Section   48 introduces the option of fixed penalty notices for those committing offences under Sections 46 and 47 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, which relate to the provision and sitting of receptacles for the collection of household and commercial waste respectively. Defra considers that those offences should remain criminal ones and not be decriminalised. Clause 26 extends the land areas covered within the definition of,"““relevant land within a litter control area of a local authority””," in Sections 87(3)(b), 91(1) and 92 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Section 90 of that Act on litter control areas ceases to have effect under Section 20 of   the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act   2005. It is intended to commence that by order in April 2006. Powers in Section 20 of the 2005 Act are wider. A litter clearing notice can be served in respect of any land open to the air except land already covered by the duty to clear litter. Again, that point has been brought to promoters of the Bill. Clause 29 proposes powers to require the removal of unlawfully deposited waste. Defra opposes that clause as   it could unfairly penalise genuine victims of illegal waste disposal. Again, the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 took a slightly different approach to deal with the removal of illegally deposited waste. That has been brought to the attention of the Bill’s promoters. Clause 33 makes changes to the provisions in Schedule 4 to the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys. Those would enable councils to recover the costs of removing and storing the trolley from the   person whom they believe to be the owner, whether or not they claim it. Defra considers that clause unnecessary as Section 99 of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005 introduces the amendment on a national basis. It is intended to bring that into force, again by commencement order in April 2006. Clauses 36 and 37 are also inconsistent with measures in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005. The Act repeals Section 23 of the London Local Authorities Act 1991 and introduces easier-to-use powers to enable local authorities to tackle annoyance from audible intruder alarms across England and Wales as an alternative to existing duties under the statutory nuisance regime of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The Government consider that it is hard to justify two regimes on audible intruder alarms being available to London local authorities in addition to existing duties. There was an agitated debate on chewing gum. We have a slightly different line on chewing gum from the one that noble Lords have been debating this afternoon, but I hope that it is equally supportive. Some aspects of the Bill raise important issues of public health. The Department of Health has serious concerns about the inclusion of nicotine chewing gum within the scope of Clause 31, which would restrict the sale and supply of chewing gum. As noble Lords know because it is so often said in this House, smoking is the UK’s single greatest cause of preventable illness and early death. More than 120,000 people in the UK die from smoking each year. It has been government policy for some years to make nicotine replacement therapies, such as gum, more widely available. Nothing should be done to restrict access to nicotine chewing gum, as that would make it more difficult to achieve the reduction in smoking, which is one of our key public health targets, and it would be contrary to existing policy.