---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of noble Lords. I was going to say, ““I will eschew the debate on chewing gum””. Sorry. I cannot compete with the noble Lord. We have to liven this up somehow. I shall now address the issues of hostess bars, near beer, street trading, and special treatment licenses. In Part 3, Clauses 47 to 61 concern the regulation of street trading. The Government have concerns about the way in which the provisions relating to food seizures have been drafted, which the Department of Health will take up with the promoters. Chapter 3 of Part 3 introduces changes to powers to license special treatment, primarily to introduce a licensing regime for special treatment outside dedicated premises, for home visits, for example. The Government’s assessment of the Bill’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights noted the concern that no provision is made in the Bill for a licence holder, who has had an application to vary their licence turned down, to be heard orally or to appeal against that decision. That may be contrary to the right provided by Article 6 of the convention to a fair hearing, and that will need to be considered by the committee. We have a number of concerns of a more technical nature, which the Department of Health will take up with the promoters. I shall now deal with the provisions relating to the   registration of dealers in second-hand goods. Clauses 87 to 97 of the Bill are similar to other local legislation that requires the registration of second-hand traders, in particular the Kent County Council Act and the Medway Council Act 2001, known as the Kent Acts. I understand that the Home Office has concerns with Clause 90, largely due to the variance with other similar local legislation. The Bill is similar to local legislation in place in 12 local authorities. All of those require the registration of second-hand goods dealers, and most require notification of occasional sales. The majority of the legislation require traders to make records of certain transactions that take place outside their borough, which the clauses fail to do, and cover occasional sales and squat traders. That has been raised with the Bill’s promoters. I understand that officials in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have raised concerns about the provisions set out in Clause 108, which would make it an offence to display restricted R18 rated videos and their packaging other than in a licensed sex shop. DCMS considers that the new offence is unnecessary, as such a display would already amount to an offence under Section 12 of the Video Recordings Act 1984. Under that section, it is an offence to supply or offer to supply an R18 video recording, other than in a licensed sex shop. In the department’s view the meaning of ““offer to supply”” is wide and includes the display of such video recordings and their packaging. We are concerned that the proposal would seriously undermine the wide interpretation of ““supply”” and ““offer to supply”” by the courts, as it would amount to an acceptance by Parliament that the display of video   recordings did not come within the meaning of ““offer to supply””, thus affecting the ability of trading standards officers to prosecute. We would also strongly question any change in the law which covered only London, as it is no longer the case that sex shops, licensed or not, are found only in central London. The Video Recordings Act applies right across the UK. Clause 109 deals with the change of use of premises to temporary sleeping accommodation. I understand that the promoters have in mind changes of use to short-term holiday accommodation. The clause makes provision for offences and the issue of enforcement notices by a borough council where the necessary permission for such a change of use has not been obtained. My department already considers that such a change to the boroughs’ existing enforcement powers under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is unnecessary. We are considering the need to submit a report to the Select Committee. Boroughs already have powers to serve a planning contravention notice to establish the facts and see whether enforcement action should be taken. They also have powers under Section   196A(4)to enter any building used as a dwelling house to determine whether an enforcement notice should be issued, provided that they give 24 hours’ notice to the occupier of the building. Regarding Clause 110, the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said that there is an overlap with the Charities Bill—indeed, there is, and the Home Office is the responsible department. Part 3 of the Charities Bill makes provision for the regulation of public charitable collections—““chugging””, another word that we have heard this afternoon. The provisions in Clause 110 in some part duplicate the provisions of the Charities Bill and in other parts would not be compatible. So the Home Office is considering the need to submit a report to the Select Committee, opposing the clause. Clause 112 clearly arouses strong passions. All I would say is that this is a discrete matter and I hope that the Select Committee will carefully consider what has been said by the petitioners and the proposers. I am sure that that will happen. Clause 114 concerns the power to disturb human remains. As the noble Lord said, this is a very sensitive matter. The Government issued a consultation paper last year, Burial Law and Policy in the 21st Century, on the need for a sensitive and sustainable approach. It invited views on reforming and modernising burial law, including the case for making specific provision for the re-use of graves. We are now considering the results of that consultation exercise with the assistance of the Burial and Cemeteries Advisory Group, which has a wide range of representatives from the burial industry and other organisations, such as faith and bereavement bodies. We hope and expect to be in a position to determine the way forward on this issue later this year. We will clarify our position on Clause 114 at that time. Clause 115 concerns the registration of mail forwarding businesses. The Department of Trade and Industry is concerned that the Bill does not take into account that introducing local regulations relating to a national issue will cause complications for those who   regulate the industry and monitor activity and performance, and that to evade London regulation, all that a business would have to do is move outside the capital. Those concerns have been brought to the attention of the promoters and we await a response. Clauses 117 to 119 concern the disclosure of information. They would extend data sharing powers to   include tax credits, child benefit and guardian’s allowance, as well as housing and council tax benefit. This information is supplied to boroughs by the Department for Work and Pensions, HM Revenue and Customs and members of the public. The Government’s report on the compatibility of the Bill with the European Convention on Human Rights makes clear our concerns about the proportionality of using personal information gathered by those departments for, say, the collection of traffic penalty charges. Where personal data are shared between public authorities, Article 8 of the ECHR is engaged, which requires that such sharing is proportionate and necessary. The Government’s view is that the promoters have not explained in their assessment how the clauses are proportionate and necessary and we do not agree that the clauses are compliant with the convention. I understand that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is also concerned that Clause 117 conflicts with its strict legal duty of confidentiality as established by the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 and will be considering the need to submit a report to the Select Committee, as will the Department for Work and Pensions. I am nearing the end, as noble Lords will appreciate. I understand that a proposal by Thames Water to reduce water pressure in London has led to the inclusion of   Clause 120. This would require a water company to   consult boroughs before it reduced pressure. I understand that boroughs have concerns about reduced pressure and the potential cost implications to them. We welcome the current dialogue between the Association of London Government and the relevant water company undertakers. Nevertheless, the Government cannot accept the clause as drafted because of its practical effect, which is to require at least daily consultation before lowering water pressure in their pipe networks. The clause is unworkable and as drafted we believe that it is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 1 of the First Protocol on the protection of property. As the Government’s assessment made clear, the promoters have not addressed how their proposals strike a fair balance between their objectives and the right of water suppliers to the ““peaceful enjoyment”” of their property. We are still in discussion with the proposers of the Bill and hope to seek a revised drafting of Clause 120 that accommodates our concerns. I am sorry to have spoken at some length. There are a large number of points of concern of which, within the convention of neutrality, it is my duty to inform the House. Other points may emerge as the Bill is further considered and discussed. Between now and the Bill going before the Select Committee, the promoters will have many opportunities to discuss our concerns and to resolve them in as constructive and as timely a way as possible. I hope that I have helped the House and the promoters of the Bill to understand our concerns.