---

London Local Authorities Bill [HL]

My Lords, no one would be more surprised than the Minister if I responded to all the points she has made. Her listing of the anxieties held by a number of government departments about the Bill will be extremely helpful to its promoters. She has performed a valuable service in putting them before the House. The Minister is right to say that the Bill will receive careful scrutiny by what is properly called a Select Committee on an Opposed Private Bill. Enough points have been raised today to ensure that the Select Committee will have its work cut out. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, particularly for the general expression of support from all parts of the House. The noble Lords, Lord Graham of Edmonton and Lord Redesdale, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith indicated general support for the Bill. It must be remembered that those who argue for more local involvement in such affairs should recognise that a Bill which is being promoted by the local councils in London is exactly an expression of that wish. The Minister said that some of these matters will be or should be in general legislation. At the beginning of the debate, I made the point that often London local authorities have led the way: they have produced private Bills, introduced powers and made them work, and then the Government have said that those powers should be applied nationally. That may happen in a number of these cases. I was perturbed by what the Minister said about the lack of consultation. If that is so, it is most unfortunate. In mitigation, on behalf of the promoters, they had considerable consultation with the Government Office for London. That office was informed about the proposals well ahead of the deposit of the Bill and a number of meetings were held. GOL provides a very useful conduit between the promoters and individual government departments. If the promoters are wrong in assuming that government departments were to be informed of the proposals through the Government Office for London, clearly account will need to be taken of that in future. But, I ask, what is the purpose of having a Government Office for London, which after all should be prepared to speak for or, at any rate, consult all the   various departments involved? Listening to the Minister I had the impression that many of the departments have had to look at the Bill and work out their reaction to it. I believe that on both sides there needs to be considerable revisiting of that process of consultation. The Government Office for London has been headed by a number of very distinguished officials and civil servants over the years. If that is not exactly the kind of function that it should perform, we may need to look at it more carefully. The noble Baroness mentioned human rights. The promoters take that very seriously indeed. We have not yet had, as she said, a report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and no doubt, in due course, that will emerge. There will be every opportunity to consider that in the Select Committee. A number of points have been made during the course of this Second Reading debate, which are of great value to the promoters and, no doubt, will be to the Select Committee. It would be supererogatory—I believe that is the right word—for me to attempt to comment on them all. However, a number have been made with some force and perhaps I may refer to them. First, I refer to the very powerful speech from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, backed by other noble Lords, about Clause 112, which deals with Lincoln’s Inn Fields. I spent the first part of my legal career in chambers in Lincoln’s Inn. It was an extremely undistinguished legal career, which I abandoned when I discovered I had more children than briefs. Every day, for two or three years, I went across Lincoln’s Inn Fields and came to like it and value it greatly so I can speak with some knowledge of it. Clause 112 has the purpose of allowing Camden council to erect marquees and other temporary structures—I stress the word ““temporary””—in the open space for the purpose of hosting events. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, expressed his anxieties about that with great eloquence. I recognise that if one moves into an area like Lincoln’s Inn and Lincoln’s Inn Fields, one will find a large number of extremely eloquent advocates for whatever cause they wish to pursue. There are strict limits on time, which will need to be considered. I clearly take the point made about the dangers of noise. A plan accompanies the Bill which shows that the part of the fields that can be used is a relatively small one. It is an area of hard-standing right in the middle of Lincoln’s Inn Fields. There is no question of grass or flowerbeds being used. Noble Lords referred to the 1894 Act. What happened was that events began to be held in Lincoln’s Inn Fields, sponsored by Camden council and no doubt its predecessor, in contravention of the old Act, which forbids the erection of temporary structures in the fields. Until that provision was drawn to its attention, I understand that the council had indeed been putting up marquees in the middle of Lincoln’s Inn Fields for a number of successive years. Here my advice is perhaps rather different from that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart: I am told it had few complaints. It may be that the events concerned were relatively inoffensive. But clearly an issue of some substance has been raised this afternoon. I am not sure whether it would be right, as some noble Lords have suggested, to abandon the clause altogether. If something is of value to the local community, it does not seem to me to be right to abandon it altogether. No doubt that will be the subject of considerable debate in the Select Committee. I should like to pick up one or two of the other points that have been made, perhaps in the order in which they appear in the Bill rather than the order in which they were raised in the debate. There is the question of advertising in call boxes and call barring. It is an offence—the noble Baroness is right—under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 to place such adverts. That has not proved very effective. What is proposed is that action should be taken by the local authorities to require telephone providers to bar calls to those numbers. That is being done by BT at the moment, as I said in my opening speech, and the effect has been that none of the people putting out the cards uses BT services. How that will affect mobile telephones is something on which I have not had advice, but clearly a number of important points have been raised. What may be perfectly feasible for land-line telephones may not be equally feasible for mobile phones, but that will need to be examined. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, made an important point about company directors. As the Minister said, the DTI has petitioned against Clauses 10 and 11. Directors can already be struck off if found guilty of an indictable offence; and the offence does not have to relate to the financial impropriety of the director. The clause is needed because of the minuscule fines that are imposed, sometimes on very substantial companies, for offences of repeated fly-posting. Such fines are treated simply as an occupational hazard and have no impact on what many people regard as a very offensive process of simply plastering local structures of one kind or another with posters. The promoters have had constructive discussions with the Outdoor Advertising Association. It represents firms that will be most affected by the clause. I think that if that association is satisfied with the provisions and with any amendments which may be put forward, then it is to be hoped that others may be prepared to follow. Fly-posting is a major disfigurement of cities and happens far too often in London. That is why we need to have the additional powers. One noble Lord mentioned Clause 20 with regard to   the defacement of buildings and the removal of graffiti. For the very reason that the Minister has given, that clause will now be withdrawn as it is unnecessary—the issue is being dealt with in general legislation. On the question of litter from vehicles, I have the   greatest sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady   Hamwee. I have at times protested; on one occasion picking up the litter and pushing it back through the window. I am not sure that I would want to do that too often, certainly not at my age. I would feel very vulnerable. In today’s society I think that that would be a difficult thing to do, but to be able to take the number, report and find the keeper and make the keeper pay for the disposal of litter from that vehicle seems to me to be a much more effective weapon. It is extremely irritating and disturbing to city dwellers. There has been quite a lot of discussion about chewing gum. I share some of the anxiety expressed about whether simply preventing its sale in areas around heritage sites is likely to solve the problem. It is a common problem. Westminster City Council spends upwards of £400,000 a year on seeking to remove chewing gum from pavements. The clauses seek to discourage the build-up of too much chewing gum in one area by designating the areas where it may not be sold. I appreciate that many have petitioned against the clause, including Defra, whose representations we will have to consider in the Select Committee. It is a menace that ought to be dealt with. I have a rooted objection to chewing gum. I always say that one of the hazards of travelling on public transport is to find oneself sitting opposite somebody aggressively chewing gum with an open mouth. One wants to go up and hit him, but one does not—it is not safe. It is very unpleasant. On the number of people on licensing committees, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, wisely advised the promoters to look back at the 2003 Act. The problem is that in Westminster City Council, for example, there have been a huge number of applications for varying premises licences. With only 15 councillors to deal with them, they will be very hard pressed. When there is a change in licensing law the same sort of thing happens. It seems reasonable to remove the restriction that only 15 councillors may sit on a licensing committee. I understand the anxieties about water pressure which the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, with his considerable experience in the industry, expressed eloquently. It may be that the existing provisions will be enough if they are worked properly. It is the experience of boroughs with high-rise flats that, too often, they are caught by surprise with a reduction in pressure and, despite what Ofwat and the legislation say about the obligation on water authorities to keep up the pressure, it does not happen. Local authorities feel that if they had more notice, they could take measures such as requiring the water authorities to put up standpipes and so on to deal with the problem. Noble Lords raised many other points, but there is other business to follow so I shall stop. The Bill has been put forward in very good faith by the 33 London boroughs, including the city council. As noble Lords pointed out, it addresses serious concerns that their electors have experienced. It is an expression of local government but it requires the consent of Parliament, hence the promotion of this Private Bill. I hope that we can give it a fair wind. I can assure all noble Lords that what has been said will be very carefully studied by the promoters and, I am sure, the Select Committee. I hope that we may speed the Bill upon its way. On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Select Committee.