Transport for London Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman(10 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This private Bill is promoted by Transport for London. It was deposited on 26 November 2010, and ordered to commence in the House of Lords. It was read the First time in the other place on 24 January 2011, and it was read a Second time on 13 December 2011, when it was debated. It was a further two years until the Unopposed Bill Committee took place on 28 January 2014. It was read the Third time in the other place and transferred to this Chamber on 4 March, when the First Reading took place. It is therefore fair to say that the Bill has had a long gestation period.
The Bill’s purpose is to provide Transport for London with a broader set of powers so that it can meet its business needs more flexibly and take advantage of more efficient arrangements for the stewardship of its financial affairs. Transport for London has identified various opportunities for maximising the value of its assets, but at the moment they cannot be fully realised unless it acquires new statutory powers or restrictions on the exercise of its current powers are removed. The Bill is also an opportunity to save money for taxpayers and fare payers. It has only four substantive clauses, but its principle is of importance to TfL, not least because the benefits deriving from the Bill will enable TfL to deliver much better value for money for the fare payer and the tax-paying public at large.
The first three clauses broadly concern bringing the Bill into operation. The first substantive clause is clause 4, which allows Transport for London subsidiaries to borrow and grant security over assets and revenue streams, enabling TfL to have cheaper finance for projects and greater flexibility in how it borrows. TfL currently has the power to borrow and it has a borrowing programme, but it may offer lenders only a non-specific charge over revenues, not over properties.
Borrowing on a secured basis will allow TfL subsidiaries to achieve lower interest rates than can be obtained through the Public Works Loan Board or through issuing bonds—the original aim under the legislation initiated by the previous Government—which are two of the significant debt financing options available to TfL. The clause will allow TfL to borrow money in circumstances where granting security is done predominantly or exclusively on a secured basis, and unsecured borrowing is either not possible or very costly. For example, property developments are usually financed by the lender taking a charge over the land being developed, which accordingly leads to a lower interest rate and means less risk to all parties.
Clause 4 allows TfL’s subsidiaries to borrow for a discrete purpose and to structure security so that a creditor has recourse only against the subsidiary borrowing and not against TfL and its other subsidiaries. That protects the fare-paying and tax-paying public from any liability that arises on TfL debts.
Clause 4 allows TfL to purchase subsidiary companies that already have secured debt. TfL will no longer be required to restructure secured debt when it purchases a company with such existing debt. TfL had to acquire Tube Lines Ltd and Tube Lines Finance plc at very expensive rates—I well remember the fiasco, as I was a member of the London assembly at the time. Had clause 4 then been in operation, TfL would have been spared significant costs, which ultimately have been borne by fare payers and taxpayers and resulted in lenders receiving enhanced value for their loans for nil consideration to TfL.
Clause 4 includes important safeguards and limitations. It provides that TfL subsidiaries must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State to grant security, except in respect of categories of property included in the schedule to the Bill, which Members can go through in detail if they are interested. The exempt property may generally be described as property that is ancillary to TfL’s core function of providing passenger transport services and includes such categories as property that is used for the purposes of car parking or retail units, for example. The consent of the Mayor of London is always required, irrespective of the type of property being changed.
Clause 4 provides that the rights of existing TfL creditors are preserved in full. A secured creditor may have priority over an existing creditor only where the existing creditor consents to the arrangement, so all parties are protected. TfL subsidiary borrowings will still be subject to the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 2003. Borrowings must only be for any purpose relevant to a local authority’s functions or for the prudent management of its financial affairs. TfL subsidiaries will also be subject to existing borrowing limits set by the Secretary of State, so the public sector borrowing requirement is protected and security is granted.
Clause 5 expands TfL’s power to form different types of entities for the purpose of carrying out its functions. I understand that this is the most controversial clause for those who object to the Bill. I understand that the sponsors have had meetings with several of the individuals who are concerned and that undertakings have been given in that respect. Currently, TfL may only form bodies corporate, which includes companies and limited liability partnerships. TfL is seeking a new power to form, or join others in forming, limited partnerships and to invest in those partnerships once formed. TfL would like the option of using a limited partnership when seeking third-party investment, which seems a sensible process.
Pension funds and foreign entities are likely investors, so we are likely to see greater investment in joint arrangements with TfL, which will represent good value for the taxpayer. Those investors often prefer to invest in partnerships, rather than company structures, because of the tax transparency that partnerships afford. If TfL can offer a partnership as the joint venture vehicle, it is likely that there will be increased interest in the investment opportunity and that the maximum value of the asset will be realised. TfL proposes that it may form a limited partnership only for the purpose of carrying out its functions, which prevents speculative arrangements.
There is a limited tax benefit from using a limited partnership, but it is confined to stamp duty land tax, which is payable when land is transferred into a partnership. Stamp duty land tax is levied only on the proportionate share of the land being acquired by fellow partners, rather than the whole part. That benefit is conferred on any partner of a limited partnership irrespective of their status and is not unique to TfL. Indeed, many local authorities use limited partnerships for joint ventures and have been supported in doing so by the Treasury.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am fascinated by what my hon. Friend is telling the House, but surely there is a bigger picture. Would it be better for TfL effectively to be owned by the people of London? They could have shares in TfL, so it would therefore be funded to a larger extent by equity capital without the need to borrow.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. That would be a very radical move away from TfL’s existing capability and the arrangements that are made. I am sure the Mayor of London will be listening to the debate and will consider that suggestion appropriately, but it is beyond the scope of Second Reading, which is limited regarding proposed borrowing changes.
Transport for London’s subsidiary share of the profits generated by a partnership will be liable to tax in the same way as if a company were used instead of a limited partnership, thereby maintaining appropriate tax transparency. Several individuals, and particularly the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, have been concerned about whether the Secretary of State should give permission for such entities to be entered into. I understand that a written undertaking has been given to the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and the RMT on the basis that an amendment will be introduced in Committee that would require the Secretary of State’s permission for such an organisation to be permitted, which I hope answers one of the principal objections.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman(10 years, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Third time.
I do not wish to detain the House for too long because the Bill has been subject to very detailed scrutiny at all its stages in this House and in the other place. I hope that, like the two previous London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bills, this Bill will be passed this afternoon, giving the councils and Transport for London very useful powers that I am sure will be welcomed by everyone who lives in London.
London councils and boroughs bring forward proposals for Bills, and this one started out in May 2007. At that time, I was sitting as deputy leader of Brent council, where we gave the Bill some detailed scrutiny. After the proposals were refined in summer 2007, the Bill was finally lodged in November 2007. It can therefore be said that it has had a long gestation period of some six years.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and his colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and others, who have subjected the Bill to very detailed scrutiny. It is fair to say that it has been a long process. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has sought tirelessly, not only on this private Bill but on others promoted by London local authorities and, indeed, authorities throughout the land, to ensure that such Bills are given detailed scrutiny, as is entirely appropriate. It may be said that they get far more scrutiny than legislation proposed by the Government that is much more important, if that is possible. I am sure that his constituents will rest easy knowing that his assiduous work on this Bill on their behalf means that when they next visit this great city there will be less clutter on the streets, apart from electricity charging points, safer skips and cleaner air as a result of the increase in the use of electric vehicles that will no doubt arise.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his generous remarks. This Bill started off with 39 clauses and now has 20. Does he accept that other legislation we pass in this House would invariably be much better if it were similarly truncated?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Before the Bill started, 15 clauses were removed by the Lords Select Committee that considered it, 10 of which formed one part of the Bill, and three were dropped by the promoters in agreement with people who objected. Detailed elements of the Bill have been subjected to tidying up and making sure that they are appropriate to the times we live in.
I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) for their contributions to this debate.
Finally, I would like to mention something that will no doubt cause great distress to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and his colleagues and perhaps some joy and relief to others, including our Whips. I have been told that apart from a short four-month period in 1991, ever since the first London local authorities Bill was deposited in November 1988 there has been at least one such Bill before Parliament. When this Bill obtains Royal Assent, as I trust it now will, that continuous record will end. The torch is being carried on to some extent by TfL with a Bill that is currently in the Lords, but for the London boroughs, for the moment, that is it. As it happens, tomorrow is the day by which private Bills must be deposited in Parliament. I have it on very good authority that a London local authorities Bill will not be deposited.
With that, Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank you and your colleagues for your forbearance and hope that the House will shortly see fit to give this worthy Bill a Third Reading.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman(11 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
I shall deal next with amendment 29, Mr Deputy Speaker. It proposes the removal of clause 16(9), which states that in subsection 8,
“’the relevant vehicle’ means the vehicle in respect of which the connecting cable was about to be, was being or had been used for charging”,
and that
“’ªthe relevant time’ means the time when the liability arose.”
That seems to me merely to compound the proposals in subsection 8.
We then arrive at what could be described as a bright dawn. Amendment 30 makes the following proposal:
“Clause 16, page 13, line 15 after ‘cable’, insert
‘or wire which is not provided by the authority’.”
I tabled that amendment because I considered it to be an essential safeguard, spelling out the status of the charging apparatus to which we have been referring, which had not been provided by the authority.
Bob Blackman
Let me say on behalf of the promoters, in order to save time, that they are happy to accept amendment 30. I trust that we shall now be able to move on to the rest of the amendments that my hon. Friend wishes to press.
Mr Chope
Giving my hon. Friend the benefit of the doubt, my response to his intervention is that that is not necessarily so. This provision presupposes that the London authority, which might be Transport for London, would be providing the charging points and doing so against the wishes of the local planning authority in whose area it was going to put those charging points. That is what I am trying to get at: it is possible that there will be two different authorities. The London authority exercising its power under clause 16(1) is not necessarily the same as the local planning authority as defined in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
Amendment 38 will leave out subsection (2), which talks about an “authorised person”. The same issue arises about consultation and, as I have already said, I do not think that the powers in the Bill should be extended to authorised people. The same point arises from amendment 39, which will leave out subsection (3).
Last but not least comes amendment 40. Clause 19 creates a new offence of unlawful use of a charging point—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley laughs, and I think that many people coming to the issue for the first time would laugh as well. The clause provides for a new offence—have we not enough offences on the statute book already—and states:
“A person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale if he uses charging apparatus in contravention of a sign displayed on the apparatus which indicates that…the apparatus is not to be used for any purpose other than charging a vehicle; and…it is an offence to so use the apparatus…A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if…he had the permission of the person who operated the charging apparatus at the time to use the charging apparatus for the purpose in question”—
although it was a non-authorised purpose—
“he had reasonable cause to believe he had such permission; or…at the time there was on the charging apparatus an indication given by the person who operated the charging apparatus that it could be used for the purpose for which it was used.”
Effectively, the clause creates a new offence of stealing electricity.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend, is the sponsor of the Bill, is nodding. That would be fine if there was not already provision in law to deal with the stealing of electricity, and that is why the provision is completely redundant.
We are creating a separate regime of stealing electricity from a charging point for charging electric vehicles rather than relying on the general statute law on electricity theft. I do not know whether the House is familiar with this, but electricity theft is a big issue. At the beginning of July the energy regulator, Ofgem, said that it wanted more to be done to combat electricity theft. I know that this is not the subject of the Bill, but a third of electricity theft in this country is to power cannabis farms. Nothing is being done about that—it is apparently being ignored—but meanwhile we are trying to bring in draconian measures to deal with people who, in a fit of over-enthusiasm, might abstract some electricity from a charging point.
Surely we should keep the law simple: whether the electricity is from a charging point, from a company or from someone’s own meter through changing the wires or using a device, we should rely on the same law—that is, the Theft Act 1968. The Theft Act provides that it is an offence to steal electricity and there are guidelines about the reasonable penalty to be imposed on people who steal electricity. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East why the promoters of the Bill think that existing laws on electricity theft are inadequate to deal with electricity that is taken from a charging point. Some 25,000 people—quite a lot of people—steal electricity each year, and such theft costs each electricity customer the equivalent of £7 a year.
Bob Blackman
In some car parks, a local authority might wish to control the process. I do not envisage cables being littered all along the public highway, but local authorities could provide cables in car parks, particularly when there is someone present to ensure that the process is operated properly. It is important to be clear about whose responsibility this would be. Indeed, there could be an issue in civil court proceedings in that regard. Amendment 31 would remove the definition of a connecting cable, which could be dangerous. The term “connecting cable” is clearly defined in the Bill and the amendment is not helpful. I urge my hon. Friend not to press it.
Amendment 37 relates to the way in which permission is given and the consultation that should take place. We are talking about potentially 25,000 of these charging points, to which my hon. Friend has alluded, right across London—and possibly more. The amendment would require planning permission to be given for each of those charging points, at a time when I would suggest that the Government are trying to move away from the whole process of granting planning permission. We are talking about two aspects: one is the public highway; the other is council-operated car parks. Clearly, the only people who would have any concerns about council-operated car parks would be the council and the potential users of the car park. The users will not be consulted—they may use the car park, but would not have any rights over what happens in it—so only the planning authority would be consulted. Under those circumstances, the requirement to obtain planning permission seems like overkill.
Bob Blackman
Having served as a councillor on a local authority for 24 years before coming to this place, I can confirm what the position would be, and it would mean the local authority having to give planning permission for every single one of these charging points. A planning application would have to be taken out—at a cost, by the way, to the local council tax payer—and those considering the planning applications would then have to advertise locally and send to every local resident in the immediate area where the charging point was to be sited an invitation to lodge an objection. I suggest that that whole process would be extremely bureaucratic and unnecessary.
In considering implementing the charging points, any local authority worth its salt would consult individual residents as appropriate and advise them through publications or notifications what is going to take place. There would then need to be a process for finding a reasonable mix in respect of where the charging points would be. That would be preferable to requiring full-blown planning permission, which I think would be draconian, would slow the process down considerably and would lead to extremely high costs for the individuals putting in the charging points—costs that are completely unnecessary.
Mr Chope
I take my hon. Friend’s point that we do not want to have thousands of planning applications, but is there not a middle way? Could this not be done, for example, through permitted development rights? Putting a charging apparatus on the street could be granted permitted development unless there were objections from neighbours—a form of permitted development similar to what the Government have recently brought in for extensions to domestic houses.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. The key here is consulting the planning authorities on their approach to a particular area, but let me come back to the effect of the amendment. It would effectively require the local authority to go through the wholesale planning permission process. On that basis, I urge my hon. Friend not to press the amendment.
Mr Chope
Unfortunately, there is no reference to vandalism in the clause, which refers specifically to someone who
“uses charging apparatus in contravention of a sign”.
Someone who vandalises, abuses or interferes with such apparatus is not using it. My hon. Friend mentioned the problem of theft from parking meters. I imagine that that is dealt with not by a specific offence of stealing from a parking meter, but by the offence of theft. Surely exactly the same principle could apply to the theft of electricity, which is already an offence on the statute book.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying his purpose, but I think we should make it clear that misusing a charging point, or using it without appropriate authority, is an offence, and that a penalty will be imposed if someone is convicted of such an offence. That is what the promoters want, and I strongly support it.
I urge my hon. Friend not to press his amendment to a vote. It is clear that the offence of electricity theft would not necessarily cover all aspects of unauthorised use of a charging point. Clause 19 makes that a specific offence, and makes it clear both to members of the public and to the courts what the penalties would be. I think that removing it would constitute a very dangerous precedent, because local authorities would have to use some other part of the law to enforce the rules. Given that there is to be a new basis for the provision and charging of private vehicles, we need sensible measures to deal with unauthorised use of the new devices.
Let me say on behalf of the promoters that we are happy to accept amendment 30. I urge my hon. Friend not to press the remaining amendments, but if he chooses to do so, we will oppose them.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman(11 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Chope
Absolutely. The clause refers to anyone who
“interferes with a relevant barrier without lawful excuse”,
which raises all sorts of questions regarding how to avoid the build-up of congestion caused by an accident or another incident such as a fire. If somebody says, “We need to open this barrier so that the traffic can flow more freely,” they might—unless they are authorised by the local authority—find themselves guilty of an offence. It seems to be a totally disproportionate response to the problem that the Bill’s promoters say exists.
I have seen no evidence of how many occasions gated roads have been opened, closed or otherwise interfered with by people to the detriment of the local authority. As I said at the outset, if there is a problem surely it would be better dealt with under the Traffic Regulation Act 1984, which relates to all authorities, not just those in London.
Rather earlier than some might have anticipated, I have reached the end of my introduction to the amendments, to which I have tried to speak in a constructive way. This is not an exercise in trying to prevent a Bill from making progress; it is an exercise in trying to ensure that the legislation that we put on the statute book is clear beyond peradventure and of sufficiently high quality to merit inclusion. It is very difficult to put these things right after the event, and on too many occasions in the past local authorities and Transport for London have been given wide powers that were not sufficiently explored beforehand, to the detriment of the general public. That is why, on behalf of road users and residents in London—I declare an interest as the owner of freehold property in London—I propose these amendments. I hope that the Bill’s promoters will address them as constructively as they have agreed to address at least two of the amendments in the next group.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for tabling these various amendments in, I trust, a spirit of exploring the intentions of the Bill’s promoters. I trust that my explanations will be sufficient for him not to press them to a vote. The Bill has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny both in this House and in the other place, so I will confine my remarks to the amendments.
I gleaned from my hon. Friend’s remarks that he tabled amendments 1 and 2 because he wants an explanation, not because he wants to press them to a vote. They relate to the commencement date for the regulations on lamps and signage. The Bill’s promoters across London are very keen for ultimate flexibility as to when the regulations should be introduced. The amendments would constrain London authorities to introduce them all on the same day across London, which would be draconian. The purpose of this part of the Bill is to say that there will be a need for lamps and signage to be restricted, but at different times for different authorities. That does not alter the fact that authorities have to advertise and give notice of their wish to introduce these schemes, but they do not have to introduce them in the same way right across London.
Bob Blackman
There will be times when signage or lamps are required, possibly on a temporary basis, and therefore one needs to introduce them, and give notice of that, and then take them away again. Those signs might be for emergency roadworks, or a particular purpose such as special events that take place in London. There are regularly demonstrations and road closures for special events, and it would be foolish to have those signs unnecessarily in operation throughout London and the affected areas. I trust that that provides a suitable explanation. It does not change the fact that local authorities must still advertise the reason for lamps and signage, as is wholly appropriate.
Amendment 3 suggests that after the Localism Act 2011, which enables local authorities to take many actions themselves, and after devolving power to London, we suddenly drag power back to the Secretary of State to force the Minister—or someone else—to consider the minutiae of things that go on in London. To me that seems to be overkill, and it does not take place in any other part of the country. The Secretary of State and Ministers have plenty to do without considering the minutiae of a code of practice that London local authorities will come together and agree, cross-party and for the good of all Londoners and London. I trust that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will accept that such things are best kept to a local level, rather than involving the Government. I understand that the Government have not stated that they want to interfere in such a process, and I am sure the Minister will confirm that in due course.
Mr Chope
Is not the point that provision is already set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to deal with such issues? That is national legislation but the Bill seeks to modify it for London. My amendment would ensure that there is a proper safeguard for that proposed modification for London through the Secretary of State. My hon. Friend refers to localism, but surely such things should apply equally to all local authorities, not just those that bring forward Bills such as this.
Bob Blackman
It just reinforces and restates existing legislation, and I think it is sensible to have the relevant legislation all in one place so that people can understand everything that applies. The subsection is nothing new and does not amend the 1972 Act. That Act has gone through many changes, through London Acts and so on, so it is sensible to retain the subsection.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend says that the subsection just restates the existing law in section 233 of the 1972 Act. That section applies throughout the country, so why is it necessary to reapply an existing provision in a local Act? Why do we need clause 5(5) at all? He says that it is useful to have everything in one piece of legislation, but that provision is already in the 1972 Act. Unless there is something in the subsection that adds to or subtracts from section 233 of that Act, what is the point of having it? How can that be good legislation?
Bob Blackman
For clarity and continuity it is sensible to restate, not change, the position that already exists. There is nothing new in clause 5(5), but if I were reading the Bill, I would want to know that there was complete clarity about its purpose.
Amendments 7 to 9 deal with cost and repair. There is nothing more frustrating for people than to see a development cause damage to a public highway, and for there then to be a lack of clarity about who will fix it. This is a problem in large parts of London. However, the effect of the amendments will possibly not be what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch intends. The local authority has a clear duty to maintain the highway so that it is in a good state of repair. In many parts of London it is not in a good state of repair. Where a developer or someone acting on behalf of an owner has caused damage, it is clear that the first option should be for the developer to repair the damage it has caused. Amendment 7 would remove the obligation on the developer to fix the damage it has caused and put the onus completely on the local authority to obtain the funding from the developer or the owner affected. This is, therefore, an unwanted measure.
Existing national legislation is worded in exactly the same way as the proposed legislation. Amendment 7 would place London local authorities in a worse position than the local authority in, for example, Christchurch. I do not see any reason why London authorities should be placed in a worse position than authorities outside London. The position should be consistent for all three amendments: the first call is for the developer to fix the problem it has caused. If it does not fix it, then the local authority should step in, make good the damage, and charge the people who caused the damage in the first place. In all these cases, this is entirely consistent with national legislation. The obligation to fix it should be on the people who caused the damage.
Mr Chope
The explanatory memorandum states that
“Clause 6 would replace section 133 with provisions for London that would enable the highway authority to recover their expenses of remedying such damage to any part of the highway, not just the footway.”
That seems to be what is being changed, rather than the means by which the damages can be recovered. Does my hon. Friend accept that there is a lot of rather superfluous wording, if the purpose is just to be able to extend an existing power from the footway to the whole of the highway?
Bob Blackman
The key point is who repairs the damage initially, or how the money is recovered. The point is that it should be the developer who causes the damage—frequently, heavy lorries delivering goods to a site cause damage to the highway as well the footway—who repairs it first. If they do not repair it, then the local authority steps in, makes good the damage, serves a notice and recovers the money. Unfortunately, the effect of all three amendments would remove the position of the developer doing any work at all, and put the onus fairly and squarely on the highways authority to make good and then try to recover the costs. That would be terribly frustrating for all concerned.
Mr Chope
I think we are at cross-purposes. My hon. Friend rightly said that the polluter should pay, but my concern is that if the polluter does not repair the damage to the highway, it might go unrepaired, unless my amendment 7 is carried, as it would require the local authority to repair the damage.
Bob Blackman
The highways authority already has a duty to keep the highways in good repair. As I read the amendment—I was only able to read it today—my concern is that it would not allow the developer to fix the problem.
Bob Blackman
No, it wouldn’t. It says that the local authority “shall” step in and do the work, irrespective. That wording is incorrect and is why I shall resist amendment 7, as well as amendments 8 and 9, which are all consequential amendments.
On amendment 20, London has many gates placed across roads to prevent the flow of traffic through residential communities. The roads are normally accessible by the emergency services—the fire brigade, ambulance service and police—and other appropriate authorities, but sometimes there is a severe problem. At the moment, if someone damages a gate, they can be held liable for criminal damage, but if they merely open the gate for their own convenience—to access the road or bypass a congested road—it defeats the purpose of that gate, which is to prevent large parts of London from being used as rat runs. The promoters therefore seek an enforcement option. If, on being directed by the emergency services, someone opened a gate, clearly they would not be guilty of an offence, but if they opened a gate for their own convenience—or for other people’s convenience, for joyriding or whatever—they would be guilty of an offence, and it would be up to the local authorities to enforce those actions.
I accept completely that there is an issue of interpretation around the reason for opening the gate, and there is always the potential for somebody to receive a penalty for incorrectly opening one, but it is entirely fair and proper to make it clear that people should not open one unless they have authority or good reason to believe that life or limb are in danger.
Bob Blackman
Clearly, this is a matter of interpretation. The purpose of placing barriers across a traffic highway is to prevent the incursion of normal vehicles, but I cannot envisage someone ever being prosecuted for opening a gate that is normally locked in order to give access to an ambulance, the police or the fire brigade. However, the promoters are keen to ensure that people understand that if they interfere with a locked gate that is there for the purpose of preventing traffic from passing through, that will be an offence and they can be prosecuted.
Bob Blackman
Having made something of a study of such gates in London over the years, I can say that they are almost all locked with padlocks—except where someone has stolen the padlock, in which chase the gate will often flip open and shut. Young people—in general it is young people—have a habit of occasionally using such gates as a form of entertainment. We need to make it clear that such gates are there for a purpose. This issue is a matter of interpretation. We are talking about gates being interfered with—that is, opened to allow the incursion of traffic.
Mr Chope
These amendments relate to part 3 of the Bill, which deals with “Builders’ Skips”. It is important that we have a proper control regime for builders’ skips. It is also important that we are absolutely clear in our own minds about what the impact of the proposed changes to the Bill would be. For example, amendment 10 would add to section 8(1) so that the relevant highway authority could require the relevant person to provide them with the name and address of the owner of the builder’s skip
“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9”.
Section 9 provides that a skip must be
“clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.
It seems to me that the best way of resolving this matter is to ensure that the skip must be, as amendment 15 suggests, clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name, telephone number and address. If that is done and there is no breach of the provision, it will not be necessary for the highway authority to exercise the power set out in clause 8 because the information that it is seeking to ascertain will already be in its knowledge and the knowledge of anybody else who looks at the skip in question. That would improve the wording of the Bill.
Amendment 11 challenges the current provision, which states:
“A requirement under this section shall specify the period within which it must be complied with, which must be a period no shorter than 3 working days beginning with the date on which the request was made.”
Mr Chope
I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention shortly, but I am going to anticipate it in my next comments. Prior to his looking at this because it was drawn to his attention by my amendment, nobody had thought through how reasonable a period of three working days would be in these circumstances. As a result of my tabling amendment 11 to insert 14 working days instead, he and the promoters of the Bill have seen the unreasonableness of the original proposition and the reasonableness of the amendment. He indicated in a letter that I received this morning that he would be willing to accept the amendment.
Bob Blackman
I congratulate my hon. Friend on tabling this amendment. The promoters are happy to accept it, and I do so on their behalf without the need for a Division.
Mr Chope
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend.
Amendments 12 and 13 deal with the level of penalty for any person convicted of an offence under clause 8(6), which says that
“in the case of an offence under paragraph (a)”
the fine should be “not exceeding level 3”. However, under paragraph (a) the penalty would apply to somebody
“on whom a requirement is imposed…if…without reasonable excuse he fails to comply within the period specified”.
That means that he would not be providing the information within 14 working days. That is, I submit, a relatively minor contravention that should merit, if indeed it is prosecuted at all, only a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. Obviously, if a person responds to the requirement and, in so doing, gives information that he knows is false in a material particular, that is much more serious. The gravity of that could be reflected in a fine not exceeding level 3 rather than a massive one at level 5. I look forward to my hon. Friend explaining why the fine levels in the Bill were chosen.
Mr Chope
Exactly. Sometimes the imagination of those who draft private Bills runs away with them and they think of all possible scenarios. Requiring someone who has taken all reasonable precautions to avoid a contravention to set out in writing their information about other people who might have been up to no good, goes too far.
On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who I am sorry is not in his place, made a point about the immobilisation of builders’ skips—I think the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) also raised that issue. If a builder’s skip is unlit, not properly guarded, causing a nuisance, filled with rotting rubbish or whatever, is it sensible to immobilise it? That is the challenge I put to the promoters of the Bill with amendments 17 to 19, which would leave out clauses 12 to 14.
If the owners of a skip have offended against provisions in part 3 of the Bill, surely penalty notices and so on will be involved. To immobilise the skip in the meantime, thereby preventing its owner from removing it when it is not lit or causing a nuisance, seems to go slightly in the wrong direction. I am sure I am wrong about that, and when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East responds to the debate he will put me right and explain why London would be a better place if all skips were immobilised. The fact that this was a cross-party issue and taken up on Second Reading was not properly addressed in Committee, so I hope it can be addressed in response to my remarks. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend in the hope that we can proceed with these amendments in a similar way to the previous ones.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) for outlining his various amendments. I will run briefly through the promoters’ view of each. I trust that he will see the logic that they have applied.
The amendments relate to proposals for the decriminalisation of the position on builders’ skips. The power to enforce the rules and if necessary—I emphasise that—immobilise skips when relevant notices are not complied with will instead be put in the hands of the local authority. The authority will have to be convinced that immobilisation is the correct thing to do.
Amendment 10 suggests that information should be provided only if it
“is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provision of section 9”.
I think my hon. Friend has got the wording incorrect, because the requirement set out in the Bill is under section 139 of the Highways Act 1980. The problem, as Members will see if they come to various parts of London and see skips on the roads, is that there may be a name on the side of a skip, but it might not be accurate, because skips are swapped around various companies at various times. The amendment would place a severe burden on skip suppliers to ensure that the details were accurate. On that basis, I do not think it would be sensible to accept it, particularly given the rest of the Bill’s provisions.
The promoters wish to accept amendment 11, and on reflection believe that 14 days should be allowed for compliance. That makes better sense.
Amendment 12 is about the maximum fine for not complying with a request. For clarification, I point out that a level 3 fine is currently £1,000 and a level 1 fine £200. The Government are currently consulting on increasing those levels fourfold, and the Ministry of Justice has raised no objections to the proposal that level 3 be the appropriate fine for the offence set out in clause 8(5)(a). In fact, a level 3 fine is lower than the fine in some equivalent cases. For example, under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the maximum fine for the equivalent offence is level 5, which is £5,000. The promoters have sought the right level for an offence of this type. If skips are placed on the road in contravention of highways law, appropriate fines are needed for the local authority to remedy the situation. If the owner did not provide relevant details, the local authority would find it difficult to remove the skip, immobilise it or take appropriate penalty action against the supplier. People need to understand that if they deliberately flout the rules, they will get a severe fine.
Amendment 13 is about the offence of knowingly supplying false information in response to a legitimate request from a local authority for the name of the provider and owner of a skip. The Bill currently provides for a level 5 fine, which is £5,000. The amendment would lower the fine to £1,000. A draconian fine is required to prevent people from knowingly misleading the local authority, so that they cannot leave a dangerous skip on the road without the authority being able to identify who had done so.
Amendment 14 lowers the threshold at which a penalty charge notice could be served when a skip owner does not take reasonable steps to comply with the existing requirements. We need to make it clear that the Bill is a decriminalisation measure. At the moment, there are no “reasonable steps” elements in it. The amendment, therefore, would water down the requirements considerably. The general public—motorists, pedestrians and others—have a right to believe that if skips are placed on the public highway, they will be properly positioned, properly lit and will not be dangerous to motorists or pedestrians. The amendment would water down the proposals considerably and unfairly.
Bob Blackman
The current position is that were that to happen and lighting were removed, a criminal offence would have been committed. The police would step in and take appropriate action against either the owner of the skip or the owner of the property at which the skip was based. Clearly, we want skips that are placed on the public highway to be lit properly and placed in a sensible and not a dangerous position. I will come on to that point later. We can water down the criminal law and remove the ability of people simply to claim, “It’s nothing to do with me, guv. What can I do if someone removes the lighting?” That does not change the fact, however, that someone has driven their car into a badly lit skip, causing immense damage. At that point, it will be a matter of ensuring that the wrong is put right, and that, if it is not, a fine is issued. It is as simple as that.
Amendment 15 would require names, addresses and telephone numbers to be marked on skips. That would change the law in London, meaning that skip owners would face much more draconian measures in London than outside it. [Laughter.] My hon. Friends smile and laugh, but when someone acquires a skip in London, they do not necessarily acquire it from a site in London; they might acquire it from a skip owner outside London, who would then have to take it to London. If the amendment were passed, the owner would be burdened with having to mark the address and phone number in a way that did not apply in the rest of the country.
I know plenty of skip-owning firms that come from way outside London to provide skips, as well providing skips in their own areas. The amendment would provide for a regulatory burden in London that did not exist elsewhere, resulting in the potential problem of people inadvertently falling foul of the law. I agree that there might be an argument for amending national legislation in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch suggested, but he is a promoter of deregulation, wherever possible, and I do not believe that we want to impose unnecessary regulation on businesses outside London. The amendment is therefore unnecessary and should not be pursued.
Amendment 16 deals with penalty charge notices. If we left out subsection (8), anyone served with a PCN could say, “It’s not me, guv. I’m not responsible.” As far as I am aware, whenever a PCN is issued for an offence on the highways, it is for the person served to substantiate whether someone else was responsible. If we left out the subsection, that person could say, “It’s nothing to do with me”, and then the authorities could not pursue those responsible. For that reason, we would resist the amendment.
Business of the House (11 July)
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman
Mr Chope
I agree with my hon. Friend, who, as so often, gets to the nub of the issue and the inconsistencies in the line taken by the business managers. Of course, we do not yet know what line officially they will take towards the sittings of the House, except that, judging by the motion, they think it desirable that we do not all have a say and that the debate be limited to two hours. I had not anticipated that we would have the chance to begin a debate on this important subject this evening.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend not agree that the scope of the private business to be debated on Wednesday—provided it is given time—is extremely narrow and that it will be a challenge, even for the ingenuity of those who hold such Bills to account, to come up with a debate lasting three hours?
Mr Chope
I hear what my hon. Friend says, and if he is right, that is all the more reason why we should not support this motion, because otherwise those of us who wish to debate the private business, including him, will find ourselves hanging around in the House until a three-hour debate about VAT for air ambulances has been completed. Our entitlement under Standing Orders to have our business debated between 4 o’clock and 7 o’clock will have been taken away from us, which would be very unfair.
Bob Blackman
We cannot anticipate the House’s decisions on the motions dealing with the sittings of the House. There may well be only two Divisions, which would rapidly truncate the voting following that debate and enable the business to move forward much more swiftly. If that were to happen, the series of Divisions that my hon. Friend has alluded to would not take place.
Mr Chope
We can speculate as much as we want to about what might or might not happen, but my experience in the House leads me to suppose that we always ought to look for the unexpected to happen on such occasions. We do not yet know how many amendments will be tabled to the sittings of the House motion or how contentious the debate will be on whether we should continue to have September sittings. It might all go through on the nod, in accordance with the primary suggestions of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr Knight), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, but it also might not. I have heard rumours about what might be the consensus emerging among Members, and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) might have heard contradictory rumours, but essentially there is a strong onus on those who want to change the sitting hours of the House to put that case and to argue it successfully against those who would say that they have made their arrangements for this Parliament on the basis of the sitting hours that were already laid down at the end of the previous Parliament.
London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman(12 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to introduce the Bill to the House. It is promoted formally by Transport for London and Westminster city council, who do so at the request of all the other London boroughs, including the City of London, and through the good offices of London Councils, the representative body. It is therefore fair to say this Bill has the support of all political parties across London.
This is a different Bill from the one we valiantly promoted over the past few weeks, and which my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) led on. Sadly, he is unable to be in the Chamber tonight—because he is still suffering the after-effects of the previous debates on that Bill.
Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I am sure we are all very sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) is unable to be present. However, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on taking on the responsibility, and he will know that that previous Bill has not completed its passage through this House. Discussion of it will be resumed next Tuesday—it is to be hoped at precisely 7 o’clock.
Bob Blackman
Indeed, we will have a series of Bills; as with London buses, once we have enjoyed one, another will follow. I hope we will conclude discussion of the Bill in question next week, and I trust we will be able to start the debate on it at 7 o’clock.
That Bill has proceeded further than the Bill currently being debated, which has been in its gestation period for a considerably extended period.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that question and although I will not digress at this point, I shall explain further during my speech why there are not only two but three Bills going through almost at the same time.
It is fair to say that private Bills of this type have been promoted regularly by London boroughs for many years. That goes back to the days of the old London county council, of which many might mourn the loss, and to those of the Greater London council, and runs through to the advent of the Greater London authority and the Mayor of London. This is the third Bill to be promoted by the boroughs and Transport for London since TFL came into existence. Separately, the London boroughs have promoted no fewer than 10 London local authorities Bills of their own and TFL has promoted three of its own over the years.
It is therefore fair to say that Bills of this nature are not uncommon—far from it, in fact. I mention that because during our recent debates it has been suggested that London local authorities Bills are somehow different from or new in comparison with what happens elsewhere in the country. They are not new. This form of localism has been practised over many years and it has been so successful that Governments of all parties have taken sections from the provisions pioneered in London local authorities Bills and advanced them in national legislation. For example, the Localism Act 2011, which I strongly support, includes provisions on fly-posting that were first introduced in a London local authorities Act. That demonstrates that what happens in London can subsequently be taken forward nationally.
There has been a long wait for this Second Reading. When I was asked to take on this Bill, I was reminded that we reviewed its provisions at a council meeting in 2006 when I was deputy leader of Brent council, and we initiated this draft Bill when I served on the Greater London authority, although at that stage it contained many more proposals and clauses.
Finally, the Bill was introduced in the House of Lords as long ago as January 2008 and First Reading in this House took place on 28 March 2011. Before I move on to the contents and details of the Bill, it is right to explain why we have had to wait so long for it to come before the House. A threat to the Bill emerged after the House of Lords Opposed Bill Committee reported in March 2009. A group of bodies that represented sporting interests voiced concerns about two clauses that would have enabled London authorities to recover the costs of cleaning streets and imposing traffic regulation measures at sporting and other events. It soon became clear that the sports bodies had very strong support among peers in the other place and the promoters recognised that there was therefore a potentially serious threat not just to the clauses in question but to the whole Bill.
Unsurprisingly, the promoters embarked on a process of negotiation with the sports bodies. It has proved to be a very long process indeed. Without going into all the details, it is enough to say that agreement in principle was eventually reached before the general election of 2010. Although the promoters believed that agreement had been reached with the sports bodies in 2010, a further point of dispute arose, the conclusion of which was not achieved until the beginning of 2011. As part of the agreement, the clauses were removed.
Mr Chope
To go back to the sports bodies who were concerned about the Bill, am I right in recalling that the compromise agreement that caused provisions to be withdrawn from the Bill involved the large football clubs in London entering into an agreement with the local authorities on sorting out the problems of litter emanating from the playing of those first division and premier league football matches? Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether that voluntary agreement has now been implemented?
Bob Blackman
Not only premier league and first division football teams, but other sporting events throughout London were involved. Coming as I do from the Wembley area, I remember the negotiations that had to take place between Wembley stadium and the local authority on the clearance of litter, which was the subject of a section 106 agreement when the stadium was rebuilt. However, not all the stadiums in London are being rebuilt so separate agreements had to be reached with those bodies. It is quite right and should be accepted that huge amounts of litter are generated by sporting events, so why should local council tax payers have to bear the cost of the litter dumped by visitors to stadiums? Voluntary agreements have been reached and my understanding—I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong—is that they have been adhered to thus far and fully implemented across London.
After the general election, the Department for Transport raised a number of new issues with the Bill that required the promoters to give detailed consideration to the drafting in some other respects. The Department asked the promoters not to hold Second Reading in this House until they had responded in detail to those points, hence there was a further delay while the points were ironed out and notice was given of Second Reading last July. Second Reading was objected to by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and others.
It became clear at that point that clause 17, which relates to pedicabs, was the subject of strong opposition from all sides, in particular the pedicab industry on the one hand and parts of the taxi trade on the other. Petitions were deposited against the pedicab clauses by pedicab operators, taxi driver representatives and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers. Essentially, one side wanted stronger clauses whereas the other side wanted no clauses at all. Following further discussion between the promoters and the pedicab industry, the promoters have decided that they will not proceed further with clause 17 and they will ask that the Bill is amended in Committee to remove it. In those discussions, it has been agreed that the pedicab industry will take steps towards self-regulation. After that, it will be monitored to see whether self-regulation achieves the requirements. The promoters have been working with the pedicab industry to achieve that and, consequently, propose to withdraw the provisions from the Bill.
Bob Blackman
I understand that the Bill’s promoters will submit that in Committee for the inspection of those who wish to see it. I know that the promoters have written to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who have specific concerns about clause 17, to inform them of the position.
Let me address the clauses that will be implemented, which cover seven distinct subjects. Clauses 4 and 5 will enable London authorities to attach street lamps and signs to buildings without requiring the consent of their owner or occupier. This will bring the rest of London into line with the City, where the City of London corporation already has those powers. The intention is to avoid cluttering streets with more and more street furniture; that is a particular concern right across London. In response to the points made by the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Ms Winterton), in her report to Parliament on human rights, the promoters have amended the Bill. Subsections (3) to (7) of clause 4 now require authorities to serve notice on the owner of the building in question and to take any representations into account. Also, subsection (12) requires authorities to come forward with a statutory code of practice on the exercise of the powers. The provisions on compensation have also been amended in favour of the property owner. Leading counsel’s opinion on the compatibility of part 2 with the European convention on human rights has been obtained by the promoters, and she is satisfied that it is compliant.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend has not mentioned the petition against the Bill that has been put forward by the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association. Are the promoters going to give any further concessions as a result of the concerns that those two organisations continue to express?
Bob Blackman
The promoters agreed to introduce proposals in Committee to exempt theatres from the legislation so that no street furniture will be adhered to such buildings, because of the nature and type of buildings concerned. I trust that my hon. Friend will be satisfied that that particular objection will be fully answered and that no further action will be taken.
Clauses 6 and 7, which deal with damage to highways, are uncontroversial. They will enable London authorities to recover the cost of repairs to the carriageway—not just the footway as the current law provides—where damage is caused by construction traffic. The measures will also enable them to require by way of a planning condition a deposit before construction work commences. That will be warmly welcomed across London, where construction traffic frequently causes damage not only to footways but to the public highway. It is often very difficult for local authorities to recover funding for dealing with that.
Bob Blackman
One of the key concerns about damage to highways and footways across London from construction work is about recovering the costs of repair, which otherwise have to be borne by local council tax payers. Those costs should properly be charged to the firms carrying out the work—hence the rationale. However, I will refer my hon. Friend’s comments to the promoters to make sure that this issue is clarified in Committee.
Part 3 concerns builders’ skips and its main purpose is to decriminalise offences relating to such skips, such as putting them out without a licence or not properly lighting or protecting them. Such actions are a menace to road users of all types and the Bill enables the highway authority to require information about who the owner of the skip is in order to determine on whom penalty charge notices should be served. Clause 10 provides that the owner of the builder’s skip will be liable to pay any penalty charge arising from a contravention. Representations may be made against the imposition of penalty charges, and appeals made to an adjudicator, much like the existing parking regime in London.
Part 3 will also alter the powers of the highway authority to place conditions on giving permission for placing a skip on the highway and enable the authority to insist that the skip have lights or a guard, or a system of guarding, as an integral part of the skip. Once again, that is a key part of ensuring the safety of all road users.
Bob Blackman
The key point, which is clear, is that that is a criminal offence and subject to enforcement by the police nationally. The purpose behind the measure is to get to a position whereby the local authorities can impose those penalties and ensure that they are properly and effectively enforced so as to prevent people from committing quite serious offences. This sensible measure, taken in London, might eventually be rolled out across the country. We are talking about what should happen in London.
Bob Blackman
To clarify, the position is that these are already offences in law. However, as things stand, there is no capability for local authorities to do anything about them or take enforcement action in London. The purpose behind these measures is to enable local authorities to enforce the rules and ensure that penalties are served on those who indiscriminately place skips on the public highway outwith the proper conditions, without proper protection and without proper lighting. The difficulty that a number of London authorities have is pursuing skip owners. Unfortunately, not all skip companies write their name and phone number on the side of their skips. Identifying who is responsible for a skip is often a challenge. These clauses will help to clarify that and give local authorities the ability to deal with those skips. As to how they will be immobilised, I look forward to seeing diagrams of the ingenious devices that will be produced.
Mr Chope
It is inherent in what my hon. Friend says that the police are able to deal perfectly adequately with the problem of skips right across the country. Why do London authorities think they need a completely different regime for dealing with skips, when up to now the police have been quite competent at doing so?
Bob Blackman
I am not one to criticise the police—far from it. The police do a wonderful job in this country. However, I do not want the Metropolitan police to spend their time pursuing skip owners and people who indiscriminately leave skips on the public highway. I would much rather the police were pursuing burglars, muggers and violent criminals, than people who had committed such an offence on the public highway. The measure is much in keeping with the decriminalisation of car parking that was carried out a number of years ago, which led to local authorities imposing car parking controls and ensuring that penalty notices are properly served and car parking restrictions are properly implemented.
Mr Chope
If there is a case for decriminalisation, surely the best way of proceeding would be for the Government to introduce national public legislation enabling local authorities to enter into decriminalisation of these offences if they wish, instead of the piecemeal bottom-up job that my hon. Friend is trying to promote.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I have no objection to the Government coming forward with legislation. I am sponsoring the measure on behalf of London authorities, which all agree that this is a severe problem in London. It may well be that in my hon. Friend’s constituency there is a problem, in which case he can promote suitable legislation there. This is all about proper localism. As I suggested earlier, in the fulness of time other local authorities may also lobby the Government for such measures. This is all about implementing a measure in London, trying it out and possibly rolling it out across the country, as I suggested earlier.
Clause 16 deals with interference with barriers and makes it an offence to open, close or interfere, without lawful excuse, with a barrier that is erected by a traffic authority that is intended to prevent the passage of vehicles or any class of vehicles into, out of or along a highway. There has been no objection to this sensible measure. A number of roads in London are closed off for normal purposes, but there is a requirement that barriers should be movable for emergency vehicles to gain access. Unfortunately, because barriers can be moved, unscrupulous individuals tend to move them. The clause would make it an offence to do so unless one is a proper person duly qualified by the highway authority to do so.
There have been substantial objections to clause 17, which deals with pedicabs. The promoters will seek to drop the clause in Committee. Despite that, there have been a large number of objections. Hon. Members who have been to the west end recently will almost certainly be familiar with pedicabs. They are sometimes known as bicycle rickshaws. They usually consist of a large tricycle with an open carrying cabin to the rear for passengers. They operate to all intents and purposes like taxis, charging fares for what are usually short journeys. They are found mostly in the west end of London and they are currently not regulated in London at all. They give rise to a number of problems, which have been the concern of the promoters and others.
The promoters have decided to ask the Bill Committee to remove clause 17. None the less, I should briefly explain what it would have done. The clause relates solely to traffic management; it does not deal with the safety of pedicabs or the fitness of their drivers—believe me, pedicab drivers have to be fit. The clause would have assisted the councils and TfL in identifying the owner of a pedicab and enabled them to serve a penalty charge notice when a parking or moving traffic offence had been committed.
The clause would have operated only if the councils or TfL already had arrangements in place for a voluntary registration scheme for pedicab owners or if a separate statutory licensing scheme had been enacted. That is because such a scheme would undoubtedly require pedicabs to display some sort of plate that could be used to identify the owner. The clause, in itself, would not have set up a statutory licensing or registration scheme, although there is of course a demand for that in some parts of London. An attempt to introduce a statutory registration system was made in a previous London Local Authorities and Transport for London Bill, but it was rejected by the Committee on that occasion.
Two pedicab companies, Bugbugs and Reliable Rickshaws, have petitioned against the clause, as have the London Cab Drivers Club and the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers, which represents taxi drivers. As hon. Members can guess, the petitioners have very different views about the merits of the pedicab trade but are united in their opposition to the clause. Hopefully, the proposed withdrawal of the clause will appease all those who objected, but it will probably satisfy none of them.
Bob Blackman
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I think that a voluntary system of regulation is needed and should be attempted. If such a system does not work, I am sure that we will return to the matter in a further such Bill in future.
Mr Chope
My hon. Friend will know from looking at these petitions that as long ago as 2003, on the application of Robert David Oddy v. Bugbugs Ltd, the courts suggested that primary legislation would be required. Is he of that opinion? If so, would he suggest that it should apply right across the country, and why does he not start putting pressure on the Government to bring forward that legislation?
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Pedicabs are almost unique to the west end of London; I have not heard of or seen any pedicabs anywhere else in this country. In the due fulness of time there may be a requirement to regulate pedicabs throughout the country, but at this point it is specifically a London issue and specific to a distinct part of London.
It is therefore for London local authorities and for TFL to determine what they are going to do. They have responded to London cab drivers and to various aspects of the taxi driver lobby, who share the view of the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) about the pedicab trade, but equally they have understood that the pedicab trade itself has responded in a very—[Interruption.] Ah! The hon. Member for Ealing North is present. The pedicab trade itself has responded by saying that it is being unfairly treated, but we will have to see whether the voluntary system works, and if it does not we will have to return to primary legislation.
Part 5 refers to charging points for electric vehicles and enables London authorities to provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles on highways and to permit third parties to do so. The clauses in part 5 set out the procedures for that provision and create an offence of the unlawful use of charging points.
The number of electric vehicles has increased rapidly since the Bill was first thought of some six years ago, and the Government are very much in favour of encouraging their use. I strongly support the use of electric cars and look forward to their being the principal cars on the roads in London in the not too distant future. The Mayor of London has made it a priority to encourage electric vehicles on our roads, and there has been no opposition whatever to part 5, except from the Society of London Theatre, which was concerned about points being placed directly outside theatres.
Bob Blackman
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The location of the electric charging points, which is the nub of his intervention, will be the subject of appropriate consideration. It would be foolish in the extreme to site electric charging points where there were going to be huge crowds. I cannot imagine, for example, electric vehicles being charged up outside football stadiums, where crowds would be charging over them. That would not be a sensible siting, and that is why we want sufficient electric charging points to coincide with parking meters, where people are allowed to park, so that, instead, they are legitimately able and permitted to park, they can charge their vehicles at the same time and they can be charged by the local authority for the electricity that they use.
Mr Chope
Following the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) made, does my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) accept that planning would be a much better regime with which to control the location of such charging points? Why should one not have to obtain planning permission if one wants to install a charging point in a particular place on the highway?
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend is a great supporter of deregulation and of reducing the burden on business, but I cannot think of anything more cumbersome than having to obtain planning permission for an electric charging point on the highway. I can just imagine the extended time that that would take. The proposal will allow London local authorities to introduce such charging points in sensible and appropriate places, where the public can access them easily and we can encourage the use of clean, green electric vehicles.
I hope that my very brief outline of the provisions of this worthy Bill has persuaded hon. Members of the merits of giving it a Second Reading and minimised the necessity for an extended debate.
London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]
Debate between Christopher Chope and Bob Blackman(12 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Mr Chope
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it does cause offence. If he thinks so, why does he not get something done about it in his local authority area? Why does he not campaign for a public Bill to deal with that? I find the Opposition spokesman’s support for this partisan legislation quite bizarre. He seems to think that his local authority suffers similar problems to London local authorities, yet he is doing nothing about it at the same time as imposing upon the people of London new burdens and responsibilities. I hope in due course we will hear more from the hon. Gentleman and that he will expand on his views.
Bob Blackman
My hon. Friend will appreciate that the streets of London are relatively congested with parking. One frequent complaint from residents is that the places where they can legitimately park are taken up by people who are running a business by putting their cars for sale on the street, taking up the very parking places that residents could occupy. Does he not accept that that is one of the purposes of the Bill?
Mr Chope
I understand the distinction between the points made by my two hon. Friends. Surely the solution to the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) is for the local authority to create a residents’ parking regime on the road that is being used, to the annoyance of local residents, by a lot of vehicles not based in that area.
Even in my constituency, which is semi-rural, people are taking literally the idea that the Government are encouraging them to park and ride. They think that they can park on any piece of highway, even if it causes lots of problems. I have an issue involving a residential school for disabled children where the staff can no longer park on the highway by the school because people commuting to London are parking there earlier in the morning—about 7 o’clock—and teaming up for lifts to places such as Southampton Parkway station. That is creating a problem.
The solution is not, however, for East Dorset district council to promote a private Bill; the solution is for it to use the powers it already has to regulate parking in that area. From my experience as a London borough councillor, I would suggest that where a lot of people are parking in residential streets close to rail termini or underground stations, the solution is for the local authority to introduce a parking restriction between, say, 8 am and 10 am, making it impossible for a commuter to park in that space over the period and leaving it available for longer-term residents or people who wish to use the space for legitimate residential purposes.
If there is a mischief here, it applies not just to parts of London but right across the country, and it can be resolved by local authorities exercising their powers sensibly under the principle of localism without having to introduce heavy-handed private legislation.
Bob Blackman
Is my hon. Friend now advancing the view that in the light of the Localism Act 2011, which the House wisely passed and which gives local authorities a general power of competence, none of the Bill is applicable and every council in London can do all this without reference to the law because it has a general power of competence? Is that his stance?
Mr Chope
That is probably one of the most compelling points made in this evening’s debate. My hon. Friend, with his knowledge of the city of Westminster, says that people are not able to do the mischief that clause 10 seeks to address, so what is the point of it? I hope that our hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green will be able to get some advice as to why it is necessary at all. Perhaps the problem arises because some residents are a bit snooty and worry that, when visitors come for dinner, they might see a car parked in the street with a sign in it saying that it is for sale and that more information is available on the internet. Perhaps they think that that would lower the tone of the neighbourhood. Even in circumstances in which residents were limited to one parking permit, they could still display such a label inside their vehicle, which could, in the eyes of some people, lower the tone of the neighbourhood. I do not know whether that is the justification for the proposal. We could debate whether it was a sensible reason for introducing this kind of legislation, and for introducing clause 10 in particular, but I do not think that it is sufficient justification.
Amendments have been made to the Bill, and some clauses have been completely cut out of it. That shows that, in its original conception, it was put forward without proper forethought by a lot of rather ambitious officials. No doubt the ratepayers of those local authorities have paid dearly for the services of the parliamentary agents and other advisers involved. As with so many private Bills, however, it would have been better if those people had spent more time thinking about what they really wanted to put into it and about whether it was really necessary, before launching it for our consideration in the House.
Bob Blackman
Some vehicles that are being sold on the street have signs in their window saying that they are for sale at a given price, and that is quite clear. One of the problems associated with selling motor vehicles on the street, however, is that some unscrupulous individuals do not put such signs into the windows of the cars; they merely advertise them for sale on the internet. So the priggish neighbour who worries about what their visitors will think when they come round for dinner could be faced with a whole street filled with cars that are being sold on the internet by a business, rather than being labelled as for sale for everyone to see.