Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Bob Blackman and David Nuttall

Thursday 19th January 2017 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

3. How the Church of England plans to support prisoners and prison chaplains across the prison estate.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

6. How the Church of England plans to support prisoners and prison chaplains across the prison estate.

Homelessness Reduction Bill

Debate between Bob Blackman and David Nuttall

2nd reading: House of Commons
Friday 28th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I can confirm that the Bill will deal with care leavers. They are included in line with one of the suggestions made during the pre-legislative scrutiny process of the draft Bill.

The Bill will help to stimulate partnerships between local authorities and other public bodies by making sure that key public services are part of the process and have a duty to refer anyone identified as homeless to the responsible local authority. It also creates a power for the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory code of practice, providing further guidance on how local authorities should deliver their homelessness and prevention duties. This will be amendable and helpful when it comes to raising standards or sharing best practice. I do not want us to stifle local authorities that have creative schemes, but I want to make sure that all local authorities are brought up to the standard of the best.

In acknowledgement of the point raised by the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), the Bill will help to make sure that private sector accommodation has been checked by the local authority when the authority secures accommodation for vulnerable households, ensuring that it meets the specific suitability requirements, including the legal checks required of properties, before being offered to people.

I have now described the ambit of the Bill, and it would be fair to say that it has been a long process to get to this stage. Crisis convened an expert panel of council representatives, lawyers and housing experts as well as others from the charity sector to look at ways to update homelessness legislation in England. I want to put on record my particular thanks to Jon Sparkes, Matthew Downie and Maeve McGoldrick from Crisis, particularly for their exceptional support throughout this whole process and for working with me to put this legislation together and help it reach this stage.

We drew on the Select Committee report and the work of the expert panel, publishing a first draft of the Bill in August. It was then put through pre-legislative scrutiny. The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government held an inquiry and produced a report on the draft version. The Bill is complex and it is unique in that it originates from a Select Committee report, has been scrutinised by the Select Committee and has been substantially amended as a result.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend has set out all the steps that he has taken prior to this morning in preparing the Bill. Does he agree that he has set out the gold standard, if I may put it like that, for what other Members should do before they bring private Members’ Bills before the House, and that Members should not just turn up and expect them to get through?

[Bob Blackman]

When I set out on this journey, I did not realise just how much work was going to have to be done. If Members are bringing legislation to this place to change the law, I believe they should go through a long process and ensure that their Bills are thoroughly tested before they present them.

The Select Committee recommended that clause 1, on the extension of duties to 56 days, should be retained—and the Bill has been kept in line with that recommendation. The Select Committee also found that the Bill’s original measures on the consequences of non-co-operation did not offer sufficient support to vulnerable households. As a result, this aspect was completely reworked, with the bar for non-co-operation during the prevention or relief stage raised to the level of

“deliberate and unreasonable refusal to co-operate”

to ensure greater protection for vulnerable people. Further safeguards have been introduced to ensure that any household in priority need that is found to have deliberately and unreasonably refused to co-operate will be made an offer of a six-month tenancy. That change is supported by the homelessness charities involved.

The prospect of 56 days of emergency accommodation at the end of the prevention stage, regardless of priority need status, was criticised by the Communities and Local Government Committee. While it agreed with the idea in principle, it added:

“we also recognise the reality that it is not feasible for councils to provide accommodation to all homeless people.”

We heard evidence that suggested that there might be some unfortunate unintended consequences, such as the stimulation of the growth of a market in substandard temporary accommodation—warehouse-style accommodation, for instance—or the diversion of resources from vulnerable people.

Primary legislation is not a panacea. It is not always the best way of tackling an issue properly, especially an issue with a complex range of causes. I am therefore very pleased that the Government have now announced a package of measures—at a cost of £40 million—to tackle rough sleeping, with Manchester, Newcastle and Southwark becoming “trailblazer” councils for preventive work. I believe that that will be a far more effective and flexible way forward, and I commend St Mungo’s in particular for all the work that it does in this regard.

The Committee recommended that clause 2 include the words

“those who have experienced, or are at continued risk of, domestic violence and abuse”.

That has been duly done, and is covered by subsection (2)(d).

In respect of the proposed changes in the definition of a local connection, the Committee recommended that the definition in the original legislation be left unchanged. That too has been done, although a minor correction has been made to the original text to deal with a long-standing issue relating to care leavers, and to ensure that they are protected.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (David Mackintosh), and his all-party group on ending homelessness, for all their support. I also commend the hon. Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), the Chairman of the Select Committee, for all his help and guidance during this process, and for ensuring that the pre-legislative scrutiny was conducted in a fair, transparent manner. As a result, we have ended up with a Bill which I believe has all-party support.

I am also delighted to have secured Government support. I took into account the views of many interested parties, and on Monday the Government finally announced that they would back the Bill. They will fund the additional costs in line with the long-standing “new burdens” arrangements.

Tobacco Packaging

Debate between Bob Blackman and David Nuttall

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Alok Sharma]

rose—

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I have taken several interventions, and I know that Mr Deputy Speaker wants me to make progress.

Once young people start smoking, they are likely to continue for the rest of their lives. Smoking causes much more damage to young lungs, which increases the likelihood of young people dying from smoking-related diseases. The tobacco industry is desperate to retain its market share, and to recruit new smokers every year. After all, older smokers either quit or die, and younger people also die from smoking-related diseases. Most of the new smokers will be children. In my constituency, about 550 children start smoking every year. That is a scandal, and I want to see that figure radically reduced.

To make the control policy more effective, we must prevent children from starting to smoke in the first place. We must adopt policies that make it more difficult for the tobacco industry to target and recruit new smokers. Once again, however, if young people choose to start smoking, that is their right. In trying to find the policies to achieve that result, we could do worse than look at the commercial strategies adopted by the tobacco industry itself. Over many years, the industry has designed its advertising and marketing to promote an image of smoking that is most likely to appeal to young people.

A great deal of information about this has come into the public domain, particularly after confidential industry documents were made public following the US tobacco master settlement with the industry in 1998. I shall give the House an example. An internal R. J. Reynolds document from 1981 states:

“Smoking is frequently used in situations when people are trying to make friends, to look more mature, to look more attractive, to look ‘cooler’, and to feel more comfortable around others. These aspects of social interaction are especially prevalent among younger adult smokers”.

I could not have put it better myself. The fact is that the industry markets itself in that way.

Successive Governments have made it more difficult for the industry to reach its target teenage market. Conventional tobacco advertising is banned, and I welcome that. I also welcome the banning of retail displays in large shops. They will soon be outlawed in smaller shops as well. Stopping smoking in enclosed spaces has significantly reduced the exposure of young people to smoking.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend said that he had no objection to people taking up smoking. Does he not feel that, in a free society, we would cross a dangerous line if we were to prevent manufacturers from differentiating their brand from the others?

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Blackman and David Nuttall

Wednesday 11th September 2013 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

London local authorities are ambitious and keen to get on with the job. They do not need to be told that they have to do it. Some of the other amendments would make it harder for local authorities to introduce charging points.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend not think that if there is a demand for charging points, then private sector operators—for example, filling stations—will meet that demand by providing charging points in their stations?

[Bob Blackman]

I predict that in the coming years petrol stations will provide electric charging points, in addition to petrol. That is not to say that local authorities should not have a duty to consider installing charging points. Local authorities may lead; the private sector might jump ahead of them. That confirms the view that local authorities should not have to provide electric charging points when the private sector has provided them already in petrol stations. Indeed, one frequently finds petrol stations co-located with local authority car parks, for example, so why should the local authority be under an obligation to provide charging points when the private sector is providing them anyway? In my view, the market should take over.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

With the greatest respect, the words “on a discretionary basis” merely refer to the erection of charging points on the highway, not in car parks. There is a distinction.

[Bob Blackman]

I completely accept my hon. Friend’s intervention: amendment 23 would relate to the highway. However, if a local authority was not too keen, it could place one charging point somewhere on the public highway in its borough and thereby perform its duty, which would be bizarre. I suggest that amendment 23 is not very sensible.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I accept the principle behind my hon. Friend’s point, but if a local authority is negligent, it cannot discharge that liability. Let us remember that the charging points will be on the public highway and in public car parks. If someone abuses a charging point, that must be their responsibility rather than that of the local authority. Clearly, if something had been incorrectly connected or was dangerous, that would be the responsibility of the local authority, or of the third party operating the facility on its behalf, to fix it, but only if the problem had been caused by the authority’s negligence.

Let us move on to amendment 28. If someone has used their own connecting cable to plug their vehicle into a charging point on a public highway or in a public car park, the local authority should not have to accept any liability. The responsibility should lie with the individual who has plugged in their vehicle. It is an accepted provision for various electrical devices that it is up to the user to accept responsibility for the cable that they are using. I urge my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch not to press the amendment. Amendment 29 is consequential on the outcome of amendment 28.

[Mr Nuttall]

I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and his argument would be all very well were it not for the fact that a “connecting cable” is defined in clause 16(11) as being

“any cable or wire, whether provided by the authority or otherwise, used to connect the charging apparatus to a vehicle”.

On that basis, the connecting cable could have been provided by the local authority.

[Bob Blackman]

In practice, the motor manufacturers will provide cables to connect their vehicles to the electric charging points. The end of the cable that connects to the charging point will probably be common to all cables, but the end that connects to the car could be different in the case of each make of vehicle. I suggest that local authorities will therefore not provide cables, and that it will be up to the individual car owner to bring the cable with them when they want to charge their vehicle. That is why the amendments are unnecessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Nuttall]

It is, as always, a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I thank him for the good-natured way in which he has steered this Bill through a number of sittings on the Floor of the House, and in particular for the very helpful way he has steered through these amendments, all of which relate to part 5 of the Bill dealing with charging points for electric vehicles. They were so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) at the outset of this brief debate.

This whole issue is important on a variety of levels and for a variety of reasons, but particularly because it addresses a growth area. As my hon. Friend made clear in his opening remarks, this is an area that will receive a great deal of attention in the months and years ahead. The sorts of issues we have debated this evening will be debated at length in the years to come and some of the problems we have identified will be applicable not only to London, but throughout the country, and I regard this Bill as a blueprint for what will follow.

I wonder if it might have been better for this whole issue of charging points for electric vehicles to have been dealt with on a national basis so that we could deal with it across the nation, with a single set of rules and regulations, rather than just dealing with it, as this Bill does, on a piecemeal basis for London alone.

What I call the first sub-group of amendments deals with the provision of charging apparatus within car parks and on the public highway. Essentially, the issue is this: who should have the responsibility for providing these charging points? Should it be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) suggested, purely the private sector, or should it be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch would have it in these amendments, purely the local authorities, or should there be a mix of the two?

If the amendments are agreed to, essentially a monopoly would be created for the London local authorities, in the sense that the permissive nature of clause 16(1) which says they

“may provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles”

would be changed, and the provision would state they “shall” do those things. Under clause 16(1)(a) they would be required to provide those charging points in every single “public off-street car park” and under subsection (b), on a discretionary basis, on the

“highway for which they are responsible as highway authority.”

In my view that goes way too far.

On this amendment and consequential amendments, I am entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the promoters of the Bill in that I think the London local authorities should not be forced to provide these charging points. This part of the Bill is entirely superfluous. Given the Localism Act 2011, I question whether there is a need for specific provisions to give London local authorities the power to provide and operate charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles. Under the general power that all local authorities were granted under that Act, they may already have these powers, should they choose to investigate the matter and make use of them.

This should be left for the market to decide, as was made clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. We are talking about providing the energy to power vehicles. Nobody has ever suggested that local authorities should be responsible for providing diesel or petrol and setting up their own petrol stations, so why does this Bill contemplate giving them the power to provide charging points for electric vehicles? Why the difference? At the start of the 20th century were our forebears in this place suggesting that the local authorities of the day set up petrol stations for the newly invented combustion engine? I suggest that they were not. On that basis, I am suspicious about amendment 21 and the two consequential amendments, 22 and 23. I have to inform my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch that if they are pushed to a vote, I would vote against them.

Amendment 24 would remove clause 16(2), which gives local authorities the power to provide for someone else to operate these charging points, and would mean, in effect, the nationalisation of this scheme. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley, I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch tabled this amendment, as it goes against what I would have thought were his normal instincts in these matters. Nevertheless, it has been tabled and we must consider it. It has a number of consequential amendments, all relating to “authorised persons”. Reference has been made to those, so, for speed of debate, I will not go through them again. The point is: if London local authorities are going to be given this power, it is entirely fair and reasonable that they should have permission to allow another authorised person, if they so wish, to do this work on their behalf and operate these charging points.

The next amendments deal with the issue of liability for these charging points, and we have heard a number of arguments tonight as to where that responsibility should lie. I can only assume that the objective of subsection (7), which would be removed if amendment 27 were accepted, is to try to absolve local authorities of responsibility. There can be no other reason for it. If they were not negligent, they would not have anything to fear; there would be no problem. I am suspicious about why the subsection is in the Bill at all and I agree entirely with amendment 27, which I would support if it were pressed to a Division later this evening.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Blackman and David Nuttall

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my hon. Friend give the House one or two examples of the sorts of signs and effects that would alter traffic systems?

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

It is clearly incumbent on the local authority to make every effort to establish the name and owner of a building, and it would be sensible for it to do that. However, in London in particular, there is often a freeholder, a leaseholder and maybe a sub-leaseholder, and the ownership and responsibility may be confused. The provision is about giving a notice setting out what is going to be done to the outside of a building. That is not particularly draconian, but it is clearly required. A local authority frequently goes through a set of procedures to make such things happen. It would be draconian to frustrate its ability to provide signage or lamps that are wholly consistent with the general requirements of TfL or London local authorities.

Amendment 6 would remove the provision allowing local authorities to use any other existing general powers to serve notice. Councils have a power to do so under section 233 of the Local Government Act 1972, and that power is enshrined in the Bill. The effect of the amendment would be to remove that capability under the 1972 Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch may have difficulties with that Act, but this is not the right place to express them.

[Mr Nuttall]

On that basis, if local authorities already have the power to serve notices, I am not quite sure what the purpose of clause 5(5) is.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I am not sure that I entirely agree with that interpretation. All that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) seek to do is move the word “may” from line 30 to line 31. At the moment it states:

“may make good the damage and recover the expenses”.

If amendments 7 and 8 were accepted it would state:

“shall make good the damage and may recover the expenses”.

In both cases, the “may” would apply to the question of the recovering of expenses.

[Bob Blackman]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, but that is completely the wrong way around. The polluter should pay. The developer who has caused the damage should pay. The point is this: whether they repair it themselves to the required standard of the highways authority or whether the highways authority makes good and then charges is a matter for the local authority. That is certainly something that they should be doing. Certainly, they should not expect the council tax payer or general taxpayer to fund the repair of damage caused by a developer, but, if the amendments were passed, the developer would be under no obligation to make good the damage and the local authority might be unable to recover the costs incurred, which would be a retrograde step.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I cannot imagine that anyone who was acting under the authority and direction of a member of the relevant services would be prosecuted for that.

In summary, on behalf of the promoters, I hope that I have given sufficient explanation to enable the mover of the amendment to withdraw it, rather than pressing it to a vote.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend has said on a couple of occasions that this Bill is a decriminalisation measure. Many people will be somewhat mystified by a decriminalisation measure that clearly creates criminal offences.

[Bob Blackman]

The point is that these are criminal offences at the moment. The proposals would put the power relating to the public highway in the hands of local authorities, so that they would take action to prevent people from allowing dangerous structures—skips, in this particular case. There was something similar many years ago with parking control, for example. Parking control used to be enforced by the police. It was then decriminalised and put in the hands of local authorities to enforce. A similar position is proposed in the Bill. Instead of the police having to take action, local authority personnel would take action. That does not make it any less of a requirement. It shifts the requirement from the police, who I think we would all say have a big job to do anyway and should not have to do such work; it should be the job of local authorities. That is the purpose of the Bill, and that is why I describe it as a decriminalisation measure. The police enforce the criminal law; local authorities have a duty to enforce the Highways Act 1980 and other appropriate rules.

[Mr Nuttall]

On that point, will my hon. Friend inform the House what sort of court someone would be taken to under these offences? Who would enforce them?

[Bob Blackman]

A penalty charge notice would be issued initially. If that is paid, that is the end of the matter. If it is not paid, it is then presumably for the local authority—I would take advice on this—to take the matter to the county court or the magistrates court to push a position where liability orders would be obtained, and the enforcement action would follow in a similar vein to that of a parking offence on the public highway. Hopefully none of that would ever arise, because people would realise that if they failed to observe the rules they would face high penalties. We all want the streets to be safe. This is a set of proposals for when people deliberately flout the rules. We need draconian measures to ensure that that position is maintained.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Nuttall]

The logical conclusion is that the person on whom the authorities have served the notice must turn investigator and solve the problem themselves.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, it would be incumbent on the person served with the PCN to substantiate that the contravention was down to someone else, in the same way as they would make representations against any other PCN. The local authority would then examine those grounds, and if they were relevant and someone else was responsible, the PCN would be withdrawn and issued to the relevant person. That is exactly how local authorities deal with highways offences.

Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with potential immobilisation. Clearly, local authorities in London want the power to immobilise a skip if they deem it appropriate, but of course if a skip is in a dangerous position on the highways, the last thing they are going to do is immobilise it; they will want it removed. If, however, it is in a reasonably safe position and a notice to change the lighting has been issued, the local authority could step in, light the skip and immobilise it using the devices on the market that allow that to be done, making it safe for pedestrians and other road users. At the same time, they could pursue the person who has contravened the rules. A local authority would do that only if it was appropriate to do so, which is quite right. Amendments 17, 18 and 19 deal with that issue.

One of the challenges is what is in the skip. Obviously local authorities need the discretion to remove anything that is inappropriate.

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Debate between Bob Blackman and David Nuttall

Tuesday 6th March 2012 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

My hon. Friend refers to the other London local authorities Bill. Will he give the House a brief explanation of why there are two separate Bills going through Parliament at the same time?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend refers to works traffic but will he confirm that clause 6 does not mention traffic? It merely refers to damage caused by work or any activity associated with work.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bob Blackman]

I was about to come to the aspect of disabling a skip on the highway. It springs to mind that local authorities might have a pound of skips filled with stinking refuse that would be unclaimed by any individual.

This is a particularly serious problem. Under the Bill, there is a power for conditions to be imposed on the provision of a skip on the public highway. That is the key point—if it is on the public highway. That will enable the local authority to insist that there are lights in place, or a guard or some other system, when that skip is placed on the highway so as to protect all road users. The local authority will be able to fix an immobilisation device—

[Mr Nuttall]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Blackman]

May I answer the intervention from the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound)? The key issue is the fact that a penalty notice will have to have been served on the owner of the skip prior to the immobilisation device being placed on that skip. Quite how the immobilisation device will work I leave to the hon. Gentleman’s imagination and to the ingenuity of London local authorities.

[Mr Nuttall]

Leaving aside the fact that I am disappointed not to hear how a skip might be immobilised —I was genuinely looking forward to finding out the mechanism whereby that particular procedure will be carried out in London—is it not already an offence to have a skip on the public highway without its being lit by a marking light at night?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nuttall]

I have to say that the issue has never been raised at one of my surgeries, and it has obviously not been raised at one of my hon. Friend’s surgeries, but by the sound of it, it is a problem all over London, and even as we speak, cars are colliding with skips. Of more interest is the fact that clause 13 relates to the immobilisation of builders’ skips. I am disappointed that we have not yet been able to hear how those skips are to be immobilised, but I look forward to a future debate when we will find out how that will take place.

I referred in an intervention to clause 16 in part 4. The clause relates to gated roads, and I shall not comment further on that. As we know, clause 17 relates to pedicabs, and it has been placed on the record that the clause is to be withdrawn. Part 5 relates to charging points for electric vehicles. If legislation is needed because of a surge in the number of electrical vehicles, surely it should be considered on a national basis. This is the one part of the Bill where a case could be made for that. The idea that owners of electric vehicles in London will stop when they get to the boundaries of London is faintly ridiculous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has suggested, the correct way to deal with that would be through the use of planning legislation.

The Bill’s final clause is another new clause that was not in the original Bill. It would repeal provision in, and make minor amendment to, the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2008. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East might be able to confirm whether that Act had been a private Bill.

[Bob Blackman]

indicated assent.

[Mr Nuttall]

It was a private Bill. Well, there we go. That Bill had not been passed when this one began life, which is amazing, as this Bill is being used to correct that Act. I think I have demonstrated that there is merit in examining these Bills. My very final point shows that even as this Bill was beginning life, the House allowed a defective Bill to be passed. This Bill has been overtaken by events, as I have attempted to demonstrate, and the best thing for it, the promoters and the taxpayers and residents of London would be for my hon. Friend to withdraw it. If he does not, I strongly urge the House to vote against the Bill on Second Reading.