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

David Nuttall Excerpts

Wednesday 10th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Chope]

It may be that my hon. Friend, as so often, anticipates the response to come from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who speaks on behalf of the promoters. We shall have to wait and see. On the face of it, the issue is worthy of an explanation. If the legislation is untried and experimental, that should be clearly set out in the Bill.

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

Might not confusion result from the fact that measures are to be introduced on different days in different parts of London? I might not be as generous in my thinking as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), but could that not be a deliberate ploy to try to confuse people and set up a money-making racket?

[Mr Chope]

It could be, but I am not going to try to follow my hon. Friend by making accusations against the promoters or London authorities by suggesting that the Bill is designed to confuse and ensure that they can get more in penalty income than they might otherwise be able to. Again, the fact that my hon. Friend raises that as an issue demonstrates the climate of suspicion regarding a lot of local authorities in relation to the imposition of penalty charges, which I recall from having read an article are now giving hundreds of millions of pounds in income to London local authorities alone. Many people feel those measures were brought in almost by subterfuge through Bills such as the one we are considering tonight, and now many years later people can see that has resulted in a significant financial burden and quite a lot of injustice. That is why I think it would be better to have simplicity and clarity, which would require that any provisions in this Bill be introduced in all areas of London at the same time on the same day, rather than causing the confusion to which I have referred.

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend raises another point that I had not thought about, which is that these subsections may be superfluous anyway and it is implicit within the powers being given under clause 3 that an appointed day could be a different day for different parts of London in different circumstances, in which case, in trying to keep legislation simple there would be another argument in favour of accepting my amendments 1 and 2, as in leaving out subsections (2) and (3) of clause 3, they would make the Bill clearer. We will have to wait to hear the response to the debate before assessing whether these amendments are of such significance that we would seek to divide the House on them. Speaking for myself, I think it would be reasonable to await the full explanation before rushing to judgment.

Amendment 3 is significant. It is the first of the amendments addressing part 2 of the Bill, and clause 4 in particular, which deals with the attachment of street lamps and signs to buildings, and changing the regulations relating thereto. At present, the regime is pretty restricted under the highways legislation, but this Bill seeks to give much wider powers to local authorities, enabling them to permit the attachment of street lamps and signs to buildings even when that is not approved or supported by the owners of those buildings. This power is potentially quite significant, because the owner of a building could suddenly find they are required to have a street lamp or sign attached to their building.

We know from earlier stages of the Bill that the Society of London Theatre was very concerned about the impact of the measure on theatreland, and it is to the credit of the promoters that they decided that they would therefore exempt theatres, which is why clause 4(14) specifically states:

“This section and section 5 shall not apply in respect of a theatre.”

In a few moments I will talk about amendment 4, which follows on from that. Amendment 3, however, deals with subsection (13), which states:

“A London authority may not, under section 3, appoint a day for the purposes of this section until a code of practice dealing with the exercise of the powers of the said section 45 and the said section 74 as modified by this section has been published by a joint committee.”

My amendment would ensure that the code of practice must not only be published by a Joint Committee but be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport—an appropriate and proportionate safeguard.

[Mr Nuttall]

Amendment 3 specifically suggests that the approval of the Secretary of State for Transport should be sought. My limited understanding of these things is that the normal practice is to specify “the Secretary of State” and leave the actual office open. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend would like to expand on why he has specified the Secretary of State for Transport.

[Mr Chope]

I am not learned in any sense of the term, but this amendment has been selected and I thought that rather than just referring to “the Secretary of State” it would more appropriate if it specified the Secretary of State for Transport. If the Minister wishes to intervene to suggest that it should be the responsibility of a different member of the Government, so be it. The point I am trying to make is that this is a significant issue. It is recognised by the promoters as sufficiently serious in its potential implications as to mean there should be a code of practice to deal with the exercise of the powers. The code should go further, in the sense that it should be approved by the Secretary of State for Transport. It would be unreasonable to expect this code to have to be approved by this House, through a statutory instrument, but it is reasonable to say that there should be a safeguard and that the Government can ensure that the code of practice accords with what is reasonable and proportionate. The Secretary of State for Transport could then be held accountable by this House for approving a code of practice if it did not meet the reasonable conditions we think ought to apply.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

In a sense, that is the other side of the coin my hon. Friend has just used. The answer is that it might not be worth the candle. Why should we force a local authority to try to recover a relatively small sum when the cost of doing so could be disproportionate? That is the best answer I can give to the good point he makes.

Let me turn to amendment 9. This is another example of where the Bill’s drafting is unnecessarily wide. If a highway is damaged as a result of adjacent works, surely the person responsible for paying to repair it should be

“(b) the person carrying out the works; or

(c) the person on whose behalf the works were carried out.”

Why should

“(a) the owner of the land in question”

be the subject of the recovery of expenses if he neither carried out the works nor had the works carried out on his behalf? That seems unnecessarily oppressive, because the owner of the land might know nothing whatsoever about the work being carried out or any damage resulting from it. That incorporates a provision of strict liability in circumstances in which I do not think it is reasonable.

That is why I have tabled amendment 9, which would leave out subsection (a) and ensure that the expenses reasonably incurred could be recovered from the person who carried out the works or the person on whose behalf the works were carried out. That might often be the owner. However, if that person was not the owner, he would not and could not be liable. I look forward to hearing from the promoters of the Bill why they think it is reasonable to expect the owner of the land to be liable in the circumstances that I have described.

[Mr Nuttall]

Is my hon. Friend aware of the definition of “owner”? Is it a leasehold-owner or someone who owns the freehold?

[Mr Chope]

My hon. Friend makes another good point. I do not know. The explanatory notes define “owner” in relation to part 3, but he is asking about part 2. That is perhaps an omission. There may be more than one owner. As he suggests, they may be a leasehold-owner, a freeholder, or, indeed, a sub-lessee. That is a reasonable point of inquiry. It might also be another reason why leaving out any reference to an owner would be the best way forward for the promoters of the Bill.

Amendment 20 is in the same group, which is headed “Highways and general”—“general” in this case. It relates to part 4, which has only one clause—clause 15, on the subject of gated roads, which says:

“Any person who opens, closes or otherwise operates or interferes with a relevant barrier without lawful excuse shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale…In subsection (1) a ‘relevant barrier’ means any barrier lawfully placed in, or over a highway by or on behalf of a traffic authority in London for the purpose of preventing or restricting the passage of vehicles or any class of vehicles into, out of, or along a highway.”

My amendment 20 would leave out all that. If we are to have specific legislation creating a criminal offence for people who open, close or otherwise interfere with such barriers, it should introduce that offence right across the country rather than in a particular part of it. I have no evidence to suggest that there is a bigger problem relating to gated roads in London than anywhere else.

Furthermore, introducing specific offences litters the statute book of criminal law with rather a lot of unnecessary trivia. In this case, if somebody goes along to a barrier and cuts off the padlock or forces it open in some way, they will be guilty of criminal damage, which is obviously already an offence in criminal law. The provision would potentially criminalise somebody who might open a barrier because it was not locked and then find themselves guilty of an offence.

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Philip Davies]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

What a choice! I call Mr Nuttall.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As always, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who went through the amendments with his usual courtesy and in a good-natured and thoughtful way. I am extremely grateful for some of the explanations he gave. I am not entirely convinced by every one of them, as I will explain, but I am extremely grateful that he put forward the promoters’ case so eloquently on their behalf.

It has already been a long old road for this Bill, as I am sure my hon. Friend would agree. Only yesterday, when my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I noticed that it was up for debate this evening, I said, “I seem to recall that I might have spoken on Second Reading.” He said, “I think you did.” I said, “I can’t recall when that was.” He replied, “Oh, it was about March time,” so I went away and looked it up. I found that Second Reading did indeed take place about March time, but March last year—on 6 March 2012, to be precise.

The Bill has changed fairly substantially since it was first introduced in the other place. It has gradually shrunk in size, as clause after clause has been shed, for one reason or another. Members might well be wondering what has happened in the intervening period—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Well, let me help the hon. Gentleman. We are discussing the amendments, and we do not need to hear the history of the Bill prior to the amendments because, in fairness, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) has already set out the subject very well. I know that the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) is desperate to speak only to the amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am indeed. In one sentence, let me say that this is relevant because there was an opposed Committee meeting on 6 November last year that resulted in the Bill shrinking since the last time we discussed it, so we now have a different Bill—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Don’t worry, I do not need to see the Bill shrinking before my eyes. All I want to hear being discussed are the amendments, and I know that that is all the hon. Gentleman is going to do. No more sentences; we are going to stick to the amendments.

[Mr Nuttall]

I was just finishing the sentence, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I shall start with amendments 1 and 2. I am surprised that only two of the amendments have been accepted by the promoters. As has already become evident, there are some good arguments for many of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. Amendments 1 and 2 deal with the starting dates. They are worth considering because it would make sense, if we are introducing new laws that will apply all across London, to have them start at the same time. I listened carefully to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about the need for complete flexibility. He also suggested that it would be somewhat draconian to introduce new rules to be applied across London all at the same time. The other side to that argument is that, if the boroughs introduced the new rules on different dates—or even in different years—there could be confusion, to say the least, as to which boroughs had adopted a particular new rule and which had not.

Let us look at the details of clause 3(2) and (3). They imply that different start dates could be set even within the same borough. Subsection (2) states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to different areas.”

I emphasise the words “to different areas”. The only way in which subsection (3) differs is in its final three words, which are “to an area”. It states:

“Different days may be fixed under this section for the purposes of the application of the provisions mentioned in section 1(3) to an area.”

I appreciate the comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East that the signs could be put in place for temporary reasons, or to implement temporary traffic flow measures. Obviously, no one could possibly argue that that kind of sign should not be put up and then taken down again so as to suit the circumstances. However, I see no reason why that could not apply even if amendments 1 and 2 were accepted and those two subsections were left out of the Bill, which would be a sensible step to take.

Amendment 3 would add the words

“and approved by the Secretary of State for Transport”

to the end of clause 4(13). In an intervention, I said that I took issue to a small degree with my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch. First of all, by limiting the provision to the Secretary of State for Transport, there could be problems in the future if, for example, there were not a Secretary of State for Transport. Personally, I would prefer the description “the Secretary of State”. I heard the Minister say in an intervention that in any event, this matter should be dealt with by the Mayor of London, and there might well be some merit in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

The hon. Gentleman says that he is not convinced by the arguments of his hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who I think said that many of the decluttering proposals were being supported, indeed perhaps even sponsored, by English Heritage. Is the hon. Gentleman thus not only unconvinced, but confused that English Heritage is putting forward these proposals that are about trying to declutter our streets?

[Mr Nuttall]

What I cannot understand is why we would need legislation to remove a sign. I understand why legislation is needed to put a sign up, but I am not aware that once a sign is up legislation is required to remove it; someone could just go and take it down. I would be interested to know from others whether I am right. Perhaps after a certain period, a sign acquires some sort of importance. If it is attached to a listed building, it might become part of the listing. However, there is no evidence in the Bill that that is intended. There is merit in saying that special provisions should apply to the effect that clause 4 should not apply to any building in a conservation area.

Amendment 5 deals with a

“notice served under section 4(4), (8) or (11)(a).”

Such notices can be served in a number of ways. I leave aside the irrelevance of the whole clause; we will come to that in a moment. Clause 5(4) states that the notice could be left

“in the hands of a person who is…resident…employed on the land or leaving it conspicuously affixed to some building or object on or near the land”

or with someone who “appears to be resident”.

I have personal experience of doing the job. When I was first employed as a trainee legal executive, part of my role was to go to far-flung parts of Sheffield to serve such notices. I have done the job and know the problems of serving notices and trying to find somewhere suitable to fix them. I can imagine the situations that may arise when some poor council official is faced with being sent out on a rainy Friday morning to some distant part of London to try to serve a notice.

We need to consider the purpose of serving the notice. It is to ensure that a person affected by this legislation knows what is about to happen. The problem with clause 5(4) is that a notice can be given to someone who just “appears to be resident”. They might not be resident; they might be passing through or cleaning the windows. Some owners clean their own windows, while others employ people to do it. The person serving the notice might easily leave it with someone who they genuinely thought lived there, but that person might stuff it in their pocket without thinking twice.

I will not detain the House any further on this matter, but there is clearly scope for the four words in amendment 5 to be taken out of clause 5(4). The clause would be much better without them.

Amendment 6 would remove an even more bizarre subsection:

“This section shall not be taken to exclude the employment of any method of service not expressly provided for by it.”

In other words all the mentions of methods of serving a notice, such as by post, or sending it to an address that has been given or to a limited company, or, as I have just mentioned, of actually going and giving it to a person—an employee, perhaps—or putting it on an object nearby or on to the building, can be left aside and people can do whatever they like. They can just turn up, perhaps, or put it in a hot air balloon and hope it will drift by, and say, “Well, that was the method I thought of. It wasn’t a very good one, but this doesn’t exclude the employment of any method, so I thought of that. A colleague tried to convince me it should be a carrier pigeon, but I thought a balloon would be a good idea.” This is just nonsense.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) rightly brought up the question of e-mail. Subsection (5) may well be intended to provide for the use of e-mail, in which I case I would say that that is fine and in the modern world there is nothing wrong with serving notices by e-mail. Bearing in mind the long gestation of this Bill, however, I cannot understand why that is not expressly set out in it, if that is what the promoters had in mind.

Amendments 7 and 8 are best dealt with together. The issue in question is slightly confusing because it all revolves around the words “may” and “shall”. As we heard in the exchanges that took place a few moments ago, the interpretation of this clause is everything, really. The whole essence of the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply to make things clear. As the clause is drafted, the authority might make good the damage, but they might not. My hon. Friend’s amendment makes it the case that the highway “shall” be repaired. I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East about that imposing an obligation on authorities, but I would have thought that they would want to see the highway properly maintained for a number of reasons, first from the point of view of their residents and secondly from the point of view of risk reduction. As we all know, it is a very costly exercise for local authorities not properly to maintain the highway, so I would have thought that they would in any event want to make good any damage caused by a contractor, and I see no problem with replacing “may” with “shall” or with moving the word “may” to before the word “recover” so that they may recover the expenses. It may well be that they will do that in every single case, so in 100% of cases they will have the right to go and recover the expenses from the contractor, but that does no more than the clause as drafted does. It already says that they may make good the damage and recover the expenses, so it implies that they may not. I cannot see why this amendment cannot be accepted.

Amendment 9 is very well thought out. I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East made on behalf of the promoters, which was that they understandably want to recover the costs they have incurred, but I cannot understand why they should try to recover them from somebody who may have nothing to do with the damage caused. It makes sense to recover the costs from whoever has caused the damage, on the “polluter pays” principle—I entirely agree with that. However, simply saying that they should have the right to recover them from the owner of the land, without any explanation as to how the owner may be identified—without saying whether it is the freeholder, the leaseholder, the sub-lessee or the tenant—creates a lawyer’s paradise, a description I shall use in relation to amendment 20. I can just imagine the length of the litigation that might ensue from this provision were it allowed to remain in the Bill, so I strongly support amendment 9.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

On reflection, would my hon. Friend agree that the biggest problem with the clause is that it criminalises the good samaritan? As the explanatory memorandum points out, it is an offence to drive along a road in breach of a road traffic regulation, so if somebody finds one of these gates open and closes it to prevent other people from committing road traffic offences by driving through that open gap, they will be liable to a criminal penalty under this clause.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is one of the problems with the clause: it will potentially make criminals out of people who seek to do good. That cannot be right. It also prompts the question of what signage would be in place. In the context of the other clauses, we were talking about trying to remove signs, but there now might need to be new signs to warn people that such activity is a criminal offence. I entirely support the amendment and I look forward to hearing from others.

[Philip Davies]

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I seek to fulfil the same role in this debate as I did in the debate on the previous group of amendments, by speaking briefly and highlighting for my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) where I think he is on to a winner and also where he has not necessarily persuaded me of the merits of his case.

I am rather puzzled by the whole debate on amendment 10. My hon. Friend made a good case for saying that we should ask people to supply information about the owner of a builder’s skip only

“where that information is not clearly and indelibly marked under the provisions of section 9,”

as his amendment sets out. If I understood my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) correctly—I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong, which I may well be—he was saying that because skips change ownership quite often, having just a name, telephone number, address or whatever it might be on the skip would not necessarily be a good enough indicator of the actual owner, because the skip might have changed hands a couple of times since those markings were applied. That might well be true, but the problem is that it flies in the face of clause 9, which states that the owner would have to ensure—I might add that anyone who did not do this would have to pay a fine—that

“the skip is clearly and indelibly marked with the owner’s name and with his telephone number or address”.

The promoters of the Bill cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that such information is required for the purposes of clause 9, but that it would be unfair to require it in clause 8. I would advise my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East to have another think, because my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch is simply proposing a modest, common-sense amendment that goes with the flow of the Bill, not against it.

[Mr Nuttall]

Perhaps I can assist my hon. Friend. The difference might be that clause 8(1) refers to “the name and address”, whereas clause 9(3)(b)(iii) refers to “telephone number or address”, so perhaps the owner could give a telephone number, but not an address.

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate that point, but amendment 10, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, simply says that if the information was already clearly marked, it would not have to be requested. To me that seems a sensible and modest amendment, and I certainly agree with it.

I am delighted that amendment 11 has been accepted—we do not need to waste any time on that. I do not intend to delay the House for long by discussing amendments 12 and 13. I do not have a strong opinion on the level of the fine, but I want to make a wider point on legislation generally. If we look at different pieces of legislation “in silo”, we might find individual fines appropriate or inappropriate, but we could end up in the ridiculous situation whereby some serious offences attract small penalties and some minor ones attract severe ones. Instead, we ought to look at the criminal justice system as a whole, to determine the appropriate level for different severities of crime. I wonder whether this particular offence could attract a much more severe penalty than other, more serious, crimes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. His amendment goes with the flow of the legislation rather than against it, and I think this is a genuine improvement.

On amendment 15, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. Making the provisions for London much more onerous than in other parts of the country would be unfair. The only thing I will say—and here I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I tease him somewhat—is that his point about not providing different rules for London than obtain in other parts of the country is the argument that we have been making in respect of virtually every other part of this particular Bill. He has refused to accept that particular logic with all the other provisions, so it seems to me ironic that he was prepared to pull that argument out of the hat when it suited him, when he has denied it in respect of lots of other amendments on this legislation. I hope he will forgive me for teasing him in that way.

On the final three amendments—amendments 17, 18 and 19—I thought my hon. Friend for Christchurch made a very good point in his usual engaging and amusing way in saying that if a skip is causing a particular problem in a local community, it is surely the wrong solution to immobilise it and keep it there unnecessarily for even longer. I am not entirely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East answered that point to my satisfaction, because there is an unerring logic to what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch was saying. It may well be that there are occasions when immobilisation is the best solution, although my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch and I cannot think of them. I am prepared on that basis to give my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East a rather dubious benefit of the doubt.

I do not want to extend my remarks any further, but I reiterate my hope that if the opportunity allows it, my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch will seek to press his amendment 14, which is the strongest of his amendments and the one that would improve this legislation without doubt.

[Mr Nuttall]

If I may, I will start where my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) left off, and work in reverse order through this set of amendments, presented so ably a short while ago by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope). I am grateful, as ever, for the clarification of what might be termed the case for the defence, so ably made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman).

Starting with amendments 17, 18 and 19, I entirely agree that it is somewhat bizarre that the solution to a problem skip is to immobilise it, but I was persuaded by what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East had to say on the matter. To be perfectly honest, I have never seen one of these devices, and I can only imagine what they must look like. I understand that they both immobilise and light up the skip at the same time, which seems an eminently sensible idea for dealing with a problem skip. I have always thought that even empty skips are particularly difficult to move, so I would not think that they needed much help to be immobilised, although I am prepared to accept that that may well be a solution in some cases.

I turn to the other easy one—amendment 11, which has sensibly been accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East and the promoters. That demonstrates the sense and worth of the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch in going through the Bill in some detail and tabling the amendments. The promoters have accepted that the correct period is 14 rather than three working days.

I turn to the slightly more contentious amendments. I looked at amendment 10 and thought it was merely a clarification. There would be no point in criminalising someone or causing them to commit an offence if the information was patently obvious from looking at the side of the skip, in accordance with clause 9. Apparently, the promoters think otherwise. Personally, I would support amendment 10.

We now move neatly into the debate about decriminalisation. We are not really decriminalising these things, just moving the responsibility for taking action from one authority, the police, to another authority, the local authority. The net result is the same. Anyone reading language such as “commits an offence” would think, “Crikey! They mean a criminal offence.” Apparently, however, the measure represents decriminalisation. I humbly suggest that if clause 8 had read, “A person on whom a requirement is imposed under this section shall be liable to a civil penalty,” that would have been more appropriate if the intention was to decriminalise.

I entirely agree with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said about amendment 14. It is entirely right that when it comes to the liability of someone who has committed a skip offence, to use some shorthand—[Interruption.] Not a skipping offence, but a builder’s skip offence. When it comes to such a person’s liability, the inclusion of the words

“take any reasonable steps to”

is entirely sensible. Although it might look as though one of those specific offences was being committed, there could be a whole host of reasons why a person ought not to be held liable.

The issue of criminalisation is important when considering the question of proof. If the offences are to remain criminal, the burden of proof is “beyond all reasonable doubt”. However, if they are to be dealt with according to a civil burden of proof, “the balance of probabilities” applies—it could be 51:49. There is a whole host of difference between liability in criminal and civil cases. The matter needs to be nailed down. We need to be absolutely clear about whether we are decriminalising this. Is it going to be a criminal offence, or is it going to be a civil offence and is it going to be dealt with under the civil law? That will affect the burden of proof required of those who seek to enforce these requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the big problems is that local authorities have already demonstrated through the use of decriminalised penalty notices that they can be over-zealous and keen to get the maximum amount of revenue irrespective of the justice of a situation, which is why we hear all these stories of traffic wardens hiding and then creeping up on unsuspecting motorists so that they can get extra penalty points imposed and extra fines for themselves and their local authority?

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, as that is one reason why one is slightly sceptical about this sort of clause. Just this day I received a letter from a constituent raising exactly that point about the behaviour of traffic enforcement officers in Bury; it detailed how they have been served with a penalty notice in circumstances where it would have been easy to deal with the matter in another way if more common sense had been applied. That would have avoided having to give a local resident a penalty notice. Such examples make me want to agree with my hon. Friend’s proposition that people will be suspicious that this provision is there to make it easy for the local authority officer to find somebody. It does not matter who they find on this basis; they can give the notice to almost anybody and they will be able to say, “We have done what we can. It is now your problem. If you weren’t responsible, it is now your responsibility to find somebody who was.” I humbly submit that that is clearly not the right way for things to be done. It should be the responsibility of the responsible officer of the local authority to find out who is responsible, rather than expecting a person on whom a notice has been served to identify that other person for the purposes of determining who has committed the offence.

If I were to enter this little competition of saying which amendment I would press, I would opt for amendment 14, as it is entirely reasonable that where someone has taken reasonable steps to avoid committing an offence, they should not be held liable under this part of the Bill. With that, I will wait to hear what others have to say.

[Mr Chope]

In summing up an excellent debate, may I thank my hon. Friend the Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall), for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for their contributions? If the Minister had contributed, the debate would have been even better, as indeed it would have been had the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoken—they demonstrated unusual self-restraint on these important issues, particularly on the issue of “national versus local”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley said, the promoters of the Bill are now saying that it would be unreasonable potentially to impose on operators from outside London a requirement to put their name, telephone number and address on a skip, given that the legislation that applies outside London requires only the telephone number or the address. Clearly, there is an inconsistency between the approach of the promoters to those of us who argue that we should have national legislation on these issues rather than localised legislation.

[Mr Nuttall]

I appreciate that my hon. Friend is summing up, but are we not talking about the same case that was made earlier in respect of amendment 20 and gated roads?

[Mr Chope]

Exactly the same point applies in relation to gated roads, which is why it is a pity that we have not heard from the two Front-Bench spokespeople on where they think the balance should be between individual local authorities, or groups of local authorities, legislating in this area and a responsibility for the Government to try to introduce a national regime.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East has gone through each of the amendments seriatim and tried—