London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Mike Freer

Wednesday 25th January 2012 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

That is correct. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch touched on that in his speech—he omitted to mention other things that I shall discuss today—and expressed the view that the clause was a sledgehammer to crack a nut, but my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) is right: there are plenty of other regulations that could apply.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

To help my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main), the current regulations do not apply to public buildings. Retail and commercial buildings are covered, but public buildings are not, and the purpose of the provision is to extend coverage to them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I accept that. The point is that surely the problem would be worse. If individuals felt that they would not be held responsible for their actions but would get off scot-free, and that the theatre would take responsibility, we might end up with more litter, because individuals will feel free to throw it willy-nilly, knowing that they will not be pursued.

[Mike Freer]

My colleagues seem to be rather obsessed with the views of the Society of London Theatre and the Theatrical Management Association, but they have withdrawn their objections and petition. They did not object on this particular issue but on a different issue—and, as I say, their petition has been withdrawn.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful for that update. They are obviously more easily impressed than I am with what my hon. Friend tells them. I am sure that his powers of persuasion worked wonders on them. I look forward to him speaking at length in this debate so that his powers of persuasion may work on me, and I may be able to withdraw my amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

Perhaps I may help my hon. Friend.

[Philip Davies]

Please do.

[Mike Freer]

The Bill is not in direct contravention of that recommendation. “Turnstile” is a legalistic term. It does not specify the sort of turnstile that would have been used in 1963. If Members visit any tube station in London, they will see the automatic barriers to which my hon. Friend is referring. That is what is meant by a turnstile under the modern definition.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification. What he says is all well and good, but how does he know exactly what kind of turnstile will be put in place by these local authorities? He may well envisage a modern system of access to a toilet, but some local authorities may use the repeal of these provisions to install something that neither he nor I think is appropriate.

[Mike Freer]

I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. The point is that since 1963, we have had the Disability Discrimination Acts and the Equality Acts, which prevent the use of the kind of turnstiles that he is worried about. Because of those Acts, the kind of automatic barriers that we see in tube stations will be what are used under the Bill.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that clarification, but he is not taking into account the evidence that was given to the Communities and Local Government Committee. It is not only people with disabilities who are a major worry in relation to clause 6, but people with buggies or pushchairs and people with a lot of luggage. There may well be other people who will be affected.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Mike Freer

Wednesday 7th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I have greatly enjoyed this perambulation around local government, with bowler-hatted civil servants prodding miscreants with their money-grabbing umbrellas, but that picture bears no relation to the local government that I know. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I have sparred on this Bill in the past—I still have the scars—but I appreciate the vigour and genuine honesty of his approach to scrutiny and to his amendments.

The Bill would not simply allow any local authority employee to prowl the streets of their borough looking for fines. Certainly, the concept that they would be able to collect £1,000 a go as they went about their business is fanciful. I understand that fixed penalty notices would have a set price and would be collected by the borough. The £1,000 fines to which Members have referred would be applied only by magistrates at their discretion and not by local authorities. I shall come back to whether my hon. Friend's amendments remain acceptable.

The Bill has been scrutinised by the Opposed Bill Committee and I am grateful to its members for their work. My hon. Friends the Members for Shipley (Philip Davies) and for Christchurch have made some valid points about civil liberties, but what about the civil liberties of the silent majority who are tired of the antisocial behaviour of a small number of individuals and corporate bodies? It is the silent majority—the council tax payers—who are having to pick up the bill for clearing up enviro-crime. This low-level antisocial behaviour plagues many parts of the country, including the parts of London we are discussing.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley takes a great interest in combating antisocial behaviour. Indeed, he has gone on record as supporting Mayor Giuliani’s zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour and the broken window syndrome. I believe there has been a local problem in his constituency with youths ripping out flower beds and generally causing litter, about which he has called for police intervention.

[Philip Davies]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right—I do take a zero-tolerance approach to antisocial behaviour and to crimes being committed—but as he has said, I have urged the police to take action. I have not called for the local authority to have wide-ranging powers to tackle this issue. I think that is where he and I part company.

[Mike Freer]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention and I guessed that was where we would part company. I wish him luck in getting the police to deal with flower beds being turned over, litter outside fast-food establishments and litter being thrown out of cars, because I simply cannot get my local borough command to take those issues seriously. We could argue for a whole afternoon about whether these are serious crimes and whether the police ought to deal with them, but that is a different issue. The current problem is that the police in London, certainly—I cannot comment on the borough command in Shipley—will not prioritise dealing with litter and enviro-crime. Therefore, we must either leave the issue to fester or allow authorised officers of the local authority to deal with it.

On accreditation, the idea is not that every employee of a council will have the power to go out and start levying fixed penalty notices or taking people to the magistrates court to be fined. We are talking about civil enforcement officers who are already accredited and have significant training on how to prove that an offence has been committed. Councils also have environmental health officers who are highly trained and accredited on how to follow the rules of law and how to provide evidence should a case have to go to court. The notion that the town hall cat will be wandering around the borough levying fines is fanciful. We are talking about seriously trained officials who have been taught how to comply with the law and how to make sure that if there is a prosecution, evidence can be provided.

There are already a number of police civilians—not just police community support officers but accredited civilians—who have the authority to issue notices. We have talked about whether London should be exempt and be a special case, but it is often the starting point for national legislation. It is not unusual for London to set the tone and for other parts of the country follow suit, but it is not only London that does that. I do not know whether many Members are acquainted with Brunel university, but apparently its security officers can issue fixed penalty notices. This is not just about widening scope because London has asked for it—a significant number of authorised civilians can already issue such notices. What we are saying is that London has some specific problems and that specific powers are needed for accredited, trained individuals.

I have covered the point about £1,000 fines being targeted willy-nilly, which simply is not true. That would be the remit of the magistrates court. Let me make a point about the powers of authorised officers. They would be able to take action only where they believed that someone was committing a criminal offence, so the powers would not be used in respect of people going about their lawful business. Hon. Members have talked about conscientious, law-abiding citizens, but conscientious, law-abiding citizens would not be stopped and asked for their name and address and would not face the risk of prosecution. Only those believed to be committing an offence would be caught by the rules in the Bill.

The issue of people giving false names and addresses has been raised. Clearly, with matters such as littering from cars, accredited officers would have access to the registration number, which could be cross-checked with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Many of the enviro-crimes that we see in London boroughs involve repeat offenders, particularly corporates—the large retailers that cause litter on the high street—or other organisations that cause problems on our high streets. Much dumping in our residential streets also involves repeat offenders and there may be a corporate address that officers can go back to if they believe or find out that they have been given a false name and address by the person they have stopped. Clearly, if a false name and address is given by someone of no fixed abode, that person cannot be prosecuted. That is a common problem with the current law that police officers face.

[Philip Davies]

I am slightly puzzled about the corporate causes of litter. Is my hon. Friend insinuating that if somebody walks into a McDonald’s, buys a Big Mac, fries and a Coke, leaves McDonald’s and drops litter on the floor, the responsibility for the litter lies with McDonald’s? Surely the only person with whom the responsibility lies is the person who dropped the litter, and the company cannot be held accountable for what its customers do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I said earlier that this would be a red letter day for him, as so many of his amendments are being accepted. I am beginning to think that it is a red letter day for me too, because I appear to have persuaded him that amendment 9 is the most important amendment to put to a Division. I fear that I must now rely on you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to complete my red letter day, which would be a rarity for me in this House.

I think that I am right in saying that the sponsor is minded to accept amendments 35 to 39, the final amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch has tabled to the Bill. In case I have got that wrong, I want to touch on clause 18 and amendment 35, which relates to it. The clause talks about

“Any person who intentionally obstructs any authorised officer”.

[Mike Freer]

I am happy to reconfirm that I have accepted amendments 35 to 39.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for clearing that up, because I had a great deal of concern about what constituted an intentional obstruction of an authorised officer and what constituted an unintentional obstruction. As he has made it clear that he will accept amendment 35, which will delete clause 18, I do not propose to waste the House’s time by going through it.

I will mention amendment 21, because it appears that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has not accepted it. It relates to clause 8 and the issue of postage. Given that he has been so generous in accepting the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, I am surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green has not accepted amendment 21. I will give it a whirl and try to persuade him that he should accept that amendment as well. It seems not only to be harmless, but to be in the best interests of the local authorities.

Clause 8 attempts to strike out the requirement that the council send its enforcement notices

“in a prepaid registered letter, or by the recorded delivery service”,

and to substitute for it a requirement to send them “by post”. Amendment 21 would strike out that change and ensure that local authorities had to send notices by prepaid registered letter or the recorded delivery service. It is perfectly reasonable that councils should do that, for a number of reasons. These are important matters, as I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green will accept. That is why the Bill tries to address them. If they are such important matters, surely the local authority should have to reflect that importance by sending notices out by recorded delivery or registered post.

I wonder how many of these infringements my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green expects to occur, given that clause 8 relates to the City of Westminster Act 1996, which makes provision about the closure of unlawful sex establishments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

I cannot give my hon. Friend a particular number, but I can try to help him on the issue of postage. My recollection is that county court judgments, council tax arrears notices or bailiff action, penalty charge notices and speeding tickets are not issued by registered post. They are all issued through the Royal Mail. If it is good enough for the police or the courts, surely it is good enough for councils.

[Philip Davies]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a fair point, but of course the big difference between the cases that he mentions and this one is that there is quite a large volume of those notices to go out in the post, so there is a substantial cost saving to the taxpayer in having them sent out by post rather than registered post or recorded delivery.

That brings me back to my question about how many notices my hon. Friend expects to be sent out under the provisions of the 1996 Act about the closure of unlawful sex establishments. I cannot for the life of me believe that the local authority will send out hundreds of thousands of them in any given year. Surely we are talking about a handful at the most—maybe, on the generous side, 15 or 20. I cannot imagine it could possibly be any more than that. So what cost saving would there be? It seems to me that the local authority might save itself £50 or £60 if the change were made, and I suspect that that is a very generous estimate. I am all for local authorities saving money, but surely there are far bigger fish to fry in that context.

I believe that the change would not save the local authority money but end up costing it more. When somebody is sent something simply through the post rather than by registered post or recorded delivery, we do not know whether it has been delivered. When something is sent by registered post or recorded delivery we do know that, because it can be traced back through the Royal Mail. Nobody can deny that they have received the letter. If it is sent out by ordinary post, who is to know whether it has been received by the intended recipient? It may well have been, but it may not.

If the intended recipient claimed, rightly or wrongly, that they had not received it, and the council intended to pursue an enforcement notice on the back of the letter that they sent out, where would the local authority stand? Would it be able to pursue an enforcement notice if the recipient said, “Well, you may have sent it by post, but I never received it, and you’ve got no evidence at all to say that I did”? Might that be contested in the courts? Might a magistrates court or district judge say, “Well, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that this person did not receive the letter, so we’re not allowing this enforcement notice to go ahead until we can be sure that they’ve received the official documentation from the local authority”? To risk going down that road to save a maximum of £50 or £60 a year, or whatever, seems to me unbelievably ridiculous. I suspect that the change would cost local authorities more in the long run. As my hon. Friend has been so generous in accepting other amendments, I really do not see why he is not prepared to accept one that seems so very small.

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Debate between Philip Davies and Mike Freer

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mike Freer]

It is for the Government to decide whether they wish to give that general power to the police. The difficulty here is that, especially with regard to authorised officers such as civil enforcement officers, there is a gap in the legislation. London councils wish to plug that gap. If my hon. Friend wishes to push, through the Backbench Business Committee or other channels, for the Government to pursue this, I will wish him well and support him. However, we have a loophole in London that needs to be addressed.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The problem with that is that London is unique: it is visited by large numbers of people from all over the country and my constituents, for instance, would not be used to such a regime in the Bradford district. How are they supposed to feel when they find on a day visit to London that these powers have been given to local authorities in the capital? How are they supposed to know whether the people concerned have got that power or not? They should be able to have an expectation of what powers people in this country have and do not have.

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I believe that the basic premise is that abuse of the law is no excuse. If people are seeking to litter in London, they should take the consequences. I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents would do no such thing when visiting our fine city of London, however.

Clause 6 corrects an anomaly. At present, only commercial premises are required to prevent the accumulation of litter outside their buildings. This measure allows all public buildings—whether schools, hospitals or police stations—to be covered by the legislation. Closing that anomaly makes all people responsible for keeping their buildings clear of detritus.

Clause 7 includes the rather peculiar measure of the reintroduction of the power to install turnstiles in public lavatories. I never thought I would be elected to talk about public lavatories. I thought I had left that behind when I left Barnet council. However, this is not the old-fashioned, almost portcullis-type turnstile of the 1960s and 1970s; this is the modern turnstile that we are more used to in tube stations, which is fully disability-accessible. This measure will allow particularly the City of Westminster to use the revenue from the turnstiles to be reinvested in the provision of services, including those facilities themselves. We are asking our councils to do more with less and we expect public toilets, particularly in the centre of London, to help in that. This provision will allow the City of Westminster to continue to provide much-valued services.

Clause 8 is predominantly about the “polluter pays” principle. Those of us who live near fast-food establishments will be increasingly annoyed about getting up every morning to find a line of fast-food wrappers all down the highway or pavement. We are used to the people responsible being prosecuted for the litter they generate, but this measure allows councils to recover the costs from the commercial operator trading from the public highway. At present, the council can recover only the cost of the administration of issuing a street-trading licence. This allows the council to recover the costs of clearing and sweeping the highway, and particularly of taking away the litter generated by that street trading. In this age of austerity, if we are asking our councils to do more with less, we should allow them to recoup the cost of providing such services from those who caused the problem.

[Philip Davies]

I am puzzled that my hon. Friend blames local takeaway establishments for litter. Surely he would accept that it is not those establishments that cause the litter, but the individuals who visit them. So why does he want to penalise people who are not responsible and let off those who are?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point, but if he wants to deal with the people who cause the litter, he should support the clause that requires people to supply their name and address when fixed penalty notices are being served. This is a pincer movement, because one provision deals with those who operate the businesses that generate the litter and the other clause deals with those who drop it, and therefore both sides of the argument are covered. The cost of collecting litter in London runs to millions of pounds and it falls on the innocent taxpayer, so either the businesses have to be more responsible or the individuals who cause the litter have to be prosecuted. Either way, the Bill provides the necessary regulations to allow the London councils to get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, but that is not my understanding of how the scheme in London would work. I am more than happy to take that away and to get him some reassurance on it, but my understanding is that if an establishment is inspected on a Monday and gets one star, it is deemed to be an off day. The environmental health officers will probably know whether it is an off day; if they have had cause for complaint about an establishment before, they will know of a pattern of behaviour. If they go into somewhere such as McDonald’s and it is a poor visit, they will know that the company takes such matters seriously and that it is likely to have been an off day, but it is less likely to be an off day in a local corner shop that has had a history of complaints, so it will go back on the risk register. I am happy to take away my hon. Friend’s point and to confirm whether the inspection would be within a matter of weeks, if requested by the establishment, to ensure that people are not stuck with an unfortunate grading that they felt to be unfair.

[Philip Davies]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, although I have a fear that this is a solution looking for a problem. Who will know what a star rating means? If I walked into an establishment that had three stars on the outside, I would have absolutely no idea what those three stars meant. I would not know what the criteria were for one star, two stars or three stars. It might satisfy the bureaucratic instincts of the local authority, but it would not add a great deal to the customer’s experience. I am not even convinced that local councils are best placed to decide these things. I am sure that according to the bureaucratic monsters in local authorities the jam produced by the Mothers’ Union would have only a one-star rating, but I would be perfectly happy to eat it. I am not sure that this is an entirely meaningful measure.

[Mike Freer]

I am sure that the jam made by the women’s institute in Shipley is a fine product. The system with one, two, three, four and five stars is relatively understandable. Most people understand: five stars good; one star bad. My hon. Friend understands a three-star or five-star rating on a hotel, but I suspect that he does not know the mechanics of how that star rating was awarded. If he wants to understand just how the gradings have been arrived at, that information is available to him and I shall happily forward him the details. Most people seem to understand one, two, three, four and five stars.

--- Later in debate ---

[Philip Davies]

I certainly am. I would urge any right-minded person, particularly with a conservative philosophy, to do so, because nothing in it supports such a philosophy.

It gets worse than local authorities wanting the power to seize things they have reasonable cause to suspect are intended for some kind of offence. Let us imagine that I am walking down the streets of Westminster trying to take home a hot-dog trolley that I had just bought. What would I do if a local council bureaucrat came along and said, “Hold on, you might use that to sell hot-dogs illegally, so I’m going to take it off you”? Is that really the type of country we want to live in, and are we happy to pass such legislation? Not only would local authorities be able to seize the hot-dog trolley that I had bought legitimately and was transporting home, but they would be able to seize any vehicle used to transport it where they found it in the street. Are we going to give council officers that power? We must be stark raving mad even to think about giving the Bill a Second Reading.

The Minister and the shadow Minister say casually, “Oh, well, of course there are some deficiencies in the Bill, but let’s just iron them out in Committee.” On that basis we may as well not bother with the Second Reading of any Bill. If we are saying, “We all know the Bill’s a load of drivel, but we’ll pass it now so we look as if we’re being supportive and then fillet it in Committee”, we might as well just let every Bill go into Committee and see what we can do from there on.

The point of Second Readings is that Members may not like certain legislation in principle. I do not like this Bill or the philosophy behind it, which is anti-small business and anti-freedom, and I do not like the draconian powers that some council officers seem to think are theirs by right—not in the country that I want to live in.

[Mike Freer]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

City of Westminster Bill [Lords]

Debate between Philip Davies and Mike Freer

Monday 5th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Philip Davies]

I appreciate my hon. Friend’s point about localism, but if we were to take it to the lengths that he seems to be suggesting, we need not bother having a national Parliament. Does he accept that the duty of Members of a national Parliament is to preserve our freedoms and not just to give carte blanche to any local authority to follow an authoritarian route and ban things that it does not like? We have a duty to defend people’s freedoms as well as to defend the principle of localism.

[Mike Freer]

I accept entirely that this House acts as a check and balance on the powers of local governance, but I also look forward to my hon. Friend tabling a private Member’s Bill to legalise or deregulate prostitution and drug dealing on our streets. We cannot pick and choose which freedoms should be traded on our streets.

The City of Westminster and other areas need these powers, not to regulate in a heavy-handed manner, but to revoke the licences of those who seek to cause an obstruction or damage to our local environment. On that basis, I support the revival of the Bill.