HL Deb 25 October 1999 vol 606 cc127-34

(" .—(1) The functions of the Secretary of State under section 2 of the Trafalgar Square Act 1844 (care, control, management and regulation of the Square and its ornaments etc) are transferred by this subsection to the Authority.

(2) In that section, the words from "by and out of such Monies" to "by Authority of Parliament" shall cease to have effect.

(3) The functions transferred to the Authority by subsection (1) above shall be functions of the Authority which are exercisable by the Mayor acting on behalf of the Authority.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 553C, 553D and 576NA. These amendments make provision for the transfer of day-to-day responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the GLA. Both squares will remain Crown land. The mayor will be responsible for the repair and maintenance of the fabric of the squares—that is to say, cleaning, lighting and structural repairs to statues—and for controlling and licensing use; for example, giving permission for rallies and events, advertising and filming on Trafalgar Square.

Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square are public places of great historical and cultural importance to London. They both have a role in the life of the whole nation. It is appropriate that the mayor should have responsibility for them. The transfer of the squares is considered essential to the implementation of the "World Squares for All" master plan project, on which the mayor will take the lead. This is a flagship project, which demonstrates how, through careful traffic management and some pedestrianisation, we can redress the balance between vehicles and pedestrians, improve the historic environment and give these great squares back to Londoners and visitors to enjoy.

I should like to take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's strong commitment to the World Squares project and to seeing the proposals developed and implemented as soon as possible. Perhaps I may also add a personal note. As chairman of the GLC central area planning and transport board in the mid-1970s, when the "Three Squares" project was started—comprising Leicester Square, Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square—I was able to see through the Leicester Square part but was frustrated as regards the other two squares. Therefore, I have a particular personal interest in seeing that this project goes through.

Given management responsibility for Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square, together with the responsibility for strategic routes including Whitehall, the mayor will be able to champion the World Squares scheme and ensure that a consistent management regime can be established through the project area.

The Bill gives the GLA the power to make by-laws applicable to the two squares, for which the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be the confirming authority. These will replace the existing parks and other open places regulations. The funding currently provided by the Culture Secretary for the care and maintenance of Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square will be transferred to the GLA. The mayor will be able to seek the expert advice and assistance of English Heritage and other bodies in making arrangements for the specialised maintenance of the squares and the monuments in them.

It is intended to lay further amendments on Third Reading to give the mayor new enforcement powers (which the Culture Secretary does not have) equivalent to those of Westminster City Council, the neighbouring local authority, to control illegal trading in the squares. This will enable the mayor to deal effectively with the longstanding and ever-increasing nuisance caused by illegal traders in Trafalgar Square and to prevent such problems arising in Parliament Square. However, anyone looking at the square in its current state will realise that there is not much scope for illegal vendors, or anything else.

The intended further amendments will also give the Culture Secretary the power to issue guidelines to ensure the effective care, control, management and regulation of the squares. The intention is to issue guidelines initially to reflect current policy for managing in particular Parliament Square. This approach recognises the national significance of the squares and provides a policy steer without constraining the mayor's discretion to carry out his or her new responsibilities. The mayor, and any other person or body exercising the mayor's functions, will be required to take the guidelines into account when exercising any duties or powers with respect to the squares.

It is envisaged that the mayor will make contracts and arrangements with other organisations in respect of most of these functions. For example, Metropolitan Police constables and officers of Westminster City Council could undertake policing functions in the squares, the latter specifically in relation to unlicensed traders. It is intended to lay a further amendment to ensure that it will be beyond the scope of the mayor's powers to engage private persons or organisations such as private security firms to undertake policing functions.

However, any decisions on whether a particular march, rally, assembly or demonstration should take place in the squares are to be taken by the mayor—consulting others such as the Home Office—and not delegated to one of the other organisations I have just mentioned. The Government believe it is right to ensure that decisions affecting the longstanding tradition of public access to Trafalgar Square for demonstrations and rallies should be taken by a democratically elected authority. We intend to lay a further amendment at Third Reading to give effect to this requirement.

The House authorities have confirmed that the inclusion of Parliament Square will not render the Bill hybrid because the transfer of responsibility relates only to Crown land and no private interest is involved. I beg to move.

Baroness Anelay of St. Johns

My Lords, these are significant new clauses transferring the management responsibility for Trafalgar and Parliament squares from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to the Greater London Authority. As the Minister has remarked tonight, both Parliament and Trafalgar squares are of national importance, part of our national heritage and part of our being. When visitors from the rest of the UK come to London for the first time, they make a beeline for the squares and carry away with them memories and perhaps photographs that last for ever.

The importance of Trafalgar Square was very much in our minds last week because of Trafalgar Day. Yet despite the importance of this amendment I am rather dismayed that the Government are asking the House to pass it today in its half-finished form. As the Minister said, further amendments will be laid next week at Third Reading. These amendments were laid by the Government only on Friday. I had some slight prior knowledge of the amendments thanks to the courtesy of civil servants whom I telephoned last week to find out what on earth had happened to one or two amendments that the Government had flagged up in Committee but which seemed to have died in the wings somewhere along the line between Committee in July and Report in October. I was informed that one of the two amendments might not appear today and would probably appear at Third Reading but that other amendments were waiting in the wings that were far more significant than those I was inquiring about on the telephone. The civil servants said nothing improper at all; everything was absolutely within the rules. I was relieved that the regional policy branch was up to date in its work but I was dismayed that the House was not to be made aware of everything that was going on until such a late stage.

Last week the Minister gave me his word—which he has kept in full—that he would give a proper explanation today. Therefore I shall not discuss each and every aspect of the amendments that he is to propose next week. I shall refer to one aspect of those and to some aspects of the amendment that he has laid today. I welcome what the Minister said with regard to changes to the law which will hit those unscrupulous people who are "ripping off" tourists—there is no other way to put it—by selling hot dogs, burgers, you name it, from unlicensed trolleys that they wheel around. Suspect food is certainly being sold to unsuspecting tourists. I am sure that we on this side of the House would welcome any moves to try to prevent that continuing. Such rogue traders only give the licensed tradespeople a bad name. After all, restaurants, cafés and fast food outlets all have to follow serious regulatory regimes on hygiene issued by environment departments. These rogue traders can do pretty much as they like and "hoof off '—I beg noble Lords' pardon; that is unparliamentary language. I should say that they make a quick exit.

I am aware of a court case earlier this year which makes it very difficult to apprehend people selling such food on Crown land. As I understand it, the court decided that it is only the owner of the trolley—I cannot think of another word for it—who can be prosecuted, not the person selling the food. It is of course very difficult to find out who the owner is.

Turning from what is in the amendment to what seems to be missing from it, the Minister has assured us that there will be a transfer of resources. Will that be each year, year on year, with the normal increase in spending awards, or will it be a one off payment?

The Minister referred to demonstrations and that the responsibility for saying yea or nay as to whether a demonstration may be held will be transferred to the authority, to the mayor. Have the Government carried out any assessment of what the impact will be of this transfer of power from central government to, in effect, the GLA? He mentioned policing and other matters. Will there be any change in the way in which demonstrations are allowed, or will the rules remain the same as those which currently pertain, bearing in mind that it is always very difficult to ensure that these rules are enforced?

In Amendment No. 553D, subsection (2) relates to penalties for contravening by-laws. Will the penalties be at the same level as is currently the case? At present, one is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 1 on the standard scale. Will the current level of penalty continue?

Have the Government taken into account how long it takes to introduce by-laws? I have received a very helpful note from Westminster City Council on the matter. It suggests that a more effective approach would be for the Bill to provide that the management of the squares should become subject to the powers and duties of the London local authorities legislation. That would immediately and effectively solve the problem and also ensure quick action to tackle some of the current difficulties.

These are significant amendments. I am disappointed that they have reached us at such a late stage. I look forward to seeing the amendments at Third Reading. I hope that they will make imperfect amendments slightly better.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes

My Lords, I am very unhappy with the amendments. I know that the noble Lord has a great interest in world squares. That is a good thing; I do not dissent from it. He said that Leicester Square is a success. As I understand it, it is managed by Westminster City Council.

Going back to my day, we had to remove the pigeon droppings many times every day from Leicester Square. It is an enormous problem in Trafalgar Square. When I was chairman of the local health committee we tried giving these feral pigeons contraceptive pills. Unfortunately they did not work, as we can see, and the pigeons developed a taste for them. We then paid someone to take all the spare pigeons out of London. That was not much use because they all flew straight back in.

Pigeons are a great health hazard and people find them very unpleasant. There are some people who misguidedly believe that they are doing some great kindness by encouraging the birds. The only person who really wants to encourage them is the man selling the pigeon food. I was very sorry when the man who trapped the pigeons and sold them to restaurants was arrested and stopped from doing so. I thought that at least someone was doing something.

The day-to-day management of the square is important. I can understand the noble Lord's point that there needs to be permission to hold a rally or other event in the square, but it would be very practical if the day-to-day management of Trafalgar Square—and, to a certain extent, Parliament Square—was carried out by Westminster Council. What will happen if it is hemmed in by a big walled area surrounded entirely by Westminster with only the square as the exception? The situation has always been unsatisfactory in terms of the square's management and control. Nowadays, the authorities are better able to control the sale of illegal or unpleasant food.

Westminster has a very good licensing system. In my day the council would not issue anyone a licence—I do not know why they allowed illegal trading. The authority was absolutely opposed to licences. However, since then the system has been changed and licences are issued. Vendors must prove that they are of good character and they must meet the basic requirements. It would be much more practical for the council to deal with the problem. As I understand it, the Greater London Authority is intended to be a strategic authority rather than an operational one. If it embarks on setting up street cleaning services and other tasks—I take the noble Lord's point that such matters could be contracted—it seems to me that the process will be that much more circuitous and less efficient than if the day-to-day management was given to the local authority and all the other powers were retained by the council.

My noble friend made an important point on by-laws; how quickly would they be produced and would they be effective? Those points are important and can be dealt with fairly quickly. However, I am concerned to learn that yet another set of amendments will be brought forward. I am not happy with the ones before us, and if yet more are added, that will concern me even more. I am not in favour of the amendment.

10 p.m.

Earl Bathurst

My Lords, with reference to the comments of my noble friend as regards pigeon droppings in Trafalgar Square, can the Minister confirm that if his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport will be involved, will shooting syndicates be formed for the squares to clear up the pigeons? I should be glad if he could confirm that point.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for her welcome to the amendments. At the beginning of her speech she wondered whether they had died. It was not so much that the amendments had died, but that they were struggling towards birth. The litter—if I may describe the point in terms of animal husbandry rather than those of waste management—is not yet complete. For that reason, we shall have to bring forward further amendments at Third Reading.

The noble Baroness asked me whether the resources to be transferred from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport will be moved on a continuing basis. The answer to that question is yes. In regard to the impact on demonstrations and rallies, the noble Baroness is right in thinking that the initial guidelines will describe the current practice for granting permission for such demonstrations. We all recognise that this is rather like Speaker's Corner. It is an essential part of our liberty in this country that there should be rallies and that there should be control of rallies only if there is real risk of public disorder. That is why the power to grant permission for rallies and demonstrations should not be given to any body other than a democratically elected authority.

The noble Baroness also asked whether the penalties for contravening by-laws will continue in their present form. I can confirm that the answer to her question is that they will. One of the reasons for issuing guidelines to describe current practice, to which the mayor shall have regard, is that, as the noble Baroness rightly observed, it can take a long time to establish new bylaws. At the instigation of Westminster City Council, the noble Baroness asked me whether the London Local Authorities Act could be used. However, that is a local provision and thus could not apply to Crown land.

The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, took me back to the 1970s and the situation regarding Leicester Square. It was because of the relationship between the Greater London Council, on which she and I both served, that it was possible to manage Leicester Square by agreement between Westminster and Camden Councils. But as the noble Baroness may have noticed, there is now no Greater London Council. That is why we have to make these different arrangements.

As to the day-to-day management of the squares, the amendments make it clear, and the Bill will make it clear, that contracting on issues such as cleaning and maintenance can and certainly will go outside. Other things being equal, it is common sense for them to go to Westminster City Council. But as some parts of the responsibility, including control of the statues, has to stay with the mayor, because these are of perhaps not strictly strategic but certainly London-wide importance and national importance—indeed, international importance—it seems better to make the transfer here and then to contract specific duties back to Westminster City Council.

The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, referred to the continuing involvement of the DCMS. It will be in the form of the guidelines which I described. The noble Earl can speculate as he wishes as to what those guidelines will contain. I was rather amused by his example of how to deal with pigeons. None of us has succeeded anywhere else in doing it. As for pigeons, the Secretary of State will have no continuing involvement. It will be a matter for the mayor. I am sure that the Secretary of State is very pleased to have that taken out of his hands.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, does he accept that I did not agree with the amendments? The approval I was showing was for the fact that I agree that Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square are of national importance. I certainly agreed with the noble Lord's comments with regard to that. I did not in any way imply that I believed that the amendment carries out something that is necessary or welcome in itself. The noble Lord will, I hope, have taken note of the dismay that I expressed with regard to the late tabling of the amendments and to the fact that they have been tabled in a half finished form.

Has the Minister also taken note of the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady Gardner with regard to the fact that the House is not in a position at the moment to give proper scrutiny to the amendments because other matters are outstanding which will come forward next week? In view of those matters, will the Minister withdraw the amendment at this stage and simply bring back the amendments at a later stage on Monday when they can been seen in their complete form in the round with the other amendments to which he has already spoken today?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, the last thing I would wish to do is t o put any words into the mouth of the noble Baroness. I accept what she says about her reservations about the content of the amendments. I certainly agree with her that it would have been better if we had been able to produce all of them before that. However, these amendments are not in themselves defective. They are valuable. We made the decision that it was better to put them forward now for debate rather than to save all the amendments until the last ones were available at Third Reading. If we made the wrong decision, I can assure the House that it was made with the best of intentions—to ensure that there was as much proper debate as possible and that we gave notice of the content of the amendments which we will introduce next week. It was with the best of intentions that we took this action. In the circumstances I think it is best that we pursue these amendments now—on the basis that they are themselves complete and perfect rather than have them stillborn, if I may return to my previous metaphor.

Baroness Miller of Hendon

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I make a final plea to him to reconsider. Many amendments to the Bill have been put down and questions have been left unanswered because the amendments came in late and we did not have the opportunity to consider them. Nor has the Minister had the opportunity to answer questions properly. We have discussed those matters at great length. I understand that the amendments were put down on Friday and that the Government need the other amendments as part of a package—despite the Minister's comment that they are complete in themselves.

The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, may be aware that the Under-Secretary of State and the Chief Whip discussed with the House earlier the fact that many of the amendments that should deal with people working for the GLA have not even been drawn up. So far as Third Reading on Monday is concerned, those amendments will not be ready—which probably means that Third Reading will extend to Wednesday. There is no shortage of time. We have discussed the amendments at length and it would be much better policy for the noble Lord courteously to withdraw the amendments so that we can deal with the whole issue on Third Reading.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey

My Lords, I cannot accept that argument. I made clear in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we sent the amendments to her and all noble Lords who had expressed an interest in this part of the Bill on Thursday—although the amendments were only put down for publication on Friday. I made it clear also that the amendments are sufficient in their own right and serve a useful purpose. I was trying to be helpful in giving as much advance notice as I could of further amendments.

The amendments have been available for debate. Any noble Lords who wanted to question their content could have done so, yet nobody has done so within the rules of Report stage. I have answered all questions— none of which struck me as being particularly antagonistic. Under the circumstances, it would better to proceed with the amendments. They will be printed and if noble Lords have second thoughts and want to amend them, they can do that—which they could not do if the amendments are withdrawn now. We can consider the related amendments on Third Reading, without wasting additional time. I hope, on mature consideration, that that meets with the approval of members of the Opposition Front Bench.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 553C: After Clause 334, insert the following new clause—