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

My hon. Friend says, ““Why not?”” from a sedentary position. I commend the Third Reading report to all interested Members, as it sets out the problems that their Lordships saw with the Bill, to some of which they drew this House's attention. Indeed, they invited this House to look at it again to deal with the problems they had identified in our further consideration. Earl Attlee said on Third Reading:"““The Government are committed not to create new offences unless it is truly necessary to do so.””" One problem is that the Bill seeks to create new offences. I would accept that in one respect—responsibility and liability in respect of skips transferred from the police to local authorities—but the general thrust of the Bill is to create more rules and more regulation. Earl Attlee went on to say that the Government had not reached a final conclusion about the matter. He said:"““The Government's position on increasing the burden on business is very clear and we will be considering””—" we should note the future tense—"““whether, in our view, the Bill would create an unacceptable burden on business in order to make our views known before the Bill reaches Committee stage in the other place.””" We may hear more about the Government's view when we hear from the Minister later. According to what Lord Attlee said, I understand that the Government had notified the Bill's promoters that some clauses could be improved or altered by minor amendments, particularly regarding the affixing of street furniture to buildings. One specific suggestion was made—that the owner of the building should be served with a notice, giving the exact date on which the work would begin, and setting out the terms of the use of electric vehicle charging points installed and operated under the Bill's powers. The noble Lord went on to say:"““We will be seeking to reach agreement on amendments with the promoters before Committee stage in the other place as it is then that the Bill can next be substantially amended.”” —[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 March 2011; Vol. 726, c. 1034.]" I emphasise the words ““substantially amended””. Clearly, on Third Reading in the other place, the Government had serious reservations.