HC Deb 09 November 1970 vol 806 cc105-12

Order for consideration, as amended, read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

I am glad to have been called at this stage to speak because there is an important question which I should like to have resolved and have in the open before the discussion of the Bill begins.

It might be thought that the association representing borough councils is in a position to ask the G.L.C. to spend money on behalf of the borough councils. I gather, however, that according to Clause 14(1)(a) there must be a vote by each of the borough councils concerned so that the association representing them has a mandate, as it were, from three-quarters of the borough councils.

I understand that originally the idea of the London Boroughs Association was that there should be a simple vote at a meeting of the Association among the councils represented there. I am advised, however, by certain people who claim to know the law that Clause 14(1)(a) may preclude that from happening and that, in fact, this greater number of councils will have to vote and that that vote will, in due course, have to be conveyed to the Association. It is important that the position is made clear because, to my knowledge, the Association was under the impression that only a simple vote among the council representatives was necessary.

7.14 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone)

I will not comment on the point raised by the hon. Member for Shoreditch and Finsbury (Mr. Ronald Brown).

I commend the Bill, as amended at the consideration stage, to the House. Several Amendments were made at that stage, mostly of a minor and drafting nature, though material changes occurred in Part IV of the Bill, which deals with walkways.

Walkways are basically of two sorts, those at ground level, which hon. Members will probably know as pedestrian precincts, and those at an elevated level, on the first or second floor level—for example the walkways in the Barbican scheme or the Shell Centre. When these sorts of buildings are constructed there is a conflict of interest between the developers, private owners or property users and the statutory undertaking authorities that must provide certain public services, like gas and water. This could also affect the electricity and Post Office authorities, but to all practical ends it is gas and water undertakings with which we are concerned tonight.

The G.L.C. is trying in this Bill, as it tried at the consideration stage, to hold the ring between, on the one side, the property owners, shop owners and developers and, on the other side, the gas and water undertakings. The G.L.C. has tried to strike a fair balance between the rights of developers and the needs of the gas and water authorities.

For example, if the gas and water authorities are required, as part of their statutory undertakings, to provide gas and water to a building, the best way for that to be done might be by taking the necessary pipes and cables underneath or along a walkway. If that is an open thoroughfare there may not be very much to object to, but it may form part of a building or a shopping development, in which case the Multiple Shops Federation and the National Association of Property Owners both felt that their interests had to be protected in this matter.

The Committee decided, after a lengthy discussion—indeed, the discussion went on for nine days—first, that the apparatus of the statutory undertakings should be installed in a walkway only if no practical alternative was possible, and secondly, that every case must be referred to the Ministry, whether or not a practical alternative was possible.

As this was not entirely a matter which concerned London—because authorities and private developers are building these sort of constructions in growing numbers—the Committee also said: Your Committee have carefully considered this Bill, which was introduced into Parliament mainly in accordance with an undertaking given by the Promoters during the passage of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill of last Session. This is the material passage: They are of the opinion that the matters dealt with in Part IV of the Bill are more properly a matter for public legislation. While they have therefore agreed to the Bill, subject to certain amendments"— to which I have referred they consider these provisions to be of a purely temporary nature, and they recommend that the Government should bring forward legislation at an early date in the next Session to provide a comprehensive code for Walkways". Obviously this is a matter which must be cleared up, for it is bound to arise throughout the country. I hope that the Minister will give an indication of the Government's intentions.

7.18 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page)

The House is acquainted with the provisions of the Bill, which is, of course, a carry over from the previous Parliament where, in addition to being debated on Second Reading on the Floor of the House, it occupied, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Kenneth Baker) said, nine days in Select Committee. Those deliberations before the Select Committee have been of great assistance to the Government.

Private Bills are frequently the pioneers of reforms in the general law and this Bill has undoubtedly been such a pioneer, particularly in relation to the subject of walkways, to which my hon. Friend referred.

The first private Measure to include statutory provisions for walkways was the City of London (Various Powers) Act, 1967 and since then the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Corporation Act, 1968, the Liverpool Corporation Act, 1967 and the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act, 1969, have each included walkway provisions.

In February, 1968, an advisory group was set up to consider the problems raised by the increasing provision of walkways and, in particular, to consider whether this matter should be left to private Bill legislation or whether there should be general legislation on the subject. Its report was produced in February, 1969, and had quite a limited circulation at that time. Copies were sent to interested associations, hon. Members who had asked to see it, local authorities, parliamentary agents and so on. Because of the interest in the report, however, I have arranged for copies to be available for hon. Members in the Library.

The Greater London Council's walkway powers were first taken in the 1969 Act. Unfortunately, the advisory groups report on walkways was too late to influence the drafting of that Measure.

During its passage, however, the Bill was amended so that statutory undertakers would be able not only to use their existing powers to place their apparatus at ground level where there happen to be walkways at ground level, but to place apparatus on elevated walkways with the agreement, in this case, of the Greater London Council or of the borough councils. In case of disagreement, an arbitration procedure was laid down in the 1969 Act, but the details of that procedure were open to criticism and the Greater London Council gave an undertaking during the passage of the Bill that led to that 1969 Act to introduce amendments. Those amendments now appear in Part IV.

The amendments led to a long discussion in the Select Committee, which amended the Bill to require the Minister of Housing and Local Government, first, to determine disputes over whether or not a proposed walkway was similar to a normal street, and therefore one where statutory undertakers might exercise their existing powers and, secondly, to give a right to statutory undertakers to install their apparatus in an elevated walkway only if the Minister was satisfied that there was no satisfactory practical alternative. In that case, the Minister may specify an apparatus and the manner in which it will be installed.

The Select Committee also submitted to the House a special report, which has been quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone recommending general legislation on walkways in this present Session. I need not repeat that recommendation, but I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will be glad to know that the Government have accepted the Select Committee's recommendations that there should be general legislation on the subject of walkways. Work is in hand on this legislation and a Bill will be introduced—not, I fear, in this Session, but certainly as soon as possible having regard to the legislative programme. As is apparent from the advisory group's report, legislation on the subject is bound to be complex. It involves such matters as planning, highways, compensation, public utilities, safety, policing, fire precautions, building regulations, and so on.

Not surprisingly, perhaps, the walkway provisions in the current Greater London Council Bill and in the 1969 Act do not in a number of respects follow the recommendations of the advisory group, nor, indeed, do the other local Acts which I have mentioned obtained by Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Liverpool, and it will be necessary to reconsider the provisions applying to these three cities—Greater London, Liverpool and Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

The general legislation may not in all respects follow in detail the report of the advisory group, but the report provides a very valuable starting-point from which to consider the complex issues involved. Bearing in mind this complexity and the views of the Select Committee on the need for general legislation, it would clearly be undesirable for Private Acts to proliferate these walkways powers. It would, however, be unreasonable to oppose the present Bill on those grounds. I would be happy to see the Bill passed with its present provisions relating to walkways and, perhaps, for those provisions to be overtaken in due course by general legislation.

I want to reserve the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on the general legislation as regards, in particular, the arbitration jurisdiction placed on the Minister by the amendment proposed by the Select Committee. I am not at all sure that to require the Minister to arbitrate is in this case the correct procedure for arbitrating. It may be proper to set up some other form of arbitration between the owners, the local authority and the statutory undertakers. However, this aspect is receiving careful considerating, and in due course we shall lay the proposals before the House.

There will, of course, be the usual discussions with interested parties when work on the general legislation has gone far enough. But, pending the introduction of legislation, if any hon. or right hon. Member is moved on reading the report—copies of which, as I have said, I have had placed in the Library—wants to bring any matters to my attention for consideration in the drafting of the legislation, I hope that he will do so.

Another matter that I wish to mention—

Mr. Ronald Brown

Before the Minister leaves that point, he will recall that I asked the Attorney-General of the time whether he would examine whether or not in any claim against statutory undertakers or borough councils responsible for walkways, the judgment made in 1968 on an application under the 1961 Highways Act—which failed because the distances between the paving stones were very great—would still hold in regard to damage sustained by any person walking on a walkway. It is not clear here, although the matter has been closely examined, whether or not the 1961 Act in respect of nonfeasance will be applicable, and whether the 1968 High Court judgment invalidates Section 1 of the 1961 Act.

Mr. Page

The position is that in the City of London, the Newcastle-upon-Tyne and the Greater London Council Measures walkways are not highways, so that the misfeasance or nonfeasance rule does not apply. In the Newcastle Measure, walkways are highways and it may well be that the misfeasance and nonfeasance rule does apply. I am speaking without a note in choosing in which city it is a highway and in which cities it is not a highway, but in that case the walkway is a highway and in the others it is not. This is a subject to which we are giving very considerable study in preparing the coming Bill: whether these walkways should be highways and one then subtracts certain rights and duties from them, or whether one makes walkways ordinary rights of way and adds certain highway duties to them. I ask the hon. Gentleman to await our proposals on legislation, but I assure him that the point he makes will be carefully borne in mind.

Since the hon. Gentleman has intervened, perhaps I might deal with his question on Clause 14. I understand that this Clause has arisen from an arrangement between the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Association by reason of certain contributions to voluntary organisations providing services, mainly health and welfare, for London as a whole. Those contributions are at present made by the Council on behalf of the London boroughs and recovered by the Council by means of the rates precept. The London Boroughs Association requested the Council to promote this Clause in place of the existing arrangement so that there would be a statutory basis that would enable the boroughs to control their own communal expenditure on such contributions, and on the provision and maintenance of hostels for drug addicts. That would relieve the council of the need to cater for this in its precept. I think that what the hon. Gentleman was concerned with was whether this would need some request from the London Boroughs Association. I do not think that follows. It would require some request from the borough council concerned. Once it is included in this Private Bill, it is within the power of the Greater London Council and of the borough council concerned.

Mr. Ronald Brown

This is the point I was questioning. I believe that the London Boroughs Association believes that all that it was doing was ratifying something which it had normally done, on voting, by simple majority—that is, by two-thirds majority—of the total number voting in favour of any distribution of funds. We understood that by this method we were making it statutory that we did not have to oblige ourselves to the G.L.C. but that we would increase the voting to a three-quarters majority.

As I read it and as I understand the hon. Gentleman, he is now saying that the borough council would have to vote separately before the Association could accept it as a part of the three-quarters vote that is necessary. If this is true, it means that all the voluntary bodies would have to make their applications to the Association much earlier so that the Order would go out to the councils to determine their attitude to it and then be received back by the Association before it could decide whether there was a three-quarters majority. Then it would have to ask the G.L.C. to pay. If this is not clear, we could be getting what we did not want, mainly, a delay in helping the voluntary organisations.

Mr. Page

I will look into the matter again and let the hon. Gentleman know if I am wrong in what I said. We wish to avoid any delays such as that which he has referred to.

The third matter arises out of Part III, which deals with superannuation. These are some small amendments to the superannuation scheme. It is rather urgent that they be provided in the Bill, because certain individuals are losing by the present law. Therefore, I would not want to delay Private Bill legislation on this subject, but this is a matter upon which general legislation is necessary and, indeed, the contents of such legislation has been fully agreed between all the parties concerned. The legislation will make general provision concerning superannuation for local government employees and will simplify the procedure, particularly with regard to the amendment of the rules relating to superannuation. It will avoid the necessity for Private Bills on these subjects in future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will introduce this legislation as soon as possible, but again, because of the parliamentary timetable, I cannot yet say when that will be.

I commend the Bill to the House and hope that it receives the approval of the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, considered.

Bill to be read the third time.