§
5. Where the holder of any securities becomes, under this Part of this Schedule, instead the holder of British Gas Stock, he shall hold that stock in the same right and on the same trusts and subject to the same powers, privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities as those in, on or subject to which he held those securities, and any provision of any deed, will, disposition or other instrument, and any statutory provision as to what is to be done by the holder of the securities or the redemption moneys thereof, shall, with any necessary modifications, have effect in relation to the said stock or the redemption moneys thereof as it would have had effect in relation to the securities or the redemption moneys thereof if they had not been extinguished:
Provided that—
(a) any beneficial interest of any undertaker to whom Part II of this Act applies, other than an ancillary gas undertaker or an undertaker who is not a body corporate, in any of the said securities shall be treated as having passed to the appropriate Board and the preceding provisions of this paragraph shall have effect accordingly;
§
LORD O'HAGAN moved, in paragraph 2, to leave out "amount" and insert "the respective amounts". The noble Lord said: I hope that the noble Lord opposite will agree that this is really an obvious drafting Amendment. Paragraph 2 of Part I says:
The holders of any securities to which this Part of this Schedule applies…
will be holders of the amount of Gas Stock to which they are entitled. I think the case is pretty clear. I hope that I am right in saying that. If this Amendment is made I should point out that an Amendment in the same words would follow in the corresponding provisions on page 91, line 33. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 13, leave out ("amount") and insert ("the respective amounts").—(Lord O'Hagan.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am advised that the present wording is to be preferred to that which has been put forward by the noble Lord, but as he appears to consider it a matter of substance I will gladly accept it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD HAWKE moved, in paragraph 5, after "securities" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert:
(not being a power exercisable by such holder against the person creating the securities).
The noble Lord said: Paragraph 5 deals with the privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities, which might have existed in respect of the holding of a gas company's stock, which is now replaced by British Gas Stock. It rightly makes it possible for the same wills, trusts and so on, to prevail, but in our view it goes a little further and possibly confers on people who held debentures and had them exchanged for Gas Stock the same powers as they held as debenture holders of the original gas undertaking. The debenture holders, of course, have various powers. They can put in Receivers, they can make demands for redemption and so on, and failure to deal with that point is, in our view, an oversight in the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 90, line 32, after ("securities") insert the said new words.—(Lord Hawke.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHParagraph 5 of Part 1 of the Second Schedule provides for British Gas Stock issued to trustees, being held on the same trust as the securities for which it is issued, and for any reference in the wills and other instruments to those securities to have effect as a reference to British Gas Stock. I think the noble Lord fears that the provision in line 31 that British Gas Stock is to be held subject to the same powers, privileges, charges, restraints and liabilities, would cover powers flowing from the security itself—that is, voting rights in regard to ordinary stock or powers to appoint a Receiver in the case of debentures. I think the noble Lord will agree that the Amendment is unnecessary, since the scope of the paragraph is clearly limited to the purposes specified above, and it is inconceivable that the rights of the holders of the undertakers' securities, such as voting rights and rights to appoint Receivers mentioned above, should attach to the single type of British Gas Stock to be issued for all those securities. On those grounds I am afraid I cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD HAWKEIf the noble Lord considers that the Gas Council will sleep easily in their beds with the Bill as it now stands, I am willing to accept his view. I was only attempting to improve the Bill for their purposes. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Third Schedule:
§ Code of Provisions relating to Gas Supply.
§ 2. Before an Area Board proceed to open or break up any street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, they shall give to the person under whose control or management it may be, or to his clerk, surveyor or other officer, notice in writing of the Board's intention, not less than fourteen clear days before beginning the work, except in cases of emergency arising from defects in any pipes or other works, and then as soon as possible after the occurrence of the emergency.
§ 5. When an Area Board open or break up any street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, they shall with all convenient speed complete the work, fill in the ground, and reinstate or make good the street, bridge, sewer, drain or tunnel, and carry away the rubbish occasioned thereby, and shall at all times, while any 742 street or bridge is so opened or broken up, cause it to be fenced or guarded, and cause a light sufficient for the warning of passengers to be set up and maintained at night against or near the street or bridge, and keep the street or bridge in good repair for three months after making it good, and for such further time, if any, not being more than twelve months altogether, as the soil broken up continues to subside.
§ 35.…
§ (2) The notice required to be given by the last preceding sub-paragraph may, in the case of unoccupied premises, the owner or lessee of which is unknown to the Area Board and cannot be ascertained after diligent inquiry, be given by affixing it upon a conspicuous part of the premises not less than forty-eight hours before the premises are entered:
§ Provided that, where an entry is made on the premises which could not lawfully have been made but for the provisions of this subparagraph the premises shall be left no less secure than they were immediately before they were entered, and the Board shall make good or pay compensation for any damage caused to the premises by the exercise of powers under this sub-paragraph.
§ 5.20 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHAmendments were put down on the Report stage in another place which sought to provide first, that an Area Board should give fourteen days' notice before entry, but secondly, that in cases of emergency an Area Board should enter without notice. This Amendment is simply intended to fulfil in undertaking which was given and it is really consequential. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 93, line 19, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
(b) an Area Board may, after giving notice in writing to the owners and occupiers of the land or building not less than fourteen clear days before the entry, enter upon any land (not being a street to which proviso (a) to this sub-paragraph applies) or building for the purpose of placing a new pipe in the place of an existing pipe, which has already been lawfully placed or of repairing or altering any pipe lawfully placed, so, however, that entry may be made without such notice in cases of emergency arising from defects in any pipes, but notice shall then be given as soon as possible after the occurrence of the emergency."—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANWe quite agree with the drafting of the Amendment which has just been proposed by the noble Lord opposite, with the exception of one 743 point—that is the period of fourteen days. Your Lordships will notice that I have an Amendment down immediately following this one, to leave out the word "fourteen" which appears in the Bill as originally drafted and insert "three." Perhaps it might be for the convenience of the Committee if I made my point on that now in discussing the Amendment which has just been moved. Frankly, we have all been a good deal puzzled by the sudden decision to go up to fourteen days as the period for giving notice, because three days is the period of notice which is in the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, and so far as one can tell it has worked perfectly smoothly, for a hundred years. In the original Bill, I think, the period of three days was to be found; then, suddenly, in Committee in another place, the Minister came along and asked for fourteen days to be substituted. Now fourteen days is a very long time and I do not think that any explanation has been given as to why it has suddenly proved necessary to provide for a much longer period of notice. It is not merely a question of emergency. I know quite well that in case of emergency gas pipes can be taken up without having to give fourteen days' notice. But, surely, the Gas Department wishes to give good and prompt service to the consumer. Why on earth, therefore, should we suddenly have a provision made whereby there will be a delay of fourteen days, when, for the last hundred years, we have got on quite nicely with three days?
And that is not quite all the story, according to my information. I believe that consideration has now been given to the introduction of a Bill called the Breaking Up of Streets Bill which, I gather, is to deal with all matters in respect of which it is necessary to break up streets for any given purpose. Furthermore, I understand that in the discussions which have taken place up to now, the period of notice which has been discussed has been not fourteen days but seven days. For that reason, it appears to me to be "curiouser and curiouser" that the period of fourteen days should suddenly have been chosen for insertion here. I would have thought that there was no real reason why the old statutory period of three days should not be used. But, as I say, in the light of the discussions which I have 744 heard, the use of the period fourteen days as opposed to that of seven days seems very strange. I shall be grateful to the noble Lord opposite if he can give us some enlightenment as to what is really afoot in this connection.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI agree with the noble Viscount that this does seem strange. I gather that he is now dealing with the subject of the next Amendment which stands in the joint names of himself and Lord Lloyd. If it is convenient to the Committee perhaps I may deal with that Amendment now.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANMy Amendment was to the clause as orginally drafted.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWhen the Bill was first published, three days was the period which was inserted, but representations were received from local authorities, who protested that under modern conditions three days was far too short a period. A compromise was arrived at, and an Amendment to insert fourteen days was moved as a Government Amendment in another place. The noble Viscount will be interested, I am sure, to learn that this was appreciated to a marked extent, and Mr. Brendan Bracken said:
Certainly fourteen is better than three, and that is all I have to say.The Government have no very firm ideas on this point and are willing to accept the noble Viscount's suggestion—or perhaps it might be deemed better to arrive at a compromise half-way between the two and make the period seven days. If seven days is agreeable to the noble Viscount, I can assure him that it is equally agreeable to me.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANThe noble Lord has met my point very fairly. I think, and I hope that he will agree with me, that it is better to have the same sauce for the goose as for the gander—that is, to have the same period, whatever it may be, in the Breaking Up of Streets Bill, as we have in any other Act which affects the breaking up of streets. I do not know what would suit the noble Lord best. Possibly he would prefer that I should not move my Amendment, on the understanding that the matter can be discussed between now and the Report stage.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI agree to that, on the understanding that seven days is the agreed period.
§ VISCOUNT BRIDGEMANI suggest that the matter might well he discussed between now and Report stage and that the period of seven days appears to have certain merits. On that understanding, I will not move my Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD TEYNHAM moved, in paragraph 5, after "guarded" to insert: "make arrangements, where necessary, for the control of traffic." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is a simple one. It is to ensure that when a highway may be obstructed, perhaps by the operations of an Area Board carrying out works in connection with gas and so on, they shall be responsible for making arrangements, where necessary, for the control of traffic. I think the Bill, as drawn, merely repeats the road opening provisions of the Gasworks Clauses Act of 1847. Of course, since that date traffic on the roads has greatly increased. I think that some responsibility should be given to Area Boards to make provision for the control of traffic. In recent years, road opening in connection with these bulk supply gas mains has become much more extensive. I understand that similar provisions were put into the Water Act of 1945. They appear, I believe, in Section 26 (2). I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 29, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Teynham.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThere is considerable point in what the noble Lord says, but it is doubtful whether control of traffic is a matter for which Area Boards should take any responsibility or whether it is within their province to make any such arrangements. The point will have to be looked into. If the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment, I will undertake to have the matter looked into between now and the Report stage to see if something can be done to meet his point.
LORD TEYNHAMI am grateful to the noble Lord for his offer and, in the circumstances, I willingly withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 42, after ("3") insert ("paragraph 4").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD ROCHDALE moved, in paragraph 8 (1), after "Board" (where that word occurs a second time) to insert "through which the Board are for the time being distributing gas." The noble Lord said: This is a very simple Amendment. As the Bill is now drafted, any occupied premises within twenty-five yards of a main is entitled to claim a supply of gas. I understand there are "dead" mains, mains which have become redundant because new ones have been laid along a different course. The Amendment seeks to make certain that this right to claim a supply of gas applies only where the main is being used at present. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 22, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this Amendment, as it removes what might be an embarrassing position for the Area Boards. I accept it.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYThe noble Lord's views on redundant gas mains are different from his views on redundant gas works.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD TEYNHAM moved in paragraph 8 (2) after "occupier" (where that word, occurs a second time) to insert "not being dedicated to public use." The noble Lord said: This Amendment refers to the payment by the consumer for service pipes. As the Bill is drawn, the consumer is liable to pay for the cost of all service pipes on his land, including land up to the centre of the highway which may run near his house. It has been the practice for private companies not to make the consumer pay for that part of the pipe under the road from the centre line, and only for that part where it entered the consumer's premises. I understand that one of the municipal corporations did insist on payment for pipes laid under the road from the centre line, and I suppose that under the strict interpretation of the Gasworks Clauses Act, 1847, they are so entitled. This Amendment will have the effect of 747 protecting the consumer against demands for such payments and will continue the practice of the private gas companies. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 32, after ("occupier") insert ("not being dedicated to public use").—(Lord Teynham.)
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHAgain I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving such a helpful Amendment, which I shall be pleased to accept if he would make one slight alteration, which is really a matter of grammar. Would the noble Lord be prepared to insert the word "property" between the word "being" and "dedicated," so that the Amendment would read, "not being property dedicated to public use"? I think that is what the noble Lord really means.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 32, after ("occupier") insert ("not being property dedicated to public use").—(Lord Teynham.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD CHORLEY moved in paragraph 8, after sub-paragraph (2) to insert:
(3) The Area Board shall carry out any necessary work of maintenance, repair or renewal of any such pipe which is provided and laid at the cost of the owner or occupier of any premises, and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the owner or occupier of the premises.
(4) Nothing in the last two preceding subparagraphs shall be taken as affecting any rights or obligations as between the owner and occupier of the premises in relation to any such pipe as aforesaid.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment has been framed in order to meet the point made in the Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke and the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale. We are grateful to them for the point in their Amendment, which deals with the maintenance and payment for such maintenance of pipes laid at the request of a property owner. The difficulty about the Amendment, as tabled by the noble Lords, was that the expression "any such pipe" was a little ambiguous, and therefore we have inserted the words which your Lordships see in order to
748
make clear what was meant. Further, the Government Amendment is drafted in such a way as to leave it open to Area Boards to recover the expenses from either owner or occupier, as may be appropriate. I am sure your Lordships will think that these are useful improvements on the original Amendment and will accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 95, line 35, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chorley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD HAMPTON moved, in paragraph 11, to leave out "by whom the lamps are maintained" and insert:
who are the lighting authority for the street in which the lamps are placed.
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Wolverton I beg to move the Amendment standing in our joint names. This is practically a drafting Amendment. The Bill does no more than blindly copy the out-of-date wording contained in previous Acts. It refers to the public authority as "the authority by whom the lamps are maintained." That is wrong, because it is well-known—except to the Government, perhaps—that a great many public lamps are owned and maintained by gas undertakings and not by local authorities or other public lighting authorities. Therefore, in these cases, the Bill refers to the gas undertakers when it seeks to refer to the lighting authorities. In other words, the Amendment makes the Bill say what it means. I think the noble Lord will agree that is an eminently desirable object, if we can in any way attain it.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 97, line 22, leave out from ("authority") to ("may") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hampton.)
§ LORD CHORLEYAs the noble Lord has said, this is purely a drafting Amendment. My instructions, again, are that it is not really necessary, and that the words in the clause are sufficient to cover the case—namely, where the maintenance is carried out by independent workmen, either of the local authority or employed under contract by the undertakers. If that is so, it does not seem that the noble Lord's Amendment is really necessary.
LORD HAMPTONWhile thanking the noble Lord for his reply, he did not sound very certain as to whether, in fact, it was covered. I do not know whether he would look into it again, before I withdraw my Amendment, and make absolutely certain that it is covered.
§ LORD CHORLEYI will be glad to look into it again if the noble Lord wishes me to, especially on a somewhat difficult point of drafting. It is an advantage to those who advise me to have heard the point exactly put by the noble Lord, and I shall be glad to have it looked into.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.39 p.m.
§ LORD LLOYD moved in paragraph 14 (3) after "inspect" to insert "overhaul." The noble Lord said: This is another attempt from this side of the House to assist the Government in their drafting. It is really no more than a drafting Amendment. The Bill, at page 65, empowers the Minister to make regulations for meters to be overhauled and here, at page 98, the Area Boards are given the right to "remove, inspect, and replace any meter"—that includes meters belonging to consumers—but there is no mention of overhauling them. I imagine that sometimes they might want to overhaul meters without removing them but, as the Bill now stands, this clause does not give them that power; indeed, by implication it might exclude it. I feel that His Majesty's Government may like to have this word inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 5, after ("inspect") insert ("overhaul").—(Lord Lloyd.)
§ LORD CHORLEYI am obliged for the intention of the noble Lord, which is obviously meant to be helpful, but in this case I am clear that his suggestion is not the right one. If he looks again at the words which he has quoted, "remove, inspect and replace," he will see that they are concerned with a quite different type of operation from "overhaul," which is not dealt with in this context at all. If it were necessary to overhaul the meter, it would be taken away and dealt with by a different process. Paragraph 14 (3) of 750 the Third Schedule gives the right to remove, and afterwards to overhaul. I think the noble Lord will agree that the word "overhaul" inappropriate to be inserted among these other words in this context, and I hope he will not press the Amendment.
LORD LLOYDAs I said, the Amendment is moved entirely with the object of assisting the Government. If the noble Lord is satisfied that he has all the powers he needs in this case, far be it from me to give him any more. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CHORLEY moved to omit paragraph 17, and insert:
§ Maximum charges for re-selling gas supplied by Area Boards.
§ "17.—(1) Every Area Board shall, as soon as practicable after the passing of this Act, fix maximum prices at which gas supplied by them may be resold, and may from time to time vary any prices so fixed, and shall publish the prices so fixed and any variation thereof in such manner as in their opinion will secure adequate publicity therefor.
§ (2) Different prices may be fixed under this paragraph in different classes of cases which may be defined by reference to areas, tariffs applicable to gas supplied by the Area Board in question, or any other relevant circumstances.
§ (3) If any person resells any gas supplied by an Area Board at a price exceeding the maximum price fixed under this paragraph and applicable thereto, the amount of the excess shall, if it does not exceed twenty pounds, be recoverable summarily as a civil debt by the person to whom the gas was resold and, in any case, shall be recoverable by him in any court of competent jurisdiction."
§ The noble Lord said: I am sure your Lordships will agree with the usefulness of this Amendment. It is intended to deal essentially with an abuse which, unfortunately, is rather widespread, according to the information in my possession—namely, the abuse of overcharging by landlords; some people would say that overcharging by landladies was even more common, and even more of an abuse. They obtain gas in bulk from the gas undertakers, and they pass it on to the tenants, really giving nothing but taking a great deal by way of extra charges. A large number of complaints have been coming to the Ministry, especially in connection with the provision of slot meters, which are set in such a way as to register excessive and quite unjustifiable charges. I am sure your Lordships will agree that 751 this is an abuse which needs to be dealt with, and I hope you think that this Amendment is one which deals with it effectively. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 1, leave out paragraph 17, and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD ROCHDALE moved in paragraph 34 (1) after "supplied" to insert
or (at the request of the occupier) installing fixing repairing renewing or replacing any gas fittings.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is merely to safeguard an occupier tenant who wants a supply of gas but whose landlord, for some particular reason, may want to restrict his use. As the clause stands, it would be possible for such a landlord to prevent the servants of the Area Board from entering in, in order to provide that supply of gas or to repair the existing fittings. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 103, line 23, after ("supplied") insert the said words.—(Lord Rochdale.)
§ LORD CHORLEYIt is rather difficult to see why the particular words should be required. The sort of case which the noble Lord has in mind, as I understand him, is one where the occupier wishes to have some work done on the premises. Obviously, in that case the workmen will come at his invitation. It seems unnecessary to have these words. The clause itself deals with a case where the Area Board's workpeople need to enter for the purpose of carrying out some work which is essential from the point of view of the Area Board. I cannot see why the noble Lord has moved this Amendment.
LORD ROCHDALEPerhaps the noble Lord has not quite grasped the point. As I understand it, as the Bill is at present drafted it would be possible for a landlord through whose land the supply of gas went to the premises under discussion to prevent the servants of the Area Board from going across that land to do the work. Therefore, the occupier who was applying for a supply of gas would not get his gas or would not get his repairs done. My Amendment seeks to safeguard such an occupier.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI think it also applies to the case of an owner of a house who does not want his tenant to have gas. This Amendment says that he cannot prevent the agent or the servant of the Area Board coming in to instal the gas fittings if the occupier wants it done. It is part of the important principle of freedom of choice which we discussed this afternoon. I hope to move an Amendment on that principle when we come to the Report stage. The Amendment means that if a tenant of the house wants gas, and asks for it, the landlord cannot say (I believe there have been a few cases like this) "I will not have gas put into the house."
§ LORD CHORLEYI am obliged to both noble Lords for the further explanation. If the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, will withdraw the Amendment now, perhaps we can have a word on it between now and Report stage.
LORD ROCHDALEI am grateful to the noble Lord for agreeing to look into the matter further, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD LLOYD moved, in paragraph 35, to omit the proviso to sub-paragraph (2). The noble Lord said: It will probably be for the convenience of your Lordships if this Amendment, and those at page 104, line 22, and page 105, line 8, are taken together. They all deal with the same point of forcible entry into premises. As your Lordships will see on page 104, in one particular case it is entry for the purpose of removing pipes on discontinuance of supply. There is a proviso that all damage caused by such an entry shall be made good, and that the premises shall be left as secure as they were when the entry was made. There is a similar proviso at line 11—or rather an attempted provison—to cover the powers of entry in paragraph 35 (1), although in point of fact I am advised that, owing to the use of the word "sub-paragraph," that particular proviso does not work.
§ The object of this Amendment is to extend the necessity for leaving the premises as secure as when they were entered, and for making good damage, for reasons which I will now explain. These two instances of the right to enter 753 premises are by no means the only instances in this Bill. There are, I think, eight different places in this Schedule where that right is given. I will not weary the House by quoting them all, although I have a note of them if the noble Lord wants details. In none of those eight cases is there any proviso, so far as I can see, that in such a case of entry the damage shall be made good and the premises left secure. Indeed, the fact that there is a specific proviso in the two cases which I have mentioned may mean, by implication, that there is no duty to make good damage and to leave the premises secure in the other cases. I feel that this is a very important proviso, from the point of view of the ordinary individual whose premises may be entered. What these three Amendments seek to do is to leave out these specific provisos where they occur on page 104, and put them in on page 105—an omnibus proviso, which will make any Area Board entering premises responsible to repair any damage and to leave those premises secure. I cannot help feeling that this is a reasonable Amendment and, from the point of view of the ordinary man in the street, a very important Amendment. I hope, therefore, that the Government will see their way to accept it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 11, leave out from beginning to the end of line 16.—(Lord Lloyd.)
§ LORD CHORLEYIt may be that there is a slight gap here which needs to be covered. The point, of course, is that this concerns a case where unoccupied premises have been entered, and it is obviously necessary that in those cases they should be left secure. I am quite sure that, if there are any cases which are not covered, we would want to put that right. The noble Lord has suggested that it may well be that there are some cases. I shall be glad to have it looked at and, if it is found that that is so, to give the necessary protection for which he is asking.
LORD LLOYDI am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I can show him a number of cases which, I am advised, are not covered, and perhaps we could get together between now and the 754 Report stage. On his assurance, I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment now.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CHORLEYThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 104, line 24, at end insert—
§ Penalty for obstruction.
§ ("36. If any person obstructs any officer exercising powers under either of the two last preceding paragraphs, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds.").—(Lord Chorley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ Fourth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
§ LORD CHORLEYThis Amendment is in the way of a drafting Amendment. There is a small mistake in the Repeals Schedule. The Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 was actually repealed by the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, and, therefore, the provision in this Act is quite unnecessary. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 106, line 40, column 3, leave out from beginning of line 40 to.("in") in line 41.—(Lord Chorley.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.