HL Deb 20 June 1950 vol 167 cc813-28

3.15 p.m.

House again in Committee (according to Order).

[The LORD TERRTNGTON in the Chair]

Clauses 29 to 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [Application to London]:

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH) moved, after "London" to insert: and to the Metropolitan and the City of London police districts. The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next one on the Marshalled List are closely connected. They are drafting Amendments consequential on the proposed Amendments to Paragraph 7 of the Seventh Schedule. That Paragraph, as amended, will refer to the Metropolitan police district and the City of London police district, which areas together go beyond the administrative county of London. The Seventh Schedule, apart from Paragraph 7 as amended, applies only to the administrative county of London and, in consequence of the Amendments to Paragraph 7, it is necessary in Clause 34 to refer expressly to the Metropolitan and City police districts and to define the expression "London". These two Amendments do that. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 43, line 31, after ("London") insert ("and to the Metropolitan and the City of London police districts").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

This, like the previous Amendment, is drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved—

Page 43, line 32, at end insert— ("() In this Act 'London' means the administrative county of London, and 'the City of London police district' means the City of London as defined for the purposes of the Acts relating to the City police").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended agreed to.

Clause 35 [Interpretation]:

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Noble Lords will remember that when the House was last in Committee I moved an Amendment to Clause 19, to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on the question of damage being taken as including obstruction. Now that the term "damage" in Clause 19 is extended to include obstruction it is no longer necessary to say so in the interpretation clause. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, leave out line 13.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Lord. Of course, "damage" normally does not include obstruction and I think it would be straining words to have these words in the Bill.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the definition of "emergency works" to leave out "limited time" and insert "time fixed by or under the enactment. "The noble Lord said: This is an effort to tighten up Clause 28. At the present time we define "emergency works" to include work done in satisfaction of a statutory obligation to afford a supply within a limited time. This would in some circumstances include works necessary to supply a service within a reasonable but not specific time. In view of that, we think we should define it as a "specified time." So far as we know, there is only one sort of case in which an authority has the statutory obligation to give a service in a specified time. This is usually in the interests of public health. An example is the Water Act of 1945, which in Paragraph 42, subparagraph (2) of the Third Schedule, says: If the undertakers fail to carry out the said work within fourteen days after the person by whom the notice was given has laid a supply pipe in accordance with the provisions of the last foregoing section, they shall, unless they show that the failure was due to unavoidable accident or other unavoidable cause, be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds and to a further fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day on which the default continues after the expiration of the said fourteen days. This Amendment rules out all cases which can be brought in on the grounds that the obligation to do them within a reasonable time is a question of emergency. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 44, line 23, leave out ("limited time") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment. I think it is of great importance. I felt that this clause was much too wide. It deals with emergency works, and its provisions torpedo the whole of the code of regulated works. Instances which amount to emergencies should be very limited. It deals with such things as the "interruption of a supply or service." As the clause stood, it seemed to me to be very wide. I am still not quite convinced that it is as tight as it could be. If it refers only to the Water Act of 1945, would it not be simpler to say that, because all it says here is fixed by or under the enactment. There may be many things fixed. The noble Lord says that there is nothing else. If he is convinced of that, well and good, but I submit that the mere fact of fixing a time-table docs not necessarily mean that if there is an emergency, you can ride roughshod through Sections 3, 4 or 5. It does not seem to me of itself to justify putting those sections all to one side. I should like to have the noble Lord's assurance that there are no other cases and, if there are none would it not be possible to confine it specifically to the Act which is mentioned?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am grateful to the noble Earl for his observation. I will certainly look into it. I do not think there are any others but, now that the noble Earl has planted a doubt in my mind, I will undertake to look into it and, as our desire is to make this clause as tight as the noble Earl wishes it to be, if we are not satisfied we will do something about it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Before we pass from this, on the verbal part of the Amendment, I think it ought not to be "within a time fixed by or under the enactment," but "within the time," and so on. Before Report stage, perhaps the noble Lord will look into that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I will look into that point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in the definition of "road purposes," to insert the provision of a cattle-grid in a road and works ancillary thereto. The noble Lord said: I am grateful to the noble Earl for not moving his Amendment, because the Amendment I now propose exactly covers his point. It extends the definition of "road purposes" to include the installation of a cattle-grid, a subject upon which I will have to bother your Lordships later on this week. The definition of "road purposes" in this clause was intended to cover all the lawful operations of the highway authorities in the course of maintaining and improving their roads. Highway authorities are being given new powers by the Highways (Provision of Cattle Grids) Bill to install cattle-grids on roads. These are works for road purposes of the kind which this definition must include. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 45, line 21, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I should like to thank the noble Lord for this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 36 [Application to Scotland]:

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I have your Lordships' permission to deal with the two Amendments at page 48, lines 18 and 22, together? This clause applies the Bill to Scotland. These are two drafting Amendments consequential upon the Amendments which I moved previously to Clause 19, page 27, lines 28 and 30. These Amendments are necessary to make the wording in lines 18 and 22 of page 48 fit the amended wording of Clause 19 (4). It is really to bring the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1940, into line with the application of the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors) Act, 1935, in Clause 19. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 18, after ("1935") insert ("and to damage within the meaning of that Act.")— (Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I beg to move this Amendment, to which I have already referred.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 22, after ("1940") insert ("and to loss or damage within the meaning of that Act.")—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, after subsection (7) to insert: ("(8) Section thirty-three of this Act shall have effect as if 'New Year's Day' were included as one of the days to be excluded under paragraph (b) of subsection (7) of that section.")

The noble Earl said: I am moving this Amendment so as not to disappoint the noble Lord into thinking that we work on New Year's Day in Scotland. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 48, line 39, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I did not intend that the Scots should work on this day. The Scots determined the issue themselves in 1871, and Homer has indeed nodded when the noble Earl who moved this Amendment failed to realise that the Bank Holiday Act, 1871, declares New Year's Day to be a Bank Holiday in Scotland. Therefore this Amendment is not necessary. I hope the noble Earl will not press it.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Is it not a fact that, apart from what may be laid down in Statute law, a large number of people in Scotland so celebrate New Year's Day that no work is done?

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to subsection (14) "or in controlled land." The noble Earl said: This, I understand, is a question of the liability which may be incurred through loss or damage for which any local authorities might be liable on account of an undertaker's works. Subsection (14) of Clause 36 says that the loss, injury or damage may arise "in any street." I have suggested the addition "or in controlled land." I think it is clear that there should be no greater liability in streets than there is in controlled land. In fact, encouragement should be given to local authorities to use controlled land so far as it is possible to do so. There may be other instances in which it would be desirable to add "or in controlled land" in this context. In these circumstances, I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 50, line 19, at end insert ("or in controlled land").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Your Lordships will understand that we are still dealing with the clause that applies this Bill to Scotland. In Scotland, unlike England, highway authorities are liable for "nonfeasance": that is, they are liable for damages caused to persons by failure to keep roads in proper repair. Subsection (14) relieves them of the liability in respect of disrepair of roads as a result of undertakers' works—that is, if undertakers fail to restore a road properly after they have opened it, and someone is injured because of this, the highway authority is absolved from liability. The Amendment seeks to extend this to controlled land. That is how I read it. But this is not necessary. Highway authorities in Scotland are not liable for the repair or disrepair of controlled land where undertakers open it, and it is unnecessary to provide express relief to highway authorities in this respect. That is my advice on the legal aspect of this point, and with that assurance perhaps the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. If a statutory undertaker or somebody else opens up a trench in some controlled land which is still in the occupation of a farmer, and does not fence it, and a cow falls in and breaks its leg, who is responsible for leaving that trap for the cow?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

As the noble Lord is a lawyer and I am not—

LORD LLEWELLIN

I mean in Scotland.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am not even a Scottish lawyer, and I am certainly not going to be drawn into a legal argument. If the noble Lord is serious in his point I will take advice from my legal advisers, but otherwise perhaps he will not press the point.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord for his explanation, which I am glad to accept.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 37 agreed to.

First Schedule:

1.—(1) In this Act the expression "controlled land" means land abutting on a street which is a maintainable highway or is prospectively a maintainable highway (in whatsoever use the land is for the time being, not excepting use as or as part of a garden or pleasure ground or the curtilage of a building), being land which either— (a) belongs to the street authority and is for the time being held by them, or capable of being immediately appropriated by them, for road purposes; or

4. Before giving an authorisation under this Schedule the street authority shall give to every person being an owner, lessee or occupier of the controlled land or of any part thereof, not being only a tenant for a year or from year to year or for any less interest, notice of their intention to give the authorisation, and a person to whom a notice is given under this paragraph shall not be entitled to question the power of the authority to give the authorisation, or the validity of the authorisation when given, in any proceedings commenced later than the expiration of one month from the date on which the notice was given to him.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved to add to sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 1: or (d) in Scotland is subject to a servitude right of use as part of a maintainable highway or a prospective maintainable highway.

The noble Earl said: This is an addendum to the First Schedule. It refers to controlled land, land which belongs to a local authority, land which is designated, and land which lies between the "boundary of the street and an improvement line. In Scotland certain lands are used by the local authority for highways which do not belong to the local authority at all. They have what is called servitude over it, which enables the authority to use it as a road. "Servitude" is normally translated as "an easement." In those circumstances, where there is this type of controlled land which does not fall into the categories (a), (b) or (c), I think, it is desirable to add my Amendment (d) in the terms stated on the Marshalled List. I am informed that there are, in fact, a large number of roads in different places which come into this category. I suppose for various reasons it has proved the easier way for the local authority to get use of the land in the way they want it. I suggest that this is a necessary addition in the circumstances, and I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 51, line 25, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I do not quite understand what the noble Earl is trying to do. As I understand it, the effect of his Amendment is to include within the definition of controlled land any land in Scotland which may be physically part of a maintainable highway but which is not really part of the highway in the legal sense. As the noble Earl has pointed out, here is land running alongside a road which does not belong to the highway authority, but through the use to which it is put it is recognised as part of the highway, as he called it, in servitude. I should have thought that there was nothing to prevent the local authority designating that as controlled land for the purpose of street works. That would have covered the point. I do not think there is anything we can do on the lines the noble Earl suggests. If they have no right to lay pipes there they can be given that right only if it is controlled land and becomes designated as a prospective part of the highway, which I should have thought would have been a more simple matter. I hope I understand the noble Earl correctly in what he is trying to do. Perhaps he will tell me whether his point concerns the right to lay pipes there without designating it as controlled land.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I think the noble Lord is probably right in saying that this land could be designated, but in many cases it has not been designated because it has been unnecessary. I am suggesting that it should continue to be unnecessary—that is to say, that there can be a strip in which the local authority have the right of working above or under ground as a servitude but without designating the land. They may not want to designate the land because they are quite content with the rights they already have. In those circumstances, I suggest it should be included in the global description of what is controlled land. It is true that it is possible to force the local authority by this Bill to go further, and designate it, but they do not want to and they do not see any need to. May I suggest that we accept the situation that exists, which is satisfactory and include this under controlled land? That is the point I am seeking to make.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

It appears that the difference between us is whether this is the best way of doing it, or whether it would not be better for the local authority to designate that land and bring it under control. If the noble Earl would for the time being withdraw his Amendment, perhaps he and I could discuss this matter and see what is the best arrangement. I see his point. But when he says that local authorities in Scotland do not see any need to bring this land in as controlled land, I would ask why they see any need to have this Amendment to the Bill. I think that is the point at issue, and perhaps we can discuss it. There may be more in what the noble Earl says than I can see now, and, on reflection, perhaps he will see that there is more in my point than he can see at the present moment.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

The reason for bringing it into the Bill is because the Bill says: …the expression 'controlled land' means land"— and so forth. In certain circumstances, whether after consultation or not, it may be decided to put works in this land, and it seems to me, therefore, that it should be included in the general description. I think it is an abuse of the word "designation" to make a local authority designate land that it is not necessary to designate. It is not a proper purpose of the Town and Country Planning Act. If they have their control and authority already, they may not wish to have more. I am quite prepared to discuss the matter with the noble Lord. There may not be much in it, and in the circumstances I will withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.38 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in Paragraph 4, to leave out from "shall" (where that word first occurs) to "be," and insert: publish in a newspaper circulating in the locality a notice of their intention to give the authorisation, and shall, not later than the day on which the notice is published, serve a like notice on every person being an owner, lessee or occupier of the controlled land or of any part thereof and having the interest of a tenant for a year or from year to year or any greater interest, and no person shall". The noble Lord said: This Amendment is put down to meet a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on Second Reading, and also to remedy a defect in drafting. The noble Lord will recollect that on Second Reading he said: In regard to Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, something may have to be done so that notice is given to those who have tenancies from year to year. Although they have security of tenure under the Agricultural Acts, a large number of farmers exist in law as yearly tenants. If we are going to lay drains or cables on land just outside the road which is still in private occupation, although designated for the road, we must give a farmer sufficient notice to enable him to object if he wishes to do so.

The main effect of this Amendment is to extend the class of people who are entitled, under Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule, to be notified by a highway authority of their intention to issue an authorisation in respect of controlled land, so as to include yearly tenants. The Amendment also remedies a defect in Paragraph 4 of the First Schedule as at present drawn, in that although persons receiving a notice about the issue of an authorisation are prevented from challenging its validity unless they start litigation within one month from receipt of such notice, other people are not so barred and could presumably bring an action at any time. It is necessary that having afforded reasonable opportunity to all concerned to challenge the validity of an authorisation at the time it is issued, no person should be able, if he fails to take this opportunity, to go to law about the question later after undertakers' pipes are laid and, perhaps, have been in use for a considerable period. The Amendment therefore provides that highway authorities, in addition to giving notice to the persons specified in Paragraph 4, shall publish the notice and that no person shall bring legal action to challenge the validity of the authorisation after one month from the publication of that notice. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to ("be") in line 22, and insert the said new words.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Lord for meeting my point in regards to tenants from year to year. They may be the people peculiarly concerned with works done on land on which their stock is pastured and which is in daily use by them. I think it is only right that when other people are given notice they should be given it as well. I also think that, by and large, it is right to apply this limitation of time for action to every one whether he has had a notice or not. I must confess, though, that I am a little doubtful how many people read these publications in local newspapers. I have not the slightest doubt that the farmer who, as reported in to-day's newspapers, ploughed up some ancient barrow and scattered the bones over the countryside (thereby, I understand, making himself liable to a fine of £100 or three months' imprisonment) probably never knew that the Ministry of Works had scheduled that barrow as an ancient monument. It is true, I gather, that the Ministry published the fact in the London Gazette or elsewhere, but of course the effective way to obtain the result required is to give notice directly to the individual concerned, the man who is actually farming the land in that particular neighbourhood. It may or may not be that the farmer to whom I have referred had notice, but I rather gather from what I have read in the newspaper that he had not. It seems to me that the right thing is to give people individual notice, as will be given in this particular case, and let the general public know by means of more general publication. I am obliged to the noble Lord for the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

This next Amendment is consequential on the last one. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 52, line 26, leave out ("given to him") and insert ("published").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Second Schedule agreed to.

Third Schedule:

(2) A notice of such an election shall be given without any avoidable delay on the part of the authority or managers after they know of the intention of the undertakers to execute the code-regulated works, and— (a) where those works are executed after settlement of a plan and section thereof under section four of this Act if the works are in a street or under section five thereof if they are in controlled land, notice given after the expiration of eight days from the date on which the plan and section were settled shall not be effective; and

3.45 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, in paragraph 1, after sub-paragraph (1) to insert: (2) A notice of such an election shall be deemed to have been duly given if the code-regulated works are in a street or controlled land as to which the authority or managers had given to the undertakers notice of their desire that the provisions of this Schedule should have effect in the case of all code-regulated works executed by the undertakers therein or in the case of all such works of a class specified in the notice within which the works in question fall. In any other case.

The noble Lord said: Noble Lords will see that in Paragraph 2 of the Third Schedule, it is provided that where street authorities or managers elect to reinstate roads themselves—as we are giving them the right to do—they shall in every case within the period specified give notice to the undertakers concerned of this election to do these works. It may, and I expect it will, often happen that highway authorities on a number of occasions will make it their settled policy to reinstate roads themselves after undertakers' street works in their particular area. They will in all cases elect to resurface and restore the roads themselves. This allows them to do that without being forced to give separate notice time after time. They can serve a general notice. I hope that noble Lords will agree that this is a sensible Amendment, its purpose being to do away with time, trouble, and waste of paper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 17, at beginning insert the said new sub-paragraph.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I think this Amendment is a proper one. Paper work has grown apace during the régimes of the present Government and their immediate predecessors. I am glad to think that here is one instance in which the Government have seen the light of day, and I am also grateful that the noble Lord in explaining the Amendment to us has not said that it is "an experiment in freedom."

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved, in subparagraph (2) (a) of Paragraph 1 to omit "eight" [days] and to insert "fifteen". The noble Earl said: This Amendment substitutes fifteen for eight days in the case of the notice to be given to undertakers by authorities if they elect to do this work. The position is that twenty-eight days are given for settling the plan and, once the plan is settled, within the period stated here—that is eight days—the local authority must state whether they elect to repair the streets themselves. I am suggesting that the period should be fifteen days. The reason I do this is that I personally think it is desirable that local authorities should assume as wide a responsibility as possible for repairing their own streets. Eight days' notice may be adequate for an urban area, but county councils are also concerned in this, and they have a considerably wider administrative responsibility. I think that the longer period of fifteen days is a reasonable one for them to have to make this election. It is not likely to hold up anything because work will not be started. There will be few works of this character which will be likely to reach the reinstatement stage in anything like fifteen days—or indeed in a considerably longer period. I think that this is a reasonable relaxation, particularly so far as county councils are concerned. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 55, line 25, leave our ("eight") and insert ("fifteen").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I was hoping that the noble Earl would be so greatly moved by my previous Amendment, or if not by that by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on my previous Amendment, that he would not press this Amendment. Surely, practically all the county councils, being highway authorities, will elect to do the restoration themselves and will give a general instruction that they intend in future to reinstate themselves all their roads broken up by undertakers. Because of the few remaining cases which there may be, surely we do not want to disturb the balance of agreement by altering eight days to fifteen. This was the subject of agreement between highway authorities and the undertakers. I think that we have provided the highway authorities with a really splendid Amendment in my previous one, and I have no doubt they will take advantage of it. I hope that the noble Earl will not press this Amendment for I do not think it is necessary to meet the few cases which might possibly arise.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I accept what the noble Lord has said and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.49 p.m.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

This Amendment provides that where a highway authority elects to restore a road broken up by undertakers, the obligation to fence, guard and light the excavation shall pass from the undertakers to the highway authority at the expiry of eight or four days (as the case may be) from the time that the undertakers notify the highway authority that they have finished their works and the excavation is ready to be filled in, or from the time that the highway authority starts to do the reinstatement—whichever is the earlier. As the clause is at present drawn the obligations of guarding, watching and lighting the excavation do not pass to the electing authority until the expiry of the eight or four days, as the case may be. It will often happen that the highway authority will start and finish the restoration before the expiration of this period, and it is clearly necessary that if they do so start restoration they shall from that time, be subject to the appropriate obligations instead of the undertakers. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 56, line 48, after ("Schedule") insert (", or after the time of their actually beginning reinstatement and making good pursuant to such an election if they begin it earlier,").—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

Fourth Schedule:

2.

(2) In the case of a road alteration, if it appears to any such undertakers that a plan and section of the authority's works or any of them ought to be furnished to them, they shall, as early as practicable and not later than the expiration of twenty-nine days from the date of the giving to them of the authority's notice under the preceding sub-paragraph give notice to the authority requiring them to furnish a plan and section thereof.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK moved in Paragraph 2 (2) to leave out "twenty-nine" and insert "eight." The noble Earl said: This is a point of negotiation between an authority and an undertaking in deciding whether or not an alteration in any road will affect the undertaking. I am perhaps more on the noble Lord's side when I say that it is reasonable for an undertaker to give notice in shorter time. My Amendment provides that the period in which the undertakers shall give notice that they want a plan should be reduced from twenty-nine to eight days. The paragraph says: as early as practicable and not later than the expiration of twenty-nine days. "As early as practicable" does not seem to me to be a close definition of twenty-nine days. If work is going ahead and this is merely a notice requesting a plan, the undertaker could easily have it in a shorter time. Presumably until that is done other things cannot be proceeded with. I know the noble Lord opposite may say that this is a balanced agreement and that the Government cannot change anything, but I think it is fair that if anything is likely to be held up, we should examine and justify each stage of the balance. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 57, line 46, leave out ("twenty-nine") and insert ("eight").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I think the noble Earl has a good point here and I am prepared to accept his Amendment in principle. Perhaps he will allow us to look at it and put down a Government Amendment at the next stage to cover the principle he has raised.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK

I thank the noble Lord and beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fourth Schedule agreed to.

Fifth Schedule agreed to.

Sixth Schedule [Powers for Consequential Modification of Special Enactments and Agreements, and as to Certain Existing protections]:

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH moved, after Part II. to insert as a new Part III:

Forward to