LOCAL GOVERNMENT, PLANNING AND LAND (No. 2) BILL

HL Deb 15 October 1980 vol 413 cc1393-472

7.20 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin)

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.

Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.— (Lord Bellwin.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of LISTOWEL in the Chair.]

Baroness DAVID moved Amendment No.284B: After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:

("PART XVIA CARAVAN SITES

Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies

There are hereby repealed—

1. (a) in subsection (2) of section 6 of the Act of 1968 (limitation of duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies and provision for exemption), the words from "and the Minister" to the end"; and
2. (b) section 190(2) of the Local Government Act 1972 (certain exemptions from the duty mentioned in paragraph (a) above to be continued in force).").

The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 284C, 284D, 284E, 284F, 284G, 320A, 320Band 326A, as they all deal with the duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites, the designation of areas and provisions for the removal of unlawfully parked caravans from designated areas. I think and hope that these new clauses will be acceptable to everyone, as most of them were in the Labour Government's Caravan Sites Bill, which fell at the Dissolution, and the first Local Government, Planning and Land Bill; and also the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who I do not see in his place, has similar amendments down in his name.

The first new clause, Amendment No. 284B, repeals the power of the Secretary of State to grant exemptions from the duty to provide sites on the grounds of lack of suitable land. It is also proposed to repeal the exemptions that were granted to 26 previous county borough areas, because they have no gipsy population. This is as proposed in the original Local Government Planning and Land Bill, of this Government. The reason for these repeals is that gipsies have come into and nearer towns much more than they used because of their scrap metal trade, and so on, and more provision is thought to be necessary. The amendment is also made for reasons of equity.

Amendment No. 284C replaces the old Section 11 of the 1968 Act, and deals with the arrangements whereby an authority in an area which has been designated can have caravans which are parked in other than the proper sites removed. It gives that authority a little more power: it increases the fine for someone who intentionally obstructs any person acting in the exercise of any power conferred on him by an order under this section from a maximum of £20 to a maximum of £200, which seems reasonable 12 years later.

I think the new clause is self-explanatory. Noble Lords will have noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has put down an amendment to subsection (1) of this clause, which of course he will explain in due course, but it may expedite matters if I say that we are happy to accept it.

Amendment No. 284D is really the nub of the matter. Subsection (2) makes it possible for a district, with the consent of the county council, to be designated before the county as a whole is designated. This is not in line with the Cripps Report, which recommends designation on a county basis, but the local authorities, I understand, are now agreed on the desirability of designation on a district basis so long, of course, as the plans conform to the overall plan for the provision of sites in the whole county. One hopes that this may prove an incentive, and help get a very necessary move on.

I should like to ask the Minister what has happened to the recommendation in paragraph 4.40 of Cripps, that the Secretary of State should allocate a quota to each county and seek agreement on a time-related programme of site provision to fulfil it. Amendment No. 284E seeks to enable a county council to provide a site on its own land without having to seek a licence from the district council. At present, the county council has to apply to the district, which could use this stage to frustrate provision by the imposition of unreasonable conditions, and maybe hold up the whole operation. I am quite sure that any noble Lords who have served on a county council social services committee and have spent long hours discussing possible sites, trying to agree on them and trying to get the locals to agree on them, will welcome any change in legislation which can hasten the decision, and therefore provision, in any way.

Amendments Nos. 284F and 284G deal with the interpretation and commencement and extent. It will be noticed that only one clause, the site licence exemption, Amendment No. 284E, applies to Scotland. I think my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock is not here, or doubtless he would be commenting later on this. Amendments Nos. 320A and 320B deal with the mechanics of this. Amendment No. 326A makes the necessary addition to the Long Title of the Bill so that these new clauses can be included.

I have introduced these amendments very briefly, as I am all too aware of the pressure of time. What we hope to achieve is greater co-operation on site provision. Indeed, what we want is more sites and a better and more settled situation for the gipsies, with the possibility of a satisfactory life for them where they will not be harried from place to place; where their children, if they want it, can have the chance of a proper education; and where, as Cripps put it, they will have the right of legal abode.

A previous clause in this Bill, Clause 61, we have already agreed. It enables the Secretary of State to make grants for capital expenditure on caravan sites. I should like to ask the Minister replying: what is the policy of the Government on site provision and the paying of grants at this moment? I have heard of approval for a site being given and then later withdrawn, and obviously, therefore, the grant is withdrawn, too. It is not much use including in Bills clauses like Clause 61 if the Government intend to make no use of them.

Is it true that there has been a general moratorium on all further starts for caravan sites for travellers? I want an answer about this from the Minister. May I also ask the Minister to let us have, before Report stage, the most recent figures on authorised sites in England and Wales, and the number of families and caravans accommodated?—and it would be helpful to have the lists of families and caravans in separate forms. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

I rise to say that the district councils, who bear responsibility for managing these sites, very much welcome these amendments, and particularly Amendment No. 284D.

Lord DIGBY

I should like to support this amendment on behalf of the Association of County Councils, because my noble friend Lord Ridley has tabled almost identical amendments, which I shall not move should this amendment be successful. I shall not repeat the noble Baroness's cogent arguments, but I should like to highlight one particular aspect, which is the importance of Amendment No. 284D, which enables the Secretary of State to designate districts for prohibiting unauthorised camping instead of waiting for the whole county area to have sufficient sites. My county of Dorset is the only one so far designated, but I must tell your Lordships, as chairman of the committee which provided these sites, that it was very frustrating when, having covered more than 80 per cent, of the county, we still had to wait a long time before designation. I think the facts speak for themselves. Twelve years after this Act was enacted, only one county has been designated. I am sure that if we can proceed by districts it will be of great advantage.

I should like to add a short word on the criminal sanctions which have been in force. This amendment puts them back into the Bill. Our experience in Dorset, as the only county where they are applied at present, is that providing they are there, they do not need to be used. Like the fence, its existence helps to avoid its use. If the gipsy liaison officers, who are a vital part of this human relations problem, have the sanction behind them, they do not need to use it—and they have been a great success. They are much better with the authority; they do not have to wield the stick. This amendment was in the No. 1 Bill. It was agreed by both the local authority associations and the gipsy association. I hope the Government will feel able to accept it.

Lord DA VIES of LEEK

From this side of the Committee I should like briefly to support my noble friend. In Staffordshire, where I had the honour to be the local Member of Parliament for a quarter of a century, there are 91 unauthorised sites and, according to the figures that I have officially, 72 authorised sites. I hope that ultimately this muddle can be cleared up. I think it is good that this was put into the Bill and that some attention will be paid for it.

Lord AVEBURY

I must apologise in advance for detaining your Lordships at greater length than have some other noble Lords who have spoken. It is because there is a great deal of meat in these amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Irving, and ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David. They should not be allowed to pass without some examination and, I am sorry to say, in certain respects, criticism. If one looks first at Amendment No. 284B, the Caravan Sites Bill of the last Government—which was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, whom I am glad to see is in her place—repealed the whole of subsection (2) of Section 6 of the 1968 Act. As the noble Baroness pointed out when moving the Second Reading of that Bill, it was proposed at that time to abolish the limit on the duty of the metropolitan county councils and the London boroughs to provide for only 15 caravans in each district or borough as well as to repeal the power of the Secretary of State to grant exemptions from the duty to provide any sites on the grounds of lack of suitable land. It was then further proposed to repeal the exemptions that were granted to 26 county boroughs because they had had no gipsy population in the five years prior to 1st April, 1968.

That was in exact accordance with the recommendations of Sir John Cripps, as was the undertaking given by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government at that time, that none of the inner London boroughs would be obliged to provide sites for more than 15 caravans. In these amendments the 15-pitch limit has, in effect, reappeared; but, because of the 1972 reorganisation, it would now apply to the metropolitan counties which are far larger and richer in resources than the old county boroughs. It would be disproportionate to lay such a trivial obligation on them to provide only 15 pitches compared with the counties, which have an open-ended obligation to satisfy the demand for accommodation by all gipsies resorting to their areas. My amendments to Amendment 284B are designed to remove the 15-pitch exemption in the same way as was done by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in the Caravan Site Bill which she introduced before the I election.

Turning to Amendment No. 284C, this represents a considerable departure from the Cripps Report which merely suggested that the various proposals for strengthening the enforcement powers in Section 11 of the 1968 Act should be examined by a lawyer—and that is what he said—but that if there were to be any move towards complying with the demands which the local authorities were making at that time, it should be conditional upon a proviso that, in relation to unoccupied land, the powers should be exercisable only if the land was required immediately for some other purpose or if vacant places were shown to be available on a site within a reasonable distance. Sir John Cripps also said in relation to camping on the verges of highways that enforcement should be allowed only where there was a specific danger to traffic or where space was shown to be available within a reasonable distance. As drafted, this clause would allow caravans to be removed on the authority of the magistrates' court if the court is satisfied that the caravans were parked on land unlawfully; and the order of the court may be applied indiscriminately to any caravans on the land whether or not they can be identified personally and without any proceedings having been taken first under Section 10, which contains the criminal sanctions against parking in designated areas.

It was at one time thought desirable to remove the criminal sanction (as the noble Lord opposite will confirm) and it was then pointed out that, if you did that, you would sweep away the defences which are now available, giving the local authorities an unchallengeable right to clear gipsies from any land in designated areas. I am not happy about giving local authorities these new powers and I was certainly unaware of any process of examination of the proposals such as Cripps had recommended. But, if we have to consent to what is proposed here, we should restore the defences of Section 10 to enable a gipsy to plead that his caravan was stationed on the land in question in consequence of illness, or mechanical breakdown or other immediate emergency. My amendments are intended to secure that a contravention of Section 10 must be proved before the courts may grant any order to permit the removal of any caravans.

Because I have left in the words which extend the power to caravans not individually identified in any order of the court, I am afraid that, even with those concessions, serious injustice could arise, and it is no exaggeration to say that life might be endangered in certain circumstances. The authority must first proceed against an individual occupier of a caravan on the land; but once the conviction has been secured against such a person, then any other caravan on the same land will be in contravention of Section 10 and may be towed away on the order of the court without further safeguard for their occupants. The council might proceed against a particular gipsy because he is easily identifiable by name and can be brought to court, but they may be unaware of the fact that in the next caravan there is a case of serious illness. They get their conviction and return to the site with the bailiffs, the bulldozers and an army of council officials to remove the invalid along with all the rest, being perhaps completely unaware that any health risk has arisen. If anybody tries to stop the removal of the caravan in which a gipsy may be lying even at death's door, he runs the risk of being prosecuted under subsection (4) of the new clause and fined £200. On Report, it would be desirable—and I should have given the noble Baroness notice, but it is a point that occurred to me rather late—to make provision for the person who is accused of obstruction under that subsection to be able to offer a similar defence to that which Section 10 provides for unlawful parking; that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the caravan that he had tried to stop being removed was occupied by someone who was there for any of the stated reasons—health, mechanical breakdown or other emergency.

Turning to Amendment 284D which, as the noble Baroness confessed was not in line with the Cripps Report—in fact their specific recommendation was that designation continued to be granted only on a county basis to authorities who have a duty to acquire or appropriate land to accommodate gipsies—I am not happy about the idea of extending this concept to districts, as I said when we were considering at Second Reading the Bill introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, from which this particular amendment is copied.

I quoted then from the original Circular 37/70 which was issued by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government when Part II of the 1968 Act was brought into force, following the assurances which had been given by the late Mr. Arthur Skeffington, the then Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The circular said that Ministers intended: to exercise their powers to designate … in such a way to avoid creating a patchwork of relatively small areas where it would be an offence for a gipsy to camp. Such a pattern would create a difficult position for the councils of adjoining areas and a confused one for the gipsies themselves". Designation does not act as an incentive to other authorities, as was claimed by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when we were discussing the first designation orders on 14th November, 1972. I thought I heard the noble Baroness, Lady David, repeating this canard this evening, that designation provided an incentive.

I said then in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford (at col. 698 of Hansard for 14th November 1972): It is just a pious hope, and the logic of expecting them to get on with their duties as a result of designation orders made in county boroughs that are in their neighbourhood escapes me for the moment". We were talking in that context about St. Helens in particular. I should like to examine what happened in the North-West as a result of the designation of that particular county borough. At that time, 14th November 1972, I gave the figures of provision already made in Greater Manchester and Lancashire, and this is to be found at col. 669 of Hansard of that date.

There were then 73 pitches in that area compared with an estimated 525 families there. If we look now at a count which was taken by the local authorities on 16th July this year, and recorded by the Department of the Environment, we find that there are now 95 pitches on council sites in the area; so there has been an increase of only 22 sites in the whole of Lancashire and Greater Manchester during the intervening eight years compared with the 204 pitches which the local authorities in that area told the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, that they were going to provide. The Committee will be obliged to agree that this is a deplorable record, and it proves that the designation of St. Helens had no beneficial effect on the neighbouring authorities.

The fact is, if one looks at the figures, that no county has provided adequate accommodation for the gipsies residing in or resorting to their area, including Dorset which the noble Lord mentioned. The record of Dorset is certainly very much better than that of most other authorities. In the July count there were still 33 gipsies living on unauthorised sites in the county. Therefore it cannot be said, as is required in the 1968 Act, that the county provided adequate accommodation for the gipsies resorting to the area, even if the basic provision the county made satisfied the demand from those who were there more permanently.

If I may take one or two examples, last night a noble Lord who lives in Surrey was complaining to me about the mess which gipsies made in that county. They have 150 pitches on authorised sites and 152 on unauthorised sites. In Kent they have 166 authorised pitches and 382 unauthorised. In Essex they have 102 authorised and 254 unauthorised. In Northamptonshire they have 16 authorised and 63 unauthorised.

Looking at those figures, we must ask: What is going to happen in counties such as those if one designates a district or group of districts within those counties? First, the gipsies will obviously be unaware as they travel from one place to another whether they are lawfully entitled to stop in a particular place. Secondly, the districts which have been given the powers will decamp their surplus gipsy populations into the neighbourhood, just as St. Helens did into Lancashire eight years ago. Thirdly—and most important—we should be creating a situation which Ministers have repeatedly said in their circulars should be avoided. For example, in Circular 49/68 it says: … the Ministers nave repeatedly emphasised that gipsies should not be needlessly moved on from place to place until sites have been provided for them. It is particularly important that local authorities should not drive gipsies out of their areas, to become the responsibility of neighbouring authorities, in the period before a countrywide network of sites is established". As I ventured to say when discussing the Bill of the noble Baroness—and I was, very glad to hear the noble Baroness Lady David, say this this evening—the recommendations in paragraph 4.40 of Cripps are potentially of greater importance than any of the legislative provisions we were then discussing or which are contained in these amendments. If we had an agreement between the Government and the local authorities on quotas for each county, and a time-related programme to fulfil them, then we would be able to measure progress against some objective criteria instead of thinking so much in negative terms, as we seem to, about the methods of social control of what is an unpopular minority.

That was the key to the solution. If I had my way there would be no designation at all until the local authorities had agreed to these quotas and the timetable which Sir John Cripps proposed. That would give them an incentive to get on with the job. Perhaps the movers of this amendment would consider driving such a bargain before Report stage, and whether or not it is possible somehow to incorporate the idea which the noble Baroness has commended in these amendments.

There are two drafting errors in Amendment No. 284D. In subsection (3) the words "in the order" should be replaced by "therein" because adequate provision has to be made in the area and not in the order by the magistrates' court. In subsection (6) after "area" in the last line I think the words "of the council" should be inserted to make it clear that there is an obligation not only to notify the gipsies in a district which has received the designation power—if we have finally to agree to that—but also that those gipsies who live in other parts of the county who may be equally affected should be informed as well.

In Amendment No. 284G I notice that the new power to remove unlawfully parked caravans comes into effect three months after the passing of the Bill, but the exemptions of the 26 county borough areas are to be continued for another 12 months. I suggest that perhaps there should be some harmonisation between these two periods.

Whatever we do in the field of legislation, the solution of the gipsy problem lies in some new spirit of determination by local authorities and the Government. The whole of the unaccommodated gipsy population of this country could be taken care of on authorised sites for the cost of four new town halls or one five-hundredth of the amount that we are intending to spend on the replacement of Britain's nuclear deterrent. One can only be amazed that it should take so long and that progress should be at such a funereal pace. The explanation of it is that the gipsies are not a powerful lobby themselves and their cause is a loser for anybody who takes it up, while the chairman of a local residents' association or a councillor who opposes a site can always pick up a few cheap votes.

It still has not dawned on the public as a whole, or indeed perhaps on some of the Members of the Committee, that official sites that are kept tidy and properly managed under the control of the local authority are infinitely preferable to the mess that gipsies make—quite unavoidably—on the unauthorised encampments that we so often see. Nor is it realised that by harrying the gipsies from pillar to post, and thus preventing their children from attending school, we are storing up trouble for yet another generation. However belatedly, I hope that this will provide an occasion for saying once again that we want Ministers, councillors, leaders and friends of the gipsy community to join together in spelling out those truths and starting a new campaign to ensure that there are sites for all the gipsies in the country.

7.50 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

I should like to support my noble friend in her amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has referred to the comments made by him and by myself when the previous Government's Bill was before the House. We only got to the Second Reading stage and then had an Election. I should have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury was sufficiently of a realist, as I am, to know that it does not necessarily follow that a succeeding Government has the same views about a subject in exactly the same way as the one that went before it. I think my noble friends are to be congratulated on the consultations that they have had with the department to see how far they can get along the lines which we had hoped to go along but, for heaven's sake! let us, if the Government are willing to accept it, get something on the statute book and then build on it in the future.

The subject of designation has been a very thorny problem in my own area where our city and our district have done a lot to help gipsies. We have one very high-standard site for some 22 families, with educational facilities attached to it. We have another one, not quite so good, for 50 families, which will house all who come into our city, apart from peak periods when they are travelling between agricultural jobs just for a few days at a time.

Much to our surprise and delight, we received only a few weeks ago from the county council via the Department of the Environment a grant of £500,000 for the improvement of this second site, which would then have brought us up to standard, and the county would have been willing to have supported the designation of our part of the area. For some reason our Conservative Member of Parliament managed to persuade the Minister to withhold it for the time being while he had another look at it, and in the meantime there was a further round of cuts and we have lost it. We feel very strongly about it and, quite frankly, if the noble Earl can take that back to his department and have a look at it, I would make a special plea for the reinstatement of as much of that grant as he can manage.

On the question of designation, it is important because it would empower the police to remove the unauthorised encampment and it would avoid the need on the part of district councils to take quite costly and often repetitive county court proceedings. I am quite sure that if the police, at any rate in our own area—and I can only speak of that—find there are special circumstances, there is not the harassment to which the noble Lord referred. The police are reasonable, and, if there is a woman in labour or someone who is very ill, they adopt a responsible attitude about that.

If you have the proper regulation of the unauthorised encampments then you get a very considerable saving in local authority funds, and that aspect certainly ought to appeal to this Government. If you have a countrywide plan for the sites for these gipsy encampments, it will take time and may have to be programmed over some five or six years, but it is unjust towards those district councils which have provided adequate accommodation that, when they have done their duty in that way, they should not then be able to claim designation. I think if a firm commitment was made at this stage by the Secretary of State to designate individual districts, it would be an incentive to the county councils to get on and do the job throughout their county, and to other district councils, which would then perhaps receive some of the unlawful campers, to be a little more progressive and to something about it themselves. I support my noble friend in her amendments.

The Earl of AVON

I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to clarify one thing. He said fairly early on in his speech something about "Amendment 284B and some amendments to it". If there are any, I have not seen them.

Lord AVEBURY

Yes, I did in fact mislead your Lordships. I had intended to put down an amendment to Amendment 284B, removing the 15-pitch limit. I omitted to do that but hasten to declare that I shall rectify that on Report stage.

The Earl of AVON

I am grateful to the noble Lord. It is rather difficult to answer on certain points of this kind. May I also say to the noble Baroness, Lady David, that I think we should be speaking to Amendment 318A as well as the ones she mentioned? It is only a small technical one on the schedule. I am happy to commend all the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, which were so ably spoken to by the noble Baroness. These are Nos. 284B through to G, 318A, 320A and B, together with 326A. I am happy to recommend these to the Committee, together with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to Amendment No. 284C, which are Amendments Nos. 284CB through to 284CE. Having said that, my noble friend Lord Ridley has also put down some amendments, which are Amendments Nos. 296 to 299, 299A and 327. I am afraid that I cannot recommend these, but I shall come to them later.

As this Committee may have realised, versions of all these amendments were contained in our original Local Government Planning and Land Bill. They are therefore not a party political issue and in this context, though it is hardly necessary, I would remind your Lordships that we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, for placing the 1968 Act on the statute Book.

The original proposals were themselves the result of the fullest possible consultation by the department. There was a round of consultations about recommendations of the Cripps Report with all conceivable interested parties. They gave a clear indication of the nature of the legislative changes required on this subject. In particular they showed a need for further study of possible changes which will make the enforcement powers more effective. Eventually after a further round of discussions with the local authority associations and gipsy representatives and their support organisations, agreement was reached last year upon an overall package of changes. However, these proposals were deleted from the Bill by the need to shorten it for reintroduction in another place. During progress in the other place Ministers have declared their continued support in principle for the original proposals and their readiness to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill should it be procedurally possible to reintroduce them. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Irving, the noble Baroness and others have been able to make use of the period since then to bring forward proposals which contain broadly not only the original proposals but also some improved and acceptable drafting changes, as well as taking into account the latest views of the local authority associations on some of the issues.

These amendments have embraced the repeal of exemptions of certain authorities from the duty of site provision, changes in enforcement procedures in areas designated under the 1968 Act and proposals for designations in districts and the exemption of site-providing authorities throughout Great Britain for any requirements for a site licence under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.

Perhaps I may briefly speak on the first of the queries of the noble Baroness, Lady David, which was: what are we doing about the Cripps Report? That concerns paragraph 4.40. This recommendation was never seen as an item requiring legislative changes. Such discussion on time-related quotas requires administrative arrangements for a programme of planned discussion. I understand that such a programme was started by the department soon after the publication of the Cripps Report. Such discussions, I am afraid, are not now consistent with the Government's view of the necessary relationship between central and local government on gipsies. As you know, local authorities have a statutory duty to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies by way of caravan sites. It is for them to decide the number and nature of such sites and not for central Government to impose any targets. Of course, they do consult the department on levels of provision that might be suitable for designation, and this can be the subject of useful discussion.

Lord AVEBURY

I do not think it was ever suggested by Cripps that the targets should be imposed by central Government on local authorities, but that if, as a result of the discussion process the total of the provisions which the counties intended to make, as notified to the Government, did not add up to the same figures as the known population, there could be another round of consultations to see whether any improvements could be effected in the contributions of individual authorities. So the process would be consultative rather than compulsory.

The Earl of AVON

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention. I rather agree that it is consultative: that is really what I was saying.

Baroness DAVID

May I intervene for a moment? If the Minister is going to make the designation, it seems to me that if generally they do not have an overall plan, with quotas and so on, it is very difficult to make a sensible decision on designation.

The Earl of AVON

If the noble Baroness will let me get a little further, I think that I shall come to that point. If I do not, I ask her to get at me again. They do, of course, consult the department on levels of provision that might be suitable for designation and this can be the subject of useful discussion. But the initiative must come from local government and we do not wish to interfere by central Government decisions upon quotas of sites and programmes of development.

The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked me some more specific questions. First, she asked about the amount available for grants. It is, of course, inevitably limited and as a result we have had to scrutinise expenditure carefully. Owing to heavy expenditure in the first quarter of the year, we had to suspend grants for a limited period. However, I am happy to tell your Lordships that, as a result of a downturn in expenditure in the second quarter, we have now been able to lift the temporary suspensions. That sounds like what was being talked about.

I have some figures for caravans which seem rather to support some of the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, produced. Caravans on unauthorised encampments are 4,792, on authorised local authority sites 2,975 and on private sites 1,185. These are figures at July 1980. Figures on numbers of families are less precise and do not relate simply to numbers of caravans, but I shall write to the noble Baroness with more details.

The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has also tabled amendments which seek to reintroduce our original proposals and almost entirely as we originally drafted them. So we accept the principle behind his proposals, but now prefer the drafting proposed in the amendments moved by the noble Baroness, Lady David, which is a Mark II version, as opposed to the noble Viscount's and our own Mark I version. Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will withdraw his amendments when they touch upon the same subject.

I should now like to come to a couple of paragraphs which I think will clarify quite a number of the points which have been made. I said earlier that this is a package, and the aim of the package is to try to expedite action on one of the intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his Act of 1968; namely, the provision by local authorities of an adequate network of sites for gipsies throughout the country. This aim must surely still be acceptable to all sides of this Chamber.

Nevertheless, experience of the working of the 1968 Act showed that it was being very slow in achieving this aim. Accordingly, the previous Administration asked Sir John Cripps to see how this aim might be expedited. His recommendations in 1977 were broadly accepted by the then Government. I understand that this decision was then followed by extensive consultations on these recommendations with both the local authority associations and all gipsy and other interested organisations. I have a long list of details of those consultations and they led eventually, as I said, to an agreed package which was first introduced into this House as the Caravan Sites Bill. Although that Bill fell because of the 1979 general election, its proposals were largely repeated in our No. 1 local government Bill and now appear in a further revised form before your Lordships tonight.

These proposals should expedite the achievement of this aim—and that is why noble Lords should really accept them with gladness—by the provision of grant towards the capital cost of sites provided by local authorities, and by providing for districts instead of whole counties being designated as having provided an adequate number of sites. Nevertheless, to encourage authorities to provide such sites, it seems only right that those who do so should be given more effective powers to deal with gipsies who camp on unauthorised sites in designated areas. Hence this package of proposals, all of which should benefit law-abiding gipsies.

Some few days ago, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, put down Amendment No. 129, which we rather brushed aside and I promised to say a few words on it. This was a proposed re-introduction of a specific power to pay grants to voluntary organisations. The Government accept the need to encourage the activities of voluntary organisations which are doing useful work in this field and already give certain bodies modest grant-aid. This is now provided on a non-statutory basis through the use of the prerogative powers. We will continue to provide such aid as is appropriate and within our resources and I prefer to see the grant remain on its present basis.

Since noble Lords, last week, raised the question of Scotland, I should just like to make the following points. First, the grants proposed in Clause 61 on gipsy caravan sites will apply to Scotland. Secondly, although the 1968 Act of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does not apply to Scotland, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 does. This latter Act enables Scottish authorities to provide sites. This Act also sets out the licensing requirements for such sites; hence Amendment No. 284E of the noble Lord, Lord Irving, to extend the proposals for the exemption of county councils in England and Wales to regional councils in Scotland.

I should like to speak briefly to Amendment No. 284G, on which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, commented. It is about the timings on commencement proposed by the Government in the original Bill. The three-month period before commencement of alterations to enforcement procedures is intended to give the Home Office time to propose and issue advice to the magistrates' courts that might be needed. A delay of 12 months in the repeal of exemptions from site provision requirements, enjoyed by some previous county borough areas, was advised by the local authority associations, in order to allow adequate discussion between county and district councils about programmes for site provision, without any prejudgement that the provision of sites is imperative in all cases. The remainder of the Bill comes into effect within one month of Royal Assent. I have probably spoken enough, and, if I may sum up, the Government are happy to accept the amendments to which I originally spoke and also the amendment to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.

8.9 p.m.

Baroness PHILLIPS

Before the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, replies—and I should not like to strike a note that does not fit in with the general harmony—I should merely like to say, having seen the appalling mess and destruction that confronts one on certain motorways or side roads, that I hope that the noble Lord is always talking about the genuine Romany. There are people who are not genuine gipsies and I thought that he spoke in a slightly derogatory way about the residents.

I have had many deputations from residents in areas where they are genuinely distressed by the kind of people who camp in fields behind them, then go away leaving total destruction and all kinds of rubbish which is never collected by anyone. I am sure that the noble Lord was talking about the genuine gipsies, but I thought we should be clear in our minds about whom we are talking when we say that local authorities must designate areas and provide accommodation, because people who buy houses in certain areas also have rights.

Lord AVEBURY

It is not for me to reply to the amendments, but, if I may enlighten the noble Baroness, a "gipsy" according to the definition in the 1968 Act, is a person of nomadic habit, irrespective of racial or ethnic origin. That means, for example, that the Irish tinkers are equally gipsies within the meaning of that Act, as is the true Romany. I did not, with great respect, single out the true Romany for attention in the remarks that I made, because the provision which I am suggesting local authorities ought to be making, and which should have been included in the programme recommended by Sir John Cripps in paragraph 440 of his report, applied equally to everybody who lived in caravans, whether they were Romany in origin or not.

I also made reference to the mess that gipsies make, and I recognise that this is a matter of great concern to residents. I hope that I was not dismissive of the work which many of them do, which is of great value to their neighbourhoods. But what I did say was that, sometimes, the chairmen of residents were able to get cheap, popular support by condemning gipsies in the neighbourhood, whereas the correct solution is to agitate with the local authorities for the provision of the sites which would render these unauthorised encampments unnecessary.

The mess which gipsies make is always on the unauthorised sites because they are not properly controlled and because no enforcement clean-up procedures can be achieved. While they are on the roadside, or on vacant land, or on land without the permission of the owner they make a great deal of mess because there are no facilities for refuse collection. Nor are there any sanitary facilities. Inevitably, there is an unsightly heap of rubbish in the neighbourhood of the caravans. Once you get them on to authorised sites where there are proper facilities for washing and where the local authority can collect the refuse, those problems are eliminated. That is why I tried to emphasise at the end of my speech that the sooner people realise that the removal of the unauthorised encampments is dependent upon the provision of an adequate, countrywide network of sites, the sooner we will get on with solving the problem.

Baroness PHILLIPS

I do not want to debate the point with the noble Lord, but the rubbish is not only on the sites; it spreads along the edges of the motorways. It is not domestic rubbish but pieces of cars which they have dismantled. These people are not living in poverty. We are talking about people who are living in caravans of great luxury. I do not deny them that right, but I think that the people who live in those areas also have rights.

Lord AVEBURY

I agree with the noble Baroness once again that the scrap remnants which result from the processing of old cars and so on create an unsightly mess on the borders of main roads. For that reason, it is important that the permissive powers contained in the 1968 Act to provide working areas in the neighbourhood of residential sites should also be properly utilised by the local authorities.

Baroness DAVID

I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. I was particularly glad to hear that the moratorium is off for the moment. I should be interested to hear more details about that. I am very grateful for what we have got and to hear that the amendments have been accepted. Tomorrow I shall read the debate in Hansard, particularly with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has said. There may then be further amendments at the Report stage, but may I thank the noble Lord for what we have.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Alport)

With your Lordships' permission, I will take all these amendments as having been moved.

On Question, Amendment No. 284B agreed to.

Amendment No. 284C moved— After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:

("Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants

. For section 11 of the Act of 1968 (removal of unlawful encampments), there is substituted the following section:—

11.—(1) In any area to which section 10 of this Act applies, a magistrates' court may, on a complaint made by a local authority, and if satisfied that a caravan is unlawfully parked on land within that authority's area, make an order requiring any caravan (whether or not identified in the order) which is unlawfully parked on the land to be removed together with any person residing in it.

(2) An order under this section may authorise the local authority to take such steps as are reasonably necessary to ensure that the order is complied with and in particular, may authorise the authority, by its officers and servants—

1. (a) to enter upon the land specified in the order; and
2. (b) to take, in relation to any caravan to be removed pursuant to the order, such steps for securing entry and rendering it suitable for removal as may be so specified.

(3) The local authority shall not enter upon any occupied land unless they have given to the owner and occupier at least 24 hours notice of their intention to do so, or unless after reasonable inquiries they are unable to ascertain their names and addresses.

(4) A person who intentionally obstructs any person acting in the exercise of any power conferred on him by an order under this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.

(5) A constable in uniform may arrest without warrant anyone whom he reasonably suspects to be guilty of an offence under this section.

(6) Where a complaint is made under this section, a summons issued by the court requiring the person or persons to whom it is directed to appear before the court to answer to the complaint may be directed—

1. (a) to the occupant of a particular caravan parked on the land in question; or
2. (b) to all occupants of caravans parked there,

without naming him or them.

(7) Where it is impracticable to serve such a summons on a person named in it, it shall be treated as duly served on him if a copy of it is fixed in a prominent place to the caravan con cerned; and where such a summons is directed to the unnamed occupants of caravans, it shall be treated as duly served on those occupants if a copy of it is fixed in a prominent place to every caravan parked on the land in question at the time when service is thus effected.

(8) The local authority shall take such steps as may be reasonably practicable to secure that a copy of any such summons is displayed on the land in question (otherwise than by being fixed to a caravan) in a manner designed to ensure that it is likely to be seen by any person camping on the land.

(9) Notice of any such summons shall be given by the local authority to the owner of the land in question and to any occupier of that land unless, after reasonable inquiries, the authority is unable to ascertain the name and address of the owner or occupier; and the owner of any such land and any occupier of any such land shall be entitled to appear and to be heard in the proceedings.

(10) Section 55(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (warrant for arrest of defendant failing to appear) does not apply to proceedings on a complaint made under this section.".").

Amendments Nos. 284CB, 284CC, 284CD and 284CE to Amendment No. 284C moved:

In subsection (1)—

1. (a) leave out ("unlawfully parked on land within that authority's area") and insert ("stationed on land within that Authority's area in contravention of that section");
2. (b) leave out second ("unlawfully parked") and insert ("so stationed").

In subsection (6), in paragraph (a) leave out ("parked") and insert ("stationed").

In subsection (6), in paragraph (b), leave out ("parked") and insert ("stationed").

In subsection (7), in line 8, leave out ("parked") and insert ("stationed").

On Question, amendments to the amendment agreed to.

Amendment No. 284C, as amended, agreed to.

Amendments Nos. 284D, 284E, 284F and 284G moved:

After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:

("Designation of areas for purpose of making unauthorised camping unlawful.

.—(1) For section 12 of the Act of 1968 (designation of areas of counties and London boroughs as areas to which provisions of section 10 of that Act prohibiting unauthorised camping apply) there is substituted the following section:—

12.—(1) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Minister may by order made on the application of a county council or London borough council designate the area of that council as an area to which section 10 of this Act applies.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, the Minister may by order made on the joint application of a county council and one or more councils of districts within that county designate the area of the district or, as the case may be, the combined areas of the districts, as an area to which section 10 of this Act applies.

(3) The Minister shall not make an order under subsection (1) or (2) above in respect of any area unless it appears to him either that adequate provision is made in the order for the accommodation of gipsies residing in or resorting to the area, or that in all the circumstances it is not necessary or expedient to make any such provision.

(4) An order under this section may be revoked by an order made by the Minister, either on the application of the authority or authorities which made the original application or without such an application.

(5) The power of the Minister to make orders under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument; and any statutory instrument made by virtue of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) Where an order under this section is made in respect of any area it shall be the duty of the county council for that area or, as the case may be, the London borough council concerned to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to inform gipsies within the area of the making and effect of the order".

(2) Where by virtue of the Local Government Act 1972 (which, among other things, reorganised local authority areas) a designation made before 1st April 1974 under section 12 of the 1968 Act as originally enacted (and not revoked) relates to part only of the area of a county, any order which is made on the application of the council of that county under subsection (1) or (2) of the section substituted for section 12 of the 1968 Act by subsection (1) above shall be made to extend only to an area which does not include the area designated before 1st April 1974.").

After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:

("Site licences: exemption for sites provided for gipsies by county councils or regional councils.

. In Schedule 1 to the Act of 1960 (cases where site licence not required), the following is inserted after paragraph 11:—

"Gipsy sites occupied by county councils or regional councils

11A. A site licence shall not be required for the use of land occupied by a county council, or in Scotland by a Regional Council, as a caravan site providing accommodation for gipsies.".").

After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:

("Interpretation of Port XVIA

. In this Part of this Act— the Act of 1960" means the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960; the Act of 1968" means the Caravan Sites Act 1968; caravan" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1960; and gipsy" has the same meaning as in the Act of 1968."."). After Clause 152, insert the following new clause:

(" Commencement and extent of Part XVIA

.—(1) Section [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants] of this Act shall commence at the expiry of the period of three months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

(2) In section [Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies] above, the repeal effected by paragraph (b) shall not take effect until the expiry of the period of 12 months beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

(3) Subject to subsections (1) and (2) above, this Part of this Act shall commence at the expiry of the period of one month beginning with the date on which this Act is passed.

(4) Sections [Duty of local authorities to provide caravan sites for gipsies], [Removal of unlawfully parked caravans and their occupants] and [Designation of areas for purpose of making unauthorised camping unlawful] above do not extend to Scotland.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 153 [Enterprise zones]:

On Question, Whether Clause 153 shall stand part of the Bill?

8.15 p.m.

Viscount SIMON

I do not want to detain the Committee, and it may be that I have ill advised myself, but I do not understand at what stage we are going to discuss generally the principle of enterprise zones, about which we on these Benches have considerable reservations. This clause assumes that we are agreed about enterprise zones, but it only introduces the schedule which describes the machinery by which these zones are to be set up.

The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, has been clever, in that there is an amendment to a clause in the schedule. However, I have very considerable doubts about the proposal that undertakings in these zones should be exempt from the requirements of industrial training boards. This has been put out in a Government paper but it is not included in the schedule, so far as I can discover. We are giving a great many advantages to undertakings in these zones and I am not clear why they should be exempted from the requirements of industrial training boards which are very much better applied by everybody. It is not entirely disconnected from a later passage in the Government's paper, which said that there should be no reduction in the standards needed to protect health and safety. I think that the training of employees is very important in connection with standards of health and safety.

There is no possiblity of putting down an amendment, because the provision is not set out anywhere. I am just wondering whether the noble Lord can explain to me how we deal with these problems. I have one or two others in my mind.

Lord UNDERHILL

There are two or three other points on enterprise zones that I should like to put to the noble Lord. I wish to say nothing to hinder enterprise zones, particularly as this is an experimental scheme which will help to find out the successes, or otherwise. Having said that, I am a little concerned that they may be too small and may have an adverse effect on other parts of an area, or even a region, and thus create problems. The Minister may be able to give me the answer. The limited size of a zone could have the effect of siphoning development away from other areas in a city. Little advantage would be gained if a number of small firms decided to move out of one area and to move into the enterprise zone. Nothing would be gained except that the community would receive considerable financial benefit.

I gather that the purpose of enterprise zones is to create further jobs, but there are no safeguards. If it is merely a question of a firm moving from one area to another, no extra jobs are being created. While it may help the area where the enterprise zone is situated, it may possibly create problems in another area. We know that run down areas of cities may not be in an enterprise zone and may have in them a considerable number of small firms which might wish to move into a relatively small area of the enterprise zone. There are no safeguards, and I think problems of that kind would arise. Therefore it would need to be monitored very carefully to see whether or not the experiment was successful.

Lord NORTHFIELD

Since the principle of enterprise zones is being discussed, may I say that I am very strongly in favour of them and that I am glad the Government have introduced them? Some years ago, when we were debating the problems of the inner cities, a number of us made the point that in some of the really difficult areas of the country the best thing to do was to relieve them of rates and taxes and to give them other freedoms, in the hope that the sheer intractability of their problems would be conquered by concessions of this kind. That is what enterprise zones are about: they are for areas where the normal processes of development have failed to solve the problems, where the problems are difficult, where for 10, 20 or even more years we have been unable to get their economies moving. A number of us have said over the years that that is the kind of solution which might help them, and this led finally to the experiment being introduced.

As for the problem about firms moving and not creating more jobs, one of the answers to my noble friend is that very few firms will move just for the sake of moving into an enterprise zone. The costs of moving today are horrific. It is not going to be so easy to pull up sticks, move over and not create new jobs. If, when they move, they respond to the freer climate and to the reduction of taxes in an enterprise zone, they may create more jobs in their new location and expand more quickly there than they would have done had they stayed put where they were.

One could go on with this kind of argument. I hope that the general doubt which has been cast on these zones will not be pursued. I think this is a very worthwhile experiment. If they fail in a few years' time, we can write them off, but goodness me! looking round at some of the intractably difficult areas I am glad that at least we are having an experiment with them.

Lord BELLWIN

Not for the first time in matters of this kind during the passage of the Committee stage of this Bill I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for having put the points so well that I had intended to make. I think we must accept right from the beginning that this is an attempt at an experiment. It is an attempt to do something to take areas which are desperately in need of something dramatic, and if we run into snags and difficulties, as we may well do—and there are one or two amendments here which raise certain potential problems, which we acknowledge: we do not run away from them—we shall have to see whether the overall benefit in totality is not greater. It is an attempt to do something and, in general, it has been very much welcomed, not by everybody but by most people, and I hope that the Committee will feel likewise.

I am not claiming that this is the total answer, as I said yesterday when we were dealing with UDCs; but it is an attempt to do something, and I hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will feel that way, at least sufficiently to want to see how it goes. As to his point on the training board, I am advised that it was not considered suitable to go into this Bill, as such, but will be dealt with in some legislation as quickly as we can.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

There is one point which I should like to raise. Of course we welcome it; we are not troglodytes on either side of the Committee and any experiment is welcome. I should like to thank the Minister once again for all the notes that we have had and for getting into the Printed Paper Office this morning the document on enterprise zone policy and proposals. I will not bore the Committee by reading it all through because noble Lords can read it for themselves. I just wonder about land reclamation in places like Stoke-on-Trent, which has a wonderful record for land reclamation—a whole tip of 15 million tons made into a rolling meadow. In mining areas and places like Stoke-on-Trent where clay pits have been dug out, could not an enterprise zone be considered there, so giving employment to possibly a dozen people for three, four or five years on land reclamation? That might be a point worth considering. It would be unfair to bring pressure on the Committee, but I should like it to be on the record that this kind of thing may be considered.

Lord BELLWIN

I am not sure that this is the moment at which we should be talking about this. I think we should recognise that this is going to be a costly exercise for everyone concerned and, therefore, despite the enthusiasm of many who would like to have a shot at it, we are having to limit it to seven places in England and Wales and one in Scotland.

The problem of derelict land is really something else. Obviously in an area which is a candidate for an enterprise zone such matters as land dereliction are factors to be taken into account. The derelict land grants which are available are liberally dealt with at the present time. We are anxious to do as much as we can in regard to this. It is one area in which, in my experience of the last year or so, there has been a much more open-handed attitude. We recognise that if we do not do this now it takes years to build up a programme, and we could lose that programme. That is why we must give this some priority, which we have been doing.

Clause 153 agreed to.

Schedule 28 [Enterprise zones]:

8.25 p.m.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 285: Page 237, leave out lines 10 and 11.

The noble Lord said: One of our concerns throughout the Committee stage of the local government Bill has been the gradual watering down of the power of democratically elected bodies. The schedule provides that the bodies which may draw up plans for enterprise zones are district councils, London boroughs, urban development corporations and new town corporations and our view is that the ability to submit plans for enterprise zones should be restricted to district councils and London borough councils. This does not in any way mean any restriction on where the enterprise zones operate. What it does mean is that in a new town area the new town corporation would have to make the application for an enterprise zone through its district councils and likewise an enterprise zone in an urban area would have to apply through the London borough or district council concerned.

As has already been said in the debate the enterprise zone initiative is seen as an experiment to rejuvenate urban areas. The initial suggested list of possible sites reflects the emphasis on the inner city. If the experiment is to be successful, there would not only need to be variations between different enterprise zones and their performance, but this will have to be very closely monitored. In our view, the most appropriate bodies to carry out such experiments are the local authorities. They have the capability to monitor enterprise zones and the experience to liaise with other interests in the local population. If the urban development corporations are unable to prepare such schemes, they may well not be able to fulfil these requirements. They would not develop close links with the organisations in the local communities as they themselves are only established under the provisions of this Bill. They will need to concentrate on the immediate tasks in front of them, and it would be far more appropriate for the local authorities to be designated the enterprise zones authorities. Equally, new town corporations do not have a direct democratic link with the local population, which may be crucial in ensuring the successful implementation of the enterprise zone schemes. In addition, of course, a number of new towns are in the process of handing over their powers to democratically elected bodies and this amendment, while saying that the corporations cannot apply to establish enterprise zones, specifically allows for a new town corporation to apply for an enterprise zone through its district council.

From what has been said in the debate which we have just had it would appear that this is a very costly experiment. We welcome the experiment and there are areas such as the new towns which have had considerable tranches of money in the past. It is probably best, particularly in view of the Government's initial feeling on this, that it should be limited to the urban areas and that the authorities which apply for the enterprise zone designation should be limited in the way that I have indicated. I beg to move.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I must say bluntly to my noble friend that I oppose this amendment. I think it is very ill-advised. I have an interest in this matter in that I am the chairman of a new town and so far as I know we are the only new town which has applied to have an enterprise zone. So I have a direct interest in not seeing this amendment carried. My view is that the new towns are in a strong position to designate land in this way; to designate areas which are suitable to be enterprise zones. In my case—and I am happy to have this opportunity to run a trailer for my application, in the sense that nothing has been finally decided and so one can live in hope. In my own case we have 300 acres of land between GKN Sankey—a huge heavy engineering works—and the central ordnance depot of the Army. In other words, it is a piece of land whose neighbours will not complain. They are not the sort of people who would be injured in any sense by what the pessimists think might happen in an enterprise zone. It is an absolutely admirable site for an enterprise zone and I hope we are going to get it.

Why should we, as the development corporation, have this power? Frankly, because we have the duty under the designation to seek to redevelop this area. In our case it is a whole 30 square miles of previous total dereliction left in the East Shropshire coalfield, very similar to an inner city situation. We have a total obligation to redevelop that area and to bring in industry in order to provide more jobs, and more prosperity for an old, dying area. If we are set up to do the job of setting out 50, 100 or several hundred acres of industrial estates and we have the power to set them out, to recoup for them, to manage them—to do all these other things—why in heaven's name should we not have the power also to ask for an enterprise zone? After all, it is a further weapon, if I can use that word, to secure increasing employment opportunities for the area. In my case, not only is it a previously derelict area, but it has a 13 per cent. unemployment rate. That is not based on our failure as a new town corporation. It is based on the collapse of the old industry of the area which is for ever running into the sand under our feet. We cannot create new jobs fast enough in the new industry to make up for the collapse of the old.

It is for exactly those circumstances that I believe the Government were intending these enterprise zones. If I may come some distance to meet my noble friend, I am sure it would be sensible that such applications by new town corporations should have at least the goodwill of the district council. I can tell him that that is precisely what the Government are asking in their consultations with the new towns. If one makes such an application, one must have at least goodwill on the part of the district council, or the tolerance of the district council, to see the whole thing through. That is quite properly being asked of us. Although my district council quite unusually is against these enterprise zones, nevertheless it has said that it will not hinder the operation of one if in the wider execution of our duty and our powers to rejuvenate this area we, the development corporation, think it is a good thing to have such an enterprise zone. That is a little way towards my noble friend, but on the general principle of what he is saying—the head-on collision with the power, his total opposition to its being given to new towns—I must totally part company with him. I think it is a very good idea that we have a chance with other people to have these zones.

Lord BELLWIN

I am terribly tempted to say, "Need I say more?" As to the noble Lord's plug for his application or wish, I can only say, "I hear what you say". Of course, that will be done in another place in another way. I have noted down some splendid points to make, but frankly I do not see there is any point in making them because the noble Lord has put the case so well. There is an absolute wish here for a total involvement in this matter by the local authorities. This thing is never going to get anywhere if the local authorities do not want to do it, and we have no intention at all of pressing anyone to do it. In regard to the new town development corporations and so on, whatever I said would simply repeat what the noble Lord has said, and in those circumstances I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may feel able to withdraw his amendment. I will go into more detail if noble Lords would like me to do so.

Baroness STEDMAN

I am sure we would not like it at this time of the night and at this stage of the Bill. I yield to no one in my admiration for what my noble friend Lord Northfield and his board have done in Telford. They have done a fantastic job. The land reclamation they have carried out is equalled by nothing else in this country. But I cannot see why the noble Lord is quite so vehement about the suggestion which my noble friend has put up. If he has got the support of his district council, as he says he has, what is to prevent it going through his district council? If we have only limited funds to give on enterprise zones, have we not really got a first duty to the inner cities that are so run down and that do need them? I know that Telford New Town has its special problems. I know it has a higher unemployment rate than it would like or that we would wish to see there, but I do not think we are all that much apart from each other. If my noble friend has the support of the regional district council, there is no reason why a new town should be in it. They should be able to make their case to their district council.

Lord BELLWIN

It will have been seen from those already designated that the clear emphasis obviously is to the local authorities, the districts concerned. That must be a priority. But to take statutory steps to exclude, as this does, would be wrong. At the end of the day the priorities, the decisions, must be based on a judgment. To exclude the opportunity for new town development corporations and the others to have their chance to make their case is further than we ought to go. That is really all I am saying.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I think my noble friend Lady Stedman must have misheard me. I did not say that I had the support of the district council; I said that unusually they were actually opposed to it, but they have made it clear that they will tolerate it and will not hinder the operation of a zone if we are fortunate to get it. That is good enough as far as I am concerned. They see that some experiments of this kind might well need to be made and they are not going to stand in the way. As far as the general principle is concerned, why should the development corporation have these powers rather than the district council, or equal with the district council, in circumstances like this simply because we are providing acres after acres of industrial land throughout the whole town in order to attract employment? That is more our duty, or at least our power, than that of the district council. So why should we be stopped short when it comes to having this extra industrial zone which is called an enterprise zone? I cannot see the logic of the noble Lord's argument.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I still strongly believe that it is right that this power should be conferred on democratically-elected bodies. I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has said. In view of the fact that we are on the seventh or eighth day of the Committee stage of this Bill, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.38 p.m.

Lord UNDERHILL moved Amendment No. 286: Page 240, line 20, leave out from ("instrument") to ("and") in line 21 and insert ("approved by an affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament").

The noble Lord said: Under the schedule the Secretary of State has the responsibility to invite bodies to prepare a scheme for an enterprise zone. As the noble Lord the Minister has said, there will be only a limited number of these experiments. I emphasise, as my noble friend has said and as I said in my earlier remarks, that we welcome the experiments and will do nothing to hinder them. But, as there will be a limited number, obviously there must be selectivity on the part of the Secretary of State as to which areas shall have the enterprise zones. It is generally agreed—the Minister has made this clear also—that this is a very costly scheme, a very expensive experiment. Therefore, there may be really important reasons why Parliament might wish to question the selection of a particular zone. This amendment raises the point whether it would not be desirable for this to be by Affirmative Resolution rather than by the Negative Resolution procedure. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

May I say en passant to the last observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that it is the seventh day; it only seems like eight days. The effect of the noble Lord's amendment is to make the designation order establishing an enterprise zone subject to Affirmative Resolution procedure. It may help the Committee if I very quickly and briefly spell out the formal procedures that must be gone through before an enterprise zone can be established. First, the authority receives an invitation to draw up a scheme. There is no obligation on the authority to take up the invitation and no sanction or reserve power if they do not. Secondly, if the authority do take up the invitation and draw up an enterprise zone scheme, they must publicise it in draft and give people a chance to comment on it. Thirdly, the authority may amend the scheme in the light of the objections, adopt it, and notify the Secretary of State. The adopted scheme must be publicised. Only then can the Secretary of State lay an order designating the area as an enterprise zone, and that order, under the Government's proposals, will be subject to Negative Resolution procedure.

Precedent suggests that enterprise zones designation orders should be subject to Negative Resolution procedure. Enterprise zone schemes will have a similar effect to special development orders under the Planning Acts. Unlike the enterprise zone scheme, there is no requirement for public consultation prior to the making of a special development order; yet such orders are subject only to the Negative Resolution procedure.

The nearest analogy to the sort of fiscal concessions we are making available in enterprise zones would, I suppose, be the advantages available in assisted areas. Again assisted areas are established by Negative Resolution procedure, without any requirement to consult those who might turn out to be on the wrong side of the boundary.

I believe that the procedures we have provided prior to designation give every opportunity for the proposal for an enterprise zone to be scrutinized by those most directly affected; mainly those in and around the zone. Moreover, we intend that the formal invitation to prepare enterprise zone schemes will include directions to consult the county authorities and other bodies, including neighbouring districts, where their interests might be substantially affected.

I hope the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, might feel that it would not be necessary to add to what is already an elaborate procedure a requirement for Affirmative Resolution in both Houses, and I wonder if he may feel able to withdraw this amendment.

Lord UNDERHILL

I very much appreciate the detailed outline given by the Minister of the procedure prior to the order being placed. I think the safeguards are excellent. The point I was trying to emphasise is that Parliament wants to have control over public expenditure, which I would have thought noble Lords opposite would very much appreciate. There could be an argument as to why one area is given a zone, which will be very costly, and another area is not given a zone. But, in the circumstances and in view of the explanation given by the Minister, I shall not press it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.45 p.m.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 286A:

Page 244, line 30, at end insert— ("(3A) Subject to sub-paragraph (3B) below, where planning permission is so granted for any development or class of development, the enterprise zone authority may direct that the permission shall not apply in relation

1. (a) to a specified development; or
2. (b) to a specified class of development; or
3. (c) to a specified class of development in a specified area within the enterprise zone.

(3B) An enterprise zone authority shall not give a direction under sub-paragraph (3A) above unless they have submitted it to the Secretary of State and he has notified them that he approves of their giving it".).

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendment No. 287A. Within an enterprise zone, a wide range of development will be permitted without the grant of express planning permission. The range of development may be so wide that objectionable types of development which are seriously detrimental to the enterprise zone or the locality may be proposed. Some control over such objectionable types of development is required. This amendment enables an enterprise zone authority, which, as I said earlier, in our view should be the district council, with the consent of the Secretary of State, I to direct that planning permission granted by the enterprise zone scheme shall not apply to a specified development and such development would need to be the subject of an express planning permission.

Lord BELLWIN

If the noble Lord would allow me, it might be helpful if I were to tell him straight away that we are prepared to accept this amendment.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I am pleased to hear that. My antennae had not informed me of that, as they sometimes do when the Government are going to accept an amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 287:

Page 246, line 36, at end insert— ("(2A) Where an enterprise zone is wholly or partly situated in Greater London, subparagraphs (1) and (2) above shall have effect as if the references to the county planning authority were references to the Greater London Council and the references to the structure plan were accordingly references to the Greater London development plan.").

The noble Lord said: Paragraph 23 of Schedule 28 is concerned with the relationship between an enterprise zone scheme and the normal arrangements under the Planning Acts. The policies reflected in the scheme may differ from those in the structure and local plans for the area. Paragraph 23 therefore requires the authorities which prepared them to review the statutory plans, and if necessary to make amendments to them. Such a provision is needed to ensure that there is no likelihood of confusion arising from a contradiction between statutory structure and local plans and a statutory enterprise zone scheme. In making any amendments the authorities concerned will of course have to follow the normal Planning Act procedures governing amendment of structure and local plans. This amendment corrects a technical fault in paragraph 23. As it stands, it is not provided that the GLC should review the Greater London development plan when an enterprise zone is set up in London. This amendment corrects that oversight. I beg to move the amendment, and recommend it to the Committee.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 287A:

Page 247, line 24, at end insert— ("( ) make provision as to the procedure for giving a direction under paragraph 17 (3A) above;").

The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the earlier amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 288:

Page 248, line 22, at end insert (";or (d) it is an hereditament occupied by a major retail space user".).

The noble Lord said: Before embarking on a speech on this amendment, I look to see whether there are any signs that this one also might be acceptable.

Lord BELLWIN

I remain firmly in my seat.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

Enterprise zones will offer major inducements to developers, particularly through the rating exemption. If these inducements stimulate the development of industrial or commercial enterprises, then, unless they have moved directly from one area to another, that will be a positive gain and will not undermine similar developments if they exist outside the enterprise zone.

The situation, in our view, is rather different in the case of retail developments. Retail developments draw on a more or less limited geographical catchment area. The introduction of a new major retailing outlet in an enterprise zone could have a substantial impact on existing retail developments. The very possibility that such developments might be established, stimulated by the rating exemption, could well threaten proposed retailing developments near the enterprise zone. We would wish, therefore, to see this amendment, which would remove the rating exemption from major retail space users, carried, and these amendments define the users as a business occupying space of more than 300 square metres. This would effectively protect local shop users outside the immediate periphery of an enterprise zone. Unless these amendments are accepted, we feel that difficult situations could arise for retail users in adjoining areas. In effect, the rating exemption granted to the substantial retail users within the zone will give an unfair economic advantage to those particular users. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

I am not sure whether or not I wish to support this amendment at this stage, because I am not sure how my noble friend intends to deal with the problem. That there is a problem, or could be a problem, caused by a hypermarket taking advantage of an enterprise zone I have no doubt at all, but I have a feeling that it may be possible to deal with it within the terms of the Bill rather than by this amendment.

Lord NORTHFIELD

I share the slight disquiet of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, about the problem of large hypermarkets. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister can indicate whether he thinks that Amendment No. 286A, which we have just carried, would be one way of dealing with such developments if there were dangers to retail operations in the area, or other big public investment in retail opportunities in the area. Alternatively—and here I come to my second point—can he tell us that in drawing up the schemes for these enterprise zones the Government really will be open and flexible with the authorities of the new town corporation, as in my case, and come to them and say, "We would like to put a limit on the size of these operations before we could openly allow them in"? In other words, is there a real flexibility in the Government's mind or are they asking for absolutely total freedom for anything to happen in this field of activity?

Lord BELLWIN

I should have thought that this was arguably one of the most difficult aspects of the proposals—some would say the most difficult aspect of the proposals—but speaking to the specific amendments, these amendments would exclude businesses with more than 500 square metres of retail floor space from the rating exemption. That would give rise to practical difficulties. There would be, for example, a powerful incentive for retailers to try to subdivide their activities in some artificial way so that they might become separate and smaller units. This, surely, would be a recipe for litigation, uncertainty and possibly even waste. However, I know that a number of authorities who are keen to have enterprise zones are nevertheless concerned about unlimited hypermarket development, and so for that matter are a number of authorities in adjacent areas also.

We have held discussions with many of the authorities concerned to explore their particular local problems, and if it proves necessary to restrict hypermarket development in particular localities we can do so by putting a planning restriction into the enterprise zone scheme; but shops can make a major contribution to the local economy and to the attractiveness of an area, and many consumers will welcome improved retail provision in their area.

So I suggest we should not dilute the enterprise zone experiment from the outset by deliberately slanting the rating concessions regardless of local circumstances so as to favour only those developments which are supposed to be good and to exclude those which are supposed to be bad. I say again that we realise that there are arguments on both sides on this issue and strong and genuine differences of opinion, and it is because we want to get the right answers that we are still having discussions about this.

It seems to me that the right approach will differ from area to area, depending on the local circumstances, so I would not want to close our options at this stage by accepting the amendments; but I am glad of the opportunity to say that I think the approach should be flexible here and that we should try not to be too rigid in how we deal with it, because it will differ from area to area. In view of that perhaps the noble Lord may feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord SANDFORD

I am very pleased to hear that but, as a House of Parliament, I do think we are under an obligation to get from the noble Lord a quite clear assurance that if, following these consultations, he and his colleagues do become convinced that it will be necessary to exercise the kind of controls the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, is asking for, it will be possible to do it through the Bill without this amendment.

Lord BELLWIN

My information is that the way to deal with that situation would be by planning restrictions, and we feel that is the way to go about dealing with this particular problem.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, for his full and earlier reply, and I am very glad that he accepts that there is a problem here and that he is exploring the ways how it can best be dealt with. In the circumstances, I withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 289: Page 249, line 12, after ("revenue") insert ("from exempt hereditaments").

The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment which clarifies the schedule to remove any possible doubts in the future. Unless noble Lords wish me to explain in more detail I do not propose to do so, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 290 not moved.]

The LORD ADVOCATE (Lord Mackay of Clashfern) moved Amendment No. 291: Page 250, line 40, after ("revenue") insert ("from exempt lands and heritages").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment corresponds for Scotland to the amendment just moved by my noble friend. Your Lordships will see the expression "lands and heritages" is inserted, as the Scottish equivalent. It is a much better word for "hereditaments". I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 54 agreed to.

8.55 p.m.

Lord MIDDLETON moved Amendment No. 291A: After Clause 154, insert the following new clause:

("Precepts on local authorities for land drainage.

.—(1) In subsection (5) of section 46 of the Land Drainage Act 1976 (by virtue of which the aggregate amount for which precepts in respect of the expenses of a local land drainage district may be issued for any one financial year to a local authority may not, unless special consent has been obtained, exceed 1.7 times the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year) for the words from "1/" to the end there shall be substituted the words "the amount calculated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of the authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".

(2) In subsection (6) of that section (effect of special resolution) for the words from "1/" to "area" there shall be substituted the words "the amount calcuaated by multiplying the estimated penny rate product for the relevant area of that authority for that year by such number as the Ministers may specify by order made for the purposes of this subsection".

(3) Accordingly, in section 109 of that Act (regulations and orders)—

1. (a) in subsection (2), after the words "under section" there shall be inserted the words "46 or"; and
2. (b) in subsection (3), after the word "27" there shall be inserted the word "46".

(4) The amendments made by this section shall have effect in relation to every rate period, within the meaning of the General Rate Act 1967, beginning with such rate period as the Ministers may by order made by statutory instrument specify.

(5) An order under subsection (4) above shall not specify a rate period beginning before 1st April 1981.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to alter the Land Drainage Act 1976. That Act gives power to water authorities to carry out land drainage works, main river improvements, flood alleviation and sea defence work. Expenditure is financed by a precept on the county rate and Section 46 of the Act lays down a limit to the amount of any precept. This limit was originally set in an Act of 1948 and given a decimal equivalent in the Water Act 1973. Such a limit is now wholly unrealistic, due to the effect of inflation on expenditure and to out of date rating valuations.

I will not weary the Committee with the technicalities of the amendment, except to say that whereas the costs of construction have increased since 1972 by 200 per cent., the penny rate product of England and Wales has increased by only 26 per cent. So when, therefore, you have a financial limit imposed by statute and geared to a penny rate product in a way that may have been appropriate in 1973 and is now quite inappropriate, the raising of enough money to pay for this essential work becomes exceedingly difficult; and the purpose of this amendment is to give the responsible Ministers power to introduce a measure of flexibility into and out of date situation by making an order to substitute another multiplier of the penny rate product to that prescribed in the old Act. I beg to move.

The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers)

We agree that the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Wales should have the powers to increase the maximum precept which can be levied by a water authority on county councils where that proves necessary, in view of the fact that the level was originally set, as my noble friend said, way back in 1948. We think this is a reasonable suggestion, and I am happy to accept the amendment.

Lord MIDDLETON

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers. Acceptance by the Government of this amendment will do a great deal to help restore the balance between the limit on land drainage expenditure and the penny rate product, which was in danger of being upset.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 155 [Relaxation of Ministerial controls over social services]:

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendments Nos. 292 and 293:

Page 128, line 17, leave out ("Subsection (1) of") and insert ("The following section shall be substituted for").

Page 128, line 22, leave out from ("State)") to ("A") in line 25 and insert— ("3.—(1)").

The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendments Nos. 292 and 293 to Clause 155, I should also like to speak to a consequential Amendment No. 319 to Schedule 30, which is also a Government amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lord Bellwin, although not so shown on the Marshalled List. These are purely drafting amendments, to combine the provisions of Clause 155(1) and (2) into a single subsection. The amendments do not change the effect of these provisions, which is to repeal Section 3(1) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 and to make consequential amendments to Section 3(3) and (4) of that Act; and the purpose is to simplify the drafting and enable Section 3 to be consolidated and shortened, consequent upon the repeal of Section 3(1) by this Bill and the earlier repeal of Section 3(2) by the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973.

As to Amendment No. 319 to Schedule 30, Section 15(2) of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970 in the definition of the expression "social services functions" makes a reference to Section 3(3) of that Act. This amendment deletes the subsection reference bearing simply a reference to Section 3, and is consequential upon the renumbering of Section 3(3) of the 1970 Act by Clause 155 of this Bill, and the consolidation and shortening of the section. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 155, as amended, agreed to.

9.1 p.m.

Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 294: After Clause 155, insert the following new clause:

("Abolition of the requirement to appoint Children's Regional Planning Committees.

.—(1) So much of Part II of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and Part IV of the Child Care Act 1980 as requires the establishment of Children's Regional Planning Committees and the preparation and approval of regional plans and schemes for the provision of facilities for persons placed under the supervision of local authorities shall cease to have effect.

(2) In carrying out their powers and duties under sections 11 to 19 (Supervision) and sections 35 to 38 (Community Homes) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 and sections 31 to 34 of the Child Care Act 1980 the local authority shall act following consultation with such other authorities or bodies as they may consider necessary.").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Ridley, I should like to move Amendment No. 294. The object of this amendment is to implement the stated intention of the Government set out in the White Paper Central Government Controls over Local Authorities, to abolish the duty to establish children's regional planning committees and to replace those with a permissive power, leaving it to local authorities to make, as necessary, joint arrangements by local agreement.

This is a shortened version of Clause 238 and Schedule 29 of the No. 1 Bill originally introduced in this House. I should like to emphasise that the object is not to abolish these committees, but only the statutory duty to have them. Some are very desirable: some are not. I believe that the Government are sympathetic to this matter and I hope they will accept the amendment in as short a time as I have taken to move it. I beg to move.

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE

The Government stand by their commitment—given in the September 1979 White Paper on the review of controls over local government—to propose to Parliament the conversion of the present duty on all social services authorities to create and participate in children's regional planning committees into a power to do so where authorities in a particular area think that such a committee is the best way of achieving the proper provision of these services for children, which need planning across a wider area than that of a single authority. They also stand by their commitment to abolish the need for the preparation and submission of regional plans for these services to central Government. There is, therefore, no policy difference over the need to make these changes.

As my noble friend has said, amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act 1969 were included in the first version of the present Bill. They ran to two pages and a schedule. With reluctance, we decided that this should be among the material omitted to make a shorter and less complex Bill. We shall need, at an appropriate time, to propose to Parliament longer and more complex amending material, in fact the material included in the original version of the Bill, or something like it. We would be very reluctant to complicate consideration—here and in another place—of this already major measure by introducing at this stage the amendments necessary to meet the objectives we share. But I give the assurance that the Government intend to introduce suitable material into early legislation, and are confirmed in their intention to do so by my noble friend's views. I hope very much that on this basis he will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Lord DIGBY

I am most grateful for that reply. I am afraid we had appreciated that our attempt to shorten this might pose problems for the parliamentary draftsmen. But, it is a most welcome assurance that legislation will be produced. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.5 p.m.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No.294ZB: After Clause 155, insert the following new clause:

("Amendment of s. 9 of Justices of The Peace Act 1979.

. After section 19(2) of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979 there shall be inserted a new subsection (2)(a) as follows:—

"(2)(a) For the purpose of subsection (2) above the districts of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent shall be deemed to be non-metropolitan counties.".").

The noble Lord said: If I may accept a very sudden dock brief and substitute myself most unworthily for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I beg to move this amendment. I shall not trouble your Lordships with a long and detailed speech, but will say that most of what I have briefly to say is said on behalf of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent with which worthy places may I immediately tell your Lordships I have some acquaintance of fondness having visited them, but have no other representative capacity whatsoever.

This matter arises out of what many of your Lordships know from intimate experience to be the magistrates' courts committees and what happened under the Local Government Act 1972. Briefly, the magistrates' courts committees deal with such matters in regard to the administration of courts, as court accommodation, court staff, training for magistrates, training for court staff and provide the service, mostly through justices' clerks, for the courts within the area of the magistrates' courts committee.

Before 1974 each city and county borough had its own magistrates' courts committee dealing with its own city or county borough. The Local Government Act 1972 drastically amended that and indeed when tidying-up—as it was thought—local authority administration, of necessity perhaps, brought within the purview of that tidying-up operation the jurisdiction of magistrates' courts committees and the position of individual magistrates' courts committees. But that was done largely to deal with the boundaries of local authorities and was not always convenient in regard to the administration of justice. It is said by the worthy people of Brighton, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent that this has caused not only grave injustice to them, but has led to deterioration in the administration of justice and much extra expense—a matter which I know will be very much the concern of those who sit on the Front Bench opposite and those, worthy of your Lordships, who sit behind them.

Indeed, in 1974 as a result of this, to take Plymouth as an example—but it applies to all the other cities that I have mentioned—the magistrates' courts committee was abolished, and the Plymouth City Council ceased to have any consultative powers in connection with the Plymouth Magistrates' Court. I must quote the next bit because I dare not say it myself and your Lordships will take it for granted that it is, indeed, a quotation from those who are very interested in Plymouth in this matter. I am told that: Several anomalies were created, not least the provision that demotes a great and historic city like Plymouth to a rural area of Devon, when the very same statute created metropolitan districts, many of which are the same size in population as the city of Plymouth, and some even smaller. These metropolitan districts were given their own magistrates' courts committees for no other reason than the administrative convenience of the local authority which was set up. I shall not weary the members of your Lordships' Committee with this statistic, but I have been given information which seems to show that there are 23 towns which have their own magistrates' courts committee, where in each case the population is under 300,000, and I am reliably informed that the population of Plymouth is 257,700.

I am told that if Plymouth had its own magistrates' courts committee there would be a great saving of expense. At the moment six representatives are called to Exeter eight or 10 times a year, and the round trip is 100 miles, all of it charged to the public account. The magistrates' courts committee for Plymouth would have the members of the committee moving two or three miles and the cost would be nil for travelling, as would the secretariat costs. No extra staff would be needed to run the committee and there are available in the city of Plymouth magistrates with experience of magistrates' courts committee work.

I shall end this plea on behalf of Plymouth, Brighton and the other areas that I have mentioned by saying—and this is typical of all of them—that the Plymouth City Bench has resolved unanimously to seek a return of court administration to the pre-1974 position, with the effect that it would have its own magistrates' courts committee. The Plymouth Law Society supports the proposition unreservedly; Plymouth City Council supports the re-creation of the Plymouth magistrates' courts committee; the Plymouth court staff also support a Plymouth magistrates' courts committee.

Therefore, if the Committee would be good enough to take the case that I have made for Plymouth as being the case to be made also for Brighton and Stoke-on-Trent, with some slight variations in the numbers in the population and so on, but the main points of the case being the same, I can relieve your Lordships of further words and merely put before your Lordships a plea on behalf of those places to accept this amendment, the effect of which would be that these places would have their own magistrates' courts committee. I beg to move.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

I am very grateful to my noble friend for having moved this amendment with his usual skill and clarity. The Committee has tried to help the Government by not speaking on certain amendments for a long time, and on this amendment, too, I shall be brief, because the general tenor of the argument has been made. There is no doubt that in the reorganisation of local government which took place in 1974 many county boroughs—acknowledged by the Royal Commission for Local Government as: the most effective local government unit we have known "— lost some of their most important powers to the non-metropolitan counties.

Then there were these four areas that have been mentioned by my noble friend. The Brighton justices also wish to associate themselves with these towns of Plymouth, Portsmouth and Stoke-on-Trent. Without going into details of the economics, having looked at this massive Bill, we saw that in Clause 18 there was the possibility of being in order by including an amendment to Section 9 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1979, because the whole section deals with miscellaneous problems.

As regards finance, I shall say very little because of the speech made by my noble friend. The arguments of Plymouth, Portsmouth, and Stoke-on-Trent, are valid and so are they valid in other parts of the country. But the outstanding point to be made is that this not only wastes time in the administration of magistrates' courts in all these places, but it wastes money. There is the fact that substantial periods are spent travelling to and from meetings, causing justices to give up substantial additional periods of their time and staff to be absent from work. It is difficult to endeavour to calculate the savings, but they would inevitably amount to several thousand pounds per annum in the case, for instance, of Brighton alone.

For the reasons set out in this document and in documents that other Members on both sides of the Committee have received it is apparent that a cheaper and more efficient system for the administration of justice would be obtained by setting up in Brighton, for instance, an independent magistrates' courts committee. I am making a plea for Stoke-on-Trent, and Plymouth and Portsmouth that this slight clause should be inserted in this new Bill.

Not wishing to delay the Committee, and knowing that on both sides of the Committee circulars have been received, and knowing that the experience of both sides of the Committee is such that I think that most people, whatever the Government now say, will appreciate that there is substance in the argument that my noble friend has put forward and I think in the argument that I have put forward, I shall listen to the Minister and see whether he has something nice to tell us as well.

9.16 p.m.

Lord DIGBY

This amendment has been slipped in here without consultation. So far as I know it is the first time that a separate commission of the peace has been set up in a district council. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned 23 other districts. I think he must be referring to metropolitan districts. The Association of County Councils is opposed to such a change. Irrespective of our attitude on the principle, it must be clear that this is no way to legislate for the administration of the community. If there is to be an examination of the basis of the administration of justice at magistrates level in these towns, by all means let it take place, but not in this way and not without consultation.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

I appreciate what the noble Lord has said. This is an endeavour to rectify this problem, if possible. Provided we can get some kind of constructive answer that this may be looked into, I would not wish to divide the Committee on something like this; but it is rather important and there is substance in the argument that the noble Lord has just put forward.

Lord BELSTEAD

It is of course no secret that the previous Government had in mind some changes in the division of functions between county and district councils. However, I think your Lordships would agree that it would be wrong to consider piecemeal adjustments that could create new anomalies. At any rate, that is the case really being made by my noble friend Lord Digby. It is a case which has a considerable amount to be said for it.

Of course I am aware of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said in moving the amendment, that some of the non-metropolitan districts which were formerly county boroughs are more populous than some of the new metropolitan districts which have their own magistrates' courts committees. Of course a city like the City of Plymouth, with its great and historical traditions, clearly wants to have the powers which it believes are consonant with its dignity and size. But where does one draw the line? If—and I emphasise "if"—the arguments in favour of restoring not only to Plymouth but to Brighton, Portsmouth, and Stoke-on-Trent their own magistrates' courts committees are so strong, why should one stop there? Why not extend the principle to all former county boroughs?

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

Yes, if it would save money.

Lord BELSTEAD

I shall come to that in a moment. Or are we to adopt another yardstick? If we are, I have not heard that so far this evening. I think that this is an amendment which does not have enough regard for the wider implications. So far as I can find out, there seems to have been little proper consultation about the proposal. None, so far as I know, with the existing magistrates' courts committees—at any rate, so far as the Plymouth proposal is concerned. That is the committee which of course the amendment is proposing to dismember. Or with the existing paying authorities. That is to say, the county councils, which might have been expected to have some relevant comments to make about the alleged benefits and savings.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

Of course the county councils were aware of this. The noble Lord who spoke was aware that this was in the air, if I may put it that way. It has not just descended from the heavens above. I take the point that the noble Lord is making. All I ask is that it will be given some serious attention, because it is a real problem.

Lord BELSTEAD

The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, is making a substantial point. If there has not been discussion at local level with the paying authority and with the magistrates' courts committee, both of which bodies, it is proposed, should be replaced, then it is extremely difficult for this Committee to get an idea of both sides of the case, in particular about the alleged benefits so far as money is concerned. I feel that for that reason alone, despite the felicity with which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved the amendment at very short notice, this is no way to write an amendment into a Bill.

Lord MISHCON

Perhaps I can shorten the matter for the Committee. Obviously this is a subject on which there should be consultation. Your Lordships' Committee is presumably so popular with Brighton, Plymouth and Stoke-on-Trent that they thought your Lordships would welcome hearing their case. It has been heard, and I imagine the Minister would welcome—I ask him to confirm this—an opportunity for there now to be discussions with the appropriate county councils and his department, after which these matters may be voiced and possibly carried a stage further.

Lord BELSTEAD

If there are discussions with both the local authority and the magistrates' courts committee, I think it will be found there is probably not agreement, and if there is not agreement at local level I suspect that the Department of the Environment would not wish to carry the matter any further.

Lord DAVIES of LEEK

I do not want to delay the Committee, but I suggest that is a very illogical argument. The 1974 Act itself was the subject of much disagreement, but when Parliament passed it, it became an Act. We are only asking for consultation and discussion. I do not want to press this matter or create a bad atmosphere. There may be disagreement, but intelligent people try to find a modus Vivendi.

Lord MORRIS

In my view this is quite the wrong vehicle by which to attempt to amend the 1979 Act, and as far as I am concerned that is the end of the story.

Lord MISHCON

On the terms I mentioned earlier, and subject to what the Minister said, I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 156 agreed to.

9.23 p.m.

Lady KINLOSS moved Amendment No. 294A: After Clause 156, insert the following new clause:

("Amendment of s. 94 of Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907

. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 94 of the Public Health Acts Amendment Act 1907—

"(8) No licence under this section shall be required in respect of pleasure boats and pleasure vessels—

1. (a) on any water owned or managed by the British Waterways Board;
2. (b) on any inland waters, as defined in section 135(1) of the Water Resources Act 1963, in respect of which a water authority may make byelaws under section 79 of that Act;
3. (c) subject to subsection (9) below, on any canal or other inland navigation 1445 which a navigation authority, as defined in section 135(1) of the Water Resources Act 1963, are required or empowered to manage or maintain under any enactment; or
4. (d) on any harbour maintained or managed by a harbour authority, as defined in section 57(1) of the Harbours Act 1964.

(9) Subsection (8) (c) of this section does not preclude a local authority granting licences under subsection (1) above in relation to pleasure boats or vessels operating on any canal or inland navigation which they themselves are required or empowered to manage or maintain.

(10) In subsections (1) and (3) of this section "let for hire" means let for hire to the public."").

The noble Lady said: I move this amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, and it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 294B. No. 294A comes at the end of a clause which affects pleasure boats operating on inland waters and replaces, in improved form, the byelaw-making powers of district councils contained in Section 172 of the Public Health Act 1875. It is generally welcomed by those concerned and, among other things, makes it clear that the powers apply to boats let for hire to the public. However, the provisions of the Public Health (Amendment) Act 1907 have not been brought into line. As things stand, it would be possible for district councils to interfere with free cruising on, for example, British Waterways' navigations by asking for an additional licence or by demanding different requirements for craft passing through their territory. This would have a catastrophic effect on the ever-increasing hire-boat industry.

The amendment removes powers from district councils where the waterway is already managed by a competent authority, but does not prevent a local authority from granting licences to craft operating on a navigation for which the council is directly responsible. The amendment lists several competent authorities where the district council powers would be abrogated. Amendment No. 294B mentions only the British Waterways Board. I think the Minister is willing to accept that amendment, but has objections to the longer list of competent authorities now proposed. If so, I will withdraw No. 294A but ask the Minister to give his reasons fully so that the matter may be considered between now and Report, and I very much hope that in order to make progress he will then agree to No. 294B. I beg to move.

Lord SANDFORD

The district councils, to whom both these amendments refer, greatly prefer the amendment of the noble Countess and the noble Lady to the amendment of the noble Lords.

Lord BELSTEAD

With regard to Amendment No. 294A, as the noble Lady suggested, we have objection to the list of bodies mentioned in that particular amendment, because in some cases the bodies referred to in the new clause have only limited powers to control pleasure boats and these powers may not extend to safety matters but may be directed to other purposes, for instance, the control of pollution. In other cases while the bodies in question may have responsibility for the waters themselves, there may be no power to attach conditions to the boats operating on them. In short, the position is confused, and it is a matter which the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is looking into.

However, as that new clause stands we feel that it could indeed leave gaps in the safety licensing regulations, and lives could be at risk. Before we come to the new clause contained in the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Countess and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, I wish to say that we like that amendment and that I propose to accept it.

Lady KINLOSS

In thanking the Minister for his reply and in hoping that he might reconsider part of it at the Report stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The COUNTESS of LOUDOUN moved Amendment No. 294B: After Clause 156, insert the following new clause:

("Amendment of s. 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907

. The following subsections shall be added at the end of section 94 of the Public Health Acts (Amendment) Act 1907—

"(8) No licence under this section shall be required in respect of pleasure boats and pleasure vessels on any canal owned or managed by the British Waterways Board.

(9) In subsections (1) and (3) of this section "let for hire" means "let for hire to the public.".").

The noble Countess said: I thank the Minister for his kind words, and I beg to move the amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clauses 157 to 159 agreed to.

Clause 160 [Amendments of Inner Urban Areas Act 1978]:

The Earl of AVON moved Amendment No. 295: Page 130, line 32, leave out ("that Schedule") and insert ("the Schedule to that Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 160, as amended, agreed to.

Lord DIGBY

Amendments Nos. 296 to 299A will not now be moved, since what they propose has already been accepted in another form.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 299B: After Clause 160, insert the following new clause:

("Compensation for loss of office

.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations provide for the payment by the Secretary of State or by such body as may be prescribed by or determined under the regulations of compensation to or in respect of persons who are, or who but for any such service by them as may be so prescribed would be, holders of any such office or employment as may be so prescribed and who suffer loss of employment or loss or diminution of emoluments which is attributable to any provision of this Act or of any instrument made under this Act (other than a provision of Part XII of this Act or of any instrument made thereunder).

(2) Regulations under this section may—

1. (a) include provision as to the manner in which and the person to whom any claim for compensation is to be made, and for the determination of all questions arising under the regulations,
2. (b) make different provision for different classes of persons and for different circumstances and make or authorise the Secretary of State to make exceptions and conditions,
3. (c) be framed so as to have effect from a date earlier than the making of the regulations, 1448 but so that regulations having effect from a date earlier than the date of their making shall not place any individual in a worse position that he would have been in if the regulations had been so framed as to have effect only from the date of their making.

(3) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").

The noble Lord said: With this amendment I shall speak to Amendment No. 299C. A number of the provisions of the Bill may cause people who are employed in local government and in new town development corporations to lose their jobs. Examples of these provisions are Clause 14(5) (direction by the Secretary of State to require a direct labour organisation to cease functioning), Clause 90 (repeal of the Community Land Act), Part IX (town and country planning) and Part XV (new towns).

There should be a compensation scheme for employees who lose their jobs as a result of the enactment and implementation of any of the provisions of the Bill. The usual argument advanced against the need to make provisions for such a scheme is that there is power to make compensation regulations under the Superannuation Act 1972. However, we believe that it is necessary to make a compensation scheme in relation to this Bill which does in fact contain in paragraph 6(3) of Schedule 19 a special provision for compensation in relation to employees of the Land Authority for Wales.

Grave concern has been caused to local government employees, trade unions and the TUC generally by a letter dated 10th September 1980 from the Minister of State for the Civil Service Department to the General Secretary of the TUC. This letter states that the Government have decided not to make use of the Crombie code for any statutory reorganisation. The need to make compensation provisions for public servants who suffer loss because of a decision by Parliament is no less now, or is perhaps greater now, than it has been in the past when the Crombie compensation regulations have been in existence; for example, in 1974, under the 1972 Act. Although the compensation scheme has its imperfections, they do not constitute any reason for abolition of the use of the scheme.

The first of these two amendments is intended to provide for compensation and is based on Section 259 of the Local Government Act 1972, and the second contains provisions to enable local government employees to elect for early retirement. The second new clause deals with this proposition, and it is based on Section 260 of the Act of 1972. Although early retirement is now possible under local government superannuation regulations, the provision for compensatory added years is only discretionary. The new clause is intended to provide that certain officers have the right to early retirement on compensatory terms if this Bill causes them to suffer loss. These two amendments are intended to deal in a proper way with the rights and expectations of local authority employees, new town development corporation employees, and so on, who could lose their jobs as a result of the effects of this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

There is in fact already a scheme for the payment of compensation to local government staff who are made redundant or lose their jobs in the interests of greater efficiency. This scheme, which was extended to cover new town staff, was agreed between management and unions, and is at present embodied in a departmental letter published in March 1976. The scheme is in process of being converted into regulations, which it is hoped can be made later this year.

The Government do not believe it is necessary to make any new provision for compensation for members of staff who may be affected by the Bill. It is our belief that the scheme already in existence for compensation of local government staff who are made redundant or, as I say, lose their jobs in the interests of efficiency is fully adequate, and that no further provision is required. This scheme is to be embodied in regulations to be made in the near future, as I have said, and is available for staff employed in new towns as well as in local government. The Government do not believe, either, that there is a need for the Crombie code in present circumstances, when adequate management terms are already available.

Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE

I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am sorry he maintains the position which he displayed earlier in our considerations during this Committee stage, that it is not necessary to make special provision for employees. However, in view of the time I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 299C not moved.]

Clauses 161 and 162 agreed to.

Schedule 29 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

9.35 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 300: Page 252, line 2, at end insert—

("Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act 1931 (c. 41)

The following subsection shall be added after section 12(1) of the Agricultural Land (Utilisation) Act 1931 (power of county councils to provide cottage holdings)—

"(1A) If the tenant of a cottage holding feels aggrieved by a prohibition such as is mentioned in the proviso to section 47(1) of the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908 (prohibition of improvements), he may appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who may confirm, vary or annul the prohibition, and the decision of the Minister shall be final.".").

The noble Earl said: The effect of this amendment is to preserve the right of a tenant of a cottage holding to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture Fisheries and Food against the refusal of his county council landlord to allow the improvement of that holding. If the tenant plants fruit trees or bushes, or strawberry plants or other vegetable crops which remain productive for two or more years contrary to an express written prohibition by the council, he shall not be entitled to compensation for the improvements on termination of his tenancy. But he has the right to appeal against the prohibition to the Minister who may confirm, vary or annul it. This amendment preserves this right. As there are only 26 cottage holdings in the country and they will not be continued, we think it only right that their right shall be preserved. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 301: Page 252, line 25, at end insert—

("Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (c. 56)

2A.—(1) In subsection (2) of section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (compensation where order for new tenancy precluded on certain grounds) the words "the product of the appropriate multiplier and" shall be inserted after the word "be" in paragraphs (a) and (b)

(2) The following subsections shall be added after subsection (7) of that section:—

"(8) In subsection (2) of this section "the appropriate multiplier" means such multiplier as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe.

(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (8) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."").

The noble Earl said: If I may, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 301, 302 and 307 together. They are consequential upon the cancellation of the rating revaluation made by Clause 23. We have investigated a number of statutes which use rateable values or gross annual values from rating valuation lists for purposes other than rating. As a result, we have found three cases in which either the rateable value or the gross value is used for calculating an entitlement to compensation. In the absence of a rating revaluation, these entitlements are slowly losing their value and we propose that the Secretary of State should have a power to apply, by order, a multiplier to the rateable value or the gross value. This multiplier would reflect the movement of property prices since 1973. It would be used solely for calculating compensation.

The three cases are, first, Amendment No. 301 which deals with compensation by landlords to business tenants under Section 37 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954; the second one is Amendment No. 302 which concerns payment by housing authorities to owners of houses in multiple occupation under Section 78 of the Housing Act 1964; and the third one is covered by Amendment No. 307 which deals with cases of compensation by landlords to tenants in the new assured tenancies under Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980.

It might be of assistance if I were to give your Lorsdhips an indication of how the Government propose to use this power, as similar powers are sought in the other two amendments. The Inland Revenue valuation office has given us advice on the movement of property values since the 1973 revaluation. For compensation in the case of business tenancies under the Landlord and Tenant Act, a multiplier of a little over two would seem appropriate; for compensation in housing cases which may arise under Section 78 of the Housing Act 1964 or Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980, a multiplier of about two and one-third would seem right. We will consult interested bodies, professional associations and so forth about these figures and we shall then make orders to come into effect on 24th March, which is a quarter day often used in leasing. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 306:

Page 254, line 8, at end insert— ("(2) In paragraph 3(3), for the word "For" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to sub-paragraphs (3A) to (3C) below, for". (3) The following sub-paragraphs shall be inserted after that sub-paragraph:— (3A) For the purposes of this paragraph the gross value of a dwelling whose rateable value is by virtue of subsection (1) of section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 to be taken to be its net annual value ascertained in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of that section is the corresponding gross value. (3B) In sub-paragraph (3A) above "the corresponding gross value" means a gross value which would be equivalent to the net annual value of the dwelling as shown in the valuation list if there were deducted any amount that by virtue of an order made or falling to be treated as made under subsection (2) of section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 would be deducted from the gross value of the dwelling if it had been required to be assessed to its gross value instead of its net annual value. (3C) If more than one value is ascertained under sub-paragraph (3B) above to be the corresponding gross value of the dwelling, the highest value so ascertained shall be taken to be the corresopnding gross value for the purposes of this paragraph."").

The noble Earl said: Your Lordships may wonder why Amendment No. 306 follows Amendment No. 301 and is thereafter followed by Amendment No. 302. It is not due to weariness because of the length of the Committee stage; it is because when the amendment was first put down there was a typographical error in so far as it was put down as an amendment to page 254, which made it Amendment No. 306. In fact, the amendment is to page 253.

This is a technical amendment designed to ensure that valuation lists can be used to calculate the compensation which is payable under the Land Compensation Act after a revaluation. This is necessary because under Clause 24 gross value figures will have been removed from the list, and this allows a gross value figure to be calculated from the net annual value figure which is the one that appears on the rating list. I beg to move.

On Question amendment agreed to.

9.40 p.m.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 302: Page 253, line 32, at end insert

("Housing Act 1964 (c. 56)

5A.—(1) In subsection (1) of section 78 of the Housing Act 1964 (periodical payment to dispossed proprietor) for the words from "one half" to the end of the subsection there shall be substituted the words "the product of one half of the gross value for rating purposes of the house as shown in the valuation list on the date when the control order comes into force and the appropriate multiplier".

(2) In subsection (5) of that section for the word "For" there shall be substituted the words "Subject to subsections (5A) to (5C) below, for".

(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after that subsection— (5A) For the purposes of the references in this section to the gross value of the house, that gross value, in the case of a house whose rateable value is by virtue of subsection (1) of section 19 of the General Rate Act 1967 to be taken to be its net annual value ascertained in accordance with subsections (2) to (4) of that section, is the corresponding gross value. (5B) In subsection (5A) above "the corresponding gross value" means a gross value which would be equivalent to the net annual value of the house as shown in the valuation list if there were deducted any amounts that by virtue of an order made or falling to be treated as made under section 19(2) of the General Rate Act 1967 would be deducted from the gross value of the house if it had been required to be assessed to its gross value instead of its net annual value. (5C) If more than one value is ascertained under subsection (5B) above to be the corresponding gross value of the house, the highest value so ascertained shall be the corresponding gross value for the purposes of the references in this section to the gross value. (5D) In subsection (1) of this section "the appropriate multiplier" means such multiplier as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument prescribe. (5E) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (5D) of this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this on Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 303: Page 253, line 33, at end insert— (" 5B. Section 5(1)(g) of the General Rate Act 1967 (by virtue of which rules may provide for the inclusion in the demand note on which a rate is levied of information as to the amounts in the pound which are being levied for services administered by the rating authority and any precepting authority) shall cease to have effect.").

The noble and learned Lord said: This amendment would remove the obligation on authorities to print on the rate demand note itself a schedule of services provided by both the rating and precepting authority and the equivalent rate poundage costs of these services for the coming year. The confusion of information about the amount of the rate bill entitlements to rebates and so on with supporting statistics justifying the rate levy has attracted widespread criticism in recent years. And this particular obligation has restricted authorities' discretion in providing to ratepayers information of this kind in an imaginative and meaningful way.

We have recently issued a widely supported code of practice for authorities, entitled Explaining the Local Authority Rate Bill, which sets out not only the information to be included on the rate demand note itself, but also the basic information about costs of services and other explanations of the rate levy which will be contained in supporting statements published for ratepayers and other interested parties when rate demands are issued. This reflects our wish to extend the scope for more information of this kind to be made more widely available, and to allow for local flair and discretion to be exercised in the manner of its presentation. We have said that, if the Bill becomes law we will do away with the existing very restrictive statutory rules governing the contents of rate demand notes as being incompatible with this new approach, and Section 5(1)(g) of the 1967 Act comes under the same heading. If it is retained, we believe there is a continuing danger of confusion and alienation among ratepayers and a wasted effort on the part of local authorities. This amendment, and the amendment which follows, is designed to give effect to this purpose. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 304: Page 253, line 34, leave out ("the General Rate Act 1967") and insert ("that Act").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 305: Page 254, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert (" "Schedule 11 to" there shall be substituted the words "section 19 of"").

The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment to correct the drafting. At an earlier stage in the Bill the draftsman's pen slipped and, as a result, the Government deleted in another place too much of the General Rate Act. We seek to reinstate this omission by reinserting the words "section 19 of" in lieu of "schedule 11 to ". I beg to move.

On Question amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 307: Page 254, line 37, at end insert—

("Housing Act 1980 (c. 51)

9A. In Schedule 5 to the Housing Act 1980 (application of Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 to assured tenancies) the following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 7:—

"7A. The power to prescribe a multiplier conferred by subsection (8) of that section includes power to prescribe a multiplier in relation to assured tenancies different from that prescribed in relation to other tenancies to which Part II of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 applies." ").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this amendment on Amendment No. 301. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 29, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 30 [Repeals]:

[Amendments Nos. 308, 308A and 309 not moved.]

9.45 p.m.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 310: Page 255, line 53, at end insert ("in their application to England and Wales").

The noble Lord said: This is a technical amendment, required to ensure consistency between this schedule and Schedule 2, paragraph 3(2), which excluded Scotland from the repeal of the control contained in Section 31(6) of the Clean Air Act 1956. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 311: Page 256, line 2, leave out from ("95") to end of line 3 and insert (", in subsection (2), the words "as confirmed" and the words "then, if the order is confirmed," and subsection (2A)").

The noble Lord said: Paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 removes the requirement in Section 11(1) of the Clean Air Act 1956 for smoke control orders to be confirmed by the Minister. These amendments provide further repeals consequential upon the loss of this power. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 312: Page 257, line 20, column 3, at end insert— ("In Schedule 3, paragraph 22.").

The noble Lord said: This refers to another paragraph of Schedule 2, removing requirements in connection with the Clean Air Act 1956. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 313: Page 259, line 32, leave out ("12").

The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 313, with permission, I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 314 and say that these are simple technical amendments to remove references to two provisions which the Bill erroneously repeals. It is the case that the Government originally had it in mind to delegate responsibility in respect of cinema licence fees. However, as the Home Office explained to the local authorities in March, the matter was reconsidered and the Government concluded it would be preferable to make no change in the present arrangements for the time being at least. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 314: Page 259, line 34, third column, leave out ("10").

The noble Earl said: I think that my noble friend has just spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 314AA: Page 259, line 50, at end insert—

("REPEALS CONSEQUENTIAL ON SECTION 1(7)— HIGHWAYS
Chapter	Short Title	Extent of Repeal
12 & 13 Geo. 6. c. 97.	National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949.	In section 53, in subsection (1), the words "with the approval of the Minister" in paragraph (b) and at the end of that paragraph the words "as the Minister may either generally or in any particular case direct", and subsections (3) and (4).
7&8 Eliz. 2. c. 25.	Highways Act 1959.	In section 30, subsections (2) and (3) and in subsection (4), the words "Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section"
		Section 59(6).
		In section 73(1) the proviso.
		Sections 95 and 96.

Chapter	Short Title	Extent of Repeal
		Insertion 108(10) the words "and any question arising under this subsection whether the withholding of a consent is unreasonable shall be determined by the Minister".
		In section 126, subsection (2), in subsection (3) the words "or by the Minister of Housing and Local Government under the last foregoing subsection", and in subsection (4), the words "or subsection (2)".
		Section 181(5).
		In section 211(2) the proviso.
		In section 233, insubsection(2), the words from "but" to the end and in subsection (5) the words "subject to the approval of the Minister".
		Section 246(2).
		Section 264(5).
		Section 280(2), (3) and (4).
		Section 288.
		In Schedule 24, paragraph 12(4).
9 & 10 Eliz. 2. c. 63.	Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961.	Section 16(4).
1966 c. 42.	Local Government Act 1966.	Section 29(3).
1968 c. 41.	Countryside Act 1968.	In section 29(4) the words "and the highway authority shall, before refusing to make an order under subsection (2) of this subsection, consult the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food".
1968 c. 73.	Transport Act 1968.	Section 120.
1971 c. 41.	Highways Act 1971.	Section 85.".

The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on Amendment No. 9. It has been retabled due to misprints in the original. I beg to move.

Earl FERRERS

As my noble friend said, this is consequential upon earlier amendments, and we are happy to accept it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord DIGBY moved Amendment No. 314B: Page 259, line 50, at end insert—

("Repeals consequential on section 1(7)—

ROAD TRAFFIC
Chapter	Short Title	Extent of Repeal
1967 c. 76	Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.	Section 1(9). In section 9(5) the words "made by the Greater London Council".
		Section 17.
		Section 26(5).
		Section 84B(1) (g).
		In section 84D, in subsection (2)(d), the words" section 26(5) or "and subsection (3).
		Section 113(2).
1968 c. 41.	Countryside Act 1968.	Section 32(9).
1972 c. 70.	Local Government Act 1972.	In Schedule 19, paragraph 11.
1973 c. 65.	Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973.	In Schedule 14, paragraph 63.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 315:

Page 260, line 5, column 3, at end insert— ("Section 5(1)(g).").

The noble and learned Lord said: This is an amendment which is consequential on an earlier one. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 316 not moved.]

9.50 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 316A: Page 260, line 53, at end insert ("Section 7(5)").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 316A. This amendment follows on the shift of responsibility for planning matters from the counties to the districts and it adds Section 7(5) to those clauses which the schedule was already going to repeal in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. In Section 7(5), there is a requirement that a structure plan shall indicate any parts of the county planning authorities' area which they, the counties, have selected as action areas and imposes a requirement that a local plan shall be prepared in respect of every action area indicated in the structure plan.

The proposal is that future structure plans should not contain any provisions relating to action areas, and that it should be left to the discretion of existing planning authorities, who are responsible for the preparation of local plans, to decide whether or not an action area local plan should be prepared. It is intended that this change should apply only to the structure plans approved after the date when this amendment comes into operation, following the enactment of this Bill. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

I agree with my noble friend that it is an unnecessary restriction to require action areas to be indicated in structure plans, before action area local plans can be prepared to propose the comprehensive treatment of an area. Unfortunately, however, the amendment goes only part of the way. There ought also to be corresponding amendments in Schedule 4 to the 1971 Act, so that the changes extend to Greater London. I fear that all this is rather more complex than my noble friend might at first have imagined. But I assure him that my right honourable friends and I welcome the change in principle and we wish to consider it carefully.

Lord SANDFORD

I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 317 not moved.]

9.53 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 317A: Page 261, line 24, at end insert ("Section 12(1)").

The noble Lord said: This adds another section to another part of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is repealed by Schedule 30. There has been a feeling for some while that too much time and effort are spent on public participation in connection with the preparation of local plans. The proposal to add this section to those repealed by Schedule 11 would have the effect of considerably reducing the amount of time and energy spent—in my view, unnecessarily—on publicity for the report of survey in connection with the local plan. Some local authorities seek public participation at this stage. The proposal is that the statutory requirement to have public participation on the report of survey should be deleted. I believe that this proposal is supported by the other associations and that it also finds favour in the department. I beg to move.

Lord BELLWIN

I think many of those interested in the structure and local plan system recognise that too much time has been taken to prepare these plans. The Town and Country Planning Act 1971 requires authorities responsible for a local plan to arrange public participation in the preparation of the plan and to consider objections to the plan proposals.

My noble friend's amendment, however, goes further than we would wish. It also seeks to remove the requirement for public participation and consultation on the preparation of the plan. I think we need to strike a balance between the speedy production of plans and the opportunities for those with an interest in the proposals to make representations. I therefore cannot recommend that we accept this amendment, but I can say to my noble friend that I would be happy to discuss a more limited amendment of this section with him.

Lord SANDFORD

I am most grateful. One of those amendments went not quite far enough and another fell a little short. In naval gunnery that is recognised as a "straddle" and I think we can be satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of CAITHNESS moved Amendment No. 317B: Page 263, line 23, at end insert ("Section 29(5)").

The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak to Amendments Nos. 317C, 317E and 317F at the same time. Under the Land Compensation Act 1973, when he is affected by a blight notice before compulsory acquisition comes into effect, a farmer or a person who is suffering from a home loss payment is debarred from claiming such a payment. Where the owner of a farm is displaced under these Acts from his present farm through compulsory acquisition and begins to farm a new unit elsewhere within three years, he is entitled to a farm loss payment of one year's profit of the original holding. This is intended as a payment for the actual loss caused by adapting to a new farm, rather than a gratuity for moving.

Farmers and others may also receive a home loss payment, which is a maximum of £1,500, where they have been displaced from their dwelling. However, in neither case are the claimants entitled to a farm or a home loss payment if the acquisition has been initiated by them through the service of a blight notice. That is the situation where the local authority wants to develop or acquire a piece of land and they wish to move out before the compulsory purchase orders come through.

It is absurd that the law should penalise these farmers who, faced with the prospect of development of this land, are scouring the land market for alternative farms to move into in advance of the development taking place. If a farmer waits until the authority is ready to acquire the land for development, he will invariably find himself in competition for a very limited supply of alternative land with similarly displaced farmers. Such a practice is bad for farming and can cause increases in land prices. Accordingly, in order to remedy this situation, I beg to move this amendment.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN

The principle involved in all these amendments is, as my noble friend has explained, the same. A home loss payment or a farm loss payment is made in recognition of the upset and distress which is suffered by people who are compelled to move from a house or farm to which they have become attached over a number of years. The amendments would extend the provision to people whose property has been acquired as a result of a blight notice.

The purpose of a blight notice is to enable an owner to take advantage of a right to sell to the acquiring authority at a time convenient to himself rather than at a time convenient to the prospective acquiring authority. Accordingly, the service of a blight notice implies that the owner is at the time he serves it willing to move—that he is not being compelled to move in contrast to the victim of a compulsory purchase order who is being compelled to move.

I can see the force of what my noble friend says: that there is a kind of band of time in which the compulsion is gradually creeping up on you. It may be a question of whether it is a voluntary or a compulsory move. But this is a very difficult distinction to draw if one abandons the present principle, and our view is that the present principle should be maintained. If you move voluntarily, you should not get these payments. If you are compelled to move, you should. In the light of that explanation, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

The EARL of CAITHNESS

Obviously I am a little disappointed by the noble and learned Lord's reply on this amendment. I should like him to consider Stansted, where I understand that a planning application for the development of Stansted airport is shortly to be made. It will involve an area of about 1,500 acres and many farmers will be looking for land. If they are given the advantages of being able to claim a farm loss or a home loss payment under a blight notice, this will surely be for the convenience of the local authority and in the national interest.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN

I shall be glad to draw the remarks of my noble friend to the attention of the Minister responsible. It may be that in that situation, there is some scope for a special case. I cannot say that this will be so, but I shall certainly draw his attention to those remarks.

Lord MIDDLETON

It seems to be splitting hairs to say that a man who goes out a year or two before he is pushed out is going voluntarily, so I am glad that my noble and learned friend has said that he will look at this.

The Earl of CAITHNESS

In view of the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord, perhaps he could write to me on the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 317C, 317Eand317F not moved.]

10 p.m.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 318:

Page 264, line 30, at end insert—

("PART XIIA
NEW TOWNS
Chapter	Short Title	Extent of Repeal
1964 c. 26.	Licensing Act 1964.	In section 112(1), in paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (ii) and the word "or" immediately preceding it and, in paragraph (b), sub-paragraph (ii) and the word "or" immediately preceding it.
		In section 112(5) the words "or licensed premises".").

The noble Lord said: The Government accepted a new clause to the Bill in another place and that new clause, which is now Clause 119, brings to an end the special provisions for the granting of off-licences in new towns. This amendment provides for certain consequential repeals in the 1964 Licensing Act. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 318A:

Page 265, line 8, at end insert—

("1968 c. 52.

Caravan Sites Act 1968.

In section 6(2), the words from "and the Minister" to the end.").

The noble Baroness said: This is consequential upon the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady David and accepted by the noble Lord earlier this evening. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE moved Amendment No. 319:

Page 265, line 16, at end insert— ("In section 15(2), the word "(3)".").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendments Nos. 292 and 293. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 319A not moved.]

Lord GAINFORD moved Amendment No. 319B:

Page 265, line 23, at end insert—

"1978 c. 50.

Inner Urban Areas Act 1978.

Section 14.").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment which is consequential upon Amendment No. 225A, which was agreed to. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord BELLWIN moved Amendment No. 320:

Page 265, line 23, at end insert—

"1978 c. xiii.

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1978.

Section 8.".).

The noble Lord said: This amendment repeals Section 8 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1978. That section provides a limited way around the present restrictions upon local authorities advertising the commercial and industrial advantages of Greater London. Clause 159 will remove those restrictions altogether, so Section 8 will become redundant and should thus, consequently, be repealed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 164 [Scotland]:

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 320A: Page 131, line 21, leave out ("and XV") and insert ("XV and XVIA").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment and also Amendment No. 320B are consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 320A.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 320B: Page 131, line 22, leave out ("and 121") and insert ("121 and [Commencement and extent of Part XVIA] ").

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amendment formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 321: Page 131, line 24, leave out ("II").

The noble and learned Lord said: Amendments Nos. 321 and 322 are both for the application of the Bill to Scotland. I beg to move Amendment No. 321.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord MACKAY of CLASHFERN moved Amendment No. 322: Page 131, line 25, at end insert— (" (3) In this Part of this Act sections 154 to 156 and 159 do not extend to Scotland.").

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move this amendment formally.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 164, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 165 and 166 agreed to.

10.4 p.m.

Lord MISHCON moved Amendment No. 323: In the Title, line 1, leave out ("relax") and insert ("extend").

The noble Lord said: Even the Almighty decided that he needed a rest after six days. Your Lordships' Committee has decided to extend this Committee stage to seven days. However, there is one other difference: the Almighty started off with chaos and ended up with order. This Committee started with chaos in regard to this Bill and has managed to increase the chaos in the course of these seven days. It may be understandable, if not entirely forgivable, if a Government introduce a bad Bill, but I suggest to the Committee that it is more than lamentable, and certainly not forgivable if, having introduced a bad Bill, they in addition mislead the reader of the Bill and the public in the description they give to what the Bill is supposed to do. That is the purport of my amendment.

As your Lordships will know, the Bill has as its first object that it is: An Act to relax controls over local government". If one looks at the schedules to Clause 1 of the Bill one will find that by great ingenuity something like 300 relaxations are supposed to have taken place; and if one looks at the relaxations one will find that something like 200 are controls that have never been exercised at all. A few more have been exercised on very few occasions indeed.

With some amount of seriousness I invite your Lordships to consider some of the great relaxations that have taken place. I refer to the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949; the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951; the Slaughterhouses Act 1974; the Commons Acts 1876 and 1899; the Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908; the Land Settlement (Facilities) Act 1919; the Town Police (Clauses) Act 1847; the Theatrical Employers (Registration) Act 1925 and the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973. I was almost inclined to invite your Lordships, with Gilbert and Sullivan, to sing at this stage, They never will be missed, they never will be missed".

If we turn to the controls that have been imposed upon local government, then the list is more than imposing. I wonder whether your Lordships will forgive me, because it is a serious matter, if I summarise the controls that have been imposed, as compared with the almost de minimis effects of the controls that are supposed to have been relaxed? First of all, control over total local government capital expenditure instead of only the borrowing, which was controlled before; detailed controls over the level of expenditure of individual authorities through the block grant; massive and arbitrary penalties on local authorities selected on the whim of the Secretary of State for alleged overspending through the transitional arrangements, quite apart from the retrospective extension of those measures; power for the Secretary of State to make regulations on the publication of information by local authorities; detailed controls over tendering and accounting procedures and the future of direct labour organisations; requirement that named authorities should prepare land registers; the Secretary of State having power to direct the sale of land on land registers and the means of disposal; withdrawal of local authority powers under the Community Land Act; power of the Secretary of State to direct an authority to make an assessment of available residential land; the replacement in certain areas of local government by urban development corporations and all the things we debated yesterday, which no doubt the Government will long remember because of the Divisions that took place in regard to what was happening to new towns under this legislation, under the Bill as originally put.

I cannot help thinking that if the Government thought that local authorities were going to turn round and say, "For this relief, much thanks", they should indeed listen to the voice of local authorities who now say, "Methinks you do protest too much". It is in that spirit and in great seriousness that I move this amendment, in order that the Bill shall at least tell the people of this country what it is seeking to do to local authorities, and that is indeed, truthfully, in the words of the amendment, to extend and not to restrict control of local authorities. I beg to move.

The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Earl Cathcart)

I should apologise; I should have pointed out that this amendment and all subsequent amendments are under the heading of "In the Title".

Lord BELLWIN

I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with equal seriousness. Your Lordships have heard the argument he has put and ours to the point of weariness, and, strongly though the Government feel on this issue, I do not think your Lordships would welcome hearing it all again. On his amendment, I will say this. The Long Title of a Bill, according to Erskine May, should cover everything in the Bill. The draftsman of the Bill before us was diligent in attending to this custom in a complex Bill, which is why we are considering a Title of 18 or 19 lines. The Bill contains substantial provisions which do directly relax controls over local authorities in Clause 1, Schedules 1 to 6, Clause 29, Clauses 78 and 79, Schedules 11 and 12, Clause 106 and Schedule 20, and Clauses 155, 157, 159 and 160.

It is a fact that a number of the controls to which the noble Lord referred are minor petty controls. But if that is so, why did not the previous Government take some steps to get rid of them? If there are more that should go, and I think there are, it is no reason to reduce the importance of the fact that at least 300 are to go. How you can call that anything other than relaxing control, I really do not know.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, knows I am absolutely in disagreement with him about the effect on freedoms of the abolition of the capital expenditure control. I consider that the freedoms which local government were supposed to have under existing arrangements as to borrowing were in fact a myth. I will not go over the arguments on which I dilated at some length when we debated the point before. Nor will I comment, tempted though I am, on his reference to penalties selected "on the whim of the Secretary of State". I thought I went to considerable length to point out that the transitional arrangements were in no way either arbitrary or retrospective, and indeed the fact that so many of your Lordships supported us in the Division Lobby on them—and that included many of your Lordships who sit opposite—I think proved that the argument was very much our way.

The Bill does end the Community Land Act and not a day too soon; it is little loved by anyone. It was therefore absolutely right to include this phrase in the Title, and it is in the proper position at the beginning, just as the major part of the provisions it is describing are at the beginning of the Bill. This part of the Title is properly drafted and properly approved by the other place. I think it would be a sad day for your Lordships' House when we were seen to be less scrupulous in guarding parliamentary forms than the other place. I believe the noble Lord's amendment, though doubtless a clever debating point, is a very dangerous amendment, and that to accept it would be to throw the very purpose of this House into doubt. In the interests of all of us in this Chamber, I urge your Lordships very strongly not to accept this amendment.

On Question, amendment negatived.

Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 324: Line 1, leave out ("government") and insert ("and certain other authorities").

The noble Earl said: This is an amendment to the Long Title which has been made necessary by the Government's commendable desire—the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, notwithstanding—to pursue their policy of relaxing Government controls, some of which now extend to other public bodies such as river purification boards. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.

Lord AVEBURY

I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one brief question while we are dealing with amendments to the Long Title. As his colleague has just said, the Long Title must accurately reflect what is in the Bill and this change obviously is unnecessary from that point of view. But there have been other changes made during the course of the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House which do not seem to be reflected in amendments to the Long Title. I am thinking particularly of the amendments that we have made to the Highways Act. Does this mean that at some future date noble Lords opposite will be bringing forward an amendment to the Long Title for that purpose as well?

Earl FERRERS

As far as I am aware the Long Title covers all the points which have been made. Certainly, if it does not, we shall bring forward further amendments. But, to my knowledge, it covers everything.

Lord MORRIS

Notwithstanding that, I would suggest that the last phrase, "and for connected purposes", covers it only too well.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 326 not moved.]

Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 326A: Line 16, after ("areas") insert ("to make further provision in relation to gipsies and their caravan sites;").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 327 not moved.]

House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.