§ House again in Committee on Schedule 6.
§ 4.30 p.m.
§ Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 131:
§ Page 83, line 36, at end insert—
§ ("Local Government
§ 8. In section 33(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (Restoration or continuation of supply of water, gas or electricity) at end of paragraph (a) add "in consequence of an instruction given by him or", and at end of paragraph (b) there is added" or instruction "and at end of the subsection add—
§
Provided that in any case where a Council undertakes to be responsible for all future outgoings in respect of a supply the undertakers shall not be entitled to refuse to restore such supply by reason of any sum or sums payable by the owner or former owner remain unpaid.
§
9. In section 33(2) at the end of the subsection add—
2A. Where a Council becomes entitled to demand and recover from a person a sum under the preceding provisions of this subsection, the Council shall also be entitled to demand and recover from the said person any expenses reasonably incurred by the Council (including their establishment charges) in exercising their powers under this section in relation to the premises.
§
10. In section 33(4) at the end of the subsection add—
4A. Any payments made by a Council in respect of any premises and recoverable from the owner, together with interest thereon from the date of service on the owner of the premises of the demand referred to in subsection (3) of this section, shall, from the date when such payments were incurred until recovered, be a charge on the premises and on the appropriate estates and interests therein or, if the premises having the same owner, on those larger premises and on the appropriate estates and interests therein.
4B. For the purpose of enforcing a charge under this subsection a Council shall have all the same powers and remedies under the Law of Property Act 1925 and otherwise as if they were mortgagees by deed having powers of sale and lease of accepting surrrenders of leases and of appointing receiver.").
§ The noble Baroness said: I apologise to the Committee if my voice is not very good, but I have a streaming cold. In moving this amendment, it is important to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that powers currently exist within the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 whereby a local authority can make arrangements with the statutory undertakings—the water authorities, the electricity and gas boards—for the reconnection of supply where disconnection has taken place. I should like to make sure that your Lordships understand that the main reason for the introduction of these powers in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 was to allow local authorities to try to remedy the situation where tenants in private sector properties were left without heat, light, and possibly water not as a result of their own fecklessness, but as a result of the landlord—whether he is a resident landlord or an absentee landlord—having defaulted on paying his bill. There was no misdemeanour on the part of the tenant; it was on the part of the landlord.
§ It is still common in many multi-occupied properties that the landlord takes responsibility for the payment of bills, especially for electricity, through slot meters or includes the costs of electricity and other services through the rent. Many of the larger authorities, and at the present time many of the district councils, are using the powers under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. This legislation has proved valuable because it provides a national framework to remedy the distressing conditions in which the tenants find themselves when their power is turned off.
§ It is important for us to recognise—and it has been brought to our attention through the local press, the media, through television—how accidents occur in this type of property when electricity is disconnected. There are the obvious fire risks because people use candles when there is not any lighting. They tend to use oil stoves, which in certain circumstances are hazardous and can cause fires. There is a definite risk when disconnection occurs.
§ It seems to us completely unreasonable that, in order to get the reconnection of electricity, gas or water, the local authority—and the local authority is the ratepayer; I want to reiterate that—has to become responsible for the payment of the outstanding debt of the landlord who defaults. The ratepayer has to come to the aid of the unfortunate tenants in these circumstances, to make sure that they can continue to live in the properties. We think that that is an unfair burden on the ratepayer and the local authority. Our amendment seeks to remove this condition.
§ The remainder of the amendment allows for reconnection to take place where the landlord has merely asked for a disconnection of supply. Some landlords use the disconnection of supplies to rented accommodation in multi-occupied properties purely as a blackmailing element to get the tenant out of that particular property. We are saying in the final part of the amendment, therefore, that there should be power for the local authority to recover the administrative expenses from the owner when the ratepayer pays for the connection.
§ Long discussions have been taking place with local authorities and with the statutory undertakers. It 35 was pleasing that in another place in a Written Answer on 29th March it was said that information had been laid in the Library that a new code of practice incorporating changes regarding statutory undertakings and disconnections was to be considered and put into operation. Perhaps one of the draconian measures that was considered in that code of practice was the disconnection of the owner's own electricity if he defaults and does not pay the debts of the property that he has rented. I hope that the Government will he considerate regarding our amendment. It is an amendment that has to be moved because, unfortunately, there are landlords who do not honour their obligations and who place their tenants at great risk and distress. It is for these reasons that I beg to move.
§ Lord BellwinThe object of this Bill is to include in public legislation these uncontroversial matters appearing regularly in local authority rationalisation Bills which are being promoted by local authorities as a result of the lapse of their legislation by the end of 1986 under Section 262 of the Local Government Act 1972. To that extent the proposed amendment is not consistent with the object of the Bill. Indeed, in so far as the amendment seeks to impose an obligation on statutory undertakers, I wonder whether it is even within the scope of the Bill.
I appreciate that local authorities are concerned about the amounts of unpaid bills that they may be required to pay. However, I could not accept that the existing freedom of the statutory undertakers to negotiate with local authorities should be restricted unless there had been full consultation with them. The amendment's second purpose, of making sums due a charge on the premises, would in practice not necessarily be a better way of recovering money than local authorities' existing powers to collect rents. Putting a charge on the premises would also be indiscriminate since it could affect others than the defaulting owner who is to blame and I am not persuaded that it could be justified in national legislation.
That provision of the amendment which would cover cases where an owner merely gave instructions for disconnection would also be an indiscriminate measure, which would allow local authority intervention regardless of the circumstances in which an owner had sought disconnection. While I am satisfied that a local authority should be able to recover sums which are properly the responsibility of an owner, I am not at present persuaded that the fourth purpose of the amendment can be justified, which would allow a local authority to recover its own costs also, over which an owner has no control. Having said that, I would add that the whole issue, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, rightly reminded us, has recently been considered by the gas and electricity supply industries in the context of a report by the Policy Studies Institute on the industries' code of practice on the payment of bills. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy has now received the industries' joint response to the report; and the changes they have undertaken to make to their code of practice were announced by him in another place on 29th March in reply to a Question by my honourable friend the Member for Fulham. The industries have agreed that where 36 the board or region concerned becomes aware that a tenant is at risk of disconnection because of his landlord's debt, they will inform the local authority of the position and advise the tenant to do likewise. Disconnection action will be suspended for 14 days to enable the local authority to use its statutory powers to intervene.
Where the local authority agrees to help, disconnection will not take place provided the local authority agrees to pay to the board or region from future collection of rents an amount which covers the cost of ongoing consumption and clears the arrears. The board or region will therefore not insist on a lump sum payment of the bill giving rise to disconnection. The industries have also agreed to take all legal steps open to them to pursue the landlord for the debt including, where possible, disconnection at his home.
Those positive proposals will benefit tenants by reducing the risk of disconnection. They will also assist local authorities by giving them time to act and will mean that no local authority has to find a lump sum from its own resources. I believe, therefore, that they should be given a chance to work. My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy has welcomed those and other positive proposals for changes in the industries' code of practice. He intends to maintain close interest in the whole operation of the code, and the gas and electricity consumer councils are to monitor implementation of the changes. In view of what I imagine the noble Baroness feels is a considerable and satisfactory advance on the position when the amendment was tabled, she may feel able not to press it.
§ Baroness DavidI understand the Minister to say that the amendment was not within the scope of the Bill. It was of course accepted here by the Public Bill Office. The amendment is to existing powers under Section 19 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The 1976 legislation was itself drawn up with reference to local Acts, just as this legislation is, notably in that case the South Glamorgan Act. The basis of the amendment is to bring into that national legislation features which currently exist in Section 19 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1972. Although additional points are included which are not in the Greater London Council Act—recovery of local authority administrative cost and action on voluntary disconnections—the proposals are esentially based on local Act powers. In addition, the Bill seems an appropriate vehicle for amendng powers in an existing Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Perhaps the Minister would respond to that point, and I leave my noble friend to respond to the rest of what he said.
§ Lord BellwinIn so far as the amendment seeks to impose an obligation on statutory undertakers, I said I wondered whether it was even within the scope of the Bill. The noble Baroness puts forward a powerful case for suggesting it is within its scope, and clearly others would adjudicate on that. However, the main thrust of my response was to the substance of the matter concerning those who tabled the amendment, who I hope will feel that the position now is a major advance on what it was previously.
§ Baroness Fisher of RednalI accept what the Minister said; namely, that the code of practice that has been brought forward is a welcome step for people in whatever properties they are occupying, but it will have a direct bearing, as the noble Lord said, on multi-occupied properties. As I said, this matter has concerned local authorities and statutory undertakers and it has been a case of one playing off the other to get bad debts in, but it seems that we are now going in a more sensible direction. If I understood the noble Lord correctly, many thousands of pounds will be saved by local authorities if the code of practice comes into operation. In view of the Minister's remarks, I will withdraw the amendment at this stage on the basis that shall read what he said to see whether I need return to the matter on Report.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
§ [Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
§ 4.47 p.m.
§ Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 133A:
§ Page 85, line 47, at end insert—
| ("PART 1A | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENT REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 8 | ||
| 1980 c. xi. | West Midlands County Council Act 1980. | Section 51.") |
§ The noble Lord said: It might be convenient if I spoke at the same time to Amendments Nos. 133B and 135A, No. 135A was printed in a previous Marshalled List but not in the present one, and it has therefore had to be tabled as a manuscript amendment, but it is consequential and therefore, with permission, I will cover that in my remarks also.
§ On Second Reading my noble friend Lord Nugent pointed out that many provisions in recent local Acts would be superseded by the provisions of the Bill. He asked why, in those circumstances, repeals had been included in Schedule 7 only in respect of provisions which corresponded to Clause 1 or which were consequential on Clause 11. I replied that I accepted in principle the need to repeal local Act provisions which were either being replaced by mandatory provisions in the Bill or which modified provisions in public general Acts which were also amended by the Bill. I promised that the matter would be discussed with the local authority associations with a view to introducing suitable amendments. I added that where provisions in the Bill were adoptive, local authorities would generally be free to retain their own provisions. Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B fulfil the promise I made. The repeals cover only the two limited categories I mentioned they would.
§ To be frank, it was our early hope to deal with these repeals by order under Clause 36 after the Bill had completed its passage through Parliament. But, as soon as we began examining the position, we realised that there were certain repeals that should be made in the Bill itself; they are the ones with which these amendments are concerned. I am sure the Committee will agree that it is highly undesirable to allow provisions in local Acts which amend public general Acts to remain in force together with those which are identical, or virtually identical, to amendments in this 38 Bill. I will not say more at this stage. I hope the Committee will agree that this series of amendments represent a practicable and reasonable course which is open to the Government. I beg to move.
§ Lord MottistoneI should like to ask my noble friend for an assurance with regard to these amendments. Having looked at the relevant parts of the Isle of Wight Act which are to be repealed as a result of these amendments, it seems to me that rather more is being swept away than this Bill provides for. I should like an assurance from my noble friend that he and his advisers have looked closely into this question to see that they have not in some ways washed out the baby with the bath water. I wonder whether he can reassure me that in these local authority sections which are being removed there is nothing substantial which the present Bill does not wholly replace.
§ Lord BellwinI hear what my noble friend says. So far as I am aware, I am able to answer in the affirmative, but, as always, my noble friend, quite properly, raises matters which concern the Isle of Wight, and I would assure him that I shall take further advice. I undertake that, should it prove that his fears are in any way justified, I shall write to him and tell him exactly what is the position.
§ Baroness DavidFollowing what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, I should like to ask the Minister whether he will consider withdrawing Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B until the Report stage, because I feel that there has not been adequate consultation with the local authorities and they have not been given ample opportunity to respond. I understand that, when they were notified of this matter, there were effectively only two days for them to consider it, and that seems to me totally inadequate. Since, clearly, we are not going to have the Report stage for another two or three weeks, it would be reasonable for the local authorities to be given another opportunity to look at the enormous list with which we are presented. It is much longer than the original list in Schedule 7. It seems to me that that would be quite a reasonable request.
§ Lord BellwinI confirm that we consulted the local authority associations on this issue, as I assured your Lordships we would do. They responded in a very swift and, if I may say so, a very constructive fashion, though understandably—and I take the noble Baroness's point—they were concerned about the short time allowed. Of course we should have liked to have allowed more time by using the order procedure under Clause 36, but, as I have explained, we do not consider that that course is practicable in relation to the local Act provisions in question. In principle, all the associations appear to recognise the practicality of what we are now proposing, though I must say that naturally they express some reservations, which the department has tried in discussions to satisfy. I cannot withdraw the amendments, but I am sure the noble Baroness will recognise that, if between now and Report there arise any specific troublesome points, we can always discuss them with those concerned. I should have thought that that was probably the way to proceed.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
39§ 4.53 p.m.
§ Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 133B:
| ("PART IIA | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 12 | ||
| 1980 c. x. | County of Merseyside Act 1980. | Section 29. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 44. |
| 1981 c. xxv. | East Sussex Act 1981. | Section 91.") |
| PART IIB | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 20 | ||
| 1976 c. xxv. | County of South Glamorgan Act 1976 | Section 56. |
| 1979 c. xxiii. | Greater London Council | Section 5. |
| (General Powers) Act 1979. | Section 9. | |
| 1980 c. x. | County of Merseyside Act 1980. | Sections 11 and 12. |
| 1980 c. xi. | West Midlands County Council Act 1980. | Sections 7 and 8. |
| 1980 c. xiii. | Cheshire County Council Act 1980. | Section 10. |
| 1980 c. xiv. | West Yorkshire Act 1980. | Sections 13 and 14. |
| 1980 c. xv. | Isle of Wight Act 1980. | Sections 11 and 12. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Sections 11 and 12. |
| 1980 c. xliii. | Tyne and Wear Act 1980. | Sections 7 to 9. |
| 1981 c. ix. | Greater Manchester Act 1981. | Sections 17 to 19. |
| 1981 c. xviii. | County of Kent Act 1981. | Sections 8 and 9. |
| 1981 c. xxv. | East Sussex Act 1981. | Sections 4 and 5. |
| 1982 c. iii. | Humberside Act 1982. | Sections 31 and 32. |
| PART IIC | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 22 | ||
| 1980 c. x. | County of Merseyside Act 1980. | Section 14. |
| 1980 c. xi. | West Midlands County Council Act 1980. | Section 10. |
| 1980 c. xiii. | Cheshire County Council Act 1980. | Section 9. |
| 1981 c. ix. | Greater Manchester Act 1981. | Section 20. |
| 1981 c. xviii. | County of Kent Act 1981. | Section 11. |
| 1981 c. xxv. | East Sussex Act 1981. | Section 6. |
| 1982 c. iv. | County of Avon Act 1982. | Section 4. |
| PART IID | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 23 | ||
| 1980 c. xi. | West Midlands County Council Act 1980. | Section 17. |
| 1980 c. xiii. | Cheshire County Council Act 1980. | Section 24. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 35. |
| 1981 c. xxxiv. | Derbyshire Act 1981. | Section 18. |
| 1982 c. iii. | Humberside Act 1982. | Section 38. |
| PART IIE | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 25 | ||
| 1980 c. xiv. | West Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 45. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 23. |
| 1980 c. xliii. | Tyne and Wear Act 1980. | Section 14. |
| 1981 c. ix. | Greater Manchester Act 1981. | Section 33. |
| 1981 c. xxv. | East Sussex Act 1981. | Section 16. |
| PART IIF | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 26 | ||
| 1967 c. xx. | Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1967. | Section 24. |
| 1980 c. xiv. | West Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 10. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 40. |
| 1980 c. xliii. | Tyne and Wear Act 1980. | Section 15. |
| 1981 c. ix. | Greater Manchester Act 1981. | Section 46. |
| 1981 c. xviii. | County of Kent Act 1981. | Sections 24 and 25. |
| 1981 c. xxv. | East Sussex Act. 1981 | Section 15. |
| PART IIG | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 27 | ||
| 1976 c. xxxv. | County of South Glamorgan Act 1976. | Section 28. |
| 1980 c. x. | County of Merseyside Act 1980. | Section 17. |
| 1980 c. xiii. | Cheshire County Council Act 1980. | Section 26. |
| 1981 c. ix. | Greater Manchester Act 1981. | Section 39. |
| 1981 c. xviii. | County of Kent Act 1981. | Section 27. |
| 1981 c. xxxiv. | Derbyshire Act 1981. | Section 17. |
| 1982 c. iii | Humberside Act 1982. | Section 43. |
| PART IIH | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 29 | ||
| 1980 c. xiii. | Cheshire County Council Act 1980. | Sect on 94. |
| 1980 c. xv. | Isle of Wight Act 1980. | Section 17. |
| 1981 c. xviii. | County of Kent Act 1981. | Section 4. |
| 1982 c. iii. | Humberside Act 1982. | Section 50. |
| PART IIJ | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 30 | ||
| 1980 c. xiv. | West Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 82. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 90. |
| 1981 c. xxv. | East Sussex Act 1981. | Section 90. |
| PART IIK | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 31 | ||
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 94. |
| 1980 c. xliii. | Tyne and Wear Act 1980. | Section 22. |
| 1981 c. xviii. | County of Kent Act 1981. | Section 31. |
| PART IIL | ||
| LOCAL ENACTMENTS REPEALED IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 33 | ||
| 1980 c.xi. | West Midlands County Council Act 1980. | Section 68. |
| 1980 c.xiv. | West Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 52. |
| 1980 c.XV. | Isle of Wight Act 1980. | Section 47. |
| 1980 c. xxxvii. | South Yorkshire Act 1980. | Section 83. |
| 1981 c. ix. | Greater Manchester Act 1981. | Section 95. |
| 1982 c.iii. | Humberside Act 1982. | Section 54.") |
§ The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 134:
Page 86, line 27, at end insert—
| ("1936 c. 49. | Public Health Act 1936. | In section 2(2), paragraph (ii).") |
§ The noble Lord said: This amendment is consequential on subsection (1)(b) of the new clause which was contained in Amendment No. 124. Section 2(2)(ii) of the Public Health Act 1936 limited the Secretary of State to constituting a joint board consisting of representatives of two or more authorities to be a port health authority, where the port health district consisted of two or more Customs ports. The new clause removes that restriction. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Jacques)We now come to the amendment which was omitted from the Fourth Marshalled List, although it appeared on the Third Marshalled List. It is now Amendment No. 135A.
§
Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 135A:
Page 86, leave out lines 28 to 30.
§ The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ [Amendments Nos. 135 to 137 not moved.]
§ Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 36 [Consequential repeal or amendment of local statutory provisions]:
§ On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ Baroness Fisher of RednalI should like to speak on clause stand part. I listened to what the noble Lord said about the order procedure, and I want to reiterate some of the points which my noble friend has previously made. It is incumbent upon the Government to give to local authorities adequate notice when they are considering repealing or amending any provisions of a local Act. Two or three days' notice is just not good enough, especially when we consider that local authorities do not lightly decide to seek their own legislation. Over a long period of time local councillors and officials think earnestly about possible legislation which they consider would be effective in their own area.
If the Secretary of State considers that local provisions should be repealed or amended so as to fit in more easily with national legislation, due consideration should be given to the matter. It should not be dealt with merely by means of a cursory letter requesting a reply within perhaps three or seven days. There should be real consultation with local authorities. If local government is to mean anything, there must be working co-operation with national government. I am sure that the national Government will accept that many provisions on the statute book arose initially from various local authorities which became aware of problems or which wanted to better conditions in their own areas, and in the long run such provisions became national legislation.
Along with my colleagues on this side of the Committee, I feel that the concern of local authorities should be properly studied; as I mentioned on Second Reading, there should not be merely a token consultation. A local authority should be able to retain any local Act which it feels would be more beneficial in its area than would such national legislation as might be brought forward. In some instances where national legislation is put forward—such as the miscellaneous provisions now before us—local authorities might agree to a repeal, only in the distant future to wish that they had not given up a specific power which they had in local legislation. So I would ask the Minister to be very tolerant of the local authorities' wishes on any future repeal, and to ensure that the phrase "to consult" will mean real consultation, not merely a letter requesting an answer within seven days.
§ Lord BellwinI am sure the noble Baroness will accept from me that I, perhaps more than most, should like to believe that local authorities will not feel in any way badly done to, for whatever reason. I think it is also fair to say, in connection with this whole Bill, that there has been a great deal of con- 42 sultation. In fact, it is really what local authorities need; they need this particular legislation. I am informed that they were pressing for it long ago, and it makes good sense that it should be there because obviously we have to do something that will prevent them all having to come individually to make cases. They will now have powers which will obviate the necessity for that, so that will be what they are wanting.
This is bound to be the situation. I have now had the privilege (if that is the right word; I am not sure that it is) to deal with (I am not sure that is the right phrase, either) a great number of Bills in the last three years, and always this matter of consultation arises. Always one tries to do the best one can, and always, it seems, there is someone somewhere who feels that there ought to have been more consultation. I entirely take the noble Baroness's point that two or three days on anything is really less than desirable; but I hope she will agree that there can be situations which arise where that may in fact happen, whatever earlier period of consultation there may have been.
So I would say that, so far as concerns, in particular, the clause to which she has referred, in fact an order may not be made until the local authority has been consulted, and they will be given plenty of time for this purpose. I would imagine, too, that they will be taking the initiative. So while I accept in general what the noble Baroness is saying, I know that she has also seen so many Bills going through that she knows that these situations can arise, and it is not done with any motive at all other than from anxiety to get into the Bill in question the points that everyone needs to have covered.
§ Baroness Fisher of RednalI take in some of the points that the noble Lord has made, but one presumes that consultation could have taken place earlier. I mean, in the repeals section we are repealing Acts before the ink in which they have been printed is even dry, to be perfectly candid. There is the Humberside Act 1982. We are repealing that under three clauses according to the latest schedule. The oldest one is the County of South Glamorgan Act, the most controversial one; the first one of the local government ones. In the case of all these, local authorities, with their officers and with their councillors, spent money and spent time, and used the parliamentary time; and one wonders, for what?
The consultation procedure, I should have thought, could have started even in 1981, to let the local authorities know that a miscellaneous provisions Bill was coming along and that it was hoped to accommodate this, that the other which they might be bringing forward. So I would have said that there should be consultation over a longer period, because I think there are already four Bills which will be going upstairs to a committee in the near future. I know that I have been asked to sit on the Epsom and Walton Downs Bill. Then I think there is the Nottinghamshire one; and I think Derbyshire is also going to a committee. I hope that their consultations have taken place, and that the committee will not be discussing things that have perhaps got into this miscellaneous provisions Bill. So while I would have said that on repeals we might have greater consultation, there should really be greater consultation on everything, 43 so that public money or parliamentary time is not wasted.
§ On Question, Clause 36 agreed to.
§ Clause 37 [Citation and extent]:
§
Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 137A:
Page 43, line 34, after ("11(2)") insert (",[Work undertaken by local authorities and development bodies under certain agreements with Manpower Services Commission](3)").
§ The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 37, as amended, agreed to.
§ In the Title:
§
Earl Grey moved Amendment No. 138:
Line 4, after ("Acts;") insert ("to make provision for the licensing of existing and future sex establishments;").
§ The noble Earl said: The reason for moving this amendment is that the Long Title should reflect the important contents of the Bill and yet there is no reference to Part II of Schedule 3 in the purposes of this Bill. I feel the Title should be amended as I have suggested. I beg to move.
§ Lord BelsteadI take the point which the noble Earl, Lord Grey, is making in this amendment, but I have reservations about the precise form of the words proposed in it. It would seem to carry an implication, which does not accord with the general tenor of the discussions on Schedule 3, that local authorities are obliged to licence existing and future sex establishments. The Committee has been at very great pains to make the point that this is not so, and I think the contrary would be implicit if this amendment was made in exactly the words that the noble Earl has chosen.
I do accept, however, that technically an amendment to the Long Title may be needed to cover the proposed controls which arc set out in Schedule 3. While I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl may agree to withdraw his amendment for the reasons I have given, I will give an undertaking to take this point away and to look at it.
Earl GreyI am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for being so helpful over this amendment. I think that in my amendment I did not make any reference to any obligation; I used the words,
to make provision for the licensing of existing and future sex establishments".But, in view of what the noble Lord has said and of his helpful remarks, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Lord Bellwin: moved Amendment No. 138A:
Line 14, after ("registers") insert ("to exclude from the definition of" construction or maintenance work" in section 20 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 work undertaken by local authorities and development bodies pursuant to certain agreements with the Manpower Services Commission which specify the work to be undertaken and under which the Commission agrees to pay the whole or part of the cost of the work so specified;").
§ The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.