Civic Government (Scotland) Bill [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 March 1982 vol 428 cc116-77

2.54 p.m.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—[The Earl of Mansfield.]

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 45 [Window cleaners' licences]:

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede moved Amendment No. 140: Page 31, line 7, leave out ("or being employed as").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the temporary absence of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, I beg to move Amendment No. 140. Perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has a response to it.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, may like to guess as to the subject matter of the amendment which is now before the House. I have to tell him that it deals, no more and no less, with window cleaners and how, if at all, they should be regularised in the way in which they carry out their arduous and highly skilled duties.

If the noble Lord, Lord Ross, had been in his place, I have no doubt that he would have said pretty well what he said in Committee, but, being the resourceful noble Lord that he is, he would have said it differently, with great charm and probably not at very considerable length, and your Lordships' House would, no doubt, have considered it on its merits.

I must say to your Lordships that I shall not invite the House to accept the noble Lord's amendment—Amendment No. 140—dealing, as it does, with window cleaners, but it may be that as the tabler of the amendment, the noble Lord may wish to add to the arguments which were deployed so ably by his noble friend Lord Ponsonby.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, they were not only argued well, but were very well answered, I am sure. But I should like to know just exactly what it means to be in trade as a window cleaner, and we must remember that we shall pretty well wipe this out by the other amendments that the noble Earl has set down on the Marshalled List. It takes a bit of explaining, because not only must the window cleaner who is in trade have a licence, but so must the person employed. Employed by whom?—employed by someone who is having his or her windows cleaned. It might be someone washing the windows for a person next door. That person is being employed as a window cleaner. Or does it mean someone who is employed for a firm of window cleaners and that he, too, must be licensed?

I do not think that this has been entirely helped by all the changes of mind that the Government have had in respect to this as regards their earlier amendments to Clause 2. I just want to know. I am a curious sort of person. I like to know that the law means something. Indeed, when we come to the later stages, we shall, of course, discover that the only person who can stop a window cleaner and ask to see his licence

is someone authorised by the licensing authority or a constable in uniform. Even the person who is employing the window cleaner has no right to demand to see the licence as a result of later amendments we are going to come to. I suppose there was some sense in having this "other person", "any other person", in the subsequent subsections (2) to (4), which are going to be wiped out. I just want to know what the Government have in mind by this phrase "or being employed as".

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may respond to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. When we debated this matter in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, was particularly exercised by what I think he called a young fellow trying to turn an honest penny for his own profit during the school holidays. What the noble Lord was seeking to do, and also the noble Lord, Lord Ross, at that stage, was to try to make some differentiation between what I might call a professional window cleaner and an amateur window cleaner, or possibly a more accurate description would be a casual window cleaner—that is to say someone who, for one reason or another, was turning an honest penny by cleaning somebody's windows.

What I promised to do, and what I have done, is to look carefully at the points to see whether it would be practical to exempt the casual window cleaner from the provisions of these licensing requirements. The trouble is that window cleaners, and part-time window cleaners in particular, come in very different guises. We could not exempt part-time window cleaners who are carrying out window cleaning, as it were, for hire or reward without making a colossal loophole in the provision, and it would then be possible for any suspicious character with a ladder to say that he was merely a part-time window cleaner, therefore did not need a licence, and therefore had every right to be where he was found.

We also considered whether we could have exemption on the score of the age of the window cleaner, but I am afraid that criminal statistics show all too clearly that a child or an adolescent who is old enough to climb a ladder is also old enough to break into a house, and in fact a high proportion of housebreaking unfortunately is carried out by young people. Then I looked at other enactments, particularly the Edinburgh Corporation Act 1967, and Section 409 in particular, which refers to the need to have a licence if one is to engage in window cleaning by way of trade or employment.

That did not seem to meet the problem. My officials have consulted Edinburgh District Council, who have also consulted the Lothian and Borders police, and in fact no problems have arisen under that Act in the present wording. I also understand that casual window cleaning has not been adversely affected by the longstanding provisions in the Edinburgh order, and therefore I am quite sure that we cannot introduce an amendment which would specifically exempt part-time or casual window cleaners.

I think the temptation is to make rather too heavy weather of this sort of provision in this kind of legislation. From my researches, there does not seem to have been any particular problem which has arisen either so far as good neighbours or Bob-a-Job week or anything like that is concerned. The purpose of this particular part of the Bill is crime prevention and the police consider that it is necessary. I really do not see that anybody who wants to indulge in window cleaning as a part-time occupation need in fact fear anything from these licensing provisions. The licence is a protection for him as well as for the public, and his bona fides are then manifest.

It is not entirely inappropriate for those of us who read The Times of 11th February to recall that in that journal there appeared: Lord Denning, the Master of the Rolls, had his flat in Lincoln's Inn in London raided yesterday while he was in court and his wife was out shopping. Earlier, Lady Denning showed two young men, who said they were window cleaners, around the flat". Of course we all sympathise with the noble and learned Lord on the results of that unfortunate encounter, but wonder what would have happened if there had been a requirement to license window cleaners in London, and if the two young men in question had been asked to show their licences.

I have, I hope, taken the points that the noble Lord and his noble friend made in Committee as seriously as I should have, but I cannot recommend to the House that in this present legislation we ought to try to find a way of exempting diligent schoolboys and part-time or casual window cleaners from the legislation.

Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede

My Lords, I have listened to the noble Earl's explanation of this amendment, to my noble friend Lord Ross's response to that explanation, and the noble Earl's response to that, and in the circumstances I wish to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Aberdare)

My Lords, Amendment No. 141. I have to point out that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 142, 143 or 147.

3.6 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 141: Page 31, line 9, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if I spoke to Amendment No. 147. I beg to move Amendment No. 141. This follows a paving amendment to Clause 5 which we discussed last time this matter was considered by your Lordships' House, and this amendment implements the intention that we should drop the special provisions in these subsections for the production of a window cleaner's licence, and that we should instead fall back on the general requirements in Clauses 5 and 7 of the Bill, which allow a constable or authorised officer to require the production of a licence within a reasonable time from a person whom they believe to require a licence under the provisions of Parts I and II of the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think it shows the difficulty that the Government have been in with this clause by including window cleaners. This throws us back now to the more general provision in respect of

licences so far as concerns the examination of the licence and who has the right to ask to see the licence.

In the subsections that we are now asked to leave out there are three categories of people who are entitled to ask: An authorised officer of a local authority, a constable or any other person having reasonable cause to require to see it". Obviously it would be the people who are employing the window cleaner, if they are going to have protection from any people acting under false pretences and who really have not got a licence.

Not only that, but, having asked to see it, the licence has to be exhibited forthwith. Now, instead of that, we are thrown back to Clause 5(2), and it is, An authorised officer of a licensing authority or a constable". The "any other person" is left out. They are not required to display the licence right away but, within a reasonable time of being required to do so". Of course, if they are the kind of people we suspect, they will just disappear altogether and the question of displaying the licence will not arise. Therefore, I do not think it is a great improvement, and I hope that the Government will have another look at this. Otherwise, I do not object to leaving out subsections (2), (3) and (4), because (3) is already covered by Clause 5. The £25 possible fine is still there in the general provision.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 47 [Soliciting and importuning by prostitutes]:

3.10 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 148: Page 32, line 8, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 10 and insert—

1. ("(a) loiters in a public place;
2. (b) solicits in a public place or in any other place so as to been seen from a public place; or
3. (c) importunes any person who is in a public place, for the purpose of prostitution").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord Underhill, raised questions as to whether a prostitute in a car, taxi or so on would be committing an offence if he or she importuned a person in a public place. It was not entirely clear and I undertook to look at the matter. The amendment is therefore designed to make it clear that an offence is committed if either the prostitute or the prospective client but not necessary both, is in a public place.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I thank the Minister for attending to the point. The amendment represents an improvement and I thank him for making the change.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, I am wondering whether there is a misprint in that the amendment should contain the word "be".

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, that will be attended to in the next print of the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 49 [Dogs: fouling of pavements]:

Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 149 to 153:

Page 32, line 24, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("subsections (IA) and").

line 25, after ("upon") insert ("(a)").

line 26, after ("footway") insert—

("(b) a grass verge maintained by a local authority and situated adjacent to a footpath or footway;

(c) any place maintained by a local authority and used exclusively as a children's play area; or

(d) any place maintained by a local authority and used for recreational or sporting purposes being a place in relation to which this section applies by virtue of subsection (1A) below,").

line 27, at end insert—

("(1A) This section applies in relation to a place, being a place referred to in subsection (1)(d) above, only if a notice stating that this section applies to it and the effect of such application is displayed at the entrance to that place or elsewhere so that it may be seen by members of the public intending to have access to the place").

line 33, leave out from ("1970") to end of line 35.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we considered the Bill on 26th January I gave various undertakings to my noble neighbour, Lord Mackie of Benshie, in the course of which I said that while I did not think we could accept the wide-ranging definition that he was suggesting—namely, of making it an offence for a dog to foul any amenity area—I said I would look at the possibility of a more restricted extension from "footways" to "children's play areas, sports and recreation grounds". That is the purpose and effect of this series of amendments.

Subparagraph (b) of the main amendment restates the offence, already provided for, of fouling a grass verge; subparagraph (c) also makes it an offence to foul an area maintained by a local authority and used exclusively as a children's play area; and subparagraph (d) makes it an offence to foul any recreation or sporting area maintained by a local authority provided that such an area has been designated as one to which the clause applies. I should explain why we have thought it necessary, in relation to recreational and sporting areas, to provide for such designation. Briefly, what we call sporting and recreational areas can cover both wide areas and a wide range of recreational activities, from organised sports to semi-rural walks. In our view, it would be unreasonable to prohibit a dog fouling anywhere in such areas and we feel that the onus has to be on the authority to designate specifically those areas where dog fouling is prohibited and to make sure that notices to that effect are easily visible. That seems to us to be a reasonable protection for the rights of dogs and dog owners and to strike a proper balance between their interests and those of the public at large.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie and my colleagues, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for these amendments. We are grateful to him for having listened so sympathetically to what we said. I agree that the way in which the provision is now drafted admirably meets the requirement which we were seeking to incorporate.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 51 [Obscene material]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 154:

Page 33, line 39, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Earl said: My Lords, subsection (4) provides that an individual shall not be guilty of an offence under Clause 51 if he distributes, or keeps with a view to distribution, obscene material without any view to commercial gain, direct or otherwise. We feel, on reflection, that this saving should be deleted, and obviously the noble Lord, Lord Ross, thinks the same. Since Clause 51 prohibits both the manufacture and sale of obscene material, it would be wrong to permit the distribution of such material, even where such distribution is not for gain. There is a danger that if this saving were retained, enterprising pornographers would devise schemes where obscene material was distributed for gain but where the circumstances in which it was distributed would make it difficult to prove that the distribution was for gain. The deletion of subsection (4) will bring the position in Scotland into line with that in England and Wales where, under the Obscene Publications Act 1959, distribution, even where not for gain, is an offence. There is no particular merit in Scotland always slavishly following England, but in this particular instance it is both sensible and logical for the same provisions to exist in the two countries.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am glad the Government have taken that point of view in respect of subsection (4). It did not make sense previously, bearing in mind what is already said in subsection (2), and I certainly welcome their decision.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 155 not moved.]

Clause 58 [Mobile advertisements]:

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 156:

Page 36, line 18, at end insert ("to an election to the Assembly of the European Communities or").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment fulfils the commitment I gave in Committee to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, that I would bring forward a Government amendment after considering the drafting of the corresponding amendment which they had tabled at that stage. It is the intention of the clause that vehicles and boards displaying advertisements relating to all parliamentary elections, and not simply British parliamentary elections, should be exempted from control, and the amendment as now redrafted makes that clear. The wording is the appropriate legal definition of what we colloquially call the European Parliament. We are grateful to those noble Lords for raising the point, and I commend the amendment.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, it is my turn to say am grateful to the Minister for including this amendment, which admirably fulfils the purpose we had in mind.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, if we are to have parliamentary and local government elections exempt from control by the licensing authority and police, it would appear to follow suit that European elections should be similarly treated. Mind you, there is a case for making them subject to police control, and I am sure that before the next fortnight is over the people of Hillhead, and in a particular street there, will be wishing the Government had made them subject to some measure of control, bearing in mind what can happen in a busy shopping centre when vehicles are moving about and eight or nine—in Hillhead there may be an even greater number—candidates are all taking advantage of the situation. Life could become quite unbearable for people in such an area. That is why there might be some merit in the police having a say, at least when it reaches the point of being burdensome to the public.

A question arises. The provision applies to one vehicle. Does it equally apply to 25 vehicles? I hate to think what some of the places will be like on Saturday of the week after next when there will be numbers of competing cars, vans and the rest of it going around. One can only hope that the good sense of people will be such as not to drive away the public from what they propose to effect by displaying advertisements.

It is not an open and shut case that there should not be some measure of control. There is a certain measure of control in respect of the Representation of the People Acts as to where advertisements can be exhibited at particular times. However, if we are to have parliamentary and local government elections covered, then obviously we should have European elections covered as well.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.21 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 57:

After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:

"Notification of processions

PART IIIA

PUBLIC PROCESSIONS

.—(1) A person proposing to hold a procession in public shall give written notice of that proposal in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below to the regional or islands council in whose area the procession is to be held, or if it is to be held in the areas of more than one such council, to each such council.

(2) Notice shall be given for the purposes of subsection (1) above by—

1. (a) its being posted to the main office of the regional or islands council so that in the normal course of post it might be expected to arrive not later than 7 days before the date when the procession is to be held; or
2. (b) its being delivered by hand to that office not later than 7 days before that date.

(3) The notice to be given under subsection (1) above shall specify—

1. (a) the date and time when the procession is to be held;
2. (b) its route;
3. (c) the number of persons likely to take part in it;
4. (d) the arrangements for its control being made by the person proposing to hold it; and
5. (e) the name and address of that person.

(4) A regional or islands council may, on application in accordance with subsection (5) below by a person proposing to hold a procession in public in their area made to them within the period of 7 days before the date when the procession is to be held, make an order dispensing with the requirements of subsection (2) above in relation to the time limits for the giving of notice of that proposal.

(5) An application under subsection (4) above shall specify the matters mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (e) of subsection (3) above and, where an order has been made under the said subsection (4), the application for it shall be treated as notice duly given for the purposes of subsection (1) above.

(6) A regional or islands council may (whether upon application made to them or not) make an order exempting any person proposing to hold any procession in public being a procession specified in the order or one of a class of processions so specified from the requirement under this section to give notice to the council of the proposal to hold that procession.

(7) An order under subsection (6) above may—

1. (a) provide that its application in any case or class of cases is subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order;
2. (b) classify processions by reference to any factor or factors whatsoever;
3. (c) be varied or revoked by subsequent order made in like manner.

(8) The regional or islands council shall, before making an order under subsection (4) above or making, varying or revoking an order under subsection (6) above, consult the chief constable.

(9) The person proposing to hold a procession in public shall—

1. (a) at the same time as he gives notice under subsections (1) to (3) above, deliver a copy of that notice;
2. (b) where he has applied under subsection (4) above, at the same time as he does so, deliver a copy of that application by post or hand to the chief constable.

(10) The regional or islands council shall, as soon as possible after they make, vary or revoke an order under subsection (6) above, give public notice of that fact in a newspaper or newspapers circulating ill their area.

(11) In this section and in sections (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) to (Offences and enforcement) of this Act—

"procession in public" means a procession in a public place; and

"chief constable" means, in relation to a regional or islands council, the chief constable of the police force for the area which comprises or includes the area of the council.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we have now come to a very important group of new clauses which form a new Part of the Bill. They have been tabled following undertakings which I have given at various stages during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House, but more particularly in Committee. The general purpose of the clauses is to add to the Civic Government Code provisions which will enable local authorities to regulate public processions in their areas. No doubt we shall examine each clause, but it might be helpful if I touch briefly on the history of the matter.

The Green Paper on the review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation acknowledged that, in relation to public processions, The existing Scottish local provisions are well accepted by the communities they serve and have largely provided a framework within which the local authorities, the police and the organisers of processions usually have reached amicable agreement". The Green Paper indicated the Government's view, That there is a strong case for allowing this well-established Scottish legislation, suitably modernised, to continue in force side by side with the provisions of the 1936 Act amended in the light of the current review". It was in the light of that view that provisions on the regulation of public processions were included in the Consultation Paper, Proposals for a Code of Civic Government in Scotland. published in July 1980. They represented preliminary proposals, incomplete in some respects, which would be adjusted in the light of consultation and the conclusions of the main public order review.

As I previously explained, the preliminary conclusions of that review are being reassessed in the light of the findings and recommendations of Lord Scarman's report on the Brixton disorders, and this will take some further time. So although the arrangement may perhaps not be ideal, I hope that we can discuss and write into the Bill these, essentially Scottish, provisions, though we must recognise that they might have to be looked at again at a later date when the conclusions of the main review are available.

I think that no one will be surprised to see that today the clauses retain the same central objective, but nevertheless differ in detail from those published as long ago as July 1980. That comes about through the process of consultation which highlighted certain difficulties in the earlier version.

One change has not been made, and that is because we remain of the opinion that control of processions is a matter for regional or islands councils. In Committee there was some support for the view that the district council might be a more appropriate regulating authority than the region. I have studied the Official Report carefully, but I do not think that anything was said that seriously undermines this element of the proposals, which had the support of the Stodart Committee.

So, in outline, we propose that there should be a requirement throughout Scotland for seven days' notice of a proposal to hold a procession in public; that regional or islands councils should have power, by order, to ban or impose conditions on such processions; that there should be a right of appeal against their decision on specified grounds; and that statutory offences, with appropriate penalties, should be created. Further, we propose that there should be some important qualifications to that general approach. In the first place we think it important to make provision to accommodate processions of which, for a wide variety of reasons, it may not be possible to give seven days' advance notice. We think it appropriate that local authorities should have discretion to exempt certain classes of procession from the requirement for advance notice. I hope that that brief exposition of the background will have been helpful.

With regard to Amendment No. 157, the new clause gives effect to the recommendation of the working party on civic government that any person intending to organise or conduct a street procession should be obliged to give notice of it not less than seven days beforehand. The working party on civic government recommended that the requirement to give not less than seven days' notice of a procession should be without prejudice to the council's discretion to authorise a procession at shorter notice, and appropriate provision is therefore made in subsections (4) and (5) of the clause.

The mechanism is quite simple. Where less than seven days' notice is given the council may dispense with the requirement in relation to the time limits for giving notice, but it will do that only after consultation with the chief constable and where the organiser has provided the necessary information specified in subsection (3). If the council decide to make an order dispensing with the requirements of subsection (2) in relation to the time limits for the giving of notice, it will still be able under the following clause to make an order imposing conditions on the holding of the procession. It will not, however, be able to make a banning order. The council does not require powers to ban a short-notice procession, since if it does not wish the procession to proceed, it can simply refrain from dispensing with the normal time limits for notification. If the organisers then proceed to hold the procession, they will commit an offence and be liable to the appropriate penalties.

I think that I should perhaps deal with subsections (6) and (7) of the clause. In Committee there was some discussion about the scope that there might be for exemptions from the notification requirement. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in a draft clause in Committee followed the provisions of the draft Bill published in the July 1980 consultation paper by tackling the problem by excluding from the definition of procession in public a ceremonial procession regularly held by a public body or public authority. On further reflection, we have decided that this matter of exemptions is one that can more appropriately be dealt with at local level, rather than by attempting to provide a single prescription in the Bill. But I dare say that we shall debate it further in the next amendment. I think that that is all I need say in moving the amendment, but of course if any noble Lord has any questions, I shall do my best to answer them. My Lords, I beg to move.

3.29 p.m.

Viscount Thurso moved Amendment No. 157A as an amendment to Amendment No. 157:

In subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, in the second line, after ("order") insert—

("—

(a) applying to any person proposing to hold any procession in public, being a procession commonly or customarily held specified in the order or one of a class of processions so specified, the requirement under this section to give notice to the council of the proposal to hold that procession; or

(b)").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, while welcoming the new clauses and feeling grateful to the Government for bringing them before your Lordships, we consider that there is still an element missing from the provisions which allow for the traditional activities of such bodies as the Salvation Army, the Girl Guides, the Boy Scouts, and the Boys' Brigade. The new clause goes a long way towards meeting the requests that we have made and the amendments that we have sought to introduce to allow processions of the Salvation Army, the Boys' Brigade, the Girl Guides, the Boy Scouts, and such bodies to take place as they traditionally have done. After all, these are bodies which require to march to and from their places of activity as part of their normal way of behaviour. They are not holding a procession in the customary way in which we understand the word "procession ", but they are indeed probably holding a procession in a technical sense if they march from their headquarters to a church, or if they march down the street with their band playing and their banners flying.

Those of us who have put our names to this amendment to the amendment have therefore considered what amendments to the Government clauses might best preserve this traditional exemption for street activities of the Salvation Army, the Scouts and the Guides Associations and the Boys' Brigade, and we would venture to propose the amendments which we now put before your Lordships. They provide that processions commonly or customarily held shall not give rise to the requirement of notice unless the local authority pass an order specifically requiring that they be subject to the notification requirement. This amendment seeks to give effect, within the constraints of the clause, to the principle (which we have always maintained) that such processions should automatically be exempted unless the local authority see fit to make an order prescribing that certain of these processions be controlled; and if these amendments are accepted by your Lordships the street activities of the Salvation Army, the Scouts and the Guides Associations will be exempted unless action is specifically taken to include them within the controls.

Your Lordships may ask: What on earth is the difference between putting it this way round and putting it in the way Government have put it? The difference is this, that it is perfectly possible for a local authority to regard themselves as being atheistic and to regard their politics as requiring that religion he given no privileges within the community. It would he perfectly possible for a Marxist local authority to decide to ban processions by religious bodies such as the Salvation Army, and I think it would be wise if at this stage we could incorporate in the Bill our firm intention that these processions which are of a religious or semi-religious nature should not be subject to the same constraints as those which are of a purely political nature.

It is for that reason that we think it should be made quite clear in this part of the Bill that the onus of proof of undesirability should be on the local authority rather than that the onus of proof of desirability should be upon the organisation. That is why we ask your Lordships to accept these amendments and to incorporate them in the new clauses which the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has put before us and which we support, even though we regret that the power is now in the hands of the region rather than of the district. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think there is a matter of principle at stake here. I know that generally speaking in respect of processions there has been little trouble in Scotland in the past, and it is probably through the more recent developments of protest marches, National Front marches, which are liable to create public disturbance and concern, that this matter has tended to become much more important. But if we are forced to take action for public order in respect of that, what about the traditional processions which have been going on, some of them, for over a century? The Salvation Army, I know, in Ayr and Kilmarnock, are out on a Saturday night. No one would calculate or consider that it really was a procession, but they are demonstrating their Christian courage, and they have done so for all this time.

Whether or not we like it, you see, subsection (6), as to which the Minister of State says, "We have made special provision for them", gives only a discretionary power to the local authority. That means that local authorities may do so-and-so, but it also means that they may not. I think it is quite wrong to leave it to the discretion of a local authority when, by putting some words into the Bill, we can make perfectly clear that it is not to apply to processions of that kind, processions that have taken place year after year—local gala days, the processions of the children and the floats, and, in the borders, the common riding processions. Nobody ever dreamt that they would cause any trouble to anybody. Surely in the name of goodness, there is no reason why they should be included. Take May Day marches. I do not know for how long we have had a wonderful May Day march in Glasgow, but there has never been any trouble at it. There is no reason why things like that, which are customary, should be included.

I suppose the kirking of a council is a procession, too; and I dare say that the local authority will need to make up their minds as to whether or not they are going to allow them to walk with all their dignity through the main streets to their local kirk after an election. I do not know whether or not they have this kind of procession in England, but it is customary in Scotland that after a local election the members of the local council, now the district council, march in procession to the church and are kirked. This thing has been going on for centuries, and I think it is quite wrong that they should now be subject to this kind of treatment simply because of troubles that have arisen of later days.

Now if I may speak on the wider issue, there is no doubt at all about it but that there has been confusion in Scotland, and when local authorities have been urged by people, from the point of view of public good, to take action they have found they have not got the power to do it. There is a different power in Edinburgh as compared with Glasgow. Edinburgh can put conditions on any procession or it can ban any single procession. In Glasgow they cannot; they have got to resort to the Public Order Act, and it means a banning of all processions for a period. That, of course, is quite unsatisfactory, and it is why we have been pressing the Government to take action.

Time and again, of course, there was the business, should it be the districts or should it be the regions? The working party suggested the districts and then the Government thought again and in the draft Bill they suggested the regions. I think that in one amendment I suggested the districts, and I suggested the districts for one simple reason. There is one region in Scotland that sticks in my gullet, and that is Strathclyde. It comprehends half the population of Scotland. It does not make sense that everything in relation to a small town in South Ayrshire has got to go way up to Glasgow. I know the arguments about this, that the police authority is one authority and the police have got to be consulted. I think that could have been got round quite easily because the police are so structured and organised that there is someone in authority within the much smaller areas of the districts. But I am not going to argue about that; I am glad that something is being done.

There is one other thing about which I want to ask the Minister of State. It concerns me in another aspect of my life when I see the expenditure that local football clubs are put to in relation to crowds going to football matches. It costs football clubs in Scotland a tremendous amount of money, dictated to by the chief constable as to how many police should be there and for how long they should be there. One of the things that the working party said about processions that the authority should bear in mind is the load of work and the cost of the police. There is nothing here about who meets the cost.

I live in Strathclyde and I suppose that in Strathclyde (because Glasgow is in Strathclyde) most of these processions will take place. Although I live in a peaceable area represented by the present Secretary of State, I will have to bear the cost of this because there is nothing here to say who should bear the cost of the policing or whether or not the authority, because they consider the cost of the policing too heavy, should say, "No, we cannot allow that procession". Is that one of the things to be borne in mind? There is a sense of injustice among the people who have to pay for the police in respect of some aspects of it who see other things happening where far more policing is needed and yet the people responsible for the organisation of the event do not pay for the police at all.

I hope that the Government will have a look at this amendment and will remember the words that were in the original Act which were there for the purpose of trying to help out with the kind of public processions which are referred to: 'procession in public' means a procession … but does not include a ceremonial procession regularly held by a public body or a public authority". I do not think that that phrase is good enough but, on the other hand, I do not think it is good enough to leave it in subsection (6) where it is a matter entirely for the local authority whether they are applied to by those who are holding the processions or not; because, local authorities being what they are, you could get a patchwork of different attitudes over the whole country and different administrative conditions laid down in respect of processions that have never caused any trouble and which delight the people of Scotland. I would feel annoyed if there was a Saturday night on which we did not see the Salvation Army.

Next year is the centenary of the Boys' Brigade and at every church parade they hold at the present time they march from the headquarters to the church. Is permission for that to be left to the local authority? I can assure the Minister of State that next year Glasgow, which is the home of the Boys' Brigade, is going to be the centre of considerable activity. I hope that they are not going to be harassed in respect of the kind of procession that they have been carrying out for a hundred years. It should not be left to the local authority. The Minister must devise some words to ensure that this kind of procession will be able to go on without the requirement of making application in order to hold it or to be granted exemption. I think that it is up to him and up to the Scottish Office to devise the words (which. I am sure, this House will support) that with this kind of procession there should be no requirement to make application or to be given

consideration. We, here, should determine that they have exception and not leave it to somebody else.

Lord Wilson of Langside

Although not sharing the understandable concern of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, about the costs of police attendance at football matches, share all the other views that he expressed in support of this amendment. Although I am not seriously concerned about the influence of Marxism in Scottish local government, I agree also with what the noble Viscount has said; and I would support these amendments.

Lord Somers

If I may, I would add a word from these Benches. I support this amendment for one reason. I think it is important to draw a line between processions of the bodies mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, such as the Boys' Brigade, the Boy Scouts and the Salvation Army from other processions in that they are not campaigning processions, they are not carrying banners saying, "Away with the House of Lords!" or, "Down with the Chancellor of the Exchequer" or something like that. I suppose that you might say that the Salvation Army is campaigning for increased interest in Christianity. If that is the case, more power to their elbow; but, apart from that, they are not politically campaigning in any sense of the word and therefore they should be given credence.

Lord Stodart of Leaston

I regret that transport difficulties delayed my getting here to listen to the debate on this matter in Committee on 2nd February. It was, and still is, I think, universally accepted that the law with regard to processions at this moment is highly confused and, for the first time in his life, I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, seemed to be guilty of a minimal degree of confusion by saying in one column that the Stodart Committee had recommended that the regions should be responsible and, in the next column, saying that the districts should he responsible. I am sure that it must have been a misprint.

What we did find when we looked at this in our committee was a general plea that the matter should he rationalised. Accordingly, we carefully considered the possibility of what seemed rather obvious; that is, giving district control of processions to, say, the big cities, the four cities, which are districts, or to the Highland area with its long distances. But we had a considerable desire to produce a fairly simple form of legislation. We shied away from asking for a draft Bill which said that, for certain functions, Strathclyde should have the responsibility and that the Highlands and the Grampian regions should not. We felt it should be one for all. That, plus the fact (despite the point which I think has been mentioned today: that it is not perhaps of great importance) that processions take place along the highways and under the control of the police and that both the highways and the police are the responsibility of the regions, caused my committee to come to the unanimous recommendation that processions should be the responsibility of the region. Therefore, I think the Government are plumb right in accepting this and perhaps it would be a bit odd if I did not say that.

Lord Underhill

In support of my noble friend in his amendment, I would emphasise one point that he made; and that is his reference to traditional May Day marches. It seems incredible to me that the traditional May Day march should be subject to this form of application. These are traditional events, whatever may be the propaganda associated with them. They are held in quite a large number of Scottish towns. While, as a person who has been an election agent, I would not encourage marching processions at elections, I have taken part in a by-election procession in Glasgow.

I should like to ask the Minister whether, in his consultations, seeing that application has to be made to the region or island councils, any question was raised on the position of processions during elections from the standpoint of the time factor, as to any problem of delay arising. I presume, in the absence of anything to the contrary in the new clause, that election processions will be covered by this clause. Moreover, marching processions will be covered and, presumably, car processions or "carcades" will be covered also; and they are quite numerous in Scottish towns, as my noble friend has said. Presumably, conditions could be attached on the very point that my noble friend raised in his previous amendment; if the authority wished, conditions could be attached to the number of cars which would take part in a car procession. For it is this which often causes considerable problems.

3.50 p.m.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, a moment or two ago the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, went so far as to hint gently that my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock might conceivably be guilty of confusion. Quite honestly, I find that inconceivable. I am amazed that anybody would suggest such a thing and not be struck down by lightning immediately. I am rising to support my noble friend Lord Ross, let it be said, especially in relation to subsection (6) of the new clause in which the permission for processions has to be sent back to the regions. Here I must say that I am about to dissent from the views of Lord Stodart and his committee. I hope that he will forgive me for being so brazen.

I have in mind an occurrence with which my noble friend Lord Ross will be very familiar: namely, the Irvine Marymass which occurs every summer and is a kind of celebration of one of the oldest royal burghs in Scotland. I cannot quite remember when Irvine was made a royal burgh. Was it 1200? At any rate, it was a while ago. Irvine celebrates its antique history by having a fair every summer, an important part of which is a procession through the town led by a young girl—usually a very beautiful one, she being an Ayrshire girl—representing Mary Queen of Scots whose head was taken off by an Englishman some while ago. But that is not the point of it; it celebrates the antiquity rather than the execution. Some of her four Marys are witl her and she has attendants. It is a procession which is very similar to the procession of the file bleu in, I think it is, Concarneau in Brittany. It is almost identical to it. It is merely a celebration of antiquity and indeed of enjoyment, and it endangers nobody.

It is a very local celebration. It is a celebration which is enjoyed by the inhabitants of Irvine, some

20,000 or 30,000 people. I do not know exactly how many there are nowadays, for it is an expanding town; I refer to those in that part of Ayrshire known as Kyle. It is a small localised celebration. So why in heaven's name should those responsible for a procession which is local in its intent and local in its enjoyment be obliged to go to the region for permission—and especially when the region is Strathclyde which has a population more or less the same as that of Denmark? I am sure that the aspirations of the Strathclyde regional council are much less than those of Denmark, although I am not always sure. It seems unduly heavy footed. This is a local activity.

I have instanced only one example. My noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock instanced several others, and no doubt there are many more local processions and things of that sort throughout Scotland of which neither of us are aware. In heaven's name, can the decision whether or not these processions be carried out be a local one? Why on earth should there be all this flummery of going to the region?

Lady Saltoun

My Lords, I am concerned about one kind of procession, although I am not sure whether it would count as a procession. I refer to a temperance walk. Could the noble Earl keep that in mind?

Lord Rochester

My Lords, I should like briefly to support my noble friend Lord Thurso and others who have spoken in support of the amendment that he has moved, for the reasons that they have given. I speak as someone who for many years has been a supporter of, and indeed has held some office in, the Scout movement. I know that that movement is concerned lest the traditional freedom which scouts have enjoyed to engage in processions of the kind that have been talked about should be impaired. I mind less about the identity of the authority which should be involved, though I have sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, has just said in relation to this being localised so far as possible. I very much hope that it will be found possible for traditional processions of the kind that have been spoken about to proceed unless it is that some specific reason can be advanced by the appropriate authority why they should not.

I note—and I suggest this to your Lordships—that it is significant that this amendment is in the names of members of the Liberal, Labour and Conservative Parties and is also being supported by a member of the Social Democratic Party. I hope very much that the noble Earl will find it possible to accept this amendment or, if he cannot accept it now, give us some assurance that he will look at it sympathetically with a view to enabling something of this kind to be introduced at Third Reading.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, we have run the gamut of everything from temperance walks to football matches in which an air of temperance pervades nowadays by law. The difficulty in devising this legislation is between reconciling the public order considerations—this is public order legislation that we are considering—and the other considerations which have prompted many noble Lords to speak in support of this amendment because they feel quite genuinely that there are certain organisations or activities which should for one reason or another be exempt from the general body of the new law which we are writing into this Bill.

We have to take Amendments Nos. 157A and 157B together. In the proposed amendment to subsection (11) of the new clause the amendment seeks to exclude from the definition of, procession in public"— any procession— commonly or customarily held". I shall come back to that. This is a very wide exemption. It goes well beyond that suggested in the draft Bill published in our consultation paper. It goes beyond the exclusion provided in the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967, which was the model favoured by the Working Party on Civic Government. So what the amendment would do, so far as No. 157A is concerned, is that it would enable a regional or islands council, by order, to require notice to be given of a procession, notwithstanding that it was one (or one of a class) commonly or customarily held if it saw fit. The net effect of the two amendments would be to provide automatic exemption from the notification requirements for the organisers of all processions, commonly or customarily held". unless the local authority decided to impose a specific notification requirement.

I appreciate at once that these amendments represent an honest endeavour to try to frame the exceptions which we talked about in our debate in Committee. How does one therefore—because it is a problem—draw up a provision which is narrow enough to exclude activities which clearly need not be subject to the requirement to provide advance notice, yet broad enough to encompass all those activities which ought to be subject to the requirement?

As one of the objects of advance notice, coupled with powers to impose conditions on a march, is to help minimise the disruption which processions cause to the community, it would seem right, on the whole, not to have any exemptions at all or, failing that, to draw any exemptions narrowly. But quite apart from this point of principle, I think there are more practical grounds for believing that the approach embodied in these amendments is less satisfactory than that underlying the proposed new clause. In the first place, our approach is clearer. It is proposed that there should be a general requirement to give notice of all processions in public, defined simply as processions in a public place.

It will, however, be open to the regional or islands council, whether or not they are asked by the organisers to do so, to grant exemptions from the general requirement as may be appropriate in the local circumstances. But the approach taken by these amendments would leave it uncertain in particular cases whether any notice was required to be given, because it may not be clear whether a procession is one which is, "commonly or customarily held". This could result in the organiser of a procession committing an offence by failing to give notice of a procession in the belief, which may prove to be mistaken, that his procession fitted the description of, "commonly or customarily held". So this is a weakness in the proposed amendment

and it might adversely affect those whom it seeks to protect.

Our approach in the proposed new clause would avoid this uncertainty. Given notification of all public processions in their area, the regional or islands council can systematically review the need for the notification requirement in respect of each, and frame its policy on the basis of comprehensive information. Under the system proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, and others, the council would somehow or other have to find out the details of each of the many processions which would fit within the category of, "commonly or customarily held" and decide ad hoc, and possibly at short notice, whether to impose a formal requirement for notification.

I must ask the House to consider seriously that if those who are organising a procession which they believe to be, "commonly or customarily held", they would not give any notice to the council. The council would in some way have to find out that the procession was to be held and then impose a formal requirement. That would certainly be more onerous for the councils and would also involve greater uncertainty for the organisers.

I believe that common sense is in favour of an advance notice requirement, and I do not believe that our proposals represent an undue burden on organisers. Indeed, it is often in the best interests of the organisers of a procession of any size to ensure that both the chief constable and the highway authority are aware of their plans at an early stage in order that there is adequate time to make the many arrangements that have to be made on such occasions. These include the consideration of the detailed routes, the control of traffic, the closure of streets and so on. Some of those things, of course, imply that notice must be given. I am told that in Glasgow, for example, where (unlike Edinburgh) there is at present no requirement for the organisers of a procession to give advance notice, it is common practice for the organisers of processions of any magnitude to discuss their arrangements well in advance and in some detail with the police.

I now come to the concern expressed by the Salvation Army that the notification requirement offends the principle of religious liberty and offers no guarantee that the army's street procession activities will be exempted either now or in the future. Our earlier debates demonstrated clearly the wealth of goodwill to be found among noble Lords in all parts of the House towards the Salvation Army, and I think that similar goodwill is to be found throughout the country and in our council chambers generally. I really do not think that, against this background, these proposals can reasonably be construed as an attack on the cherished principle of freedom of religious expression. I put this question to the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso; if he thought that local councils might discriminate in the manner he suggests, would he not agree that the councils would be extremely conscious, as local politicians, of the problems they would create for themselves—to put it no higher than that—if they displayed any religious intolerance? We are treading on very dangerous ground so far as religious intolerance is concerned, because I suppose the Orange Order could make some claim to be religious; and that could cause problems too. So I think that, as they stand, these new amendments are less satisfactory than the new clause which I have moved. They would in effect exempt from the notification requirement those activities of the Salvation Army which fit the description of, "processions commonly or customarily held". However, they would not, for instance, exempt what I might describe as a "one off" activity, such as an intensive campaign involving processions in a particular area.

The new clause, as I have moved it, would enable a regional or islands council to grant a blanket exemption for processions organised by the Salvation Army so that they could, either by making application or indeed, as is quite probable, without their making any application, have a blanket exemption for all their parades and processions. That, of course, applies to organisations other than the Salvation Army. Let me emphasise that a council will be able to give a blanket exemption to the organisers of a class of procession, and of course that procedure would involve such organisations as the Scouts, the Girl Guides, and so on. I see no reason why those organisations should fear any kind of oppressive control of their traditional activities. I am very reluctant to see more complex and possibly less effective provisions, which I think are unnecessary, inserted into the Bill in defence of a principle which is not under attack. However, I am very willing to have another look at this and I think the Government will need to read the Official Report and see, as the Bill continues on its way, whether we have got this right.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, asked me about the costs of policing. I think it is very appropriate that the costs of a procession should be borne by the police authority, which is the region; but all local authority costs are unsatisfactory in some degree. We all as ratepayers, for example, make a contribution towards the cost of education and those of us with small children are obviously getting a benefit, while other without children or with grown-up children are not; and the cost of policing processions—on occasions a significant cost—is well worth meeting in order to uphold the freedom of association and expression.

The noble Lord, Lord Howie, suggested that there was—I think he used the word "flummery" in relation to an application to a regional council rather than to a district council. I am afraid I do not see why. If the noble Lord looks at the method by which the person who wishes to hold a procession sets about getting his exemption or his permission to hold the procession, he will see that it makes not the slightest difference whether he deals with his district council or his regional council. I do not believe that in the regions of Scotland there will be any less sympathy than the local district would manifest towards a particular procession which is to be held in one corner of a region.

I have spoken at considerable length but this is an important series of clauses which we are moving into the Bill. This is an important amendment and I wanted to make it clear why I do not think it is a satisfactory amendment, although I entirely appreciate the concern of noble Lords who wish to give as much freedom as possible to thoroughly worthy bodies.

Lord Taylor of Gryfe

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I ask him about his definition of the exemptions for the processions which are normally held? Most of the tensions in the city of Glasgow are based on the so-called religious conflicts, and would the Orange walk, for example, which occasionally causes a certain amount of disturbance, be one of the exempted categories? I am not pleading for it, but I am wondering how that would apply in the definition which he has given of exempted processions.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, as my amendments are written, of course, it would not be exempted, unless and until the regional council felt that it should he, and I rather doubt whether it would. Under the amendment that is proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, if they could claim, as they obviously would, that their procession was commonly or customarily held, then no question of exemption would arise; and, indeed, no question of stopping them from having a procession would arise, unless the local authority, the regional council, found out about the march, which one assumes it would, and then issued a requirement so that application would have to be made.

Lord Drumalbyn

My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he would be good enough to deal with one point? May I say that I find his arguments entirely convincing in this case, and I hope that the amendment will not be pressed. But what slightly worries me is when a procession is not a procession. What exactly do we mean by a "procession"? You may have a procession which is intended entirely for demonstration purposes. You may have a procession which is a means of controlling progress from one place to another. Indeed, according to some of the remarks that have been made, there is some doubt about whether the course of getting to a football match, and moving along several roads simultaneously to one destination, is a procession or a series of processions. Or what is it? I am not sure.

I myself would have been doubtful whether the course of going to a football match could necessarily be described as a procession. There may be a special procession organised in connection with it, with the purpose of demonstration. I wonder whether my noble friend would look at that. Would he also look at the possibility of defining processions in terms of numbers? When is a procession a procession? Is a crocodile of boys going to the public baths or the museum a procession? I do not know. Maybe it depends on how many boys there are; whether it is the whole school or just a class. This is something that is worth looking at.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I think that I should ask for the leave of the House. If I may say so, I think that "procession" is what it means in English. It is a procession in public, and subsection (11) states that it means a procession in a public place. The motivation, whether it is something that exercises my noble friend or the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, whose point I am afraid I forgot to answer, is neither here nor there, except in relation to the attitude of the local authority.

In other words, for the purposes of public order, which is what we are about in these amendments, it does not matter whether people are processing for the purposes of political expression, because of their religious propensities or merely because they are having an outing, such as a miners' gala, which, so far as I know, has no particular motivation behind it, except a jolly good beano, if I may so call it. For all these reasons, it is the fact of the procession, rather than the motivation of it, which ought to exercise us and, I suggest, the local authority.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, this is a case where opposite views are honestly and genuinely held. Until just a very few moments ago, I was minded to press this amendment to a Division, because the only way in which this matter can be satisfactorily decided is by dividing your Lordships' House and counting heads, and seeing exactly what we intend. But the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has suggested a sop, which is that he will be prepared to look at this genuine problem. I am not minded to cause unnecessary trouble over this, because, if he will genuinely look at this problem so as in some way to incorporate into the Bill the right of the traditional processions, and of the bodies which traditonally process as part of doing what they do, then for one, will be satisfied and will wish to support him in whatever form of words he recommends to your Lordships' House. Therefore, in order to give him an opportunity to do that, and subject to the agreement of the other noble Lords who have put their names to this amendment, I shall be prepared to withdraw it.

But I would utter the caveat that, if some form of words is not forthcoming on Third Reading to deal with this problem, we shall feel free to move our amendment again. We are going to support the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, in the new clause. There is no question of our wanting to ditch the new clause, because it goes a very long way towards achieving what we want to achieve. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, I do not want there to be any misunderstanding about this. I cannot undertake to provide the new wording by Third Reading. These clauses are very difficult to draft. I spent most of this morning going through these and they will have to be considered at very considerable length once the Bill leaves your Lordships' House and goes to another place. I cannot give an undertaking to find a satisfactory form of words by Third Reading to reflect the wishes of the noble Viscount, and I should be dishonest if I pretended that I could.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl, before he sits down, what he meant when he said that he would look at this matter?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, what I meant was that the Government would look at this. As most noble Lords now know, this represents a desire on the part of the Government to write into this Bill these clauses, which we regard as being very important, although we are doing so ahead of the English and ahead of the final thoughts following the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman. As I said at

the beginning, I have no doubt that they will have to be considered in the light of his feelings, although I cannot possibly say what the result will be.

When one goes into very intricate, highly complex and very important legislation such as this, it is not something to be done in a hurry. Perhaps I should have spelled it out, but when I said that I would take the clauses away and consider them, what I meant was that this is something—and I must be blunt about it—that ought to be reconsidered, and probably considered by another place in Committee, because that is the period of time which we shall need to get this properly and thoroughly worked out.

If the noble Viscount wants, as a sort of virility symbol, to divide the House and write this into the Bill now, I cannot stop him. But do not the very constructive debate which has taken place in your Lordships' House and the fact that I have been saying ever since Second Reading that I would be coming along with these amendments, as well as the fact that we have taken time by the forelock and done it at this stage of the Bill in your Lordships' House, show that there is a real desire on the part of the Government to carry out their promises and commitments in respect of these new clauses? I suggest that they do.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, would it be right to suggest that the Government have not closed their minds to a change but feel that they have insufficient time between now and the next stage to effect that change?

The Earl of Mansfield

Yes, my Lords.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, this satisfies me that the situation is still one of hope. May I suggest that the Government should change the word "may", thus getting rid of the discretion, and impose on local authorities a mandatory duty to draw up some kind of list? It means passing the buck to local authorities instead of the House itself having to make a decision concerning certain very definite kinds of procession.

I do not want to carry the argument any further. We have had a good debate. The Government know the general feeling of the House. The House is on our side, except for those who are attending a traditional gathering in another part of the building. I should not like to upset that traditional gathering by bringing all the Conservative Members back here—with good news or with bad. I happen to think that the Government are being fair about this matter.

Viscount Thurso

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, for eliciting at least some form of promise from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. I slightly resent the suggestion that I should have been dividing the House (if I had been dividing the House) as a virility symbol. I do not know what the opposite procedure is. Certainly this would not have been the case. I was at pains to tell your Lordships that I take both this amendment and also this new clause very seriously—as do all the sponsors of the amendment.

With the promise and the assurances now elicited from the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, feel disposed to withdraw the amendment. Therefore, with your Lordships' leave, I beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 157B not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 157 agreed to.

4.22 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 158:

After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:

"Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions.

.—(1) The regional or islands council may, after consulting the chief constable—

1. (a) in respect of a procession notice of which has been given under section (Notification of processions) (1) to (3) of this Act, make an order—
   1. (i) prohibiting the holding of the procession; or
   2. (ii) imposing conditions on the holding of it;
2. (b) in respect of a procession in relation to which they have made an order under section (Notification of processions) (4) of this Act, make an order imposing conditions on the holding of it.

(2) The conditions which may be imposed under subsection (1) above on the holding of a procession may include conditions—

1. (a) as to the date, time and duration of the procession;
2. (b)as to the route to be taken by it;
3. (c)prohibiting its entry into any public place specified in the order.

(3) A regional or islands council shall—

1. (a) where notice of a proposal to hold a procession has been given to them under section (Notification of processions) (1) to (3) of this Act, deliver at least 2 days before the date when, in terms of the notice, the procession is to be held, to the person who gave the notice—
   1. (i) where they have made an order under subsection (1) above, a copy of it and a written statement of the reasons for it; or
   2. (ii) where they propose not to make such an order, notification of that fact;
2. (b) where they have made an order under section (Notification of processions) (4) of this Act, deliver to the person who applied for that order—
   1. (i) where they have made an order under subsection (1) above, a copy of it and the reasons for it; or
   2. (ii) where they propose not to make an order under subsection (1) above, notification of that fact; and
3. (c) where they have made an order under subsection (1) above in relation to a proposal to hold a procession, make such arrangements as will ensure that persons who might take or are taking part in the procession are made aware of the fact that the order has been made and of its effect.

(4) The regional or islands council shall comply with subsection (3) above—

1. (a)as early as possible;
2. (b)only insofar as it is reasonably practicable for them to do so.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this second clause deals with the functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions in public. The clause provides that after consulting the chief constable, a regional or islands council in whose area a procession in public is to be held may make an order either prohibiting or imposing conditions on the holding of the procession.

Subsection (2) lists the types of conditions which a council may impose on the holding of a procession when they make an order under subsection (1). This may go some way towards relieving the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who wanted to know about motorised processions, numbers and so on.

The list is not exhaustive. A council might want to impose conditions about the more detailed organisation of a procession, particularly if very large numbers are expected. Subsection (3) provides that where a council make an order they shall give appropriate notice of the decision and the reasons for it to the organiser and make arrangements to inform the potential participants in the procession that an order has been made, and of its effect. These requirements are spelled out more fully in paragraphs (a) to (c) of the subsection, and the whole is qualified by subsection (4).

It may be convenient if I highlight the main features. Subsection (3)(a) provides that where the normal notice of at least seven days has been given to the council they shall deliver either a copy of their order and the reasons for it, or notification of the fact that they do not intend to make an order, to the person who gave notice at least two days before the date when the procession is to be held. There are three reasons for requiring a council to give this notice: first, and most important, to enable the organiser of the procession to lodge an appeal, if he or she should wish to do so; secondly, to enable the police to carry forward their preparations for the procession; and, thirdly, to enable notice to be given to potential participants in the procession.

Subsection (3)(b) provides that where an order has been made under the previous clause dispensing with the requirement for seven days' notice, the council shall deliver either a copy of that order, and their reasons for it, or notification to the person who made the application for the order of the fact that they do not intend to make an order. As such applications will be made at short notice, no time limit is specified within which the council must notify the applicant of the terms of the decision and the reasons for it in such a case.

Subsection (3)(c) provides that where a council make an order prohibiting or imposing conditions on the holding of a procession they shall make arrangements to ensure that persons who might take part in the procession are made aware of the fact that an order has been made and of its effect. The council are also required to supplement these arrangements by others directed at those taking part in the procession.

Finally, as I have mentioned, subsection (4) qualifies the duties imposed on councils by the preceding subsection. Subsection (4)(a) requires them to comply with these requirements as early as possible. Subsection (4)(b) requires them to comply only in so far as it is reasonably practicable for them to do so. The effect of paragraph (a) is to require a council to make an early decision rather than, for example, waiting until two days before the date of the procession to intimate their decision, even in a case where they themselves have been given substantially more than seven days' notice.

The effect of subsection (4)(b) might be illustrated in a number of ways. Thus, for example, it would cover a case where a council had difficulty in tracing the person who gave notice of his intention to hold a procession in public in order to convey their decision to him. It would also cover the situation in which the council might be unable—for example, because of a newspaper dispute—to make as full arrangements as usual for notifying potential participants in a proces sion of the terms and effect of an order the council had made.

Thus, the clause will confer on regional and islands councils powers which have been available only to some authorities in the past. I am quite sure that they will be exercised in the same spirit of co-operation between councils, the police and organisers as has marked discussion of these matters in the past, whether under local legislation or more informal arrangements. I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, the noble Earl the Minister quite rightly chided me a few moments ago for using the word "flummery". It was an ill-chosen word. My only excuse is that it was the kindest word I could think of at the time. We have here the kind of procedure which I had in mind and which I quite exaggeratedly described as "flummery". The regional and islands councils have to make orders and deal with dates, time, duration, routes. They have to prohibit a procession for this, that, or the other reason. They have to make copies, send written statements and do other work of that kind. In certain circumstances, they have to do all this as early as possible, in so far as it is reasonably practicable for them to do so. In many cases this is quite sensible and unavoidable in terms of the quite reasonable aims which the Government have in mind in this body of new clauses. However, it does not deal with the question which I raised on the last new clause: the distinction between local and regional responsibilities. The example which I cited earlier is one which might very reasonably be said to be a local option. I regard the local option as quite significant and important.

In reply to the last debate, the noble Earl the Minister claimed that the region would be no more sympathetic to these local matters than would be the district council. He may well be right, and I do not impute any motives to the regional authorities. But he is not always right, and I will illustrate this with an anecdote which I should like your Lordships to think about, to ponder on, and see whether the noble Lord the Minister could perhaps move a little in my direction when he is rethinking this whole thing.

The Burgh of Troon, which I knew quite well, was a small burgh which had within its confines three municipal golf courses. They were quite well known, were quite adequate, and were rather good golf courses of their kind. They were very cheap. Perhaps it could be argued that they were unduly cheap for such things and that it might have been sensible for the local authority to have charged more, although it decided not to do so and that it was right that local golf should be cheap. When the regional council was formed, it took over these "district" golf courses and decided to increase the fees. That in itself was not terrible and had an element of sense in it, but the region did it in what one might call a "regional way" and not in a local way. It increased the fee, which might have been defendable, but said to local people that, in order to justify this increased fee, they could now play not only on the three golf courses at Troon (which were anyway quite adequate for most of us Troon folk) but could also play on the two golf courses at Ayr, at Belleisle, which would have been quite adequate for my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock, who knows them

extremely well, and also at Ballochmyle. In a way, it was not too daft to let Troon people play at Ayr, which is only six miles away, but it was pushing a bit further to justify the region's activities by saying that people could also play at Ballochmyle, which is about 20 miles away.

There are two very good reasons for going to Ballochmyle. One is if one has tuberculosis and wishes to be cured; that would be a sensible reason for going there. The second good reason is that that one might wish to see the railway viaduct, which is one of the great railway monuments and, to any man of sensitivity, something well worth going to see. But nobody from Troon or Ayr would go to Ballochmyle to play golf. The only reason why anybody in the region thought this was a sensible thing to do was because they lived in Glasgow and probably were not too sure where Ballochmyle was. They had no feeling for the sensitivities of the local folk.

The argument I was trying to propose during the course of the debate on the last new clause was that—although it might not reach the low of flummery, I agree—there could be the same kind of bureaucratic feeling or unfeeling which led them to that curiosity which I have just described. I wonder whether the noble Earl might take this opportunity to rethink the whole thing, not only in respect of the last clause but in the precise details of this new clause which he is now proposing?

The Earl of Mansfield

The noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, puts his argument so attractively that it is difficult to say "No" to him. I would never have guessed that in considering the duties of a council, and their responsibilities under public order considerations, we would end up talking about increased prices at golf courses in and around Ayr and Troon and in another place whose name I did not quite catch.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Ballochmyle, my Lords—"The Bonnie Lass of Ballochmyle".

The Earl of Mansfield

I am sure that it is a very nice place. However, I really do not believe that the Strathclyde regional council, which will no doubt allocate these public order considerations to the appropriate committee, are going to look at these matters in some distant and less sympathetic way than a district council would. What they have to do when applying their minds under this new clause is to take the applications which may have been made, do the various things which they are enjoined to do, and then come up with a solution. Whether the local scouts in, let us say, Troon are going to get blanket exemption in respect of their procession, or whether the Troon Orange Order (if there is such a thing) is to be allowed to have some sort of celebration march around the golf courses, is really neither here nor there.

I am sorry to be slightly facetious about this, but a properly constituted local government committee can quite easily apply their mind to these sort of questions. They do so every day and can decide the thing fairly, equitably and sympathetically to local interests. I would be deceiving the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, if I said that I was minded to take this away and reverse all the thinking that has gone on and all the recommendations which have been made, and say: "We will go back to putting this on a district level instead of a regional or islands council level"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.37 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 159:

After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:

"Appeals against orders under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions)

.—(1) An appeal to the sheriff shall lie at the instance of a person who, in accordance with section (Notification of processions) of this Act, has or falls to be treated as having given notice of a proposal to hold a procession in public against an order under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) of this Act in relation to the procession.

(2) An appeal under this section shall be made by way of summary application and shall be lodged with the sheriff clerk within 14 days from the date on which the copy of the order and statement of reasons were received by the appellant, which shall unless the contrary is proved be presumed to have been received on the day after the date on which they were posted, except that a copy order and statement posted on a Friday or Saturday shall unless the contrary is proved be presumed to have been received on the Monday next following or, if that day is a court holiday, on the first court day thereafter.

(3) On good cause being shown, the sheriff may hear an appeal under this section notwithstanding that it was not lodged within the time mentioned in subsection (2) above.

(4) The sheriff may uphold an appeal under this section only if he considers that the regional or islands council in arriving at their decision to make the order—

1. (a) erred in law;
2. (b) based their decision on any incorrect material fact;
3. (c) exercised their discretion in an unreasonable manner; or
4. (d) otherwise acted beyond their powers.

(5) In considering an appeal under this section the sheriff may hear evidence by or on behalf of any party to the appeal.

(6) On upholding an appeal under this section, the sheriff may—

1. (a) remit the case, with the reasons for his decision; to the regional or islands council for reconsideration of their decision, or
2. (b) if he considers that there is insufficient time for the case to be remitted under paragraph (a) above, vary the order which is the subject of the appeal or make any such order as the council were empowered to make under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) of this Act,

and on remitting a case under paragraph (a) above, the sheriff may—

1. (i) specify a date by which the reconsideration by the council must take place;
2. (ii) modify any procedural steps which other wise would be required to be taken in relation to the matter by or under any enactment (including this Act).

(7) On an appeal under this section, the sheriff may make such interim order as he thinks fit to have effect until the determination of the appeal but shall not make any such order unless he is satisfied that all steps which in the circumstances were reasonable have been taken with a view to securing that notice of the appeal and an opportunity of being heard with respect to it have been given to the council whose order under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) of this Act is the subject of the appeal.

(8) The sheriff may include in his decision on an appeal under this section such order as to the expenses of the appeal as he thinks proper.

(9) Any party to an appeal to the sheriff under this section may appeal on a point of law from the decision of the sheriff, whether disposing of the appeal or making an order under subsection (7) above, to the Court of Session within 28 days from the date of that decision.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is the appeals clause and it provides a framework for appeals against orders prohibiting or imposing conditions on the holding of a procession in public. I will try to take this fairly quickly. It is a very important clause because it is one more example of how the balance is to be held so far as concerns the freedoms and interests of the individual citizen and the preservation of public order which we are going to vest in the local authorities.

The parties who may lodge an appeal are, first, a person who has given notice of a proposal to hold a procession in public; secondly, a person who falls to be treated as having given such notice by virtue of having applied for an order dispensing with the requirement in relation to the time limit for the giving of notice. The various subsections state the grounds of the appeal and various technical matters. I draw your Lordships' attention to the grounds upon which a sheriff may uphold an appeal; that is to say, only if he considers that the regional or islands council, first, erred in law; secondly, based their decision on any incorrect material fact; thirdly, exercised their discretion in an unreasonable manner; or, fourthly, otherwise acted beyond their powers. I say that because it is not some sort of rehearing before a lawyer on the part of somebody who is dissatisfied with the determination of the matter by the local authority. There are other matters, which are really procedural, and if any noble Lords want me to expand on them, I shall be happy to do so. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I think this is very sensible and reasonable. The only question I want to ask is in relation to Strathclyde and in relation to Troon in particular. I am surprised that the noble Earl is not au fait with Troon, far less with Ballochmyle. It is a good job that my old friend Lord Strathclyde, who lives just near Ballochmyle, is not in his seat or the noble Earl would have been blasted off the Front Bench for professing such ignorance. There is only one question I want to ask. Since it is Strathclyde, it is Strathclyde that will make the decision. That is in Glasgow. To which sheriff is the appeal made? If it is in relation to Troon, I am perfectly sure that the people living in Troon would rather appeal to the sheriff of Kilmarnock, who lives in Troon, or must it be to the sheriff in Glasgow because the decision was made in Glasgow, or are they free to choose?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, quite frankly I do not know. I shall find out. What I am pretty certain of is that the disaffected citizen who has not received permission to hold his procession is entitled to choose his sheriff and to try to find one who he thinks will be more sympathetic to his cause than another.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, the point is that in Strathclyde there are plenty of sheriffs to choose from, and they may all take different points of view.I think I know most of them, and I know certain offences on which I should not like to go before a particular one as against some other one. I think it is important that we should know. I am very glad that the Minister of State is going to give us some information about it later on.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 160:

After Clause 64, insert the following new clause: ("Offences and enforcement.

.—(1) A person who holds a procession in public—

1. (a) without—
   1. (i)having given or being a person who is treated as having given notice in accordance with section ((Notification of processions) of this Act of his proposal to do so; and
   2. (ii)there being in force in relation to the procession an exempting order under section ((Notification of processions) (6) of this Act;
2. (b) in contravention of an order under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) or (Appeals against orders under section (Functions of regional and islands council in relation to processions)) (6)(b) or (7) of this Act prohibiting the holding of it;
3. (c) otherwise than in accordance with a condition imposed by an order under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) or (Appeals against orders under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (6) (b) or (7) of this Act in relation to the procession; or
4. (d) otherwise than in accordance with the particulars of its date, time and route specified—
   1. (i) in the notice given under section (Notification of processions) (1) to (3) of this Act; or
   2. (ii) where an order has been made under subsection (4) of that section, in the application for the order except to the extent that a condition referred to in paragraph (c) above relates to its date, time or route, shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £500 or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding 3 months or to both.

(2) Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who takes part in a procession in public—

1. (a) in respect of which—
   1. (i)notice has not been or is not treated as having been given in accordance with section (Notification of processions) of this Act; and
   2. (ii)there is not in force an exempting order under section (Notification of processions)(6) of this Act in relation to the procession;
2. (b) in relation to which an order has been made under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) or (Appeals against orders under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (6) (b) or (7) of this Act prohibiting the holding of it;
3. (c) which is held otherwise than in accordance with a condition imposed by an order under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) or (Appeals against orders under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (6)(b) or (7) of this Act in relation to the procession; or
4. (d) which is held otherwise than in accordance with the particulars of its date, time and route specified—
   1. (i) in the notice given under section (Notification of processions) (1) to (3) of this Act; or
   2. (ii) where an order has been made under subsection (4) of that section, in the application for the order except to the extent that a condition referred to in paragraph
5. (c) above relates to its date, time or route,

and refuses to desist when required to do so by a constable in uniform shall he guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £200

(3) Subject to subsection (4) below, a constable may arrest without warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects of committing or having committed an offence under this section.

(4) A constable who is not in uniform shall produce his identification if required to do so by any person whom he is arresting under subsection (3) above.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this clause serves three purposes. First of all, it specifies offences in relation to holding processions in public and participating in certain such processions, and it then specifies the penalties for these offences. Finally, it provides for a power of arrest in relation to these offences.

The offences in relation to participating in certain processions in public carry a lesser penalty, on summary conviction a fine not exceeding £200; the offences in relation to holding a procession in public provide a penalty on summary conviction of a fine not exceeding £500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, or both. I can encapsulate the list of offences in this way. It is an offence to take part in a procession in public, first, of which timeous notice has not been given (or an order made dispensing with the normal requirements in relation to time limits for the giving of notice and where there is no exempting order in force); secondly, which has been prohibited by an order made by the council or by the sheriff on appeal; thirdly, which is held otherwise than in accordance with a condition imposed by an order made by the council or the sheriff on appeal; fourthly, which is held otherwise than in accordance with the particulars duly given to the council.

Since, despite the best endeavours not only of the appropriate council but of the organisers of the procession, not all the relevant information as to details of route et cetera will be available to all participants in the procession, the offence is not simply one of participating in a procession but of participating and refusing to desist when required to do so by a constable. We believe that by making wilful refusal to desist an integral part of the offence the offence will be more clear cut, than alternatives relating to what the person knew or could reasonably have been expected to know about the procession. It will also be fairer to the individual by providing him with an opportunity to desist and thereby avoid committing an offence.

Subsection (3) empowers a constable to arrest without warrant any person who he reasonably suspects of committing or having committed an offence under this clause. In the absence of such a power of arrest, the police would have to fall back on the common law power to arrest where a breach of the peace seems likely. The specific power of arrest proposed here would enable the police to take earlier pre-emptive action to defuse confrontation rather than having to wait for a situation in which multiple breaches of the peace are likely to arise. I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I wonder if I may ask the noble Earl a brief question. I come back to the Irvine Marymass procession to which I referred earlier. As he knows, it is a time-honoured, joyous occasion, and in the course of it a young lady, usually a schoolgirl probably 16 or 17 years old, impersonates Mary Queen of Scots. That in itself is not an offence. But we know that the organisers of the Irvine Marymass might, due to carelessness or for whatever reason, have neglected to go through their proper duties and might find themselves under subsection (1) of the new clause in danger of being heavily fined or even sent to prison or possibly both, though I imagine it is not likely. I am thinking of the schoolgirl. While it might be reasonable to put the organiser in jeopardy for his neglect, am I right in supposing that the schoolgirl who takes part in the procession, impersonating Mary Queen of Scots, is herself in jeopardy of being fined up to £200? I daresay it would not come to that. Would it be a defence in her case to say that she was only a girl and did not really know, and that it was not her business to make these arrangements and she took part in the procession in good faith in a time-honoured way, following her fellow schoolgirls for the past 200 or 300 years? Would that be a defence? Would she really he in jeopardy, or have I misunderstood the whole thing?

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, I wonder whether I may raise another point, and perhaps to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, in passing.

Lord Howie of Troon

I thank the noble Lord.

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, one would hope that the forces of law and order and law enforcement would have more sense than to prosecute in the instance he mentions. If they did not have more sense than to prosecute, then I should have thought they should not be in the business of prosecuting.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, it says in paragraph (c) that a constable may arrest without warrant a 16-or 17-year old girl whom he reasonably suspects of committing or having committed an offence. Is the noble Lord suggesting that the police in Irvine would neglect their duty?

Lord Wilson of Langside

My Lords, perhaps I should not have started to accept any responsibility for answering the noble Lord's question by way of preliminary. My other point goes to the other end of the scale. At one end of the scale is the lady impersonating Mary Queen of Scots and the possibility of her facing the full penalties. On the other hand, more seriously, one can envisage the consequences of one of these offences, organising and carrying through a procession which had been forbidden; it could cause very serious consequences and very serious public disorder. It may be that at the two ends of the penalty scale are two things to be considered: whether there is a danger in these provisions that you might pick out some relatively innocent young boy or girl who is just taking part in a gala performance; and, on the other hand, some criminal person who had seen a procession through which had been forbidden, and the consequences of which—the scale of disorder, damage to property and more or less serious injury to persons—might require penalties even greater than those provided here if the offences were to be seen to be adequately reflected in the way in which the court had dealt with them.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, first I should like to deal with the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. If Mary Queen of Scots is approached by an officer in uniform and asked to desist—I shall not go into the terms of the actual language used—and refuses so to do (and I exclude for the purposes of this debate her age, her responsibility for her criminal acts and so on, and refer to any

persons whether they are young or old and however they are dressed), if she is taking part in a procession, the offence is only completed when she first of all takes part in the procession; secondly, she is asked to desist by a constable in uniform; and thirdly, she refuses to do so. So I do not think that the innocent young maiden, or whoever she is, would, in fact, be in unnecessary or unfair peril.

I think that the point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, is that the penalties in respect of the person who actually holds a procession in public and does so in the terms of the first subsection, are possibly not severe enough. I should say to your Lordships that these provisions do not replace or supplant any of the provisions under the Public Order Act and, therefore, I have no doubt that, if the conduct was grave enough, the fiscal would take the appropriate proceedings and they would not be as under this Act, as it will be.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down perhaps he can clear up one very small point. He quite rightly and properly—and I was very pleased to hear it—noted that my schoolgirl would be quite safe if she desisted, and that she was only in jeopardy if she refused to desist when required to do so by a constable in uniform. What would happen if she refused to desist when required to do so by a constable not in uniform, as provided under subsection (4)?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I suppose that he might be dressed as something else too! In those circumstances the offence would not be complete because it is only complete when somebody who takes part in a procession is asked to desist by a police constable in uniform. Therefore, an officer in plain clothes would not be entitled to make the demand except in so far as he could, as a police officer, perhaps do so to protect a public order situation which might be turning ugly. But certainly in terms of this subsection she would not commit an offence.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I should like to reassure my noble friend that in the circumstances which he has put forward there is not a constable that would get near the lassie, because there are plenty of bodyguards to stop any interference of that kind.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.53 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 161:

After Clause 64, insert the following new clause:

("Relationship of certain sections with Public Order Act 1936.

. Sections (Notification of processions) to (Offences and enforcement) of this Act are without prejudice to the Public Order Act 1936; and an order under section (Functions of regional and islands councils in relation to processions) (1) of this Act, so far as relating to the same matters as those to which any directions given or order made under section 3 of that Act relate, shall be subject to those directions or that order.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 161. This clause in effect provides for what I was saying to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, a few moments ago—namely, that the clauses in this Bill dealing with the regulation of public processions are without prejudice to the Public Order Act 1936. As I said, as these provisions are being placed in the Bill in advance of the final conclusions of the main review of the Public Order Act and related legislation which was launched by the Green Paper in April 1980, it may be necessary to review them at some later stage in the light of the conclusions of the main review. But for the moment this clause simply ensures that, where a regional or islands council do not exercise their powers under the Bill to make an order either prohibiting the current holding of a procession in public or imposing conditions on it, the chief constable will still he able to take action under Section 3 of the Public Order Act to impose conditions upon persons organising or taking part in a procession where he has reasonable grounds for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder.

The clause would also ensure that in extreme cases the chief constable could, notwithstanding that the council had taken no action under the Bill, apply to them under Section 3(2) of the 1936 Act, as, indeed he is required to do, for a banning order. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 65 [Duty of finder]:

[Amendment No. 162 not moved.]

Clause 66 [Functions of chief constable]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 163:

Page 42, line 7, leave out ("2") and insert ("3").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 163. We now leave processions and come to lost property. In this amendment I persist in suggesting to the Government, when lost property is handed in to the police, that whereas at present, I think, the general period for which they keep it before disposal is at least six months, I think that the change of that period to two months leaves far too short a time. Moreover, despite all the statistics produced by the Minister at an earlier stage, I still think it is fair that they should hold it for three months before disposal. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, we did go into this matter after the Committee stage of the Bill and I think that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I agreed that the present holding period of six months is too long. Therefore, we had to have a period which is long enough to allow owners to claim their property but short enough to ensure that the police are not inconvenienced by being required to store a large amount of property to no purpose. Any lengthening of the storage period will make an additional demand on storage space.

I am afraid that I am going to regale the House with some more figures. In the light of inquiries it has been established that fully two-thirds of all property handed in to the police is left unclaimed, and last year in Scotland this represented some 112,000 articles. Therefore, on a fairly crude basis we can estimate the effect of an extension of the retention period from two to three months. It would mean that

additional storage space would be required for an extra 9,000 or so items each month, which would not be required if the retention period were left at two months. My inquiries reveal no justification for this increased demand on storage space in terms of the number of claims which will be made in the third month of retention. As your Lordships may recall, Lothian and Borders Police have found that, whereas approximately 99 per cent. of claims relate to items lodged with the police within the previous two months, less than I per cent. of claims are made in respect of items which have been with the police for between two and three months. So in overall terms that would represent about 55 claims throughout the whole of Scotland.

I think that your Lordships would agree that it really is excessively solicitous of the interests of losers of property to require the police to hold some 180 times more items than is necessary. People should be encouraged, in their own interest as well as that of the police, to claim lost property promptly, and I should have thought that the two-month period was a reasonable cut-off point in terms of the pattern of claims.

I think that it would be unfair to expect police resources to be devoted to a handful of individuals who might well be thought to be extremely casual, if nothing else, as to the fate of the property which they have lost. So for all those reasons I am afraid that I am still unsympathetic to the noble Lord's amendment.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, can the noble Earl answer one very brief question? I find his reply quite a strong one. Was I right in my impression that only 1 per cent. of the items were claimed in the period between two and three months? Was that what he said? Although percentages are significant in themselves, can he tell us how many articles that represents? Was it many articles, although it was only 1 per cent. of the total?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I must reiterate that these are fairly crude figures, because not every police force has made these inquiries or carried out the researches. However, Lothian and Borders police found that approximately 99 per cent. of claims related to items lodged within the previous two months. The noble Lord is quite right; that leaves 1 per cent. in the period between two and three months. If one took that figure and applied it to the whole of Scotland, it would represent about 55 claims.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, would it? Before the noble Earl sits down, if I heard him correctly, he said that two-thirds of the claims amounted to 112,000 items, which would presumably mean that three-thirds of them would amount to about 160,000 items. One per cent. of that would be a great many more than 55, or have I got the figures all wrong? It would not be the first time.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I think that possibly both the noble Lord and I are trespassing upon the indulgence of this House and turning this into the equivalent of a Committee stage. I think that we should look at the Official Report tomorrow. I believe the noble Lord will find that the figures hang together quite happily.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I sincerely hope that the figures which the Minister of State has given us are a little less clear than the figures which the Chancellor has given us about the increase in the price of whisky. He cannot have it both ways. If 99 per cent. of claims are dealt with in the first two months and only 1 per cent later, to hold on to those items for another month and to satisfy that 1 per cent. does not make a tremendous demand on storage. I think that it is quite wrong of the noble Earl in his crude figures to castigate the people who are making applications—having discovered that they have lost something and where they have lost it—to a police station after two months, for having been casual about it. On reflection, I think the noble Earl will appreciate that that is not quite the case. However, he will not move.

Noble Lords should remember that this was not the subject of a working party report. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Stodart, as regards Hansard, that I have all the sympathy with what is reported because of the number of working parties and reports that we have had on this subject. I have at least three in front of me. So I can understand people getting mixed up between Stodart reports, working party reports, draft Bills, and so on, in this respect. But here we come to another one, because lost property was the subject of a special consideration by the Scottish Law Commission. Of course, as the Minister of State will readily agree, he has thrown overboard practically all the main suggestions of the Scottish Law Commission, which gave this very considerate and very mature thought. I am sorry that he is not prepared to move on this, and so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.5 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 164:

Page 42, line 19, leave out ("one year") and insert ("two years").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with the question of the keeping of records in respect of property handed in to the police. Once again, the Government have further reduced the period from what the Scottish Law Commission suggested, and in the Bill the Government say, "one year". I am suggesting "two years". No doubt we shall get another welter of statistics about how unnecessary all this is.

We cannot just close our minds to everything that has happened in relation to this Bill. We have dealt with the question of the keeping of records of itinerant scrap dealers and scrap dealers. When the police themselves keep records, it is one thing; to ask other people to keep records, that is different. Originally, scrap metal dealers had to keep their records for two years. I think that we made a change there later on. But, from the point of view of the public and inquiries that may well be made in respect of property about which people want to know, the period should be longer than the one year that is suggested in the Bill. I suggest two years.

I hope that we shall not be told that there is no space to keep those records. I have only to think of the number of police headquarters that I have opened and have seen other Secretaries of State open to assure the noble Earl that there is plenty of room for records. We should try to satisfy the public's demand for information in respect of what happens to something. I almost feel like going to the Ayr police at the weekend and asking what happened to the pair of spectacles that I found in the main street in Ayr and handed in; because what usually happens is that the person who finds something is never told what happens to it. As I am not told, I should like to be able to go in and ask exactly what happened to the item, and I should like the records to be there. If I recollect something after a year, I should like to think that the records will still be there. That is why I suggest more than a year—two years. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I am afraid that I have no statistics for this debate, but I hope that I have some compelling reasons and unassailable logic. I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would agree with me that there is no point in keeping records unless they serve some purpose. The right of a previous owner of lost property to compensation in the event of a sale of his property lasts for one year under Clause 70 of this Bill. The right of the owner to reclaim his property in the event of disposal for other than value—in other words, where it is returned to the finder—lasts for only one year under Clause 69. It is only to meet such claims that records need to be kept, and to do so without this purpose really would be a quite unjustified burden on police resources.

The right to compensation is a new right. It will involve extra work for the police, even at a low level of uptake. But I think it is right that such extra work should be kept to a minimum, and the keeping of records beyond the period in which claims could be made under Clauses 69 and 70 certainly is not justified.

The noble Lord sought to compare—I think that was the word he used—second-hand dealers who have to keep records for two years with police records in this particular clause. The reason is that police inquiries into crimes which have not been cleared up may often go back more than 12 months, and that is why second-hand dealers have to keep records for two years. If they kept records for a shorter period, police inquiries into cases of crime could be hampered.

However, as I say, lost property is a different matter. As we have heard, claims by the original owner are most unlikely to be delayed for as long as 12 months, and the practical advantage of extending it to two years would be minuscule in terms of new claims not otherwise made within a year. If an article is of any value at all to its owner—whether pecuniary or sentimental—I should think that he really will take steps to recover it within 12 months or, at any rate, to claim compensation. If he does not, I do not think that we should write legislation into a Bill such as this to, in effect, protect the owner of property from his own idleness and inertia.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I do not think we are writing legislation de novo, we are changing legislation and taking away rights that are already there. I do not propose to continue with this argument.

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 84 [Local authorities' powers in relation to buildings in need of repair]:

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 165:

Page 48, line 15, leave out ("carry out such repairs to") and insert ("rectify such defects in").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope it might be for the convenience of the House if I were to speak to Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 together. Amendment No. 165 is introduced in accordance with the undertaking which I gave on the fourth day of the Committee stage to qualify the wide discretion which had been given to local authorities in this clause as presently drafted. In so doing I have sought to maintain the balance between the rights of an individual to administer his own property and his obligation to maintain that property in such a way as to safeguard the rights of his neighbour.

Concern has been expressed in your Lordships' House over the possibility that local authorities may, in the exercise of their powers, require the employment of unnecessarily expensive methods of repair and we have sought to guard against such an event providing that notices may specify only the defects which necessitate repair, thus leaving the owners to decide on the most economical way to undertake the work.

Further, we have sought to provide some degree of guidance on the reasonableness and validity of the local authorities' use of their powers by the stipulation that rectification of the specified defects must be necessary in order to bring the building into a state of repair which is commensurate with its age, type and location. We are confident that both Amendments Nos. 165 and 166, coupled with the owners' right of appeal against any requirement of a notice, will provide ample protection against any excess of zeal on the part of local authorities while still permitting these authorities to take any such measures as are necessary to preserve the quality of their buildings and their environment.

I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 166:

Page 48, line 16, at end insert ("being defects which require rectification in order to bring the building into a reasonable state of repair, regard being had to its age, type and location").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 167:

Page 48, line 24, leave out ("do so").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 167 and 168 together, with the leave of your Lordships' House. These amendments incorporate two separate provisions. In granting local authorities special powers to enable them to react quickly to situations of any emergency we feel that it is important to ensure that the owner of the buildings involved are protected from any possible abuse of the powers. It is with this intention that we have introduced the first part of this amendment limiting the work which may be carried out by the local authority under this subsection to the work which could have been required of the owner in terms of a notice issued under the main provision of this clause had the situation of emergency not existed.

The second amendment, the major amendment, is a technical one introduced to rectify the omission of specific powers of entry to enable local authorities to perform their functions under this subsection. Parallel powers of entry exercisable following service of a notice have already been provided under Clause 96. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 168:

Page 48, line 24, after ("notice") insert ("rectify such defects in the building as could have been specified in a notice under subsection (1) above had such a notice been served and may, for these purposes, enter the building and the land pertaining thereto.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendments Nos. 169, 170, arid 171:

Page 48, line 24, leave out ("and") and insert—

("(3A) The local authority may").

line 25, after ("owner") insert ("of the building").

line 25, leave out ("doing so") and insert ("anything done by them under subsection (3) above").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, may I move en bloc Amendments Nos. 169, 170 and 171. These are purely technical drafting amendments. There is just the introduction of one of the omitted powers of entry at subsection (3), which has already been agreed by your Lordships, in the interests of clarity. It has also rendered desirable the subdivision of the subsection and minor drafting alterations to its wording. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 172:

Page 48, line 30, at end insert ("but may remit any sum or any part of any sum due to them under this subsection as they think fit").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a further drafting technical amendment. It is introduced to rectify the omission of certain specific powers to enable local authorities to remit expense which has been incurred as a result of their actions under subsection (3) of this clause. Parallel powers enabling remission of expense incurred as a result of an owner's failure to comply with a notice issued under subsection (1) have already been provided elsewhere in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I have a brief question seeking only clarification. This new addition to the clause allows the local authority presumably not to charge the full amount which they have spent in carrying out repairs in order to rescue some building, if I understand it. I dare say that that is a sensible provision. But I should like the Minister to explain the kind of situation he has in mind in which a local authority might think fit not to charge in full the amount of money that it has spent.

I know that the Government take the view that it is not a fitting thing to do to put expense upon the rate-payers. They have shown that recently in connection with London Transport and have argued their case firmly and strongly. I might be wrong here, for this a matter in which I am in no way expert, but I wonder whether this is a situation in which the local authority is being allowed to land a certain body of expense on the ratepayers. While that may be totally justifiable, I am wondering what the Government have in mind that should not be charged to the owners of the properties concerned.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that I hope that I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Howie, that the amendment that I moved purely gives the local authority discretion if they see special circumstances not to change the full expenses, because there may be varying circumstances that I am sure the House and the noble Lord, Lord Howie, could imagine, where possibly they might see that it was not reasonable to charge the full cost of rendering some repairs to the owner or the occupier. There could be special circumstances why the full cost should not be charged, and this little amendment simply seeks to give the local authority in such circumstances the discretion to charge a reasonable share of the cost.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 85 [Installation of pipes through neighbouring property]:

5.20 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 173:

Page 49, line 1, after ("may") insert ("with the consent of the other common owners").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall deal with this quickly because the clause to which it applies will die if we carry Government Amendment No. 177. I do not know what would happen if Amendment No. 173 were carried; I suppose we could make a gesture of goodwill towards the citizens of tenement properties in Glasgow and elsewhere and then proceed to take that goodwill away by Amendment No. 177. My amendment concerns common property, mainly tenemented property in Glasgow and other cities, where there are business premises on the ground floor and dwellings, some of them very desirable, above.

Along comes somebody into one of the shops below and decides to change it into, say, a snack bar, carry-out, fish and chip shop or public house. To do that, it means that ventilation pipes or air ducts must be carried through the property above, property which, of course, does not belong to the business premises below. At present, the people living above, who of course may be concerned about the value of their property—which could be detrimentally affected by such a development below them—can simply say, "No, we will not give you permission to do that". But as drafted, Clause 85 sets aside completely the common rights of those property owners and says, frankly, that if the people in the business premises below wish to enter the property above to make alterations, no matter how unsightly they may be and no matter how they affect the property above, they may do it and the rights of the people above are completely overriden. The only safeguard would be that the developer must ask for permission to go into the property above and make the necessary alterations "at a reasonable time".

I am glad the Government have appreciated that such a step would be rather too aggressive from the point of view of getting rid of people's rights, and accordingly they propose a new Clause 85, to which we will come after I have made these remarks. However, I am not entirely happy with what they propose in their new clause, which appeared as a starred amendment and so came late on the Order Paper, and as we have had certain other matters on our minds lately, I have not given it the kind of scrutiny I should have liked. The proposed new clause says, in effect, "We will not take all your rights away, but if you do not agree to the kind of development proposed, we will let the sheriff decide the issue". However, we shall come to that in a moment and, accordingly, I do not think much point would be served by my proceeding with my amendment, although an important principle is at stake. Having said that, the sooner we come to the Government's new clause the better, and I will not move the amendment.

[Amendments Nos. 173 to 176 not moved.]

Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 177:

Leave out Clause 85 and insert the following new clause:

("Installation of pipes through neighbouring property.

.—(1) The sheriff may, on summary application by an owner of a part of a building who requires, but has been refused or otherwise has been unable to obtain, the consent of any other person for—

1. (a) the installation—
   1. (i) on the outside surface of any external wall or roof of the building;
   2. (ii) in, through or under any part of the building which is held in common by the owner and the other person or any land pertaining to the building which is so held;
   3. (iii) in, through or under any part of the building owned by the other person or any land pertaining to the building which is so owned
   of such pipes or drains as are necessary for the purpose of water supply to, or the soil, waste or rainwater drainage or the ventilation in connection with such drainage of, the owner's part of the building;
2. (b) the making of connections there with common water supply, soil, waste, rainwater or ventilating pipes or drains; or
3. (c) access to the pipes or drains referred to in paragraph (a) above for the purpose of their maintenance and repair, subject to subsection (2) below, grant warrant authorising such installation, making of connections or access.

(2) The sheriff shall not grant warrant under—

1. (a) subsection (1) above unless he is satisfied that it is reasonable that the installation be carried out, the connections be made or, as the case may be, the maintenance or repair for which access is applied for under that subsection, be done;
2. (b) under paragraph (a) or (b) of that subsection or, except for repair in an emergency, paragraph (c) of that subsection to an owner who has been otherwise unable to obtain consent unless he is satisfied that the owner's request for consent was made in writing to the other person at least 14 days before the application under that subsection.

(3) The sheriff may—

1. (a) appoint an assessor to assist him in dealing with an application under this section;
2. (b) make a warrant granted by him under this section subject to such conditions as he thinks fit;
3. (c) make such award of expenses as he sees fit in relating to an application under this section.

(4)An appeal shall lie to the Court of Session from the decision of the sheriff under this section.

(5)This section is without prejudice to any requirement to obtain approval under or any other obligation imposed by or by virtue of the Building (Scotland) Acts 1959 and 1970, the Sewerage (Scotland) Act 1968, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts 1972 to 1974, the Water (Scotland) Act 1980 or any other enactment relating to buildings, the provision of public sewerage services, planning or the public supply of water.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we discussed a similar amendment at an earlier stage, my noble friend undertook to table an amendment on Report which would redress the balance of interests between the property owner who wished to undertake various works and the affected owners by providing not an unqualified right to do such work but a procedure whereby an owner, unreasonably refused consent, could appeal to the sheriff to have that refusal overruled. This amendment fulfils that undertaking. It ensures that an owner of a building in multiple ownership who wishes to install water supply, soil, waste, rainwater or ventilation pipes or drains may do so, only subject to his having obtained the consent of any person through whose property the pipes, drains and so on must pass. There is similar provision for the connection, maintenance and repair of pipes and drains.

Where consent is unreasonably refused, the owner who wishes to carry out the work may apply to the sheriff, under the summary procedure, for a warrant authorising the work and access to carry it out. Before granting a warrant, the sheriff must be satisfied that it is reasonable for the work to be done and that, except where emergency repairs are required, the owner wishing to carry out the work has sought in writing consent from the other person at least 14 days before application for warrant. The amendment provides that the sheriff may appoint an assessor to deal with technical points and that any warrant issued may be granted subject to conditions imposed by the sheriff. Provision is also made for the sheriff to award expenses and for appeal from his decision to the Court of Session. That is a fairly detailed explanation of the amendment and our thinking behind it. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved, as an amendment to the amendment, Amendment No. 177A:

In subsection (2)(b) of the proposed new Clause 85, in the sixth line, leave out ("14") and insert ("28").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is a very important right which we are being asked to take away from common property owners, although the phrase "common property owners" is disappearing and we find the words "consent from any other person ", something to which I shall return when discussing the new clause, whereas I am first dealing with the amendment to the amendment.

Nothing makes the ordinary people of Scotland flinch more readily than to mention the sheriff. Those ordinary people, perhaps unlike some of the more litigiously-minded people elsewhere, tend to shy away from taking matters to the sheriff, and they will give an issue considerable thought before deciding to exercise their right to go to the sheriff. We must also bear in mind all that is involved, including the cost and the possibility of costs being given against one. It is therefore a very qualified right that is being put in the place of the absolute right people have at the moment of denying consent—and denying consent for the best reasons known to themselves in respect of property which they have bought and which, when they bought it, might have had a useful little grocer's shop below it, but suddenly something else is proposed to be put in its place.

What will take its place will not be accepted by the local authority unless it has ventilation ducts fitted or other work done, work which can be very ugly indeed. That, plus the interference with the property, must make the owners concerned, and therefore they may wish to say, "No" to the development. The Government say, "Yes, we agree with that, and it would be going a bit far just to wipe out that right. We will give the matter to the sheriff to decide". On what basis will he decide? The provision simply says: unless he is satisfied that it is reasonable that the installation be carried out". "Reasonable" in respect of what?—in respect of the business.

Remember, that planning permission may well be required, and at present Glasgow refuses planning permission because it considers it a health hazard in many cases that there should be such shops under tenement properties. So where consent is not given by the common owners, the people who mainly have to live with it, and whose property will be affected, the local authority does not give planning permission. In the past four or five years during which it has exercised this policy the local authority has been supported by the Secretary of State where matters have been taken on appeal to him.

The other ground on which the sheriff can act is where the owner's request for consent has been made in writing to the other person at least 14 days before the application. This is more or less a blackmail position—unless you consent within 14 days, I am going to take you to the sheriff. That is true—at least 14 days before the application. People who want to go ahead can terrify other people into agreeing. Whose initiative is it to go to the sheriff'? It is that of the person who wants the ventilation and the entry into other people's property. They are the people who take the matter to the sheriff. In view of the importance of the matter, I do not think that 14 days is enough. I think there should be at least 28 days' notice. That is the basis of my amendment. I am not at the moment dealing with the principle of going to the sheriff, but if it is to be a matter of going to the sheriff, the person should have at least 28 days to think things over as to whether he will continue to refuse consent.

We must bear in mind the importance of the matter to the individual concerned, including the expense that he might become involved in. He will want to seek advice, perhaps from someone else in his family, or from the local authority. I do not think that enough time is being given where the provision states that the request for consent should be made in writing 14 days before the application. So I suggest that instead of 14 days, for a start we should have 28 days. I beg to move.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, made a very powerful argument about going to the sheriff, and covered various other points. But when he expressed his views as to the matter of timing between 14 and 28 days, then I think the minds of your Lordships were drawn to the reasons which lie behind his amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware, and indeed the House, too, that action in emergency for any access to pipes or drains under subsection (1)(c) in the new clause does not need any prior consent. But for the rest it seems that time is not of the essence. So although the reasons advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, for his amendment are not what I would call wholly compelling, I do not feel especially strongly on this point, and certainly I should be content for the period allowed to reply to a written request for consent to be extended from 14 days to 28. Therefore, I do not wish to oppose the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Ross.

On Question, amendment to the amendment agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Wootton of Abinger)

My Lords, we now return to Amendment No. 177, as amended. This amendment has already been moved.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I gather that this is virtually the clause stand part stage in respect of the new clause that replaces Clause 85. I think that I have already expressed myself on this matter. I am not entirely satisfied that the Government have gone as far as they should go. As I said in Committee, people have an absolute right in respect of interference with their own property. After all, no one is going to pay them compensation—the Government are not. It might well be that their property is blighted by the kind of development for which it is necessary to have power to instal ducts, pipes and ventilation. That is made absolutely clear by Glasgow District Council, which has had very considerable experience of dealing with the development of ground floor business premises of this kind, and the principal types of commercial activities on the ground floor of tenements which cause tremendous problems to the owners of the dwelling-houses above are those carried on in public houses, launderettes, restaurants, snack bars and hot food shops generally.

It is not enough to say, "It is all right, if you don't give your consent, we will leave it to the sheriff to decide". I do not think that we are giving the sheriff very much guidance, apart from the fact that we now have a period of 28 days, as a purely formal part of the matter. The clause provides that the sheriff shall not grant the warrant unless he is satisfied that it is reasonable. In what, if any, circumstances will it be reasonable? Is it to be reasonable from the point of view of the person who wants to interfere with another person's property, or from the point of view of the person who at present has the right to say, No? It may well be that the sheriff thinks it quite unreasonable for the Government to introduce the clause at all, but he is there not to assess the reasonableness of law, but to proceed with its administration. But what guidance is being given to him?—none at all.

This is a case of the Government passing the buck. We should make the decision here, in this House. It is unfair for the Government to use the sheriff in this way and try to appear helpful in regard to what are relatively few cases which cause trouble. Taking into account the whole record of this kind of thing and the support that the Secretary of State has hitherto given to the district council in the main area concerned, there is no justification for what is being done here.

Taking the matter to the sheriff could involve a lot of expense, and the people concerned will not be wealthy; they will not be the kind of people who simply race away to see lawyers and proceed to appeal courts, Courts of Session, and the rest. This kind of thing terrifies people, and so they let their rights go. But the people who are going to do the development are the people with the money. They will be delighted to know that they can take someone to the sheriff. There are plenty of well-informed lawyers here who know quite well that I am right. The people who will benefit from this provision are those who at present want to override the rights of smaller individuals and use the law for their own particular purpose. I do not think that the clause is a good one. It is certainly better than the one that was there before, but I hope that the Government think again about it before they part with the Bill to another place.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, has just said, and respectfully ask the Government whether they can conceivably think again. To substitute the consent of an owner of property for the consent of a sheriff, to subrogate individual rights, to subrogate what is reasonable for a refusal on the part of an individual for what is considered on the part of an official to he reasonable, is not totally novel to the law. There are precedents. I am not pretending that this is a total departure—planning law would indeed afford an example of that—but one wonders, with respect (perhaps your Lordships may wonder, too) whether this is really necessary here in this context.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I wonder whether he could give me his opinion about this matter. In many cases, at this stage, the person who is going to change the use of the premises into a snack bar, a hot food shop or something like that has not yet had planning permission; but if the sheriff grants the right to this change, would that not prejudice the position of the local authority? They would virtually have to give planning permission, because already the sheriff had said that it was reasonable to have this thing done.

Lord Campbell of Alloway

My Lords, I am asked my opinion. Off-the-cuff lawyers' opinions are always notoriously useless, but as your Lordships have invited me to give my opinion I would say, No, with respect, I do not think it would prejudice the position of the planning authority. With respect to the noble Lord, I think that would he carrying his very good points a little too far. But that does not derogate from the force and substance of the main point he made and which I begged leave to support in the sense that the Government might consider thinking again.

Lord Lyell

My Lords, with leave, perhaps I might try, first of all, to reply as a non-lawyer to the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and then to answer some of the very valid points, as I think them to be, raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell. The main thrust of the question by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, was: Why is the sheriff brought into this particular clause? I cannot say that I think all property owners would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in his description of sheriffs as being some sort of ogres and terrifying bogeymen who strike terror into the hearts of largely innocent citizens. I think he is stretching his point a little in that kind of description.

But there are, I believe, various valid reasons as to why the sheriff and appeals to the sheriff, under which the sheriff may or may not grant warrant, appear in this particular clause. The first main reasons as to why we involve the sheriff in appeals on matters which could cause dispute by way of installing pipes through neighbouring property, access to works and similar arrangements, is because the matter is essentially one of arbitration between the rights, on the one hand, and the interests, on the other hand, of the occupants of a building or part of a building. Secondly, we believe that this sort of adjudication in basic property rights is very important, and that as such it should be a matter for a court of law.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked twice, I think, about the use of the word "reasonable" in subsection (2)(a). As we would understand it, in this context "reasonable" would mean that the sheriff has to weigh up the balance of the interests between the respective parties. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, and, indeed, my noble friend Lord Campbell, will appreciate that this is exactly what a sheriff or a court of law has to do in these particular cases, in similar cases and, indeed, on virtually any other issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, made considerable play of kitchen waste pipes. I think he will find, certainly in subsection (1)(a), that there is very great play on connections with common water supply, soil, waste, rainwater or ventilating pipes or drains". The ventilating pipes to which this clause refers are those installed only for the purposes of a common drainage system, not for other purposes—for instance, for removing foul air from restaurants and from kitchens, and for other purposes. I hope that those two fairly simple replies will have gone some way towards satisfying the doubts in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and possibly in the mind of my noble friend Lord Campbell.

Lord Ross of Marnock

I think the noble Lord's definition of the duties of a sheriff tend to suit his present argument rather than to be entirely factual; but when he talks about rights and interests, they are very different things. Property owners have rights. It may be that one of the property owners has an interest in further developing, but in doing that developing he is encroaching on somebody else's rights. What the Government are doing is to take away that right to say "No" and to preserve in their own interests the rights

they have. I am not satisfied, indeed, that what the Government are doing here is fair or is correct.

It is an improvement on the clause as it was, because previously there was no reference to the sheriff. It was actually done by statute and by leave of this House; the right was just wiped out. There has been a recognition by the Government and something is being done. I do not propose to continue it at the present time, but I am very doubtful as to whether this Bill, when it reaches the other place, will be found to be acceptable to many people there.

On Question, amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 89 [Cleaning and painting of common stairs, etc.]:

[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 179:

Page 54, line 19, leave out ("a backgreen or private court") and insert ("any common property").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, as presently worded Clause 89(9) is somewhat restrictive in applying only to backgreens or private courts. Litter can also be a problem in other common areas as defined in Clause 89(1). The anomaly is simply removed by applying Clause 89(9) to all common property as so defined. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, may recall that at an earlier stage of the Bill's progress through your Lordships' House he was concerned about dustbins kept in backgreens. I have to tell him that this matter is still being considered, and it may be that at a later stage of the Bill's progress a suitable amendment will be brought forward. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 93 [Statues and monuments]:

Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 180:

Page 56, line 32, at end insert (", provided that notice of their intention so to do has been given at least 28 days in advance by publication of a notice in a newspaper or newspapers circulating in their area").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, I am afraid I do not share the noble Earl's faith in the invariable benevolence of local authorities. I feel that he sees more virtue in others than is sometimes possessed. It is precisely because local authorities have the burden of maintenance of statues and monuments that they own that they may be tempted to demolish them in order to relieve themselves of expense. This amendment would ensure that the public had advance notice of the demolition or removal of any monuments and a chance to protest.

We all know that the electorate can make its displeasure felt at the next election if the local authority has done things that it does not like. But it will be poor consolation to be able to vote out the local councillors once the memorial or statue has been destroyed. In this instance, I should very much like to close the stable doors while the horse is still inside. I beg to move.

5.51 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I might have hoped that the amendments which follow in my name would have removed any anxiety that the noble Lady might have had on this score; because what they do, if I may refer to them briefly, is to provide that the powers in Clause 93(1)(b) to demolish or remove a statue maintained by a local authority can be exercised only where the council consider it expedient to exercise them for reasons of public safety or the better use of the site. That, I should have thought, was more than sufficient guarantee against precipitate action by a local authority.

So far as the latter part of the subsection is concerned, that is, the "better use of the site", the likelihood is that planning considerations will apply and therefore the matter will have to be dealt with under the Planning Acts and there will have to be arrangements for advertisements and so on and the matter will be considered by a committee of the council whose minutes will be available for public inspection.

In the case of removal on grounds of public safety, it cannot be right to provide that, if a danger exists remedial action cannot be taken by the council until the expiry of 28 days; for by that time the statue may have fallen down and knocked off somebody's head. For that reason, if for no other, I cannot accept the amendment. I think that one must have a little more faith in local authorities which are, after all, democratically elected. I do not believe that they will ignore local susceptibilities and take precipitate action of this nature. We spoke about this at the Committee stage and I think the safeguards that I am going to move shortly will meet the case; and the normal desire of elected members of local authorities to reflect the interests of their constituents will ensure that there is no need to build in a further measure of control.

Lord Somers

My Lords, one point arises from what the noble Earl has said. Would he not agree that the "better use of the site", as he said, is rather a matter of opinion? For instance, there is a particular case in my own town of a site where a cinema was demolished and is about to be replaced by a supermarket. No doubt a supermarket would bring more money into the council but, on the other hand, it has deprived the people of the town of a good deal of entertainment—unless you consider going round a supermarket as entertainment, which I, personally, do not. Therefore, it is a matter of opinion. There are many cases that I could quote where buildings have been demolished and which have been a great loss to many.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I am not going down the highways and byways of the desirability of one form of development or another with the noble Lord, if he will forgive me. What we are talking about here are statues and monuments. I have tried to explain that there are two considerations. If the council want to make what they consider to be better use of the site they will have to go through the planning hoops and the local citizenry will find out about it. If they want to demolish a statue or a monument because it is dangerous, it is unreasonable to expect them to have to wait for 28 days before they can take any remedial action.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, we could all understand the last point if any danger was involved, but when it comes to the judgment of whether they can move something to a better site because they want the original site for something else, that is an entirely different matter. It may well be that people will not know much about a monument, but they will know plenty about it if it is to be shifted. It is part of their town as they know it. For the Minister to suggest that, by going through the planning procedure, somehow or other the people will all know what is happening, I think is pretty wrong. I can remember a Secretary of State turning down an appeal in respect of a certain kind of arcade for gambling machines and playing games. I had felt it was wrong in an area being developed, and the development was worth while. This place was just at the back door of a bank where there was space and I thought it the wrong place for this kind of thing.

I went up there the other day and there on the opposite side of the road is just such an arcade. I should have known about that, according to all the planning procedures that had to be gone through. I should have known about it; but, frankly, I did not.

A lot of planning procedures go through which local people do not know about. The same thing could happen in respect of statues or monuments. I thought that the noble Lady was reasonable in suggesting that there should be a public notice of some kind and I support her in that, although that would not cover the point about the emergency; but we can get around that in some other way.

Lady Saltoun

My Lords, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment, but I should be grateful if the noble Earl could think about what I have suggested regarding a notice in the press. I feel that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, is right and that people do miss what goes on in the planning committee and very often do not get to know about it until it is too late. A notice in the press would make that little bit of difference. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 181, 182 and 183:

Page 56, line 35, leave out ("to") and insert (", within such reasonable time as may be specified in the notice, to put it in good order and repair, or").

line 36, leave out from ("site") to end of line 37.

Page 57, line 4, leave out ("paragraph") and insert ("paragraphs (b) and").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I might move these three amendments en bloc. They all arise from my undertaking in Committee stage to look at the statue clause which we have been discussing in the light of the anxieties expressed by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I might have hoped that these amendments would have put her mind at rest. Amendment No. 181 makes it clear that, before requiring action on a statue not maintained by them, a local authority must serve a notice on whoever is responsible to maintain or repair a statue as an alternative to demolition. I was specifically asked to consider looking again at the powers to demolish, and I hope that this meets that point.

Amendment No. 182 is tidying up and consequential on Amendment No. 181 and drops the specific reference to "removal to another site Amendment No. 183 also meets a point raised by the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, at Committee stage. I think that if she considers these three amendments together she will come to the conclusion that I have gone a long way towards satisfying the doubts that she has expressed in Committee and today.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

6 p.m.

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 184:

Page 57, line 9, leave out ("buildings") and insert ("premises").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is something which intrigues me considerably. I will read the subsection and try to make sense of it. This is—and everyone will have their "hymn books before them—on page 57, line 9: Where a statue or monument in respect of which a notice is served under subsection (1)(c) above is neither land or buildings,". I will read that again leaving out the bit that does not matter: Where a state or monument…is neither land or buildings". I shall break that into two: Where a statute…is…land or buildings". It does not exactly make sense, does it? How can a statue be land or be buildings?

The point is that, so far as I can see, the Government wish to give powers of entry to do things, and powers of entry are in Clauses 96 to 105 and they refer to land or premises. If the Government are just contriving to be able to get powers of entry or powers in order to do work on something, then I do not think that they have done it with any great degree of skill. The first thing that they should have done was to stick to the words of Clause 96—that is, "land or premises". I confess that I only put in, "land or premises", to give me a chance to talk about this and to draw attention to what seems rather strange: that a statue is later on presumed to he land or premises. Perhaps the Minister will give me an adequate explanation of how a statue can be assumed to be land or buildings. I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I had assumed in my innocence that this was a simple drafting amendment by which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, with his usual eager eye, was anxious to assist the Government, and I am prepared to accept it.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am delighted. I knew it would be accepted because it is impeccable. Clause 96 refers not to land or buildings as is here done but to, "land or premises". At the same time, I want the Government to justify how they are doing this and why they are doing it. Is it a contrivance? I rather suspect that it is. But it is not a very good one. They could have done better than this. The Scottish Office gets only two out of 10 for this one.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I am in a considerable difficulty here. I am anxious to assist both the Government and my noble friend Lord Ross. If we change the wording from, "neither land or buildings" to, "neither land or premises" does that mean that a monument can be land or buildings?

Lord Ross of Marnock

It could.

Lord Howie of Troon

Whereas, my Lords, a statue presumably could not be land or buildings. Does that mean that the clause just refers to statues and does not refer to monuments at all, or am I confused once again?

Viscount Thurso

Perhaps it may be of assistance to the House to remind your Lordships that Mount Hood is a statue.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, with respect, we are talking about Scottish law.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 94 [Street names and house numbers]:

Lady Saltoun moved Amendment No. 185:

Page 57, line 30, leave out from ("name") to end of line 31 and insert (", so as to be easily legible by pedestrians and motorists at night, on conspicuous parts of any premises, fences, lamp posts, poles or other structures ").

The noble Lady said: My Lords, I think that this amendment speaks for itself and I am sure that many of your Lordships have had the experience of driving round and round a strange district quite unable to find the way because either the street names were so placed as to be illegible to a motorist in the dark or else they were not there at all. We have all emerged from a side street into a long road and driven along it for miles and miles without being able to find its name written up anywhere. Ideally, streets should be named on both sides at every intersection. But while this would probably be prohibitively expensive, there is room for considerable improvement. I hope that this amendment may at least encourage thought on the subject. It is not always possible to stop and ask one's way at night, especially in residential areas. Pedestrians can be few and far between, and nowadays people are often not very anxious to open their doors to strangers at night. I beg to move.

Lord Airedale

My Lords, I do not believe that this amendment speaks for itself in the way that the noble Baroness would have us believe. It says that the name has to be visible at night by pedestrians. That surely means that the street name or the road name has to be illuminated throughout the hours of darkness. To do that with every road name would surely be prohibitively expensive. I believe that the intention of this amendment is to say that, where there is street lighting, every endeavour shall be made to make the street name visible by the light of the existing street lighting, while the street lighting is on. But that is very different from saying that every road name must be visible to a pedestrian throughout the hours of drakness on every day of the year.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, in the general nature of her amendment, though I take the point which has just been made and I wonder if the wording should really be, "legible to pedestrians", rather than, "legible by pedestrians". At any rate, I think that the noble Lady's intention is indisputably correct and should be supported by the Government. They should bring in at a later stage some form of words which makes her point.

I illustrate this by saying that I left this House last evening in order to go to New Bond Street to see an exhibition of paintings by a noted Scottish artist, John Quintin Pringle. I made my way by tube from here to Green Park. I wondered where Bond Street was and wandered along Piccadilly, past the Ritz, looking at street names as I came to them. Eventually I found New Bond Street but the name plate was high in the air. At one time, when I was younger, I could have seen it. But it is less easy now. I just made it out and no more. It is not within the purview of this Bill, but the illustration is apposite.

The point here is that streets should be so named as to be clearly discernible by people like myself well advanced into middle-age and who are trying to find out where on earth they are in whatever town they happen to be. As it happened, I have tried to find New Bond Street before and some atavistic recollection led me to it, but it was not easy. If should be made easy to do and this Bill is the machinery where it can be made easy in one part of the country. The amendment of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, seems to be one which would help us. It ought to be taken up by the Government and phrased in whatever way fits the Bill best.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the Government are going to take it up now. I hesitate to spoil the fun, but if the noble Lady and the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, had cast their eyes two amendments further down they would have seen a Government amendment which does what is sought to be done by the noble Lady and the noble Lord, but the phraseology is possibly a little more felicitous. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has also put down an amendment which is sandwiched between the other two, and it may shorten the proceedings—I say "may" in hope—if I speak to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, as well as to that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and my own.

All three amendments have the same intention but are worded rather differently. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, expressed concern in Committee over what he regarded as the wide-ranging powers to paint numbers on premises in "such a position and style" as the authority saw fit. I think he was concerned that excesses of civic zeal might result in prescriptions for gothic script or some other variant, against the wishes of the householder. But whatever the fears, real or apparent, the wording in the clause is derived very closely from Section 196 of the Edinburgh Corporation Order Confirmation Act 1967, and I have no evidence that the power has been used in any way oppressively. Nevertheless, I recognise that, as the working party itself said, the essential element in fixing a number is to help the public and the main test should be one of legibility by the public.

The noble Lord's amendment would delete the legibility test altogether and therefore would underline the whole purpose of displaying numbers. I think the noble Lady's amendments go rather further and are more specific than is necessary. I doubt whether the concept of visibility at night is really practicable and perhaps it is better to rest on a general requirement of the number being "readily legible". That is a slightly more precise requirement than the working party's recommendation that the numbers should be "clearly visible", but I think the effect is similar.

On Second Reading the noble Lady Lady Saltoun, referred not just to the problem of reading numbers but of actually finding them. The power in Clause 94(d), which we propose to amend, enables a local authority to require numbers to be fixed " in such a position as they think fit"; and this would have ensured that they could require numbers to be placed where they could be seen from the street, as recommended by the working party. However, as we are proposing to drop this general formulation, it is necessary to introduce a more specific reference to the numbers being legible from the public entrance. The effect of the Government amendment therefore is to meet the fears expressed by the noble Lord and also the spirit of the noble Lady's amendment. I commend it to the House.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, am I not correct in saying that the noble Earl is referring to his amendment, which deals with numbers, whereas that of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, is dealing with street names? Could not the Minister agree to bring in another amendment at the next stage to deal with names in the same way as with the numbers?

Lord Ardwick

My Lords, surely "legible" is not the same as "visible"? A name is legible if I go with a light and it is within the range of my eyesight as a pedestrian. If writing is high up, as if it had been put there so that the driver of a stage coach could read it, then it is neither visible nor legible to anybody on the ground. I should like to plead for the noble Lady's words. It is an excellent idea that it should be visible to motorists—legible to pedestrians and legible to motorists. I speak as one who is further advanced into middle age than my noble friend: sometimes I feel as though I am in the springtime of my senescence.

Lady Saltoun

My Lords, the noble Lords who have just spoken are perfectly right: my amendment deals with street names and not numbers.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I will take the noble Lady's amendment away, if she will agree to withdraw it at this stage, because I still think it is somewhat clumsy.

Lady Slatoun

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl for saying he will do that. I quite agree that the amendment is extremely clumsy and I was myself very dissatisfied with its wording. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Ross of Marnock had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 186.

Page 57, line 38, leave out from ("premises") to end of line.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was going to move this one and the Government were going to accept it, but since they have comprehended my amendment within their own, which is the next one, there is no need for me to move my amendment.

[Amendment No. 186 not moved.]

6.15 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 187:

Page 57, line 38, leave out from ("premises") to end of line 39 and insert ("so that it is readily legible from the nearest part of the public place giving access to the premises").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 188 and 189 not moved.]

Clause 97 [Powers of entry: offences]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendments Nos. 190, 191, 192 and 193:

Page 60, line 11, leave out first ("or") and insert (", building or other").

line 12, after ("section") and insert ("85 or").

line 13, leave out ("or") and insert (", building or other").

line 15, leave out ("or") and insert (", building or other").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments en bloc. They are consequential to Clause 85 as now amended. They extend the existing provisions of this clause to make it an offence to refuse entry to an owner of a building in multiple ownership and his contractor or workman who have been authorised by the sheriff under powers in Clause 85(1) to enter the land, building or premises and carry out works when he or they demand to do so. The offence carries the penalty on conviction of a fine not exceeding £200. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 104 [Recovery of expense incurred under section 84 by charging order]:

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 194:

Page 62, line 35, leave out from ("under") to ("they") in line 37 and insert—

("(i) section 84(3) of this Act or

(ii) section 96(4) thereof (to the extent that it relates to failure to rectify a defect specified in a notice served under section 84(1) thereof)

a local authority are entitled to recover any expenses,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 115 [Regulation of charitable collections]:

Lord Ross of Marnock moved Amendment No. 195:

Page 69, line 24, leave out from ("meeting") to end of line 27.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this deals with the question of charitable collections and indeed, having first of all in Clause 115(1) said that permission has to he given for a public charitable collection, it goes on to the question of collections at public meetings and states that no such requirement about permission is needed and that subsection (1) does not apply to a collection which takes place in the course of a public meeting". That I understand. Then we get this phrase— or to a collection by means of a receptacle normally located in a public place including premises to which the public are permitted to have access". All I want to know is: What does that mean? My Lords, I beg to move.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the exemption for receptacles which are normally located in a public place, including premises to which the public have right of access, is intended to exempt such things as what I think are called "shells" in Glasgow Central Station or the West End of Princes Street, or the collecting boxes which are placed outside shops for a variety of charities, such as Dr. Barnardo's. The noble Lord, in his peregrinations, may have noticed large, usually ugly and garish, fibre glass animals with small slits in them, into which he is invited to put his small change for purely charitable purposes, in most instances.

Coming back to the amendment, the presumption is that the receptacle is placed with the approval of the manager, who can be immediately contacted in the event of anything going wrong, or any suggestion of fraud or malpractice. The two main justifications for regulating charitable collections are consideration of public order and the need to prevent criminal misappropriation of the funds raised. The first clearly does not arise here, and we are content that the need to regulate the placing of fixed receptacles to prevent the misappropriation of cash placed in them is less than the need to regulate mobile collectors, whose origins and intentions may be far from clear.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, it was the word "normally" which worried me. I do not know whether it has any meaning at all here. In fact, I think it is confusing, because, wherever else these strange animals, to which the noble Earl the Minister referred, are, they are not normally located in these places. For the purpose of collection, they are located. So I should have thought that the word "normally" was quite unnecessary. I do not need to pursue this point. The noble Earl has whetted my appetite for a further look at this and I hope that he will look at it again. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.22 p.m.

Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 196A:

Page 76, line 45, at end insert—

("( ) The provisions of subsection (1) above shall exclude agreement with any candidate or election agent for the display of advertisements during the period of a local government, parliamentary or European Assembly election.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with a small clause which gives permission for a local authority to enter into agreement with any person for the display of advertisements on the council's land, premises, structure or vehicle owned or operated by the authority. At the Committee stage, a much shortened amendment was proposed and the noble Earl the Minister rightly pointed out that reference was made to political parties, which have no definition in law. Your Lordships will notice that in this amendment we refer to the candidate or election agent, the description of which is clearly laid down in the Representation of the People Acts.

At the Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon thought that we were being over-zealous, and he referred to his own experience in 1945 of chalking on the pavements. We had higher technology in the 'thirties. We had stencils and whitewash which we put around the pavement at the bottom of lampposts. But I am certain that neither my noble friend nor I had the agreement of the local authority to do what we were doing and it was unlawful.

The noble Earl asked why should political parties not make agreements for advertising. I am certain that we were misunderstood in what we were seeking, but this amendment makes the position quite clear. Of course, a political party, just like anyone else, should be able to make an agreement in normal times for advertising on a local authority's premises or vehicles. What we are endeavouring to do by this amendment is to provide that no candidate or election agent shall make an agreement with an authority during any election—local election, European Assembly election or parliamentary election—for the display of posters or advertisements on any vehicle owned by the council or on any land, premises or structure.

I am certain that if any political party or agent had an agreement whereby all the vehicles of the local authority were covered with the name of one candidate, there would be misunderstanding and some objection. There would also be a mad rush by all the candidates and agents to get in first, once a writ had been declared. Therefore, in order to clarify the situation we are proposing this amendment. If the wording is not fully to the liking of the Minister I shall readily understand, but I hope he will accept the general principle. We are dealing only with the question of agreement during election time. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I hesitate to disagree with my noble friend Lord Underhill, especially when his name is linked with that of my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock. To disagree with them separately is folly. To disagree with them both at once is ridiculous. But I would go a very long way with what he has said. It would be quite absurd if a local authority's vehicles went around plastered with the name of one candidate—so to speak, their candidate. I can quite see his point. But I do not like the idea of barring local authority advertising sites to everybody.

It might well be, for example, that there are local authority notice boards outside the town hall, which would be perfectly suitable for election advertising, whether for local elections or for any other kind of elections. I do not like the idea of totally banning that election advertising. I quite see my noble friend's

point in wishing to ban a local authority from using its sites exclusively for what might be called its own candidates, or candidates of its own persuasion, but he goes too far when he bans such advertising altogether. He should surely seek some kind of agreement, whereby everybody could advertise freely, and in equal competition one with the other, on a local authority site. I have agreed almost always with my noble friend Lord Underhill, as he knows, over the last 20 or so years, but I shall disagree with him this time, at least up to some point.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, on the last occation when we considered this matter, I said that I was waiting for a few cogent reasons to be advanced as to why there are sufficient grounds for preventing political parties from negotiating for the display of advertisements on land, premises or vehicles which are the property of the local authority. This amendment is even more narrowly defined than the last, but I still come back to the original question: Is the amendment necessary and what is the evil or abuse which it seeks to correct? If the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, is to ensure that there is proper conduct during an election period, then I doubt whether such consideration is proper in the context of this Bill, or of any local government Bill. In fact, it would be much more appropriate for legislation in the Representation of the People Acts.

There are no strictly planning grounds for the extra kind of control of political advertisements that is sought. Planning control can be exercised only in the interests of amenity or public safety and, in any case, as most noble Lords know, election posters are exempt from planning control on condition that they are removed within 14 days of the election to which they refer. So if the noble Lord's point is that the local trees were going to be covered with posters, then I have to tell him that that is already catered for by the Representation of the People Acts. So I am afraid that I remain as unconvinced as before that this amendment is desirable, still less necessary. In particular, does the noble Lord seek prohibition of the display of any advertisements during the period of a local government election, or indeed a European Assembly election?

It so happens that certain captains of industry are among our representatives at Strasbourg at the moment. It is arguable that if this amendment were agreed to and one of these people who happened to be the chairman of a national company wished to seek re-election, all references to his firm might well be caught by this amendment. Surely it is not the intention of the noble Lord to prohibit normal commercial advertisement in this manner. For all these reasons, I am afraid that I cannot see the desirability of this amendment and I do not think that this is the right place for it.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am sorry about that, because it is a fairly valid point. I do not know how many elections the noble Earl has participated in. In his part of the world very considerable offence was certainly caused at the time of a fairly celebrated by-election. This was in 1963, I think, in Perth and Kinross. Perhaps the noble Earl did not appreciate the extent of the free advertisement which was not given but taken by particular political parties. Every litter bin which belonged to the local county council conveyed a certain invitation to support a particular candidate. Everybody objected to it, including, with angelic protestations, the party that was being supported by these advertisements. They always do. Do not think that it was any other party than the Liberal Party which I am talking about. They were very active on that occasion. Local authorities have plenty of space, vehicles, sites. Surely it is quite wrong for local authority property to be used for party political purposes at the time of an election. Everybody objected when they saw these facilities being used for flyposting. But now the Government come along and say, "It's all right; approach the county council; pay your sum of money and then you will be free to do it". This is quite wrong. The noble Earl is opening up an avenue for advertisement by political parties at election time. Nobody wants to be taken advantage of, so I hope the noble Earl will think about this again, or will get some of the more politically-minded people in the Scottish Office to think about it again. My noble friend Lord Underhill is quite right. At election times, town hall staff have to tell people where their polling stations are. No party would dream of using what are virtually public notice boards. Public notice boards are used for specific purposes. For them to be allowed to be hired out to a political party would be quite wrong. We want the property of local authorities to be kept away from this kind of thing and away from the claim that they are partisan about this, that, or the other thing.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I hope he realises that I meant any place owned by a local authority should be used by all parties. I agree entirely with him and with my noble friend Lord Underhill that it would be quite wrong for those places to be used by one party alone, but I cannot see why it would be terribly wrong if everybody had access to it and if all were represented there.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, they all use them at present, but they tend to use one on top of the other.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I said that if the Minister thought that my wording of the amendment was not correct he might suggest alternative wording. I see the point which my noble friend Lord Howie has raised: that if one has an election meeting in a public hall, one wants to be able to put a poster outside saying that there is going to be an election meeting. That point could surely be covered quite simply by something being added to the wording of this amendment.

The Minister asked for cogent reasons. I should have thought that one cogent reason is that we do not want to give to any electors or ratepayers the impression that any particular local authority is pushing a particular candidate. Indeed, this is the most cogent reason of all. It may be argued that in a city like Glasgow there are so many vehicles and so many pieces of property that one party could not hog the lot because if they tried to do so they would exceed their maximum election expenses under the Representation of the People Act. However, in the case of a smaller district, I am certain that the

electors and ratepayers would strongly object if one candidate got in first and if all the vehicles—the dust collection vehicles and everything else—were carrying, by agreement, by contract, posters advertising one particular candidate. That would be absolutely objectionable and the ratepayers would rightly protest.

The noble Earl referred to flyposting and to the trees which I mentioned during the Committee stage. If a council made an agreement with a particular candidate that on payment he could display posters on all the trees down a particular road in which the trees belonged to the council, that would be objected to. Flyposting on those has been going on for a long time. We have tried to stop it and the regulations endeavour to prevent it. I hope that the noble Earl will take another look at this problem. We are not talking about political advertisements outside election times. I would remind the noble Earl that, if my memory is correct, British Rail have very strong regulations of their own about political advertisements on their stations. I believe that London Transport also has very strong regulations to avoid the very problem which we are trying to deal with in this amendment.

I hope the noble Earl realises that the only thing we are after is not to limit the freedom of people but to ensure that electors and ratepayers do not believe that a particular authority is giving an unfair boost to one particular candidate during any one of the elections enumerated in the amendment. I hope that the noble Earl will take another look at the amendment, which I beg leave to withdraw. However, I would remind him that there is another stage to this Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 2 [Minor and consequential amendments]:

6.38 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 197:

Page 96, line 20, at end insert—

("The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 (c 51)

So much of section 123 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 as incorporates and applies the words "fly kites" and the words "or play at football tennis fives cricket or any other game or games" in section XCVI of the Act of 1 and 2 Wm. 4. c. 43 as set out in Schedule (C) to the said Act of 1878 shall cease to have effect.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendment No. 197 is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

A drafting amendemnt, my Lords? Really? I took the trouble to look this up. The amendment suggests the removal of parts of Section 123 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 and sets out the parts which shall cease to have effect. However, when we look at that section we discover that it takes us back to the Act of 1 and 2 Wm. 4, chapter 43. This takes us back to 1831. So in the law of Scotland at present we have something which was applicable, or which was considered to be applicable in 1831 which is still the law of the land. But we are removing only certain of the words. With due respect, that is not a drafting matter. We are losing a power to prosecute. If we look at the passage involved, we see that it refers to footpaths; causeways; by the side of any turnpike road made and set apart for the use and accommodation of foot passengers.

We read: if any person shall make or assist in making any fire or fires commonly called bonfires, or shall set fire to or let off or throw any squib, rocket, serpent, or other firework whatsoever within one hundred feet of the centre of such road, or shall discharge any gun, pistol, or other fire arms, fly kites"— flying kites is out now— or bait or run for the purpose of baiting any bull", and here is another relevant part, or play at football, tennis, fives, cricket or any other game". Many of these are games with which we in Scotland are not terribly familiar, far less play at the side of the road, yet it goes on, on the side or sides thereof, or in any exposed situation near thereto, to the annoyance of any passenger or passengers". Later on it refers to turnpike roads, toll houses, soap houses, chemicals and the rest of it. What I would like to know is, why take out just these words? How much of this 1831 schedule to an 1878 Act is still the law of Scotland? Why take out just these words? Does this mean that it is still an offence to, bait or run for the purpose of baiting any bull "? Indeed, it also states that, every person offending in any of the cases aforesaid shall for each and every such offence forfeit and pay any sum not exceeding fifty shillings over and above the damages occasioned thereby". Is that still law? Why just pick out these instances of what will become offences? Will all the rest remain in law?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, the noble Lord asked for it and he will get it. Certain provisions of paragraph 96 of Schedule C to the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 make it an offence to fly kites, play games and so on in any street to the annoyance of any other person. The Working Party on Civic Government considered similar provisions in Section 381 of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 and recommended that since the flying of kites was unlikely to be a danger or annoyance to the public generally that that offence should be allowed to lapse, but that the playing of games where annoyance or obstruction is caused or is likely to be caused to passers-by should continue to be an offence.

Clause 56 of the Bill re-enacts in updated form the provisions of the 1892 Act relating to the playing of games, et cetera, in public places. We therefore decided that the provisions of the 1878 Act which make it an offence to fly kites in the street should be repealed in line with the working party's recommendations, and that the provisions which make it an offence to play games, et cetera, in the street should also be repealed since they will effectively be superseded by the provisions of Clause 56. The repeal inserted into the repeals schedule of the introduction print, however, erroneously referred to the repeal of the whole of paragraph 96 of Schedule C to the 1878 Act rather than to the repeal of the provisions relating to the flying of kites and the playing of games, et cetera.

The other provisions of paragraph 96 make it an offence to commit various other 'nuisances' in streets, et cetera. They, along with other roads legislation, are currently being reviewed with a view to their eventual consolidation. It would not be appropriate to anticipate the result of that review by repealing the

whole of paragraph 96 at this stage and these amendments are therefore designed to replace the defective repeal in Schedule 3 with an amendment to the 1878 Act, which simply removes the references to the offences of flying kites and playing games in the street to the annoyance of any other person. I hope that clears up the matter.

Lord Howie of Troon

My Lords, I have not hitherto been familiar with the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878. In fact, I did not know there was one. In the course of the two exchanges we have had one point that struck me was when my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock mentioned a number of offences, some of which I gather have been removed but some of which are being left in. He enumerated some of the offences and I thought he said that if one contravened the Act in respect of the offences which were being left in, one would be in danger of being fined something like 50 shillings. I believe I heard him aright, but if I did not no doubt he will tell me.

In our considerations earlier this evening, we discussed briefly the possible jeopardy of a schoolgirl in ermine who impersonated Mary Queen of Scots and who might because of that impersonation, had she persisted against the advice of a constable in uniform, be in danger of finding herself fined as much as £200. I dare say that it would not come to that and that the fine would not come to £200. But it strikes me that, while we are meddling with the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 and removing certain offences in that Act, could we not also take the opportunity to up these fines from the miserly sum of 50 shillings which applied to people who used to fly kites, and bring them more into line with the £200 which one might incur for impersonating Mary Queen of Scots?

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon. In fact, these penalties were increased to £25 in the Criminal Law Act 1977.

Lord Howie of Troon

Not enough, my Lords.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am very grateful for that. With regard to the sum of 50 shillings—

Lord Denham

Order, my Lords. This is Report stage.

Lord Ross of Marnock

Yes, indeed, my Lords; but I wanted to ask the noble Earl a question.

Lord Denham

My Lords, with the leave of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, cannot ask for the leave of the House but he may use the formula, "Before the noble Earl sits down".

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I just want to emphasise that he has just taken words out of a complete sentence. Can the noble Earl tell me whether the offences in the rest of that sentence—say from "kites" to "playing football "—will remain? This is what concerns me.

The Earl of Mansfield

My Lords, what I am trying to tell the noble Lord is that the offences being repealed are now covered in Clause 56. The remaining provisions—various "nuisance" provisions from the old paragraph 96—are being reviewed. I am afraid that I do not have a list of them but if I am wrong about this I will of course write to the noble Lord directly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3 [Repeals]:

6.48 p.m.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 198:

Page 96, line 31, after ("7") insert (", 13").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, under Section 13 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 it is an offence for a dealer in old metals to acquire any old or new lead, copper, brass, tin, pewter or German silver in quantities less than specified in the schedule to the 1871 Act. The quantities prescribed are 112 lb. for lead and 56 lb. for the other metals which I have mentioned. In the provisions relating to the licensing of metal dealers, we have not thought it necessary to impose any limitation on the weight of metal acquired by a dealer, and we consider that there is no justification for retaining the limitation specified in the 1871 Act. My amendment is aimed at ensuring that the control of metal dealers is contained within this Bill and to eliminate any other controls in other outdated legislation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 199:

Page 96, line 31, at end insert ("and the Schedule").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment also relates to dealers in old metal. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 200:

Page 96, leave out lines 33 and 34.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, we effectively considered this amendment when we had the debate on Amendment No. 197. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 201:

Page 96, line 34, at end insert—

("57 and 58 Vict. c. 60.

The Merchant Shipping Act 1894.

Sections 538 to 542.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to repeal certain provisions of the Merchant Slipping Act 1894 which are considered obsolete or are already covered in the metal dealing provisions in the Bill. The 1894 Act provides that a marine store dealer shall have his name and trade painted above his premises, keep proper books, be prohibited from purchasing marine stores from anyone apparently under 16 years of age, be prohibited from cutting up cable without a permit and advertise the fact that he has a permit. The age limitation on buying and selling metal is already included in Clause 34 of the Bill, the book-keeping in Clause 31; and the other requirements are unnecessary. Indeed Sections 538 to 542 of the 1894 Act have already been repealed in England and Wales by the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. This amendment proposes the same action for Scotland. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 202:

Page 96, line 36, at end insert—

("6. Edw. 7. c. 32.	The Dogs Act 1906.	In section 3(6), the words "on payment of a fee of one shilling."
		In section 3(7), the words "on payment of a fee not exceeding one shilling.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, at an earlier stage in consideration of a recent Midlothian Confirmation Order, the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, pointed out that the Dogs Act 1906 still carries a reference to a fee of one shilling being demandable for the inspection of the register of stray dogs. I am advised that that provision has, with the abolition of the shilling, lost all statutory meaning. It seems right, therefore, to remove it. As I explained when we considered the register inspection provisions of Schedule 1 of the Bill on 15th December, it is our policy that inspection of such registers should be free and unrestricted. This amendment will put the position beyond doubt in relation to the dogs register. I beg to move.

Lord Ross of Marnock

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the Minister of State for the change he is making and also grateful to the Scottish Office, who sent me the document in which I spotted the one shilling. The only thing that surprises me is that it has taken us until Report stage to put the matter right.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 203:

Page 96, line 39, at end insert—

("1937 c. 37.

The Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937.

Section 20.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, Clause 34 makes it an offence for a metal dealer to buy metal from or sell metal to anyone apparently under 16 years of age. Section 20 of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act 1937 contains a similar provision relating to the buying of old metal from a dealer defined in the Prevention of Crime Act 1871 or within the meaning of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894. This amendment is, therefore, consequential. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.