Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

HL Deb 17 May 1982 vol 430 cc470-590

2.52 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 1 [Licensing of public entertainments]:

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton) moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 4: Page 2, line 7, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (1A) below,"). Page 2, line 9, at end insert— ("(1A) Paragraphs 2A and 2B of the Schedule shall not have effect in the area of a local authority unless the authority so resolve. (1B) If a local authority do so resolve, those paragraphs shall come into force in their area on the day specified in that behalf in the resolution (which must not be before the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the resolution is passed). (1C) A local authority shall publish notice that they have passed a resolution under this section in two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in their area. (1D) The first publication shall not be later than 28 days before the day specified in the resolution for the coming into force of the paragraphs in the local authority's area. (1E) The notice shall state the general effect of the paragraphs."). Page 2, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert ("have effect subject to the amendments specified in that Schedule, being amendments consequential on subsections (1) to (1E) above."). Page 2, line 26, at end insert— ("(5A) In this section "local authority" means—

1. (a) the council of a district; and
2. (b) the Council of the Isles of Scilly.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, it may be to the convenience of your Lordships if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 14 to 22 inclusive, and 23. At the end, it might speed things up if I therefore moved the first four amendments en bloc. At the Committee stage of this Bill on 11th March my noble friend Lord Belstead undertook to introduce amendments on Report which would permit local authorities to license pop festivals. He did so in response to the feeling of this House that some form of control was necessary simply to ensure that pop festivals were conducted in a reasonably civilised manner. The Government have all along made clear their reluctance to introduce such controls, untested as they are, in this Bill, but have been persuaded by the general feeling that something—not necessarily harsh or restrictive—should be done. My noble friend made it clear that the controls he was prepared to introduce would be the minimum compatible with the needs and wishes both of local councils and of the organisers and audiences of pop festivals. Since Committee stage, discussions have been held with representatives of the local authority associations, and I am happy to say that the amendments which I am about to move meet with their general approval. It will, I am afraid, take a little time to cover the provisions.

Clause 1 of the Bill, as your Lordships know, introduces the mandatory licensing system for public entertainments which take place indoors. If I may, I would just remind the House that we have made the system mandatory because we see it as an important means of ensuring public safety and are convinced of the need for a uniform system of control. Pop festivals are another matter. There is no need for uniformity of control; in some areas there may be no need or wish for control at all. The four amendments to Clause 1 of the Bill therefore enable district councils to pass a resolution adopting the new powers which are to be inserted into Schedule 1. It is left entirely to individual councils to decide whether or not they wish to adopt these controls. The council must allow a month between the adoption of the resolution and its coining into force and must publish notice of its intention in a local paper.

The details of the proposed licensing provisions are set out in paragraphs 2A and 2B of Schedule I as set out in Amendment No. 10 on the Marshalled List. Any musical entertainment which is held wholly or mainly in the open air and at a place on private land comes within the ambit of the licensing system. At first sight, this may seem a very wide form of control. There are, of course, a number of exemptions which I shall come to later. But there is no specific exemption for political meetings. At Committee stage, a number of your Lordships expressed the view that there should be such an exemption so that local authorities did not find themselves licensing an open-air political rally at which a band played or the participants sang "Jerusalem" or "The Red Flag". Although it is not immediately obvious—as I have said, the control appears to be very wide—the paragraph as drafted would not mean that the singing of "The Red Flag" or "Jerusalem would need to be licensed. If your Lordships require any further reassurance, I will seek to give it when I reply to this debate.

At the other end of the spectrum there are, I believe, some pop festivals which have a sort of political leitmotiv. These are unmistakably entertainments and would also need to be licensed; I do not believe that anyone would argue with that. Paragraph 2A(3) lists the events which we want to see completely exempted from control, either because there are existing statutory controls for them as well or because licensing would clearly be inappropriate—for instance, no one has seriously suggested that councils should license fetes or bazaars. The list does not contain the specific exemption for military tattoos which my noble friend Lord Sandford proposed at Committee stage. I do not think they often take place on private land, but, if and when they do, they are covered by the general exemption for displays.

I should now like to turn to the contents of the licence. This is the other key point of the licensing system since it provides a pointer to the grounds on which a council may refuse a licence. We do not think it right that a council should be able to say simply: "We do not like pop festivals, so we shall not license them". So, as my noble friend Lord Belstead indicated that we might, we are allowing councils to impose only four types of conditions—to secure public safety and hygiene, to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles and to prevent unreasonable noise disturbance to persons in the neighbourhood. This enables a council to refuse a licence if it is clear that the festival organisers are not going to try to provided adequate sanitation or if they pick a site where there are a lot of potholes, or if the plan is for 10,000 people to camp in a field next to a cottage hospital for three days. But it effectively stops it from banning all pop festivals altogether.

I propose that these amendments should be slotted into the schedule as it stands, with a few minor consequential amendments. That will reinforce its purpose as a form of controlling public entertainment and bring into effect the other provisions of the schedule with regard to appeals, et cetera. I think these amendments will provide what the local authority associations and this House have indicated that they want. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, may I first very much welcome the amendments that have been moved by the noble Lord the Minister and also the very clear and nicely brief way in which he explained them. In Committee I, and a number of my noble friends, and also noble Lords from all parts of the House, raised questions relating particularly to pop festivals and other aspects. It is true that, as was recognised, there is a problem here that, while one wanted to be able to give a certain amount of freedom to those wanting to indulge in pop festivals or other gatherings, we felt that there should also be some form of control. I think the amendments moved by the Minister cover very adequately the points raised.

One of the amendments that I remember moving was to include the word "political" in the meetings that could be held and would be exempt from licence. As I understand it, in the sense in which they are musical gatherings or something in the nature of a party rather than a serious political meeting, they would in fact be included. I say that because there is no specific exclusion. If it is left in that way, I do not think any of us would grumble.

Turning to the conditions of licence, the safety requirements, securing adequate access, provision of adequate sanitary appliances, preventing people being unreasonably disturbed by noise, those, I think, are admirable and absolutely necessary. I would ask the noble Lord whether those conditions would include the situation where there is a lot of garbage left or where some other form of nuisance is committed. I am not really asking that one should spell out in tremendous detail all the conditions one could possibly think of, because that would defeat the object of the whole thing and give an enormous amount of work to the officers and officials of the local authority, which is not what we want. The conditions are pretty wide. It may well be that some of the points I have mentioned are covered by other legislation in any case; for instance, parking of cars—the access provision covers that to some extent. Undue concentration of vehicles could also be a nuisance. Having said that, taking it largely, we certainly welcome the Government's amendments and feel that these are a great improvement to the Bill which came before us in Committee.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, may I say very briefly that I think the amendments the noble Lord has put down considerably improve the Bill. I am sure they answer nearly all the complaints which were voiced in Committee. I hope that the amendments that will be moved later will be as acceptable as these have been.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if they are also disposed of as quickly, we shall be doing very well indeed. On the question of the requirements for people to clear up afterwards, I think the answer must be that if the litter constitutes a hazard to health then of course it would be a condition, because it would be a breach endangering the health of the public. If, on the other hand, it is an offence to aesthetic sensibilities, I am afraid I shall have to disappoint the noble Baroness. I think your Lordships have welcomed this work which had been done before I became responsible for the Bill, and I shall pass on that welcome.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Schedule 1 [Licensing of public entertainments]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 5: Page 46, leave out lines 5 and 6 and insert— ("1.—(1) An entertainment to which this paragraph applies shall not be provided in any place").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is simply a drafting amendment which corrects the divergent working of paragraphs 1(1) and 2(1). I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 6: Page 46, line 14, leave out from ("worship") to end of line 15.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 6, 8, 9 and 22 stand together. These again are drafting amendments which transpose the definitions of "a place of public religious worship" and of "a pleasure fair" to the end of the schedule and spell out the definition of the former. This is a tidying-up operation. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 7: Page 46, line 17, leave out ("to") and insert ("of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Bill says "to" where it should say "of". This amendment corrects that; it is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9: Page 46, line 19, leave out from ("fair") to ("or") in line 20. line 40, leave out from ("fair") to end of line 41.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11: Page 47, line 8, at end insert— ("2A.—(1) This paragraph applies to any public musical entertainment which is held—

1. (a) in an area in which this paragraph and paragraph 2B below have effect; and
2. (b) wholly or mainly in the open air; and
3. (c) at a place on private land.

(2) For the purposes of this paragraph and paragraph 2B below—

1. (a) an entertainment is musical if music is a substantial ingredient; and
2. (b) land is private if the public has access to it (whether on payment or otherwise) only by permission of the owner, occupier or lessee.

(3) This paragraph does not apply—

1. (a) to a garden fete, bazaar, sale of work, sporting or athletic event, exhibition, display or other function or event of a similar character, whether limited to one day or extending over two or more days; or
2. (b) to a religious meeting or service, merely because music is incidental to it.

(4) This paragraph does not apply to an entertainment held in a pleasure fair. 2B.—(1) An entertainment to which paragraph 2A above applies shall not be provided except under and in accordance with the terms of a licence granted under this paragraph by the appropriate authority. (2) The appropriate authority may grant to any applicant, and from time to time renew, a licence for the use of any place specified in it for any entertainment to which paragraph 2A above applies. (3) The appropriate authority may grant a licence under this paragraph in respect of such one or more particular occasions only as may be specified in the licence. (4) A licence under this paragraph may be granted—

1. (a) on terms and conditions; and
2. (b) subject to restrictions, imposed for all or any of the following purposes, but no others,—
   1. (i) for securing the safety of performers at the entertainment for which the licence is granted and other persons present at the entertainment;
   2. (ii) without prejudice to the generality of paragraph (i) above, for securing adequate access for fire engines, ambulances, police cars or other vehicles that may be required in an emergency;
   3. (iii) for securing the provision of adequate sanitary appliances and things used in connection with such appliances;
   4. (iv) for preventing persons in the neighbourhood being unreasonably disturbed by noise.").

line 10, leave out (" granted under paragraph 1(5) or 2(5) above ") and insert ("in respect of one or more particular occasions only.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

3.6 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 12: Page 47, line 37, leave out ("An") and insert— ("(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) below, an").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, if your Lordships will allow me, I will speak also to Amendment No. 13. During Committee stage, my noble friend Lord Belstead undertook to introduce an amendment which would exempt entertainments held in village halls from the licensing fee. These amendments fulfil that undertaking and in point of fact go a little wider.

When we came to look at the proposed exemption, we decided that it would be unfair to distinguish between, on the one hand, different types of buildings providing the same sort of facilities for the local community, and, on the other, between urban and rural communities. The amendments we are introducing exempt entertainments in all parish, village and community halls together with church and chapel halls, and other similar buildings occupied in connection with a place of public religious worship. I think these buildings form a distinct and easily recognisable category, and the local authority associations have agreed to their exemption. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord the Minister. He and his colleague, Lord Belstead, have been doughty supporters of village affairs as well as religious activities in the country. I know that from these Benches no less than the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London wishes to be associated with me in saying thank you again for your help in this matter.

Baroness Stedman

My Lords, I would also like to thank the noble Lord for the work he has done on this. We are very grateful. He has gone somewhat wider than we wanted in some places and we are extremely grateful to him. I am sure what he has done will be appreciated.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, may I join the procession of commendation, and inquire only about one thing when the noble Lord comes to reply. We are blessed, or otherwise, as one may prefer, in the part of the world that I come from with Co-operative halls and Orange halls. I wonder whether either or both of those are included in this amendment.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, may I also join in the tribute and the thanks to the noble Lord the Minister. It was at the last stage of the Bill when I raised a point regarding community halls and tenants' halls, because one felt there was a bias towards the country. Therefore, on behalf of myself and my noble friends, I would like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for considering the urban areas when he puts in the community halls and other similar buildings.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, when the noble Lord replies, I wonder if he could explain whether or not a town hall or an assembly hall would come under this because in some of these cases these are taken over by professional hirers, and that would not be desirable.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I think that the intention of the amendment is clear. Your Lordships have been fulsome in your thanks, but I am afraid not quite fulsome enough for me to get the detailed answers to the questions that I have been asked and on which I shall have to write to your Lordships.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 13: Page 47, line 39, leave out from ("may") to ("where") in line 40 and insert ("determine. (2) No fee shall be payable if the application is for a licence for an entertainment—

1. (a) at a church hall, chapel hall or other similar building occupied in connection with a place of public religious worship; or
2. (b) at a village hall, parish or community hall or other similar building.

(3) The appropriate authority may remit the whole or any part of the fee that would otherwise by payable for the grant, renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 14 to 21: Page 48, line 24, at end insert— ("(1A) Regulations relating to entertainments to which paragraph 2A above applies may only prescribe standard conditions for the purposes specified in paragraph 2B(4) above."). Page 48, line 42, leave out ("or 2") and insert (", 2 or 2A"). Page 48, line 44, leave out ("that") and insert ("the relevant"). Page 49, line 12, leave out ("or 2") and insert (", 2 or 2B"). Page 50, line 5, leave out ("or 2") and insert (", 2 or 2A"). Page 51, line 9, after ("including") insert (", subject to paragraph 2B(4) above,"). Page 52, line 23, leave out ("a licence has been granted under paragraph 1 above") and insert ("an entertainments licence has been granted"). Page 53, line 32, leave out ("paragraph 1 or 2 of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 to 21 are consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move them en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 22: Page 53, line 36, at end insert— (" "place of public religious worship" means a place of public religious worship which belongs to the Church of England or to the Church in Wales (within the meaning of the Welsh Church Act 1914), or which is for the time being certified as required by law as a place of religous worship; pleasure fair" has the meaning assigned to it by section 75(2)(a) of the Public Health Act 1961.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Amendments consequential on section 1]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 23: Page 54, line 18, leave out from beginning to ("for") in line 20 and insert ("paragraph 1 or 213 of Schedule 1 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (which taken together make similar provision").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is consequential on Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 2 [Control of Sex establishments]:

3.14 p.m.

Lord Jacques moved Amendment No. 24: Page 3, line 1, at end insert ("in a form prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State by statutory instrument").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to join the chorus. In moving this amendment I would like to thank the Minister for the very helpful letter which he has sent me. He tells me that he is advised that a defective notice would not invalidate the operation of the licensing arrangements in an area, provided that they had been properly adopted. But he goes on to say: I think it would be helpful, however, if we produced a draft notice in as succinct a form as possible which we could then send out to the local authorities as part of the guidance which we shall issue on these provisions". I understand that the Minister is happy to put that on the record, and when he does so I shall withdraw my amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, we do, indeed, still think that it would be helpful if the Home Office were to supply local authorities, as part of the guidance which will be issued on the coming into force of the Bill, with a draft notice which they could use or adopt as they think fit. The noble Lord has been kind enough to say that this suggestion satisfies him, and I therefore hope that he will not feel it necessary to press his amendment.

Lord Jacques

My Lords, I entirely agree with the Minister's conclusion. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3 [Control of sex establishments]:

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26: Page 55, line 12, at end insert— ("(iii) in proceedings for condemnation under Schedule 3 to the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 of goods which section 42 of the Customs Consolidation Act 1876 prohibits to be imported or brought into the United Kingdom as being indecent or obscene; or"). Page 55, line 14, leave out ("either") and insert ("any").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Schedule 3. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 together. We are grateful to the Nationwide Festival of Light for drawing our attention to an omission from paragraph 1 of Schedule 3, which these amendments are intended to repair. As your Lordships will be aware, the purpose of this paragraph is to ensure that it will not be possible for anyone to pray in aid the provisions of the schedule in any criminal or forfeiture proceedings.

The paragraph refers to forfeiture proceedings under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 or the Protection of Children Act 1978, but fails to mention the similar condemnation proceedings under the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. Amendment No. 25 repairs that omission, while Amendment No. 26 is simply a consequential drafting amendment. I commend the amendments to your Lordships.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 27: Page 55, line 16, leave out ("or a sex shop") and insert (", a sex shop, sex encounter premises or sex photography premises").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 27 standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford who is on his way to the House but I understand cannot get here quite in time to propose the amendment which stands in his name. With Amendment No. 27, which is a paving amendment, I should like to take also Amendments Nos. 30 and 31, together with some consequential amendments which will become apparent later. The substantial amendments are Nos. 30 and 31.

My noble friend's reason for putting these amendments forward at this stage in the Bill is that he has been approached by the government of the City of Westminster with a request that these amendments should be considered by your Lordships' House. Anybody who reads the historical memoirs relating to the Palace of Westminster—Pepys, John Evelyn, Boswell and so on—will be well aware that it has never been very far from what were known in olympian days as "The Stews"—they were mostly at Vauxhall; now they are in Soho. They were aggregates of houses of ill fame and prostitution. The centre of the metropolis still attracts an industry in sex. It is a debased industry and an industry of which we all officially disapprove. From time to time this industry takes a new turn, and I do not think that the legal luminaries who put their services at the disposal of this industry in order to find ways around Acts of Parliament are necessarily a credit to the law. But the fact is that new loopholes are continually being found. It is like finding tax havens and taxation loopholes and so on. Loopholes are being found in the sex laws.

One particularly objectionable practice takes place in what are called the sex encounter premises. I want your Lordships to imagine that you are handed, when you enter these premises, a list of what you can see if you want to, which you can specify. You go into a room. You are there looking through a window at a naked woman who is performing something or other to your prescription—a type of solitary sex which surely cannot be in the interests of stable marriage in so far as it reflects some of our personal kinkinesses, and all of us no doubt have them from time to time but they are better not indulged. That is what takes place in sex encounter premises.

In addition to sex encounter premises there are other kinds, such as sex photography premises in which one is asked to spend £15 on the loan of a camera, say, and one is then introduced into the presence of various nude females who will either perform in this, that or the other manner, or pose in this, that or the other manner. One may take one's own photographs, but exactly how they get developed I do not know.

Those are the two matters which it has been suggested by the City of Westminster ought to be brought under control, and which will be brought under control if your Lordships see fit to agree to the amendments of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. It could be argued that probably these places are breaking the law as it stands, and that with a good deal of ingenuity some sort of a prosecution might be brought against them and might be made to succeed. In that case it could be argued that, on the general principles, we do not have two statutes covering the same offence and that this group of amendments is unnecessary. I do not believe that and I could quote the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in an earlier stage of the debate on another matter when he said—am I getting it wrong?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I only wanted to say that I did not take part in an earlier stage. I think that the noble Earl is referring to my noble friend Lord Belstead.

The Earl of Halsbury

No, my Lords, I was thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, when he was dealing with another Bill. I may be misquoting him, but I think he said that there are a very few bits of local government that are not covered by more than one statute.

Your Lordships will probably remember something that we all heard about in our schooldays called Cardinal Morton's fork. He was responsible for collecting the revenues of the country in those days. If you maintained an obviously wealthy establishment he said that you must be indecently rich and he put a very high assessment on you. If, on the other hand, you did not, he said that you must be saving a lot of money since you obviously did not seem to be spending anything and, therefore, again he caught you with a very large assessment.

I believe that the principle of Cardinal Morton's fork might well be applied in this case. If we cannot catch them on one branch of the fork, let us catch them on the other. It is on that basis that I personally would not pay too much attention to the idea that we may be overkilling by providing more than one statute for the same offence. I believe that this is what my noble friend wanted me to tell your Lordships. I beg to move.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Halsbury and the words which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has put before us. The quotation of Cardinal Morton's fork is very apposite, because as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said at Second Reading: We also have to take into account the fact that the purpose of the sex industry is profit, naked and unashamed". [Official Report, 16/2/82; col. 474.] and that those who seek to make very large sums of money out of these degrading practices will find every possible loophole they can to get round the purveying of this unpleasant area of offer to people.

If the Government think that they are not, in fact, in a position of having to be a carer of morals, your Lordships may remember that, again on Second Reading, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London made the point that one of the main purposes of legislation is to help us to be better and to make it more difficult for us to be worse, and we need such help.

Therefore, this is not a narrowing of liberty; it is a caring for the good if we put in this very clear amendment. It comes back to that famous quotation of Martin Luther King, that law cannot change the hearts of men, but law can restrain the heartless, and those who make very large sums of money in the sex industry are in it for money and nothing else. Therefore, anything that we can do in your Lordships' House quite firmly to restrain this evil—whether we see it as a moral evil, a social evil or a family attack—should be done. I hope that we shall not be afraid of taking such detailed action as is set out in Amendment No. 27 and in the subsequent amendments, Nos. 30 and 31. I hope that the Government will be willing to accept these very cogent and carefully argued amendments. I beg to move.

3.23 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the amendments to which, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Nugent, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has spoken are, I believe, among the most important which we shall have to consider today. They propose a substantial extension of the scope of Schedule 3 and one which I believe the House would be wise to consider very carefully.

The noble Earl has argued that the licensing controls should be extended to include, what the amendments term "sex encounter premises" and "sex photography premises". The latter make their appearance for the first time in these amendments, but the position of the former has been carefully considered at each stage in the preparation of the scheme. We have consistently opposed the inclusion of these premises in the schedule and the further thought which we have given to this matter since the Committee stage, including discussion with my noble friend Lord Nugent, has not persuaded us that we are wrong.

It is, I think, common ground between my noble friend and the Government that these premises serve as a front for prostitution. My noble friend said at the Committee stage that they are: Usually used as a prelude to prostitution". This is clearly borne out by the results of criminal proceedings. All four of the nude encounter premises operating in the Soho area last year were the subject of prosecutions. In three cases convictions were secured for keeping a brothel. In the fourth case prostitution was admitted but the court took the view that the defendants were not the persons responsible. I understand that, in the same area, there have been three prosecutions involving nude photography studios. In each case a conviction was secured, for keeping a brothel. That was secured without the aid of Cardinal Morton's fork.

I draw two important conclusions from this information. The first is that the existing provisions of the criminal law may be used—and are used with success—against these premises. My noble friend mentioned in Committee that the operators of these premises, by employing only one girl, would be able to avoid any charge of keeping a brothel. But I can confirm the advice which my noble friend Lord Belstead gave, that this would not prevent the institution of proceedings for living on immoral earnings, for which I understand that the maximum available penalty is substantially heavier.

The second conclusion which I draw—and it is one which causes me at least considerable anxiety—is that, however the matter is put, the effect of my noble friend's amendments is to ask Parliament to provide for the licensing of brothels and prostitutes. My noble friend is, of course, quite right to point out that the present definition of "sex encounter premises" differs from its predecessors in referring to sexual stimulation by verbal means and not by verbal or any other means. But I do not think that this greatly alters the position. The fact remains that, whatever their purported activities, these premises are used for prostitution and everyone knows it. Furthermore, the definition of "sex encounter premises" would quite clearly, in the Government's view, apply to brothels, and even the case where a prostitute plies her trade in her own home would be included. I remind your Lordships that a licence would be required in the case of any: business which consists wholly or partly of the presentation or conduct of an activity which is designed to provide for the sexual stimulation by verbal means of persons admited to the premises". I do not know how other noble Lords view this matter, but I find it very difficult indeed to believe that it can be right to go down the road of licensing these premises and these activities.

One might feel more sanguine about this if one was at least confident that it would have any appreciable effect. I recognise the concern, that if we clamp down on sex shops and sex cinemas, we may encourage the growth of these premises as alternative sources of money for their existing proprietors, but I think that the very specialised nature of these establishments makes it very unlikely that they would be regarded in some way as substitutes for sex shops. In any case, what would the practical results be if we decided to apply the licensing arrangements to them? I am convinced that the result would simply be that the particular "fronts" of nude photography and nude encounter would be replaced immediately by others. Instead of being encouraged to photograph a nude girl, the public would be invited, just to take some examples, to sketch her or to help her to photograph herself or fill her bath or any one of any number of ruses that could be dreamed up to circumvent the legislation. And in the case of sex encounter premises I foretell that the girls would suddenly be struck dumb so that they could not be accused of verbally stimulating their customers. What then of the carefully constructed definitions and the whole edifice of licensing controls contained in the amendments? I fear that any attempt to control these premises by reference to their purported activities is akin to a dog chasing its tail.

The real trouble is this. If you license the real activity, you license prostitution and, in fact, you license a brothel. We propose to do neither. We do not think that many of your Lordships would wish to join us in doing so. If, on the other hand, you license the purported activity, you are trying to hold a handful of quicksilver; the purported activity is a front and it can he changed overnight, at little or no expense to another that falls outside the scheme. My noble friend and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury's, very virtuous and strenuous efforts, the efforts of Westminster Council and the legislation of this House will all then have been for nothing five minutes after this Bill is enacted.

As I hope I have made clear, I have every sympathy with the desire of my noble friend to see stricter control exercised over these premises. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will not suggest that what I am saying means that we are not a caring Government. We are using the best of our intellectual powers to secure a system which does not give the cloak of respectability of a licence to what, in effect, is a brothel and at the same time can be relied upon to catch the culprit, as has happened in the six recent cases that I quoted to your Lordships.

I hope that I have succeeded in making clear to your Lordships, therefore, that we consider that it would be neither an appropriate nor an effective solution to apply these licensing controls to them. The general criminal law has so far proved effective in dealing with them, and I suggest that this is the most appropriate weapon on which to rely. Therefore, I must advise the House not to support these amendments.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, despite what my noble friend Lord Elton has said, I still feel that there is a great deal of virtue in the amendment moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, in place of my noble friend. I feel that it is an additional weapon for the police to use in their fight against the misuse of sex in society today. I would therefore give this amendment my wholehearted support.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, in case this amendment should be carried to a Division, I must briefly say that I could not recommend my noble friends to support this amendment. This is not because we want to encourage the spreading of this kind of practice but for the opposite reason: I believe firmly, as does the noble Lord the Minister, that the existing law is strong enough to control this kind of venture. When the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, is replying, or perhaps the noble Lord the Minister, I wonder whether they could say what views the Metropolitan Police have about these proposed amendments. I think that it would be important to know this.

If you put this kind of premises in the position so that to carry on activities they have to be licensed, unless you can be certain that the licensing authority will refuse a licence in every case, you are doing precisely what the noble Lord the Minister suggests, and in fact introducing by the back door a method of licensing, and therefore legalising, brothels and organisation of that kind. Although I believe the amendment to be extremely well-intentioned, it would produce entirely the wrong result and I would therefore have to recommend my noble friends not to support it.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I find myself in sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said on this. In the earlier discussions in Committee we were often in danger, as many of us pointed out, of bringing in in this Bill, which is a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, the type of legislation which, if people want it, ought to be part of general public legislation and go through Parliament on its own, and be argued out strongly and in detail and not be hitched on to what is a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.

There are people who feel that there is, in fact, a case for licensing brothels. Whether or not one takes that view or whether one would like to see them done away with entirely, or prostitution made completely illegal, does not alter the fact that some of these amendments coming forward, although the motivation is extremely good-hearted and trying to improve the situation, are putting something into a Bill which is not the right vehicle. Further, where does one end? They have included, "sex encounter" and "sex photography". Then there will be other things coming up. This was the point the Minister was making. I would certainly advise my noble friends that this is not the vehicle or the place to bring in amendments of this kind.

Lord Somers

My Lords, there is a fairly widespread feeling that, if one tries to control what one definitely knows is a wrong activity, there is a great danger that one is merely driving it underground and that it will proceed as usual. Is that not true of every single wrong activity that one knows of? If one feels that an activity is a wrong one—and I cannot think that there is a single Member of your Lordships' House who does not realise that the activities that this amendment is trying to control are indeed very wrong—then surely it is right that the law should try to control it, even though one may feel that perhaps the law, as is unfortunately so often the case in many walks of life, may not have the desired effect.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to wind up on behalf of my noble friend and say that I cannot accept some of the arguments put forward, and particularly the key argument put forward by the noble Lord the Minister, to the effect that the law is operative. You have a booming, expanding industry, notwithstanding any conceivable operation of the law. The law is totally ineffective. This Bill has been welcomed in both Houses of Parliament with enormous enthusiasm from all the Back-Benches who have thought, "Thank goodness, at last we can put this evil under control". For some inexplicable reason the Government appear quite terrified of taking the logic of the Bill to its conclusion and really putting the evil under control.

I cannot accept the argument that these sex encounter shops, and so on, are brothels on the side, and therefore in licensing them for the one, you are licensing the illegal activity of the brothel on the other. On the contrary, if you take the philosophy behind all the work that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, and I have put in on this Bill, it is to make it possible for the councils of one shade of opinion or another to say, if they wish, "We are not going to have any of that in our district". Therefore, you are not licensing their surreptitious activities, you are refusing to license their overt activities.

If they continue in business, then they become liable to the large penal fines that my noble friend has written into the Report stage of this Bill in another amendment. At the moment the fines to which they are subject are merely the matter of pleading guilty in the magistrates' court and being fined £100, and that is just a business expense and no more. It is because of the total inoperability of the present law in any shape or form that this large, expanding, booming industry is being allowed to take place.

I know it is not the wish of my noble friend Lord Nugent to divide the House on this particular point, and particularly not the wish to divide it this afternoon. The object of putting matters forward first in Committee, then on Report, and finally on Third Reading is so that we can study and, if necessary, examine and hopefully shoot down the arguments that we hear from the Front Bench when we have had an opportunity to study them. Therefore, in asking your Lordships' permission to withdraw this and the other amendments which stand in the name of my noble friend, I must reserve his position for Third Reading because I think he may possibly wish to brine these matters forward again.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.38 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 28: Page 55, line 19, at end insert (", vessel").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which has to do with boats, draws behind it a great train of consequentials which I ought to put on the record: Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 stand together; 32 to 35 and 36; 43 to 46 inclusive; 50 to 53 inclusive; 64 and 65; 75 and 77; 79, and 81 to 83 inclusive; 86 and 87; and 90 to 93 inclusive. It is in fact necessary to consider these as a group.

Your Lordships will have realised the common purpose of the Government amendments from the frequency with which the word "vessel" appears in them. At present the Bill refers only to "premises, vehicle or stall", thus leaving the way open for some enterprising individual to set up a sex establishment on a boat and proclaim himself without the licensing controls. One would like to think that this suggestion is merely fanciful but, as my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has often remarked, the ingenuity of people in this line of business appears to know no bounds.

Our concern that the absence of a reference to "vessels" might leave a loophole to be exploited was strengthened by a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was kind enough to send to me. This drew to my attention the worry of Portsmouth and Southampton City Councils that a boat moored in a harbour might be used as a sex establishment. Although the closing of this loophole requires a large number of minor amendments to the schedule, the Government believe that it is worth the trouble and I hope that your Lordships will take the same view.

Some of the amendments merely refer to the word "boat" and I do not think it is necessary for me to go into those in detail now; but when we come to the consequential amendments, if noble Lords stop me as we reach any which interest them, I shall be happy to dilate on them, but I think it would lengthen the proceedings to go into them now. The definition of "vessel" is comprehensive and is to be found in Amendment No. 33; it reproduces that to be found in Section 52 of the Gaming Act 1968.

The remaining Government amendments, in addition to adding, directly or indirectly, references to vessels, make various drafting changes. Amendments Nos. 34 and 53 revise the present definition of "relevant locality" in paragraph 5 to take into account the fact that a vessel (or a vehicle for that matter) may not be stationary when used as a sex establishment. In other words, it may be under way and thus, unless we make the amendment, would escape the regulations. The present definition, in referring to the locality in which a vehicle or stall "is or is to be situated", rather carries the implication that it will be stationary. The amendments also propose that the definition should form part of paragraph 12, where the expression actually appears. The need to cater for the possibility of moving vehicles and vessels is also the principal reason behind Amendments Nos. 45, 86 and 87 and is partly the explanation for Amendment No. 46. In the case of the last amendment, however, the opportunity has also been taken to set out in a clearer form the provisions concerning the publicity to be given to applications. I should say that that applies for all establishments and not merely to those relating to boats.

Amendments Nos. 65 and 77, in addition to inserting an indirect reference to vessels, also serve to clarify the drafting. Amendments Nos. 75, 79 and 82, in addition to inserting a specific reference to vessels, propose some fairly extensive redrafting of the provisions concerning powers of entry and inspection in paragraph 22. The principal effect of these drafting amendments is to separate out the respective powers of the constable and the officer of the licensing authority. This avoids the present anomaly whereby the constable's powers have the appearance of being confined to particular local authority areas. I apologise if that has taken me rather long. I hope, however, that your Lordships will be content to approve the Government amendments and that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—to whom we are indebted for his assistance in this matter—will feel able to withdraw his amendment, when we reach it, in the light of the more comprehensive approach which we have adopted.

Lord Jacques

My Lords, I thank the Minister for Amendment No. 33 and the consequentials which go with it. I have no hesitation in saying that when we come to my Amendment No. 32, I shall not move it.

Lord Hawke

My Lords, my noble friend is crediting these people with ingenuity to take to the water. Has he considered what would happen if they took to the air? Considering that most of the airlines of the world are teetering on the edge of bankruptcy, will they not be tempted possibly to have special flights? There are enormous quantities of unsaleable aircraft lying about. Surely a vessel "or other craft lying inland" should include an aeroplane on the ground. Presumably flying boats, which are rather scarce nowadays, would be covered by the amendment.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I suppose that considerations of irregularities in flight could scarcely come from a less—or should I say more?—appropriate source than my noble friend Lord Hawke, who I am afraid is ahead of us in his imagination of what these people might get up to. Indeed, I suppose hovercraft might ply their trade illicitly, too, once these people read my noble friend's remarks in Hansard.

Lord Hawke

Hovercraft are definitely covered by the amendment in view of the use of the word "vessel".

Lord Elton

My noble friend is right, my Lords, and, as I was rather long-windedly saying, we are obliged to him for the point he has made, which I shall consider carefully between now and Third Reading.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 29: Page 55, line 43, at end insert (",vessel").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 30, 31 and 32 not moved.]

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 36: Page 56, line 37, at end insert— (""vessel" includes any ship, boat, raft or other apparatus constructed or adapted for floating on water."). Page 56, leave out lines 38 to 43. Page 56, line 47, after ("vehicle") insert (",vessel"). Page 57, line 7, after ("vehicle") insert (",vessel"),

The noble Lord said: These are consequential on Amendment No. 28, my Lords.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 37 and 38: Page 57, line 7, leave out from ("stall") to ("or") in line 8 and insert ("as a sex establishment"). line 11, leave out ("in respect of that business or activity").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are drafting amendments. Paragraph 7(1) at present refers to, any business or other activity requiring a licence under this Schedule". It would, however, be much more straightforward simply to refer to a "sex establishment", and Amendment No. 37 substitutes the latter for the former and No. 38 is consequential on that change.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 39: Page 57, line 15, leave out ("to the appropriate authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment. The words which it is proposed to omit are superfluous.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 40: Page 57, line 17, leave out ("(6) below") and insert ("(5) below and such particulars as the appropriate authority may reasonably require in addition").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is another drafting amendment. Paragraph 7(3) requires that an application for a waiver must contain the particulars specified in paragraph 10(2) to 10(6), which are the corresponding provisions dealing with applications for a licence. But if one turns to paragraph 10(6) one finds that it does not specify any particulars; it simply provides that a licensing authority can insist on such additional particulars as it may reasonably require. Accordingly, the waiver provision ought to refer to paragraph 10(2) to 10(5), though it would obviously be sensible to provide that additional particulars can be required in this case too. The amendment achieves both objectives.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

3.48 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 41 and 42: Page 57, line 28, after ("date") insert ("not less than 28 days from the date on which they give the notice"). Page 57, line 29, leave out sub-paragraph (8).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are further drafting amendments. Their purpose is to remove an inconsistency which is introduced by paragraph 7(8). In describing action taken under paragraph 7(7), paragraph 7(8) speaks of a notice having been served. In fact, paragraph 7(7) simply refers to the giving of notice. Serving a notice implies that it must be done in person, whereas giving a notice implies that it may be done in any reasonable manner, including by post. It is necessary, therefore, to ensure that the wording of paragraph 7(8) is not inconsistent with that of paragraph 7(7). The amendments do that by deleting the former and adding its substance to the latter.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 43 to 46: Page 57, line 35, after ("vehicle") insert (",vessel") Page 58, line 17, after ("vehicle") insert (",vesel") Page 58, line 17, leave out ("the place where it is to be situated when it is") and insert ("where it is to be") Page 58, line 23, leave out from ("the") to end of line 33 and insert ("application. (7A) Notice shall in all cases be given by publishing an advertisement in a local newspaper circulating in the appropriate authority's area. (7B) The publication shall not be later than 7 days after the date of the application. (7C) Where the application is in respect of premises, notice of it shall in addition be displayed for 21 days beginning with the date of the application on or near the premises and in a place where the notice can conveniently be read by the public. (7D) Every notice under this paragraph which relates to premises shall identify the premises. (7E) Every such notice which relates to a vehicle, vessel or stall shall specify where it is to be used as a sex establishment. (7F) Subject to sub-paragraphs (7D) and (7E) above, a notice under this paragraph shall be in such form as the appropriate authority may prescribe.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are consequential on Amendment No. 28.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

3.50 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 47: Page 58, line 36, leave out from first ("application") to end of line 39 and insert ("send a copy of the application to the chief officer of police.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 47. The purpose of the amendment is simply to make what is, I think, a wholly sensible change in the arrangements for informing chief officers of police of applications for a licence. Paragraph 10(8) of the schedule at present provides that an applicant must give notice of his application to the chief officer of police, identifying the premises concerned. Accordingly, in order to obtain full details of the application the police would have to get the information from the local authority. For example, they would almost certainly want to ensure that they had the full name and address of the applicant or, as the case may be, of the company and its directors. It would obviously be far more straightforward if the applicant were simply required to send a copy of his application to the chief officer of police, and this is precisely what the amendment proposes. I hope that your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible proposal.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 48: Page 59, line 10, leave out ("them") and insert ("a committee or sub-committee of the authority").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48. The purpose of this amendment, which proposes for sex establishments what Amendment No. 103 does for take-away food shops, is to ensure that an oral hearing under paragraph 10(13) will be before a committee or sub-committee of the council. The effect of this is to preclude such a hearing taking place before officers of the local authority. I think that it is extremely unlikely in practice that any local authority would consider delegating to its officers the function of hearing applications for sex establishment licences. I am sure your Lordships would agree that this is a task which one would expect to be performed by the elected representatives. Nevertheless, I think that it would be sensible to make the matter plain on the face of the Bill.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 49: Page 59, line 17, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 18 and insert ("reasons for their decisions within 7 days of his requiring them to do so").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment proposes a very minor change to the schedule. At present paragraph 10(14) requires a licensing authority to supply on request a statement in writing within seven days of its decision of the grounds for refusing an application for the grant, renewal, or transfer of a licence. I think that your Lordships will agree that that would impose an unreasonable obligation on the licensing authority if the request were not made to it until towards the end of the seven-day period. The amendment proposes instead that the requirement should be to supply a written statement within seven days of the request.

The statement is to be of "the reasons" for the authority's decision rather than, as the Bill currently has it, "the grounds". The word "grounds" has a technical meaning under paragraph 12(3), which sets out the main grounds for refusal of a licence. The written statement would of course be inadequate if it merely repeated parrot-fashion the wording of one of those grounds. Accordingly, the amendment uses instead the word "reasons", which enables the authority to be more forthcoming. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 53: Page 59, line 28, leave out from ("on") to end of line 29 and insert ("the sex establishment"). Page 59, line 44, after ("vehicle") insert (",vessel"). Page 60, line 27, after ("vehicle") insert (",vessel"). Page 60, line 29, at end insert— ("(5) In this paragraph "the relevant locality" means—

1. (a) in relation to premises, the locality where they are situated; and
2. (b) in relation to a vehicle, vessel or stall, any locality where it is desired to use it as a sex establishment.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 are consequential upon Amendment No. 28. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 en bloc.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on their drafting amendments because I think that they have improved and tidied up the Bill considerably. However, I should like to query how Amendment No. 50 will affect paragraph 11(2), which deals with the transfer of a licence, and states that the licence, shall be deemed to remain in force with any necessary modifications until the withdrawal of the application or its determination, notwithstanding that the date has passed or that the person to whom the licence is to be transferred if the application is granted is carrying on…". the sex establishment. To me the phrase "carrying on" the sex establishment reads rather oddly. I wonder whether the Minister can perhaps improve the drafting even further at Third Reading, so as to have something which from the point of view of good English is a little more acceptable.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I suppose that the phrase might have something of the colloquial about it; no doubt a sex establishment is a considerable "carry on" in some terms. However, I take the noble Baroness's point. She will accept that I cannot give her anything at this stage, but I shall look at the point before Third Reading. I hope that her approval of the amendment does not depend on any immediate response from me.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 54: Page 60, line 29, at end insert— ("(6) "The relevant locality" as defined in paragraph 5 above may be interpreted as being co-terminous with the whole local government area specified in section 2(1).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment, which arises out of the somewhat less than pellucid drafting of paragraph 5 (relating to miscellaneous definitions), in which it is provided that "the relevant locality" means, in relation to any premises, the locality where they are situated …". If any of your Lordships know what that means, then all I can say is that we must backtrack over Second Reading, Committee Stage—every preceding stage—of the Bill, because it could be interpreted to mean the ground plan of the house in question, the street where the house is situated, the postal district where the street is situated, or the entire local government area.

From the start, I have sought to place the local authority in a simple position in which it can say, "We don't want any sex shops in our area", and I do not see why the authority should not be placed in that position. I have always been against that which I call bogus and that which is humbug, and the idea that a local government area has to be divided into little pieces and that a sex shop must be disallowed in each little part of the area as each application for a sex shop is received, is to my mind an entirely bogus piece of procedure.

It has been argued, it was argued in Committee, that an authority could possibly be held to be at fault for not giving a satisfactory reason; so let us invent a bogus reason. One takes a local government area and one counts the number of schools in it. Then one takes a pair of compasses and draws a circle around each school, let us say, one mile in radius. If that does not cover the whole area, one enlarges the compasses a little and draws a circle of one and half miles in radius around each school. One then says, "We will not allow a sex shop within one and a half miles of any educational establishment in the district". That is perfectly O.K. according to the procedures that we have discussed at earlier stages of the Bill; but merely to pass a resolution saying, "We won't have any at all", is not O.K. I believe that the authority should have the power to say, "We don't want any of these debased establishments in our district at all, whether it is a homogeneous district or a heterogeneous district; we still don't like it". I cannot see why the authority should not be allowed to say that.

It has been argued—it was argued on Second Reading and in Committee—that to give the authority the power explicitly would be to alter the criminal law. That is complete nonsense. It is not altering the criminal law to say that a council in one district can please itself and a council in another district can take an exactly opposite decision. It is not altering the criminal law to say that what we do not wish to license in one locality, we will not license in another locality. It is also said that the power enables local government to take decisions on moral issues. All law is bound up with morality at some stage or other. Law is nothing more than those components of morality that we have generally agreed among ourselves we will enforce. To say that law cannot be aligned with morality for fear that this is a very dangerous point of principle is to my mind complete nonsense from beginning to end.

Therefore I proceed to go straight to the heart of the matter and propose that we should give the local council authority to say, "We don't want that in our district, and we won't have it". The council should not be forced to go through the entirely bogus procedure of inventing bad reasons for what it believes by instinct. It might be instinctive in the council to find the reasons, but do not let us provide for them by process of law. Let the council say, "We don't want it; we won't have it".

As I have previously said, one cannot put this matter on a basis of other than what people like. One cannot invent reasons for the fact that one does not like suet pudding, tapioca pudding, or whatever it may be; one likes it, or one does not like it. If one does not like sex shops, say so, and let the council say, "We won't have any in our district, and we don't need to go around inventing bad reasons for not having them here, there and everywhere else", which would waste everyone's time in purely phoney demonstrations of a kind of liberalism which gets nowhere at all. I beg to move.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I should like to support this amendment. At the Committee stage of the Bill there was considerable discussion on the meaning of "locality" and I ended up rather confused, as I think the whole Committee probably did, because no clear definition came out at all. Local authority councillors are all democratically-elected and in theory represent the views of the population, and if the council as a whole either want or do not want sex establishments in their area they should be able to make the decision. It is quite within the powers of a newly-elected council to reverse a decision that has been previously made, so that if at one time a council decide that they do not want a sex shop and then opinions change within that area, the decision can quite easily be altered either for the whole of the local authority area or for any relevant part.

Lord Elton

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has used the word "bogus", he has used the word "humbug", he has used the word "nonsense" and he has used the term "roundabout", and he has referred them all to Her Majesty's Government and myself. I take what he says in good part, but I must tell him that when he refers to instinct and reason I think that perhaps he has the measure of the Government wrong. I think that by instinct one always prefers the simple and the obvious, and what he proposes is indeed simple and obvious; but reason, I am afraid, upon analysis, dictates that this is wrong.

The noble Earl has reminded the House that he and my noble friend Lord Nugent tabled an amendment at the Bill's Committee stage which would have permitted a local authority to resolve that there should be no sex establishments in the whole of the local authority's area. He made it clear that he believed that this direct approach was preferable to (as he put it) the "oblique and circuitous" approach of the Government. In referring to the latter he had in mind the Government's belief that local authorites should consider applications for a licence in relation to the relevant locality, but with the power to decide, if they think it right to do so, that there should be no sex establishments in a particular locality.

My noble friend Lord Belstead, speaking on behalf of the Government, explained that he thought that there were fundamental objections to the amendment tabled by the noble Earl and my noble friend. It did not seem to the Government to be proper to provide, in a measure of this kind, a power for a local authority to decide as a matter of general policy, unrelated to specific circumstances and based solely on moral judgments, that there should be no sex establishments in its area; and that is still our view. A general prohibition of this kind cannot, as we see it, be considered other than in the context of the general criminal law.

Before I turn again to the important general principles concerned, I should like to point out a couple of practical difficulties inherent in the noble Earl's amendment. Where an application is received in respect of an establishment on the border of a local authority's area, to concentrate upon that local authority's own district would, to put it at a minimum, make it more difficult for the local authority to consider the character of the area falling within the neighbouring local authority's area. In other words, the consideration in the amendment is curtailed within the area and one cannot consider the welfare of the neighbouring authority.

Secondly, the effect of extending the meaning of "relevant locality" to apply to the whole of the local authority area might, ironically, make it more difficult for the local authority to refuse an application. It is one thing to argue, in relation to a fairly small area, that it would be inappropriate to have a sex shop there; it is quite another to maintain that it would be inappropriate, as it were, as a matter of general policy, for the local authority area as a whole to have any kind of sex establishment anywhere at all, bearing in mind the large size of districts and boroughs and the diversity within many of them. Of course, these are cases that will be tested, so I think that there is a distinct risk that a decision of this nature, within the framework of a licensing schedule such as this, would be open to challenge on judicial review on the grounds that the local authority had not considered the facts of a particular application.

There is a sense of déjà vu about this for those of your Lordships who were here at the Committee stage, but I have to revert to the principle that the establishment of the general law of the land is a matter for Parliament. Parliament has decided—by default if you like, but it has still decided—that sex shops, provided they are properly conducted, are legal. That may not seem to some of your Lordships a very laudable position, but that is the position Parliament now occupies and that will be the state of the law when this Bill is enacted. It will not be, and should not be, for any local authority, no matter how prestigious, how clear-sighted or how morally upright, to gainsay it. That is not a power which they can properly be given.

The power which they are to be given is not therefore to say that in the whole of Southampton or the whole of Westminster sex shops are, contrary to the view of Parliament, to become illegal. The power which they are to be given, and which they should be given, is to say that because of the nature of a particular locality within their boundaries, those legal establishments are unsuitable and will not be permitted. Neither Southampton nor Westminster is of anything like a uniform character throughout, from boundary to boundary. Character changes with locality, and that is why each application must be considered in relation to the locality to which it applies. If your Lordships want it otherwise, your Lordships must address yourselves to a general Act of Parliament; it cannot be properly done by giving power to do it piecemeal across the country to individual local authorities, like a patchwork quilt.

It is, of course, right and proper that local authorities should have the power and the duty to consider the interests and the suitability of any locality to which an application applies; and we have conceded, too, that their conclusion may well be that for that locality even one sex shop would be one too many. But sex shops are not illegal, regulated though they will be under this Bill, and the local authority cannot therefore make the assumption, regardless of the facts of every case, that they are. The morality of this issue has been decided in the statute book; it cannot be overturned in the council chamber. If it is to be altered, it must be altered here; and a statute to give powers to local authorities is quite clearly and wholly inappropriate for that purpose. I could not advise your Lordships to accept the amendment.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I produced the arguments that I produced before and I received the answer that I had before. I do not accept it, but I must make it clear that I apply such terms as "humbug" and "nonsense" not to people, not to Governments, but to arguments. So there is no reason at all for the noble Lord to take it in any personal sense, and I am very glad that he has not.

I cannot see why the statute book cannot be as we choose to make it. That is the basis for the whole thing; and, therefore, once more in the hope that I shall find some better reason for disagreeing with the arguments of the noble Lord than I have been able to find so far, I reserve my position so far as Third Reading is concerned and beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.8 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 54A: Page 60, line 29, at end insert— ("(5) In considering what is the appropriate number of sex establishments for the purposes of sub-paragraph 3(c) above the appropriate authority may take into account any premises operating as a sex cinema (within the meaning of paragraph 3 of this Schedule) in the relevant locality notwithstanding that those premises are for the time being licensed under the Cinematograph Act 1909 or are for the time being exempted from the requirement for a licence under that Act by virtue of section 5 of the Cinematograph Act 1952.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, once more on behalf of my noble friend I seek the permission of the House to move the amendment standing in his name. I am in a slight difficulty—a difficulty I share with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who has become responsible for a Bill in the middle of its course through the House—in that I am responsible for these amendments set down by my noble friend but I have not got the briefs which tell me what they are all about. I have therefore rather got to sight-read the situation as I go along, and I hope your Lordships will give me the sort of indulgence given to maiden speakers.

The point of this amendment, as I see it, and of the consequential Amendments Nos. 55 and 56, is that in considering what is the right number of establishments of this kind to have in a district you should consider not only the number of establishments of this kind but of other kinds as well. The industry, which is really one industry finding innumerable outlets and seeking more and more legal havens for its products, should be viewed as a whole, and the different sections of it should not be considered just one by one.

To give your Lordships some idea of what the position is, in the Soho area of the City of Westminster there are the following numbers of multiple premises—that is, where there is more than one person serving at a time: books, 67 establishments; films, 39; video libraries, 19; video booths (what the difference between a library and a booth is, I do not know), 9; photo studios, 3; nude encounters, 4; and peep shows, 2. What a splendid cross-section of 20th-century culture! In individual premises, which include only one of the above, shops selling books and video film, 18; cinemas, 18; video lounges, 5; photo studios, 1; nude encounters, 2, Total of the first group, 60; total of the second group, 44. That is, 104 of these establishments in this little district we call Soho.

If somebody wants to start a new enterprise, he should not have regard only to whatever is there in the particular category he wants to trade in but to what else is there. There is no doubt that Soho harbours the stews of modern London as did Vauxhall in the 17th and 18th centuries. There is a very strong wish on the part of all the Back Benchers of both Houses to put the situation under better control than exists at the present moment. This particular amendment gives effect to that. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I note with a wry smile that my brief begins, "I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nugent for explaining so clearly the purpose of the interesting amendment which he has tabled". I should like to congratulate his noble friend on the sterling work that he has done in introducing this interesting amendment, and perhaps I might be forgiven for being a little brief because he did not mention a number of matters that my noble friend Lord Nugent might have brought forward. I trust that that will not be exploited to my disadvantage after I have sat down.

The principle of this amendment does not address the control of sex cinemas. Its intention is to enable the local authorities, in determining what should be the appropriate number of sex establishments in a particular locality, to take into account not only sex shops but also cinemas licensed under the Cinematograph Act 1909 provided that they fall within the broad definition given in paragraph 3(1). At first sight, this may seem a very reasonable proposal but if one examines it closely, then I am afraid that it seems rather less so.

The principal difficulty is that the definition of "sex cinema" in paragraph 3(1) is deliberately drafted in wide terms. By itself, it would, we are convinced, apply to any ordinary high street cinema regularly showing films with a sexual content under an "X" certificate. These would not of course be necessarily pornographic in the sense that the term is normally applied to the general run of films shown in the Soho sex cinema clubs. Accordingly, the effect of my noble friend's amendment would be that a local authority which is considering an application for a sex shop licence could, for example, refuse it on the ground that it considered that the appropriate number of sex establishments in the relevant locality was one—which they already had in the form of their Odeon 3 or whatever. This seems a very odd result. It is particularly odd when one considers what the position would be outside Greater London. There, the local authority which was refusing the application for a sex shop licence would be the same authority which, in its role as the cinema licensing authority, had approved the showing of the "X" films.

I should also point out to your Lordships that to extend the meaning of "sex establishment" in this manner would make it very much more difficult for a local authority to take the view that the appropriate number of sex establishments in a particular locality is nil. Thus, the task of the local authority could actually be made more difficult.

On these grounds alone I should feel bound to resist my noble friend's amendment. But there is another, and I hope that it will give him and my noble friend Lord Halsbury some comfort. I do not think that, in practice, the amendment which he has proposed would add much, if anything, to a local authority's powers. Certainly in the case of Westminster City Council—which, I know, is his main concern—the city council should not find it difficult to take a view on the appropriate number of sex shops without having to take in to account directly the number of sex cinemas. In the end, I suspect that it will make little difference whether the city council says that the appropriate number of sex shops in a particular locality is two or whether it says that the total number of sex establishments should be four, of which two are already present as sex cinemas, leaving two sex shops. Furthermore, I see no reason why the city council should not be able, under the schedule as it stands, to take into account indirectly any sex cinemas operating in the relevant locality; they form part of the background against which a decision can be reached as to the appropriate number of sex shops. They represent one of the more striking characteristics of a locality; and that the local authority is entitled to consider. I hope that on this note of reassurance my noble friend will feel able not to press his noble friend's amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, this is a complicated point. I, too, was hoping that the noble Earl would be able to explain it in greater detail if the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, had been here. It seems to me that it would go against the Minister's arguments on the last amendment moved by the noble Earl—and I apologise for the fact that I failed to take the opportunity to congratulate him and the Government on a very clear statement on relevant locality, something that we tried to get clarified all the way through the Committee stage. If we are to bring in sex cinemas and try to differentiate them from cinemas showing "X" films—and I was not aware that it was not possible to make this differentiation—then there seems to be some confusion. I am not clear why, on this particular amendment, a sex cinema should not be taken out or pinpointed as a particular cinema which would be quite different from the ones about which the noble Lord was speaking which are showing ordinary films—and he pointed out the cinemas and those Odeons or whatever—showing "X" films. I am afraid that I still find it not altogether clear.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, I know that it would not be the wish of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford to divide the House on these matters, and, therefore, while reserving his position, I beg leave on his behalf to withdraw the amendment standing in his name.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 55 and 56 not moved.]

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 57: Page 60, line 46, leave out paragraph (c).

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Robertson of Oakridge, since the Government have a good deal of sympathy with what he proposes and as he is not here, I think perhaps that I had better perform for him a service similar to that performed by my noble friend Lord Halsbury for my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford. Whether at some later stage when we are both in need of refreshment we can delegate this delegation to a further level remains to be seen.

The common purpose of all these amendments—and they embrace not only Amendment No. 57, but Amendments Nos. 71, 74, 76, 78 and 80—is to provide for a new offence in the schedule prohibiting admittance of persons under 18 to, or their employment in, a sex establishment. At present, paragraph 13(3)(c) of the schedule provides that licensing authorities may prescribe standard conditions regulating the age below which persons may not be admitted to or employed in or in connection with a sex establishment. Your Lordships may recall that my noble friend Lord Robertson tabled a number of amendments at the Committee stage of the Bill which were intended to ensure that such a condition was attached to all licences issued under the schedule and that the condition could not be varied or made the subject of appeal.

The noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, spoke in support of the proposal. My noble friend Lord Belstead also expressed support in principle but suggested that Lord Robertson's intention could be realised more easily by making the matter the subject of a new offence. My noble friend Lord Belstead undertook to prepare the necessary amendments—an undertaking which I am now able, by moving these amendments put down by my noble friend Lord Robertson, in his absence to fulfil.

It may be helpful if I describe briefly the effect of the relevant amendments. Amendment No. 57 (page 60, line 46) deletes paragraph 13(3)(c). This, as I have already mentioned, is the provision which enables a licensing authority to make under-age employment and admittance the subject of standard conditions attached to every licence. It will therefore no longer be necessary to include this provision if these matters are made the subject instead of a new offence.

The proposed new offence is found in Amendment No. 71, (page 63, line 7). The drafting of the first limb of the offence, subparagraph (1)(a), is based on the wording of the offence in subparagraph (1)(c) of paragraph 20. The drafting of the second limb, subparagraph (1)(b), follows that proposed in a later amendment, Amendment No. 65 (page 62, line 29). The proposed maximum penalty of £10,000 also, of course, anticipates later amendments to the schedule.

Amendment No. 74 (page 63, line 20) simply ensures that the provisions of paragraph 21 in respect of a power of arrest will apply to the new offence as they apply to those in subparagraph (1) of paragraph 20.

Amendments Nos. 76 (page 63, line 35) and 78 (page 63, line 39) extend the provisions in paragraph 22 concerning powers of entry and inspection so that the police and authorised officers of the local authority can ensure that the law is complied with in these respects.

Finally, Amendment No. 80, which is as an amendment to a later amendment, simply ensures that an appropriate reference is made in paragraph 22 to the new offence. I hope that these amendments will meet with your Lordships' approval and that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, when he comes to read Hansard, will approve also of the way in which I have presented it. I beg to move.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge

My Lords, I apologise to the House and the Minister for not being in my place when these amendments were called. With so many what looked like controversial amendments ahead of them, I gravely miscalculated the time when I ought to have been here. I hope your Lordships will accept my apologies. I commend these amendments to your Lordships' approval.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, regarding Amendment No. 71, the Home Office have responsibility to ensure that the scale of fines is appropriate. I should like to know on what basis the figure of £10,000 has been agreed. I am in favour of these amendments, but I find the maximum figure surprising. I should like to know on what basis it has been agreed and how it compares with other maximum fines under other licensing laws.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, as one of those who associated his name with the amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, put down in Committee, may I also express my delight at the very generous way in which the noble Lord, the Minister, accepted this amendment? I only have one amendment on the Marshalled List, unfortunately, but if I had more I should think that the way to get them through would be to make sure that I absented myself! I very much welcome this move. Whatever one's views about these establishments, this probably will be one of the most serious abuses to allow people of under 18 to be employed in them. I am delighted that the Government have taken the view that they have.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich

My Lords, I should like to join the queue in saying thank you very much to the liberal noble Lord.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if I may exercise on Lord Robertson's behalf the right of reply, I am glad that this amendment has been welcomed by the House. Secondly, to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, if he looks down the Marshalled List he will find that the £10,000 fine is the same as that for a breach of conditions of licence, which will become £10,000 under a later amendment. It may be that at that point he would like to comment on the relative magnitude of penalties in the Bill.

Lord Harris of Greenwich

My Lords, if I may, with the leave of the House, put the point again: I am well aware of the other amendments. I am asking in particular how this scale of penalty compares with other offences of a similar character in relation to other licensing laws. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary will be aware that there is a responsibility on his department to ensure that there is some degree of consistency of approach so far as maximum fine levels are concerned. I am asking what is the comparison with other licensing law offences?

Lord Elton

My Lords, in my brief time with this Bill I have concentrated on the Bill and I do not have a table of comparisons in my mind, I regret to say. I shall have to write to the noble Lord. If I find discrepancies, perhaps we can discuss them at a later stage.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, the same point struck me. To save time, I was waiting to hear what the Minister had to say. It is not a question of the licensing, what we want to know is how this compares with offences relating to the employment of people under 18 where they should not be employed. That is the point that is certainly concerning me. I should like to know how that compares.

Lord Elton

I do not know whether the House will bear with me for yet a third time. I shall write to the noble Baroness at the same time as I write to the noble Lord.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]

4.25 p.m.

The Earl of Halsbury moved Amendment No. 59: Page 61, line 20, at end insert— ("(7) An appropriate Authority may make rules for regulating the conduct of hearings for the purposes of paragraph 10(13) of this Schedule.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this again is one of Lord Nugent's amendments. It is quite clear. It arises out of the need to provide for making regulations for the conduct of hearings. There is nothing apparently in the Bill as it stands at the moment and this provides the power for doing so. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, an amendment in identical terms was tabled by my noble friend, Lord Nugent, at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Belstead explained then that the Government considered that the proposed amendment was unnecessary. He advised the Committee that it was open to local authorities to make whatever arrangements they chose for regulating the conduct of hearings and for publicising the arrangements; and that there was no need of a formal rule-making power. We have discussed this matter subsequently. I do not think, in truth, that we have been able to carry it very much farther forward, although it was said that the Government would be willing to draw to the attention of local authorities their implicit powers in this matter, and to do so in a circular.

It remains the Government's firm view that it is quite unnecessary to make the amendment proposed by my noble friend. Such a provision, so far as I am aware, is not found elsewhere in public legislation, with the single exception of the London Government Act 1963, which consolidated provisions found in local legislation. To add such a power to this schedule would inevitably carry an implication that it ought to appear elsewhere and might cast doubt on local authorities' powers in its absence. This would include Clause 5 of this Bill, where I shall be proposing, in later amendments before your Lordships' House, that there should be a similar opportunity to hold an oral hearing.

That is the nub of what I have to say: it is not necessary. If you put it in where it is not necessary you make it appear that it is necessary elsewhere where it is not necessary either. That is to make confusion worse confounded. If there is confusion, it will he resolved by the communication that we intend to send to local authorities. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, will feel that his noble friend will be mollified by this to the extent that he can withdraw the amendment.

The Earl of Halsbury

My Lords, speaking on my noble friend's behalf, I feel suitably mollified and accept the undertaking given by the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 60: Page 62, line 2, at end insert— ("(1A) Where a licence is revoked, the appropriate authority shall, if required to do so by the person who held it, give him a statement in writing of the reasons for their decision within 7 days of his requiring them to do so.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we considered in an earlier amendment the requirement on a local authority in paragraph 10(14) of the schedule to provide a written statement on request where it has refused an application for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence. At present the schedule contains no similar requirement where a licensing authority has revoked a licence under paragraph 17. The amendment repairs this omission.

We think that it is sensible to add this provision to the schedule for the following reasons. First, it seems right in principle that a licensee whose licence has been revoked should be able to obtain a formal statement of the reasons for the licensing authority's decision in the same way as the unsuccessful applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence. Secondly, it is highly desirable that he should be able to do so in order that it will be clear to all the parties concerned whether or not he has a right of appeal against the licensing authority's decision. Revocation can take place on any of the grounds specified in paragraph 12(1) of the schedule or on the grounds specified in paragraph 12(3)(a) and (b). In the former case he will have no right of appeal other than on a question of fact. In the latter case he will have a right of appeal. A statement in writing of the reasons for the licensing authority's decision will obviously help to make the position clear. I hope that your Lordships will agree that the amendment is to be welcomed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62: Page 62, line 4, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("appropriate"). line 12, leave out ("relevant") and insert ("appropriate").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move these amendments, which are identical drafting amendments. For no obvious reason, the expression "the relevant authority "suddenly makes an appearance in paragraphs 17(2) and 18(2) of the schedule. The term which is used elsewhere is "the appropriate authority", which is defined in paragraph 5. Your Lordships may well think, in the light of earlier discussion of this schedule, that the fewer unnecessary references to "relevant" there are, the better. I hope that for this reason, and for the sake of consistency in the drafting, the House will be content to approve these amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 63: Page 62, line 21, leave out paragraph 19 and insert— ("19.—(1) Subject to this paragraph, the appropriate Authority may charge such fees as they may determine in respect of applications for the grant, renewal, transfer, or variation of a licence under this Schedule. (2) The appropriate authority may in determining such fees secure that the amount charged by them under this paragraph is sufficient to cover the amount of expenditure incurred by the Authority in administering and enforcing the requirements of this Schedule.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 63, and I should start by apologising for my absence from the Chamber. I have been sitting as chairman of the Select Committee on the Lloyd's Bill upstairs. Heavily pressed by time, the Committee decided they had to go on until 4.30 today, and I cannot be in two places at once. I am deeply grateful to my noble friend Lord Halsbury for managing previous amendments in my absence.

This amendment is quite an important one and we discussed it at Committee stage, as your Lordships will remember. It refers to the cost of administration and enforcement of the licensing system and would empower the appropriate authority to charge such fees as they think are suitable. I stress that it is to cover not only the administration but also the enforcement. It is easy to see that the enforcing authority—and here I am thinking especially of the London boroughs and in particular of Westminster, because there are hundreds of these sex establishments to deal with—will need to appoint a number of inspectors. That will be expensive, and they will need some sort of administrative back-up staff behind them. The cost of enforcement will also need to be faced.

Most of the operators of these sex establishments are powerful people and the main families work together as a group. They have large funds available and it is stated that they have a reserve fund of £1 million for their legal expenses, their fines, and so on. They never hesitate to go to appeal on any case where they can, and this can all be very expensive for the enforcing authority. It is essential that if this system is to work satisfactorily the enforcing authority, who in any event has a very difficult job, should have an adequate staff of inspectors—adequate in number and in calibre—and that they should also have adequate funds to meet the legal expenses they may be involved in when completing the enforcement.

It is in order to provide for that that I have put down my amendment in the form that I have, because I am sure your Lordships will agree that the last thing we want to happen is that the cost of operating this licensing system should fall on the ratepayers and involve increased rates. Obviously that would be most objectionable in every way. Those are the reasons behind this amendment. I have had some discussion with my noble friend on this. I am not absolutely certain that I have convinced him but I hope that, on reflection, the cogency of my arguments may have weighed with him and that he may now feel able to give this amendment a sympathetic reception. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, as my noble friend, Lord Nugent, has reminded your Lordships, the question of what provision should be made in Schedule 3 for the charging of fees was discussed in Committee. Paragraph 19 of the schedule enables a local authority to charge "such reasonable fee" as it may determine in respect of applications for the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence. My noble friend explained in Committee that his concern—which he made clear was shared by the London Boroughs Association—was that this would not enable a local authority to recover all of its costs. In particular my noble friend expressed doubt whether it would be able to recover its enforcement costs, such as those incurred in inspection of premises and in taking legal action against unlicensed premises. My noble friend Lord Belstead undertook to consider this point.

As my noble friend is aware, we have done so with some care and indeed engaged in some conversation. We are as determined as he is that the ratepayers should not have to bear any of the expenses incurred by the local authority in operating the licensing controls. The very firm advice which we have received is that the present wording would enable a local authority to recover all of its costs—whether they are administrative costs or enforcement costs—which are reasonably incurred.

Some of your Lordships may well wonder what harm there would he in writing into the schedule a provision along the lines of what is proposed in my noble friend's amendment. The difficulty is that Schedule 3 cannot be considered on its own. The provision made in paragraph 19 is very much in standard form. It is common in legislation to find a power to charge "such reasonable fee" as the body or authority concerned may determine. For example, in this Bill paragraph 5 of Schedule I says that an applicant for the grant, renewal or transfer of an entertainments licence shall pay such reasonable fee in respect of the application as the appropriate authority may determine". Similarly, paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 says that a district council may charge such fees as they consider reasonable for the grant or renewal of a street trading licence or a street trading consent". I do not think that anyone has suggested that in these cases the wording would prove inadequate in permitting the licensing authority to recover its administration and enforcement costs. Indeed, there would rightly be considerable anxiety on the part of local authorities if such a doubt were implanted in their minds. With the greatest respect to my noble friend, I think that it must be illogical to suggest that detailed provision is necessary in Schedule 3 but is apparently unnecessary elsewhere even though inspection and legal costs may be similarly incurred.

I very much hope that my noble friend will not feel that the Government are being inflexible in this matter. As I have tried to explain, however, there is, underlying this apparently trivial issue, a more important point of principle. I hope, therefore, that in the light of the assurance which I have given about the effect of the present wording—that, after all, is what matters—my noble friend will not feel disposed to press his amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I must say I do not really feel that the Minister's explanation, though very clear, is entirely satisfactory. I support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, on this, for if one looks at paragraph 19 it refers only to the "grant, renewal or transfer". It does not refer to what the noble Lord has put in his amendment, which is: administering and enforcing the requirements of this schedule". I think I am right in saying that there is a similar section to that which the noble Lord is moving today in the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. I think one should go as far as possible so that there is no doubt at all, either on the part of the local authorities or on the part of the operators of these sex shops, that what they will have to pay in licence fees will cover entirely what is involved, and that nothing will fall on the ratepayer.

I do not think that the way in which this is spelled out in the Bill is sufficiently clear. The Minister feels that enforcement is covered but enforcement could be very costly, whatever we may feel about sex shops. We believe that once they are licensed there will have to be a fairly strict monitoring system, particularly since the Government gave their reasons, with which I have sympathy, for not including sex encounter and sex photography shops. The inspection and monitoring will have to be fairly close and meticulous, which will be extremely costly. With great respect, I do not feel that paragraph 19, as it stands, is sufficiently strong, comprehensive or clear to indicate what it means. The Minister knows as well as I do that what is in Hansard is one thing. But the courts do not have to refer to Hansard and local authorities will not necessarily turn to the right page.

Lord Swinfen

My Lords, I am wondering what happens if applicants consider the fees to be unreasonable. Will the local authority have to produce its accounts to an applicant, in order to prove that the fee is reasonable? I wonder whether the Minister could tell me what happens if there is some dispute on this point.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I must thank my noble friend for his answer to my amendment, but I must also thank rather more warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her cogent intervention. Even on the face of it, her point must be a good one, that enforcement is not mentioned in paragraph 19, and my noble friend Lord Swinfen has just made the point that "reasonable" may very well be contended by litigious characters on the other side, who we know are there waiting to contest this matter where they can.

I feel that this is not a matter on which to divide, but I know that my noble friend wants to get this right. Of course, I understand his point—we all do—about the necessity to preserve a common form, as far as one can, in regulations and schedules of this kind. But there really is a point here in dealing with this problem, that something rather more explicit than paragraph 19 is needed. What I hope is that my noble friend might be willing to look at this again before Third Reading, and perhaps we could have some further consultation. I would ask him warmly whether he would be kind enough to do that. If he will, I shall be happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am anxious not to turn this into a Committee stage. I have spoken my piece already. I have advanced the cogent reason that the provisions in the Bill already allow this money to be charged. But in view of my noble friend's anxiety, I look forward to a further agreeable conversation with him between now and the next stage. I would not want him to be overly encouraged by that undertaking. I am certainly anxious to get it right, but of course I cannot at this stage promise to concede anything. However, I shall certainly listen to him with the greatest attention, and much greater attention if he withdraws his amendment now than if he does not.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I accept that my noble friend's motive is to get it right. He will undoubtedly agree with me in due course and therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.45 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65: Page 62, line 27, after ("vehicle") insert (",vessel"). line 29, leave out from ("licence") to ("disqualified") in line 32 and insert ("for a sex establishment, employs in the business of the establishment any person known to him to be").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential on Amendment No. 28. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 66 and 67: Page 62, line 35, after ("or") insert ("without reasonable excuse"). Page 62, line 40, after ("or") insert ("without reasonable excuse").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are identical drafting amendments. Since the present drafting may leave some people in doubt as to whether "without reasonable excuse" applies to each limb of the offences in paragraph 20(1)(c) and 20(1)(d), it seems best to remove that doubt by inserting the words before each limb. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 68: Page 62, line 43, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("20A").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 68, with which your Lordships may wish to consider Amendments Nos. 69 and 73. These are further drafting amendments. It is proposed that the present paragraph 20(2) should, like the new offence relating to persons under 18 which we have already discussed, form a separate paragraph, which for the moment is called paragraph 20A. This change is effected by Amendment No. 68. Amendments Nos. 69 and 73 are simply consequential upon that change. My Lords, I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 69: Page 63, line 1, leave out ("sub-paragraph (1) or (2)") and insert ("paragraph 20 or 20A").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 70: Page 63, line 3, leave out ("£5,000") and insert ("£10,000").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, noble Lords will remember that at Committee stage we had some dis- cussion about what should be the penalty in these cases for breaches of the licensing system, and I think it was generally thought then that in this class of licensing, dealing with the particular traders involved, a higher fine than £5,000 was needed. Here, again, my noble friend has been good enough to have some discussion and consultation informally between the Committee stage and today; and, certainly, a good deal of discussion with the representatives of the London boroughs, particularly Westminster, who are so deeply involved with this problem.

The figure of £10,000 as the maximum fine is now put forward with the knowledge that, although it is a very large figure, we are dealing here with traders who are not deterred by the usual sort of fine of £1,000—that is a mere bagatelle to them—whereas a fine of £10,000 would begin to make its mark. On the other hand, of course, courts do not, by any means, immediately give the maximum fine, so that that would be the top figure to which courts would no doubt work up for repeated offences.

But what is most desirable in this field is observance of the law. A visit to Soho will show anyone who is interested the wide-scale breach of the law in almost every respect. Therefore, it is essential that when prosecutions are brought, and when there is a conviction, the penalty shall be high enough so that there really is deterrence. This, I am sure my noble friend and, indeed, every other noble Lord and Baroness in the House will agree, is the ultimate object. There is a limit to the number of police who can work on this particularly difficult job. They cannot carry out more than a certain number of raids and prosecutions, and unless, when they do get a conviction, the penalty is adequate their time is being wasted. Up till now it simply has not been. That is the background of the amendment to raise the figure from £5,000 to £10,000. I rather suspect that my noble friend may on this occasion find this acceptable. My Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I hope that the Minister will accept this increase. Several of us spoke about it during the Committee stage. This is rather a different category of offence from the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. The point we were concerned with there was the employment of somebody, which comes into line with employment in public houses or other places. But this is a straight fine for any offence under the Licensing Act, or whatever it turns out to be. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that because of the amount of money which changes hands in this business a fine of £5,000 cannot be sufficient. This will be a maximum fine. Therefore the courts will have an opportunity to go very much lower than that. I think I am right in saying that although it is thought that magistrates' courts cannot go beyond £1,000, this is not so. There have been exceptions in the past, bringing it up to £5,000. Because of inflation, looking to the future, I should have thought that £10,000 was a reasonable compromise, for there will not be a rapid change unless these fines are indexed.

Lord Robbins

My Lords, I am extremely sorry that the noble Baroness added her last sentence. In my judgment, this is essentially a case for indexation. All of the arguments used by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, will apply from the year in which this comes into effect, unless—and I do not suspect him of this—the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is assuming that after next year inflation will have come to an end. All his arguments, therefore, for this precise figure will evaporate the year after this Act comes into being. Although we may be optimistic that inflation will be reduced, at the present rate of inflation a fine of £10,000, at simple interest, would be reduced to a real value of £5,000 in 10 years. And if one takes compound interest into account, it is of course even less. So I would plead with the Government, before Third Reading, to acquiesce in some alteration of the drafting whereby this slight complication is brought into effect, otherwise the conversations which the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, has had with the City of Westminster and so on will, to that extent, be nugatory.

Lord Elton

My Lords, first, on the amendment itself, may I say that, despite the very high level of fines already set in the Bill, there has been understandable concern, both in your Lordships' House and another place, that the proposed maximum penalty might still not prove a sufficient deterrent, bearing in mind the vast sums of money that are to be made from the commercial exploitation of pornography? There was some support in another place for the view, which I believe is shared by Westminster City Council and the London Boroughs Association, that the penalty should be increased to £10,000. My noble friend echoed this at the Committee stage—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. The Government accordingly undertook to consider the matter again. Clearly, when we are venturing on to new ground without any real precedents to guide us, the question of an appropriate penalty for these offences is very much a matter of judgment. On the one hand it must be sufficiently large to deter and punish. On the other it must bear some reasonable and defensible relationship to the general level of penalties, particularly bearing in mind the mode of trial for these offences.

The Government believe, on reflection, in the light of these considerations that £10,000 would be an appropriate maximum penalty and I shall be happy to accept this amendment. May I, in passing, say to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, that we are indeed seized of the diminishing value of money and its effects on the structure of fines? When we come to deal with the Criminal Justice Bill I think he will find that we are seeking a means of doing something similar to that which he has in mind.

The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, referred to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. As he will—may I remind him?—be moving a consequential amendment immediately after this one, it is perhaps not inappropriate to refer to it here. The question of the £10,000 penalty in that case ought, I think, to be considered within the context of the schedule rather than within the context of other offences involving the employment of persons under 18 or their admittance to premises, because the matter of under age employment and admittance was originally to have been dealt with by means of the conditions attached to the licence. The maximum penalty for breach of a condition would have become £10,000 under the amendments standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford. It is only logical, therefore, that the new offence should also carry a maximum penalty of £10,000. The point is that the House has decided that there should be exceptional penalties for this sort of offence. I ought to remind your Lordships, though I am referring to the earlier amendment, that they would apply only where a person knowingly permitted a person under 18 to enter the premises or knowingly employed them under those circumstances. My noble friend will forgive me, I hope, for having added a little rider to his amendment, which I am very happy to accept.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, I must thank my noble friend for his acceptance of my amendment and for raising the fine to what I think is a realistic level. Once again I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her support, both today and during the Committee stage. To have raised the fine to this level is a valuable achievement. Of course, I take only too sadly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Robbins. Who knows? Perhaps the future will show a lower rate of inflation, but that it will continue I am afraid there is little reason to doubt. However, it was not all that easy to persuade my noble friend, or his noble predecessor, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the fine should be raised, and I really have to be thankful for small mercies. I shall therefore have to be content with that and to hope that indexation may take place at some time in the future.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 71: Page 63, line 7, at end insert—

("Offences relating to persons under 18.

20B.—(1) A person who, being the holder of a licence for a sex establishment—

1. (a) without reasonable excuse knowingly permits a person under 18 years of age to enter the establishment; or
2. (b) employs a person known to him to be under 18 years of age in the business of the establishment,

shall be guilty of an offence.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £10,000").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 71. At the same time, may I place on record my appreciation of the help which I had from the noble Lord the Minister and his department in drafting these amendments? I believe that they represent an improvement upon the ones which I put forward at the Committee stage.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

4.59 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 72: Page 63, leave out lines 8 to 18.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 72, with which your Lordships may wish to consider Amendment No. 85. These are essentially drafting amendments. As your Lordships are aware from earlier amendments, it is proposed that the main offence-making provisions in the schedule should be contained in three separate paragraphs, which the amendments term paragraphs 20, 20A and 20B. It is necessary, accordingly, to revise the provisions in paragraphs 20(5) and 20(6) concerning offences by bodies corporate. The amendments delete the present provisions, replacing them by new paragraph 22A. At the same time, the provisions are extended so that they apply to ail offences under the schedule. To that extent, they are fractionally more than a drafting amendment. At present the provisions would not apply to the obstruction offence in paragraph 22(5). It seems right in principle, however, that, where, say, a director of a company bears some personal responsibility for the obstruction of a constable or officer of a local authority, he as well as the company should be liable to prosecution.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 73: Page 63, line 20, leave out ("(1)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 74: Page 63, line 20, after ("20(1)") insert ("or 20B").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 75: Page 63, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert— ("22.—(1) A constable may, at any reasonable time, enter and inspect any sex establishment in respect of which a licence under this Schedule is for the time being in force.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as with several other amendments I shall be moving, this amendment is consequential upon Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 76: Page 63, leave out line 35.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 77: Page 63, line 36, leave out from ("person") to ("disqualified") in line 39 and insert ("employed in the business of the establishment is").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 78: Page 63, line 39, at end insert— ("(iii) whether any person under 18 years of age is in the establishment; and (iv) whether any person under that age is employed in the business of the establishment").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 79: Page 63, line 40, leave out from ("constable") to ("above") in line 44 and insert ("may enter and inspect a sex establishment if he has reason to suspect that an offence under paragraph 20 or 20A").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 80: Leave out ("or 20A") and insert ("20A or 20B").

On Question, amendment agreed to:

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 81 to 83: Page 63, line 45, leave out ("the premises, vehicle or stall") and insert ("it"). Page 63, line 46, at end insert— ("(2A) An authorised officer of a local authority may exercise the powers conferred by sub-paragraph (1) and (2) above in relation to a sex establishment in the local authority's area"). Page 64, line 5, at end insert (",vessel").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 are all consequential upon Amendment No. 28, and I beg to move Amendments Nos. 81, 82 and 83 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

5.3 p.m.

Lord Nugent of Guildford moved Amendment No. 84: Page 64, line 11, leave out ("£200") and insert ("£1,000").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is to raise the penalty for obstructing a licensing officer from £200 to £1,000. Again, this is in line with general thought that the penalities in this field need to be at a sufficient level. We had some discussion on this point at Committee stage, and my noble friend Lord Belstead showed some reluctance in accepting the increase to £1,000 that I proposed, but I believe the increase is justified if one considers for a moment the practical problems involved in enforcement.

The licensing officer who has to inspect premises often finds that they are not just a ground floor establishment but that they comprise a ground floor, basement, and rooms upstairs which are all over the place. A degree of obstruction by the particular traders on the premises would obviously pay off in preventing the inspecting official from seeing things that they did not want him to see, especially if the only penalty for doing so was £200 if they were prosecuted—whereas, if they were prosecuted because the inspector found something that was in contravention of the licensing system, they could be fined as much as £10,000. At its present level, the penalty is quite out of scale in dealing with the practical problem that we have here.

I am sure my noble friend will tell me about all the precedents and will say that this increase would put us out of line. But, this time, I have provided myself with a precedent which I hope will help my noble friend to accept the amendment. I refer to the Food and Drugs Act 1955, where, under Schedule 2, the new maximum fine for obstruction has been increased, under Section 23(iii), from £20 to £1,000. There are several other instances of where, for similar offences, the amount of the penalty has been raised to £1,000, so there is quite a sound precedent here and I hope my noble friend will be persuaded that the practical situation with which we are dealing on the ground is such that a rather higher fine than £200 is really needed. Raising the fine to £1,000 will he doing no more than raising it in proportion to the maximum penalty which the House has now agreed to. I hope that my noble friend will be willing to accept this amendment, and I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in this amendment. I will not go over the arguments which he has put so clearly, but this amendment really does make sense and is much more consistent and logical. In view of the fact that it has now been decided by the Government to accept the other increase to £10,000, a maximum fine of £200 for obstructing a police officer on official duties does seem financially rather weedy.

I should like to re-emphasise the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, that it might not be just a case of casual obstruction, because there can be real merit in obstruction from the point of view of the persons who are making the obstruction, in that they would probably be able to get rid of certain things which they did not wish to be seen or to clear matters up to show that they were not breaking the conditions of their licence. I hope that the Minister will be as generous on this occasion as he was on the last.

Lord Elton

My Lords, this is one of those rare and agreeable occasions when I am able to be persuaded by my noble friend. Indeed, it is one of those even rarer and equally agreeable occasions when I am persuaded by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I am quite happy to accept the amendment.

Lord Nugent of Guildford

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for agreeing to this amendment and also the noble Baroness for her very valuable support once again?

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 85: Page 64, hoe 11, at end insert—

("Offences by bodies corporate. 22A.—(1) Where an offence under this Schedule committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate, or any person who was purporting to act in any such capacity, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be guilty of the offence. (2) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members sub-paragraph (1) above shall apply to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his function of management as if he were a director of the body corporate").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 85 is consequential upon Amendment No. 72. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 86 and 87: Page 64, line 26, leave out from ("the") to end of line 31 and insert ("relevant area"). Page 64, line 41, after ("paragraph") insert (" "the relevant area" means—

1. (a) in relation to premises, the petty sessions area in which they are situated; and
2. (b) in relation to a vehicle, vessel or stall, the petty sessions area in which it is used or, as the case may be, desired to be used as a sex establishment, and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 86 and 87 are both consequential upon Amendment No. 28. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 87A not moved.]

5.9 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 88: Page 65, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 41 and insert— ("(a) was using any premises, vehicle, vessel or stall as a sex establishment immediately before the date of the first publication under subsection (2) of section 2 above of a notice of the passing of a resolution under that section by the local authority for the area").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 88, and I believe that your Lordships may wish to consider together with it Amendment No. 89. It seems to us on reflection that the provisions in paragraph 24, which allow existing premises to continue in business pending the determination of a licence application, might be open to some abuse. As the paragraph stands, it would be open to someone, on learning that a council had passed a resolution to bring the schedule into force in its area, to set himself up in business a month or more before the appointed day—that is, the day on which the arrangements are to come into force—in order to take advantage of the paragraph. This could be avoided if, as the amendment proposes, the requirement were instead that he should be in business before the date of the first publication in a newspaper of the council's resolution. I hope your Lordships will agree that the change proposed is right in principle and that the amendment should be carried.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 89: Page 65, line 42, leave out ("that") and insert ("the appointed").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 90 to 93: Page 65, line 43, leave out ("premises, vehicle or stall under this Schedule,") and insert ("establishment,"). Page 65, line 45, after ("vehicle") insert (", vessel"). Page 66, line 14, after ("vehicle") insert (", vessel"). Page 66, line 16, after ("vehicle") insert (", vessel").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I greet Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 with some relief. They are the last block of amendments consequential on Amendment No. 28. I therefore beg to move Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 en bloc.

Lord Hawke

My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that he will have to write "plane" in a good many places in this Bill before it becomes an Act.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I shall take advice on that advice; as I have said, I shall do so before Third Reading.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Nugent of Guildford had given notice of his intention to move Amendments Nos. 94 to 96: Page 66, leave out line 29. Page 66, leave out line 31 and insert ("to a sex shop, sex encounter premises and sex photography premises; and"). Page 66, line 34, leave out ("shops") and insert ("establishment").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in withdrawing these amendments perhaps I should explain that I think this is part of the earlier series of amendments which my noble friend Lord Halsbury moved in my absence, Amendments Nos. 94 to 96. I know that my noble friend put up a brave show in handling a rather complicated affair. As my noble friend the Minister will know, I would like to read Hansard and see what has happened to these amendments especially the one on sex cinemas, about which I have some anxieties and may wish to say something further on Third Reading. In the meantime, I shall not move Amendments Nos. 94 to 96.

[Amendments Nos. 94 to 96 not moved.]

Schedule 4 [Street trading]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 97: Page 67, line 38, at end insert— ("(g) the use for trading under Part VIIA of the Highways Act 1980 of an object or structure placed on, in or over a highway; (h) the operation of facilities for recreation or refreshment under Part VIIA of the Highways Act 1980; (j) the doing of anything authorised by regulations made under section 5 of the Police, Factories etc. (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1916.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment exempts from street trading controls activities or structures for which there is already or will by virtue of this Bill be alternative methods of control. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I take it this is being proposed to avoid duplication with Schedule 5.

Lord Elton

Yes, my Lords, to avoid duplication, with Schedule 5, and in fact elsewhere as well.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 98: Page 67, line 46, leave out ("height, length or width") and insert ("length or width or two metres in height").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 98, I would like to say that in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, my noble friend Lord Belstead gave an undertaking that the Government would amend Schedule 4 to exempt newsvendors stalls of up to two metres in height from the street trading controls. I think that that will ensure protection from the weather for all but the very tallest of newsvendors. I beg to move.

Lord Leatherland

My Lords, may I bore the House once again with two or three sentences along the lines on which I have spoken before. It is to ask, why do we refer to "two metres" in height? Why do we not refer to yards, feet and inches? And if we have some affection for metres, as is natural in these days of the Common Market, can we not give these facts in metres and also in yards, feet and inches, because these Acts are to be obeyed by ordinary people who may not be conversant with the metric system. It would not be too much trouble for the draftsman to say, "two metres in height—i.e., so many feet and inches".

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I am not going to enter into the point raised by my noble friend, although I have some sympathy. I think everybody has to come over to this at some time or other. I just wanted to thank the noble Lord the Minister, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, before him, for taking this on board and accepting this amendment, and producing their own in its place.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reception of this. I take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, says. Unfortunately, he and I find ourselves in a diminishing minority of ordinary people or otherwise who subsist only on feet and inches. This statute will be on the books for many years. I take note of what he has said, but I do not think this is the occasion to debate metrication.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 99 to 101: Page 68, line 25, leave out ("the British Railways Board") and insert ("a relevant corporation"). Page 68, line 30, leave out ("British Railways Board") and insert ("relevant corporation"). Page 68, line 32, at end insert— ("(4A) The following are relevant corporations for the purposes of this paragraph—

1. (a) the British Railways Board;
2. (b) the Commission for the New Towns;
3. (c) a development corporation for a new town;
4. (d) an urban development corporation established under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980; and
5. (e) the Development Board for Rural Wales.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 99 to 101, to which I would speak now, will require a district council which is planning to designate for the purpose of this schedule any street owned or maintainable by one of the relevant listed corporations to obtain its consent before so doing. That seems to me very sensible. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 5 [Closing orders etc.—procedure and appeals.]:

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 102: Page 4, line 37, leave out ("such an ") and insert ("a closing order or such a variation").

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

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 103: Page 5, line 26, at end insert— ("(4A) Representations may be made, at the keeper's option, either in writing or orally. (4B) If the keeper informs the council that he desires to make oral representations, they shall give him an opportunity of appearing before and of being heard by a committee or subcommittee of the council").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Belstead gave an undertaking to the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, to consult the local authorities associations on whether the keeper of a takeaway food shop who wished to exercise his right to make representations to the district council about the making of a closing order or a variation order should be able to do so by way of a hearing before a committee or sub-committee of the council. This consultation has taken place, and if this amendment is acceptable to your Lordships, the keeper will have the option of either submitting written representations to the council or appearing before and being heard by a committee or sub-committee of elected members. This provision will bring the Bill into line with broadly similar provisions contained in the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1968. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, your Lordships will remember with as much pain as I do the number of amendments I moved to this clause on behalf of the Takeaway Fast Food Federation. All I would say in thanking the noble Lord for the amendment he has put down is that I suspect that the sub-committee set up to hear these applications will not have as much competition from the membership as the one set up to deal with sex shops. I thank the noble Lord very much for what he has done.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 104 and 105: Page 6, line 3, after ("and") insert ("subject to subsection (10A) below,"). Page 6, line 3, at end insert— ("(10A) Service of any such document by post may only be effected by sending it in a prepaid registered letter or by the recorded delivery service.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 go together. They are minor procedural amendments. Amendment No. 104 paves the way for No, 105, which provides that where certain documents are required to be served on the keeper of a takeaway food shop and where the council chose to serve them by post, as Clause 5 enables them so to do, they must use either registered post or recorded delivery service. This is to ensure that the keeper of the premises receives the documents and can avail himself, where appropriate, of his rights to make representations to the council or to appeal to the magistrates court, as we have just been discussing. I beg to move.

On Questions, amendments agreed to.

5.20 p.m.

Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 106: After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:

("Regulation of schools and colleges.

PART IVA

REGULATION OF SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES

A Local Education Authority may, with reference to any school or county college maintained by the authority, make byelaws for the regulation thereof, and of the days and times of admission thereto, and for the preservation of order and prevention of nuisances therein, but as respects premises of a voluntary school (other than detached playing fields provided by the Council) only with the written consent of the Governors, and may by such byelaws impose penalties recoverable summarily for the infringement thereof and provide for the removal of any person infringing any byelaw by any designated employee of the authority or Police Constable.

The confirming authority in relation to byelaws made under this section shall be the Secretary of State.").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 106. At Committee stage I moved a somewhat similar, but not identical, amendment because it was in my opinion necessary that local education authorities should have the powers to make by-laws to deal with the problem of people who use school premises. The Government spokesman at that time—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Belstead—said that it was not necessary because local education authorities already had such powers. But I submit that that is not, in fact, exactly so.

To be as brief as I can, the only power that they would have would be to bring an action of trespass against someone who was unlawfully on a school premises. That, of course, is an extremely cumbersome and very expensive thing to do and might, in any case, be very difficult to prove and almost impossible to enforce. There is no effective sanction, at present, which a local education authority could employ if it wished to make laws in this respect and there is no penalty which could be enforced. Of course the people about whom we are talking are those who have no real right to be there, but who are in fact trespassers. I submit that it is much better for the local education authority to have power, subject to the safeguards which I shall mention as briefly as I can, to make such by-laws and that would be an effective deterrent against those who act irresponsibly.

The by-laws would be subject, as the House will be aware, to confirmation by the Secretary of State. That is most important and preserves the Government's right to take part in the process. The Government, I know, are anxious that the by-laws should not apply to pupils who are there quite lawfully during school hours. I should have thought again that this is something which, although unlikely is possible and that the Government would be able to see that the by-laws as drafted would not have any effect on the pupils who were there.

Furthermore, it was suggested that there should be better maintenance of the periphery or the fence around school playgrounds and so on, or patrolling at weekends. Those would be extremely expensive and laborious matters which I honestly think would perhaps have the effect—if properly done—of turning our schools into places like the Colditz concentration camp, which is the last thing that we want in this country.

Concern was also expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, that the voluntary schools should have the right not to take part in the provisions of my amendment. Your Lordships will see that I have suggested that the clause—drafted by the Association of County Councils who feel very strongly about this—preserves the right of voluntary school governors to opt out or rather to opt into the process should they find it necessary.

There is an important principle here and although I mentioned it at the Committee stage, I feel that I must mention it again. It surely is very important that we should do everything we possibly can to encourage the use of school premises for purposes other than simply education—for example, for evening classes; and playgrounds can also be used for many purposes. There are thousands of uses. In some cases they are the only decent open spaces in urban areas and I am sure that we would all want to see them used in the maximum possible way. However, unless authorities have some power which they feel they could exercise if things became out of hand, I am quite certain that the result will be that they will find it very difficult and be very reluctant to open up school premises as much as they can and should, and would want to. I believe that the power to exercise by-laws—and like any other deterrent one hopes that it will be used sparingly if at all—is something which I feel most strongly on behalf of education authorities, we could write into this Bill with no harm to the general provisions. I am not a lawyer, but I am quite certain that the existing system is not good enough and on that point I am assured.

I should mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has an amendment down—Amendment No. 179—dealing with the same matter. It is a somewhat similar amendment and it may be that it would be simpler to deal with the two amendments together. My own view is that my amendment is better than that of the noble Baroness, but that is something with which she may not agree. It may possibly be thought that the noble Baroness is going a little more savagely into the question. However, I very much hope that, in principle, the noble Baroness will support what I am trying to do in the interests of getting school playgrounds open to as many members of the public for as many possible occasions as we can. I beg to move.

Lord Evans of Claughton

My Lords, I should like to say how much once again I warmly support the amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I am not as sanguine as the Government in taking the view that we have at present under existing law remedies against people who abuse the facilities of education premises. I think that the only action that could be taken with any reasonable hope of success would be an action in civil trespass. If one cannot prove more than fairly substantial damage it is a long drawn-out and wasted occupation. I do not believe that the Criminal Damage Act would be effective to deal with the generality of damage that the noble Viscount's amendment seeks to cure—damage by dogs and so on.

I would like to underline once again—and I think that anyone who is involved in local education authorities would agree with this—that the use of schools not only on a nine to four basis but as community centres and recreation centres, is absolutely essential, particularly in the present state of our economy and with the size of our unemployment problem. I hope that the noble Lord, the Minister, will treat this amendment with more sympathy than he did when it was moved at the Committee stage. I very strongly support the amendment.

Lord Elton

My Lords, my noble friend finds me in something of a difficult position. I am very ready indeed to join with my noble friend, Lord Belstead, in the sympathy which he expressed with the intention behind this clause when it was moved by my noble friend during the Committee stage. However, I am bound to say that the Government are not yet convinced, any more than they were in March, that the amendment is necessary.

That is not to say that the Government are not open to persuasion. But as far as I can see it, the ball for the moment is clearly in the court of the local authority associations. I understand that both my own department and the Department of Education and Science wrote to the associations soon after the debate on the Committee stage to say that the Government are prepared to discuss the case for a by-law-making power in relation to educational premises. If they are convinced of the need, they will be ready then to consider the possibility of legislation. But it would have to be on a future occasion for, as the Department of Education and Science made it clear, they would need to consult representatives bodies over the safeguarding of the position of voluntary school governors; and it really would not be possible to settle a clause for inclusion in the Bill.

At the same time the Association of County Councils wrote to the Department of Education and Science to say that they would like to arrange a meeting before Report stage between the association, the department and the voluntary bodies. But, unfortunately, they did not follow up this suggestion and nor have they yet responded to the invitation from the department to set out their written case for arguing that there is an exceptional general need for the powers which this clause would establish.

I really am aware of the desirability of the greater use of schools and of school facilities, particularly in certain areas where they are almost the only facilities available to a community. But what my noble friend proposes embarks on a fairly technical process which could not be conducted without a process of consultation and I am given to understand that it is not now possible to complete that process in time for the Bill. We shall, of course, be only too ready to consider it when the offer is available.

Baroness David

My Lords, I find myself in rather a difficult position because, as the noble Viscount said, I have an amendment on slightly different lines but aiming at the same good purpose, and I thought that perhaps I had better wait and hear the Government's reception of the noble Viscount's amendment, before I spoke. Would it be acceptable if I speak to my amendment now so that the two can be discussed together?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I am in the difficulty that I have fired the one shot that I am allowed at Report stage.

Baroness David

My Lords, in that case I think that I had better wait to move my Amendment No. 179 at the correct time. All I shall say at this moment is that I shall support the noble Viscount's amendment if he chooses to press it. I do not know why the associations have not taken advantage of the offer of talks, but it is quite clear from the fact that the various associations feel strongly about this and want to press it again that they have problems and do not think that the present arrangements cover them. Of course, I think we are all in total agreement that we want the schools used.

Lord Elton

My Lords, if the noble Baroness will permit me, I am reminded that, with the leave of the House, the Minister may speak more than once. If the noble Baroness wishes to bring forward her amendment now, I shall try to put forward my side to her argument at the same stage.

Baroness David

My Lords, as it is all on one subject, perhaps it would be just as well. My amendment is Amendment No. 179, on page 39 of the Marshalled List. This amendment, which comes from different local authority associations, is taken from the Barnsley Corporation Act 1981, but it is also to be found in the Tyne and Wear Act 1980, the Isle of Wight Act 1980, the Humberside Act 1982 and the County of Kent Act 1981, again proving that different authorities in different parts of the country, both urban and otherwise, have felt the need to take some action, and the Government have accepted the action that was taken in those Acts.

Besides that, the London Boroughs Association has requested the Greater London Council to include in the next Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill for the next Session of Parliament a similar provision. So, as I say, it is demonstrated that a great many authorities think that something needs to be done about this.

The amendment seeks to strengthen the controls of local education authorities over trespass, vandalism and misuse of school and college premises, which are maintained in whole or in part by the local education authorities. It also seeks to ensure that persons legitimately using such premises are not subjected to disturbance or annoyance arising from the misuse by others.

Several of the authorities referred to have sought to deal with the problem by making by-laws for the good rule and government of their areas under the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1972. In all cases the by-laws have been approved by the Home Secretary and follow a Home Office model. In all of these cases the by-laws have proved to be totally ineffective and have led the authorities concerned to seek and obtain powers along the lines of this amendment. The need for stronger controls stems from the following: first, the high level of vandalism which is rife on school and college premises, including outdoor playing areas; secondly, the disturbance and annoyance caused to day and evening classes from anti-social behaviour; thirdly, the difficulty with which head teachers, staff and caretakers are placed in trying to prevent unauthorised persons from being on premises; fourthly, the lack of powers of the police to deal with such persons on private property; fifthly, the considerable amount of money incurred by local education authorities on repairs to premises and equipment which have been vandalised or have otherwise suffered damage.

The amendment simply makes it an offence to remain on premises to which it applies after being requested to leave, or, without lawful authority, to be on such premises within one month after being so requested. The period of one month is purely an arbitrary one, but it is essential to specify a time, otherwise the situation could arise where a person leaves premises on being asked to do so but returns later the same day, or, say, the next day, and no offence is then committed. It also provides—and this is most important—that a person committing such an offence may be removed from the premises by a police constable or an authorised employee of the local education authority. The concept of a criminal offence of trespass and a power to remove offenders is not of itself particularly innovative—the principle was established in relation to resi- dential premises by the Criminal Law Act 1977 which followed the recommendations of the Law Commission.

The amendment represents a significant improvement on the by-laws which have been used by some London boroughs and by the authorities who now have local Act powers, in that there is under the amendment a clear power of removal vested in either the police or the local education authorities' appointed representatives. There have been frequent occasions when the police have been called out on occasions by teaching staff and caretakers to assist them in dealing with unruly behaviour on their premises. As trespass is actionable at civil law, the police have been reluctant to intervene where there is no clear breach of the peace.

Information received from the Barnsley Metropolitan District Council shows that since the Barnsley Corporation Act came into force almost a year ago there has been a marked drop in the number of instances of vandalism and trespass on school premises. To that extent Barnsley are well pleased with the Act. Other authorities possessing this power under local Acts have also been contacted, and while for some it is too early to come to any firm conclusions, the general impression is very favourable.

Finally, there is one technical matter to which attention must be drawn. Ministers may be concerned that the scope of the amendment is too wide in that it is also applied to voluntary schools. It is important to note, however, that by subsection (2) the provision could only be enforced as respects a voluntary school following the written approval of the governors of that school.

I should just like to add that this morning I have received a letter from the Association of County Councils saying that they do not mind all that much which amendment is accepted, but they very much hope that one will be. I beg to move.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not think that the noble Baroness can move it just yet because we have not reached that part of the Bill, though it is agreeable to see her enthusiasm in this cause, with which I have some sympathy. But I am not really certain that there is an exceptional general need to establish a criminal offence of trespass on educational premises in particular in addition to the general civil remedy of trespass which already exists.

It seems very doubtful whether the converting of a civil offence into a criminal offence would, in practice, be any more effective in deterring or in securing the removal of the trespassers. The Government also have a concern to ensure that any provision of the kind proposed should safeguard the right of the governors to control over the use of premises of a voluntary school, and the noble Baroness did say, in speaking to her amendment, that this would be something which they could precipitate by letter, as it were, or not, as they choose. But the law as drafted refers in subsection (2) to the governors of a voluntary school, and the Department of Education and Science is not satisfied that the reference provides an adequate safeguard.

I do not think that I need detain your Lordships as to the differences between voluntary, aided and controlled schools. The noble Baroness has just confirmed that, in fact, the clause has some sort of a fair wind from the local authorities. I really cannot take that at secondhand as a sufficient imprimatur of their approval. I could not advise your Lordships in the present state of my knowledge to begin to accept either of these two amendments. If I am overtaken by events and by the various local authority associations and interested parties between now and Third Reading, then, of course, that would change my answer later on. In the meantime, the best I can do is to suggest that if the case is made out and can be particularised in a rather longer timescale, if we felt legislation was needed, we would consider very carefully how we could bring it in.

In view of the fact that the Government themselves have not been in discussion with the people principally affected by this amendment—and I understand that it is not for want of trying—I hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady David, will not think that at this stage they should press their amendments.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, is he saying that under some future legislation he would consider something of this kind?

Lord Elton

My Lords, yes. If it appears in discussion with the people principally concerned and if the Government are convinced—as they are not now—that the use of a criminal procedure would bring about the results which my noble friend wants, and if they can be satisfied that this can be done with adequate protection of the rights and interests of the governors of voluntary schools, then, of course, we should be very happy to do so. It depends on the Government being convinced on those two matters, of which the latter may take a little longer than the former, which is why I do not want to give an undertaking at this stage to do anything at a later stage of this Bill, though, of course, if that proved possible, I should be happy to do so.

Baroness David

My Lords, I had understood that it was on offer to do something at Third Reading. Is that definitely off, or is it still a possibility if the associations get a move on?

Baroness Platt of Writtle

My Lords, I know that the Association of County Councils is particularly anxious about this and I hope it will be possible to do something before Third Reading.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not want to commit myself to doing something half-baked on Third Reading. Legislation is always a technical matter and very finicky to work out. It must be worked out in consultation with the people whom it affects, and that includes my noble friend's friends as well as the friends of the noble Baroness, Lady David. We have the best intentions, if we are persuaded as a result of these conversations that something should be done, to do it as soon as we can, but I cannot undertake, with the present pressures on parliamentary time, that the time between now and Third Reading will suffice to do this. If that is the case, we shall have to find a later opportunity. That is the fourth time I have sat down. I think I cannot rise again.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, I shall withdraw this amendment, but I shall almost certainly put it down at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 [General provisions relating to byelaws]:

5.41 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 107: Page 12, line 38, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) Notwithstanding anything in section 298 of the Public Health Act 1936 or section 253 of the Public Health Act 1875 or any other enactment, a constable may take proceedings in respect of an offence against a byelaw made by a relevant local authority under any enactment without the consent of the Attorney General. (1A) In subsection (1) above "relevant local authority" means—

1. (a) a local authority, as defined in section 270 of the Local Government Act 1972; and
2. (b) any body that was the predecessor of a local authority as so defined").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 107 I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139. These are drafting amendments. They make it clear that the consent of the Attorney General in any form, written or oral, is no longer necessary for the police to prosecute those who have contravened local authority by-laws, Section 8 of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 on Sections 171 or 174 of the Highways Act 1980. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 13 [Application of Part VIII]:

Lord Elton moved Amendments Nos. 108 to 110: Page 13, line 38, leave out ("and 16") and insert (", 16 and 17"). Page 13, line 39, leave out ("and 16") and insert ("to 17"). Page 13, line 40, leave out ("16") and insert ("17").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I shall deal with Amendments Nos. 108, 109 and 110 together. What is now Clause 17 of the Bill was introduced at Report stage in another place and confers powers of entry, subject to specified conditions, on authorised officers of a local authority to enter premises registered under Clauses 14 and 15. Local authorities are enabled by this Part of the Bill to take powes to register acupuncturists and tattooists, ear piercers and electrolysists and their premises by passing resolutions and otherwise complying with Clause 13. Such resolutions bring Clause 16, dealing with offences, into effect, but because of a drafting omission, they fail to bring Clause 17 into effect. This amendment seeks to rectify this omission. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 14 [Acupuncture]:

Lord Airedale moved Amendment No. 110A: Page 15, line 34, after ("dentist") insert ("or a person who is a member of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I heard the Minister refer to acupuncture just now. I had not appreciated that those three amendments bore upon acupuncture under Clause 14. I hope it does not affect what I am about to say. If it does, I hope that the Minister will intervene and tell me so. Clause 14 deals with acupuncture. It is permissive in the sense that local authorities need not adopt it unless they wish to, but if they do adopt it it becomes mandatory upon them. If anybody wishes to be registered as an acupuncturist and he produces the necessary fee he has to be put on the register. There is no doubt about that. Subsection 3 says: a local authority shall register the applicant … and shall issue to the applicant a certificate of registration".

To take a rather grotesque example, if a chimney sweep applied to be put on the acupuncture register and produced the proper fee, the local authority would have to put him on the register. That is not quite such a Gilbertian situation as one might suppose because there is one other matter, and one only, with which in this connection the local authority are concerned, and that is the question of hygiene and cleanliness. Subsection (7) says: A local authority may make byelaws for the purpose of securing— (a) the cleanliness of premises … the cleanliness of persons … the cleansing … of instruments…". It is at that hurdle, I suppose, that the chimney sweep might fall.

However, the subsection does not in any way require the local authority to try to judge the competence of people to perform acupuncture. The philosophy behind the clause seems to be that acupuncture is not a dangerous practice provided that proper hygiene and cleanliness are observed. One can see, therefore, why doctors and dentists are exempt from registration under subsection (8), because it would be really an insult for the local authority to go round visiting doctors and dentists to see whether they were observing the by-laws about cleanliness and hygiene.

If doctors and dentists can be exempt, surely the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy can fall within the same category. They belong to one of the professions supplementary to medicine which are recognised by statute. They are an officially recognised body. You do not become a chartered physiotherapist unless your society is satisfied that you understand and observe proper standards of cleanliness. So that if these chartered physiotherapists are going to have to register, nothing is going to be achieved at all. The local authority may come round if they like under their by-laws to see whether the premises and the instruments are being kept properly clean. I should not think the local authority would think it necessary to bother, but if they do, finding a chartered physiotherapist, they will find that the premises are clean and everything is satisfactory. Therefore, nothing is going to be achieved by not giving the same exemption to them as to the doctors and dentists. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept that the chartered physiotherapists deserve to be exempt along with the doctors and the dentists. I beg to move.

Lord Wells-Pestell

My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said. If one has had any experience at all of professions supplementary to medicine, as the physiotherapists are, it seems quite illogical, if I may use that word, and quite without sense that they should be excluded. There is perhaps no other organisation which is a profession supplementary to medicine that has (shall I say?) perhaps the same kind of standing—I am likely to cause a little trouble here—as the physiotherapists. When you have a highly trained body like the physiotherapists doing the sort of work they are doing in our hospitals, where they are quite conversant with the need, as doctors and dentists are, to have absolute cleanliness, I can see no reason why they should not be exempt in the same way as doctors and dentists.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I wish I could be more accommodating. My noble friend Lord Belstead explained the Government's objections to extending the exemptions from Clause 14 when a similar amendment was considered at the Committee stage, moved by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale. The present amendment is narrower in scope in that it would exempt only physiotherapists who are members of the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy, and does not refer to members of the other professions supplementary to medicine.

I wish to stress that there is nothing in the Bill that would restrict physiotherapists in practising physiotherapy; it is only if they practise acupuncture that they come within its scope. Acupuncture now has an accepted place in medical practice and as a form of anaesthesia in dentistry, and that is acknowledged in the exemption of doctors and dentists from the provisions of Clause 14. But it has no recognised place, I understand, in the training of physiotherapists. We have discussed the clause with the acupuncturists professional bodies and they broadly support it as a means of ensuring hygienic practice and preventing infection. They also accept that there should be exemption for doctors and dentists. But acupuncture is integral to medical and dental practice, but it is not integral to physiotherapy. That is not to say anything against the high standing—I share the regard which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has for the profession of physiotherapy; how, having come so recently from the Department of Health, could I do otherwise? (and nothing derogatory is intended by what we proposed)—of reputable acupuncturists, who would have some reason to feel slighted if the members of another profession who do not necessarily have any special expertise in the practice of acupuncture were to be exempted from registration. In view of all that, I hope the noble Lord will accept that, while we have the highest regard for physiotherapist, he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Lord Airedale

My Lords, I am sorry to say that we have again a very unsatisfactory situation. In Committee, on a similar amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, on the one hand and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and I on the other, never really got on to the same wave length; we were never talking on the same point, and the same thing has happened today. What the Minister does not face up to is that whether or not he thinks it is good that a physiotherapist should practise acupuncture, the clause cannot prevent a physiotherapist from performing acupuncture. He must be registered if he applies, and the only question which arises is whether he is clean in his person, whether he has clean premises and whether he keeps his instruments clean. That is all the local authority can do about it, and as the answer to those three questions is, Yes, in the case of every chartered physiotherapist one has ever heard of, nothing will be achieved by making the person apply for registration. That is where we fail to come together to face up to the same point. Clearly, there is no point in pursuing the matter today. Perhaps we shall be able to discuss it before, and achieve something on, Third Reading, but meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 [Tattooing, ear-piercing and electrolysis]:

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 111: Page 15, line 40, leave out ("or").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a repeat of an amendment which I moved in Committee. It is designed to bring ultra-violet tanning under the same heading and protection as acupuncture, tattooing, ear-piercing and so on. I raise the matter because the amount of skin tanning has increased enormously in recent years. Whereas more people have been getting the benefit of the sun in the Mediterranean and other places, many people now want to become tanned before going on holiday, rather than looking somewhat white on arrival. Or, if people are not going abroad, they use the tanning processes, as it were, to have a holiday at home but reproduce the effects of the sun. There has, therefore, been a large increase in this sort of activity.

Problems are attached to it, however, because it can be dangerous if not properly supervised. For example, it can affect the skin, particularly if individuals are not treated in accordance to their particular needs, or they can suffer quite severe burning. There is, therefore, need for skilled supervision and steps to make sure that the beds or couches on which people lie to undertake the tanning process are clean and hygienic. To be tanned, one must be virtually undressed, so one's skin is in contact with the furniture or towels or sheets, over which there should be some control. When I moved a similar amendment in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, told me: The information I have is that the Health and Safety Executive have made an approach to the local authority organisations as to whether some form of registration would be useful so far as ultraviolet tanning is concerned and they hope to have discussions on the matter ".—(Official Report, 15/3/82; col. 505.) I understand that a meeting has taken place between the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and the Health and Safety Executive, who have no objection to the amendment. I also understand that of the group of operations contemplated in Part VIII of the Bill, which we are discussing, acupuncture and ultraviolet tanning are considered the most important. Although there is an HSE guidance note on the matter, we believe it is insufficient in itself and that by-laws are needed, because only then will local authority inspectors have a legal basis on which to inspect the premises and equipment. Indeed, that should also set the scene for the basic expectations of the community, and it would fit nicely into this part of the Bill.

In Committee I did not receive a complete turndown because I understood the Minister's reply to mean that much would depend on what arrangements the HSE and local authorities came to. They should be given powers to register premises used commercially for this purpose, with by-laws for the control of these business operations, especially now that we know, which we did not in Committee, that the HSE do not object. To leave this subject out of the Bill at this stage could he a mistake because we might find later that we should have taken action on it when the Bill was going through Parliament. We do not have Bills of this type very often—one might say, "Thank goodness"—and it would be a pity to have to wait several years before being able to legislate on a subject which we should be tackling now. I hope therefore that the Minister will give me an extremely sympathetic reply.

Lord Elton

I am always sympathetic to the noble Baroness, my Lords, but of course that never influences my judgment. On the previous amendment we were discussing a process involving the puncturing of the skin, where hygienic standards were of critical importance because of the danger of introducing infection subcutaneously. The hazards in sun-tanning are quite different and in many ways less dramatic, although I know stories of people who have suffered from the improper use of sun lamps, perhaps falling asleep underneath them for an excessive length of time.

As the noble Baroness is aware, there are consultations between the Health and Safety Executive, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the local authority associations about possible guidelines for controlling sun-tanning parlours and similar premises. Guidelines are extraordinarily difficult things to work out; it is a complex subject, and the work will take some time to complete. However, there is provision for guidelines to be provided under the Health and Safety at Work Act, and I can reassure the noble Baroness of our commitment as a Government to seeking adequate standards of safety in this field. I hope that what she wants me to do this afternoon is to reassure her under that head. I do not think that it is necessary to have legislation for this matter; it is necessary to have enthusiasm. That already exists, and I hope that in the knowledge of it the noble Baroness will feel it not necessary to press the amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I should like to ask the Minister something before he sits down. He said in his reply that the Department of Health, together with the Health and Safety Executive, are going to work out the guidelines. He also said—if I heard him correctly—that it is quite difficult to get that right; and obviously I can disagree with none of that. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be very much simpler to give local authorities power in this Bill to make by-laws, so that premises would be registered, rather than try to work out guidelines. I agree with the noble Lord that finding the right guidelines is a very complicated operation. What I have in mind is more direct and simpler, and would give great opportunities for controls. I fail to see why the more difficult path of the guidelines should be preferred to the much simpler and more direct path of dealing with the problem as I have proposed.

Lord Elton

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that I do not think it is more simple or more direct, because all one is doing is deferring the solution of the problem from one central organisation, which I have described, to all authorities which would be entitled to make by-laws. They would have to create their own guidelines or criteria in order to implement their by-laws or licensing system. It might be that uniformity is not necessary in this matter, but it is at least desirable, and to do what the amendment proposes would simply be to multiply the work.

I can do no more than assure the noble Baroness that we are aware of the dangers inherent in the improper use of sun-tanning equipment and the desirability of limiting and stopping that. We believe that this is best done in consultation with the bodies that I have described. We intend to pursue that, and as the noble Baroness is aware, we are pursuing it with some vigour. I do not doubt that she will prod me on the matter in the future if ever she fears that our enthusiasm is lapsing. My sympathy is still there, though the noble Baroness might think that it is wearing a little thin; it is not. We wish for the same thing, but I do not think that she is choosing the right way to get it.

Lord Molloy

My Lords, what the Minister has just said seems quite reasonable, but it has about it a touch of hit or miss, which seems to be part and parcel of the Government's legislation. Would it not be better for safety's sake to accept the amendment? There would be no great loss of face if it were accepted. People want to know what exactly registration means. What is involved'? What are the real safeguards of registration with the local authority? For someone simply to say that he is registered is not enough for ordinary folk who do not clearly understand the wording of Acts of Parliament. I suppose that some of us in your Lordships' House do not precisely know the meanings of some of the words to which we agree.

Perhaps at this stage the noble Lord the Minister will reconsider his first reply, and accept the reasoned proposal from my noble friend on the Front Bench. Perhaps he will also take the opportunity to outline, very briefly, in ordinary language, which ordinary folk can understand, the advantages of registration of the activities with the local authority, and say what benefits there are for the general public—which is the whole idea behind this legislation.

Lord Elton

My Lords, I have intervened twice in this debate, which is testing the patience of your Lordships, and since the idea of registration is not mine, but that of the noble Baroness, I think that it would be for her to reply to the question.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Molloy for his support, and I am sorry that the Minister was not persuaded by me and has not been persuaded by my noble friend. This is not a matter on which I feel I should divide the House at this stage, even though I consider that the position is unsatisfactory. I feel that after fashions or fads have been popular for a while it takes an awfully long time for Government departments to catch up. This is really the problem. After a while the activity might become old-fashioned or might lead to accidents or problems, and someone says, "Why didn't we do something about it?".

Sometimes it is a good thing to be slightly ahead of the game—I am not back on Schedule 3—especially if local authorities are given the adoptive right to introduce by-laws, and bearing in mind, as I said—and the Minister did not deny it—that the Health and Safety Executive has no reservations about local authorities taking this on. I can only imagine that it is the department that is unfortunately being extremely sticky, and I think that Ministers should prod their departments when this kind of thing happens. However there is nothing that I can do at the moment, except reluctantly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]

Clause 19 [Registration of hawkers of food and premises]:

6.6 p.m.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 113: Page 19, line 32, at end insert— ("(1A) For the purposes of this section a person hawks food if for private gain—

1. (a) he goes from place to place selling food or offering or exposing food for sale; or
2. (b) he sells food in the open air or offers or exposes food for sale in the open air,

unless he does so as part of, or as an activity ancillary to, a trade or business carried on by him or some other person on identifiable property.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should like, if I may, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 114. Subsection (10), as printed, was introduced during the Committee hearing in this House for the purpose of describing as plainly and accurately as possible the type of food trading which is subject to Clause 19. Though I realise that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, at that time indicated her dislike for the new terms "hawk food" and "food hawking" they are, in the Government's view, the most appropriate and concise descriptions available for the class of food trading which need to be identified through the registration requirements in Clause 19. I hope that the noble Baroness will not again seek fruitlessly to drive a wedge between myself and my department on this issue. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

No, my Lords; on the contrary, I welcome the clarification. I shall be able to show this section of the Bill, when it becomes law, to my grandchildren, and say, "Look, this explanation of what is meant by a person who hawks food was what your grandmother managed to get on to the statute book". I am perfectly happy with it; it was just that earlier the matter was left rather in the air. The phrase is rather unwieldy, but since this is not an exercise in literature I think that we have to leave it at that. But I do welcome the clarification.

Lord Underhill

My Lords, I should like to raise an issue here. I must apologise to the Minister, since perhaps I should have raised it at the Committee stage, but now that the amendment is before us I have the chance to raise it. I should like an improved definition of what is: an activity ancillary to a trade or business carried on … by some other person …". I enjoy going to watch football matches, when I get time. At football matches one sees a van depositing perhaps a dozen portable stalls selling hot dogs, which are very smelly, and I do not like them. But many of the stalls are exemplary and they provide a good service. If the council passed a resolution, a person with a stall would have to register. But let us suppose that a person has a cafe and ancillary to that he sends a couple of portable hot-dog stalls to the ground. Presumably under the amendment he would not have to register. That does not seem to be fair and equitable, and I wonder whether the Minister can deal with the point.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, can the Minister also elucidate on the same point as it affects the farming community, who in many parts of the country go around selling produce, such as eggs, potatoes and cabbage, or whatever is in season. Are they a part of, or an activity ancillary to, a trade or business? I feel sure many local housewives, and especially campers during holiday periods, look forward to the farmer or his employee bringing round these fresh farm products, especially those of us who come from the cities and who never see these fresh foods unless we go on holiday. Are they covered, too, by this phrase "activity ancillary to a trade or business"?

Lord Elton

My Lords, I do not think I can give a satisfactory air of conviction to any reply that I give to the noble Lord and the noble Baroness. I hope your Lordships will be content with the amendment. I will write to the noble Lord and to the noble Baroness to elucidate the points they have raised, and, of course, they will be able to come back at me if they are not content.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 114: Page 20, line 19, leave out subsection (10).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 115: Page 20, leave out lines 42 to 44.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 115, and I should tell your Lordships that there is no policy change with this amendment. It has been accepted from the outset that the dairyman who sells on his round other foods as well as milk and cream (if only I could have recalled the existence of this brief a little earlier!) should not have to be registered under Clause 19. Hitherto that has been secured by a specific exemption. Now the explanation of "hawk food" removes him from the scope of the clause because he would always be operating as part of a business carried on in an identifiable property. That seems to me to answer the question which the noble Baroness asked me earlier, but it leaves the noble Lord in some doubt as to the outcome and I shall write to him. I beg to move.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, did I understand correctly from what the noble Lord has just said that those of us who live in the cities, this time, I suppose, will have our milk safeguarded as well as the fruit juice, the potatoes, the bread and everything else that comes round? If that is so and I heard him correctly, I go along with him.

Lord Elton

My Lords, perhaps I should repeat that the only purpose of this amendment is to exempt, as had always been the intention, the dairyman who sells on his round other foods as well as milk and cream. He will not have to be registered under Clause 19. What exactly the noble Baroness meant by protection, I am not certain; but the intention is not to interfere with that, and I think that that is what the noble Baroness would wish to be told.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 116: Page 21, line 30, leave out from beginning to ("notice").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments No. 116 and 117 have the purpose of covering in the definition of "notified temporary market" certain local enactments for regulating temporary markets which, like Clause 32 of this Bill, require advance notice to be given to the local authority. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 117: Page 21, line 32, leave out ("subsection (2) of that section") and insert ("section 32(2) below or any other enactment regulating such markets.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule 5 [Highway Amenities]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 118 to 121: Page 77, line 18, leave out ("and"). Page 77, line 24, at end insert ("and (h) to a local Act walkway."). Page 77, line 25, at end insert— (" "local Act walkway" means a way or place which is declared in pursuance of a local enactment to be a walkway, city walkway or pedestrian way;"). Page 77, line 32, at end insert ("and walkway consent" means—

1. (a) in relation to a walkway as defined in section 32(5) above, the consent—
   1. (i) of any person who is an occupier of the building in which the walkway subsists and to whom subsection (2A) below applies; and
   2. (ii) of the persons whose agreement would be needed for the creation of the walkway if it did not already subsist; and
2. (b) in relation to a local Act walkway, the consent—
   1. (i) of any person who is an owner or occupier of premises adjoining the walkway and to whom subsection (2A) below applies; and
   2. (ii) of the owner of the land on, under or above which the walkway subsists.

(2A) The persons to whom this subsection applies are persons who, in the opinion of a council, are likely to be materially affected—

1. (a) by the exercise of a power which the council may not exercise until they have first obtained walkway consent; or
529
2. (b) by a grant of permission which the council may not grant unless they have first obtained walkway consent.

(2B) In the following provisions of this Part of this Act "walkway" includes both a walkway as defined in section 35(2) above and a local Act walkway. (2C) Any reference in this Part of this Act to a highway to which this Part of this Act applies includes a reference to a local Act walkway which but for this subsection—

1. (a) is not a highway; or
2. (b) is a highway only for certain purposes.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, at the same time as I move Amendment No. 118 I will move Amendments Nos. 119, 120 and 121, and also speak to Amendment No. 132. But perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 118 to 121 together.

The purpose of Amendment No. 119 is to extend the scope of Schedule 5 to walkways created under local Acts. Such walkways—unlike those created in pursuance of Section 35 of the Highways Act 1980, to which the schedule already applies—are not necessarily situated over, through or under buildings, or structures attached to buildings, and are not necessarily highways. It is considered desirable that the schedule should apply also to such walkways. Amendment No. 118 is consequential. Amendment No. 120 defines "local Act walkway" for the purpose of Amendment No. 119.

Amendment No. 121 is designed partly to improve the drafting of the schedule by transferring the definition of "walkway consent" from the new Section 115G to 115A(2), where it more suitably belongs; and partly to provide that the reference to "walkway consent" shall now also relate to local Act walkways as well as those walkways defined in Section 35(2) of the 1980 Act. The slight differences in the meaning of "walkway consent", as it applies to the two kinds of walkway, reflect the somewhat different nature of the two creatures, to which I have just referred. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 118 to 121 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

6.16 p.m.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 122: Page 77, line 42, leave out subsection (4).

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to a consideration of the meat of Schedule 5; and in speaking to Amendment No. 122 I should like to speak also to Nos. 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129 and 135. I think that in a Bill as complex and demanding as this it is perhaps not surprising that some areas have not been as closely scrutinised as they might have been, and one such area is certainly Schedule 5 to this Bill. I wrote to the Minister, Lord Bellwin, about this, and he sent me quite a long letter in reply, for which I am grateful. Indeed, there are some Government amendments down to this schedule, as he told me there would be, but in our view they do not really go quite far enough.

This schedule has been the subject of very close scrutiny by the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, and what they have discovered causes great concern and anxiety. The drafting, I think, is open to criticism; and already we have had one amendment, No. 97, which had to be moved because there was duplication. Some of the points which were covered in Schedule 5 would have had to be covered twice, in Schedule 4 and Schedule 5, but Amendment No. 97 did away with that. So I think it is fair to say that the drafting has perhaps not been of the best.

It is worth emphasising that this schedule deals with what are relatively minor matters relating to the creation of amenities on footways and other pedestrian areas, but the complications for the local authorities are great. What are the Government proposing? They are proposing that in any case where the amenity generates income—this is about putting various amenities (it might even be a bus shelter or advertisements) on pavements or walkways—then it will be subject to a right of veto by any frontager who is affected.

A lot of amenities generate income. Even the triangular adverts on parking meters or the advertisements at the end of bus shelters generate income. In none of those cases is a profit likely to be generated. The Government propose that where such applications are made to the local authority or by the local authority the consent of the frontager will be necessary. That frontager will be given the power of veto. He can exercise this power simply by not replying to the local authority letter. Moreover, I see from Notes on Clauses that he will be able to demand payment for granting this consent. This seems a totally unnecessary tortuous and expensive procedure which will introduce uncertainty in the planning and provision of local amenities.

I would remind the House that this schedule has been brought forward because there are already 14 local Acts which provide such controls. All of these Acts rely on consultation and the requirement that local authorities should take comments into account. There have been no problems of any sort in the exercise of what are very recent powers approved by this Government, and really there has hardly been any time to test them out. But, clearly, there are some differences of detail between the local Acts and this schedule. These differences are not fundamental, yet in the letter to me the Minister has argued that, as Schedule 5 is more comprehensive and the local Acts are different, the power of consent is required. I should like the Minister to tell me exactly what new activities will be authorised under Schedule 5 which are so radically different from matters in local Acts that a whole new power of consent and veto is required.

I am glad that, following detailed discussions between the AMA and Government officials, the Government have come forward with amendments which will remove the absolute power of veto. Unfortunately, instead of reintroducing consultation, they have extended the procedures to add a complex arbitration procedure which would even operate when somebody has not bothered to reply to the local authority. The Government amendments would thus allow an unco-operative or disorganised person to delay matters for a considerable time and force the involvement of professional arbitrators. I fail to see why a person who does not object should be in a position to influence so dramatically the procedures. If the Government had introduced the requirement for arbitration in relation to those who object, then that at least would have been logical although I would still argue it would be unnecessary. The Minister really must explain why the Government are bending over backwards in these circumstances to help people who are not even willing to take part in the procedure.

Under the initial pressure extered by those representing local government the Government have already made fairly dramatic changes to the legislation. I think that Ministers should look carefully at the provisions they have brought before this House. We are absolutely sure that they are foisting upon local government something which will encourage greater bureaucracy, greater expense and further delay—matters which I thought they were seeking to reduce. The whole schedule seems to be taking draconian powers for no great matters. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I came in to ask a couple of questions about this. There is a growing tendency on motorways and even on the edge of mountain bridle paths for adventurous gentlemen or adventurous women to sell daffodils, flower pots and even fruit and vegetables. There is this growing tendency throughout the country, to be seen particularly if people motor along any of the big motorways and their branches. Do they have to apply to the councils for this permission or, by the scheduled year, can the council bring these schedules into force to prevent these enterprising people from selling on the laybys and other parts of the country, fruit, vegetables and amenities, and even providing snack bars—which are very useful in certain parts of the country. Sometimes a caravan is fitted up by an enterprising person. I would be interested to get the position straightened out.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness did not feel that we had gone far enough in this amendment. She said that Schedule 5 was perhaps cumbersome and unworkable. We do not think so. We believe that Schedule 5 is a more comprehensive provision than is to be found in local legislation, covering the permitting of things which are not even covered by local Acts on wider classes of highways. Moreover, local Acts would appear to be unworkable with the repeal of Section 213 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 which was included in this Bill from the outset. I would remind the noble Baroness that it was the local authorities, through their associations, which pressed the Government originally to legislate on this matter.

This group of amendments is concerned primarily with the deleting of provisions requiring councils to obtain frontagers' or walkway consent in certain circumstances. Such provisions are designed to protect members of the community from having commercial or other possibly nuisance-creating amenities placed outside their homes or premises without their consent. It would, in the Government's view, be inequitable to allow councils to proceed differently; and to the extent that local Acts do not contain such provisions, it is our view that they are deficient, even though they may have only recently come into force.

On the other hand, the above consideration is not of equal importance in all circumstances, and it would naturally make Schedule 5 unworkable if the consent provisions were so extensive as to cover persons other than those living immediately nearby. Clause 115A(4) therefore has the effect of narrowly limiting "frontages" to the persons owning or occupying premises directly next to the amenity on the particular side of the highway where the amenity is proposed to lie. Moreover, the circumstances in which the consent of such narrowly defined persons is needed are limited. For example, the consent provisions do not apply where a council themselves provide amenities or footbridges, subways or pedestrianised highways, because the nature of these highways, and the precedent set by Section 213 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, does not suggest that adjoining owners or occupiers will be adversely affected. Nor is consent necessary where a council themselves provide amenities (other than income-producing amenities, advice centres, or information bureaux) on other highways (except walkways) to which Schedule 5 applies.

Where a council proposes to permit a private individual to provide or operate an income-producing amenity, advice centre or information bureaux, there will be a greater need to protect frontagers (as defined in the schedule). For example, private individuals will not be restricted in the kind of business activities for which they will be able to apply to a council, and they will no doubt be quite prepared to set up in competition with other businesses. Consequently, the consent provisions apply to all these major-impact amenities on all highways where a private individual is involved.

The consent provisions will, of course, present no problem where a private applicant is both the owner and occupier of the premises outside which he proposes to place an amenity, for example, a street café in the continental style. Walkway consent is concerned with the providing of amenities on rather specialised footpaths in private buildings. Subject as such ways will be to agreements between the building owner and his tenants, it would clearly be inappropriate to allow amenities to be provided without consent of this kind.

As the noble Baroness will be aware, in the Government-supported Amendment No. 136, it is envisaged that reasonable sums may be demanded for consent. In perhaps the majority of instances, a frontager will also be the owner of the subsoil over which a proposed amenity would be sited. To the extent that the frontager can make use of, or profit by, the land subject to the highway for which it has been dedicated, he is entitled to do so. This principle can be found elsewhere in highway law, as evidenced by Section 181 of the Highways Act 1980. As to frontagers who are not subsoil owners, it seemed right that, to the extent that they may he inconvenienced or annoyed by the major-impact amenities, they should also be able to charge. Otherwise, their consent might never be forthcoming. This amendment, which has yet to be taken, also introduces an arbitration procedure to cover the unreasonable withholding of consent and failure to reply. The production of income was brought up in the discussion, which requires consent. That does not include advertisements. Bus shelters are not highway amenities. They are provided for under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1953.

Regarding the question of Lord Davies of Leek, to the extent that selling activities involve objects or structures on highways, they will be unlawful obstructions. Schedule 5 enables highway amenities on the restricted clauses of highways, but not on motorways. He reminds me of a story during the war when we missed all our daffodils one day and when we drove out of the front gate, there was someone selling them to us. I thought that was a good double point.

I hope that I have persuaded the noble Baroness that we have taken considerable trouble with these clauses. I trust that the House will accept that the consent provisions have been well thought out and that taken together with later amendments—which seek to take account of some of the fears of councils—they strike a fair and reasonable balance between the interests of the individual and the public at large. I shall certainly read with care what the noble Baroness has said, and I hope, equally, she will do me that honour.

Baroness David

My Lords, that answer needs a good deal of study. There was a lot in it. I am not at all sure that I shall be satisfied with it when I have studied it. It is something T cannot take in at once. I still feel very uneasy about this schedule. I must study the reply and possibly come back at Third Reading. This was a part of the Bill which was not thoroughly gone into at Committee. It deserves further study. For the moment, I shall withdraw the amendment, but warn that I shall probably be back.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 123 to 129 not moved.]

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 130 and 131: Page 81, line 6, leave out ("and (3)") and insert ("to (4)"). Page 81, line 32, at end insert— ("(4) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the right of a council to require an indemnity against any claim in respect of injury, damage or loss arising out of the grant of the permission; but this subsection is not to be taken as requiring any person to indemnify a council against any claim in respect of injury, damage or loss which is attributable to the negligence of the council.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these amendments insert a new subsection in Clause 115F of Schedule 5. The new subsection enables councils to require indemnities against certain claims for injury, loss or damage arising out of grants of permission for the provision or use of highway amenities which otherwise may have been unobtainable because of the restriction of the charges that councils are able to seek by virtue of this clause. The subsection does not enable the requiring of indemnities where injury, loss or damage is due to the negligence of councils.

This new subsection does not extend to enabling the payment of the costs incurred by a council in undertaking the alteration or removal of certain amenities. It is envisaged that councils will make grants of permission in relation to all highway amenities subject to conditions relating to alteration, removal et cetera, and to the extent that private individuals do not observe such conditions, it will be open to councils to use Clause 115K and Section 305(5) of the Highways Act 1980 to enforce and recover costs incurred by them in securing that the conditions are observed. I beg to move the amendments.

Baroness David

My Lords, we find these amendments acceptable.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, have I got this right? Indemnification is not as easy as all that. In Singapore I was outside an orange stall—noble Lords will know all the marvellous things they sell—when the entire fabric fell on my head and knocked me out for about five minutes.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, he is speaking a second time on Report, I think.

Lord Davies of Leek

Not at all. The noble Lord has misunderstood the very amendment. My Lords, in Singapore, I received nothing. But what if that happened to me in one of these erections that the council allowed in Britain? Suppose I was shopping and suddenly the shop fabric fell on top of my head and stunned me? According to this, I would not be able to make any claim against the local authority. What is the position of somebody shopping and there is a problem with some structure to which the council have agreed, although a private enterprise individual has put it up? This needs clarification.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I rather lost the noble Lord when he went to Singapore. If I understand him correctly, this is a clause enabling the council to require indemnities. If they have indemnities, obviously the council will be in a position to do what the noble Earl asks.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 132: Page 81, leave out lines 33 to 44.

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 118. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, we were pleased to see on the Marshalled List the name of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, had been put at the top of our amendment. But he is putting this amendment down for very different purposes. We wanted to wipe out lines 33 to 44 because we wanted to get rid of the consent. That is not the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, put his name to our amendment. As I have withdrawn the previous amendment and spoken to it before, I suppose I shall have to let him have it.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 133: Page 82, line 6, leave out ("owner and").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment and almost self-explanatory. When notices have to be served, if one has to find the owner as well as the occupier, it can be either extremely difficult or almost impossible and the delays and work involved are tremendous. The main point is that the notice should be properly served if it is left at the premises addressed to "the occupier". At this stage it is really quite irrelevant whether it is the owner or the occupier. In many cases—probably most—the owner and the occupier will be one and the same person. If not, we felt it more sensible, makes service of notices speedier and saves a lot of time, trouble and expense, if the words "owner and" were deleted and it was just left to the occupier. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, experience has shown that the public often pay little attention to notices posted in streets—hence the need for supplementary provision for notifying materially affected owners and occupiers.

The deletion of the reference to owners is in the Government's view unfortunate. Their interest in a property may be materially affected by the placing outside of it of certain amenities. Councils may, of course, be concerned about the difficulties of tracing owners, but Section 322 of the Highways Act 1980—which relates to the service of notices et cetera—should considerably simplify this task. If the owner's name and address cannot be reasonably obtained, the section provides that the noitice may he addressed to the "owner" and delivered to some responsible person resident or appearing to he resident on the premises or, if there is no such person, affixed to some conspicuous part of the premises. This section is available here, since the clauses in the schedule will form part of the Highways Act 1980. I take the noble Baroness's point regarding the need for both owner and occupier, but, bearing in mind that it does relate to the Highways Act 1980, I wonder whether she would be prepared to leave it as it is.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, there was one point I did not quite follow and it is a point on which 1, and I think the House, would be very grateful to have clarification on. The noble Lord was referring to notices in the street. I was referring to the point of correspondence being addressed to occupier. I do not mind it being addressed to the "owner and occupier", as I gather it is precedented and my noble friend on my left assures me that it is legally more correct to have "owner and occupier". I do not quite follow this business about the street. I do not know whether the noble Earl thought we just wanted to hand out leaflets or something in the street. I wanted to make quite sure that, although it may be addressed to "owner and occupier", one would not have to seek out the owner necessarily but that it could refer to the person who was occupying the premises. I wonder whether the noble Earl would clarify that, because it might save a lot of trouble later.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, if I may speak with the leave of the House, I was really stressing, another point which I do not think the noble Baroness referred to in her original remarks. I was stressing that this is an addition to notices posted in the street, on lampposts. But it is still necessary for the other. However, I hope l have answered her own question at the same time.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, in view of that, as we come back to the original amendment and as this is now part of the law and as long as it works in practice in the way I have described, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 135: Page 82, line 14, at end insert— ("( ) A Council shall take such steps as they think necessary for affording to any organisation appearing to them to represent the interests of persons trading in shop premises which may be affected by the exercise by the Council of any of their powers under this Part of this Act an opportunity to make representations to the Council about any proposal to exercise such powers.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, as this schedule is about putting things on pavements and walkways, this could have quite adverse effects on shopkeepers who might suddenly find stalls and so on put directly in front of their premises. This amendment is really to safeguard the specific interests of traders. I think it is a very fair one and I hope the Minister will accept it. I believe it follows traditions in the local Acts which have been accepted. I beg to move.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the existing procedure in Clause 115H provides for the posting of a notice in the affected highway and for owners and occupiers of materially affected properties to be notified. It would be unduly fastidious to extend this procedure to other organisations who may not be directly affected. Incidentally, it might be rather difficult to distinguish which ones should be subject to such a procedure. Where desirable, such consultations can generally be left to the good sense of councils. In the Government's view, it is for the Bill to specify the essential requirements alone. Otherwise, all sorts of interest groups would be able to lay claim to a place in the Bill. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness might agree that this could he so.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I am not so sure about it. What I was thinking of here is this. Supposing I was running a newsagents' shop and somebody stands outside that shop—they have had permission to set up and are selling newspapers. I have had shopkeepers, when I was a Member of another place, coming to me because they were suffering from what they would call "private competition"—not paying rates or anything else—while the small shopkeeper had very heavy financial burdens to bear. I think it is important to clarify the position. I do not think I am "thick" mentally, but I am not quite sure of the implications of this. Would a person be protected from that kind of piratical competition on his doorstep?

Lord Bruce of Donington

My Lords, I should like to reinforce the point made by my noble friend Lady David. Would the noble Earl not agree that the words of the amendment are such that a council shall take such steps as they think necessary for affording to any organisation "appearing to them …" Are the words "appearing to them" sufficient to cover the noble Lord's point and to prevent other extraneous bodies from taking advantage of the situation? I thought that the point made by my noble friend Lady David was completely reasonable.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I do not feel particularly strongly on this one. If I could first answer the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, about the newspaper shop; for a shop that had frontage, consent would be required if anybody proposed to trade outside that. In my original answer I said that Clause 115(H)provides for the posting of a notice and for owners and occupiers of materially affected properties to be notified.

What the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, says is quite right. In my answer I was saying that, where desirable, such consultations can generally be left to the good sense of councils and we are considering whether or not it is put into the Bill. It is the Government's view that it is for the Bill to specify the essential requirements alone. We are rather nervous that otherwise all sorts of interest groups will be able to lay claim to a place in the Bill.

Baroness David

My Lords, I do not really think that this amendment would allow that, as my noble friend Lord Bruce said. Would the Government be prepared to take this away and think about it? If so, I should be pleased to withdraw it.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I will certainly have a look at what the noble Baroness has said, and see whether it is thought necessary.

Baroness David

My Lords, I am grateful for that and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 136: Page 83, leave out lines 18 to 26 and insert— Consents not to be unreasonably withheld. 115JA.—(1) Consent to which this section applies not to be is not to be unreasonably withheld but may be given unreason-subject to any reasonable conditions. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, it may be reasonable for consent to which this section applies to be given for a specified period of time or subject to the payment of a reasonable sum. (3) Consent is to be treated as unreasonably withheld for the purposes of this section if—

1. (a) the council have served a notice asking for consent on the person whose consent is required; and
2. (b) he fails within 28 days of the service of the notice to give the council notice of his consent or his refusal to give it.

(4) Any question whether consent is unreasonably withheld or is given subject to reasonable conditions shall be referred to and determined by an arbitrator to be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators. (5) If—

1. (a) the arbitrator determines that consent has been unreasonably withheld; but
2. (b) it appears to him that there are conditions subject to which it would be reasonable to give it,

he may direct that it shall be treated as having been given subject to those conditions. (6) If—

1. (a) the arbitrator determines that any condition subject to which consent has been given is unreasonable; but
2. (b) it appears to him that there are conditions subject to which it would have been reasonable to give it,

he may direct that it shall be treated as having been given subject to those conditions. (7) Subject to subsection (8) below, the expenses and remuneration of the arbitrator shall be paid by the council seeking the consent. (8) Where the arbitration concerns the consent of the British Railways Board or the London Transport Executive under section 115J(4) above, the arbitrator may give such directions as he thinks fit as to the payment of his expenses and remuneration. (9) This section applies to consent required under any provision of this Part of this Act except section 115J(1) above.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 136. This amendment inserts into Schedule 5 a new clause providing that the consent of particular third parties, under the schedule to the provision of highway amenities, is not to be unreasonably withheld but may be given subject to reasonable conditions. Where councils consider that consent has been unreasonably withheld, they may have recourse to arbitration. In the event that an arbitrator cannot be agreed, one will be appointed by the president of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, who have kindly agreed to take on the task. I beg to move this amendment and I commend it to your Lordships.

Baroness David

My Lords, it is a slight improvement on what was there before. I do not think it goes far enough, as I said in connection with an earlier amendment, but it is a slight improvement.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 137 not moved.]

Clause 21 [Prosecution for offences relating to works in street]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 138 and 139: Page 22, line 5, leave out ("written"). line 21, leave out ("written").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 with No. 137. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 en bloc.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

6.50 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 140: After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:

("Control of roadside sales.

. The following section shall be inserted after section 147 of the Highways Act 1980—

"Roadside sales. 147A.—(1) Subject to subsection (4) below, no person shall, for the purpose of selling anything, or offering or exposing anything for sale, use any stall or similar structure or any container or vehicle, kept or placed on—

1. (a) the verge of a trunk road or a principal road;
2. (b) a lay-by on any such road; or
3. (c) unenclosed land within 15 metres of any part of any such road,

where its presence or its use for that purpose causes or is likely to cause danger on the road or interrupts or is likely to interrupt any user of the road. (2) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200. (3) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of the offence. (4) This section does not apply—

1. (a) to the sale or offer or exposure for sale of things from or on a vehicle which is used only for the purpose of itinerant trading with the occupiers of premises, or is used only for that purpose and for purposes other than trading;
2. (b) to the sale or offer or exposure for sale of newspapers;
539
3. (c) to anything done at a market in respect of which tolls, stallages or rents are payable; or
4. (d) to the sale or offer or exposure for sale of anything by way of street trading which has been authorised under Schedule 4 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 or under any local enactment which makes provision similar to that made by the Schedule either by the person so authorised or by a person acting as assistant to the person so authorised.".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the Government have accepted that there is a need to strengthen the powers of control over unacceptable roadside trading. The intention of this clause, which the Government agreed to consider after a similar clause was put down by my noble friend Lord Ridley in Committee, is to offer a more effective power to remove snack bars where their presence or use causes, or is likely to cause, danger or interruption to road users.

The clause as now drafted differs in particular respects from the one introduced by my noble friend Lord Ridley. For example, a reference to the "presence" of stalls has been added for the reason that mere presence—as well as use—may cause danger or interrupt the use of the road. The reference to obstruction has been replaced by reference to interruption or likely interruption of road users. It is thought that this substitution better reflects the intention to control roadside sales where they have an adverse effect on road safety. It will now be possible for action to be taken under this clause, as well as Section 7 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, and the maximum penalty for an offence under the clause has been increased to £200. This has been necessary, because the penalty under Section 7 of the 1976 Act for a similar type of offence is due to be increased to £200 when the Criminal Justice Bill is enacted.

Another amendment has been made, because it is not considered to be appropriate that a person should be able to engage in, or permit others to engage in, roadside sales from unenclosed land adjoining the highway in circumstances where road safety is at risk. A defence of due diligence is also included. This will enable a trader to try to show that when he set up his stall he did everything to try to ensure that no danger or interruption, or likely danger or interruption, would result from his activities.

Finally, Part III of this Bill enables district councils to adopt certain powers with regard to street trading, and Schedule 4 sets out what these powers may be. These include the issuing of licences or consents to street traders. In order to fit this clause into the context of the Bill, we have added an exemption in favour of a trader who is conducting his business under authority from a district council pursuant to Schedule 4 or a similar local enactment. My Lords, I beg to move.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, I should like to thank the Government most sincerely for adding this new clause, which is Amendment No. 140. As my noble friend said, I moved an amendment very much to this effect at Committee stage and I must confess that, slightly to my surprise, the Government seem to have accepted it and have actually done what they said they would do. If I may, I should just like to ask my noble friend a question, if I am allowed to ask anything. I felt that the word "obstruct" was better than the word "interrupt". I am sure that it is not worth wasting your Lordships' time over, but the purpose of this new clause is to stop dangerous trading at roadsides and obstruction seems to me better in the circumstances. But it is a matter of the very smallest importance. I repeat that I very much welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle, and I thoroughly support Amendment No. 140.

Baroness Fisher of Rednal

My Lords, I should like to join the observations of the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. I was concerned to see that the interests of the lorry driver were safeguarded. But like the noble Viscount, I am a little worried about the words "interrupts or is likely to interrupt". I speak with a little legal knowledge from being a magistrate, and I understand completely what the word "obstruction" means. To me it has a legal connotation and it is often used by the police in traffic offences. But I have never heard the words "interrupts or is likely to interrupt". I do not like the term and I wonder whether it has a legal connotation. Is it used by the legal profession, or is it a new term which the Civil Service wants to put into legal provisions? Like the noble Viscount, I am concerned about the connotation.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I should like to ask for a little clarification on this amendment. I understood the Minister to say that there were exemptions in the case of traders having licences granted by the local authorities. I cannot understand the logic of that and how they would not be just as much of a danger, even though they have a licence from a local authority, if they are in the positions specified in subsection (1). They would be just as dangerous if they were at a lay-by, on land by a motorway or on a verge, whether they were licensed or unlicensed.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I have just a small point and I want to clear up a misunderstanding. When I first spoke about roadside trading, I was on a different point of compensation and accidents, although this overlaps it a little. Are the Government sure about subsection 4(c), which reads: to anything done at a market in respect of which tolls, stallages or rents are payable"? Roads have been cut through meadows and places where traditional markets have been held since the Middle Ages. There is the famous horse and cattle market in the North-East to which gipsies come from all over Britain. There is a charisma about old-fashioned markets, such as Sandbach and places in South Wales, and, if possible, I want those old privileges kept alive. If some of them are spokeshaved a little, because of new roads being cut where they were previously held, I hope that new territory nearby will be found for them. Have I made myself clear to the noble Lord?

Baroness David

My Lords, may I ask one question, following up what my noble friend Lady Phillips, said about subsection (4)(d)? I am sure that we do not want to have two sets of controls, but I should like a little explanation about paragraph (d) and those who are covered by street trading.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, if I may try to answer some of the questions which have been asked, the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher, was quite correct in talking about highway legislation, because, in that, any obstruction of the highway is a nuisance. Whether that obstruction actually impedes the passage of traffic over the highway is irrelevant; hence the expression that we have used. The provision seems more accurately to be aimed at preventing actual or likely interruption of use of the road, or the causing or likelihood of causing danger on the road. There is a precedent for this in Section 148(c) of the Highways Act 1980, which uses the word "interruption".

The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, mentioned the last paragraph of subsection (4). As I said earlier, this is in order to fit this clause into the context of the Bill. We have added exemption in favour of a trader who is conducting his business under authority from a district council. I presume this would mean what one finds at some lay-bys, such as a lorry or a barrow selling something like strawberries. If the trader has a licence, that will be all right and he will not be interrupting the highway. So I should have thought that there was a case for the local district to license somebody to sell at the wayside where that is appropriate. The market exemption is in the same terms as the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, Section 7 of which deals with the control of roadside sales.

Baroness Phillips

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I do not follow the logic of what the noble Earl has said. If I am unlicensed and am in a lay-by, it is a dangerous position, and how will it be less dangerous if I have a licence? I think we agree that it is bad legislation to have four exemptions in a new clause. There will be all sorts of problems because of that. People will argue that they were licensed or had a reason. The moment you put in exemptions, you are in trouble. But what I cannot follow is how you are not a hazard in any of those positions, if the council has licensed you.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Baroness is saying that nobody should sell anything along the highway, but surely there could be exemptions. If it is properly sited it is not causing an interruption. However, I will pursue the noble Baroness's remarks and see what I can do.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Sandys

My Lords, a natural break appears to occur at this point. If your Lordships agree, I suggest that further consideration on Report be now adjourned until 10 minutes to eight o'clock and that we should reassemble then.

I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 7.50.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 7.1 until 7.50 p.m.]

Consideration on Report resumed.

Clause 27 [Control of demolitions]:

Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 141. Page 28, line 38, at end insert— ("Provided that notice need not be given under paragraph (a) of this subsection of a demolition undertaken to comply with any requirement contained in—

1. (a) a notice, order or other instrument issued by, or on the application of, the local authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament, or
2. (b) an injunction or other direction given in legal proceedings brought by the local authority,

except where compliance with the requirement is effected, at the election of the person complying with it, either by undertaking the demolition or by taking some other steps.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move this amendment with considerable diffidence because, as the House will see, it stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Evans of Claughton. Unhappily for me, my noble friend has been compelled to be away at another engagement and so I have to present his amendment, somewhat inadequately I am afraid, on his behalf.

This amendment involves a very technical point of interpretation which I will try to explain to the House as best I can. I can best begin by quoting the terms of the new Section 29(2) of the Public Health Act 1961, which provides that: (2) No person shall begin a demolition to which this section applies unless—

1. (a) he has given the local authority notice of his intention to do so; and
2. (b) either—
1. (i) the local authority have served a notice on him under section 29A of this Act; or
2. (ii) the relevant period (as defined in that section) has expired."

The object of this amendment is to write in a proviso at the end of that subsection which would provide that no notice need be given, under that preceding paragraph (a), of a demolition undertaken to comply with any requirement contained in either (a) a notice, order or other instrument issued by, or on the application of, the local authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under an Act of Parliament, or (b) an injunction or other direction given in legal proceedings brought by the local authority, except where compliance with the requirement is effected, at the election of the person complying with it, either by undertaking the demolition or by taking some other steps". Put into simple language, as I understand it, that proviso would have the effect of making it necessary for notice to be given except where the demolition is being carried out on the orders of, at the behest of, or with the knowledge of, the local authority, because it results from legal proceedings taken by the local authority.

The reason why I am raising this matter is that there have been, I understand, some discussions with the department on this particular subsection and curiously enough—or it seems curious to me—the view has been expressed that this proviso is not really necessary. The argument is that, since the demolition contractor in these circumstances would be the agent of the local authority and his giving notice to the local authority would be tantamount to the local authority giving notice to itself, the contractor is therefore not required to give notice under Section 29(ii). We do not share that view. We do not think it is right. We do not share the view that the contractor as the agent of the local authority is absolved from the necessity of giving notice. We take the view that, if that was correct, we do not see how it could be restricted only to demolitions initiated by the local authority in limited circumstances. In our view, it would apply to any demolition undertaken on behalf of the local authority—the contractor always being the agent of the local authority.

The fact that the view is taken by the department that this proviso is unnecessary is, I suggest, all the more remarkable because if one looks back to the Public Health Act 1961 one finds in the old Section 29, which is now being amended, almost a precisely similar provision about demolishers having to give notice, and the proviso which we are seeking to attach to the clause is in exactly the same terms as the proviso which appears in that Act. I am advised that if the department or whoever it is who has argued against the proviso are wrong, that could have serious consequences. I know very little about local government, but I am told that the control of demolitions is normally in the hands of the local authority's building control officer, and that he is the person who would serve the notice under the new section, Section 29A—that is, the notice which the local authority have to serve when they become aware of the possibility that someone is going to engage in demolition.

This is a question of the proper interpretation of the words. We take the view that either the 1961 Act has got it right or that this Act as it now stands without the proviso has got it right. They cannot both be right. If this proviso is not necessary, then equally it was not necessary in the 1961 Act. Therefore, whatever else we might be doing, if we leave the clause unamended in this way we shall have a contradicition between the terms of the 1961 Act on this matter and those of this new Bill. I hope that this is sufficient explanation of the purpose of this amendment. There is nothing controversial about it except the meaning of the language. In these circumstances, I beg to move.

7.58 p.m.

Baroness David

My Lords, we would like to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, which was moved so competently by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. We accept the principle behind the amendment. The procedures set out in subsection (2) of the substituted Section 29 and by the new Section 29A do not recognise that, in cases of imminent danger, demolitions are often initiated by the local authority where a contractor is given instructions to proceed with a demolition forthwith. In such circumstances time would not permit the service of the various notices required under subsection (2) and Section 29A. Nevertheless, by complying with the local authority's instructions without giving the local authority notice of his intention to do so, the contractor would be contravening the provisions of subsection (2) and the local authority would be a party to that contravention.

Even if the contractor did contrive to give the local authority some form of notice in compliance with subsection (2), the local authority could not possibly comply with the requirements in cases of emergency, and it seems to us that the amendment seeks to remove these difficulties by excluding from the provisions contractors who are working under direct orders through notices, injunctions, or otherwise from a local authority.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in his customary way might have been reading my brief in front of me; he has demolished my arguments one by one as he went along. As he rightly said, there is such a proviso in Section 29 of the Public Health Act 1961. However, it is now considered to be unnecessary, and for that reason—I shall try to explain—has not been included in the Bill in the new Section 29. Demolitions being carried out in pursuant of a demolition order made under the Housing Act 1957, which accounts for the bulk of demolitions initiated by a local authority, have been specifically excluded from the notification requirements of Section 29(1). The proviso in Section 29(3) of the 1961 Act is itself taken from earlier local acts and is not necessarily considered to be the best precedent on which to base our views.

There are, admittedly, a few other cases where the local authority could institute a demolition of a building which they did not own. These occur, for example, when a local authority exercise their emergency powers to deal with dangerous buildings under Section 25 of the Public Health Act 1961. In such cases if the local authority decide to demolish a building under Section 25 to remove a danger, whether or not they have traced or notified the owner of that building, any contractor employed by them for that purpose will be the agent of the local authority and subject to their control. Section 29 does not, and need not, enter the picture, and the question of serving notices under Section 29(1) would not therefore arise. If the owner is traced and agrees to undertake the demolition himself, whether or not following legal proceedings brought by the authority, I cannot see what purpose would be served by exempting him from the requirement to serve a notice on the local authority under Section 29. The authority would be fully aware that the building is to be demolished and would have already specified the extent or nature of the work. They do not need any further notice from the owner in such a case. I do not believe that any local authority would prosecute a person in such a case if he did not give a notice under this section. I am not sure whether I will have persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but our case is that we really do still consider it unnecessary, which I rather suspect is the answer he expected from me.

Lord Foot

My Lords, it was actually, and the noble Earl has put that point of view with great clarity. Perhaps I could explain in a little more detail what I meant when I said just now that, unless a contractor does in certain circumstances give the necessary notice to the local authority, and he is presumed to have done so because he is the agent of the local authority, that fact may be known in one department of the local authority but may never come to the attention of the building control officer, who is the person who is responsible for seeing that notices under the following Section 29A are issued.

It is perfectly possible to take two views about this, but I would suggest for the noble Earl's consideration that the addition of this proviso could do no harm. All that the proviso does is to make it perfectly clear what are the circumstances in which a contractor need not give a notice. They are first of all: a demolition undertaken to comply with any requirement contained in—

1. (a) a notice, order or other instrument issued by, or on the application of, the local authority in pursuance of any power conferred by or under an act of Parliament; or
2. (b) an injunction or other direction given in legal proceedings brought by the local authority".

If those words were included it could do no harm, but it could, in certain cases, put the matter beyond any doubt. It would have the advantage that demolition contractors would know very clearly exactly where they stand, when they have to give a notice and when they need not. Having said that, I would express the hope that the noble Earl might be prepared to have another look at this before the next stage of the Bill, because he may be advised that there is probably some substance in the amendment I have moved. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 142: Page 28, line 44, after ("it") insert (" (a)").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, I will take Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 together. These amendments would require demolishers to inform statutory undertakers of a proposed demolition. In speaking to amendments moved in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, my noble friend Lord Bellwin intimated that the Government were considering tabling such amendments. They will ensure that statutory undertakers are informed at the outset of demolitions and thus enable them to consider in good time whether their services are likely to be affected, and to take appropriate action with the person demolishing the building. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, mentioned in Committee, there have been accidents in the past when persons have undertaken demolitions without being aware of gas and electricity services on the site and without therefore taking adequate precautions. The amendments are intended to obviate this risk to public safety. I therefore commend them to the House. I beg to move Amendment No. 142.

Lord Foot

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Earl and the Government for having considered the representations I made on this matter on the last occasion and for having come up with this proposal of their own. Let me say at once that my objectives and the objectives of the Government are precisely the same; we are both concerned to avoid, in the case of demolition work, damage to the gas and electricity installations that may be there; we are both concerned to avoid public danger. The difference between the noble Earl and myself is a difference as to how to go about it. What I originally proposed was that the notification should be made to the contractor by the local authority, that they should be obliged to do that, mandated to do it, so that the contractor would always certainly receive the notification from the authority. I think I have got that a little the wrong way round.

What I am trying to say is this. Under the proposal the Government have now come up with they provide that when a contractor is intending to carry out demolition in addition to notifying the local authority he shall also notify the electricity authority and the gas authority. They are doing it like that, whereas we proposed that the notification should be given by the local authority to the undertakers. My proposal was, therefore, to require that local authorities should first consult with the undertakers when they have any reason to believe that some demolition work is going to be done, and that unless they were satisfied that no gas or electricity installation was involved, they should then serve a notice on the contractor requiring him to make arrangements for making those installations safe. I regret that the Government could not accept that. I do not like to look a gift-horse in the mouth, but I do not believe that their proposal is as watertight as the proposal that I put forward.

There is, in addition to that, a minor comment that I should like to make and that is that the Bill as now drawn contains no sanction compelling the contractors to notify the undertakers. In other words, no sanction is attached to the contractor's failure to carry out his obligations. I say that because if one looks at subsection (4) of the new Section 29 one finds that it says: A person who contravenes subsection (2) above shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £500". The obligation under subsection (2) is the obligation to inform the local authority. But if matters are left in that way there will be no sanction attached to the failure of the demolisher to inform either the gas authorities or the electricity authorities. I think that the noble Earl may find that in any event at some later stage it will be necessary to make that minor correction, otherwise a contractor can disregard altogether the obligation which is imposed upon him by subsection (3).

Having said that, I again thank the Government for what they have done. It would be foolish of me to try to pursue the matter any further. However, I would invite the Government when they come to deal with the matter on Third Reading to consider if there is not some virtue in the small point I have made.

8.12 p.m.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, perhaps I might reply to some of the points raised by the noble Lord so that we can mutually be considering the matter between now and Third Reading. I am grateful for the noble Lord's appreciation of these amendments.

There would seem to be difficulties in requiring a person intending to demolish a building to copy a notice to the Central Electricity Generating Board, because for one thing it would be yet another requirement being imposed upon a demolisher which would involve him in even more paperwork which might seem to be unnecessary since he is already copying his notice to the area electricity board and perhaps the area boards should be responsible enough—I am sure they are—and reliable enough to look after the central board's interests.

But there is a deeper question here. The Central Electricity Generating Board is not responsible for supplying electricity direct to properties. It is one thing to require a notice to be copied to area boards who are directly responsible for the supply to the building to be demolished, but it would seem to be beyond the scope of a clause—and this is the point—which is about the functions of local authorities in controlling demolitions and not about the functions of statutory undertakers, to require the copying of notices to a party not directly involved in the supply to the building concerned, and in relation to whom local authorities cannot require the making of arrangements proposed by the Government. I know that I have not covered all of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, but we shall, indeed, read them between now and Third Reading. In the meantime, I commend these amendments.

On Question, amendment agreed to.ss

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 143: Page 28, line 45, at end insert—

1. ("(b) to the British Gas Corporation; and
2. (c) to the area electricity board in whose area the building is situated.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 144: Page 31, line 37, after (" (1) ") insert (" or (2) ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the amendment makes it clear that a person undertaking a demolition in accordance with the subsections (1) and (2) of the new Section 29B is not thereby exempted from the need to obtain the consent of the relevant water undertaker before interfering with any apparatus for the supply of water, or from the requirements of other legislation related to the supply and generation of electricity and the supply of gas. My noble friend Lord Bellwin undertook in Committee to consider such an amendment following the moving of a similar amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Foot. I hope that the noble Lord will find this amendment desirable. I beg to move.

Lord Foot

My Lords, again I am grateful to the Government for having taken into consideration what I said on the last occasion, although I am sorry that on this occasion I do not really think that what the Government are now proposing to do really meets my point at all. Indeed, in some ways I am afraid that this is a retrograde move. In order to explain that let me say, first, that this series of amendments are amendments to what is now Section 29B subsection (3). Perhaps I might read that to your Lordships. It says: Nothing in subsection (1) or (2)"— that will be added by my amendment— of this section shall be construed as exempting any person from the obligation to obtain any consent required under section 67 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 (which relates to interference with valves and other apparatus) or section 68 of that Schedule (which relates to alterations to supply pipes and other apparatus) or "— as it was— under any similar enactment". However, those words would go and under the amendments there would be added the words contained in Amendment No. 146 exempting a contractor from liability for anything except: criminal liability under any enactment relating to the supply of gas or electricity; or (c) from the requirements of regulations under section 31 of the Gas Act 1972 (public safety)". I find the concept at the introduction of that section that the only circumstances in which a contractor who interferes with apparatus is liable if he is criminally liable, startling. As I understand it, because the amendment says that he will be exempt from liability except for criminal liability, it is implied that he is exempt from civil liability—exempt, that is to say, from trespass, or exempt from negligence. I doubt very much whether that really can be the intention of the Government. It would be a very remarkable thing because it contrasts remarkably with the present situation.

I am advised that, where a contractor engages in the work of demolition and does, in fact, do damage to, for example, an installation belonging to the electricity board, in those circumstances the electricity board can recover the cost of the damage which he has done from the contractor even if he has not been negligent. If he has damaged their apparatus in any way, they can recover the cost from him. But if it is right that, under this new clause, the contractor will only be liable if he is criminally liable, if he has committed a criminal act, then the situation may be the reverse and it may be that the electricity board or the gas board will be unable to recover the damage which has been done because it has not been done criminally. That would be an extraordinary state of affairs, but it seems to me to be the implication of the amendment which the noble Earl has moved. I suggested in my original amendments that we should use words like this: Nothing in subsection (1) of this section shall be construed as exempting", and my amendments would have gone on: (a) from any obligations with respect to the disconnection, removal or other alteration of a gas pipe under any regulations having effect under Section 31 of the Gas Act 1972". That is what the Government have put in as regards gas and it is entirely satisfactory. But when we come to electrical apparatus, instead of this talk about criminal liability, we said: Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorising any person to cut, alter or otherwise interfere with any electric line or apparatus of any statutory undertaker authorsised to carry on an electricity undertaking". In my view, those words are wholly preferable to the words which the noble Earl suggests in his amendment. The Electricity Council, which has considered this matter with very considerable care, has come to the conclusion that this would, indeed, be a serious step backwards both from the point of view of protecting their installations and from the point of view of protecting the public against danger.

So I must say to the noble Earl that, although I recognise that this is an attempt to meet what I suggested on the last occasion, I am afraid that it is unacceptable. We regard it as possibly worse than nothing, and in those circumstances if the noble Earl is unable to reconsider this matter, I may have to bring it forward again at the next stage of the Bill. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to give me some comfort and possibly take the view that I am right about this and the Government are wrong.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I was actually moving Amendment No. 144, and I think that the noble Lord Lord Foot, was actually speaking to Amendment No. 146.

Lord Foot

My Lords, I am speaking to them both. I thought that the noble Earl was dealing with them both at the same time.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, perhaps it will be convenient if we deal with Amendments Nos. 144 and 145, and then the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will be able to speak again on Amendment No. 146 in order to reply to me. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendment No. 144.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 145: Page 31, line 38, after (" person ") insert (" (a)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.25 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 146: Page 31, line 44, leave out ("under any similar enactmen ") and insert—

1. (" (b) from criminal liability under any enactment relating to the supply of gas or electricity; or
2. (c) from the requirements of regulations under section 31 of the Gas Act 1972 (public safety).").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 146. I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Foot. Indeed, I have great sympathy with what the noble Lord has said. There are limitations in the scope of the electricity statutes, and I can understand the wish to see the Government's amendments so worded that a demolition contractor is liable for any damages caused to an electricity undertaker's apparatus. This seems utterly reasonable. But I regret that I must indicate that the Government do not consider that it is a matter for this Bill, and this really rests on the case of the earlier amendment.

This clause is about the functions of local authorities in controlling demolitions. It is not an appropriate vehicle for imposing a new liability on a demolisher vis-à-vis statutory undertakers' apparatus that would not be shared by anyone else. That is a wider matter than the demolition question and should I think, if necessary, be pursued as a part of general electricity legislation. All this amendment seeks to do is to make it clear that this clause does not exempt a demolisher from his other existing statutory responsibilities and does not supersede that other legislation.

The words of the Government Amendment No. 146 reflect the position contained in existing electricity legislation. They do not affect in any way the liability of a contractor at common law for negligence or trespass in relation to gas or electricity apparatus.

Of course, once again I shall study what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, has said because this is a new venture for the House, and I very much hope that on those terms he will agree to this amendment going through at the moment. I beg to move Amendment No. 146.

Lord Foot

My Lords, I am sorry that I made the mistake just now of thinking that the noble Earl was talking on all three amendments. Again, I am grateful to him for explaining the Government's view, but I still beg leave to disagree with him. The question may arise—and I think it does arise—why is it that it has been felt necessary to deal with electricity in a different way from gas? When one looks at the noble Earl's amendment, at paragraph (c) one finds that the contractor is exempt: from the requirements of regulations under section 31 of the Gas Act 1972"— that is, relating to public safety. Why do we not find some similar words with regard to electricity? I am advised that the only reason we do not is because there are no such regulations for electricity as there are for gas. If there were, it might well have been that we should have found that the obligations in regard to electricity were precisely the same as they are for gas. I understand that the gas industry is now perfectly satisfied with the words which the Government's amendment uses. But the electricity industry is very far from satisfied.

I return to the essential point, as I think it be. The noble Earl said that this was imposing an additional liability upon the electricity undertakers. It is doing exactly the opposite, if my interpretation is right. It is removing a liability, because if you say in so many words that you are exempt from everything except criminal liability or you are exempt only from criminal liability, does it not automatically follow that you are not exempt from other kinds of liability? I know that it is a matter of semantics, but if the noble Earl has it wrong, when the courts, in due course of time, have to interpret this section, will they not say to themselves "Why did Parliament, in its wisdom, think fit to put in the word "criminal"?" If they had not put it in, it would read like this: The contractor is exempt from liability under any enactment relating to the supply of gas or electricity". That is what the noble Earl says is the result of this amendment. That is where I disagree with him.

It seems to me that the word "criminal" must be introduced for some purpose. It must be introduced to qualify the word "liability". Again, I would invite the noble Earl to consider with his legal advisers whether possibly that is not the right view. Whenever the courts are trying to interpret a statute they look at the wording and they ask themselves: why was it written in that way? I suggest that the only conclusion that the courts could reach when they come to interpret this statute is to say that it was written in that way because the Government, in their wisdom, decided to exempt contractors only from criminal acts and that, as the noble Earl will agree with me, is not the intention of either of us. Having said that, I cannot pursue the matter further, except to invite the noble Earl to give these matters his further consideration.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 28 [Protection of buildings]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment 147: Page 34, line 28, leave out (" Except in the case of a building such as is specified in subsection ( ) below,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment consequential on the Government's acceptance of Committee Amendment No. 95, which was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Fisher, I thank the Minister for bringing forward the amendment which she originally moved.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 148: Page 34, line 32, after (" or ") insert ("subsection (2) of section [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] below or to whom notice").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, may I speak to Amendment No. 149, with the leave of the House, at the same time. These amendments enable the local authority to recover expenses for work undertaken on the operational land of the British Railways Board and statutory undertakers. They arise from comments made in Committee by my noble friend Lord Colville and very much sponsored by the noble Baroness, Lady David. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking them for their helpful intervention in this matter. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for having taken note of the comments made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, and by me during the Committee stage. We had some correspondence with the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, about this. The affair seems to have come to a happy conclusion.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 149: Page 34, line 33, leave out (" above ") and insert ("of this section or subsection (4) of that section").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 150: Page 34, line 34, leave out subsection (12) and insert— (" (12) Section 293 of the Public Health Act 1936 shall have effect in relation to the recovery of expenses under this section as it has effect in relation to the recovery of a sum which a council are entitled to recover under that Act and with respect to the recovery of which provision is not made by any other section of that Act. (13) In proceedings to recover expenses under this section the court may inquire whether the expenses ought to be borne wholly or in part by some person other than the defendant in the proceedings, and the court may make such order concerning the expenses or their apportionment as appears to the court to be just.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment makes it clear that the local authority's expenses under the clause are recoverable as a simple contract debt in any court of competent jurisdiction; it also clarifies the court procedure in such circumstances. It was thought desirable to clarify these matters, following reconsideration of a related matter raised in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady David, about the parti- cular court involved in the clause. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing it to our attention. I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I am interested to see this. I shall have some comments on a further amendment about the court which has to deal with this matter. I quite agree that recovery of expenses is normally looked on as a civil debt and dealt with by the county court.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 151: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

("Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers. .—(1) This section applies to operational land—

1. (a) of the British Railways Board (in this section referred to as "the Board"); or
2. (b) of persons (in this section referred to as "the statutory undertakers") authorised by any enactment to carry on an undertaking for the generation or supply of electricity or the supply of gas or water.

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, before undertaking any works under section 28(2) above on land to which this section applies a local authority shall serve notice that they propose to undertake works under that section in connection with the building—

1. (a) on the Board, if the works which they propose to undertake will be undertaken on operational land of the Board; and
2. (b) in any other case, on the statutory undertakers on whose operational land the works will be undertaken.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) above shall specify the works which the local authority propose to undertake. (4) A local authority need not give any such notice where they consider that it is necessary to undertake works immediately in order to secure a building against unauthorised entry or to prevent if from becoming a danger to public health. (5) A local authority shall not undertake works specified in a notice under subsection (2) above before the expiry of the period of 48 hours from the service of the notice on the Board or the statutory undertakers. (6) In carrying out any works under section 28(2) above on land to which this section applies a local authority shall comply with any reasonable requirement which the Board or, as the case may be, the statutory undertakers may impose for the protection or safety of their undertaking. (7) In this section "operational land" means, in relation to the Board or the statutory undertakers—

1. (a) land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking; and
2. (b) land in which an interest is held for that purpose, not being land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of carrying on such undertakings.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause was moved in Committee, but withdrawn following comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady David, and my noble friend Lord Colville. The matters raised were subsequently dealt with in correspondence—I hope to the satisfaction of the noble Viscount and the noble Baroness—and the new clause has now been re-tabled. Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 to Clause 28 take account of one of the matters raised in Committee, to which I referred when moving those amendments. As I explained, and as was always intended, the clause now provides that, the local authority can recover its expenses where work is undertaken on the operational land of the British Railways Board and statutory undertakers.

As mentioned in Committee, the new clause is designed to meet a request of the British Railways Board. The Board made its request because it wishes to ensure the safety of both contractors' workmen and the railway where the local authority consider it necessary to enter on operational land of the Board. The request was thought to be reasonable, and it is also thought that the matter could with advantage extend to operational land of statutory undertakers. Works on such land should in fact occur only rarely and the board and statutory undertakers would normally be expected to look after their own property. I would emphasise that there is no question at all of the board or statutory undertakers having preferential treatment under the clause.

The clause itself sets out a procedure for local authorities to follow before they execute works under Clause 28 (Protection of buildings) of the Bill in relation to buildings that happen to stand on operational land of the board and statutory undertakers. Authorities will be required to give not less than 48 hours' written notice to either the British Railways Board or the under takers responsible for water, electricity and gas services before entering on operational land of the undertakers. The undertakers may then require any local authority proposing to execute works under Clause 28 to comply with such reasonable requirements as are necessary for the protection and safety of their undertaking.

Local authorities need not give a notice under this clause in any case where they consider that works ought to be undertaken immediately to prevent unauthorised entry to a building or to prevent it becoming a danger to public health. I hope that the House will agree that this clause is a useful and practical provision and I commend it to the House.

Baroness David

My Lords, I cannot resist commenting that it is very much better than it was, but it really is pretty disgraceful that those clauses were put forward before being thought out and when totally incompetent. Hurried legislation is usually not good legislation. It is obviously better now than it was before but I just hope that perhaps the Government will not be in quite such a rush to push things before the House when they have not been properly considered.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, if we were perfect there would be nothing for us to do.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 152: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

("Appeals against notices.

.—(1) A person on whom a notice is served under section 28 or [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] above may appeal against the notice to the county court.

(2) No such appeal may be brought after the expiry of the period of 21 days from the date on which the notice was served.

(3) The ground of any such appeal may be—

1. (a) that the works specified in the notice were not authorised by section 28 above; or
2. (b) that they were unnecessary; or
3. (c) that it was otherwise unreasonable for the local authority to undertake them.

(4) If such an appeal is brought, the local authority—

1. (a) shall cease from any works specified in the notice which they have commenced; and
2. (b) shall not commence any further works so specified except as provided by subsection (7) below.

(5) The court may make an order confirming or quashing the notice or varying it in such manner as it thinks fit.

(6) An order under subsection (5) above may make such provision as to the recovery of expenses arising in connection with the works specified in the notice as the court thinks fit.

(7) Upon the confirmation or variation of a notice the local authority may commence or recommence the works authorised by the notice as originally served or, as the case may be, as varied by the order of the court.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps for the convenience of the House I could speak to Amendments 152 and 153 together. These are two new clauses that were moved in Committee but withdrawn in consequence of withdrawal of another new clause, on which they depended, and on which the noble Baroness, Lady David, has commented. They deal with buildings on operational land of the British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers. That clause has subsequently been re-tabled (Amendment No. 151), with a corresponding amendment to Clause 28. The new clauses refer not only to the new clause mentioned but to the existing Clause 28 as well. In particular they provide for persons affected by Clause 28 and Amendment No. 151 to appeal, or to apply to the county court in respect either of the works carried out by the local authority or demands for reimbursement of the cost of those works.

The first new clause, Amendment No. 152, provides for appeals against notices by the local authority. The second new clause will apply in circumstances where no notice was served by the local authority. That is where, in the opinion of the authority, the works need to be undertaken immediately or where it was not reasonably practical for the local authority to ascertain the name and address of an owner, or to trace the whereabouts of an absent occupier. I commend these two new clauses to the House.

Baroness David

My Lords, this is where I am going to make a comment about the county court. I asked in Committee why one set of cases went to one court and one to another. I do not know whether my words were paid attention to, but now both are going to the county court. I think that is all right so far as the recovery of expenses goes because that is in line with a rather more unhurried procedure, but it seems to me that appeals are rather different. We are a bit anxious about these appeals going to the county court because things can take so long there. There are considerable delays, compared with the magistrates' court, in getting access to the county court for the registering and hearing of appeals, and to halt works considered to be a danger to public health because an appeal has been lodged through the county court process would seem to take away much of the power associated with the provision and provide a recipe for delay and inaction.

The present waiting time for a county court hearing for Housing Act cases in London is three months. If a building is likely to be dangerous and tumble down on people, it seems ridiculous that there could be a delay of that time. Therefore, we should like appeals to be heard in the magistrates' court, with the time limit for appeals reduced from 21 to seven days. The safety of the public is involved here, so it is an important matter. That would bring the Bill in line with most existing public health legislation. We are less concerned about the recovery of expenses being heard in the county court, as I said, although it seems, in a way, inappropriate to use two courts for one clause. However, we feel strongly about the appeals procedure and think that that really should be in the magistrates' court, where an early hearing can be arranged.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, I am informed that it is not now the policy to direct any civil matters to the magistrates' court; those courts are overburdened with work and at least since 1976 those matters have been so dealt with. I shall, of course, look at what the noble Baroness said.

Under Amendment No. 152 it is envisaged that persons on whom notice has been served can appeal within 21 days to the county court against such notice on the grounds that the works specified in the notice are unauthorised, unnecessary or otherwise unreasonable, and of course no work can be undertaken by the local authority while the appeal is pending. The court itself can make an order confirming, quashing or varying the notice and can provide in that order for the recovery of expenses in connection with the works specified in that notice.

In Amendment No. 153 it is envisaged that persons from whom the local authority seeks to recover expenses incurred in undertaking the works can, within 21 days of the authority's demand, apply to the county court for a declaration that the works were unnecessary or otherwise unreasonable. If the court makes a declaration, it can also make an order in respect of the payment of expenses incurred in connection with the works. I shall, however, make sure that the remarks of the noble Baroness are carefully looked at, and perhaps we may write to her in the interim.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I hope the Government will look carefully at what my noble friend Lady David said. I am rather puzzled by the Minister's remarks, because even today the magistrates' courts do not deal solely with criminal cases; all sorts of summonses can be taken out in the magistrates' court, and I recollect that, in order to relieve the burden on the county courts and Crown courts, magistrates' courts were asked, where appropriate, to take what they could. I should have thought that a matter such as this would be worth examining to see whether something could be done.

We were told in relation to fines, when we were dealing with sex shops, that it would be impossible to have a certain type of fine in a magistrates' court. However, upon consideration it was discovered that it was possible. My noble friend was right to point out the incongruity of having the provision separated between two courts. We all know well—and my noble friend Lady David and I sit on magistrates' courts in different areas—the delays there are in county courts, whereas business in magistrates' courts is taken much more expeditiously. The Minister said he would note my noble friend's remarks, but I trust they will be looked into with a view to achieving a much more expeditious system than that proposed in the clause at present.

Baroness David

My Lords, following the Minister's reply—in which he gave a commitment to consider the matter further—I shall seek leave to withdraw the amendment. When we consider the comparative delays in the two types of court, particularly bearing in mind that public safety may be involved, I hope we may see a Government amendment tabled for Third Reading. In the meantime, I hope the Minister will write to me to tell me how matters are progressing, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

The Deputy Speaker (Lord Wells-Pestell)

I understand we are dealing with Amendment No. 152, my Lords, which was moved by the Minister.

The Earl of Avon

That is so, my Lords, and I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 153: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

("Applications to court in respect of expenses of works

.—(1) If a local authority seek to recover expenses incurred in undertaking works under section 28(2) above in connection with a building—

1. (a) where the building is on land to which section [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] above applies, from the Board or the statutory undertakers; or
2. (b) in any other case, from an occupier of the building; and
3. (c) they did not serve notice of their proposal to undertake the works under section 28(6) or [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] (2) above on the Board or, as the case may be, the statutory undertakers or that occupier,

the person from whom they seek to recover the expenses may apply to the county court for a declaration—

1. (i) that the works undertaken in connection with the building were unnecessary; or
2. (ii) that it was otherwise unreasonable for the local authority to undertake them.

(2) No such application may be made after the expiry of the period of 21 days from the date on which the local authority first requested payment of the expenses.

(3) If the court makes a declaration under subsection (1) above, it may make such order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the expenses incurred in connection with the works.").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to this with Amendment No. 152. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

8.46 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 154: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

("Control of stray dogs

(" PART

DOGS

.—(1) A local authority may resolve to assume responsibility for the control and welfare of stray dogs within its area and if they so resolve Part I of Schedule (Dog Wardens) shall have effect and shall come into force on such day as may be specified in the resolution.

(2) If a local authority make a resolution under subsection (1) above, to enable them to carry into effect the provisions of this Part, they may—

1. (a) exercise the powers of section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 with respect to seizure, detention and disposal of stray dogs in their area; and
2. (b) appoint a dog warden or dog wardens with the general powers in Part II of Schedule (Dog Wardens) to this Act.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with permission, I shall describe briefly the recasting of the whole set of amendments that my noble friends and I have undertaken since the Committee stage. The first big change is that we propose now, in Amendment No. 154, to make the adoption of the dog warden scheme entirely optional for local authorities. Your Lordships will remember that in the earlier version of this series of amendments we proposed that the scheme should be obligatory on local authorities unless particular authorities were able to satisfy the Secretary of State that conditions in their locality would justify exclusion from the provisions of the scheme.

We now propose to turn it the other way round; that local authorities may opt into the scheme. That is entirely within the spirit of the general provisions of the Bill, allowing local authorities to assume, under a general powers Bill, the exercise of responsibilities and powers which otherwise they would have to seek in Private Bills. My first point, therefore, is that now the scheme is to be optional on local authorities; and if, by resolution, they opt into the scheme of dog wardens and the assumption of the police powers from the Dogs Act 1906, it will be a matter for local judgment and decision.

The second big change we have introduced—passing to subsequent amendments in order to present the scheme comprehensively—is on the dog licence fee. Earlier, your Lordships will remember that we proposed that local authorities themselves should fix the dog licence fee to cover the costs of administration and other expenses incurred in the adoption of the dog warden scheme, subject only to a maximum prescribed by the Secretary of State. The reason for providing that the Secretary of State should be able to fix a maximum was to prevent the scheme being subject to the same wide variations in the amounts of local fees which we find, for example, in the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 and in endangered animals legislation, where local authorities have been fixing fees locally of between £10 and £100 a time. It gives one the impression that local authorities have been trying to make money on the side. In any event, we had prescribed a maximum to be in the hands of the Secretary of State.

Now we propose that the Secretary of State shall fix the fee and that he shall take into account in fixing the fee the expenses of local authorities, the costs of administration and so on. He will also take into account whether a local authority has opted for the dog warden scheme, and if it has, he will clearly have to take account of the additional expenses that it has thereby undertaken.

Therefore, I am afraid that we are bound to have two levels of dog licence fee—one level where the local authorities opt for the scheme, and the other level where they do not. That is unavoidable if one is to give any option at all. One cannot prescribe one standard fee—possibly somewhat higher, or a lot higher, than the existing 37½p—which will be adequate for the local authorities which opt for the scheme without being excessive in the localities in which the local authorities do not opt for it.

I should like your Lordships to note that the clause would enable the Secretary of State to raise the 37½p fee, since quite obviously it does not cover the cost of administration, and he would be required to ensure that it should cover the cost. So we would end the present ridiculous scandal of a dog licence fee of 37½p, which has not been increased for 100 years, and which does not pay for the cost of collection. Only this evening I heard about a dog owner who said, "We do not license our dogs any more. We are saving the country money. If we license our dogs, it will add to public expenditure, and Mrs. Thatcher wants to reduce it". Well, how topsy-turvy can the public interest become?

The next quite substantial change is in relation to the identity discs. Last time we had a whole schedule on the identity discs. We have scrapped that and reduced the amount of information required to be on the identity disc. But the compulsory wearing of the identity disc in public places is still included in the new proposals. On the form of the licence, we have scrapped the appendix which set out in detail the form that the licence should take. That can be left to regulations.

In short, the amended proposals are what one would expect to find in a Bill of this kind, and which indeed are to be found in other clauses relating to public affairs in this Bill. They give all local authorities the option of taking powers to control stray dogs, which many have already obtained and which some are seeking in Private Bills.

That enables me to come down to Amendment No. 154, which deals only with the right of a local authority to resolve by decision of the council to assume responsibility for the control and welfare of stray dogs within its area and to adopt Part I of the schedule, which deals with dog wardens. I stress the fact that a number of local authorities already have the powers, and what is more, in the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill, which is still going through its final stages in another place, provisions of this kind have been made for Scotland. They are in Clause 130, relating to control of stray dogs. For Scotland it is proposed to do exactly what Amendment No. 154 proposes to do for England and Wales. So I do not see what the difficulty is.

For the moment we are not dealing with the consequential expenses or the consequential rise in fee. We are dealing with powers, and as I have said, a number of local authorities have the powers under Private Bills, and in Scotland they are taking the powers for all the local authorities there. But they do not provide—none of them—for an increase in the licence fee to pay the expenses; and that comes in a subsequent amendment on the Marshalled List. Our scheme is comprehensive, whereas the schemes in the Private Bills and in the civic government Bill for Scotland are only partial remedies of the problem.

As for the attitude of local authorities, I received a letter from the leader of the council of Calderdale Metropolitan Borough, the local authority in my former constituency. The letter was quite spontaneous, I did not ask for it. The leader of the council wrote to say how important it was to get a scheme of this kind. He writes: The environmental health committee have discussed the control of dogs on a number of occasions, and in particular are concerned at the unrealistic level of licensing fee currently applicable. It had been felt that this level will not promote responsible dog ownership generally, but it has been felt that increases should be used to fund a more efficient dog warden service". The writer of the letter goes on to support the idea of giving powers to the local authorities to deal with the dog problem.

I urge your Lordships' House to give these proposals a fair wind and put them into the Bill. I am really dismayed at the indifference of successive Governments to this problem after having had the benefit of the reports of two committees—one an interdepartmental working party, and the other a committee over which I preside myself—both of which quite definitely came to the conclusion that a scheme of this kind is desirable and should be operated.

Some dreadful things are happening to dogs in this country, and one sometimes encounters hypocrisy among members of the public. They are indifferent about what happens to other dogs so long as they can take care of their own dogs. Thousands of dogs are destroyed every year. Only the other day in my constituency I saw a long report from the local representative of the RSPCA saying what a heartbreaking job it was—instead of being able to care for animals and promote their health and welfare, you had to destroy so many of them.

We want more responsible dog ownership. We can attain that only by greater control and by asking people to pay a reasonable fee for the privilege of keeping in society a dog, which has to be taken care of. There must be certain powers to save it from death or destruction, or perhaps to restore it to its owner, or whatever might be necessary to see that it and other dogs are properly cared for.

I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, is not here tonight because I wanted to convey to him the significance of the changes that we have introduced in the amendments to meet the objections that he made last time. I know that his heart was not in what he said last time. You can always tell when the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, has not got his heart in a matter. Nevertheless, he gave the answer, and that was the answer of the Government. I like Ministers with convictions, I really do. You feel that you know where you stand with them. Quite honestly, I do not like Ministers who have no particular feelings, except of care and attention to the brief that is stuck in front of them. So let us have in your Lordships' House tonight some honest judgment on the merits of these proposals. We are in charge. It is our House, and if the Government do not like it, I think we ought to tell them that they must lump it, because this is what a large section of the public really want brought about. It is quite scandalous how things are going on at present.

I will not go on, my Lords. I have convictions about this, very definite ones indeed; and anybody who has sat on a committee and heard all the evidence that there is about stray dogs and the misery and unhappiness that we cause to animals, apart from the distress that can be caused to owners when dogs are lost, would share those convictions. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who contributed to the debate at Committee stage, knows probably better than any of us what a heart-rending place is Battersea Dogs' Home, where people go in afraid to look at the appealing gaze of the animals looking for owners because they know they will take pity on them and want to take them away.

Very well, then; I am moving Amendment No. 154. I am not going to say that the fate of this clause decides the fate of the lot—it does not. Because Amendment No. 155 stands on its own, and you do not necessarily have to have a dog wardens scheme to adjust the licence to a proper level. In fact, the licence should have been adjusted to a proper level long ago, without any dog wardens, merely to get the scheme on a sensible basis. So for the moment I move Amendment No. 154, and the schedule which deals with the dog wardens scheme is to be found on page 40, Amendment No. 181. I beg to move.

9.2 p.m.

Lord Cottesloe

My Lords, I think we are much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his very clear explanation of this, the first of the amendments that he and his noble friends have put down. I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I speak to all the eight amendments together, rather than speak to them individually; that is, Amendments 154 to 161, if I may.

Lord Houghton and his noble friends have returned to the charge by slipping into this Bill—not, indeed, improperly, but perhaps somewhat inappropriately; I cannot say—proposals for a completely new system for the licensing and control of dogs, and particularly for the responsibility of stray dogs. The amendments that they put forward at the Committee stage were rejected by your Lordships, and they have made a fully thought-out and sincere attempt so to amend them as to meet some of the criticisms that were made at that stage—an attempt for which we should be grateful. But I am sorry to say that the main grounds for objection, which I outlined to your Lordships at Committee stage, still remain, and I hope that the House will not accept these amendments.

It is true that they have made their proposed transfer from the police to the local authorities permissive—it is at the option of the local authority rather than mandatory—and that they have mitigated the extreme lack of uniformity in the dog licence fee as originally proposed by having two levels of fee only, one in those local authority areas where the responsibility for dogs is taken over by the authority and one where the responsibility still rests with the police. These are indeed real improvements, but they do not go very far to meet the main grounds for objection to the proposals, which still remain.

I do not propose to weary your Lordships by repeating in detail the arguments that I put forward at Committee stage, but it remains true that, in general, where the responsibility for dogs, and particularly for stray dogs, is administered by the local authority instead of by the police, it will be more expensive and less efficient; that there will be created a large body of dog wardens all over the country who will in effect be a new local bureaucracy which not only will be a considerable expense but will quickly come to be, as I believe, cordially disliked by the dog-owning public; and that the police will still have to do the work.

At the present time, in the country areas, if a farmer finds a dog chasing his sheep he deals with the dog himself in one way or another, perhaps by giving it a salutary lesson with a charge of shot; or, if he can capture the dog, or knows to whom it belongs, by handing it over to the police and lodging a complaint. Under the new arrangements he is supposed to hand it over to the dog warden, or to complain to him and to let him deal with it. But where is the dog warden? He is very unlikely to happen to be there when the dog is committing the offence. He will probably be 20 miles away, perhaps in his office writing a report, no doubt in triplicate, to the effect that he has during the previous 24 hours observed no reprehensible incident.

Or consider the position in London, about which I know a good deal. If someone now finds a stray dog and feels that he should do something about it, he knows that he should hand it over or report it to the police; and he is in no difficulty about finding a police station or a policeman for the purpose. But where, if he finds a stray dog on Hampstead Heath, say, or in Kilburn, does he find the dog warden? Perhaps, again, he is writing his report a couple of miles away at the town hall in St. Pancras.

When I suggested, when we last discussed this matter, that a new bureaucracy of dog wardens would quickly become unpopular with dog owners, one of your Lordships said it was unreasonable to suggest that the reaction to them would be analogous to the public reaction to traffic wardens.

Let me tell you of one incident that came to my notice only a day or two after—and not before—our last discussion. In a London borough that has appointed a dog warden, as some few have done, a dog lifted its leg, while the owner's back was turned, on a patch of municipal grass. The dog warden, as luck would have it, was present and observed this dreadful crime. Instead of warning the owner and perhaps telling him that if he saw it happen again he would have to report it and the owner would be fined under a local by-law, he impounded the dog, removed its identity disc with the owner's name and address and handed the dog over to the police as an unidentified stray. The Dogs' Home at Battersea were informed by the police in the usual way and collected the dog and some days later the distracted owner came there to look for his dog which recognised him with enthusiasm. He paid the appropriate fee and owner and dog were joyfully reunited.

Now I do not say that this is the typical case and that all dog wardens would behave in this way; but it is what actually happened, and it happened not only on that occasion but has again happened since we last discussed this matter. It illustrates three things that I said at our last discussion. Even if the responsibility is taken over by the local authority it is the police who will do the work; it would be unnecessarily expensive —think, incidentally, of the expense of creating all the dog pounds that would be needed all over the country—and it would be inefficient, causing the maximum amount of alarm and despondency to owners and dogs alike. It will also make it clear to your Lordships why I do not think an army of dog wardens all over the country is very likely to endear itself to the dog-owning public. In short, my objections to the system proposed in these amendments remain and I hope that your Lordships will reject them if necessary in the Division Lobbies.

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty with regard to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and others. As a confirmed dog lover, my immediate instinct would be to support the noble Lord. However, for several reasons I am unable to do so. For instance on the first amendment, in England and Wales, local authorities already have set up dog warden schemes and continue to do so. As for strays, some local authorities have taken powers similar to those of the police for dealing with strays. They do this already without any further legislation being needed. And a good thing, too—because stray dogs are a menace to car drivers, to owners of other dogs and to their unfortunate selves.

Turning to the next amendment, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has bewildered me with his two-tier licence fees. Is the noble Lord (I ask myself) asking that the fee for a dog licence should be raised for financial reasons in order to benefit the Treasury? Is he asking for the licence fee to be raised in order to try to make people more responsible dog owners; or is he asking for the licence fee to be raised in order to pay for his discs and all the administration costs which would ensue? If the reason is to make dog owners more responsible, then I submit that a higher dog licence fee will not make a jot or tittle of difference to those irresponsible people. These people do not buy licences, as the noble Lord has already indicated. The only ones it will hurt are the elderly and lonely people who love and cherish their dogs and who may be extremely hard up without receiving supplementary benefit. Any rise in price for a dog licence would not engender extra responsibility in the irresponsible.

Turning to the question of registration discs, I think the noble Lord has taken a hammer to crush a nut. People who care for their dogs already make use of discs or notices on their collars giving their address and phone number for use in emergency. Even with the best care and attention, puppies slip through unattended doors and not only out but into others. I know because last year I gave a party and a most engaging young cairn came in with some guests. Thinking that he belonged to them, I treated him as an honoured guest. He acted as an efficient Hoover until I discovered he was a gatecrasher. It was easy to telephone his distraught owners because of the number on his collar. They came rushing round and claimed him. But to go through all the paraphernalia suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the other movers of these amendments seems to be expensive, difficult to administer and, above all, will not be adhered to by the very people whom the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, seeks to discipline. Six months is a long time between having an eight-week-old puppy and applying for a licence, let alone compulsory discs.

I regret to say that those very worthy champions of our four-legged friends have this time gone too far and I do not think that their measures will do anything to cure the evils about which they so rightly complain.

9.15 p.m.

Lord John-Mackie

My Lords, may I reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who criticised the point I made about the difference between traffic wardens and dog wardens? Traffic wardens are unpopular with owners of cars and have little or no effect on the general public or those not using a car at that moment. But the general public are greatly affected by the work of a dog warden. Although dog wardens may be unpopular with owners of dogs, the general public would be very happy to have dog wardens looking after the dogs, stopping them fouling the pavements, dealing with stray dogs, and so on. There is a world of difference between the two.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the Government recognise that these amendments have been prompted out of a very real feeling of care and concern both for dogs and for people by those sections of the community most involved with the problems. I recognise that this prompted similar proposals at the Committee stage. I appreciate, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, that the amendments have been changed since we last looked at them. I know, as the House does, of the great conviction with which the noble Lord speaks from both his heart and mind. I am not sure that my noble friend Lord Bellwin is a very dog conscious man. However I am, so perhaps I can reply with as much understanding anyway as my noble friend Lord Bellwin.

I should like first to look at specific elements in the package of proposals. It becomes evident that problems would arise if these amendments became law. I hope to make it clear that they would result in a somewhat complicated and tangled web.

For example, it is proposed that the level of licence fee to be determined centrally, as now, would have to be sufficient to cover expenditure incurred by a local authority assuming the new responsibilities for control of strays. A local authority which resolved not to operate these responsibilities, which are to be discretionary, would it seems still reap the benefit in terms of the revenue from the licence fee. In fairness, I should say that the amendments are not clear on exactly what would happen.

On the other hand, it is clear that the amendments would create provision in national legislation for making rebates to a particular category of dog-licence holders, but it is not entirely clear whether the rebate schemes which a local authority would have to make if there was ministerial direction would involve nationally or locally determined scales of rebate. Certainly the proposals appear to leave no scope for local determination on the whole question of rebates. In any event this proposal and the one concerning exemptions of fee for working dogs seem to conjure up a picture of an amount of paper passing between local and central Government and vice versa, giving directions about various matters.

Even more paper would be involved in carrying out the obligation of local authorities to assign registration numbers to the licence issued and to issue registration discs. I am sure that your Lordships can see the problems—more paper and more resources involved; and I have not touched on the provisions concerning dog wardens, the creation of offences and the schedule of duties of local authorities and powers of dog wardens. Nor have I mentioned the complexities of operating the different statutes on dogs at local and national level, on what would almost amount to a random basis, as some local authorities decided to exercise certain powers but not others.

The Government appreciate, I can assure your Lordships, that in some areas problems of dog nuisance arise, and it is also appreciated that in these instances local authorities apply themselves diligently to resolve matters. They make by-laws to control fouling, orders designating roads on which dogs must be kept on leads; some authorities—as my noble friend Lady Trumpington said—have set up dog warden schemes, others have obtained powers similar to those of the police to deal with strays. Depending on the needs of their area, local authorities, and voluntary bodies, have taken action to improve the quality of the local environment. They are to be congratulated on this. But it is one thing to recognise need at the local level and deal with it locally, it is quite another matter to set up a whole new system nationally to deal with these problems.

The Government are not alone in their approach to the problems of dog nuisance. When the previous Government published the Report of the Working Party on Dogs, to which the noble Lord referred, it said in the ministerial foreword: The Government recognise the anxiety which the public feels but the matter is not a simple one". How true! This Government recognise the concern felt about dog problems when they arise. But the matter is not a simple one and if I may quote again from the foreword, it says: The Government have no present proposals for action in any of the areas covered by the report's recommendations". I note in this connection that when Mr. Aspinwall's Private Member's Bill on dogs was debated in another place the official Opposition spokesman said that he did not intend to justify the lack of action in this area by the previous Government but indicated that it had enough problems on its hands without embarking on legislation for dogs. This in no way under-estimates the concern felt by some about the need to improve dog control, and the official Opposition spokesman supported the general expression of view in the Bill.

The Government support local authorities and voluntary bodies in using existing powers and procedures to control dog nuisance. If I may very briefly turn to some of the legislation which is around today just to put this in perspective, there is the Dog Licences Act 1959, which requires licences to be obtained for keeping a dog. There is the Local Government Act 1966, which has powers to alter licence fees, and I should say here that if there is a will to put up the fee the method exists, because it can be raised by order under existing primary legislation. There is the Control of Dogs Order 1930, the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, the Animals Act 1971, the Rabies Control Order 1974, the Local Government Act 1972 and the Public Health Act 1875. The Open Spaces Act 1906 provides powers to make and confirm by-laws. The Dogs Act 1906 empowers the police to seize stray dogs. The Dogs Act 1871 empowers magistrates to order the destruction or control of dogs. There is a Guard Dogs Act of 1975, the Breeding of Dogs Act of 1973 and there is the Pet Animals Act 1951. I know the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, knows about all this but I thought it was worthwhile to demonstrate how much legislation there is already to control the dog.

Finally, I should like to bring to your Lordships' attention that famous Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, when your Lordships will recall that on the instance of the NFU an amendment was carried in order to control livestock worrying. Legislation is there at the moment and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, if I have broached the whole subject but he will appreciate that my argument is directed to the whole rather than to specific points. The Government would much prefer not to have these amendments included in the Bill.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I need scarcely say that the reply of the noble Earl, Lord Avon, is disappointing. I was deeply disappointed with the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, and also with the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. I do not know, if I may say so, where noble Lords go for their information or, for that matter, their experience. All the voluntary societies that take care of the welfare of dogs are in support of these proposals. Local authorities are holding seminars all over the country, as I said during the Committee stage, and they are giving general approval to the concept of greater control of the stray dog, and having more powers to seek identity and a high licence fee to defray the expenses and so forth.

I did not like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, that we have "slipped" these amendments into the Bill. After all, the Government "slipped" the whole sex shop proposals into the Bill in the Report stage in another place. The slipping of things into Bills is not a Private Member's form of parliamentary delinquency; Governments do it as well. I regret that I did not stick dogs in just after sex shops, so that we could deal with sex shops and dogs at an earlier part of the day.

The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, doubted whether the dog warden scheme would be as efficient as the police. The truth of the matter is that the dog warden scheme first came to closer examination because people were not satisfied with the way in which the police were able to deal with this dog problem. So far as I am aware, there is no obligation on the part of the police to restore a dog to its owner. If dogs are lost, they have to be claimed. The police do not have to go around and find where the owners are, but dog wardens do. We can all sympathise with the police in their multifarious duties at the present time, with the complaints about the inadequacy of the police force, the new problems of social disturbance and so on. The idea was as far as possible to get the dog problem away from the police.

I notice that the proposal in the Scottish Bill, which has not yet gone through all its stages in another place, is to provide local authorities with the same powers as the police. They do not use their powers to the exclusion of the police; they use them in addition to the police. Why have the Government included this in the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill and taken exception to something very similar in a Bill for England and Wales? That is a question which really ought to be answered.

The reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is that the increase in the licence fee proposed would be for the cost and expenses of administration and not as a form of financial discipline to secure more responsible dog ownership. It is not a fine, it is not a tax and it is not a form of education in responsible dog ownership. It is a very practical question of getting the money to do the extra work. May I say to the noble Baroness that local authorities which have adopted the dog warden scheme are not able to raise any additional revenue from the dog licence fee. What extra expense is incurred must come out of the general rates. Some people might object to the expense of this dog warden scheme resting upon ratepayers generally. The idea behind the dog warden scheme, accompanied by an increase in the dog licence fee, was to make it reasonably self-supporting, and, if it is to be self-supporting then, quite obviously, there has to be an adjustment of the dog licence fee to make it so.

The strange thing is that local authorities that have adopted the dog warden scheme carry on with it, and the number of local authorities who are adopting it is increasing. A little time ago, one local authority of which I know applied to the Secretary of State for the Environment for powers to appoint dog wardens and to levy something on the rates in order to do it. Permission was refused, but they were able to appoint a dog warden under the youth opportunities employment scheme. They found that the young people who were employed as dog wardens were very good, and they applied for an extension of the youth opportunities employment scheme so that they could have their dog wardens permanently financed and recruited from this source. Naturally, such a commonsense idea was turned down by the Manpower Services Commission, but I thought it was a good try.

I do not know what to do, except to say to the noble Earl, Lord Avon, that the catalogue of legislation which he read out about dogs still leaves the stray dog on the streets and still leaves dogs by the thousand, if not by the million, going about unlicensed, with no indication on them as to whether or not the licence fee has been paid and with nobody worrying about whether or not the licence fee has been paid, because local authorities do not want to incur additional expense in chasing up people to pay 37½p when it will cost them £1 to do it, even if they volunteer to pay, and probably £20 if they prosecute them.

This is crazy. I cannot understand noble Lords on the Benches opposite being so complacent about it, and I cannot understand the Minister contenting himself by saying that the Government have no proposals to deal with the matter. What do they feel about it? Are they indifferent? Or do they feel that they have got so many other things to do that this is not one of their top priorities?

Baroness Trumpington

My Lords, if I may be excused for interrupting the noble Lord, may I say that he has accused me of being complacent? I am not being complacent. I just do not think that these measures, which will involve a great deal of legislation, will meet the case. I deplore stray dogs just as much as does the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, but I do not think that this will meet the case.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I fully accept that from the noble Baroness. But what are the proposals? Or is it another case of "there is no alternative"? I do not know. Are we all content to leave the situation as it is, with this absurd position over the licence fee and a great number of undisciplined dogs roaming around? The noble Earl read out the catalogue of legislation, but we have still got the basic problem to deal with, and nobody has made any suggestions about it. The noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, who presides over the Battersea Dogs' Home, probably thinks that that is the dog's heaven. But that is where they go when there is nowhere else for them.

Lord Brougham and Vaux

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Avon read out what is already available. If that is not being used, would the noble Lord's amendments be used any more than the available legislation?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, I think that it would. It is very difficult for a local authority to control the police and ensure that the police do their job. We all know about the problems over the duties and control of the police. Local authorities have no control over the police. But local authorities would have control over their own dog wardens. If police officers choose not to fulfil efficiently their duties, or what they conceive to be their duties, a local authority cannot take steps to remedy that situation. This puts the dog problem into the hands of the local authority, the representative of the citizen, which is where I think that it should, in the main, be.

I am very sorry about this. A Bill on similar lines would have been on its way through the House of Commons but for the fortuitous handicap there of procedure. We have made a genuine attempt to give the matter an airing here and to give the Government an opportunity to consider their position. I suppose that all we have to do now is to wait for another Government so that we can get this reform carried through. It is not the only reform we would wish for. I could recite a long catalogue of changes which we should expect a new Government to undertake. I do not know whether the Government, for example, are ready to update the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876. There are all sorts of possibilities which a change of Government might bring about. I shall not detain the House any longer—

Lord Underhill

My Lords, before my noble friend concludes his speech, I wonder whether he would press the Minister for an answer to the point he raised about the Scottish Bill: why something which is good for Scotland is not good enough for England. Could my noble friend press the Minister to introduce something along the lines of the Scottish proposal into this Bill at Third Reading?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, if the Minister needs to be pressed further, I am prepared to help to press him. By leave of the House, perhaps he could offer a little further information on the point which my noble friend has made. I apologise for this matter coming on late in the evening, but that is not my fault. This matter is so important that, with great respect to the House, I do not believe that we should curtail our considerations of it merely because the hour is late. It is quite early for noble Lords to be doing business in this Chamber.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, the noble Lord was asking me about the Scottish situation and, with the leave of your Lordships' House, perhaps I might reply. Actually, I was briefed on the situation in Northern Ireland, but never mind. The situation in Scotland is somewhat similar to that operating in England and Wales, in which some local authorities have already set up dog warden schemes and sought local powers to control strays. These will be created in Scotland by the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill. They themselves do not have dog warden schemes now, which is about the only difference I can find at the moment.

The Deputy Speaker (Earl Cathcart)

My Lords, may the House know of the wishes of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, in this matter?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I have moved my amendment and I presume that the Question will be put.

9.36 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 154) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 22; Not-Contents, 43.

DIVISION NO. 1
CONTENTS
Birk, B.	Listowel, E.
Bishopston, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
Collison, L.	Northfield, L.
David, B.	Peart, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Stedman, B.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.—[Teller.]	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Irving of Dartford, L.—[Teller.]	Stone, L.
	Underhill, L.
John-Mackie, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Long, V.
Avon, E.	Loudoun, C.
Belstead, L.	Lyell, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	McFadzean, L.
Caithness, E.	Mansfield, E.
Cathcart, E.	Marley, L.
Cockfield, L.	Masham of Ilton, B.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Mersey, V.
Cottesloe, L.	Mottistone, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L
Crathorne, L.	Ridley, V.
Crawshaw, L.	Romney, E.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Sandys, L.—[Teller.]
Denham, L.—[Teller.]	Sharples, B.
Eccles, V.	Skelmersdale, L.
Elton, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Enniskiilen, E.	Swinton, E.
Ferrers, E.	Trenchard, V.
Greenway, L.	Trumpington, B.
Holderness, L.	Westbury, L.
Inglewood, L.	Windlesham, L.
Kinloss, Ly.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

9.44 p.m.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 155: After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:

("Provisions as to Licences. .—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section every dog shall, on payment of the fee prescribed under section (Licence fees) below, be licensed in accordance with the provisions of the Dog Licences Act 1959. (2) Application for a licence shall be made on the earlier of the following events—

1. (a) the attainment by the dog of the age of 6 months; or
2. (b) any change in the keeper of the dog;

and thereafter on any change in the keeper of the dog. (3) Nothing in this section shall apply to a dog kept and used solely by a blind or deaf person for his guidance.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 155. This amendment deals with the levy of the licence fee. Indeed, Amendments Nos. 155, 156 and 157 deal with the licence fee. However, Amendment No. 155 deals with the application for a licence and the exceptions that shall apply to it. I think that I had better take Amendment No. 156 with Amendment No. 155 because that enables the Secretary of State, after consultation with the local authorities, to prescribe the fee payable. I notice that, in the Gaming (Amendment) Bill dealt with in another place, the Minister of State on 7th May at col. 421 referred to—

Lord Mottistone

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord would give way? I think he said that he was speaking to Amendment No. 156. I note that in subsection (2)(c) there is a direct reference back to the clause that we have just rejected on a Division. Therefore I wonder whether Amendment No. 156 is valid in view of the fact that it is referring to something that has not been accepted by the House.

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, no ruling has been given that, if Amendment No. 154 were defeated, it would not be possible to call Amendments Nos. 155 and 156. It may be that a small amendment could be introduced at a later stage if there is any untidiness about Amendments Nos. 155 and 156 going into the Bill without Amendment No. 154.

I was saying that the Minister of State on the Gaming (Amendment) Bill on 7th May said: To some extent we are the prisoner of history. So long as my right hon. Friend is required to license any activity, premises, thing, animal or person he should have power readily to ensure that the level of licence fee is sensible and keeps pace with the change in the value of money". He went on to say: It is not a very impressive monument to our legislative skill that for the past 137 years the fee for billiard premises has remained the same". So there is another antique survival of history—the billiard licence of 1845 has not been attended to since that time.

I can quite understand that the Minister of State said that his right honourable friend the Home Secretary should have means readily available to bring these licences up-to-date. That is what these amendments propose to do. I think that, if the Government and the noble Lords opposite feel that nothing needs to be done at all to disturb the existing arrangement, then, with great respect, they need their brains examined. We cannot possibly leave this 37½p nonsense on the statute book any longer, it is a farce. People will think that the law should be swept away that leaves the situation in such an unsatisfactory condition. Therefore, these clauses will give the Secretary of State the power to raise the licence fee to a proper level and cover the costs of administration. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Avon, will feel that this is of some assistance and that this at least could be done to give better order to the dog licence fee arrangment.

Amendment No. 157 deals with dog licences in the case of dog breeding establishments. The provision there was that if they were licensed under the Breeding of Dogs Act 1973 or a member of a national institution which is set out in paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 157, that would be regarded as an acceptable alternative to registration under the 1973 Act. Here again, I can only suggest that we should persevere and try to persuade the Government to bring about these changes which would put the whole system in better shape. I beg to move Amendment No. 155.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, is it the noble Lord's wish to move Amendment No. 156 at the same time?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, no.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, Amendment No. 155 would make very little change to existing legislation. As I have already said, the licence fee can be raised by order under existing primary legislation. I should point out that there is no exemption for hounds in a pack under the age of 12 months, as at present. However, it does provide a new exemption for dogs for the deaf, which of course, we would welcome.

The Deputy Speaker

My Lords, is it your Lordships' pleasure that this amendment be withdrawn?

Lord Houghton of Sowerby

My Lords, I have not asked for it to be withdrawn.

9.53 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 155) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 38.

DIVISION NO. 2
CONTENTS
Birk, B.	Listowel, E.
Bishopston, L.	Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.
David, B.	Northfield, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Peart, L.
Davies of Penrhys, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Ross of Marnock, L.
Houghton of Sowerby, L.—[Teller.]	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Irving of Dartford, L.—[Teller.]	Stone, L.
	Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Airey of Abingdon, B.	Cullen of Ashbourne, L.
Avon, E.	Denham, L.—[Teller.]
Belstead, L.	Elton, L.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Enniskillen, E.
Cathcart, E.	Ferrers, E.
Cork and Orrery, E.	Holderness, L.
Cottesloe, L.	Kinloss, Ly.
Craigmyle, L.	Long, V.
Crathorne, L.	Loudoun, C.
Crawshaw, L.	Lyell, L.

McFadzean, L.	Romney, E.
Mansfield, E.	Sandys, L.—[Teller.]
Margadale, L.	Skelmersdale, L.
Marley, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L
Masham of Ilton, B.	Swinton, E.
Mersey, V.	Trumpington, B.
Mottistone, L.	Westbury, L.
Murton of Lindisfarne, L.	Windlesham, L.
Ridley, V.	Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

[Amendments Nos. 156 to 161 not moved.]

10 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 162: After Clause 30, insert the following new clause:

("Acquisition of land etc. by Planning Boards

. In section 119 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—

1. (a) in subsection (1), for the words "The Peak Park Joint Planning Board and the Lake District Special Planning Board "there shall be substituted the words" A board constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972";
2. (b) in subsection (2), for the words "The Boards" there shall be substituted the words "Any such board";
3. (c) in subsection (3), for the words "the Boards were local authorities" there shall be substituted the words "any such board were a local authority"; and
4. (d) the following subsection shall be added after that sub-section—

"(4) On being authorised to do so by the Secretary of State any such board shall have, for any purpose for which by virtue of this section they may acquire land compulsorily, the power to purchase compulsorily rights over land not in existence when their compulsory purchase is authorised which section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 confers on the local authorities to whom subsection (1) of that section applies, and subsections (2) to (5) of that section shall accordingly apply to the purchase of rights under this subsection as they apply to the purchase of rights under the said subsection (1).".").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this new clause amends Section 119 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 in two ways. Section 119 confers various powers directly on two planning boards; the Lake District Special Planning Board and the Peak Park Joint Planning Board. The two boards were reconstituted under Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972. Section 119 as enacted did not take account of the possibility that more planning boards could be established under Section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The first thing which the new clause does, therefore, is to amend Section 119 to remedy that omission.

The powers conferred on planning boards by Section 119 relate to the compulsory acquisition of land. As enacted, the section did not confer on the boards the power to acquire compulsorily new rights over land under Section 13 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The second thing which the new clause does, therefore, is to amend Section 119 by the addition of a new subsection (4) which confers such power on planning boards. Amendment No. 200 is consequential; it amends the Long Title of the Bill so as to admit the new clause.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 31 [Control of fly-posting]:

Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 163: Page 38, line 7, after ("borough") insert ("and as respects an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park, the National Park Committee Joint Planning Board or Special Planning Board").

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is in exactly the same form as an amendment I moved in Committee. The new provision which the Government are proposing in the Bill is an extension to the existing controls over the fly-posting of advertisements and recognises a deficiency which has existed in the law up to the present time. It is a simple and direct provision and a most welcome one. But it is drafted in a way which, I submit, creates unnecessary administrative complications in national parks, and I stress that I am talking only about nationals parks and not anywhere else.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment in another place, in introducing the new proposal, said clearly that the new power was deliberately linked with the system of planning control over outdoor advertising, which is another polite phrase for fly-posting. The amendment seeks to do exactly that, no more and no less; it would link the control of planning of outdoor advertising to the new power to remove unnecessary, unwanted or illegal advertisements. It has nothing to do with the control of environmental nuisances, which are the prerogative of district councils under the Public Health Act 1936.

My noble friend Lord Bellwin said in Committee that nobody had suggested that the clause as drafted by the Government was unworkable. I agree entirely, but the point I wish to make strongly on behalf of the national parks of England and Wales is that the clause would be much more easily operated, much better understood and, I believe, much less cumbersome if the amendment were made and if the national parks authorities themselves, as the authorities with the power to control these items, also had the new power to remove them.

The noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, also suggested that it was possible for a national park authority which wished to do so to delegate the power to remove these items by means of the arrangement of delegation under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972. Of course that is possible, but it is not necessarily very practical. In some areas there are a great number of district councils with at least parts of their administrative areas situated in a national park. For example, in the Peak District National Park there are no less than nine district councils, and one would have to exercise the delegated power in a complicated agency agreement with each one of them, or several of them. That would be quite unnecessary and administratively expensive.

I believe that the straight forward and seriously suggested amendment that I am proposing would make it much more simple for the national park itself to have the power. If it is suggested that national parks authorities do not have the staff to carry out this power, I am afraid that I would disagree, because I believe that they do have the staff, or if they do not, it is still open to them under the Bill to make an agency arrangement, if they wish, with the agreement of the district council. I would add that the Association of District Councils itself feels that this would be a sensible additional power to write into the Bill.

At the moment, control of advertisements within national parks is dealt with by national parks authorities and acceptance of the amendment would give the power merely where it should lie. As I say, the amendment is proposed seriously in a genuine effort to gain simplicity and efficiency. I know that one should not repeat what one said at the Committee stage, but the support of the Countryside Commission, which is the Government's adviser on this matter, is very strongly in my favour, and I hope that the Government have taken note of it. I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, at this time of night I should like only very briefly to support the amendment just moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. As he said, it is designed to achieve simplicity and efficiency. It makes absolute sense. The district councils are not responsible for advertisement control in the national parks; the national parks authorities are themselves responsible for that, and therefore it is only logical they should be responsible for the physical removal of any offending advertisements. It seems to be a simple, straightforward amendment. The noble Viscount very effectively covered almost every point concerned with cost, personnel, and the way that the matter should be handled, and I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the amendment.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, I should like to support the amendment. As my noble friend has made clear, this is a case where the assumption of the functions by the planning boards and the committees responsible for the national parks in lieu of the powers being exercised by the district councils will effect an economy. It seems to me that the amendment is very sensible, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, as he said himself, my noble friend has moved an amendment similar to that which he moved to Clause 31 of the Bill in Committee, and he has used all his customary persuasiveness and tenacity in support of the proposed change. With his usual courtesy, my noble friend also gave me advance warning of his intention to raise this issue again this evening and of the arguments that he intended to use in support of his case. My noble friend Lord Bellwin and I always listen with great respect to everything that my noble friend Lord Ridley says about local government issues, especially when they involve anything to do with national parks, and in this context I also listen to my noble friend Lord Sandford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I know that my noble friend Lord Bellwin considered this amendment with great care and deliberation when it was tabled at Committee stage, and that he resisted it then only because, on balance, he was not persuaded that it was desirable to amend Clause 31 in this way.

We are concerned with a summary power to remove fly-posting—that is, the environmental nuisance or eyesore which is caused, particularly in inner city areas, by the indiscriminate and illegal sticking-up of posters and fly-sheets. That is why the clause deliberately gives a summary power of removal, or obliteration, which district councils throughout England and Wales would be enabled to use when fly-posting needs to be removed at once. What we are not primarily concerned with is the normal administrative machinery for planning control over outdoor advertising. Had we been concerned with that part of our planning control system, the clause would have been drafted so as to give this new power to every local planning authority in England and Wales. It is quite true that there has to be a link with the system of advertisement control; but that link is only for the very specific and limited purpose of trying to ensure that a district council do not use this new power to remove or obliterate a poster or placard which is in fact being displayed lawfully, in accordance with provisions in the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1969, which govern outdoor advertising.

This is the main reason of principle, but my concern with this amendment is not just the issue of principle; I am equally concerned about its practical application. The Association of County Councils have claimed that simplicity and administrative efficiency would be improved if this amendment were made. With the greatest respect, I wonder whether this is so. Perhaps I may give one illustration from my noble friend's own county of Northumberland, which, though he may not know it, I also happen to know well myself. The administrative boundary of the Northumberland National Park runs between Otterburn (which, for those who do not know it, is a village alongside the A.696 road in Northumberland) and Otterburn Camp, which is a small settlement some two miles away to the north of Otterburn and has an excellent army camp at which I spent many fortnights.

Both these places are within the administrative area of Tynedale District Council, who would be given this new power to control fly-posting in Clause 31 as it is drafted. But if my noble friend's amendment were enacted the power in Otterburn Camp, only two miles away, would be given to the Northumberland National Park Authority. I could cite other cases where a national park boundary actually passes through a community, so that on one side of the street the district council would be able to use the new power but on the other side it would be used by the national park authority. I do not think this would be a sensible arrangement, and it would not necessarily promote administrative efficiency.

Having said that, I do not want to appear dogmatic to my noble friend and I therefore offer him, as I believe he is aware, a possible compromise by way of an agency agreement over the use of this power, where both the district council and the national park authority want it for any area within the boundary of a national park. I understand that the Association of County Councils accept that an agreement, under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, is entirely practicable for this purpose; and that seems to me to enable district councils and national park authorities to have what they want; namely, the administrative arrangement which is best adapted to suit local views and circumstances.

I realise that my noble friend will be disappointed with my response; but I hope that he will accept that everything which he and the Association of County Councils have said has been most carefully considered. If my noble friend is now persuaded by the arguments of principle and practice I have mentioned, I hope he may be willing to withdraw his amendment.

Baroness David

My Lords, I hope the noble Viscount will not be so willing. I have never heard such a long answer really saying not very much; and the fact that one or two national parks may get involved, when there are nine district councils, I think the noble Viscount said, in one case, is absolutely ridiculous. I think this is really making a tremendously big meal out of nothing very much. I hope very much that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, will pursue this. I do not think that what the Minister has said about pursuing it is very convincing, and I hope that a strong line will be taken opposite.

Viscount Ridley

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady David. I entirely agree that the answer is most unsatisfactory. If I can go back to Northumberland, which my noble friend quoted at me, I could show him about six places where the boundaries between different districts run down the street and where, therefore, there would be different arrangements on one side of the street from those on the other. I just cannot accept that argument, and I am afraid I wish to put this matter to the test.

10.14 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 163) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 28.

DIVISION NO. 3
CONTENTS
Airedale, L.	Northfield, L.
Birk, B.	Peart, L.
Bishopston, L.	Pitt of Hampstead, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Ridley, V.—[Teller.]
David, B.—[Teller.]	Ross of Marnock, L.
Davies of Leek, L.	Sandford, L.
Ewart-Biggs, B.	Stewart of Alvechurch, B.
Irving of Dartford, L.	Stewart of Fulham, L.
Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.	Stone, L.
	Underhill, L.

NOT-CONTENTS
Avon, E.	Lyell, L.
Belstead, L.	Mansfield, E.
Brougham and Vaux, L.	Margadale, L.
Craigmyle, L.	Marley, L.
Crathorne, L.	Mersey, V.
Crawshaw, L.	Mottistone, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Denham, L.—[Teller.]	Portland, D.
Elton, L.	Romney, E.
Enniskillen, E.	Sandys, L.—[Teller.]
Ferrers, E.	Skelmersdale, L.
Holderness, L.	Stodart of Leaston, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Westbury, L.
Long, V.	Wise, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.

10.22 p.m.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 164: Page 38, line 8, at end insert ("or other unauthorised message").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment gives local authorities the authority to remove slogans and other expressions spray painted on walls and buildings. I am very sorry to bring this amendment up again—I know it is extremely late— but in Committee concern was expressed by several noble Lords about both the aesthetic effect and also the actual content of the slogans. Having read what the Minister said in response, I feel that the present situation is a matter of concern.

From an environmental point of view, it makes parts of cities look absolutely appalling. There is nothing worse than the scrawling on walls, using these enormous spray cans, to make buildings and areas look very unattractive. From the other point of view, the writing up of slogans is a powerful instrument which is used by the National Front. In our system there are not many ways of suppressing and lessening the effect of the odious activities of the National Front. This amendment would be a small help but nevertheless it would be a help to the authorities and the police services in certain multicultural areas to stop the sensitivities of minority communities being aroused by the effects of these slogans written up by the National Front.

If we want to keep our cities looking as nice as possible, this is one way to help do so. If we want to do everything possible to protect the sensitivities of minority communities, then this amendment would again help. This is an adoptive clause so some local authorities obviously would not feel they need to avail themselves of it, for various reasons, especially if they did not have minority communities to protect; but other local authorities might be very grateful to avail themselves of this power.

I realise that local authorities already do a lot of voluntary clearing up for environmental reasons. I also realise that, in view of the cost and indeed the staff available to do this, they might feel that it is not their responsibility to clear up a mess on buildings belonging to public bodies. I have brought up this question because it is a matter of concern. If the Minister feels that he cannot go so far as to accept this, even on an adoptive basis, will he at least do everything he can to encourage the voluntary effort being made by local authorities as far as possible to stop spray painting of slogans in these areas? I beg to move.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, I hope the noble Minister will accept this proposal, although it was turned down in Committee. I think my noble friend Lady EwartBiggs has made a very convincing case, which frankly seems to me absolutely unanswerable. It has been accepted that authorities should have the power to remove placards or posters and, once that has been given, we really ought to include any other thing of this sort in the same section. As my noble friend has said, the spray painting very often produces the most offensive, horrible and obscene messages on walls of buildings, even on churches and synagogues. It has become a favourite practice of the National Front to use this way of public communication.

I believe that this may be, in words, a small amendment, but it is extremely important that local authorities should have this power and that it should be written into the Bill, so that they may use it. If there is any question of how to remove paint from walls, I do not believe that modern technology cannot find a way to obliterate the unpleasant messages put on by spray painting. I hope, even at this late hour and on Report stage, that the Government will accept the arguments put forward for this and will accept the amendment.

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, let me first say that the Government recognise that this is a matter which the noble Baroness is quite right to raise. We have gone to some trouble to find out what a few authorities already do to deal with something which everybody dislikes. We have found, even in the absence of specific statutory powers for this purpose, that certain authorities are already taking remedial steps to deal with this nuisance. When it appears on buildings the authorities own, on housing estates or in other places, the cleansing department goes into action to remove it. And when it is a publicly-owned building, belonging to some other public body, or it is a building in private ownership, the local authority will again go into action; but they will quite properly try and recover the cost from the owner of the building for whom they have, in effect, provided a service. What I am describing is the practice already adopted voluntarily—as part of their normal functions—by just a few of the best authorities.

Nevertheless, I and my colleagues in the Department of the Environment and the Welsh Office are reluctant to go to the length of amending Clause 31 so as to deal with this nuisance. We are reluctant to do so because once a provision of this kind is enacted it inevitably creates a presumption in people's minds that it is the council's job to clean up the mess, no matter who daubed or sprayed the expressions in the first place, or in what circumstances they appeared. I am told that the Association of District Councils do not agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, when she says "Rubbish". They do not want such a presumption created in public law, and therefore in fact they would oppose such an extension.

But, as I said at the outset, my colleagues and I share the noble Baroness's aim. I should therefore like to propose a different approach. Instead of a specific statutory obligation, the Government would like to encourage all district councils in England and Wales to adopt the practice of some of the best councils, which I have already described, in dealing with the matter voluntarily and charging for their services, if they consider that a charge is appropriate. When this Bill is enacted, there will be a departmental circular about its provisions, which will go to all local authorities in England and Wales; and it is proposed to include in that circular a reference to the concern, which we all share, about this problem and advice to all authorities to deal with this nuisance as effectively as they can, within the limits of their available resources.

I recognise that this method of dealing with the nuisance is not the way proposed by the noble Baroness but it need not be less effective, as I am sure the House will see, if district councils treat the matter seriously. We should keep the matter under review to see whether this approach produces the results which we all want to see. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that this is a reasonable compromise and that, for the time being at least, we should proceed in the way I have suggested.

Lord Sandford

My Lords, my noble friend made the point that district councils, for instance, would object if an obligation were laid upon them to clear up the mess, as he put it, wherever it occurs, whoever does it and whoever owns the building; and indeed that they would object. But this clause does not do that. This clause gives them a power and that really is quite a different point.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I think the point that the noble Lord made is absolutely right. We are just giving them a choice of taking up this power, if they want to do so. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his answer. It seems, at least, to be a compromise which he has hit upon, and perhaps it would be possible at some future time for him to let the House know how this method is working. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.33 p.m.

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 165 and 166: Page 38, line 17, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3A) of this section,"). Page 38, line 27, at end insert— (" (3A) A council may exercise a power conferred by subsection (1) of this section without giving the person who displayed the placard or poster notice under subsection (3) of this section if the placard or poster does not give his address and the council do not know it and are unable to ascertain it after reasonable inquiry.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may speak to Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 together, the purpose of these two minor amendments to Clause 31 is to introduce into the new Section 109A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 a new subsection (3A), which has the effect of modifying the obligation on a district council to give advance notice of their intention to remove or obliterate any illegal placard or poster in cases where they cannot readily find out where the person responsible for displaying it lives, or works. The council's obligation is now limited, so that they are entitled to proceed to remove or obliterate the illegal fly-posting without giving advance warning, when "reasonable inquiry" fails to establish the whereabouts of the person who should be notified. We believe that this is a reasonable relaxation. I commend Amendments Nos. 165 and 166 to the House. My Lords, I beg to move.

Baroness David

My Lords, I think that this amendment has come about as a result of something that I raised at Committee stage, so I am grateful that the Government have produced it. I am not quite sure how long "after reasonable inquiry" is, but maybe it is better not to inquire. It could be either shorter or longer. I just want to raise one point about placards. I asked on 29th March, in the debate on clause stand part, whether anything that was put on "A" boards could be obliterated or removed, and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, said that he did not think they could. But, in fact, I had a letter later saying that he would like to qualify that answer. I am glad to say—I want to raise this, because I want to have it established in Hansard that this is so—that "A" boards can have anything that is put on them removed. He said in his letter that there were different sorts of "A" boards. He said that some "A" boards, are designed specifically for the display of posters which are changed regularly, and we would expect the new power to be applicable in those circumstances". I should like the Minister to confirm that that is so.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, before the Minister answers, may I underline a point made by my noble friend? One accepts that an authority has to try to find out who is responsible, but "reasonable inquiry" can involve a very long delay—indeed, until everybody has forgotten all about it, even though the placard or poster remains. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that together with this amendment it will be important to incorporate in a circular to local authoriities that "reasonable inquiry" should not be protracted into a long delay?

The Earl of Avon

My Lords, first may I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady David, for not giving her the credit for what I now see appears on the previous page? I do so now. May I also confirm that what she said about "A" boards is correct. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, raised the question of reasonable inquiry on the part of local authorities. As she is well aware, this will be a matter for the courts to determine in any action where a person claims that his interest has been prejudiced by the council's failure to inquire thoroughly into his whereabouts. However, I will inquire into the point which she has raised and ensure that it is properly looked at.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 32 [Temporary markets]:

The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 167 and 168: Page 39, line 43, leave out ("substantially in the open air and otherwise than") and insert ("otherwise than in a building or"). Page 40, line 1, leave out ("marquees, tents,").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, these are drafting amendments. The first one, Amendment No. 167, is to remove any doubts whether temporary markets held in movable structures like marquees might be exempt from the provisions of the clause. The amendment ensures that markets held otherwise than in buildings properly so called will be liable to any prior notification requirement, unless exempted under any other provision.

The second amendment, No. 168, ensures that exemption from prior notification cannot be claimed on the ground that less than five such structures are involved. Structures such as marquees or tents may house a number of individual selling points and it is to these—rather than the structures themselves—that the numerical limit prescribed by the clause is meant to apply. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 167 and 168.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 169: After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:

("Control of self-operated laundries and dry cleaning establishments.

.—(1) A council may resolve that this section is to apply to their area; and if a council do so resolve this section shall come into force in their area on the day specified in that behalf in the resolution (which must not be before the expiration of the period of one month beginning with the day on which the resolution is passed).

(2) A council shall publish notice that they have passed a resolution under this section in two consecutive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in their area.

(3) The first publication shall not be later than 28 days before the specified day.

(4) For the purposes of this section premises shall be deemed to be used as a self-operated laundry when facilities are provided to the public on those premises on payment for washing or dry cleaning clothes or other articles by machines operated wholly or partly by the customer.

(5) In an area in which this section is in force the occupier of premises used either partly or wholly as a self-operated laundry shall, in order to ensure that the plant and machinery installed in the premises for the purposes of the business are so fitted and maintained as to avoid risk of explosion, leakage of fluids or vapour and danger to the persons operating or in the vicinity of the plant and machinery, cause such plant and machinery to be inspected at least once in every fourteen months after the specified day by a competent engineer appointed or approved by an insurance company (within the meaning of the Insurance Companies Act 1974) or approved by the district council in whose area the premises are situated and the occupier of the premises shall send to the council a certificate (in this section called "a certificate of inspection") by such an insurance company or by such an engineer certifying the result of the inspection.

(6) If—

(a) before the expiration of fourteen months and fourteen days from—

1. (i) the specified day; or
2. (ii) in the case of premises which are not used as a self-operated laundry before the specified day the date on which the premises are first used as a self-operated laundry; or
3. (iii) (except in the case of the first certificate of inspection to be made in respect of premises) the date on which the last certificate of inspection was sent by the occupier of the premises to the council,

the occupier of the premises fails to send a certificate of inspection to the council, the occupier of the premises shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(7) As from the specified day if in the opinion of the council any substance is used on the premises in connection with any dry-cleaning process which is likely to be dangerous the occupier shall, if so required by the council, display such precautionary notices as may be agreed between the council and such bodies as appear to them to represent the trade or business of self-operated laundries or as failing such agreement may be reasonably required for the purpose of warning the public.

(8) Any person who contravenes any provisions of subsection (7) above shall be liable to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(9) In this section—

"council" means the council of a district or of a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;

"specified day" means the day specified for the purposes of subsection (1) above.").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 169. We are bringing forward this amendment again, as the Minister reacted in a very negative way at the Committee stage. We have brought it forward again in a slightly modified version. As noble Lords will remember, the reason for wanting the amendment is to try to ensure in the case of self-operated launderettes that the plant and machinery used in completely unsupervised premises is safe, the key need, clearly, being that the person controlling the launderette should provide evidence of compliance by way of a certificate.

During the Committee stage we pointed out many reasons for this. First, launderettes provide a very useful social service, involving the attendance of a great number of children. Children in the first place are brought by their mothers who use the machinery. At a later stage the older child will be sent with the family washing to operate the machinery. In both cases there will always be children in attendance at the launderette. In addition—this is a different point—it must be made clear that we are asking for no more than is at present required from owners of office and shop premises containing self-operated passenger lifts. If it is important to check the safety of lifts, surely it must be equally important, and possibly more important, to check that the same safeguards are operating in the case of machinery in launderettes, where children are always involved—which is not the case at all with self-operated lifts in office buildings.

At Committee stage the Minister said that the reason he was not willing to accept this amendment was that local authorities already had sufficient powers and that we were merely asking for a duplication of control. But I really do not think that that is so. The purpose of this clause is that a complementary system be designed to enhance the existing arrangements. This can be clone by requiring that the results of a comprehensive inspection be afforded to the local authority instead of waiting for something to go wrong with the machinery before the inspection is asked for.

The present situation is that the owner of a launderette is committed, under Section 4 of the Health and Safety At Work Act, to ensure that any plant or substance on his premises is safe and without risk to health. This duty is enforced, in the case of establishments where an attendant is doing some of the dry cleaning, by inspectors from the Health and Safety Executive. In the case of all the rest, it is enforced by environmental health officers from district councils. Thus, these regulations simply represent a division of labour.

There is no doubt that these inspectors are competently carrying out routine inspections, but it is not part of their function to carry out a detailed overhaul, which can be done only by an electrical engineer; sometimes it is a case of diagnosing a fault that is about to become clear. I should have thought that only an electrical engineer would be able to do such fundamental work. The purpose of this clause is merely to underpin the general powers by ensuring that plant of this sort is checked as thoroughly as it possibly can be.

The need for these powers was acknowledged in Section 24 of the East Sussex Act 1981, which was brought into effect after consultations between East Sussex and the Health and Safety Executive. So it seems utterly inconsistent to accept that a need existed there and to deny that the need exists in respect of this particular clause.

On another point, it has been suggested that the clause might actually help rogue operators to neglect their machinery—this on the assumption that such an owner would only put his machinery into good order once every four months in order to get the certificate, feeling confident that he would be left alone in the intervening time by the local authority. Of course, this would indeed be true, but owing to the monumental work which environmental health officers have to do they would rarely have time to make more frequent visits in any case—except when called in in the case of an accident, which is exactly what we are trying to avoid. Surely it must be right at least to ensure that a check-up is carried out every 14 months by a qualified electrical engineer?

The proposed clause has been improved in minor respects. A key modification has been that it follows the line of the powers already obtained by East Sussex in the 1981 Act. It differs from our former version in that the power for the court to obtain closure of the premises and the sanction of prosecution and fine for failure to comply with such an order have been removed. Now the only sanction is for the non-production of the certificate and, of course, failure to display certain notices.

Finally, we should bear in mind that it is largely children who are at risk—and we have spent a great deal of time this evening debating the interests of dogs. In this case, there is a terrible list of injuries done to children—but I will not read it out because, first, the hour is late and, secondly, I am squeamish myself. The fact is that if a child's arm is caught in a spin dryer because it has a defective clasp, then that arm will be dragged off. This matter should be taken extremely seriously. Many of these accidents have been reported, and I should think there are many not reported. The certification proposed would be in line with the general trend for self-regulation and self-certification in other fields. Finally, the clause is drafted on a purely adoptive basis; authorities can avail themselves of it or not. I feel it is reasonable to afford this measure of control to local authorities, and I hope the Minister will agree. My Lords, I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Leek

My Lords, I think the succinct constructive approach of this amendment really cannot be resisted. In the Factory Acts and everything else there is a lacuna in this regard; there is no real supervision throughout the country in this type of launderette. If a machine like these self-washers were in a factory the factory inspectorate would be watching them if they were often used unsupervised. I think this amendment should be regarded in depth; I know it may be difficult, but I hope the Government will try to find some formula that will give some satisfaction to my noble friend and the House and the country that these unattended areas will be supervised more than is the case at present. I do not want to develop it because I think the arguments are pretty evident to all noble Lords on both sides of the House. I hope the Government will try to give a constructive answer, and if possible accept this amendment.

Baroness Birk

My Lords, my noble friends have explained what the benefits of this amendment would be. Although the Government turned down a rather similar amendment in Committee, I think there are several reasons why they should think again tonight. First, they have had more time to think about the advantages of an amendment of this kind, and the damage that has been and will continue to be done unless there is some control of these launderettes. Secondly, there is a change from the amendment drafted for Committee stage. This does take away the question of fines and puts the onus the other way round, on the owner or operator of the launderette to get a certificate. That seems to me a very neat, economical and responsible way of doing it. In other words, the operator has to present his or her certificate to the local authority; otherwise he or she cannot continue operating the launderette.

All this makes it a very simple, neat amendment, although it may be lengthy in words and in the sub-clauses. The Government have had plenty of time to consider it. I think they should accept it. The number of launderettes is on the increase, and the machinery is given a longer lease of life because people cannot afford to keep replacing it. If this machinery was in a large factory it would receive very much more careful attention and supervision. This machinery is accessible to young people—and even adults and old people need protection—and it should be kept up to standard. This amendment, which is a very mild one, not even mandatory, goes part of the way to achieve this.

Lord Elton

My Lords, this is the third occasion on which noble Lords and Members of another place have sought to make an amendment in these terms. I regret that, in spite of the charm of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the succinctness of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and the lucidity of the noble Baroness, the Government are still not persuaded that what they are seeking to do can be achieved by what they propose.

Local authorities already have sufficient powers under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 and the Health and Safety (Enforcing Authority) Regulations 1977 No. 746 (as amended), to ensure that self-operated laundries are safe and without risks to health to members of the public who resort to the premises and to any staff working at or visiting the premises. The regulations enable local authorities to enforce the 1974 Act in self-operated laundries and in respect of coin operated dry cleaning units in launderettes and similar premises. Among other things, launderette operators have a duty under the 1974 Act to maintain the plant, machinery and installation in a safe condition and local authorities have effective powers in the form of improvement and prohibition notices under Sections 21 and 22 of the Health and Safety at Work Act to deal with problems which may arise.

Recently—and this has been referred to particularly by the noble Baroness—in the East Sussex Act 1981, the inclusion of certain limited provisions, for example, for periodic inspection of premises, was not opposed where they could be shown to complement or at least stand side by side with national health and safety legislation. I understand that this clause is modelled on those provisions. However, the clause is technically deficient on two counts in that it imposes a duty for the maintenance of plant, machinery and installation in a safe condition, which duplicates an existing duty under the 1974 Act, and it does not include a saving provision to ensure that the requirements of the 1974 Act will prevail as provided in Section 105(2) of the East Sussex Act 1981, which the noble Baroness prayed in aid. In that context, I understand that the Health and Safety Executive are not convinced that the rigid certification scheme envisaged in this amendment is necessary, or that what it is desired to achieve cannot be achieved through the use of the powers given to local authorities under the 1974 Act.

We are also opposed to the principle of the proposed clause. We are not convinced that such provisions are necessary or that what they are desired to achieve cannot be achieved through the use of the powers given to local authorities that I have quoted. While provision may have been made in a local Act, this should not be regarded as an immutable precedent. Nor does it provide a reason why similar powers should be included in a public Act, even if it is by means of an adoptive nature. Where national legislation already exists, we must be careful to avoid duplication. The ubiquitous launderette, and we have all spoken of the way in which it is spreading, gives rise to much the same problems all over the country and if there is a deficiency in the legislation on a national basis, and this has not to my mind been demonstrated, the answer must be in mandatory rather than adoptive provisions.

There is one other consideration in practical terms which has come to our notice, and that is the somewhat paradoxical one to which the noble Baroness referred obliquely. We do find that where operators are now required to be certificated under the GLC (General Powers) Act 1973 for general purposes of safety, the possession of such a certificate is actually cited by operators whose plant has become defective since certification, as reassuring proof that all is well. These are not rogue operators, as the noble Baroness suggested; they are just gullible people who think they have a piece of paper that says their machines are safe and assume that they are, and do not inspect them until something goes wrong. In that way lies tragedy and exactly the opposite of what the amendment is designed to achieve. If the local authorities genuinely feel that the general requirements of the 1974 Act are not sufficient, then perhaps they should make a case to the Health and Safety Commission for Health and Safety Regulations. I do not think that the way proposed here is the right way to do it.

Baroness Ewart-Biggs

My Lords, I think that some of the things that the Minister said were the same as those that I said, but the other way round. I still think that he has not answered the point that some of these defects would be detected by electrical engineers when they would not be detected from the inspections that are now being made.

When I referred to the operators, I really meant to say a private owner rather than operators of launderettes that are part of a chain, which I can quite see would automatically be checked. But a private owner would only have it looked at when he had to. I agree that it is important that he should have it looked at every 14 months rather than when it goes wrong. In this case there would be no doubt that he would have to. I made the point that, as the workload on the environmental officers is very heavy, they probably would not come in during that 14 months anyhow. So it would at least ensure one definite check-up every year.

I have used launderettes myself, and they are packed with children. I do not think the Minister knows how small children can get into very bad trouble very quickly indeed. As my noble friends said, a machine like this in a factory, where there are no small children around, would be under very much stricter control. Frankly, I am amazed at the Minister's reaction and I should very much like to think about it further, because I gather that there is one more stage to this Bill. At the moment, I shall withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.57 p.m.

Baroness David moved Amendment No. 170: After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:

("Power to specify a minimum age for entry to premises used wholly or mainly for amusement with prizes machines. . The following paragraph shall be inserted after paragraph 10 of the Ninth Schedule to the Gaming Act 1968— 10A. On granting or renewing a permit in respect of any premises to which paragraph 4 of this Schedule applies the appropriate authority may grant or renew subject to a condition providing that persons under the age of 16 years may not be allowed to enter or remain on such premises unless accompanied by a parent or bona fide guardian.".").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am trying a more modest amendment this time about premises used wholly or mainly for amusement with prizes machines. Last time I tried to give local authorities power to impose conditions rather generally, but now I am trying for something very much simpler—just that, if the local authorities think it right, they can make regulations preventing people under the age of 16 going into such places.

It is important to remember that there are two distinctions made by law in dealing with amusements with prizes. There are those premises used wholly or mainly for providing amusements and those premises, such as cafés and public houses, in which the amusements are no more than an incidental feature. Local authorities have plenty of powers to deal with the second sort. So they can adopt policies not to grant permits in retail shops, cafés or whatever and also to restrict the number of machines. But what we are concerned about is the lack of powers available to local authorities to control premises used wholly or mainly for amusement with prizes; that is, amusement centres or arcades.

The Minister will remember—perhaps he will not because I believe it was a different Minister, but he may have read the account—that I moved an amendment in Committee seeking powers for local authorities to impose conditions limiting the number of machines which might be made available. During the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, advised that the Government were still considering the report of the Royal Commission on Gambling, published in 1978—four years ago—which strongly recommended that local authorities should have greater powers to impose conditions on licences for amusement arcades. He also indicated that some constructive proposals for amending legislation were being considered but the Government were not yet in a position to put forward their proposals, and I was told that probably there would not be an amendment on Report. Of course, we are glad that this question is under active consideration, but we think that the question of controlling admission of children into these premises is really urgent and important.

The purpose of this amendment is to empower local authorities to deal with this aspect. Some managers of amusement arcades have entered into voluntary agreements with local authorities to impose bans on unaccompanied children. However, a survey undertaken last year by the AMA showed that such voluntary bans were rarely enforced. The association asked all its member authorities where, in their view, voluntary bans were effective. The replies revealed quite alarming occurrences going on in these arcades. I shall quote a few.

One borough said that serious concern had been expressed by magistrates over the number of offenders who claim to have spent the proceeds of crime in a particular arcade. As a result of these remarks, observation was kept on the arcade by members of the plainclothes department of the local police, who reported that on every occasion the arcade had been visited the majority of customers appeared to be in the 12 to 16 years age group. When the original gaining permit was issued for this arcade in 1978 the holder entered into a voluntary agreement with the council in which he undertook not to allow any person under the age of 16 to enter the premises. It would seem abundantly clear from observations made that no effort was being made to comply with this agreement.

Another incident concerned the involvement of young males in offences of indecency with a male adult. One man was detained in custody by the police after being arrested for committing several offences of this nature, having picked up the young people in the amusement arcade. When the arcade was visited by the police it was observed that the proprietor was not displaying a notice indicating the age limit for persons using the premises, even though he had a voluntary agreement with the council.

Another borough reported that, while interviewing a 15-year-old schoolboy reported as missing from home, it came to police notice that he had stolen his father's building society pass book and made a number of withdrawals to the value of £350. These had been spent in the arcade. The police say that since that offence they have made a check on the premises and found many youths frequenting the premises when they should have been at school. I have an account of several other boroughs where this has been going on.

We all know that there is a lot of difference between an amusement arcade in a seaside resort, which is there to provide family fun and entertainment, and the sort of sleazy places which are now spreading, especially in some inner city areas, which are not much more than meeting places for criminals, prostitutes, drug pushers and the like. This is why the amendment provides a discretion for local authorities to impose an age limit according to the nature and location of the particular premises.

Alarm has been spreading about the rate at which these amusement arcades have been growing in city shopping centres in areas where there are all too often many young unemployed. Most seaside towns, in any event, define their resort areas for Sunday trading purposes and the association does not believe that this amendment provides any threat to the family type of amusement arcade. It is not always easy to tell how old some young people are, but the purpose of this amendment is to deal with amusement arcades which are persistently and predominantly frequented by young people of the 12 to 17 year age group and where anyone who enters such premises could easily see for themselves the predominance of young people.

We strongly urge the House to agree this amendment. Parliament has always felt it desirable to protect young people from activities about which adults are considered responsible enough to make up their own minds. Young people under 14 may not go into betting shops, pubs and casinos. We believe that some amusement arcades in metropolitan areas are far more undesirable places for young people to be. Apart from the gambling activity in these places, as mentioned earlier, some present moral dangers and the amendment will assist the police and local authorities to deal with this type of establishment. The amendment has a precendent in the law relating to pubs, and so on. I hope that with this much smaller amendment the Government will be able to agree. I beg to move.

11.4 p.m.

Lord Elton

My Lords, in looking at this amendment the first reservation which one is bound to have is that of enforceability. I take the point that the noble Baroness made in her closing paragraph that there is an analogy with the public house. I do not suppose that she is a regular frequenter of either sort of establishment, but the public house has a lockable and narrow door and the amusement arcade is wide open at one end and usually at the other. Even if there were a barrier it would need to be constantly staffed both to ensure that unaccompanied under 16s did not get past it and to establish that adults accompanying under 16s were parents or bona fide guardians as required in the proposal. If the condition were not complied with, and there would undoubtedly be many breaches, these would be offences under the Act, and, if convicted, the proprietor would be liable to a fine of up to £1,000 and could lose his permit. There could also be a considerable loss of trade if such a condition were imposed, and in some cases it could affect the commercial viability of the business. If it worked, it would be draconian, and if it did not, it would bring the Act into disrepute.

I should also point out that we are not talking about large-scale gambling, as the machines in question are not jackpot machines but amusement ones with a maximum stake of lop and a maximum prize of £1 in money, or a non-monetary prize to the value of £2. I do not underestimate the rate at which lop pieces can disappear into the slot, but we are not talking of Las Vegas scale activities. The amendment would not stop under-16s from playing such machines, since shops, cafés, launderettes and so on may have permits for them, and I do not think the noble Baroness would wish to prohibit under-16s from entering those places unaccompanied, even for reasons of safety which we were discussing earlier.

We have received representations to the effect that some school-children and young people have become addicted, and I am aware of that difficulty. While this is a complex and difficult area—in which I do not think the amendment as it stands, and even as it is conceived, would be the right method of approach—the Government are aware of the desire of local authorities for increased powers in connection with the grant of permits for amusement places, and the local authorities have made some constructive suggestions which are being considered. I think I can safely say that, if those representations are persuasive and if what they propose is workable, the Government would be quite well disposed to doing something in a later vehicle. But I do not think the amendment in this measure is the proper way to do it. I am trying to demonstrate to the noble Baroness that we have a concern, that we do not see it quite in the way she does and that we shall do what we can, but it will not be done in thfis Bill.

Baroness David

My Lords, the Royal Commission had a concern four years ago—it went much further than I have gone in the amendment—yet nothing has been done. We heard last time about constructive suggestions possibly coming forth; it is all promises, but the years pass and nothing is done. The Minister thought a fine of, say, £1,000 was rather large if these people were convicted. On the other hand, earlier today we agreed a fine of £10,000 for an under 18-year-old being inside—not even being employed in—a sex shop or sex establishment, so I do not quite follow his logic in that argument.

The places we are discussing are very profitable indeed and could afford high fines, even if the amount put in the slot on each occasion may be perhaps 10p. Does the noble Earl not think the law is in disrepute because, for example, there is no doubt that a great many young people go into pubs and buy drinks? His arguments were unconvincing. However, at this hour it would be ridiculous to divide the House—I believe we could muster about 30—so it is with a great deal of dissatisfaction, not having been in the least convinced by the noble Earl's argument, that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Denham

My Lords, this is probably about the time to finish. I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.