Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill (Hansard, 14 January 1986)

§ The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare)
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Aberdare.)

§ Lord Graham of Edmonton
My Lords, I rise to give a welcome to the Bill at Second Reading and to remind the House that in a previous Session the Bill, somewhat enlarged, began its progress through another place. Those who follow these matters will be aware that on that occasion that Bill ran into a number of difficulties, not least because it caused a great deal of distress to street traders because of provisions in it about which the National Market Traders Federation and the London Union of Street Traders expressed very great concern.
I am delighted that the chairman of the GLC, Mr. Tony Banks, who handled this Bill on behalf of the GLC in another place, recognised the strength of the opposition that was raised on the Floor there. He took the Bill back and the offending clauses were removed. I congratulate not only Mr. Banks but also the GLC, which in fact was acting then merely as agent for the London boroughs, on recognising that the Bill which is now before us is certainly benign in its intention and very beneficial to London boroughs.
I think it is also appropriate to recognise that this is perhaps the final opportunity of acknowledging that the GLC, in the general powers Bill—and this is the last time one can come before us—has sought on many occasions to be the servant of the people of London and in this sense, acting on behalf of London boroughs, has brought forward a Bill with clauses which are very beneficial to the London boroughs. Therefore I certainly give the Bill a very warm welcome and wish it a speedy passage.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, as the noble Lord has said, this is the last of quite a long series of GLC Bills; but it seems to me to call for some explanation as to why it is necessary, in the middle of January, to start our proceedings on a GLC general powers Bill, when, as your Lordships know, the GLC itself will cease to exist at the end of the month after next. It seems a quite extraordinary proceeding.

§ Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, it is acting as agent for the boroughs.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
It is, my Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, from a sedentary position (which is a little surprising in the case of a Chief Whip) points out: it is acting in part as agent for the boroughs. But in fact if the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, looks at the Bill he will see that it also contains provisions which increase the powers of the GLC itself. Part I of the Bill does just that. I am glad that the noble Lord is going to have a look at it. It does in fact contain in the recital what seemed to me to be the astonishing words: Whereas it is expedient that … the powers of the Greater London Council … should be extended". 964 It would have seemed a tidier procedure to leave the London local government legislation to the successor authorities. I do not know (my noble friend the Chairman of Committees may tell us) when, if ever, it is likely that this Bill will become law, but in Part I it will give these further powers to the GLC for only a limited number of weeks, and this seems to me to be an odd way to use the legislative process.
As the noble Lord has pointed out, a good deal of the Bill, and Part II in particular, deals with powers given to the boroughs. There is one clause at which I hope very much the Select Committee, to whom this Bill will no doubt be committed, will look very carefully indeed; that is Clause 11, which seeks, among other things, to set up organisations known as sex encounter establishments—an expression which so far as I can recall is one which is new to our law and I hope to our local government system. It would be premature to comment on the whole of this elaborate set of proposals; but I think they call for very careful investigation, because it seems to me, on a quick reading of them, that there are real possibilities of abuse here, and indeed of establishing a series of organisations which may well be both socially and morally harmful.
I end by pointing out that the Bill is promoted by the GLC. It is promoted on behalf of the GLC by the head of administrative law and parliamentary branch of the Greater London Council; and I think that before we send it to a Select Committee we really ought to know a little more as to the reasons the GLC is legislating at this stage and why Parliament is not leaving the matter to be dealt with by the successor authorities, which will be likely to carry responsibility for its provisions for a somewhat longer period.

§ Lord Aberdare
My Lords, I am grateful for the points that have been made by the two noble Lords who have spoken. If I may first of all refer to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, I am not sure that he correctly explained to your Lordships what had happened to the regulation of street trading provisions. The fact of the matter was that in another place large sections of this Bill were effectively removed. First of all the whole of Part IV, which contained provisions relating to the control of amusement arcades, was withdrawn by the promoters. As regards Part V, to which I think he referred, which dealt with the regulation of street trading, these clauses were disallowed by the Committee.
As far as the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, are concerned, this Bill started some time ago in another place and has come to us as a result of having been carried over into this Session. Only two clauses refer to the GLC itself, in Part II of the Bill, as he rightly said. The remaining provisions are all powers—

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, Part I refers to the GLC.

§ Lord Aberdare
I will have a quick look, my Lords, but my piece of paper says Part II. It is Part II of the Bill: Part I is merely preliminary—"Short title" and "Interpretation". Only two clauses relate to the powers of the GLC. That is because they refer to matters 965 which are at present part of its responsibilities. But the intention is that this private Bill should receive Royal Assent before the abolition of the GLC, and on the date that it is abolished, under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1985, the powers contained in those two clauses, which relate to licences for music and dancing and to the prevention of flooding, will then go to the successor authorities. The effect will be that all the provisions in the Bill will end up with the boroughs which will be in a position to exercise them after the abolition of the GLC.
I should like to give the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, the assurance that the Select Committee on Unopposed Bills will look carefully at Clause 11, as he requested. I hope that with that explanation your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.