HL Deb 27 June 1990 vol 520 cc1702-16

House again in Committee.

Clause 89 [Summary proceedings by litter authorities]:

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 304A: Page 98, line 8, leave out subsection (10).

The noble Lord said: I apologise for being a little overdue. The purpose of this amendment is to remove the restriction on local authorities entering Crown land or land of statutory undertakers to clean up where an abatement notice is not effective.

This seems to be an unnecessary restriction which will limit the practical effectiveness of Part IV. Clause 89 as a whole includes a provision for local authorities, in the last resort where a litter abatement notice has failed, to enter land and to clean up mess. Yet Clause 89(10) prevents this power from applying to Crown land or land of statutory undertakers.

In practice therefore mess on land around hospitals, or British Rail land and in some other places that are frequently used by the public will be excluded from this final clean-up power. The only justification for this provision in the Bill would be if the Government could give an assurance that all statutory undertakers and managements of Crown premises will by one means or another be placed under an obligation to have regard to abatement notices. It would seem difficult in practice for the Minister to be able to give quite such an assurance.

The problem with the Bill is that, consistent with its wholly academic approach to Part IV as a whole, it differentiates land by ownership rather than by its role in the community or its geographical location. Much land held by statutory undertakers is in the very centre of our cities and towns and should not be left in a poor state simply because one public authority does not wish to admit another onto its premises. If Crown land or the land of a statutory undertaker is in such a state that a litter abatement notice is necessary, clearly something is likely to be wrong in the management of that establishment. There can be no certainty that it will be cleared up as a result. In the case of British Rail, powers of entry to clean sites may have to be obtained through serving a time and place notice because of the health and safety implications. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

Amendment No. 304A deals with the question of the powers of local authorities to clear litter and refuse in default when a person on whom a litter abatement notice has been served fails to respond.

In general, local authorities have powers to enter on to the land concerned, clear the litter or refuse, and recharge the owner or occupier. Subsection (10) of Clause 88 makes two exceptions to that power. The local authority has no default powers in relation to the land of statutory undertakers or the Crown.

The reasons for that exclusion are, I believe, entirely defensible. It was made very clear to us by British Rail, London Regional Transport and other transport operators likely to be covered by the provisions of Part IV, that it is a quite unacceptable safety risk to allow untrained local authority workers on to railway or tube embankments to clear litter. Litter clearance on this kind of land is an operation which needs careful planning, in consultation with traffic controllers, and the danger both to the general public and to the local authority staff themselves could be considerable. The same arguments apply to motorway verges and carriageways (and those of other high speed trunk roads) which are under the control of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

I should also make the additional point that we are confident that, in the case of Crown land in general, the very fact that a notice has been issued will be sufficient embarrassment for swift action to be taken without the need for the local authority to step in.

Given those very sensible reasons for the presence of subsection (10), I urge the noble Lord, Lord Dean, to leave the amendment out of the Bill and subsection (10) in.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I recognise that he has a valid point regarding the possibility of people being placed at risk by entering dangerous areas with which they are not familiar. Before taking the matter further I should like to read what the Minister said. With the proviso, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 89 agreed to.

Clause 90 [Street litter control notices]:

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 304AA: Page 98, line 15, at end insert: ("(1A) An occupier of premises selling prepared food for consumption on or off the premises (and other than at home) shall be taken to be subject to a duty to keep clean the frontage of the premises, whether or not any notice has been issued.").

The noble Lord said: The amendment is grouped with Amendment No. 304AB in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Both amendments seek to place fast food outlets under a general duty to keep clear the frontages of their premises. It is not an attack on McDonald's. On the whole I believe that McDonald's keeps the frontages of its premises very clean, as I am sure do Kentucky Fried Chicken and many other fast food outlets. It is their customers who tend to deposit their waste, although they tend to take it further away rather than leaving it outside the immediate frontage, and dump it, in adjoining streets.

It is a problem which is encountered by town and city dwellers every day. I believe that it would be helpful if such a provision were written into the Bill. It may be that the Government will point to difficulties in defining what is a fast food outlet so far as regards drafting legislation, and no doubt I shall hear about that shortly. It is a menace, although I recognise that the firms do their very best to keep their premises and the surrounding area clean. Nevertheless, when one is selling takeaways a great deal of litter is deposited by those who have consumed it, or part of it, and then dump the packaging anywhere. The amendment would go some way to help in that situation. I beg to move.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has said. The amendments are linked. I have no desire to dwell further on the case which the noble Lord has made very adequately, other than to say that if one goes to areas of entertainment where people gather in the evenings or at weekends and take advantage of the fast food outlets one can see that the local people have to cope with an appalling situation. However, the people who live near football grounds are lucky because, although there may be a mess on Saturday night, very often the football club will employ people to ensure that the area is cleaned up by Sunday morning.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, has made a worthy case. I support the amendment and shall listen carefully to what the Minister has to say.

8.15 p.m.

The Earl of Balfour

I wonder whether in this case many of these matters could be covered by local authority by-laws. I hope that the Committee will forgive me for digressing for once. I must express my appreciation to the noble Lords, Lord Ross and Lord McIntosh, for putting down these amendments because they have drawn to my attention the fact that there is no provision within this very comprehensive legislation for anybody to make by-laws. I believe that it is a defect in this comprehensive legislation that nothing of that nature has been put forward.

I have been very unkind because I have given no warning that I would raise the point, but it is obviously a matter that can be considered between now and Report. I believe that I may have struck a very important point. However, I do not wish to delay the Committee and I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for raising the matter.

Lord Hesketh

Amendments Nos. 304AA and 304AB deal with the question of the cleanliness of commercial frontages.

Amendment No. 304AA would place a duty on all non-domestic frontagers who sell prepared food for consumption on or off their premises to keep that frontage clean, whether or not they have been issued with a street litter control notice by the local authority. Amendment No. 304AB does very much the same. Regardless of any street litter control notices which may have been issued, it would place a duty on the occupiers of any premises selling food for immediate consumption to keep their frontages clear of litter as far as is praticable. However, in this case the Secretary of State must specify in regulations the premises to which the duty will apply.

I assume that these amendments are aimed at fast food establishments and I would agree that litter emanating from such premises can be a problem. However, we do not accept the amendments, for a number of good reasons. First, not all premises which sell prepared food create litter. That is recognised by Amendment No. 304AB, but I shall deal with that point shortly. There are some fast food operators in particular who go to great lengths to ensure that extra bins are provided outside their premises and who diligently clean the street, not only outside their establishment but for some distance around it, as the noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned.

Amendment No. 304AB would appear to recognise that not all premises create litter, and would require the Secretary of State to issue regulations specifying to which premises the duty would apply. I am afraid that this would be impracticable. It would require the Secretary of State to have knowledge of all the premises throughout the country which sell fast food and to make a judgment as to which ones should be subject to the duty. Furthermore, the amendment does not give the Secretary of State any guidance as to the criteria against which he must make his decision. The proposal is therefore not acceptable.

We feel that our approach to the problem is more flexible than that suggested. Local authorities can issue street litter control notices to the occupiers of those premises, not ony fast food operators, which create litter or whose frontages are persistently littered. They can therefore target the occupiers of those premises who do little or nothing at present to clear their littered frontages. These notices can specify an area to be kept clean which can extend some distance from the premises in question. They can also specify certain requirements which the local authority feels is necessary to clear up the litter permanently.

For those reasons we resist the amendments. I should also point out to my noble friend Lord Balfour that local authorities have powers to make abatement orders and, therefore, we do not believe that there is a need for by-laws in this context.

The Earl of Balfour

I must accept that answer but perhaps between now and Report stage the Minister would consider the matter. For example, in the Water Act—I chose that Act just as an example on by-laws—Sections 114, 158 and 186 introduce by-laws and, for what it is worth, there is a complete schedule, Schedule 24, on them.

Lord Ross of Newport

The noble Earl has raised the very interesting subject of by-laws. I hope that nothing in this Bill will prevent local authorities from enacting their own by-laws. In Westminster they have done just that by introducing fines for dropping litter.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I understand the difficulties. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 304AB not moved.]

Lord Dean of Beswick moved Amendment No. 304B: Page 98, line 40, at end insert ("including a requirement that the refuse shall not be placed in street containers").

The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to enable authorities, as part of a street control notice, to prevent an offender from dumping the rubbish concerned in the nearest waste bin. Street litter control notices are typically likely to be necessary for large retailers and fast food outlets. The purpose of the notice would be to regulate the way in which they deal with large quantities of rubbish, much of it of the type that needs rapid collection to avoid quick deterioration.

In practice, authorities will wish to establish systems with such outlets whereby rubbish is placed in bags at particular locations for collection. They will want in particular to ensure that bagfuls of such rubbish are not simply removed and placed in the nearest litter bin, filling the litter bin and preventing its use by others as well as cutting across other collection arrangements. The amendment is put forward as a minor extension of the control notice powers.

Reading the brief provided on the amendment, I take the view that this provision is intended to stop wholesale dumping of more or less commercial rubbish in bins that have been provided for the mundane stuff put in them by ordinary pedestrains and people who simply buy fast foods locally. The bins are placed there for their benefit. On that basis I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

Amendment No. 304B would include in a street litter control notice the requirement that refuse must not be placed in a "street container".

Local authorities are already required to specify in such a notice any reasonable requirements that they feel necessary to alleviate the problem of litter in particular circumstances. Some local authorities may agree with the noble Lord's amendment, and if so they could specify such a requirement in their notices. Others may want frontagers to put any refuse that they collect into a bin. Local authorities should, after all, have the best information about local situations. It must therefore be left to the discretion of the individual local authority to determine what is, and what is not, appropriate for its area.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. There is a great deal of merit in what he said and in the way in which he explained the situation. I should like to read his remarks and on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 90 agreed to.

Clause 91 agreed to.

Lord Ross of Newport moved Amendment No. 305:

After Clause 91, insert the following new clause:

("Litter register

.—(1) It shall be the duty of each litter authority to maintain a register containing copies of—

  1. (a) all orders it has made under section 87(3) above;
  2. (b) all litter abatement notices it has issued under section 89(1) above;
  3. (c) all street litter control notices it has issued under section 90 above.

(2) Copies of documents shall remain on the register while the order or notice to which they relate is in force and for one year thereafter.

(3) The authority shall secure that the register kept under subsection (1) above is open to inspection at its principal office by members of the public free of charge at all reasonable hours and shall afford to members of the public reasonable facilities for obtaining, on payment or reasonable charges, copies of documents included in the register.").

The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the absence of my noble friend Lord Addington. It deals with the maintenance of a register of copies of all notices issued by litter authorities. At present the Bill has no provision for publicity orders establishing litter control areas, litter abatement notices or street litter control notices.

The noble Lord may well agree that publicity is important, particularly in the case of a prospective purchaser of property which may be subject to a notice or be included in a litter control area. There also remains the more general point that such registers must always be readily available to members of the public. I hope that we can have some reassurance on this matter. It seems to me to be a very obvious amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Reay

Amendment No. 305 would place a duty on local authorities to maintain a register which would contain copies of all the orders that they have made designating land as a litter control area together with all the litter abatement notices and street litter control notices that they have issued. This register would then be open to inspection by the public, who would also be able to obtain—for a fee—copies of the relevant documents.

I can see the reasoning behind this amendment which is in keeping with the Government's general policy on openness. A register would be of interest to the general public who might reasonably wish to know what land in their area has been designated as a litter control area, particularly if they are considering enforcement action. As the Bill stands at the moment, they would have no other method of finding out which land had been so designated. However, it is doubtful whether any benefit would accrue if details of litter abatement notices were to be entered into the register as such information would be of little practical interest to the public.

The imposition of another requirement on local authorities will have resource implications which we should like to look into, so we cannot accept the amendment today. However, if the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment in the name of his noble friend, I shall give him an assurance that the issue will be considered further by the Government.

Lord Ross of Newport

I accept that helpful response. I think it is particularly important when making searches before buying property and in certain other circumstances. The provision does not cover all the notices for which we asked but includes some of them. That information ought to be readily available. I am grateful that the Government will look into this matter. On those grounds I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 92 agreed to.

Clause 93 [Powers in relation to abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys]:

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 306: Page 101, line 34, leave out ("that Schedule 4 to this Act") and insert ("after consultation with persons or representatives of persons who appear to be affected by the application of Schedule 4 to this Act that Schedule 4").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 308, 309 and 310. Since a question was addressed to me outside this Chamber, it is necessary for me to take the unusual step of saying that I do not have an interest to declare in the series of amendments which are before the Committee right now.

In Clause 93 we move into the area of trolleys. I must say at the outset that Clause 93 as written in the Bill is helpful and a useful addition in that it extends the local powers and also the voluntary schemes around the country for the control and, as it were, the containment of abandoned trolleys. However, there are certain parts of the clause and its associated schedule, Schedule 4, which I believe could be improved by taking into account the experience of retailers and the existing powers. That interest is reflected in the amendments that I intend to discuss.

It might be helpful to the Committee if I give some background to these matters. Supermarket retailers, the railways, airport operators and DIY stores are all affected. In the Bill there is some fair detail about what a trolley is, whether it is a luggage trolley or a shopping trolley. I suppose that a trolley is a trolley. We are not talking simply about trolleys that are used for shopping and which mostly come out of supermarkets.

The trolley owners—those who provide the trolleys for the convenience of their clients and customers—are the main people affected by Clause 93 and Schedule 4. They have a lot of experience in both the operation of similar legislation and the collection of trolleys which have been abandoned by individuals. It is important to recognise that it is not the retailer who is responsible for leaving his valuable property littered about the streets of towns and the countryside, but the consumer. Nevertheless it is the retailer who bears the costs of recovery and of making good damage to trolleys and so on. It is estimated that the cost to retailers of lost and abandoned trolleys amounts to several million pounds a year. There is therefore a fairly strong incentive for retailers to look after their trolleys, to contain them within their own environment and so on.

I remind the Committee that there are already three lots of local legislation which contain powers for local authorities to collect abandoned trolleys and to charge for their return. They are the Berkshire Act 1986, the Exeter City Council Act 1987 and the London Local Authorities Act 1990. Schemes which operate under those Acts also operate around the country voluntarily among local authorities even where there is no legislation.

Amendments Nos. 387, 388 and 389 repeal the relevant sections in the Acts to which I have referred. Under the provisions in those Acts and under the voluntary arrangements which exist outside those Acts, there is a guidance scheme. That guidance was recognised by the London Local Authorities Act 1990. I have a copy of the scheme. Section 43 of that Act states: A borough council may agree with the owners of trolleys a scheme for collection, containment or restriction".

The scheme has been applied reasonably successfully up and down the country. It is against that background that these amendments are set down.

Amendment No. 306 would insert in Clause 93 a requirement for a local authority to consult those who would be affected by the matters covered in Schedule 4 before it resolved that the schedule was to apply in its area. In other words, the Bill provides for consultation but after the resolution has been made. That is shutting the door after the horse has bolted.

When discussing Amendment No. 302A on the subject of consultation, my noble friend Lord Balfour received the assurance from the Minister that there would be consultation. I am sure that is right. But what is the good of consulting after the resolution has been made? As we have seen in the past, under the Acts that I have mentioned, systems, agreements, arrangements and schemes can be worked out. It may not therefore be necessary for local authorities to operate Schedule 4.

I shall not weary the Committee with examples of containment schemes. I shall wait to hear that Minister's response. However, there are innumerable schemes for different areas such as grids, containment schemes, deposit schemes and so on. Industry and the railways are doing a great deal. The effect of Amendment No. 308 would be to enable local authorities to return trolleys after a period of six weeks had elapsed. Under subsection (1)(a) the Bill would not permit an owner to claim a trolley in the event that the local authority had not yet sold or otherwise disposed of it at the end of the six weeks.

Amendment No. 309 inserts the wording from Clause 43(8) of the London Local Authorities Act 1990. I accept that there is a later proposal that that should be repealed. It is necessary to reinsert those words because in retailers' experience some local authorities have not looked after trolleys properly. They have caused damage while loading them, in storage and on delivery. I believe that it is only reasonable that a local authority—the collecting agency—should take reasonable care. Trolleys cost about £50 each. If they are adversely damaged in a collection, delivery or storage service it is possible that no claimant will come forward because that charge might be too great. In that case the collecting authority has a disposal problem. Therefore let us put duty upon it to take reasonable care.

Amendment No. 310 deals with charges. It would ensure that the charges cover the costs of collection, storage and delivery by the local authority. Some local authorities have attempted to charge fees of £50 per trolley, approximately equal to the cost of a new trolley. There has been press comment to the effect that local authorities should or could use the opportunity to inflict penalties upon the retailers in this matter. I suggest to the Committee that the problems we face will be overcome only with the co-operation of the trolley owners, the users and the authority as a recoverer. There should be no suggestion whatsoever that there is profiteering at the expense one of the other.

The precedent of earlier legislation to which I have referred is relevant. It is the basis for this group of amendments. It is an important matter. I ask the Minister whether he will deliver his response at a speed which my poor and tired mentality will be able to take on board. I say that in no spirit of criticism but in earnestness since I wish to pay much attention to what he says. I beg to move.

8.30 p.m.

Lord Dean of Beswick

I listened in detail to the amendments that the noble Lord moved. The salient point that he made at the beginning interested me most. He referred to consultation. I believe that it is a misuse of the word "consultation" if it merely means saying to people after the change has been made or the order placed, "That is what we have done; and we shall now consult".

The noble Lord has made a good case. Consultation before such action can engender good will. It will probably produce a more practical solution than acting precipitately and saying, "We have done that. Can we?". The noble Lord raised a specific point. We support it.

The Earl of Balfour

My noble friend Lord Lucas has raised a very important point. I am certain that the railways and shopping centres have no wish to lose trolleys. Having considered the matter again, and having listened to what my noble friend has said, I believe that the Government are hanging the wrong man, if I may put it crudely. The last thing the shops wish is for people to walk off with trolleys. The shop owners and local authorities should surely be encouraged in every possible way to get together to return the trolleys.

I understand that the dumping of trolleys is an appalling problem for the National Rivers Authority and the river purification authorities of Scotland. People dump them in streams. I hope that the Government will consider the matter again very seriously. Let us blame the people who walk off with the trolleys, not the poor store owner.

Lord Hesketh

The amendments relate to Clause 93 and Schedule 4, both of which concern new powers for local authorities to deal with abandoned shopping and luggage trolleys. Clause 93 deals with the mechanics of applying Schedule 4. The schedule contains detailed provisions on how a local authority may seize, detain, remove and ultimately dispose of abandoned trolleys. Under the provision of the schedule the local authority must notify the apparent owner of a trolley of its removal and inform him of where it is being held. The owner may then reclaim the trolley within six weeks, although he will have to pay a fee in order to do so. The fee must be set at a level sufficient to cover the costs to the local authority of applying the provision of the schedule. The local authority may sell or otherwise dispose of any trolley unclaimed after six weeks.

My noble friend's Amendment No. 306 provides that a local authority may not apply the provisions of Schedule 4 in its area unless and until it has consulted those who appear to be affected by the application of the schedule. I am sure that no Member of the Committee will disagree when I say that co-operation is always to be preferred to coercion. Voluntary schemes are preferable to compulsory ones. It would therefore be eminently sensible for both sides—the local authority and the trolley owner—to talk to each other before contemplating coercive measures. Indeed, I have no doubt that the best local authorities do so in any event. I am aware that for some time the Retail Consortium has been looking at a way in which trolley management might be improved. Its voluntary code of guidance on trolley management has proved a useful document in many towns and cities.

I suggest that my noble friend withdraws his amendment with the assurance that I shall consider carefully ways in which effective consultations may best be encouraged between the interested parties. Members of the Committee will recall that the owner of a trolley which is being detained by the local authority may reclaim it within the six-week period following the date of its seizure. Amendment No. 308 would allow the trolley owner to reclaim the trolley at any time, even after the six-week period has expired.

In so far as the local authority must contact the owner of any seized trolley where such ownership is easily ascertainable, it appears unlikely that many of these valuable trolleys will remain unclaimed. Equally, few local authorities will wish to squander valuable space by storing unclaimed trolleys for much longer than the required six-week period. But more to the point, there is the clear implication that after the six-week period when the local authority would be at liberty to dispose of unclaimed trolleys ownership of the trolleys will pass to the local authority. It will be at perfect liberty to do with them what it will—even to deploy them for its own benefit.

I believe that six weeks is ample time for a trolley owner to reclaim his trolley, bearing in mind that if the trolley is clearly labelled the local authority will have informed the owner within 14 days of its detention. Therefore, I invite my noble friend to agree that the concession is not warranted and I hope that he will not move the amendment.

Amendment No. 309 seeks to ensure that local authorities in possession of abandoned trolleys should exercise due care in handling and storing them. However, I can assure my noble friend that his amendment—the sentiments of which I wholly support—is not necessary. It is axiomatic that a local authority must exercise all due care in the handling and storage of property belonging to somebody else or face a claim for damages in a civil action brought for trespass to property.

Amendment No. 310 would require that the fee charged by a local authority to the owner of a trolley which had been seized should be no more than is sufficient to cover the local authority's cost in removing, storing and disposing of abandoned trolleys. My noble friend is doubtless concerned lest the local authority should take it upon itself to punish the owners of wandering trolleys by pitching the charge way above what would have been required to meet its reasonable expenses. However, there are grave difficulties with the amendment because it would require a local authority to predict with 100 per cent. accuracy what its expenses would be in that financial year and over how many trolleys it would be able to spread the cost.

The wording of paragraph 4(1) allows the local authority to make the necessary adjustments to its scale of charges from time to time to ensure that all its costs are met. Therefore, charges can be raised to offset a deficit or lowered to reduce a surplus. We believe that it would be unreasonable—and, therefore, subject to challenge in the courts—for a local authority to make the charges punitive. I hope that in the light of my remarks my noble friend will be able to resist his own amendment.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I and other Members of the Committee are more than grateful to my noble friend for the considerate way in which he has responded. I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfour and the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, for their support.

Amendment No. 306 received a considerate response. My noble friend agreed to give further consideration to ways in which we might pursue the consultation procedure. Therefore, I assure him that I shall withdraw the amendment.

It may save the Committee's time if I now deal with the three remaining amendments. The Deputy Chairman of Committees may agree with that. I do not propose to move Amendment No. 308. As regards Amendment No. 309, I listened with care to what my noble friend said about the common law equivalent of due care towards other people's property. I accept his explanation. As regards Amendment No. 310, I accept that it is difficult accurately to estimate year-on-year costs of the operation. Nevertheless, I was not totally convinced by the reply. After reading what my noble friend said I may wish to return to the matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 306.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 93 agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Abandoned Shopping and Luggage Trolleys]:

8.45 p.m.

Lord Reay moved Amendment No. 307: Page 154, line 28, at end insert ("or, in Scotland, of which the owner of the trolley is the owner or occupier").

The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Sanderson, I beg to move this technical drafting amendment.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 308 to 310 not moved.]

Lord Lucas of Chilworth moved Amendment No. 310A: Page 155, line 36, leave out ("a scheme for the collection by them of trolleys they make available for use;") and insert ("either—

  1. (a) a scheme for collection by them, or by persons on their behalf, of trolleys they make available for use; or
  2. (b) a code of guidance on trolley control;").

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 310A is the composite of Amendments Nos. 311, 312, 313 and 314 tabled earlier in my name. To have five or six alterations in a four-line subsection was confusing and therefore the composite has been drafted in this way.

The intention of Amendment No. 310A is to give the trolley owner the opportunity to contract out to third parties the task of collecting trolleys. As I read the Bill, the responsibility for collection appears to lie entirely with the owner and the local authority agency. The owner—or owners if there is a co-operative arrangement—is unable to contract out to a different party either the collection or recovery of the trolleys from the local authority collection point.

Paragraph (b) of the amendment provides for the implementation of a voluntary code of guidance similar to the voluntary agreements to which I have referred. The provision will cost nothing and it provides another avenue of co-operative action. Therefore, my noble friend should not have too much difficulty with it.

The Committee will note that this clause provides effectively only for collection. However, the code to which I have referred—and I have used the notes of guidance which have been adopted before—goes much further by allowing for many more co-operative deals. It appears to me that if that were excluded, the local authority would be prevented from entering into such arrangements. I beg to move.

Lord Hesketh

Trolleys again! Amendment No. 310A provides that local authorities may agree with trolley owners a code of guidance on trolley control. The amendments testify to the fact that my noble friend and I are at one in the belief that voluntary codes of practice, if adhered to, are to be encouraged. As my noble friend will be aware, the Retail Consortium has devoted much time and energy to the issue of efficient trolley management and its code of guidance on trolley control has been widely hailed as a valuable contribution to the subject. Indeed, it is precisely because I should like to see voluntary codes of guidance used wherever possible that I welcome this opportunity to draw this particular initiative to the attention of local authorities and trolley owners everywhere.

However, in so far as no local authority is bound to apply the provisions of Schedule 4, all local authorities will be at perfect liberty to agree a code of guidance with trolley owners if they wish, and will need no specific power to do so. So this amendment does not actually empower local authorities to do anything which they could not otherwise do. On the basis of that agreement and as a consequence of it, perhaps my noble friend—for whose interest in this detail of legislation I am most grateful—will withdraw this amendment.

Lord Dean of Beswick

Before the Minister sits down, he referred to the fact that these amendments refer to the problems of trolleys. Following his answer to the last series of amendments on this subject, does he not realise that some of us do not know whether we are off our trolley or have been run over by one?

Lord Hesketh

I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' Committee will be back on their trolleys by the end of this Committee stage.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

I must endorse my noble friend's last remark. It has been a difficult and trying day, as have been the last few days. I am really grateful to the Minister for his endorsement of the area of need and what I thought was almost an appeal on drawing attention to the problem as regards the owners of these vehicles, which are used for the transportation of goods and luggage. I am grateful to him for explaining that the Bill as drafted does not prevent such voluntary arrangements being entered into. In expressing my gratitude, I beg leave to withdrawn the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 311 to 314 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Schedule 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 94 agreed to.

Lord Reay

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at seven minutes before nine o'clock.