§ 8.20 p.m.
§ The Earl of LyttonMy Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Lytton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MURTON OF LINDISFARNE) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New building on line of junction]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, leave out ("wall) or the external wall of a building") and insert ("wall or the external wall of a building)").
§ The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may explain that the large number of amendments on the Marshalled List arises primarily because of the need to modernise the language of the Bill and to correct drafting errors. The intention remains, as always, that the Bill will follow as closely as possible the London building Acts which are its role model and the precedents and practice which have been established for inner London over a long period of time.
§ I must pay a brief tribute to the efforts of the DoE and its officials and lawyers and to parliamentary counsel who drafted the amendments. I thank them all most sincerely for their patience and attention to detail. I am also thankful, as ever, for the expertise and assistance of the working party, and, in particular, to Mr. John Anstey who heads it. The period since Second Reading is related directly to the time and effort devoted to the Bill. Finally, I must declare an interest as a chartered surveyor with some involvement in party wall matters, although not very great at the moment, and since Second Reading I have been made an honorary member of the Pyramus and Thisbe Club, which is an association of party wall surveyors and others interested in party wall matters. So I declare also that non-pecuniary interest.
§ With Amendment No. 1, I should like to speak to a number of other amendments. They are slightly different from the groupings on the list, in the sense that I should like to pull into the first group Amendment No. 22, which at the moment is grouped with Amendment No. 3, and Amendment No. 78, which is grouped with Amendment No. 17. So with Amendment No. 1 I am speaking also to Amendments Nos. 2, 6, 7, 11, 12, 15, 16, 18, 22, 23, 27, 29, 32, 33, 39, 40, 51, 54, 65, 70, 76, 78, 79 and 80.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonWould you kindly repeat that?
§ The Earl of LyttonI shall gladly provide the noble Lord with my spare list if he would like it. All the amendments are minor drafting amendments to correct and improve the form of the Bill or amount to no more than textual amendments requiring the insertion of 932 different words. Some of them are due merely to errors which have crept into the text, while others improve the sense.
Amendment No. 1, for instance, is a bracket in the wrong place. The amendment serves to replace it in the position originally intended. Amendment No. 2 removes the definite article where it should be the indefinite article. Nothing hangs on the amendments. They merely restore the text to what was originally intended and clarify it without altering the effect. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of KinnoullI congratulate the noble Earl on his dexterity in speaking to so many amendments so briefly and on the great care and attention that he and his advisers have clearly given to the Bill which on Second Reading was generally agreed to be a useful and valuable Bill. I am sure we all very much welcome the presence of the Opposition Chief Whip at our debate.
I am also delighted to learn that the noble Earl has been selected as a member of the Pyramus and Thisbe club—the Mecca of the party wall experts—and has been recognised in that distinguished company. To move 102 amendments to a Private Member's Bill must be almost a parliamentary record. I am sure that he will handle the formidable task of moving all these amendments with dexterity and speed.
Some of us will have been a little confused to have received yesterday a brief from the Law Society questioning the Bill's very purpose. I am glad that, on reflection, following a meeting, the Law Society has withdrawn its brief. No doubt the noble Earl will be in touch with it before the Bill's next stage to iron out any specific worries it may have.
Lord LucasI agree with the noble Earl that these amendments are all minor. As he said, there has been close liaison between the noble Earl and officials in my department. We are content that the amendments improve the drafting of the original Bill.
When the Bill was given its Second Reading, the noble Earl said that he would need to move a number of amendments to remove textual errors. These amendments are welcomed in that they achieve that objective. All the amendments tabled by the noble Earl have government support. I do not propose to speak to further amendments unless I have a specific point to make.
§ The Earl of LyttonI am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I say again how appreciative I and the Bill's promoters are for his department's help. I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for his support. The Law Society's views have been made known to me. I am glad to know that there may be a 933 degree of acceptance of some of the Bill's provisions. I can confirm that it is my intention to meet the Law Society to iron out any remaining difficulties that there may be.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, leave out ("the") and insert ("a").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("serve notice of his desire on the adjoining owner describing") and insert (", at least one month before he intends the building work to start, serve on any adjoining owner a notice which indicates his desire to build and describes").
§ The noble Earl said: With this amendment I shall speak also to another extensive group of amendments comprising Amendments Nos. 4,30, 31, 34, 35, 36, 42, 45, 46, 55, 57, 67, 72, 75, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88 and 90.
§ I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for that roll-call. I needed to make clear with which amendments we are involved. These are broadly technical amendments, all similar to one another, concerning time limits and the service of notice. They are all merely a re-ordering of the wording of the Bill as it now stands. They restore the original intentions of the Bill's promoters and improve and clarify what is intended.
§ A general provision about serving notices in Amendment No. 90 refers to notice in writing being unnecessary. I shall return to that point at the appropriate time. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ 8.30 p.m.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("the adjoining owner consents in writing") and insert ("an adjoining owner serves on the building owner a notice indicating his consent").
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("having") and insert ("in such proportion as has").
§ The noble Earl said: This amendment is simply a rewording to make it clear how the question of the proportion of costs being split between parties is to be addressed. Again, the original sense of the Bill is unaltered. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 6 and 7:
Page 1, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").
Page 1, line 27, leave out ("in writing") and insert ("under this subsection").
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments together with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 en bloc.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 4, at end insert—
("and consent under this subsection is consent by a notice served within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice described in subsection (2) is served.").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 8 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 9 and 10. Amendment No. 8 removes an area of possible doubt by making it clearer how the recipient of a notice of proposed works can consent to the proposals referred to in the notice. The recipient must respond by a notice and within a time frame, but there is no special form of notice. That is what the Bill's promoters intend and the amendment removes uncertainty. It should also be noted that the Bill defaults to dispute procedures, so if the response from the adjoining owner is equivocal or late, that owner is protected. Late agreement is, of course, always possible under the procedures to be set in place by this Bill.
§ Amendment No. 9 is a technical amendment, again to remove doubt about what is intended. It does so by inserting a timescale. The sense of the clause as printed is retained apart from this.
§ With regard to Amendment No. 10, this again is technical. It merely clarifies the timescale already set out in the Bill in which a building owner may carry out works following the service of notice, but the overall effect remains unchanged. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 9 to 12:
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("serve notice of his desire on the adjoining owner describing") and insert (", at least one month before he intends the building work to start, serve on any adjoining owner a notice which indicates his desire to build and describes").
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("with") to ("place") in line 11 and insert ("subsection (4) or (5) he shall have the right, at any time in the period which—
to").Page 2, line 12, leave out ("foundation") and insert ("foundations").
Page 2, line 13, leave out ("to") and insert ("for").
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 in connection with Amendments Nos. 1 and 8. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 9 to 12 en bloc.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 14, leave out from ("wall") to end of line 17 and insert ("wholly on his own land in accordance with subsection (4) or (5) he shall do so at his own expense and shall compensate any adjoining owner and any adjoining occupier for any damage to his property occasioned by—
§ The noble Earl said: This is a technical amendment which tightens up the wording of the Bill. As a result of this amendment it will be clearer what causes of damage can lead to compensation. The amendment is entirely consistent with the intention of the Bill and with that of the Bill's promoters. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 19, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 47, 48, 49, 50 and 82. All these amendments replace the word "the" with "any". The intention is to make the application of the relevant provisions more inclusive. There is good reason for this as there can be several adjacent owners and occupiers in an urban environment. The practice of the London building Acts is that they all have the protection of that legislation in inner London. For the purposes of a public Act of Parliament that has to be spelt out more clearly. Amendment No. 82, in referring to the singular to augment the plural in this Bill, is of a similar nature to cover situations where only one surveyor is making the decision—for instance, the third surveyor appointed by the surveyors for either party. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 2, line 20, leave out ("the provisions of").
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment in the context of Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 2 [Repair etc. of party wall: rights of owner]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 2, line 24, leave out ("The") and insert ("A").
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 2, leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
("(a) to underpin, thicken or raise a party structure, a party fence wall, or an external wall which belongs to the building owner and is built against a party structure or party fence wall;
(ab) to make good, repair, or demolish and rebuild, a party structure or party fence wall in a case where such work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall;").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 17 I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 19, 37, 41, 44, 53, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 66, 68, 69 and 77. I apologise for reading out another long list. All these amendments revolve around the same substantive issue. They are all drafting amendments. The original wording included in 936 several instances more than one concept in a single sentence. This derived from the 1930s legislation of the London building Acts. On legal advice and to accord with modern drafting, I am told that these should be separated. This has meant some amalgamation and some re-ordering and sub-division within clauses. Amendment No. 19, for instance, is now amalgamated with the relevant part of Clause 2 by Amendment No. 17, and Amendment No. 41 clarifies that the act of excavation alone can trigger the need for a notice under the 3 metre and 6 metre rules of proximity.
§ There are also some minor changes which improve and clarify what the Bill is intended to mean. For instance, Amendment No. 64 refers to work authorised by the Bill, whether or not it was the subject of notice in the first place. That is important in terms of bringing into consideration things that have been forgotten or left out. It is what already happens under the London building Acts but it is not expressly provided for. It is appropriate when dealing with this Bill to bring in a provision making it absolutely clear what is intended.
§ I am advised that this is an area where the wording generally of the London building Acts is not ad idem with modem drafting. As a result of that there are some deficiencies. In accepting the rewording on the advice of parliamentary counsel, I stress that the intention, as ever, is to convey the same sense and meaning to the relevant clauses as has been established in the practice and precedent of the 1930 and 1939 Acts. It is important that I stress that. I should like to make it clear that no substantial change is intended by these amendments. I am satisfied, as are the promoters, that this safeguard has been achieved. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 18 and 19:
Page 2, line 30, leave out ("is not in conformity") and insert ("does not conform").
Page 2, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 3.
§ The noble Earl said: I have spoken to Amendment No. 18 with Amendment No. 1. I have spoken to Amendment No. 19 with Amendment No. 17. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 en bloc.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 10, leave out ("wall") and insert ("structure").
§ The noble Earl said: This is a minor technical amendment which is to make it clear that we are dealing with a structure that is most likely to be a wall but may also be something in the nature of an arch, column or beam and may on occasions be a floor. The word "wall" was an incorrect inclusion in the original wording of the Bill, for which I can only take responsibility. The amendment seeks to remedy that. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 11, leave out from ("of') to end of line 20 and insert ("any adjoining owner;").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 and 28. Amendment No. 21 serves to clarify, first, that it is intended to cover any adjoining owner, because, of course, there can be more than one; and secondly, it removes paragraphs (e)(i) and (ii) and (f) because provisions to the same effect are incorporated with Amendment No. 28.
§ Members of the Committee could be forgiven for expressing some concern about the way in which the text has been shuffled round here but, although the appearance is of a substantive amendment, the effect is mainly to move the relevant words to the end of Clause 2. That is tidier and will be more readily understood as a piece of legislation.
§ There is also a minor new provision in the sense that subsection (2E) of Amendment No. 28, which deals with parapets, relates to the technicality of making party walls comply with good building practice. With that explanation, I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:
Page 3, line 21, leave out from ("purpose") to end of line 24 and insert ("(which may be or include the purpose of inserting a damp proof course);").
Page 3, line 25, after first ("wall,") insert ("party").
Page 3, line 28, leave out from ("wall") to end of line 31 and insert ("or for any other purpose;").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 32, leave out from ("demolish") to end of line 37 and insert ("parts of any wall or building of an adjoining owner overhanging the land of the building owner or overhanging a party wall, to the extent that it is necessary to cut away or demolish the parts to enable a vertical wall to be erected or raised against the wall or building of the adjoining owner;").
§ The noble Earl said: This is a simple drafting amendment which restates more clearly what was originally intended. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment' No. 26:
Page 3, line 37, at end insert—
("(hh) to cut into the wall of an adjoining owner's building in order to insert a flashing or other weather-proofing of a wall erected against that wall;").
§ The noble Earl said: This is a new provision not previously in the Bill and I shall take a little time to explain it to the Committee.
§ Essentially, it provides for the safeguarding of abutting buildings by allowing a flashing to be installed between the two and thus provide adequate weathering of the abutment. That follows from what I said in connection with Amendment No. 28, to which I spoke when I moved Amendment No. 21 about good building practice.
§ The working party advising me on the Bill felt that this type of work was a commonly encountered requirement and that specific reference to it was necessary and desirable. But in all other respects it is a strictly technical point. I beg to move.
938§ 8.45 p.m.
§ The Earl of KinnoullMy Lords, perhaps I may give the noble Earl a short rest from his excellent work. As he explained, Clause 2 gives owners certain rights of repair and this is a new right. When one reads the amendment, it states:
to cut into the wall of an adjoining owner's building in order to insert a flashing or other weather-proofing of a wall erected against that wall".But it does not say anything about the protection which the adjoining owner has. The cutting into and inserting the flashing provides a better deal for his wall. I wonder whether the noble Earl believes that that is necessary or whether good practice covers that point.
§ The Earl of LyttonI believe that it is unnecessary, in the sense that we are dealing with a wall in which two property owners have a clear vested interest. The Bill provides for a mechanism whereby the owner who is the person proposing works must tell his neighbour what it is that he proposes to do. That gives the neighbour full rights to look at what is proposed and to satisfy himself that the proposed work is being done correctly.
The provision in the London Building Acts did not refer specifically to the cutting in of flashings. Therefore, although that has not created any problems, it is important that now we are revisiting this legislation to apply it to the whole country, that that should be put on the face of the Bill and made quite clear.
What the noble Earl said about certain rights being given to building owners is true. But rights are given to both owners because they both have a clear, joint stake in what is happening to the wall. By its very nature, it is a wall through which the legal boundary passes so that a piece of it is on one side and another piece on the other side. That is quantifiably different from a wall which is on a property owner's own land for which he may need co-operation to gain access. This amendment deals with a situation which occurs in many properties throughout the country. I hope that I have answered all the points which the noble Earl raised. He nods and I am glad to see that. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments No. 27 to 29:
Page 3, line 48, leave out second ("the") and insert ("an").
Page 4, line 2, at end insert—
("(2A) Where work mentioned in paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is not necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall concerned, the right falling within that paragraph is exercisable—
939
and relevant flues and chimney stacks are those which belong to an adjoining owner and either form part of or rest on or against the party structure or external wall.(2B) The right falling within subsection (2)(e) is exercisable subject to—
and relevant flues and chimney stacks are those which belong to an adjoining owner and either form part of or rest on or against the party structure.(2C) Any right falling within subsection (2)(f), (g) or (h) is exercisable subject to making good all damage occasioned by the work to the adjoining premises or to their internal furnishings and decorations.
(2D) The right falling within subsection (2)(hh) is exercisable subject to making good all damage occasioned by the work to the wall of the adjoining owner's building.
(2E) The right falling within subsection (2)(1) is exercisable subject to—
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("commencement of this Act") and insert ("day on which this Act was passed").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 3 [Party structure notices]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
Page 4, line 8, leave out ("the adjoining owner notice in writing") and insert ("any adjoining owner a notice").
Page 4, line 21, leave out ("twelve months of service of the notice") and insert ("the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which the notice is served").
Page 4, line 26, leave out ("owner") and insert ("owners").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 4 [Counter notices]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 33 to 35:
Page 4, line 31, leave out ("The") and insert ("An").
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("in writing").
Page 5, line 5, leave out ("one month of the service of the party structure notice") and insert ("the period of one month beginning with the day on which the party structure notice is served").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5 [Disputes arising under sections 3 and 4]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 5, line 15, leave out from ("not") to ("he") in line 16 and insert ("serve a notice indicating his consent to it within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the party structure notice or counter notice was served,").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
940§ Clause 6 [Adjacent excavation and construction]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 5, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("may") in line 37 and insert—
("(1) This section applies where—
(1A) This section also applies where—
(1B) The building owner").
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 5, line 39, after ("building") insert (" or structure").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 43. These are minor drafting amendments in relation to the inclusion of structures, including a reference to structures which are not necessarily buildings. That would include such things as, for example, lift shafts and arches. It is an important consideration which the Bill's promoters consider a prudent amendment to the legislation. I hope that the Committee will agree. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 39 to 47:
Page 5, line 41, leave out ("prescribed in subsection (1)") and insert ("mentioned in subsections (1) and (1A)").
Page 5, line 44, leave out ("to which subsection (1)") and insert ("where this section").
Page 5, line 45, after ("to") insert ("excavate, or excavate for and").
Page 5, line 46, leave out ("notice in writing of his proposals") and insert ("a notice indicating his proposals and").
Page 6, line 2, after ("building") insert ("or structure").
Page 6, line 4, leave out from ("showing") to end of line 6 and insert ("—
Page 6, line 8, leave out ("express his consent to it in writing within fourteen days") and insert ("serve a notice indicating his consent to it within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which the notice referred to in subsection (3) was served,").
941
Page 6, line 13, leave out ("twelve months after the notice has been") and insert ("the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which the notice was").
Page 6, line 20, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 7 [Compensation, etc.]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 48 to 51:
Page 6, line 25, leave out ("the adjoining owner or to the") and insert ("any adjoining owner or to any").
Page 6, line 26, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
Page 6, line 33, leave out second ("the") and insert ("any").
Page 6, line 35, leave out ("the") and insert ("an").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 6, line 41, leave out from first ("in") to end of line 44 and insert ("accordance with section 10;
and no deviation shall be made from those plans, sections and particulars except such as may be agreed between the owners (or surveyors acting on their behalf) or in the event of dispute determined in accordance with section 10.").
§ The noble Earl said: The above amendment goes beyond superficial change and makes it clear that surveyors can agree deviations—as, indeed, they most often do—rather than the owners agreeing between themselves, certainly on the more complicated cases. The amendment simply restates what already happens in practice in inner London. In a way, the position is analogous to the kind of amendment to a planning consent that in planning law would be agreed to by a planning officer under delegated powers without specifically going back to his committee. It would serve to speed up and streamline procedures if matters could be dealt with in that way. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 8 [Rights of entry]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments No. 53 to 55:
Page 7, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—
("(3) No land or premises may be entered by any person under subsection (1) unless the building owner serves on the owner and the occupier of the land or premises—").
Page 7, line 6, leave out ("his") and insert ("the").
Page 7, line 8, leave out ("fourteen days' notice of his intention to enter") and insert ("such notice of the intention to enter as complies with subsection (4)").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 7, line 8, at end insert—
("(4) Notice complies with this subsection if it is served in a period of not less than fourteen days ending with the day of the proposed entry.
(5) A surveyor appointed or selected under section 10 may during usual working hours enter and remain on any land or premises for the purpose of carrying out the object for which he is appointed or selected.
942
(6) No land or premises may he entered by a surveyor under subsection (5) unless the building owner who is a party to the dispute concerned serves on the owner and the occupier of the land or premises—
§ The noble Earl said: This amendment provides an extended framework for entry, following notice, on the property of others. There is a vital component here in that surveyors are given rights of entry pursuant to notice, not just the property owners. That is essential if surveyors are to draw up schedules of condition and the adjoining owner's property is to be fully protected by an assessment of necessary precautionary measures.
§ Although access for surveyors is not specifically included in the equivalent provisions of the London building Acts, it is in fact what happens in any event as a matter of course in inner London. The amendment does no more than put that provision on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
§
The Earl of Kinnoull: Clause 8 deals with the rights of entry and allows the,
building owner, his servants, agents and workmen",
§ to enter property during "usual working hours", subject to 14 days' notice. The contents of Amendment No. 56 describe precisely the same powers of entry, as I understand it. There is no definition of surveyor in the Bill. Therefore, surely he could either be deemed as an agent or, indeed, he could be added to the list in subsection (1) which would then cover the purpose of the amendment. It would also reduce the size of the Bill.
§ The Earl of LyttonThe acoustics are a little poor in this part of the Chamber and, therefore, I am not sure that I correctly heard everything that the noble Earl said. All I can say in defence of the way that the amendment is worded is that the legislation has been scrutinised extremely carefully by the department's legal officers and parliamentary counsel. The amendment was felt to be the best method to deal with the matter.
As with many such matters, it is possible that the provisions of the Bill could be recombined in different ways. It is a matter of style in order to achieve the best clarity of what is intended for the reader of the Bill when, as I hope, it becomes an Act of Parliament in due course. I do not wish to take issue with the promoters or, indeed, with the legal advice on the stylistic approach involved. I do not feel that I am qualified to do so.
However, the amendment would provide a specific arrangement for surveyors, in addition to that of property owners. It could indeed be amalgamated elsewhere. If the noble Earl feels very strongly about the matter, I am sure that we could discuss it to ascertain what could be done. Nevertheless, with that explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will accept from me that this is probably the best and clearest way to deal with the matter. I hope that I have answered his point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
943 Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Resolution of disputes]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 57 to 68:
Page 7, leave out line 27 and insert—
("(b) neglects to act for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which either party serves a request on him;").
Page 7, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) If either party to the dispute—
the other party may make the appointment on his behalf.").Page 7, line 41, at end insert ("or (5)").
Page 7, line 42, leave out from ("refuses") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("to act effectively, the surveyor of the other party may proceed to act ex parte").
Page 7, line 45, at end insert—
("(6A) If a surveyor—
neglects to act effectively for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which either party or the surveyor of the other party serves a request on him, the surveyor of the other party may proceed to act ex pane in respect of the subject matter of the request and anything so done by him shall be as effectual as if he had been an agreed surveyor.").Page 8, line 1, leave out from ("under") to end of line 4 and insert ("subsection (1)(b) by a party to the dispute refuses to select a third surveyor under subsection (1) or (8), or neglects to do so for a period of ten days beginning with the day on which the other surveyor serves a request on him—").
Page 8, line 11, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) If a third surveyor selected under subsection (1)(b)—
the other two of the three surveyors shall forthwith select another surveyor in his place with the same power and authority.").Page 8, line 18, leave out from ("any") to end of line 20 and insert ("matter—
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("Providing that") and insert ("but").
Page 8, line 40, leave out subsections (13) and (14) and insert—
("(13) Where the surveyors appointed by the parties make an award the surveyors shall serve it forthwith on the parties.
(14) Where an award is made by the third surveyor—
Page 9, line 1, leave out from ("may") to ("appeal") in line 2 and insert (", within the period of fourteen days beginning with the day on which an award made under this section is served on him,").
944
Page 9, leave out lines 4 to 6 and insert—
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 11 [Expenses]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 9, line 11, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert—
("(2A) An expense mentioned in section 1(3)(b) shall be defrayed as there mentioned.
(2B) Where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(a), and the work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall concerned, the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to—
(2C) Where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(ab) the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to—
(2D) Where the adjoining premises are laid open in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(e) a fair allowance in respect of disturbance and inconvenience shall be paid by the building owner to the adjoining owner or occupier.").
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("2(1)(1)") and insert ("2(2)(1)").
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert—
("(7A) Where the building owner is required to make good damage under this Act the adjoining owner has a right to require that the expenses of such making good be determined in accordance with section 10 and paid to him in lieu of the carrying out of work to make the damage good.
(7B) Where—
he shall defray the expenses of carrying out the works requested or required by him.").
§ The noble Earl said: The above is a technical amendment which provides greater clarity on the matter of making good and, in particular, provides for a cash settlement if that is requested as an alternative. The amendment is set out in two parts. New subsection (7A) is in fact established practice under the London building Acts but is not specifically provided for. It is a matter of practice which has grown up over the years. This part of the amendment would make that explicit and put it on the face of the Bill.
§ New subsection (7B) makes it clear that an adjoining owner may be liable to pay the costs of carrying out the works that he requires the building owner to undertake 945 on his behalf. That is already provided for under the London building Acts. The amendment merely alters the wording of the Bill without altering the effect.
§ I should like to make it clear that we are talking about works which an adjoining owner wishes the building owner to carry out and which are over and above and additional to the works which are necessary as part and parcel of the building owner's work. That is why there is a provision for the liability to pay the costs. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ 9 p.m.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 74:
Page 9, line 40, leave out ("vouchers within two months") and insert ("invoices and other supporting documents within the period of two months beginning with the day").
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("additional").
Page 10, line 1, leave out from ("out") to ("at") in line 2 and insert ("that work; and for this purpose he shall be taken to have incurred expenses calculated by reference to what the cost of the work would be if it were carried out").
§ The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 72 is a minor drafting amendment to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 73 simply removes a word which is superfluous. Amendment No. 74 clarifies what was intended originally in the Bill.
§ The Bill as printed did not clearly set out how the future use of party wall works by one party which had been solely paid for by another was to be treated. I should stress that it is always optional, at the time of doing works, for the adjoining owner to join in the cost if he wishes so to do and to benefit fully from the facility provided thereafter without any extra cost. But he cannot at a later date have a free ride at someone else's expense, that other person having paid all the costs of the wall. The amendment simply makes that clear and is in conformity with the London Building Acts as they apply to inner London. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 12 [Security for expenses]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 78:
Page 10, line 3, leave out ("by notice in writing require") and insert ("serve a notice requiring").
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("the provisions of").
Page 10, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("building") in line 10 and insert—
("Where—
(a) in the exercise of the rights conferred by this Act an adjoining owner requires the").
Page 10, line 13, at beginning insert ("an adjoining owner").
§ The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 17. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 82:
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("in writing").
946
Page 10, line 17, leave out ("the provisions of").
Page 10, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("or") in line 19 and insert ("the period of one month beginning with—
(a) the day on which a notice is served under subsection (2)").
Page 10, line 20, at end insert ("surveyor or").
§ The noble Earl said: I have spoken to all of these amendments with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 14. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 13 [Account for work carried out]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 87:
Page 10, line 25, leave out ("two months") and insert ("the period of two months beginning with the day").
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("deliver to") and insert ("serve on").
Page 10, line 36, leave out ("one month of delivery") and insert ("the period of one month beginning with the day of service").
Page 10, line 37, leave out ("give notice in writing to the building owner") and insert ("serve on the building owner a notice").
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("the said month the adjoining owner does not give") and insert ("that period of one month the adjoining owner does not serve").
§ The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to in the context of Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendments agreed to.
§ Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 14 [Settlement of account]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 10, line 43, leave out ("delivered") and insert ("served").
§ The noble Earl said: I dealt with this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 10, line 44, leave out ("and in default may he recovered as a debt").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 89 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. Together they constitute a relatively significant change to the Bill, the purpose being to replicate so far as possible the available sanctions under the London Building Acts. I am obliged to parliamentary counsel for the extremely neat way in which his drafting has sidestepped a potential problem area in terms of procuring efficient and effective means of enforcement.
§ Amendment No. 89 appears at first to be a substantive amendment. In fact the last phrase of Clause 14(1), which the amendment deletes, is consolidated in the new clause after Clause 16 with which I shall deal under Amendment No. 92.
§ Amendment No. 91 substitutes a new clause for Clause 16 and Schedule 1. In so doing, it removes the facility of criminal proceedings for recovery of debt arising under the various payment provisions of the Bill. The wording is also altered and consolidated and incorporates the second and third of the three offences referred to under the first schedule. Those now appear in the subsections (1) and (2) proposed by the amendment.
947§ The criminal sanction under the London Building Acts is a rarely used provision. However, on occasions in extreme instances, it has been found that some provision of the kind is necessary. The drafting picks this up in the civil rather than the criminal context.
§ Amendment No. 92 picks up the deletion in Amendment No. 89 of the civil sanction originally set out in Clause 15 and the deletion of the criminal sanction by Amendment No. 91. It consolidates both in the revised facility of a civil remedy by summary procedure for recovery as a debt. That streamlines, consolidates, and makes uniform the provisions in that respect. I believe that this is as near as one can get to the original intention of the Bill and the operation of the London Building Acts without a criminal sanction. I am advised that it would be inappropriate in an essentially civil matter to have the criminal sanction. It is a matter of private debt. The promoters of the Bill accept the solution as a very close match to the original provisions of the London Building Acts. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of KinnoullPerhaps I may ask the noble Earl to clarify Amendment No. 91. By removing Schedule 1, he removes "building owner". In Amendment No. 91 he substitutes "an occupier of land". That seems strange. The noble Earl may wish to write to me on the point because it may be complicated to explain.
Under Schedule 1 the building owner has to make good or compensate for any damage that he may occasion to the property of an adjoining occupier. That is not mentioned in the new amendment. I wonder why.
§ The Earl of LyttonAs regards building owners, the matter comes under the general definition with which I shall deal when I reach Amendment No. 96. I apologise, I missed the noble Earl's second point.
§ The Earl of KinnoullUnder Schedule 1 there is a reference to a building owner having to make good or compensate the adjoining owner. It is not mentioned in Amendment No. 89.
§ The Earl of LyttonThere is a general provision in the Bill for dealing with compensation to adjoining owners. It might take me a little time now to find and explain the nitty-gritty, so perhaps I may write to the noble Earl after this stage, with his agreement, and set it out for him. That would probably be more accurate than searching through my papers now. If the noble Earl will accept my assurance that there is adequate provision for compensation in the Bill, I commend the amendment.
Lord LucasOfficials in my department have liaised closely with officials in the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department concerning the amendments. Given the anxiety expressed in Parliament about the burdens imposed on the criminal justice system by the creation of new criminal offences, the Government agree that it would not be appropriate to exact criminal sanctions where damages can be recovered through the 948 civil courts. We therefore welcome the amendments, which confirm that and also reduce the level of fines to reflect the severity of the offence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 15 [Service]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 90:
Leave out Clause 15 and insert the following new Clause—
SERVICE OF NOTICES ETC
(".—(1) A notice or other document required or authorised to be served under this Act may be served on a person—
(2) In the case of a notice or other document required or authorised to be served under this Act on a person as owner of premises, it may alternatively be served by—
§ The noble Earl said: This is a general revision of the wording relating to the service of notice. It brings the 1930s legislation into line with modern drafting. I have already spoken to the amendment in connection with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 16 [Offences and fines]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 91:
Leave out Clause 16 and insert the following new Clause—
OFFENCES
("(1) If—
the occupier is guilty of an offence.(2) If—
the first-mentioned person is guilty of an offence.(3) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) or (2) is liable on summary conviction to a fine of an amount not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.").
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment with Amendment No. 89. Under Amendment No. 91, compensation can now be requested instead of making good. I do not know whether this goes some way towards answering the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I beg to move.
949§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 92:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause—
RECOVERY OF SUMS
("Any sum payable in pursuance of this Act (otherwise than by way of fine) shall be recoverable summarily as a civil debt.").
§ The noble Earl said: I dealt with this new clause with Amendment No. 89. It provides as much protection as modern legislation can afford to adjoining owners for the recovery of sums that become due under the Bill. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Exemptions]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 93:
Leave out Clause 17 and insert the following new Clause—
EXCEPTION IN CASE OF TEMPLES ETC
(".—(1) This Act shall not apply to land which is situated in inner London and in which there is an interest belonging to—
(2) The reference in subsection (1) to inner London is to Greater London other than the outer London boroughs.").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 93, I wish also to speak to Amendment No. 94. The two amendments are grouped together because they both deal with exemptions and make significant alterations to the Bill. However, they are consistent with the original intention as regards the exemptions to the Inns of Court, the Temples and the Crown. Discussions have been held with representatives of Her Majesty, the Duchy of Cornwall, government departments and the Inns of Court.
§ The effect of Amendment No. 93 is to preserve existing exemptions in respect of the Inns and Temples properties which are located in inner London where they already have exemption under the London building Acts but without adding any new exemptions in respect of land outside the inner London area.
§ Subsection (2) of the new clause is new and arises out of the reference to "inner London", for which I understand there is no statutory definition, despite the long history of the London building Acts. The provisions relate to Greater London less the outer London boroughs in order to deal with the residue of inner London.
§ Amendment No. 94 exempts land occupied by Her Majesty and the Prince of Wales in a personal capacity. Operational land and buildings not so occupied—for example, government buildings or premises occupied for administrative purposes of the Crown—will, however, be caught by the provisions of the Bill. The old wording of the Bill is also sub-divided for greater clarity.
950§ At Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, raised a query about this matter. I hope that this clarification of the exemptions will answer the concerns that he expressed. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of KinnoullI warmly congratulate the noble Earl on his powers of persuasion in getting the Inns of Court outside London, government buildings in particular and Crown land included in the net. I am quite sure that were the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, present he, too, would be delighted.
§ 9.15 p.m.
Lord LucasWe are content that the first amendment seeks to preserve the existing exemptions afforded in inner London to the Inns of Court and Temples by the London building Acts.
With regard to Crown exemption, the general rule of constitutional law is that an Act of Parliament does not bind the Crown unless and to the extent specified in the Act.
The Government's policy is to ensure that government departments and other public offices are not given Crown exemption where that is not thought necessary. Accordingly, I welcome the second amendment in that it achieves that objective while not binding the Crown in a private capacity or by virtue of its interests in the Royal duchies.
§ Lord Graham of EdmontonI had intended to wait until Amendment No. 94 had been moved before saying what I know the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would expect. He asked me to say in his absence how grateful he is that the points he made were taken on board. I have been referred to more than once in a sedentary position; I just thought I would rise to say those words so that the Committee can see that I am an upstanding chap! The Earl of Lytton: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord the opposition Chief Whip for that intervention. I am glad that the concerns of his noble colleague have been met.
Turning to the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, about my powers of persuasion, I do not feel that I have any role in this other than to try to act as an honest broker in regard to what I believe is an important and beneficial piece of legislation. I sincerely believe that the Bill will produce net benefits, streamlining and a reduction in friction.
I am greatly indebted to others for having used their powers of persuasion to convince the Inns of Court, government departments and the various Crown offices that the Bill is worth while and will be of benefit to them as well. The fact that they have recognised that is another indicator of the fundamental utility of the Bill. I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 94:
After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—
951
THE CROWN
(" .—(1) This Act shall apply to land in which there is—
(2) This Act shall apply to—
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this amendment inserting the new clause in connection with Amendment No. 93. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 94.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18 [Interpretation]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 12, leave out lines 37 and 38.
§ The noble Earl said: This is a drafting amendment consequent upon the revised procedures for repeal under Amendment No. 98. There is accordingly no need to define the two Acts referred to in Clause 18 and the amendment deletes the reference. I hope that will be sufficient explanation for the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord LucasSchedule 2 to the Bill, which Amendment No. 98 replaces, repealed some parts of the building Act. Following representations received by officials in my department from interested parties, we are content that this should be removed.
As the noble Earl said, the powers introduced by Amendment No. 98 may appear wide but are restricted to private and local Acts, and I am content that they are necessary. They will be used only where researches confirm that they are necessary and after discussion with the appropriate parties.
§ The Earl of LyttonI thank the Minister for those remarks. I commend Amendment No. 95.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 13, line 5, leave out from (""owner"") to end of line 11 and insert ("includes—
§ The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 97.
§ Following legal scrutiny, it became apparent that the definition of "owner" in the Bill was defective and that a clearer definition needed to be incorporated. This amendment does no more than seek to remedy that. It does 952 so in a manner consistent with the original intention of the Bill. Amendment No. 97 simply removes the words rendered superfluous by Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 13, line 33, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
§ The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to this with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 18, as amended, agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 98:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
OTHER STATUTORY PROVISIONS
(".—(1) The Secretary of State may by order amend or repeal any provision of a private or local Act passed before or in the same session as this Act, if it appears to him necessary or expedient to do so in consequence of this Act.
(2) An order under subsection (1) may—
(3) The power to make an order under subsection (1) shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.").
§ The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also about Schedule 2. I touched on this new clause when I spoke to Amendment No. 95. This is a substantial amendment which inserts a complete new clause dealing with repeals and amendments to private and local Acts of Parliament.
§ During discussions with lawyers it became apparent that nobody quite knew how many local Acts might refer to the London building Acts or contain similar provisions of their own which would necessitate repeal when this Bill becomes law. It is thought that there are very few of them but the eventuality has to be covered. This amendment would give greater flexibility in dealing with that specific problem.
§ Schedule 2 is rendered unnecessary because the new clause supersedes its provisions. I beg to move.
§ The Earl of KinnoullI have not given notice of my question to my noble friend the Minister but I should like to raise two points on this amendment.
First, there may well be a proud local Act which works very well and it would seem from this amendment that the Minister can reduce its potency and even wipe it out by going through certain parliamentary procedures. Would there be proper notice given to the people concerned with the local area? I believe that there is a Manchester Act which is little used in this area, but there is that Act. That is already outside the London area and could be affected.
Secondly, new subsection (2)(b) states that an order may:
make different provision for different purposes".953 Could the Minister give some example which would add to the clarity of those words?
Lord LucasI beg pardon of the Committee for having given my comments on this amendment with Amendment No. 95. I must have been confused by the grouping list. However, I shall repeat what I said earlier.
The powers in Amendment No. 98 are wide but we feel that they are necessary, not least to deal with the London building Acts, but also to deal with other local Acts which exist for other parts of the country, because we intend to introduce a national practice which will apply nationally and not be subject to local variation. I shall write to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull about the exact wording of this clause and I hope that I shall be able to give him some comfort on exactly why the phrase that he mentioned is necessary.
However, as I said previously, we confirm that this clause will be used only where research has confirmed that its use is necessary and after discussion with appropriate parties; that is to say, we shall not take action without talking fully through the implications of that action with everyone who might be concerned.
§ The Earl of LyttonI am grateful for the Minister's explanation. Perhaps I may add to that by saying to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that it is important to realise that, although this appears to be a very sweeping power, it deals with local Acts. So it is not a question of any wider general right of appeal. He mentioned Manchester. There is also thought to be a local Act for Bristol which might be affected. It will be a matter of carrying out a trawl to establish how many of these measures are affected and whether the provisions are being incorporated into currently applicable legislation.
With the benefit of those words and the Minister's explanation, I commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Repeals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 19 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ The Earl of LyttonClause 19 is rendered unnecessary by Amendment No. 98, to which the Committee has just agreed. It means that repeals or amendments will be made by order rather than in a schedule to the Bill. For reasons which I explained, neither the schedule nor its enabling clause is of any further effect and I am happy that they be deleted.
Clause 19 negatived.
Clause 20 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 13, line 43, after ("Wall") insert ("etc.").
§ The noble Earl said: This amendment to the short title is necessary because, strictly speaking, Clause 6 does not refer to party walls as such; it refers to excavation and construction within certain degrees of proximity to an adjoining owner's building. However, it has been long accepted practice in Inner London and under the London Building Acts that excavation and construction 954 adjacent to another property necessitates notice. That is now covered by the "etc." which will appear in the short title.
§ The proximity test is an important safeguard for construction and it is equally important that the title of the Bill reflects the scope of what is contained within its pages. I beg to move.
§ On Question, amendment agreed to.
§
The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 13, line 44, leave out from ("force") to end of line 46 and insert ("in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order made by statutory instrument.
(2A) An order under subsection (2) may—
§ The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 100 deals with commencement. It enables a more considered approach to be adopted in providing an opportunity for discussion with professional bodies and others regarding transitional arrangements.
§ It is important that building owners with work in progress when the Bill comes into force have the necessary time to adapt and that the introduction of the new measures for England and Wales should be as smooth as possible. It would be a terrible shame if measures with such an honourable and efficient reputation and heritage in the London Building Acts were not brought in as smooth and as trouble-free a fashion as possible. I beg to move.
Lord LucasShould this Bill receive Royal Assent, officials will discuss with appropriate bodies the need for any savings and transitional provisions. They will also give consideration to the date on which the Bill will take effect.
As the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, said, that will allow a more considered approach to be adopted which will take into account the views of professional bodies. We are content that the amendment achieves that objective.
§ The Earl of LyttonI thank the Minister for that response and commend the amendment to the Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Offences and Fines]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 1 shall be the first schedule to the Bill.
§ The Earl of LyttonAs I explained in the context of Amendment No. 89, Schedule No. 1 is now unnecessary. It therefore does not need to be included in the Bill.
Schedule 1 negatived.
Schedule 2 [Repeals]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be the second schedule to the Bill?
§ The Earl of LyttonThis second schedule is also rendered unnecessary, as I explained in the context of Amendment No. 98.
Schedule 2 negatived.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.