Lords Sitting of 10 December 1970

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

DELAYED PAYMENTS TO SMALL BUSINESSES
THE VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the effect which the policy of some Ministries, large firms and local authorities in delaying payment for work done is having on small businesses; and whether they can take some action to discourage this practice.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am not aware that Government Departments are delaying payment of accounts; such action would be directly contrary to instructions and there is no evidence of it. I am also not aware that local authorities in general delay payment of their accounts; the importance of prompt payments has been pointed out to them from time to time. I am not in a position to answer for private firms; I do not think that Government intervention in this area would be appropriate.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he would be willing to make some further investigation into the matter, because I can assure him that there is considerable feeling on the subject? I would mention that the Board of Trade have an extremely bad reputation in this respect. Secondly, I would ask him whether he would not agree that the competitiveness of our small firms is a vital thing in the future of our industry, and that, with the credit squeeze, if bills are not paid promptly it inevitably means that many of them will go to the wall?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would entirely agree with what the noble Viscount has said about the importance of small businesses in this country. If he has evidence of any particular delays by Government Departments in discharging their debts and can bring them to my attention, I will gladly have them investigated.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: My Lords, may I thank the Minister very much for that reply.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether his Answer implies that he is under the impression that there are no delays in dealing with negotiations and settlements by the Inland Revenue?
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware of the fact—I am sure he is—that this is a frequently expressed complaint; that in recent times it was expressed by the C.B.I, on behalf of industry, that it was examined in full detail and that nothing to support the charges was found?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, curiously enough, I have a brief precisely to that effect.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Earl whether we are to have the pleasure of the attendance of most of his Party today, whether they have mistaken the date of the Recess, or whether at the moment they are succeeding in putting some of Mr. Barber's ideas right.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, I am at a loss to know how his supplementary arises from the Question put to me.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if I may say so to the noble Earl, it does not arise. It is a question to the Leader of the House who, I trust, looks after us all, and I am wondering whether he is losing control of some of his flock.

MOTORWAYS AND LAY-BYS
3.9 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why no lay-bys are provided on motorways.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, lay-bys are not required on motorways. The hard shoulders can be used by vehicles in emergency, and the service areas provide facilities for refreshment and rest on long journeys.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he is aware that numerous lay-bys are provided on Continental motorways? Why cannot specific areas he put aside along, say, one of our motorways every 15 or 20 miles on an experimental basis, to see how the accident rate there compares with that of other motorways where no such provision is made?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, service areas are provided about every 25 miles and where necessary intermediate sites will be developed at 12-mile intervals. I know that lay-bys exist on many of the Continental motorways, but interchanges on our motorways are at an average spacing of about live miles. Therefore, if any driver should feel himself getting tired or sleepy, it is his duty to get off the motorway as soon as possible. Furthermore, lay-bys have been recommended on all-purpose roads which are adjacent to motorway interchanges, and there are facilities there where the driver can take his car and rest.

DESECRATION OF CEMETERIES
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what damage has been caused in Highgate and Nunhead Cemeteries by acts of vandalism; and whether any precautions have been taken to prevent further desecration of these cemeteries.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, three incidents at Highgate Cemetery and two at Nunhead Cemetery
1034
have been reported to the police so far this year. The damage caused in one of the incidents was fairly serious. It must be for the owners to protect their property, though the police are ready to do what they reasonably can, having regard to their other commitments, to advise and assist.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that both these cemeteries are of great historical and architectural interest, and is it not particularly revolting that outrages of this nature should be allowed to occur within their precincts? Cannot more active steps be taken by the authorities directly concerned to prevent a recurrence?
Loan WINIDLESHAM: My Lords, I much deprecate the fact that vandalism is common, not only in cemeteries but elsewhere. It is for United Cemeteries Limited, who control both of these cemeteries, to take such measures as they can to protect their properties. But, as I have said, the police are also vigilant.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that until recently the Anglican chapels at both of these cemeteries were in a ruinous state, and can he indicate what steps will be taken to have them restored to a proper state of preservation?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I understand that Nunhead Cemetery is now closed except to visitors at weekends. Highgate Cemetery is still in use. The future of Nunhead Cemetery is under discussion with the Department of the Environment and the local authority.

EASTER ACT 1928
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now take the necessary steps to bring into force the Easter Act 1928; and, if not, why not.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, it would be neither right nor practicable to implement the. Easter Act 1928 except with the approval of the Churches in this country, which is dependent upon that of other major Christian denominations.

1035
Progress continues to be made towards this goal but any final agreement is unlikely before the Pan-Orthodox Holy Synod meets in 1972.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, does the noble Lord not think it a little odd that we, having had a different Easter from the Orthodox Church ever since anybody can remember, must now wait until we get agreement with that Church?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I have done my background reading, and I see that this subject has been raised in this House on many occasions by the noble Lord. He will therefore know that the reason why the agreement of the Eastern Orthodox Churches is required is that the agreement of the Roman Catholic Church is conditional on it.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, is it not possible for the noble Lord to try to bring some light on this subject before Easter? Can he get the electricity dispute settled, so that we may get some light?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a fixed Easter would be of immense benefit to the tourist industry of this country, which is producing such an immense amount of overseas revenue?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there are advantages in a fixed date for Easter. There are a number of possibilities—there are, in fact, four—which are being discussed with the Churches at the moment.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, will the noble Lord tell me when I may next put my Question on the same subject?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Easter!
LORD WINDLESHAM: I wondered about that, my Lords. I saw that the noble Lord's practice was usually to put down a Question every two or three years, but the last occasion was in April of this year, and I can therefore only assume that the reason why we have had a second discussion on the subject so quickly is the change of Government.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned that he had done a lot of research on the subject. Has
1036
that not proved to him that it is not the Churches in this country which are creating the difficulty over this issue?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, there has been a certain amount of progress in recent years. I know that the noble Lord was himself answering in similar terms on this subject not so long ago. But this year there was a meeting in Geneva in March, when the Faith and Order Secretariat of the World Council prepared a report on the subject; there was a meeting in August of the Faith and Order Working Committee; and there was a meeting of the Executive of the World Council of Churches in September, all on this point.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it would be quite impossible for the Roman Catholic Church in this country to act without agreement with the Roman Catholic Church on the Continent?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that point is very relevant, in the light of one of the earlier supplementaries from the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, may I ask what the World Council of Churches decided in August?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the August meeting was of the Faith and Order Working Committee, and it decided to send the report which had been produced in March to the Executive of the World Council of Churches which met from September 1 to 7.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I have the greatest possible sympathy with the Question, and may I ask the Minister whether there is anything to stop us, by agreement or convention, from giving a lead in this matter and setting up an Easter for ourselves?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think the objection to it is that we should end up with a different secular public holiday from the dates which were still adhered to by at any rate some major religious denominations.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask why that did not prevent us from having a fixed Whitsuntide holiday?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Partly, my Lords, because Good Friday is a weekday and not a weekend.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENTS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be making a Statement on the European Economic Community at a convenient moment after half-past three. That will be followed, possibly after some little time has elapsed, by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Drumaibyn on the dispute between the industrial trade unions and the Electricity Board.

BUSINESS AND ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should perhaps inform your Lordships of my understanding of the arrangements for this afternoon and evening, if we have a power cut. I am afraid that I am not in a position to inform your Lordships whether or when the electricity supply could fail in your Lordships' House, but perhaps I should draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that powerful battery lamps have been provided for both Dispatch Boxes, and I gather that there is ten hours' light supply in those rather formidable-looking instruments. Also, there are arrangements to provide adequate lighting in the Division Lobbies, should a Division take place.
If it has the agreement of noble Lords on all sides of the House and suits the general convenience, I should like to suggest that if there is a failure of light and noble Lords wish to avail themselves of their notes they should feel quite free to speak from the Dispatch Boxes, perhaps using the part nearest to the Clerks.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I hope it will not be necessary also to take advantage of freezing fog as an additional reason for curtailing the debate. We are grateful to the noble Earl. Certainly we on this side would welcome anyone coming to speak from the Dispatch Box, or from near the Dispatch Box. I have no doubt the noble Earl will continue to give what warning he can. If definite information becomes available as to the likelihood of a power cut, perhaps it could be announced over the Tannoy
1038
system. There were a number of rumours circulating yesterday. It may not be possible to get definite information, but if some warning can be given then people can ready themselves; they can orientate themselves in relation to the door, and such matters. Perhaps we can continue to be informed in the way that British Railways have now taken to informing us every time there is a breakdown.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lord, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether, in the arrangements which he has made, he has made any for the Press Gallery also to be provided with lights? Secondly, will noble Lords remember that when the electricity goes off so does the microphone system. Therefore, would your Lordships please speak as noble Lords must have done before we had microphones?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have just spoken. I very much like the suggestion which the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has made about the Tannoy system, and I will have that looked into. In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, I am afraid that at the present time no special lighting has been provided in the Press Gallery, but, with the appropriate authorities of the House, I will have that matter looked into forthwith I am grateful to the noble Lord for his suggestion.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Earl is in a very accommodating mood. I am a little nervous about his making appeals for anything, since his appeals for short speeches yesterday were not heard, certainly not on his own Front Bench.
EARL JELLICOE: Nevertheless, my Lords, I repeat my appeal.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 42 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House rises for the recess at Christmas.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.24 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That leave be given to the Marquess of Lothian to move en bloc the first nineteen Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper. The noble Earl said: My Lords, this Motion is rather unusual, and I think I should therefore briefly explain its purpose to your Lordships. Your Lordships will have seen from the Order Paper that there are no fewer than 19 separate Motions down to-day relating to Consular Privileges and Immunities Orders. There are also two Orders relating to European Immunities and Privileges. I ought perhaps to add that, as noble Lords will doubtless have seen, to-day's White Order Paper has been printed in a slightly unusual form. The first 19 Motions in the name of my noble friend as printed are in fact the Consular Orders; the last two Orders in my noble friend's name are the European ones I have mentioned.
My Lords, under our normal and accepted procedure this would necessitate no fewer than 21 separate Motions being proposed and Questions being put and determined. As your Lordships know, criticism has been expressed recently—it was expressed last July by my noble friend Lord Alport—about die putting of multiple Questions, and this matter is in fact to be considered by the Procedure Committee of your Lordships' House at their next meeting. The purpose of my Motion to-day is to enable us to avoid, and to avoid for this occasion only, pending the advice of the Procedure Committee, 21 Questions, which could of course take up a great deal of your Lordships' time. If your Lordships agree with my Motion, only three Questions will become necessary. I should like to say straight away that if any noble Lord objects to this procedure now I shall not press my Motion, and we will of course proceed to take the 21 Questions in their turn.
My Lords, as I understand it, if my Motion were agreed to we might follow our frequent practice and have a general debate on all 21 Orders on the first Motion. I should, however, like to make it clear that if your Lordships agree to the Motion which I am now moving but in the course of subsequent discussion criticisms
1040
of this course of action arise, my noble friend Lord Lothian will not then avail himself of the power which the House will have given to him but will move each Motion separately. So there is a second option, as it were, available to your Lordships.
I should like to conclude this brief statement by saying that my sole motive for having tabled this Motion, which I do not in any way intend should be regarded as a precedent or should prejudice the consideration of the general question by the Procedure Committee, is that I hope it may prove, in the rather exceptional circumstances in which we may find ourselves this afternoon, to the general convenience of your Lordships' House. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That leave be given to the Marquess of Lothian to move en bloc the first nineteen Motions standing in his name on the Order Paper.(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am in general agreement with the noble Earl. I am sure that it does no good to waste a lot of time in formalities, and it does not add to the dignity of the House. It makes us look just like a sausage machine. The sort of arrangements which the noble Earl has proposed are similar to those which we introduced to cut out Committee stages on Bills on which nobody wanted a Committee stage.
I must admit that I think all noble Lords were probably rather mystified by the Order Paper. I am not quite clear whether this is an historic way of arranging the Order Paper, but if this is so then it might be helpful if the pages were numbered on these occasions, because until the noble Earl explained it was not quite obvious which were the special two. I think the noble Earl is quite right to say that this whole matter should go to the Procedure Committee. It is an unusual situation, and there was not time, obviously, to do it before. I think he has taken the right course.
I am not sure whether I understood the noble Earl aright, but I should like to suggest to him that, if any noble Lord wishes a particular Order to be singled out, some way of omitting it or of taking it in advance should be evolved. This

1041
would obviously involve the co-operation of the Lord Chancellor, as to how the Questions are put. I think that if there is just one Order on which somebody wants to have a particular discussion it would be a nuisance if all the other Orders had then to be put singly. It may be that the noble Earl had this in mind. I am not quite clear whether this is so, but there has been consultation through the usual channels and I am quite certain that the noble Earl, like any Leader of the House, is jealous to see that our rights in this matter are not curtailed.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, on behalf of my colleagues may I say that, naturally, the motives of the Leader of the House in this as in all matters are above suspicion. I think this is a very good example of how the House can regulate its own business according to the rules of common sense. I think it would be right to take these Orders en bloc. I reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said: that, depending on which way you open the Order Paper, you get a remarkable number of choices as to which Orders constitute the first 19 Motions on the Order Paper.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have an interest in this because, with the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, I am going to take part in the debate on these Orders. I was party to the agreement to take them in this way, but my understanding was that the Orders would be moved and then put to the House after the debate on them. The difficulty, it seems to me, is that if we accept the Business Motion now before us we shall have the option to take the Orders either separately or en bloc, and I gather that it would be contrary to the Rules of the House for us to take any of these Orders separately, or out of turn.
As the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, knows, some Orders may go through relatively easily while others, which may be mingled with those that go easily, may prove more difficult. I wonder if I may ask the help of the noble Earl in inquiring whether, instead of pressing his Business Motion at this moment, we could have the debate on these Orders and then, after that debate, have his Motion put. We shall by then have a pretty good idea whether we can agree or whether we
1042
should reserve our position and take the Orders individually.
LORD WILLIAMSON: My Lords, might we not save the time of the House by getting on with these 19 Orders?
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I should like to support that very much: that we should get on with these 19 Orders now and save the time of the House.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, in answer to both noble Lords who have just spoken, I should remind them that the 19 Orders are not the next business. Unless we proceed with the acceptance of my Motion it will take about 1½ hours of formal business. There is a great deal to be said for taking the Orders en bloc, if this is the general wish. I think that we can give effect to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am wondering whether the noble Earl can do so. I am sure that this is the right way of proceeding. I think there should be a little conversation on this, and it may be that there is some way round the procedure if we want to single out one of the Orders. Obviously the House is strongly in favour of this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MISUSE OF DRUGS BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

WATER RESOURCES BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen and from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales that they, having been informed of the purport of the Water Resources Bill, have consented to place their interests, so far as they are concerned on behalf of the Crown and the Duchy of Lancaster and the Duchy of Cornwall at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT: (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 2 [Supplemental]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved an Amendment:
Page 3, line 7, after ("Park") insert ("or an area of outstanding natural beauty").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I think it may be to the advantage of the rather full House that we have at present if, before speaking to my Amendment, I remind the House, not many of whom were present at the Second Reading debate, what this Bill is about and why I am making so bold as to bring forward an Amendment at the Third Reading.
This is a Bill (to the general content of which noble Lords on this side of the House readily assent)which has the effect of removing from Parliament and leaving to the Secretary of State for the Environment the decision whether or not a reservoir shall be permitted in a certain place. The procedure that it institutes contains full provision for local inquiries and we are satisfied, as I believe are the Government, that it will be for the convenience and to the advantage of both the promoters of reservoir schemes and their opponents to argue the matter out locally in public; that the Minister should then take his decision; and that this will be better for everybody than going to the great expense and trouble of arguing it out before a Select Committee of Parliament.
So much, my Lords, is agreed between the two sides. During the course of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Molson, said, "Would it not be better if Parliament were to retain a simple "Yea' or "Nay" control over Reservoir Orders in certain places and in certain places only? "His proposal was that Parliament should retain this negative control over reservoirs proposed in National Parks. This would not be a form of Parliamentary endorsement which involved setting up a Select Committee; it would simply mean that when the Order was provisionally made by the Secretary of State it should be laid before Parliament and it would then be open to any Member of either House to pray against it in the normal period for the Negative Resolution procedure.
1044
The Government agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that this was desirable and at an earlier stage of the Bill introduced an Amendment which noble Lords on this side of the House supported which would make this the case—a negative check on the Minister's provisional decision in the case of reservoirs in National Parks only.
At both earlier stages of the Bill I advanced the proposition that if it was right to do this in the case of National Parks, it would also be right to do it in areas of outstanding natural beauty; that if the one place is worthy of that little extra bit of Parliamentary attention then, I thought, so is the other.
At the earlier stages, the Government had not readily shared this view and it is therefore at the Third Reading that I have put down an actual Amendment to give effect to this. During the course of the Bill through Parliament, an event has happened which to my mind changes the whole lay of the land in this matter. That event was the rejection by a Select Committee of the House of Commons of the Dartmoor National Park Reservoir Bill—Swincombe Reservoir. We have had, in the course of only a few months, a series of three rejections by Parliament of reservoir proposals which have come forward under the old procedure. The conclusion that I draw from this is that Parliament valued a measure of control over these proposals and that the Bill as it is now brought to your Lordships for Third Reading does not contain enough Parliamentary control.
I would therefore urge the House to accept this Amendment and in doing so would remind your Lordships of what effect it will have. Somebody wants a reservoir; the Minister sends an inspector; there is a local inquiry; the Minister is convinced that the reservoir is right. In most cases that is the end of the matter. In the case of a National Park or an area of outstanding natural beauty that is not the end of the matter. The Order is made provisionally and is laid before Parliament where it may be prayed against—the Negative Resolution procedure—during the standard number of days. I beg to move.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, the Government have treated me extremely generously and, as I said the other day, they

1045
have been extremely wise in accepting the principle of retaining Parliamentary control over the location of reservoirs in National Parks. I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and I do not despair at all that having gone so far the Government will be prepared to go even a little further. Clearly, areas of outstanding natural beauty do fall—although they are usually quite small in area—into much the same category of precious countryside as National Parks. While I should not be prepared to press matters against the Government, who have already treated me so fairly and generously in this matter, I hope that they may be prepared at this last stage to make one more concession in the same direction.
3.40 p.m.
LORD ILSORD: My Lords, I will detain your Lordships for only a very few moments. So far as I know, there is no substantial objection to what is proposed. The difficulties which water undertakings are experiencing, even with the necessary Parliamentary powers to carry out their tasks, are very substantial and extremely hard to overcome. I sometimes wonder that anyone is able to obtain any wafer at all. I have no doubt that the powers will be used properly and that they will not add appreciably to the difficulties which the water undertakings experience to-day.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, as this Bill refers primarily to river authorities who have to make these applications, perhaps I ought to add that they are very apprehensive of an extension of the concession which the Government made in response to my noble friend Lord Molson. I would not fear Parliamentary procedure by Negative Resolution or indeed an Affirmative Resolution procedure for any of these developments, which are clearly in the public interest. Nevertheless, my Lords, we must have some regard to the public authorities responsible for promoting these schemes; and because my noble friend Lord Sandford has, as I think, been helpful and generous to my noble friend Lord Molson and made the concession over the National Parks—which clearly are in a class by themselves—it would seem to me rather hard to press
1046
him to go further, as I hope your Lordships will agree.
After all, where should he stop? Should he go on being pressed from one point to another to make concessions over this whole field? There is substance in the objection to extending the concession. Indeed, there were many who did not wish to see the concession made at all. But my noble friend thought that he had got the right balance by making a special case for the National Parks. I hope that he will feel that he has met the reality of this point and that he will not agree to accept the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has moved so persuasively.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, this is a marvellous opportunity for the Government to do two things: first, to demonstrate their respect for Parliament; and secondly, to show that their concern for the amenities of our countryside is genuine. I should have thought that both those things were consonant with the philosophy which is held both by the Government and also by the Opposition.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say this about these areas of national beauty, in addition to what the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has has said? I was a member of the Committee under Sir Arthur Hobhouse which reported on the whole problem. We found that there were areas of practically the same quality as the National Parks, but they were too small to be made into National Parks; therefore we devised this scheme of areas of outstanding natural beauty. It is quite as important that they should be protected in the same way, because their beauty is of exactly the same kind. They are very small. Therefore, if a large reservoir were put into one of them even more scenery would be destroyed than in the case of a National Park. I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, will push this Amendment to a Division, if necessary, but I hope that the Government will, as was said by the noble Baroness, see their way to accept it.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment. I think there has been a marked change in public opinion recently. Public opinion

1047
has now got to the stage when it is not prepared to accept the drowning of valleys as being necessary as a means of providing the water that is needed. Public opinion recognises that alternative means must be found, and therefore I think that these Orders are necessary. I would go even further and say that I think that all these Orders that will come before us ought to be subject to Parliamentary control. Therefore I support the Amendment.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I hope that I have the greatest respect for Parliament and an equal love of the countryside. I have sought to demonstrate that, at ail the stages in which I have been dealing with this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Molson said yesterday, fresh water and clean rivers are for many of us, and particularly for himself, a top priority. In 1963 Parliament took the same view. They constituted the river authorities and gave them powers to get on with their job. However, the 1963 Act under which that was done did not cater properly for discharges. The powers conferred, or which ought to have been conferred, in 1963 could not be effectively used, and since then river authorities have had recourse once more to Private Bills. This was irksome for the river authorities and very expensive for the amenity societies and other objectors. As the noble Lord, Lord Kennet has reminded us, it enabled Parliament to forestall some proposals for reservoirs in National Parks and on National Trust land where recreational and amenity considerations have particular weight.
In this Bill, as we have now amended it so far, we are aiming to get the best of both worlds and to strike a fair balance between the large number of different interests that are involved. We are trying to achieve a reconciliation of the views of amenity and preservation interests on the one hand and of the river authorities and clean water protagonists on the other. We are remedying the defect about discharges and thus freeing river authorities to get on with their urgent and important job by means of public local inquiries; but at the same time introducing a Parliamentary stage where National Parks are involved. The Parliamentary process has always been, and is still, required
1048
when National Trust land and common land is involved.
My Lords, I believe this is the right balance. To have ignored and disregarded what Parliament had agreed that it was necessary to do in the past seven years would indeed have been wrong. But to take away more freedom from the river authorities to get on with their urgent job of cleaning up our rivers and putting our water supplies on a proper basis would also be wrong as it would be to extend the Parliamentary process as a matter of course to all water works in all areas of outstanding natural beauty. If we did that, why should we draw the line outside areas of great landscape value and sites of special scientific interest? That would be a further constraint on the freedom of the river authorities to get on with their job. I fully admit that it would be desirable from some points of view, but on balance I cannot recommend it and I invite your Lordships to reject this Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, in the brief discussion that we have had several noble Lords have used the word "concession". That sounds as if my Amendment would be a concession by the water undertakings to the amenity bodies. That is not so; it would be a concession, if you like, by the water undertakings to Parliament. The purpose of this Amendment is not to tip the balance in favour of amenity interests and against water interests; it is to tip the balance in favour of Parliamentary control in this matter as opposed to Executive control.
The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, told us that the river authorities would be apprehensive of such an idea, although he himself would not fear the Negative Resolution procedure. This is the crux of the matter. Anybody who knows Parliament, as Lord Nugent does and as your Lordships do, would not fear the Negative Resolution procedure; whereas those outside might find that it raised all the old spectres which have so bedevilled the working of this Act in the last seven years, as I would be the first to admit. Several noble Lords raised the question: where do we stop? If we include areas of outstanding natural beauty why not go further and include all the country? We stop here. The

1049
Amendment includes areas of outstanding natural beauty and does not include anything else, and the argument that it might include something else seems to me a highly theoretical one.
I want to make one point very clear; that is, that this proposal is not going back to the cumbrous procedure of the Private Bill, which has clogged us for so long. Far from it. It is a simple negative. Yea or Nay, ex post facto, exactly as the Government propose in the case of the National Parks. All things considered, I think it would be right to have this Amendment and I would invite all those who care for the countryside, all those who care for democratic control in the decisions about where we get our water, and especially all those who are not afraid of Parliament, to come with me into the Lobby in favour of this Amendment.
LORD WAKEFIELD OF KENDAL: My Lords, could we have some information about what is meant by "areas of outstanding natural beauty"? Are they
defined? We know what a National Park is, but I am not clear how much your Lordships are informed about the extent of what they are voting about. I do not know how much of the countryside these areas cover, and I think that it would be very helpful if we knew exactly the extent of the areas on which we are about to make a decision.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the acreage proportionate to that of the. National Parks is about seven-ninths.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the areas are statutorily defined. It is quite clear what we are talking about. The areas are proposed by the Countryside Commission to the Minister and confirmed by him. So that the marks on the map are just as statutory in their case as in the case of the National Parks themselves.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 100; Not-Contents, 50.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Amherst, E.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ardwick, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Rea, L.

Audley, Bs.

Glasgow, E.

Reay, L.

Avebury, L.

Gray, L.

Roberthall, L.

Baldwin of Bewley, E.

Greenway, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Balogh, L.

Gridley, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Haddington, E.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Hamnett, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bourne, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Bowles, L.

Henley, L.

St. Just, L.

Brockway, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Sandys, L.

Burntwood, L.

Howe, E.

Segal, L.

Byers, L.

Howick of Glendale, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Caithness, E.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Champion, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Chorley, L.

Ingleby, V.

Shepherd, L.

Clwyd, L.

Jacques, L.

Shinwell, L.

Conesford, L.

Kennet, L.

Silkin, L.

Cromartie, E.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Crook, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sorensen, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Stow Hill, L.

Derwent, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Strang, L.

Diamond, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Dowding, L.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Terrington, L.

Falmouth, V.

Meston, L.

Thurlow, L.

Faringdon, L.

Moyle, L.

Vivian, L.

Fletcher, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

White, Bs.

Fulton, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Williamson, L.

Gage, V.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Winchester, L. Bp.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Dudley, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Rathcavan, L.

Alport, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Reigate, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Fortescue, E.

Rochdale, V.

Ampthill, L.

Grirnston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Auckland, L.

Hailsharn of St. Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

St. Helens, L.

Barnby, L.

Sandford, L.

Bethell, L. [Teller.]

Hankey, L.

Stamp, L.

Brentford, V.

Hives, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Bridgeman, V.

Ilford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sudeley, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Lothian, M.

Suffield, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McCorquordale, of Newton, L.

Swinton, E.

Courtown, E.

Merrivale, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mills, V.

Windlesham, L.

de Clifford, L.

Milverton, L.

Wolverton, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller]

Drumalbyn, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In doing so, I should like to say that the points that were made on the earlier stages in Committee and on Report about certain difficulties which the statutory water undertakers might feel themselves to be in, although they will not be taken into account in this Bill will of course be considered in a more comprehensive review on the Water Resources Act generally which is in hand within our Department. The point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, on Report stage, about the way in which these Orders will be dealt with in Parliament when they come forward, will also be taken into account. Before I sit down, I ought perhaps to say that other representations have been made about compensation for displaced farmers when their land is required for reservoirs, and those aspects will be taken into account in another review concerned with the whole field of compensation generally, which is going on within the Department.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Sandford.)
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, I am pleased to hear the noble Lord say that these aspects of compensation will be taken into account. I accept that in effect all this Bill does is to make Section 67 of the Water Resources Act comply with its original intentions. I also accept that there is general agreement about the procedure by Order being cheaper than procedure by Private Bill; and, furthermore, that it is coming to be preferred
1052
that there should be a public inquiry in the locality. In the country there is sometimes a sort of feeling that the Private Bill procedure is a rather hole-in-the-corner performance, and I know that many of us regard it, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said, as cumbersome.
Nevertheless there is one small point which ought not to be overlooked, and it is that the Private Bill procedure enables river authorities to offer better terms to dispossessed owners than under a Ministerial Order. It is because the terms are so often inadequate, and are increasingly being recognised to be so, that schemes are held up by every device known to the men who are being dispossessed, at a cost to the river authority in time, and hence money, far greater than if the river authority were able to make a deal direct, offering terms which make for a willing seller rather than for an unhappy and disgruntled one. The river authorities are anxious to offer these better terms. The very expense of Private Bills has its advantages, in a paradoxical way, for those who wish to amend these Bills, because promoters, in order to lessen the expense, are anxious to be accommodating. Indeed, they may so draft the original Bill as to avoid opposition.
In the case of Bills for reservoirs, which is what this Bill is concerned with, the river authorities may, either in the first instance or after the negotiations, offer better compensation, or reinstatement, than would have been possible under the Order procedure. As the cost of land is in most cases, or in average cases, only about 5 per cent. of the total cost of building the reservoir, the reservoir

1053
authorities are only too glad to give these better terms as this means quicker progress at less cost. Representations have been made to the Government, as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, mentioned, and the river authorities themselves are considering ways in which they can improve the position. I am glad to hear that these important issues have been taken note of by the Government.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to make a plea to the Government on one technical point. If we are going to have comprehensive legislation dealing with water, it would be helpful to Parliament if, before the Bill is introduced, the existing Water Acts could be consolidated. At present it is an extraordinarily difficult task to find out exactly what the, law is. There have been four Water Acts, and a great deal of the original Water Act of 1945 has been either repealed or amended. I am sure that it will be well worth while to have it consolidated before further legislation is introduced. I quite understand that the argument will be advanced that if the Bill is going to be amended still further, there is no need to consolidate it at the present time. It would immensely simplify the task of amending the law if it were easier for legislators in both Houses to know what the law is at the present time.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may I say a few words on the Question, That the Bill do now pass? This Bill is the last instalment of the great reform of the water industry which took place in 1963. It is not the beginning of a new water industry; it is the tidying up of a bit that was left over from the last reform. Noble Lords on all sides of the House will agree that it will be good to get on as soon as possible to the next major reform which, because of the rapid advance of technology and the increase of the population, we all know is now to be deserved.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord who has contributed at all stages of this Bill. It is a minor matter, but it is quite clearly a matter of major public interest. It has been carefully considered by your Lordships. Everything that your Lordships have said will be taken into account, particularly the last remarks of the noble Lord.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Report received.
Then, Standing Order No. 42 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a, and passed.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY DISPUTE
4.13 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to repeat a Statement that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
"Before coming to the issues which are the concern of my Department I should first like to assure the House, in view of what was said yesterday from all sides, that I have this morning confirmed with the Chairman of the Electricity Council that everything which is humanly possible is being done to ensure that advance warning of cuts is given to hospitals and other consumers for whom interruptions of electricity supply produce immediate and critical difficulties. Sir Norman Elliott also informed me that Electricity Boards are doing everything in their power to warn consumers generally of impending cuts.
"The House will recall from my statement yesterday, that there are at present two disputes in the electricity supply industry: one affecting industrial workers, which has already resulted in the present work to rule; the second, affecting supervisory and technical staffs, who are threatening to work to rule from Monday next.
"As regards the latter, I reported yesterday that I had seen representatives of the Electrical Power Engineers' Association and asked them to reconsider their decision to work to rule and the possibility of returning to negotiations. I can now report that, following that meeting, there have been discussions between the Electricity

1055
Council and the Association, and that this possibility is being further explored between them in discussions this afternoon. The House will, I know, join me in hoping that there will be a successful outcome.
"In my discussions this morning with Sir Norman Elliott to which I have already referred, I also reviewed with him the situation in relation to both disputes. Following this, I decided to invite the unions representing industrial staff to meet me this afternoon, and I am glad to say they have accepted this invitation, and I am meeting them as soon as I can leave the House following this Statement. At the same time, I invited the Electricity Council to have a further meeting with me later this evening, following my talks with the unions.
"Subsequently, Mr. Victor Feather got in touch with me and said that he would like to come and see me and report on the meeting he had had this morning with the unions representing the industrial workers. I have seen Mr. Feather this afternoon, and he reported to me that the four unions concerned had indicated that they would be willing to consider suspending industrial action if negotiations could be resumed and the possibility was not ruled out in principle of improving the current offer. Mr. Feather then said that he wished to communicate this to the Electricity Council, and I said that, of course, I would be happy for him to do so, while stressing, of course, that I could not in any way anticipate what the reaction of the Electricity Council might be.
"I would ask the House in view of the important meetings I am about to have, not to press me further this afternoon."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to thank the noble Lord for having communicated this Statement to us. I am sure, too, that your Lordships would wish to welcome such measure of progress as is indicated by the Statement, and the constructive effort made by Mr. Victor Feather in this connection. I do not think it would be desirable to press questions
1056
unduly which might imperil the making of progress in this exceedingly serious and difficult dispute. But I would ask the noble Lord whether he can take note of the hope that the Government will do all that lies in their power to assist the promotion of a settlement and, in particular, will abstain from any action and any speeches (and there have been speeches made in this connection which have by no means improved the situation) that might in any way impede a settlement.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for the restraint that he has invited your Lordships to show this afternoon. I take note of what he has said. If he will allow me to say so, I hope that there will be no provocative statements made anywhere on this subject, pending settlement of the dispute.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord about the situation regarding emergency supplies to hospitals. Some ten years ago, under rather similar circumstances, all the hospitals made arrangements for the use of generators. I should like to know how it is that those arrangements have been allowed to fall into disuse, if that is so. And if they have been allowed to fall into disuse, why cannot they be speedily restored? If, years ago, we were able to provide every hospital with emergency generators, I do not see why it cannot be done now.
VISCOUNT GAGE: My Lords, arising from that question, I am wondering whether it would not be possible to have some small warning period by putting off the lights for a few seconds and then having a period of several minutes before the electricity supply is switched off entirely. That would help hospitals to get emergency appliances into action, and it would also allow people time to get out of lifts. I believe that the police have spent a great deal of time in getting people out of lifts. Is such a warning period technically possible?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps I might reply first to my noble friend Lord Gage. I take note of what he has said: it seems a very constructive suggestion, and I will have it explored to see whether it can be carried out. With

1057
regard to the Lord Stonham's question, the fact is that every hospital that needs a standby generator has one, for it has been provided. The difficulty lies in not always being able to give previous notice of the cuts. The noble Lord will have seen that, so far as London is concerned, indications of where the cuts are going to fall were clearly set out in The Times this morning. My information is that the periods within which those cuts will take place are amply covered by the notice given there. The trouble is, as my right honourable friend pointed out yesterday, that to some extent the cuts are unpredictable—they are not absolutely predictable. I think everybody is trying to see that proper notice is given, but it may sometimes happen that something occurs which means that no notice can be given in a particular case. I should perhaps also add that different circumstances apply in different parts of the country. But, by and large, what I have said I think covers the facts.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am very glad to hear from the noble Lord that generators are—and I think he said "were"—available to the hospitals. I hope the noble Lord will find ways and means to get this news put across the media of television and radio, particularly television, because on Monday we had on television, from all one can say now, "scare" stories of doctors involved saying that their patients were gravely at risk, were likely to die; and they were seeking to put the responsibility directly upon those who were involved in an industrial dispute. I am very grateful for what the noble Lord has said, and I hope the widest possible publicity on this matter will be given.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I too am very glad to hear that every hospital has a generator; but certainly that fact had not emerged so far, and it should be generally known so that a great deal of understandable anxiety can be obviated. But the fact of lack of warning, sudden cutting off, is not affected by the arrangements we had before. The arrangements were for generators to be on standby duty all the time. They can be obtained. There are a great many firms who in the winter have no use for their generators and they are perfectly willing to lend them to a hospital. I know that I had a group of five hospitals—
A NOBLE LORD: Question!
LORD STONHAM: —and every one had a generator on standby. That is the kind of arrangement we want now.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord cannot have quite heard me correctly. I said that every hospital that needed one had a standby generator. By that I meant every hospital in which there is a major operating theatre. There may obviously be a slight gap if there is no notice at all before a standby generator is started up; and that is why it is so very important that notice should be given. I can assure the noble Lord that the Electricity Council and Electricity Authorities are doing everything in their power to make certain that adequate notice is given.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that all that is necessary is a telephone call to the hospital group secretary?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I am obliged to the noble Lord.

BRITAIN AND THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
4.24 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, I should like to repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster concerning the E.E.C. negotiations. The Statement is as follows:
"With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House I should like to make a Statement on the progress of the negotiations for British membership of the European Communities made at the Ministerial Meeting of the Conference which I attended in Brussels on December 8.
"At this meeting agreement was reached that the alternatives listed in the Declaration of Intent made by the Community in 1963 would be open to certain African countries, namely Gambia, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia.

1059
"I might remind the House that these alternatives comprise association under the Yaoundé. Convention; other association agreements with mutual rights and obligations, particularly in matters of trade; or commercial agreements to facilitate and expand trade between the Community and these countries.
"The Community said that they could only state their position with regard to other Commonwealth developing countries in the Indian Ocean and Pacific, and the Caribbean, for which we proposed that the same options be available, in the light of discussions taking place with respect to the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement.
"The Conference also discussed further the basis of Gibraltar's customs arrangements with the Community following the agreement already reached—and reported to the House on October 29—that the provisions of the Treaty of Rome would apply to Gibraltar under Article 227(4). It has been accepted that as Gibraltar is not a part of the United Kingdom's customs territory there would be no reason to include Gibraltar in the customs territory of the enlarged Community.
"I again expressed the hope that the Community would shortly be able to make known their views on the arrangements to be made for Hong Kong.
"The principles of the United Kingdom admission to the European Investment Bank were agreed.
"In the course of a statement I made dealing with the question of transitional measures I proposed on behalf of Her Majesty's Government a transitional period of five years for adaptation in both the industrial and agricultural fields and for adaptation to the Community's rules regarding capital movements and fiscal harmonisation. I stressed that in putting this proposal forward we thought it essential that, within the common period of five years in the four fields, effective provision should be made for arriving at a mutual balance of advantage between the
1060
United Kingdom and the existing Community.
"In the industrial field we thought this could be done if we could provide for a suitable accelerated rhythm for tariff rates and adaptations. For agriculture and horticulture we should require that the adaptations be made with reasonable flexibility over five full years.
"I said that the five-year period should not in our view apply in the cases of Community finance, New Zealand butter and cheese and sugar from developing Commonwealth countries, nor to the European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom.
"The Community noted our proposals upon industry and agriculture with satisfaction and said that they would examine our suggestions of capital movements and fiscal harmonisation in a positive spirit. Deputies were instructed to pursue the discussion of all these questions in preparation for the next ministerial meeting.
"The Community said that they would establish their position on all of these questions within a global frame-work. This is naturally our own position. The agreements reached hitherto must all be regarded as provisional pending the outcome of the negotiations as a whole.
"At the meeting I also outlined certain considerations which we believe the Community should take into account in dealing with the question of the British contribution to Community finance. I pointed out that the United Kingdom would be likely to enjoy only relatively small receipts as a result of Community expenditure in its present form. I recalled also that the existine members of the Community had had an extended transitional period in which to move to the agreed Community system of financing, and that correctives had been provided for governing member countries' contributions during a period of years after the final stage of Community direct income had been started. I noted that the Commission had stated in its observations on our estimates of the effect of Community financing upon the United Kingdom that, should unacceptable situations arise within the present Community or

1061
an enlarged Community, the very survival of the Community would demand that the institutions find equitable solutions.
"I said that we would be making detailed proposals in this field as soon as possible.
"Finally it was agreed that ministerial meetings should take place next year on February 2, March 16, May 11, and June 22; and that the timetable of meetings could be speeded up if necessary."
My Lords, that is the Statement.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for repeating this Statement. Clearly there has been some advance in the agreement to the proposals made by Her Majesty's Government in regard to the transitional stages. The suggestions made by the Government are of course a considerable concession, particularly in the field of agriculture, and we should like to study carefully what the effect will be, not only upon the country as a whole but on agriculture in particular. I agree with the noble Marquess that, whatever the period of transition may be so far as we are concerned, in the case of New Zealand in particular five years would be far too short, and I was glad that the Government took this view, particularly in regard to butter and cheese. Is not lamb in the same category?
On this point, may I ask the noble Marquess whether full discussions are going on with the New Zealand authorities? As the noble Marquess knows, I have pressed on, I think, two occasions (and my noble friend Lord Hoy also has pressed this point) that there is considerable disquiet as to whether Her Majesty's Government fully consulted with the New Zealand authorities prior to their announcement of the import levy.
In regard to sugar and the developing Commonwealth countries, I think this must be treated as a very special category. I hope that there will be no question of! an agreement being arrived at whereby the total amount in cash received by the developing countries remains about the same, but that the total quantity of sugar is reduced. Not only must we consider the economic and financial aspects of these developing countries, but also any effect upon the living standards of the
1062
small farmer. This is a point that we shall have to watch with great care.
My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess what is meant by the reference in the Statement that Gibraltar is not within the United Kingdom's customs territory and therefore will not be included within the customs territory of the enlarged community? Can the noble Marquess say whether the Gibraltar authorities have been consulted and agree with this position?
I am glad to see that the position of Hong Kong is still being looked at, and I hope that the Government will not in any way give up their pressures on the Common Market to see that suitable arrangements are made for Hong Kong. I am not certain what is meant in the second paragraph of the Statement. My understanding is that. Nigeria is already an associate member with the Common Market. I believe one or two of the other territories are also associate members with the Common Market. Does this mean that these countries could retain a new relationship with the Common Market if they so wished?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome this Statement. Now that the Government have, happily, made what seems to be quite substantial progress in negotiations on British entry into the European Economic Community, will they consider increasing their efforts to explain to the British people that entry would, in the long run, be the only sure way to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and to make our voice heard once again in the councils of the world?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, could we raise this whole issue above the level on which it is normally discussed? I ask the noble Marquess whether he does not agree with me that the issue with which we are concerned is the future that Britain should have, the future that Europe should have, and the effect that Europe could then have upon the world, and that so many of the other issues pale into insignificance against that remarkable opportunity?
4.35 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he really considers that the Statement which has been reported to your Lordships' House will satisfy the majority of public opinion

1063
in this country? Is he not aware that the Statement merely sidesteps the two fundamental issues; namely, the financial contribution the United Kingdom will be required to make to the Commission, and, in particular, the fundamental issue of the suggested political integration which will lead eventually to complete subordination in foreign affairs and defence and our Parliamentary system? Will he take those factors into account? Also, since the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, has asked that the British public should be better informed on the subject, may I ask whether the British public will really be informed? Is not the Statement which has been made so vague and ambiguous and so full of complexities that hardly any person in the country, outside members of the Government and those who are fanatical pro-Marketeers, can understand it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the Statement this afternoon. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord George-Brown and Lord Shinwell, will not expect me to comment in general terms on what they say, except that I did agree with one and I did not agree with the other. On the more technical matters of the Statement, I should like to pick up one or two points that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me. I know that he is worried about the position of New Zealand, and of course consultations are going on with that country because of the special conditions appertaining there. I also entirely take his point about the sugar countries. It is very important in these negotiations to make absolutely certain that not only does their standard of living not become in any way impaired but that, as he said, the cash and the work flow equally together.
So far as Gibraltar is concerned, my understanding is that as Gibraltar is a free port it is by their own wish that they prefer to remain outside the Customs Union. The noble Lord raised the question of Nigeria, and without notice I can only say that I think his point is correct. I believe that this is an alternative offered to them; but if I find I am wrong, I will let the noble Lord know. May I assure the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that we will do our best
1064
in the months to come to put over our case with the greatest possible vigour, and of course any help that he can give us will be gratefully received.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for his assurance that full consultations are going on with the New Zealand authorities. Could he put my disquiet fully at rest by answering the question I put to him the other day and which I intimated through the usual channels I would put here: were there consultations with the New Zealand authorities prior to the announcement of the import levy scheme?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can answer that question for the noble Lord. The answer is that there were no prior consultations. Advance warning was given and consultations have been going on ever since.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the failure of the noble Marquess to reply to any of my submissions, may I ask him whether the Chancellor of the Duchy has made any progress as regards the proposed political integration which I understand is one of the main objectives of a section only of the Conservative Party and which is only partly accepted by every member of Her Majesty's Government? Has any progress been made in that direction, and, if so, may we know about it? If the noble Marquess is not informed about the subject, can he give any indication when your Lordships' House will be informed?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I certainly will undertake to keep the noble Lord informed on this matter. I cannot, I am afraid, give him any information to-day. I hope he will accept that.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, will the noble Marquess understand that the lights went out just at the right moment?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, while net sharing the starry-eyed attitude, the rather religious attitude in some ways, towards the Common Market of my noble friend Lord George-Brown and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, may I ask the noble Marquess to stress, for those of us who do not share that attitude but still want to go in and negotiate and are with the

1065
Government and with the last Labour Government on this matter, that sugar is the test case in this issue? We do not want to beggar our Colonies, who produce sugar cheaply, while going into the Market.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that I will bear what she has said very deeply in mind.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he would not agree that if there is going to be any progress towards any kind of political federation, which seems to be so much dreaded by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, such progress can be made only with the full consent and approval of both Houses of Parliament of Great Britain?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I quite agree.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware of what actually happened in another place on the occasion when a Division ensued on a debate? Is he aware of the vote by the so-called—I am not responsible; I have not invented the term—payroll section of the place; and would he forbear from taking too much notice of what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, says?

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
4.43 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, and perhaps I should briefly explain its background. It is, of course, a basic principle of our system of Parliamentary control that Parliament should vote the money for a service before any expenditure on the service is in fact incurred. But it has long been recognised that there must be occasions when this rule cannot be observed. This applies in two main sets of circumstances; in the first place, when expenditure is necessary to meet urgent and unforeseen commitments—for example, the "Torrey Canyons", and the West Country floods of this world; and, secondly, when it is necessary to meet increases during the year in the cost of existing programmes. Against this sort of eventuality there has been in
1066
existence since 1862 a fund, known as the Civil Contingencies Fund, and the Treasury may authorise issues out of this Fund, up to a limit fixed by statute, to meet expenditure in advance of the granting of authority by Parliament.
It is fundamental to this general concept that the Fund can never finally bear any charge. It is purely a Fund from which money may in certain circumstances be borrowed, and it must always be repaid from one source or another. Thus, while its use may enable the Government to anticipate Parliament's voting of a supplementary estimate, it does not obviate the need to secure Parliamentary authority, which is so fundamental to our whole system of Government. At present, the maximum capital of the Civil Contingencies Fund is £125 million, and the purpose of this Bill is twofold; first, to change the title of the Fund to "Contingencies Fund", and, secondly, to increase the maximum capital to £200 million. Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the change of title, and your Lordships will see that the word "Civil" is dropped. This is because it is necessary to reflect the changes in the Defence Estimates introduced in the current year following the recommendation contained in the Second Report of the Select Committee on Procedure. These changes brought the Defence Estimates into line with the Civil Estimates and involved the abolition of the previous liberal arrangements for virement between Defence Votes. It has to be recognised that greater calls on the Fund in respect of defence will be generated in consequence of these changes.
I now come to Clause 2 of the Bill, which increases the limit on the capital of the Fund from £125 million to £200 million. The reason for this is as follows. The present limit was fixed in 1968 on the basis of Civil Estimates, as presented to Parliament, totalling £8,672 million. Defence Estimates were, of course, then hardly relevant, for the reasons I have just explained in commenting on Clause 1 of the Bill. As from the current year, however, we are faced with a new situation since Defence Estimates of £1,912 million must now be brought into this general reckoning. When this figure is added to the total of Civil Estimates, which has risen to £10,879 million in the current year, the overall total of

1067
Supply expenditure as presented to Parliament becomes £12,791 million. This represents an increase of almost 50 per cent. since the limit of the Fund was fixed at £125 million and, in the Government's view, fully justifies an increase in the size of the Fund to restore the necessary flexibility.
May I say this by way of conclusion? It may be argued that one way of avoiding a need to increase the size of the Fund would be by reducing the size of Supplementary Estimates. But I would remind your Lordships that the Public Accounts Committee, as recently as February of this year, expressed the view that taut estimating is essential to Parliamentary control of expenditure. No doubt, a large number of Supplementaries could be avoided by including in the original Estimates, margins for contingencies but this would not be conducive to financial discipline in Departments and might very well result in Parliament's being asked to authorise expenditure on the basis of inflated and unrealistic Estimates. It could thus be an expensive way of dealing with the matter. It is much more economical to have a central Fund for contingencies rather than allow margins for contingencies over a large number of Votes. I have confidence, in view of that explanation, in commending this Bill to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure we all are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the purpose of this Bill in such a careful and concise way. As he says, it has always been agreed that it would be prudent to make provision for contingencies, and as this Government appear to be particularly contingency-prone it is especially necessary to make this provision. I trust that, spurred on by the present emergency, we shall quickly give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

FAMILY INCOME SUPPLEMENTS BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING REGULATIONS (LONDON) (INDEMNITY) BILL
4.50 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the Bill the purposes of which I outlined in a Statement I made in your Lordships' House on November 11. There are now three alternatives before me. I could explain the purposes of the Bill again and go through it clause by clause—I have the necessary notes to enable me to do that, amounting to 11 pages. On the other hand, I could make a shorter statement virtually repeating the Statement I gave a month ago. Alternatively to that, there is a course which I hope may commend itself to your Lordships; namely, merely formally to move that it be read a second time. That I now do.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FUNCTIONS OF TRAFFI WARDENS ORDER 1970
4.51 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970, laid before the House on November 12, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order extends and consolidates the functions of traffic wardens. The need for such a measure is shown vividly by the increase in the total number of vehicles on the roads. In 1960, when police authorities were first authorised to appoint people to discharge certain functions connected with road traffic or road vehicles, there were 9,439,196 vehicles on the roads. In 1955, when the functions of traffic wardens were extended, there were 12,937,800. Last year the total rose to 14,751,900. Traffic wardens can make a considerable contribution in helping to relieve the pressure on the police and it is important that they should be as widely employed as possible. The functions they may perform are specified by the Secretary of State by means of an Order

1069
which is subject to Affirmative Resolution in both Houses.
As traffic wardens have become an accepted part of the motorist's daily life their functions have been extended: in 1965, and again in the Order before us to-day. It seems to us appropriate at the same time to consolidate these functions in one Order, and accordingly the Schedule represents a comprehensive list of what duties traffic wardens can be called upon to perform. The proposed new functions contained in the draft Order will enable chief officers of police to employ traffic wardens to man police car pounds—they will not be permitted to drive cars away—to enforce the vehicle excise laws; and to obtain the name and the address of owners or drivers of cars where it is thought that a traffic offence, of the type with which traffic wardens are enabled to deal, may have been committed. In addition, it will become an offence to disregard directions given by a traffic warden when directing traffic. The draft Order has been the subject of extensive consultation with the police, the local authorities, appropriate trade unions, the motoring associations; even the Pedestrians' Association. The attention of chief constables has been drawn to the requirement in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 to take steps to ensure that only qualified persons are appointed as traffic wardens and that they must be suitably trained before undertaking their duties.
All that it remains for me to say is that the draft Order was originally laid in August when copies were sent to all police authorities. No representations against it were received and the Police Federation have withdrawn their earlier objection to traffic wardens manning car pounds. The draft Order was, however, withdrawn last month to enable a drafting change to be made which was needed as a result of the Secretary of State for the Environment taking over certain responsibilities from the Minister of Transport who was named in the draft Order. The Order was subsequently re-laid and has been considered by the Special Orders Committee in the normal way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Functions of Traffic Wardens Order 1970 laid before
1070
the House on November 12 be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord for a clear exposition of what this Order entails. Although most people believe that traffic wardens play an important function in keeping our traffic moving on the roads, there is in certain quarters some resentment at their activities. It might be helpful if a definition of the powers that are being transferred to the wardens under this Order is given some publicity, so that there is no argument that they exercise those powers. Otherwise, I think that the proposals are completely acceptable.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may say a word or two on this Order. I shall be brief and should not like to say anything derogatory of what I am sure is a sound body of people. But in the course of our experience as motorists we have been a little concerned in the past that, as opposed to the police, traffic wardens rarely exercise discretion. It seems to me that there might be a little more elasticity in the way in which they behave towards people, particularly to motorists with whom they mostly have to deal. Because one has this feeling, there is a little doubt as to whether an extension of their powers at this time is right.
I should like to be assured by Lord Windlesham that the training for any added duties which are being placed upon them is sufficient. We know very well that so far as the police themselves are concerned the training is of a very high calibre. It takes place in police colleges and the like, and the police are getting just the right atmosphere, particularly in their relations with the general public. I wander whether that applies to the same extent to traffic wardens. I am quite sure that what I say would be echoed by many people who have come into contact with them. I feel certain that traffic wardens are of great value to the country today in the great growth of road traffic, but there is just this little doubt that exists in one's mind, and I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can appease me in this matter and give me a greater sense of satisfaction.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, without wishing to quarrel with anything that the noble Lord, Lord Royle, has just said, I should like to lend my support to this Order, for a reason which I think has perhaps not arisen sufficiently in this brief debate—that is, that we simply must take all reasonable opportunities of relieving the police of duties which are not essential to the police service. There is no way in which we shall effectively counter crime unless we press on by every possible means in enabling police to concentrate on what is their main job, which can be done by nobody else than policemen. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that we should be careful about this other matter, but I am sure he would not wish anything that he has said to be taken as opposition to the general purpose that I have just mentioned.
4.59 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has said. There is very grave pressure on the police. The calls that are made on them and the duties that only they can perform increase all the time, and although recruiting is looking up the police are under very grave pressure indeed. I personally think that the increase in road traffic which I have mentioned is a significant indicator here. It has increased so sharply after the last decade that the work of simply ensuring that the parking regulations, for example, are observed, is falling increasingly on traffic wardens. We have developed rather slowly, in that the powers of the traffic wardens have been extended very gradually because of exactly the sort of disquiet of which the noble Lord, Lord Royle, spoke. We have had a 10-year period in which traffic wardens have begun, bit by bit, to get the confidence of the motorist and the public generally. Having said that, I think I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that we take his point about the need for publicity, and we will certainly consider the issue of a suitable Press notice. As I say, this is no news to the many organisations who are directly involved, because a rather extensive process of consultation has gone on for some months.
On the training point, I did just refer to it briefly in my opening remarks. I
1072
would agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Royle, said: there is a need for training in this field, and we are very aware of it and have been in touch with the chief constables to re-emphasise that there must be a form of training for the traffic warden, and the greater the powers the traffic warden has, I would agree, the greater the need for training. I think that nothing that has been said in this short debate would cause me to dissent from the opinions expressed, and I hope that, with the general welcome that this Order has been given, we can agree to its going through.
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (FRENCH REPUBLIC) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (ITALIAN REPUBLIC) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (JAPAN) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF BELGIUM) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF DENMARK) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF GREECE) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF THE NETHERLANDS) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OF NORWAY) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (KINGDOM OE SWEDEN) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (REPUBLIC OF AUSTRIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (SPANISH STATE) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (UNITED STATES OF MEXICO) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF BULGARIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (POLISH PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF ROMANIA) ORDER 1970
CONSULAR RELATIONS (PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES) (UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS) ORDER 1970
5.1 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, having been given the leave of the House, I now rise to move the first 19 Orders standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to make it perfectly clear again that if, in the course of the debate, it becomes clear that there is a demand for a separate Question on any particular Order or Orders, I shall of course not avail myself of that leave. It will, I am afraid, be necessary for us then to take 19 separate Motions and Questions.
The purpose of the draft Orders, which it is proposed to make under the Consular Relations Act 1968, is to accord in respect of the consular posts in this country of 19 foreign States certain privileges and immunities above the scale which will be generally accorded under that Act. The Act, the relevant provisions of which will come into force on January 1, 1971, will accord to all foreign consular posts in the United Kingdom the scale of privileges and immunities provided in the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations. This will not however enable us to give full effect to our obligations under bilateral Consular Conventions and other Agreements which we have signed with the foreign States concerned.
The Agreements, and consequently the Orders which are based on them, fall into two distinct groups which I shall explain separately. First, there is a group of 15 Orders which for convenience I will describe as the "Western European" group. These Orders relate to countries which with three exceptions, the United States, Mexico and Japan, are in Western Europe. We have extensive consular relations with those countries, and their consuls account for about three-quarters of the total number in the United Kingdom. The international agreements with those 15 countries were all in force before 1968. Effect was given to them in part under the common law, in part by various Orders in Council, and in part administratively. The Consular Relations Act, however, will place on a statutory

1075
basis the privileges and immunities accorded to consular posts in the United Kingdom, and we propose by the Orders in this group to give effect to the continuing obligations under these bilateral Agreements in so far as they exceed the Vienna Convention scale. These Orders accord privileges only and not immunities from jurisdiction. The immunities contained in the relevant Agreements can be given effect by the ordinary provisions of the Consular Relations Act. The Orders before your Lordships vary in detail, because of variations in the terms of the Agreements on which they are based. But the privileges accorded all relate to rating relief for residences of certain members of consular posts, exemptions from customs duty and taxation, and additional protection for consular bags.
The second group of Orders I will describe as the "Eastern European" group. The countries covered by this group are the Soviet Union, Bulgaria, Poland and Romania. Under these Orders immunities from jurisdiction on a diplomatic scale are extended to certain members of consular posts in the United Kingdom. We have already ratified the Consular Conventions with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. It was in our interest to do so as soon as possible in order to gain the benefit of provisions in those Conventions giving us better facilities to exercise consular functions and to protect our nationals. Neither country maintains any separate Consulate in this country at present, apart from the consular section of its Embassy, and neither country is entitled to open a Consulate without our consent. There is no immediate prospect of a Soviet or Bulgarian Consulate being opened in this country. Nevertheless, it is unusual to ratify a Convention without first obtaining the necessary legislation to enable effect to be given to it. It is therefore right that we should take the present opportunity to put our legislative house in order.
The Conventions with Poland and Romania have not yet been ratified, but we are anxious to ratify them as soon as possible in order to secure for our consular posts in those countries the benefit of the additional facilities which they contain. Poland at present has two consular posts apart from the consular section of the Embassy, but Romania has
1076
none. The establishment of additional posts in both cases requires our consent.
As the Special Orders Committee have pointed out in their Report, the Conventions with Bulgaria, Poland, Romania and Russia accord immunities which are more extensive than those accorded by the other 15 Orders which give no immunities in excess of the Vienna Convention. It is important to emphasise that these immunities are accorded on a basis of reciprocity. It was thought right in the negotiation of these Conventions to seek the highest degree of immunity and inviolability for our Consulates in those countries and for our consular officers and staff working there.
The report of the Special Orders Committee also called the attention of the House to a doubt which they felt as to whether the Orders are intra vires. I have considered this matter most carefully and consulted my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and I am satisfied that in laying and making these Orders so that they will come into operation simultaneously with the remaining provisions of the Consular Relations Act we are acting correctly. We rely in so doing on Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889, which provides that after an Act becomes law a power to make Orders under it may be exercised at any time
"so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof."
May I emphasise the words "necessary or expedient"? The House will note that Section 37 does not require that the Orders should be necessary to bring the Act into operation at the commencement thereof. The test is one of expediency only.
So far as the 15 Orders of the "Western European" group are concerned, the expediency derives from the need to give effect under our law to continuing obligations under our bilateral Agreements. Hitherto the privileges set out in these 15 Orders have been accorded administratively. But the entry into force of a Statute intended to place these privileges on a legislative basis will give rise to a doubt as to whether it is proper to continue to rely on administrative cover. We believe that it is expedient to avoid this doubt and therefore to bring the Orders into operation on January 1, 1971, simultaneously with the relevant provisions of

1077
the Act. To put the point another way, Section 3(1) of the Act under which these Orders will be made is an integral part of the Act, and it is impossible for it to operate as it should from the commencement of the Act unless the Orders, which were anticipated when the Consular Relations Bill was before Parliament, are made in advance.
The Orders relating to the Soviet Union and Bulgaria accord immunities as well as privileges, and there is no doubt that effect cannot be given to these immunities by our courts until the Orders come into force. As I have explained to the House, the Conventions with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria have already been ratified and, although these countries do not yet have Consulates in this country, the Orders are required to put our legislative house in order. It is expedient that we should regularise the position at the earliest possible moment. We do not intend to ratify the Conventions with Poland and Romania without first obtaining statutory authority. But we are anxious to ratify as soon as possible, in order to secure the benefits of provisions in the Conventions relating to protection of our nationals in those countries. It is expedient, we feel, to make those Orders now, so that the provisions of the Act will be effective in regard to those countries at the earliest possible date, and enable us to proceed with ratification. If the Orders were not laid until after the commencement of the relevant provision of the Act, there would inevitably be a delay of several weeks before the ratification process could be put in hand.
It has seemed to us that all these Orders should be presented and considered by Parliament as a single coherent package, thus providing an opportunity to compare their provisions and saving the time of the House. The Consular Relations Act will come into operation more smoothly and effectively if it is accompanied by these 19 Orders. The Orders are part of the machinery of the Act, and we are therefore satisfied that it is expedient that they should be made so as to come into operation with the relevant provisions of the Act on January 1, 1971.
The other matter raised by the Report of the Special Orders Committee is the possible difficulties that may be caused
1078
by the fact that the 19 Orders confer in each case different privileges and immunities. I have already explained to the House that each Order is based on provisions in an international Agreement to which we must give effect if we are to enjoy reciprocal benefits. The discrepancies between the various Conventions are not the result of our deliberate choice but are the inevitable result of bilateral negotiations with another sovereign State in which we must take account of that State's special wishes and difficulties and must strike the best bargain we can obtain.
I hope that I have satisfied your Lordships that the unusually large number of these Orders does not in fact imply any alarming or indiscriminate extension of privileges or immunities to foreign consuls in this country. We believe that our bilateral Conventions are of great importance to the functioning of our consular posts abroad. I hope that the House will accept this and approve these draft Orders accordingly. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved—
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Federal Republic of Germany) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (French Republic) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, he approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Italian Republic) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Japan) Order, 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Belgium) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Denmark) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Greece) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of the Netherlands) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Norway) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;

1079
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Kingdom of Sweden, Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Republic of Austria) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Spanish State) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (United States of America) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (United States of Mexico) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (People's Republic of Bulgaria) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Polish People's Republic) Order 1570, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Socialist Republic of Romania) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved;
That the Draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) Order 1970, laid before the House on 17th November, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
5.15 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I should first of all express, on behalf of your Lordships' House, our gratitude to the Special Orders Committee for the exhaustive inquiry and attention which they have given to these Orders. I also express appreciation to the noble Marquess for the manner in which he has explained them. May I also add a particular word of thanks to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack for having made himself available to the House this afternoon, because I believe that we shall need special guidance from him.
I am not certain on this occasion whether I appear as a gamekeeper turned poacher, or a poacher turned gamekeeper. I well remember supporting my noble friend Lord Silkin, many years ago, in raising serious objection to the enlargement of diplomatic immunities, and immunities and privileges
1080
that went well beyond the diplomatic circle. Our case then was, first, that, by and large, we in this country object to a privileged society; and, secondly, that there was, and there still remains, serious concern at the way in which some of the immunities and privileges are abused, not only in this country but in countries overseas, by those who enjoy them. It is clear that the Orders before us do not extend privileges or immunities which have not in the past been available by administrative action, except perhaps in the case of those relating to the Eastern European group.
We on this side welcome the Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order and the European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order—which come next on the Order Paper—but I wonder whether the noble Marquess can deal with a point which was raised in another place about the immunity of some 15 days which will be available to a witness. It may be that a case could go on for longer than 15 days, or that a witness might not be able to leave this country in that period. I should be grateful if we can be told whether the Government intend to take a flexible attitude on the 15 days' immunity, and whether the noble Marquess can say anything about the administrative arrangements for warning a witness as to the length of his immunity and as to the steps he can take about having such immunity extended.
As to the general content of the Orders, I would not raise any serious objection, but I am surprised that it appears that persons of United Kingdom citizenship will, as a consequence of these Orders, be able to receive special exemption from dues and taxation. That is quite clear in the Order relating to the United States of America, which provides for this in Articles 3, 4 and 5. So it seems quite clear that United Kingdom citizens who are in the employment of the United States Government will enjoy special privileges.
The same can be said of the Federal Republic of Germany Order. Under Article 3 of that Order, British citizens receive special privileges in regard to dues and taxation. There are quite a number of others, such as the Kingdom of Denmark and the Republic of Austria Orders,

1081
and I have no doubt that I could find other Orders under which British citizens are given these special exemptions. I do not know whether that is right or wrong, but we should like to have an explanation about why these British employees of foreign countries should be in this special position.
The main concern of the Special Orders Comittee was whether the 19 Orders were intra vires. As I understand it, Sections 7 to 11 of the Act came into force with its passing, and the remaining sections will come into force on January 1 as a consequence of an Order which I believe was laid and passed on November 11. I can understand the difficulties with which the Government are confronted in terms of the Western European Orders. At the moment these privileges are available and the individuals are protected as a consequence of the Royal Prerogative. There could be doubt as to what would be the position if these Orders were not passed and these matters rested on the Royal Prerogative after the Act came into force. I should be very grateful if we could hear from the noble and learned Lord how serious are these doubts as to whether there will be a loss as a consequence of these resting on the Royal Prerogative once the Act of Parliament has come into force.
In regard to the Eastern European Orders, it seems to me that there is considerable doubt. As I understand it, the Government rest their case on Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889. That section provides that Orders in Council and other instruments made in certain circumstances shall be valid where power to make them is exercised before the Act under which they have been made comes into operation. I think the House will agree that the use of this particular section must be limited. My initial understanding was that in the past this section had been used when it was necessary to set up the machinery under which an Act of Parliament, when it came into force, could operate from the due date. I understand (and I have read very carefully the speech that was made in another place by the Attorney General in which he stated it) that Section 37 could be used in a different situation. My Lords, it seems to me, as one who is not a lawyer, that the whole question is whether these Orders are necessary and
1082
expedient. They may be necessary, but whether they are expedient I am not myself sure.
The noble Marquess set out the reasons why it would be convenient—that is, convenient in terms of the operation of the Act—for the House to pass these Orders to-day. Speaking in another place on December 8, the Under-Secretary said there were four considerations; and he went on:
"The first is that the Orders form part of a single coherent package and it is therefore desirable that the House should have the chance to consider them at the same time as the others. The second, that to do so would be a saving in parliamentary time".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/12/70, col. 332.]
My Lords, that may be so, but I should not have thought, so far as the 1889 Act is concerned, that that was a question of expediency. The Under-Secretary continued:
"Third, that it is expedient because until the Order is made we are not in a position to give full effect to the provisions of the Conventions with the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, which have … already been ratified. And fourth that we wish to ratify the Polish and Romanian Conventions in order to obtain our reciprocal rights and if these Orders had not been laid until the 1st of January next our ratification would have been delayed by two months…".
I am not certain in my own mind whether this makes it expedient to use the 1889 Act for passing these Orders, which relate to a section of a Bill that has not yet come into force and will not come into force until January 1.
My Lords, this is not a Party matter. Clearly, there should be no doubt that these Orders are intra vires, not only for the sake of our relations with the foreign countries concerned but also for the sake of those who may be involved in claims or disputes with Consular officials. If at any time it were to be questioned whether these Orders were intra vires, or if they were found by the courts to be ultra vires, then, clearly, our own people would be at loss, and so might be the officials who represent the countries attached to us. I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack could explain to your Lordships the view of Her Majesty's Government, and particularly if the noble and learned Lord himself, speaking as the highest legal authority in the land, could tell us whether or not, in his view, these Orders are intro vires.
5.26 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I think it is right that a Back-Bencher should express his great gratitude to our Orders Committee for the skill and diligence with which they examined these Orders, and, in this case, for bringing to our attention the important question whether the Orders before us are or will be intra vires. I say "will be" because, of course, all we have before us at the moment are the draft Orders. The question whether or not they are intra vires will, of course, apply to the Order in Council when it is made; but the point that is substantially before us is whether these Orders will be intra vires. I thought that the clear statement by our Orders Committee—and I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also paid tribute to them—placed upon any legal Member of this House who had any leisure to look into the matter a duty to do his best to find out how much substance there was in this point that they raised.
My Lords, admittedly the validity of these Orders under the Order in Council when it comes to be made depends on the construction of Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889. That section has been the subject of two important decisions of the Court of Appeal: Rex v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, reported in [1951] 1 King's Bench at page 1; and Usher v. Barlow, reported in [1952] 1 Chancery at page 255. When I read those cases and some of the Orders now before us—I will not pretend that I read them all—I felt great doubt on the point raised by our Orders Committee. I therefore wrote to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack explaining the doubts that I felt. He sent me a prompt, full and considered reply, and for that I am most grateful to him. The points that he raised have since been reinforced and amplified by the speech of my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General when the matter was fully debated in another place last Tuesday.
In the circumstances, I should not think it proper to trouble the House with the nature of my doubts, some of which, I admit, if I were to consider only my own impressions, still persist. I am particularly doubtful about the Polish and Romanian Orders, to give examples. The reason I think it improper to express any further doubt is that we have now had
1084
the benefit—at least, I have had the benefit—of the view of my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack, and we have all had the benefit of the views of the Attorney General, on what is a pure point of law. It would be wrong to put my doubts against the strong views on points of law that have been expressed. I therefore agree with the requests that have been made that we should have at the end of this debate, or in the course of it, a speech by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack; but, subject to that, I should be quite content to pass these Orders without further objection.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, from the dark recesses of these Benches I beg leave to say a word upon the matter of these Orders. I do so with some trepidation, because I must delve back into 45 years of my own personal history. I am concerned mainly with the privileges that are granted to a very large and expanding number of people on what we might call the periphery, strictly interpreted, of the Diplomatic Corps. I have regard to No. 8 of the proposals that are before us, and I have regard in particular to the Soviet trade delegation.
I remember 45 years ago when I was working as a Lobby correspondent in the other place, where I was on the payroll of one of the major political Parties of this country and was in daily communication with Ministers of the Cabinet, that at that time there used to wander about the corridors of the other place a gentleman who was in close contact with the Soviet authorities in this country. On one occasion he invited me to have tea at Highgate with an officer of the Soviet trade delegation. During the course of that tea we had a general discussion about the political affairs of his country and of this country. The officer knew well that I had no knowledge whatsoever of British-Soviet trade and he also knew quite well that I was closely in touch with matters being discussed in the British Cabinet at that time and that I was in daily contact with members of that Cabinet.
He put to me—not particularly in a direct form but in a very clever form, such as you would expect from a Soviet chess player—various questions which obviously were designed to draw from me information about certain matters

1085
that were then under discussion. I ought to say that the raid on the Soviet trade delegation took place a fortnight later. In those days I was rather quick witted and very loyal to the Party that employed me; and I can say that I saw what he was getting at and they got nothing from me. But it was clear to me that there were members of that organisation enjoying some kind of peripheral diplomatic privileges who were here not in order to further the interests of British-Soviet trade but in order to act as Intelligence agents for the Soviet Government and the Soviet Communist Party.
I feel that there are hundreds of these people on the payroll of Soviet organisations in this country to-day who may be engaged either whole time or part time genuinely on the furtherance of Anglo-Russian trade, but that there are others who are here for very much more sinister purposes. It grieves me to think that by these Orders we are proposing to extend to some of these people privileges which they certainly ought not to enjoy. I have made my point and I do not desire to detain your Lordships further.
5.36 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords I have been asked to intervene in this debate simply on the question of the vires of these Orders which is a highly technical matter. Whether these Orders are expedient from the point of view of policy is for this House to decide; and the other place has already approved them. I do not myself feel that a court of law could question the wisdom or the unwisdom of either House of Parliament in deciding upon Orders of this kind at all on questions of policy.
I confine myself to two quite separate basic issues, both of which may depend, but in a different way, upon the construction to be placed upon Acts of Parliament. The first is this. Could these Orders be successfully challenged in a court of law on the basis that they exceeded the powers conferred upon Her Majesty in Council when backed by two resolutions of the Houses of Parliament? The second is whether, in any event, these Orders could properly be made because, even if they could not be successfully challenged in court, neither House of Parliament would wish to exceed their powers—
1086
for we are a constitutional body and neither House would wish to exceed powers conferred by Parliament.
My Lords, Sections 7 to 11 of the Consular Relations Act came into force on enactment and the remaining provisions will come into force on January 1 next. These Orders have been laid in advance of that date and are framed so as to come into force at the same time. The doubt consists of the proposition that, being laid under Section 3—before Section 3 has come into force—can the two Houses of Parliament by resolution effectively back draft Orders in Council laid before the effective date of the operation of that Act, notwithstanding that it has not yet come into force? That is the point which has to be considered.
As a matter of general law, I think it would be accepted that you have to justify the making of Orders in such circumstances unless the Act contains a contrary intention. I would not claim that the Consular Relations Act 1968 contains such a contrary intention. Unless the Act contains a contrary intention, you cannot normally do this; you must justify it if you want to do it. The justification, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, suggested, is to be found in Section 37 of the Interpretation Act 1889, which provides, in words more complicated than those that I am going to use (though I think I am going to bring out the relevant parts of the section) that:
"Where an Act … is not to come into operation immediately on the passing there of"—
and that is the present case—
"and confers power to make … any Order in Council …"—
again the present case—
"or to do anything for the purposes of the Act,"—
the section applies to a wide range of different activities. We are dealing with a draft Order in Council to be approved by Affirmative Resolution.
"That power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof."
That means that the presumption against an action of this kind is reversed. Provided that the conditions are fulfilled,

1087
the power may, unless the contrary intention appears, be exercised at any time after the passing of the Act so far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof.
"Subject to this restriction that any instrument made under the power shall not — come into operation until the Act comes into operation."
That again is the case here. Therefore the test is to be found in the words:
"So far as may be necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation at the date of the commencement thereof."
The Special Orders Committee, quite rightly in my opinion, drew attention to the point of vires because wherever a point of vires lies, it is obviously desirable that the attention of the House should be especially drawn to it. They set out the terms of the section as I have read it, but they added these words:
"that the Act will give the force of law to certain provisions of the Vienna Convention. The doubt is whether Orders in Council … are expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation."
With respect, they left out from that second citation words which are important, and possibly decisive in coming to a conclusion on this point; because the question is not whether the Orders are necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation, as the second citation might suggest, but whether they are necessary or expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into operation
"at the date of the commencement thereof;"
and these last words in that section are obviously at least as important, and it may be more important, in construing the section as the earlier words.
My noble friend Lord Conesford rightly stated that this section had been the subject of comment and decision in two decisions of the Court of Appeal. Perhaps it is worth citing them. They are the case of Rex v. The Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1951] 1 King's Bench at page 1; a decision of a strong Court of Appeal consisting of Lord Justice Tucker, Lord Justice Asquith and Lord Justice Jenkins. The other is Usher v. Barlow, [1952] 1 Chancery, at page 255, when Lord Justice Jenkins, who had
1088
been a party to the earlier decision, gave the full judgment to which I shall be referring.
The question which the House would wish to consider is the significance of the words, "necessary or expedient". Perhaps it is not too much to summarise the first decision by saying that the ingenious person who sought to invalidate the direction of the Minister in the Town and Country Planning case tried to give a narrow construction to the words and to say that the only thing you had to look at was whether it was necessary or expedient to bring the relevant portion of the Act into operation at all. The Court of Appeal in the former case really destroyed that rather narrow construction and said that it meant a great deal more than that. But in the second case Lord Justice Jenkins used a passage that I should like to quote to the House indicating that an even more flexible and wider construction was appropriate. In that case the persons who were trying to restrict this action were, in effect, ignoring the word "expedient", so Lord Justice Jenkins said, and insisting on the word "necessary" to the exclusion of the word "expedient".
Lord Justice Jenkins said:
"If the section had been confined to matters without which the Act could not come into operation at all, the words 'or expedient' would, so far as I can see, have been not only otiose but wholly inappropriate. A matter without which an Act cannot come into operation at all is necessary for the purpose of bringing it into operation and cannot be anything less than that. A matter which is merely expedient for the purpose of bringing an Act into operation is, by definition, not necessary for that purpose. It is a matter without which the Act can come into operation but with which the Act will come into operation more conveniently and effectively."
And that is the question on which I really have to advise the House.
He said that these Orders are Orders with which the Act will come into operation more conveniently or effectively. Once one has accepted that as the case, and nothing else, I would humbly submit to the House that the answer really suggests itself. I do not want to go unduly over the ground already opened by my noble friend Lord Lothian, because he has given the House the position: that the 19 Orders that we are discussing divide themselves into three groups. There is the group which he calls, for

1089
convenience, the Western European group, which contains 15 Orders. There is the group which consists only of the Soviet Union and Bulgaria, two of the Eastern European countries; and lastly, there is the group which consists of Romania and Poland, where the conventions have not been ratified. I would respectfully suggest to the House that the basic situation is really the same for them all and the relevant portions of the Act conveniently and effectively into operation these Orders are expedient. I do not say that they are necessary, but I say that they are expedient, and some of them are necessary. The only difference between one group and the other is that manifestly in some cases it can be argued that they are necessary and in other cases that they are really only expedient, but either will do.
I think the convenient thing is to take the strongest case first, which is the 15 Orders. This illustrates the point I want to make rather more clearly. The situation now is that Her Majesty gives these privileges under common law by virtue of the Royal Prerogative—that is to say, they do not require any statutory authority at all. The effect of having passed tile Act of 1968 (of course these are very fine technical matters and though I may sound dogmatic on this point it is not necessarily because I feel dogmatic but in order to shorten the argument) is to merge the Prerogative in the Statute, and when the Prerogative is merged in the Statute it means that it should not be exercised independently.
The position therefore is that in the absence of Orders in the case of these 15 countries it may be in doubt whether the privileges continue to exist at all after the coming into operation of Section 3 of the Act. I submit that in order to bring that part of the Act effectively into operation on January 1, 1971, it is necessary that these additional privileges come into effect the moment the Act comes into effect in order to avoid a legal interregnum in which someone might challenge the additional privileges and say that because the Prerogative under which they had been granted up to that time had been merged they were no longer effective. I submit that this is a fairly clear case of the operation of the 1889
1090
Statute in relation to these 15 conventions.
A rather similar situation probably exists in relation to the Soviet Union and Bulgaria. These two Orders relate to Conventions by which we have entered into obligations in excess of those laid down in the Vienna Convention. I am told, though this is a field of law in which I should not like to set myself up as an independent arbiter, that the Vienna Convention might have altered customary international law. If privileges and immunities are sought to be accorded in excess of what the Vienna Convention allows, it might well be said that in the absence of statutory authority there was no power to grant them. At all events, my submission would be that these Orders are entirely convenient and therefore expedient for the purpose of bringing the Act into effect on the due date as regards obligations which we have undertaken and ratified.
As my noble friend Lord Lothian pointed out, the difference between the previous Conventions and the two last Conventions is that they have been ratified, whereas those with Poland and Romania have not been. But I submit that it is clearly convenient and expedient for bringing the Act into effect conveniently and effectively to ensure that we have the powers given by these Orders rather than to proceed to ratify these Conventions and then find ourselves without the statutory power to give them effect. The two Orders for Poland and Romania relate to Conventions which are not yet ratified. But Her Majesty's Government wish to ratify them urgently, and I would suspect, too, that this would be the wish of Parliament. We cannot do so unless the Orders are made for the purpose of bringing the new machinery into effect. This cannot be done under the old machinery, because the old machinery will not be available; therefore we must use the new machinery and the new machinery can only be operated by means of these Orders.
I am not prepared to advise the House that even administrative convenience does not or cannot come within the definition of expedience; I think it probably does. What is clear is that the Act cannot come into operation conveniently or effectively on January 1,

1091
1971 (which is the date of the commencement of the relevant portions of the Act) unless these Orders are made now. Otherwise we should be in the position as regards some of these countries that we would be in breach of our international obligations, and as regards the remaining two countries we should wish to take the normal diplomatic step and be without legal machinery to do it.
It follows, at least in my opinion, that the words used by Lord Justice Jenkins in the case of Usher v. Barlow apply and there ought not to be any real question as to the vires of these Orders. I hope that what I have said is helpful. This is a highly technical question and I have applied my mind to it as well as I possibly could. The House must now decide on the matter.
5.56 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the whole House will be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the care with which he has addressed himself to the point raised by the Special Orders Committee. I have listened with the greatest attention to everything he has said, but I very much regret to say that I do not find myself altogether in agreement. It is not my purpose to submit the House to a long legal argument. I am not saying that these Orders are ultra vires; I am not saying that they are probably ultra vires. If the noble and learned Lord had said that in his view they were probably intra vires, I should not have disagreed with him.
The question is whether there is a doubt. This is really all that the Special Orders Committee were saying. And if there is a doubt, what is the wise course to take? Naturally we do not propose to divide the House on this matter. The responsibility is the Government's, and they must decide. I think there is a strong probability that the Orders are intra vires, but I also feel that there is doubt. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cones-ford, I have read the cases and feel the same difficulties that he felt when he read them.
If the Orders are ultra vires, obviously the consequences are serious. We cannot by resolution determine the law. Only the courts can say whether these Orders,
1092
if made, are intra vires or ultra vires. Such a question might not arise before the court for quite a long time. Meanwhile, many consuls, their staffs and families, would have believed in good faith that they were given the privileges which these Orders set out—and they are considerable: freedom from taxation and rates, from having to appear in court, from having one's goods destrained on, and so on. The serious position which would then arise would be that the people concerned had been led into a trap. They would have accepted these privileges in faith of these Orders, though in fact they never had these privileges at all. Moreover, the other countries concerned would, on the faith of these Orders, have accorded our consuls, their staffs and families, the same privileges, and we should find ourselves in breach of our Agreements with the United States of America, the Soviet Union and 17 other countries.
We appreciate that it is for the Government to decide what course they wish to take. But it is for us to point out the difficulties and the serious situation which would arise if (which we hope will not happen, and we believe will not happen) the courts did one day decide, and particularly perhaps in the case of Poland and Romania, where the Conventions have not yet been ratified, that they are not covered by Section 37 of the Interpretation Act.
The House will of course appreciate that these are Orders purporting to be made under a section of the Act which is not yet in force, and if it stopped there they would without doubt be ultra vires. The sole question is whether they are covered by Section 37 of the Interpretation Act. That is not a section which is altogether easy to construe, and particularly to apply to many different circumstances, especially, as I have said, in the case of the Polish and Romanian Orders. I do not desire to add anything further tonight.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think that it is up to me to say anything further on this highly technical matter which we have been discussing, except to thank my noble and learned friend for his intervention, which I am sure your Lordships found extremely helpful and I hope convincing.

1093
I should like to the thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and other noble Lords who have spoken, for their general welcome to these Orders. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised a point about the 15 days immunity, which I think actually comes into the two Orders that we are not discussing at the moment; and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, drew our attention to what I am sure we all realise is an important point. I know that there is a lot of business before the House, and I do not propose to say anything more.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, can the noble Marquess help me in regard to Article 3, where we appear to be giving special privileges to British citizens?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes. I think the noble Lord is referring to rating relief accorded to nationals in this country. The position is that the provisions in the Orders each give effect to a provision in the relevant Convention and therefore exclude nationals of the United Kingdom only where this is in accordance with the terms of that Convention. Most of the Conventions do not exclude British nationals from the provisions according rating relief in respect of residences, because relief is never accorded unless the sending State itself is the owner or lessee of the residence. The privilege is therefore accorded to the Government rather than to the individual. It is in fact unlikely that United Kingdom nationals acting as Consuls or consular employees of foreign States will actually be living in Government-held accommodation.

EUROCONTROL (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1970
6.4 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN rose to move, That the Draft Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved. The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I shall be brief, and perhaps I may speak to both these Orders together. They are made under the International Organisations Act 1968 and confer immunities and privileges in respect of the Council of Europe's Human Rights institutions and the European Organisation for the Safety of Air
1094
Navigation, known as "Eurocontrol". The work of the Council of Europe's Human Rights institutions is well known to the House. The privileges and immunities to be conferred by this Order will assure the better functioning of the European Commission and Court, and I trust that this will commend the Order to this House. The Eurocontrol Order will enable Her Majesty's Government to ratify the Additional Protocol to the 1960 Eurocontrol Convention. It is estimated that the tax exemptions accorded under this Protocol will save the United Kingdom £300,000 a year. I am sure that, for this reason alone, the Order will commend itself to the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised one point earlier about the 15-day limitation on immunity. It is considered that 15 days should be enough for people who have to leave the country after proceedings have been terminated and their presence is no longer required by the Tribunal. My understanding is that there is not at the moment any administrative procedure for warning people of the 15-day limit, although I am told that anybody who is worried about it can discover the position from a lawyer or the police or—I am given to understand—from the Council of Europe. I beg to move the first of the two Orders.
Moved, That the Draft Eurocontrol (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

EUROPEAN COMMISSION AND COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1970
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft European Commission and Court of Human Rights (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1970, laid before the House on November 17, be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
6.7 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I hope, now that the lights have gone on, that I shall be less obscure than I might otherwise have been. Your Lordships may remember that some two years ago a Sunday Trading Bill was passed through this House, but it fell by the wayside because it was the end of the Session when it went to the other place. That Bill was based on the Crathorne Report, as is this Bill. I think it is just as well that the other Bill did fall, because although it would have cleared up many of the anomalies which exist to-day under the Shops Act 1950, on looking back I think it would have created some new ones.
This is a much simpler Bill, and by and large it just tries to do away with anomalies, nearly all on the sale of food. I ask your Lordships to bear in mind—I have you will agree with me, but you may not—that I do not believe that this Bill will lead to any increase of Sunday trading in so far as shops that are not now open on Sundays will, as a result of the Bill, open. As I say, it is intended mostly to deal with the sale of food. To hear some people talk one would think that you could not sell food on Sunday now. You can sell food now, and it is sold all over the country. The difficulty arises on the extraordinary anomalies that have arisen under the 1950 Act as to what food you can sell, when you can sell it, and whether you are or are not obeying the law.
In case any of your Lordships should think that I am exaggerating the anomalies, I should like to read what is pointed out in the Crathorne Report; namely, what some of the judges who have had to try cases under this Act think about it. The principal trouble in the Act is Schedule 5, paragraph 1 (b). This is what the judges have had to say about the extraordinary nonsense that goes on now. Mr. Justice Humphreys in the case of the L.C.C. v. Linda Davies said:
"There is almost no nonsensical proposition which may not seriously be put forward as a result of looking at these innumerable exceptions".
1096
They were the exceptions in the Schedules. Lord Hewitt in the case of L.C.C. v. Lees said:
"… not often in the course of half a century of experience of the law, have I had the opportunity of endeavouring to come to close quarters with such a piece of legislation".
In the same case, Sir William Jowitt (as he then was), who appeared for the respondents, said:
"… the provisions of Schedules 5 and 6 taken together, and compared and contrasted with each other …"
were, to his mind, unintelligible. I say that there are anomalies—that is what the judges think about it.
The principal trouble is in the fifth and sixth Schedules to the Act, and it is that which this Bill is trying to rectify. Particular trouble arises in paragraph 1 of Schedule 5, sub-paragraph (b). First of all it says that you may sell intoxicating liquor on a Sunday. Then it goes on to say that you may sell meals of refreshments, whether or not for consumption at the shop at which they are sold, but not including the sale of fried fish and chips at a fried fish and chip shop. That is a small point. May I just deal with fried fish and chips briefly? You can buy fried fish and chips at a restaurant; you can buy fried fish and chips at a shop that is not a fried fish and chip shop. If you like to have the same shop, with two doors and a partition so that you can go into one half of the shop and buy your chips, and then run into the other half and buy your fish, you can do so. But, my Lords, is that sensible? If this Bill becomes law you will be able to sell fish and chips on a Sunday from a fish and chip shop.
The real trouble has arisen over the question of meals or refreshments. Of course it will be legal to buy food for consumption on the premises. This is the question of a meal or refreshment which you buy to take way. What is a meal or refreshment? The definition of a meal or refreshment has never been satisfactorily decided. The courts (poor devils!) have had to try to operate this law, and, as a result of various judgments, the present situation is really this. As a result of various judgments, whatever the Act meant, the way it operates is this. You can buy food or refreshment in a shop provided you can consume it without further processing.

1097
So you can buy a tin of fruit, open it in the shop and eat it. And you are entitled to buy it and take it away, because it is a meal or refreshment.
That sounds fairly simple, but is it? It stops your going into a shop on a Sunday to buy a packet of flour and a packet of sugar. The question is what you can eat in the shop. There is the famous case, which is always quoted, of the uncooked kipper. A shop was prosecuted for selling an uncooked kipper, and when the matter came into court there was an abundance of evidence to prove that some people liked their kippers uncooked. So it was said that this was a meal or refreshment, and the court agreed. There is an even odder case, the case of the inspector, Sidney Smolar v. Eric George Pritchard. This was a case of a man who bought a packet of caster sugar. The case about coffee sugar has never been settled, because if some people are anything like my grandchildren they eat coffee sugar as a meal or refreshment. But this was caster sugar, and the magistrate found that it was silly to suppose that anyone would go in and buy a packet of caster sugar and eat it in the shop; therefore it was not a meal or refreshment.
There was an appeal and the recorder found in this particular case that it was a meal or refreshment, because the purchaser had also bought bread, butter and something else. Together they formed a meal or refreshment. The inspector then appealed to the Divisional Court, and the noble and learned Lord the present Lord Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Ashworth and Mr. Justice Hinchcliffe all agreed in their judgments that no evidence had been produced before the recorder whether those other substances were bought at the same time as the packet of sugar in the same shop. If so, it could reasonably be argued that they were refreshments or a meal, but unless there was that evidence it was not refreshment or a meal. So the case was sent back to the recorder, and presumably he took further evidence, but I do not know. That is the position of the law at the moment. It really is idiocy.
This Bill says that if you are entitled to sell food on a Sunday—and I come to that point in a moment—then you may sell on a Sunday any food for consumption, on or off the premises. I
1098
does not sound very difficult. Some people think that all the supermarkets will open on a Sunday. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is going to speak later. There is nothing to stop their opening on a Sunday now, and if they do not open now it is because, with the high cost of staff working on Sundays and so on, it does not pay them to do so. There is also great difficulty in knowing exactly what can and what cannot be sold. Provided the goods are part of a meal or refreshment, and they are bought altogether as such, you can sell any food you like now, except butcher's meat—a point to which I will come in a minute. If you want to buy things which have to be processed, such as a packet of tea, which has to be processed for it must have boiling water poured on it and you cannot open it and consume it in tile shop, then you cannot buy it. That is the situation at the moment.
May I now come to the Bill I will go quickly through it, because the whole meat of the alterations is in the Schedules. Clause 1 puts a new Schedule into the Act, instead of Schedule 5, and I hope it puts it in simpler language. I will deal with the details of that when we come to the Schedule, but, roughly speaking, it enables a shopkeeper to sell all kinds of food on a Sunday if he is open for the selling of food. In order to see that food shops may be inspected to make sure that they are not selling things they are not allowed to sell, Clause 2 provides that a food shop must be registered with the local authority as such, and, if it is, then the Inspectorate knows that although the food shop may be selling other things, they will not be allowed to sell them on a Sunday. So it enables the Inspectorate to see that the shop sells only food or drink; and that puts some teeth into the Bill. At the present time, the fines are ludicrous: I think it is £5 for the first offence and £20 for the second offence. This clause enables the local authority to close the food shop, to refuse to give it a licence to open on a Sunday, and thereby gives the Bill some teeth.
Clause 3 enables any local authority to allow shops within their area to open on Sunday for the sale of the articles listed in Schedule 2. I will deal with

1099
this point in more detail when I come to the schedules. Schedule 2 deals with:
"Articles which may be sold on Sunday pursuant to orders of local authorities."
This is the law at the moment for holiday resorts. Nobody has ever been able to describe what a "holiday resort" is. This Schedule gives local authorities power to grant permission to open on a Sunday, not for necessarily the whole town, but in certain areas which have a lot of visitors. There has been great ill feeling between different local authorities. Sometimes places which perhaps are not technically holiday resorts in fact have more visitors than places which are. This provision tries to bring them all into line.
Clause 4 modifies the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for Sunday working. Without going into detail at this stage—there may be matters to be raised at the Committee stage—the two principal considerations are these. At the moment Sunday time off is given by Statute to an employee only if the shop is open for the serving of customers. That seems to be entirely wrong. Nowadays work is very often done in a shop on a Sunday behind the scenes: there is labelling of goods for sale the next day, and so on. Under this new clause it will count as Sunday working although the shop is not open for the serving of customers. This is fair.
The other main alteration here concerns the fact that at present Sunday workers must work only two Sundays in every month. The new provision allows them, if they so wish, to work every Sunday. The reason for bringing in this change is this. There are quite a lot of workers, mostly women, who virtually work only on a Sunday because they have to look after other members of the family at home during the week. If they want to, I cannot see any reason why they should not work every Sunday. In the old days that would possibly have been dangerous, because an employer could put pressure on a staff, when it was easy to get staff, to work every Sunday whether they wanted to or not. Now an employer goes down on bended knees to get Sunday workers, and there is no danger of forcing any employee to work on a Sunday if he or she does not want to. This provision merely says: if a person wants to, he or she can.
1100
Clause 5 amends the Shops (Airports) Act 1962. Under that Act, the Secretary of State can, within certain geographically restricted limits, allow shops in an airport to open out of hours. This clause gives the Secretary of State power to make an Order at any particular airport so that airport shops may open on a Sunday. In these days when tourist traffic is so important, and Sunday is very often the busiest day, and the day on which travellers most want to buy things, this provision is desirable. In most airports abroad one can buy goods on a Sunday now, but not here, and this has been adversely criticised by our tourist trade. But it will be possible to do so under this Bill only if the Secretary of State orders it. In other words, in the case of a small, twopenny-halfpenny airport he will not order it; but in the case of an airport such as Heathrow he probably will within a certain area give permission.
I shall be as quick as I can, but I must go into the Schedules. They have been reworded and I shall point out where there is an alteration in the law. Although it is differently worded, the first paragraph deals with sale of food for consumption on the premises. This is legal now, and with slightly clearer wording it will remain legal if this Bill becomes an Act. Then we come to the important part dealing with the sale for human consumption of food at shops registered with the local authority. This registration is something new and it gives the administration of this matter some "teeth". Your Lordships will see the things that can be bought for consumption off the premises.
There is no variation from the existing law (although the wording may be different to some extent) until we come down to paragraph 3(iv). This paragraph deals with:
"Toilet requisites including perfume, cosmetics, and dentifrices, for external use"
and so on. At the moment there are considerable difficulties in respect of chemists' shops which are open on a Sunday. One can buy razor blades if one tells the chemist they are to cut corns, but if they are wanted for shaving they cannot be bought on a Sunday. Similarly, one cannot buy lipstick or a suitable preparation if one is blistered by the sun. What this paragraph says, in effect, is that a chemist may sell make-up and

1101
items such as suntan oil, as well as medicines, on a Sunday if he is open, but he may not sell goods such as cameras. That would create very unfair competition. This paragraph deals merely with preparations which are applied to the body externally; a chemist may sell all those. Your Lordships can read the items for yourselves.
There is a slight alteration in paragraph 3(v). The present Act allows certain supplies for cars and cycles and so on to be bought on a Sunday. But there has been some doubt, apparently, as to whether, for instance, a windscreen wiper is a "part" or an "accessory." The paragraph in this Bill says:
"Parts of, accessories to, or fuel or lubricants for".
One additional item concerns aircraft—this is for local flying clubs. Parts can be sold under the Bill. Caravans or trailers are also covered. The latter have been covered by the Bill because at present if you are motoring along with a caravan and something goes wrong with the car you can buy accessories; but if anything goes wrong with the caravan then technically you cannot. I suppose one has to leave the caravan where it is and motor on. This seems silly, and so caravans have been included in this paragraph.
The next alteration concerns item (x), domestic fuels. Coal merchants do not normally deliver fuel on a Sunday now. It is too expensive; one has to pay the men too much. But there are circumstances in prolonged cold weather when somebody such as a coal merchant, if he has any coal to sell, cannot deliver to all his customers in the week owing to bad weather, snow and so on. This provision enables him, if necessary, to deliver the odd sack of coal on Sunday quite legally. I do not think it will be of much use, but until now some merchants have disobeyed the law in order to deliver coal to old people, and this provision will enable Sunday deliveries to be made legally. The other alteration in paragraph 3 concerns food for animals. The present legislation specifies which animals food may be bought for; it does not specify the food one may buy. It is illegal to buy food for your dog, but if you go into a shop and say "I want some biscuits for my pony" the shopkeeper can
1102
sell them to you. The new provision says that food for animals may be bought on a Sunday. Most animal foods can be bought now on a Sunday, but for some reason dogs and cows were left out, while donkeys and ponies were included. The present legislation is just a mess. It is much easier, and more certain, to allow food for all animals to be bought.
Paragraph 5 covers:
"The sale by fishermen of freshly caught fish (including shell fish) at or adjacent to the point where it is landed".
At the moment fishermen can legally sell fish at the landing place; but they very often have a small kiosk down the quay. This provision enables them legally to open and sell fish at such a kiosk. The fish can be taken to the kiosk and sold from there. There is some doubt as to whether that is legal now, hence the introduction of the word "adjacent".
Paragraph 8 is an important one. This enables launderettes to be open on a Sunday. The Crathorne Committee had much to say about this. They are very necessary. To begin with, they employ the minimum of labour, and sometimes virtually no labour. They are particularly necessary in poorer areas where mothers work during the week. This provision enables launderettes to open on a Sunday. The Crathorne Report pointed out, when there were not as many launderettes as there are now, that they were very much wanted by the public and served a most useful purpose. So much for Schedule 1. The rest of the law remains virtually the same.
Schedule 2 deals with articles relating to places which used to be called "holiday resorts" but which now one might term as "places which crowds frequent on certain occasions". The Schedule includes the list of articles which a local authority may authorise to be sold, if they wish, in certain areas of a town—what is in effect a holiday resort—but it will be easier to administer if it is left to the local authority in this case. In Schedule 7 the Act at present refers to:
"articles required for the purpose of bathing or fishing".
We have added "sunbathing" here, because people break their sunglasses, for instance; and we have included sunbathing in order to cover that sort of thing.

1103
I do not think there is any other alteration. I hope that I have not rushed the Bill too much for your Lordships, but there may be points in Committee which we can deal with then. May I repeat that I do not think this will lead to virtually any extension of Sunday trading? I believe that it is necessary, in the interests of administering the law, that people should know what they can buy and what they cannot buy. The present law is something of a nonsense in this respect, and therefore I hope that in due course your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Derwent.)
6.31 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I shall be brief, but I should like to thank the noble Lord for his clear explanation of the Bill and, if I may say so, his amusing side comments which enlivened his dissertation on the Schedule. The noble Lord will be glad to know that on behalf of the Opposition I am not directed to give any particular suggestions to the noble Lords who are seated behind me.
As a shopper, I would say to the noble Lord that one is always aware of the curious anomalies of the present situation. One finds it amusing in the newsagents, for instance, to see the unfortunate shopkeeper having to refuse the sale of a ballpoint pen and a postcard while being able to sell a Sunday newspaper. I sometimes think that we are at our most hypocritical when dealing with the question of Sunday. Those of us who have the misfortune to travel on a Sunday, as I often have to do, get the feeling that this is where we see the puritanical side; that we should not really be travelling on a Sunday but should be at home or on our knees, praying, and therefore everything is made as difficult and as uncomfortable as possible—though other reasons are advanced.
My Lords, naturally one would immediately take the point about the airports. On many occasions I have had foreign visitors complain bitterly, not only about our curious shop laws but also about our curious licensing laws, which I believe we are also now to tackle. Thus I speak as a shopper. Shops do open on Sundays—in fact, I am amazed to see that some of the shops I frequent on my way home
1104
from church have apparently been breaking the law. I had no idea that some of them should not have been selling articles which they were selling quite freely. As more women work full-time, undoubtedly more shops will need to open on Sunday, and I think the noble Lord was quite correct in saying that since staff are at a premium there is little likelihood of pressure being brought to bear on them, though no doubt some of the noble Lords who follow me will put a different point of view.
There is no doubt that the workers must be protected, though in the main it will be the small shopkeepers who will probably be the most interested in this Bill. I imagine that the multiples and the chain stores will have their own special attractions to the shopper and will not need to consider Sunday opening as an additional one. This is something on which we should like to hear both points of view—perhaps it would be relevant to say "all the arguments on both sides of the counter"—and I hope that, having listened to all the noble Lords who are to take part in this debate, the evidence will be fully weighed up and the Bill will be given a Second Reading by your Lordships.
6.35 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I certainly hope that this Bill will get a Second Reading, based as it is on the recommendations of a Departmental Committee which spent three years studying the subject. And if I spend the rest of what I hope will be a brief speech making some criticisms which I hope will be constructive, I promise to end by saying that I nevertheless hope the Bill will receive a Second Reading.
My Lords, what I want to criticise are the provisions in Clause 4 which deal with Sunday employment in shops. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said and what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has endorsed: that if we are simply considering the present time there is no question of any shop assistant being exploited in the matter of Sunday working. The noble Lord said that one has to go down on one's knees to get staff to man shops in these days. All I would say is that on past form we are not legislating just for the present time; we are probably legislating for a very long time to come. When

1105
I refer to "past form" I am not thinking of the 1968 Bill, which fell by the wayside after passing through this House; I am thinking of the fact that this Bill amends the Shops Act 1950, which was itself a consolidating measure of consolidated shops Acts going back to 1912. On that basis we are, as I say, probably legislating for a very long time, which may be much longer than the time within which employers will be going down on their knees to get staffs to man their shops.
My Lords, Clause 4 is a piece of legislation by reference. Legislation by reference is all right in its way, but it has this disadvantage: that when one reads such a piece of legislation it is not readily apparent on the face of it to the ordinary reader what it means; and I suggest to your Lordships that Clause 4 is a pretty fair example of this. Unless one has the Act of 1950 beside one it is not much good reading Clause 4, because it does not tell one very much. In my submission, this is where the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill ought to come into its own. I should have thought that here was a chance for the Explanatory Memorandum to make itself useful merely by explaining what Clause 4 does. However, if we look at the Explanatory Memorandum on this Bill we do not get very much further, because all it says on this point is that:
"Clause 4 modifies the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for shop assistants …. employed on Sunday."
Let us be clear as to the main purpose of Clause 4. I do not, of course, seek to blame the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for not having pointed this out—he could not bring out every point—but I do not think he brought out the main point and purpose of Clause 4. What it seeks to do is to repeal the provision in the 1950 Act which provides 26 whole holidays on Sunday in every year so distributed that at least one out of every three consecutive Sundays shall be a whole holiday. In place of that the Bill provides 26 whole holidays on Sundays or a weekday. Whatever one may say, that is removing a considerable amount of protection for shop assistants against having to work on a Sunday.
I have to admit that the Crathorne Committee agreed with this change.
1106
Paragraph 27 of their summary of recommendations says:
"The restriction on the number of Sundays on which certain shop workers may be employed should be abolished".
They refer to paragraph 223 in the main body of their Report, but the position is rather curious, because in paragraph 223 the Committee seem to be arguing exactly in the opposite direction. This is how they begin:
"We have recognised in Part 1 of our Report that Sunday has a special character and is not an interchangeable day. A condition that ensures that employees have at least some Sundays free to spend as they choose "—
and here I would have inserted "with their families"—
"is consistent with this principle. To this extent, therefore, a condition which limits the number of Sundays on which a person may be employed has obvious merit. Our evidence shows, however, that this type of condition is too inflexible and imposes unreasonable restraints. We came to the conclusion that it should be abolished."
I admit this criticism about inflexibility. I quite accept that there are a number of lonely people who are not blessed with a happy family circle in which to spend their Sundays who probably regard Sunday as the dullest day of the week, and who probably consider themselves just as good Christians as anybody else if they spend their Sundays contributing to the enjoyment of other people who are having Sunday outings by providing refreshments for those people. The problem here is really how are we to legislate to give this freedom to these (as I call them) lonely people, without opening the floodgates in a way that will enable an unscrupulous employer to bring pressure to bear on other shop assistants—people who ought certainly not to be working on Sunday, but ought to be spending Sunday with their families—by saying: "Come along; here are these statutory provisions. You ought therefore to be working on a Sunday".
I find this a perplexing problem, my Lords, and I was wondering how one could possibly try to legislate to deal with it. Then I chanced, fortunately, upon the last report published last June by the Consumer Council and called, The First Seven Years. I suppose this is the swan song of the Consumer Council; I suppose it could equally well have been called The Last Seven Years. At page 14, tinder the

1107
heading "Shopping hours", the report says this:
"The Council emphasises that the hours of work of shop assistants can be protected by statutory regulations and need not be related to the opening hours of shops."
Lower down in the paragraph it says:
"The Council, with two dissentients, has also taken the view that the anachronisms in the Sunday trading laws are so ludicrous that they should be swept away, allowing all shops that want to do so to trade on Sundays"—
thereby, of course, going much further than the Crathorne Committee. Finally the Council says:
"Once again the hours shop assistants work should be protected by regulations."
My Lords, with some Bills on Second Reading we know fairly early on what the Government line is, but this evening we do not know; we shall not hear until the end. I do not know what it is going to be. It may be that the Government are going to keep their options open and see what are the views of the House. If that is so, the suggestion that I put forward is this. Will the Government quickly consult the Consumer Council, before it is too late—because there is not much time left—about the details they had in mind as to the form these proposed statutory regulations might take in order to protect both the rights of shop assistants who ought to have freedom to work on Sundays and also the rights of the other sort of shop assistants who ought not to be encouraged to work on Sundays? If there is this consultation with the Consumer Council, who have given this matter a good deal of study, then if, eventually, the Government decide to support this Bill they will be in a stronger position to draft their regulations. That was all I intended to say, but I will give way to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, the noble Lord appreciates, I hope, that he was talking about Section 21. That deals with the catering trade, cafés and so on, and the occupier can elect, if he likes, to come under Section 22, which relates to shops. The section the noble Lord was quoting deals with the catering trade.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I do know that. I ought to have said, "where the section applies". That would have
1108
made it clear beyond a peradventure. But, as I said at the beginning, I certainly hope that this Bill will receive a Second Reading.
6.48 p.m.
LORD HAMNETT: My Lords, referring to the noble Lord's last sentence, I hope that the Bill will not get a Second Reading, for a wide range of reasons that I hope to give to the House. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, dealt, as one can so easily, with anomalies and contradictions, sometimes very humorous ones. One can deal with these in any particular Act of Parliament, the Shops Act in particular. But the Bill itself, as projected, would provide equally great anomalies in other directions. Perhaps I may cite one or two, although it is not my purpose to deal with this aspect at any length. Let us take the case of the registration of a shop. After the first offence a shop can, or may, be removed from the schedule. On the second offence it shall be removed. In neither case is there any suggestion of the time limits that may be imposed, so that you can have the legal anomaly of a shop that for the first offence may be removed—if the local authority does not particularly like the shop—and for a second offence they can remove a shop for 12 months, two months or three weeks. These anomalies will still exist under the Bill.
To deal with one or two of the points that have been raised, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, who recognised the fact that this Bill is not for this week; it is for the coming months and years. In such circumstances, may I remind the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who says that there will be no force on employees to work on Sundays, that this is the range of trades which has been subject to the most unregulated exploitation so far. That is why the Wages Councils Act 1944 was extended to a wide range of these trades, because it was not expected that they would be organisable in relation to trade union agreements. At this moment only about 10 per cent. are organised.
It is said, of course, that the Bill removes the anomalies of the shops that are open now, and it is not expected that other shops will be open. That is an assumption with which I could not agree. You substitute for Schedule 5

1109
of the Shops Act a list which includes all kinds of food in this highly competitive industry, and in which part of the claim in support of this Bill is that there is a great desire on the part of people to go shopping on a Sunday.
In such circumstances I want to deal largely and mainly with the economic, industrial and the social aspects of the Bill. First, the economic side. In the larger supermarkets which, under the Bill, will be permitted to, and undoubtedly will, open once they get permission it means that in order to ensure a day off you must adopt a rota system of some kind, particularly to deal with the provisions of the Wages Council Order which already limit hours to 44 and restrict Sunday working in certain respects. In such circumstances you must increase the working force in the supermarkets and in large or any other shops. You must increase the labour force by roughly one-seventh, which means that you increase labour costs by one-seventh. It is now an arguable point as to whether, having increased the labour costs by one-seventh you can so increase the sales that you reduce the wages costs by that figure.
If you increase the costs by one-seventh you have one other factor. It is historically true, particularly among those who are organising the trade unions, that there will be a demand, as there is under the provisions of the Wages Councils Orders as they at present exist, for double or even treble time on Sunday. This problem has been raised with regard to the milkman on his rota-day off. In such circumstances, again you raise the wages costs of the shop. Wages costs can only be covered in the one way in which they ought not to be covered at this present time; that is, by increasing prices to the consumer. But the prices will be increased not to those consumers who consume on Sunday. The prices will be increased throughout the shop, to all the consumers, because of the extra wages costs bill.
It is true that 10 per cent. of the shops in this country do 90 per cent. of the trade. But 75 per cent. of the shops have staffs of four or less, including the proprietor or manager. In such circumstances, again, because it will be impossible to find a suitable rota system, and because in their own protection, forced by competition, they will open on Sundays,
1110
the wages costs must increase. I speak here purely in relation to the economic and industrial aspects.
There is a further point. I assume that the supermarkets will open on Sundays if this Bill is carried into law. At the present time supermarkets are staffed largely by women employees, with one man who is usually the manager of the shop. He is heavily responsible for stock, for purchases, for sales, for linkage, for profit and loss on the shop. It is a very heavy responsibility. He is paid more for that responsibility, and he accepts it quite seriously. If, as you must, you adopt a rota system for a day off, what happens to the manager. How do you find an extra one-seventh in managerial staff to work a rota system in an occupation in regard to which we have already been told by my noble friend Baroness Phillips that it is difficult to recruit staff at all, particularly male staff, for a wide variety of other reasons? If you do not do that, you cannot expect the manager of a supermarket to leave the control of the shop for which he is responsible in the hands of junior staff or of an inexperienced manager of the staff. So he is faced with the prospect of either appealing to his employer for an extra man for the shop or he will have to work seven days a week. This problem will also apply to the self-owned shops.
If I may put this point, I would rather deal with the social aspects to which my noble friend Lord Airedale referred. He reminded me of those remarkable words of Browning in this connotation:
"Because a man has shop to mind,
In time and place since flesh must live
Needs spirit lack all life behind, …
All loves except what trade can give."
And shop assistants in that sense are human beings, strange as it may seem. They have only one common day of leisure.
In most other occupations there is an alternative of two common days of leisure, Saturday and Sunday. This is true even of wide-ranging rota and shift work occupations. Even journalists working on a Sunday for a Monday morning newspaper usually have the Saturday as well as one other day of leisure. This is very common. In other words, you get one day of leisure, when everybody else is at home. It is the fact that 75 per cent. of the labour in food shops is female

1111
labour. The vast bulk of that female labour is married. In such circumstances they are deprived of the common day of leisure with their family, the common day of leisure with their people around them. In those circumstances, with a lack of protection, with the possible further exploitation of workers in a fiercely competitive industry, I would ask noble Lords to reject the Second Reading of this Bill.
6.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I should like in general to welcome this second attempt by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to give effect to some of the proposals of the Crathorne Report. Altogether, that Report has not been particularly fortunate. I do not think that any of its proposals, either on the entertainments side or on the trading side, have yet been passed into law, unless there is any point that I have omitted to notice. One certainly gets the feeling in this debate that we have been here before—that we have been all through this in many of its details already.
On the whole, I think that this Bill is an improvement on the previous one. If I may venture my own opinion, it is simpler and clearer. I do not think we should underrate the effect that it is likely to have. There is, for instance, the withdrawal of the phrase that we previously had in legislation about
"shops carried on principally for the sale of food."
We now have in Clause 2 the phrase:
"Shops in which is carried on the sale for human consumption of food".
—in other words under this Bill any shop that has any food can aspire to open on Sunday. In my own estimation we shall have the large stores and supermarkets opened before very long, and in course of time Schedule I is more likely to be extended than reduced. In spite of that, I think we must make our Sunday legislation more or less harmonious with the spirit of the times, and once the mobility of large sections of the population on Sunday is accepted, the necessity for a good deal of trading has to be admitted.
When I looked down paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 I had to ask myself, in honesty, whether there were not times
1112
when I had either purchased or wanted to purchase some of those objects on a Sunday, and I found myself guilty under most of the items. But, if anything, I would have avoided some of the restrictions that are here put in. There is a prohibition on the sale of artificial flowers. I have no desire to buy artificial flowers, either on a Sunday or on any other day of the week, but if people want to do so I really do not see why they should be prohibited from buying them as opposed to real flowers.
There are other items upon which one could comment if one wanted to, hut, for the most part, they are what one might call personal accessories—things you want either for yourself or for your car or your friends. One must face the fact that once people are moving about on Sunday it must be possible for them to meet their fundamental needs. I think the allowance of the so-called "holiday goods" under Schedule 2 is easily justifiable. We have now ceased to attempt to define "holiday areas" in this Bill, but we still have a kind of holiday atmosphere, particularly in Schedule 2, with articles for bathing, sunbathing or fishing, and souvenirs. Then there is something slightly more exalted: Works of art or reproductions of works of art." They are all the sort of things that people who go out to the seaside, or to London, or somewhere else, on a Sunday may want to buy, and I certainly should not wish to put many obstacles in their way.
Having said that, I want to follow, if I may, only too closely, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and say that I still hold, as I held during the last debate, that the failure to provide proper protection for shop assistants on Sundays is a backward step from the point of view of the social effects of our legislation. The particular provisions that I object to are Clause 4(1)(b) and Clause 4(2)(b). I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that the Explanatory Memorandum might certainly have been more frank and open. It says on the front page:
"Clause 4 modifies the existing arrangements for compensatory time off for shop assistants and certain catering workers employed on Sunday …".
It certainly does; and in a very serious way. What it really does is to remove from shop assistants any right to compensatory time off on Sundays. I think

1113
that a little more frankness would have been desirable. But those of us who have done the necessary research on the Shops Act 1950 have no doubt as to what is intended, Clause 4(1)(b) of the new Bill modifies the Shops Act 1950, Section 21(3)(b)(ii), which, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said, gives employees in refreshment shops 26 guaranteed Sundays, and a maximum of two consecutive Sundays at work, throughout the whole year. The whole of that is wiped away at a stroke in the new Bill by the insertion of the words "Sunday or a week day", instead of "Sunday".
In the new Bill, Clause 4(2)(b) modifies Section 22(1) of the Shops Act by omitting paragraph (a)(ii) of that subsection. This gave all Sunday shop workers—it was no longer confined to refreshment workers—a guaranteed top limit of three Sunday's work in any one month. The actual section says that if the worker worked for one Sunday, he must not work for mole than two other Sundays in that month. That meant that even in the most busy period he could not be expected to work more than three Sundays in the month. He always had one off; and he might occasionally have two off when there were five Sundays in the month. It is almost like the Church arranging the services for the month. I think that the omission of that sub-paragraph is a very objectionable element in this Bill. Sunday has its special claims. We have already heard examples, and we can all imagine the sort of thing that arises. Families want to go out together, and some of these shop assistants will be young enough still to want to go out with their own families. If not, they will probably want to go out with their boy friends, who will want to go out on Sunday, and not on Thursday or some totally different day of the week which is probably quite inconvenient for courting purposes.
Then there is the claim of religious observance. I put this forward only with great trepidation, because one fully realises that the number of people involved in this kind of commitment is limited. However, I would remind the House that even these days 50 per cent. of the babies born in England are baptised. They are baptised on Sundays, and their sisters, aunts and uncles, and other people, will often be required to
1114
join in, and will wish to join in, those little domestic ceremonies. Are we not going to give any kind of guarantee that there is a single Sunday on which these people can actually rely, and claim as of right, for the exercise of any of these duties?
I put all these points, equally strongly, when I moved an Amendment to the last Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on this matter, and I was defeated by the joint efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, himself, and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who at that time was speaking for the Government. Of course I was crushed beneath the upper and nether millstones, and one accepted that. I do not think I want to fight that particular battle all over again, probably for the same result. I have reflected upon the arguments that were adduced by the noble Lords against my Amendment, and they were two.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, took the point that we were not removing the total number of holidays, and that as the total number of holidays was bound to include a certain number of Sundays we were not really doing anything very serious. That argument did not stand up to a careful examination. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made the point that he has made to-day—and I see the force of it: that there are quite a number of people who positively want to work on Sundays. If they want to work on Sundays, of course it does seem rather stupid that Parliament should go to enormous lengths to prevent them from doing so. I tried hard to find a way round that difficulty.
If it were a perfect world, I think that what I should want to say is that all have the right to some freedom from work on Sunday and that any legislation should say that no person should be forced to work for more than three Sundays in any one month, or something of that kind. But if they were willing, so to speak, to sign a statutory declaration that, in spite of having that right, they still wanted to work, then I would let them sign and let them work. But this is not the situation. The kind of mature person who wants to work, who has thought it all out and is ready to work, is only one class. There are also all the young and the weak, the rather naïve and simple people who get caught up into this work of assisting

1115
in shops on Sundays; and one knows that many of them would be quite incapable of standing up to any strong pressure from the owner, or manager, if he had the full right to make them work as much as possible.
The Crathorne Committee said that the present sections were too restricting. Well, my Lords, if they are too restricting, let us make them less restrictive, but without necessarily going as far as the Crathorne Committee did—rather against their own evidence, as the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has pointed out—by abolishing the rights altogether. My experience last time and the very great difficulty that a Bishop has in getting drawn fully into the legislative work of this House make me hesitate to propose another Amendment myself, but I will conclude by saying that if someone is cleverer or more energetic than I am, and is able to move an Amendment on this one point of giving some protection for Sunday working shop assistants, I shall be very pleased.
7.10 p.m.
LORD ARDWICK: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, I wish to say something about the people on the service side of the counter, although I must admit that my personal experience of shop-keeping is limited and peculiar. I was conscripted into the grocery trade, and during my school holidays went into the Co-operative store which my father managed. There was a unanimous view in the family that my juvenile delinquencies could better be kept under restraint if I remained within sight of the stern paternal eye and, I may add, within range of the strong paternal hand.
At this time I gained a very good idea of the vicissitudes of retailing. The store had acquired a sack of black peas which proved to be totally unsaleable. Somebody had the bright idea of mixing them with a sack of green peas, and the black and green peas made a wonderful display—with a farthing off. But there was no sale for the black and green peas, so they set me to work to sort out the black from the green. At that point I struck, and there was a court of inquiry or an arbitration of some kind at home, when it was decided that I had been visited with a cruel and unusual punishment and that I need not go back to the grocery trade. So, like many people here and in the other
1116
place, my knowledge of harsh, social conditions is derived less from personal experience than from a strong family tradition. My father was one of the founders of the Shop Assistants' Union—which the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, graced for so many years—and served it for 50 years, while my people in two large families, on both paternal and maternal sides, were all engaged in retail trade in their own little businesses. The whole family lived and breathed the retail trade.
I think that to-day we are in danger of forgetting an important chapter in our social history. We are only a generation away from the time when shop assistants and the family shopkeeper worked under the most appalling conditions. It is true that they kept the Sabbath holy and that the shops closed promptly at midnight on Saturday. Not only were the hours long, but in their younger days a lot of people were victims of the living-in system. That time is not very far away to-day, but it seems so remote that a book like Kipps, which was a book of social protest, has now become a jolly musical.
What brought relief to the shop workers and shopkeepers was not trade union organisation so much as the legislation passed in World War I. As the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, has pointed out, in this largely unorganised trade it is on Government and Parliament that shop workers and shopkeepers must depend if the decencies of life are to be preserved. Left free, they become the victims of their own inescapable competition. I cannot go along with the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his belief that there will be no increase in Sunday trading. I think there will be a vast increase if this Bill goes through.
We live in an age when the consumer is flexing his muscles. He asks, "Why should the hours when the customer wishes to do his buying or his drinking be limited by law?" He regards current restrictions as one more bureaucratic interference with his liberties. It would be nice for him and for us all if the shops were always open, day and night, weekdays and Sundays, so that we could all shop when the mood drove us; but that is a quite impossible proposition. As citizens, as distinct from consumers, we must accept that there must be a limitation and a balance of interest between

1117
shop workers or shopkeepers and the customers.
It is wrong to believe that the shopkeeper has a choice of when he should stay open. His hours are usually governed by those of his nearest competitor. The basic problem of the small shopkeeper is not whether he is going to make more or less profit, but whether he can stay in business. If there is one supermarket in a district open all day on Sunday, every small shopkeeper will be compelled to follow its example. If this Bill is passed it will create a revolution in shopping habits and make the small man's shop into a prison. I want the small shopkeeper to be able to continue to live.
It is very easy to argue, as many argue nowadays, that he is an uneconomic factor in our society, that the economy would be richer if he disappeared and we had nothing but very large units in which we all served ourselves. But I think it is a mark of a good civilisation if, in these days of giant organisations, we deliberately leave—and indeed create—outlets for people who want to earn their living in small enterprises. I am a lifelong organisation man and I should feel naked and bereft if I were to venture out on my own, but there are many people who find the embrace of the modern corporation, benevolent though it usually is to-day, stifling and confining. They feel that the best way of expressing their skill in organisation and their gift for personal relations is in a business which they themselves own, and shop-keeping, especially food shop-keeping, is one of the few outlets left for the energetic person who has managed to save a little money.
The small shopkeeper is one of the people who today wish to stand on their own feet—but not for seven days a week. Even now, life is pretty restrictive. It is not often that a husband and wife can go on holiday together. The Sunday outing is the only real holiday that they can enjoy together, and even then not every Sunday can be free: it is the one day when the husband can look over the stocks and do the books. The small man has been battered, and not only by the supermarkets. A Conservative Government clipped his margins by the abolition of resale price maintenance, and by S.E.T.
1118
the Labour Government made it less economic for him to employ help. I should like him to be left alone. I admit that the customer has his needs and that they are changing needs, but I see no reason why in every district one or two shops should not be licensed to open at irregular hours, including Sundays. To make Sunday trading general, however, is both unnecessary and socially retrograde, and I hope that we shall hear nothing more about this well-intentioned but unfortunate Bill after to-day.
7.18 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise briefly to give wholehearted support to this Bill. It is generally recognised that the patterns of leisure and internal tourism are rapidly changing. Unlike a hundred years ago, Sunday is now not only a day of leisure but also a day of travel, and a day out sometimes involves people in going a long way from where they normally live. Part of the day out is the joy of bringing something back in the form of a souvenir or gift, or buying necessities when people are a long way from home.
I want to refer very briefly to Schedule 1. I welcome the fact that sales at museums and art galleries of reproductions of works of art are going to be allowed. However, I suggest that a very important group has been left out of this Schedule; and here I should declare my interest. I refer to the 800 historic houses and castles which are open to the public in this country. They attract some 23 million visitors a year and have a tremendous effect in drawing overseas visitors. I hope that an Amendment will be accepted during the Committee stage to add to paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, after the words, "museum or art gallery", something like,
"and also at historic houses or places normally open to the public."
We owners of stately homes do not like our residences to be called "museum pieces". In fact, one of the great attractions is the fact that they are lived in. Nor are we art galleries. When you think of other places, like Stonehenge or perhaps a beautiful garden, which would also require to sell postcards and other such objects, I feel that they ought perhaps to be covered in this clause.

1119
Finally, my Lords, I should like to say just one word to the right reverend Prelate. I employ a great many people on Sundays, and we always adopt the practice of giving them off other days in the week. I have not noticed that courting has decreased—in fact, it has, if anything, increased. I also find that many of my staff prefer to go off on days other than Sundays, because they find that the places they want to go to are less crowded. In fact, it is a very common practice, where Sunday is the big day in a resort, for people to close on either Saturday or Monday, which are less important days. Having made those very brief remarks, and having given warning that I should like to put this Amendment down on Committee stage, I should like to say once again how very much I support this Bill.
7.21 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, as one who has spent all his working life in the retail trade, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words, even at this late hour, about the Bill which is before your Lordships' House. Before doing so, I should like to make it clear that I am speaking in a personal capacity and that my views do not necessarily reflect those of any trade association or of the firm with which I am associated. Let me say at the outset that I am in full agreement with those who criticise our present regulations relating to Sunday trading. As the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Law of Sunday Observance has pointed out, they are antiquated, complicated and full of anomalies. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has listed, amusingly, some of those anomalies. May I add one that he did not mention? While it is perfectly legal to sell frozen vegetables on a Sunday, it is illegal to sell the same vegetables in a tin.
Not only do these requirements attempt to draw an illogical and arbitrary distinction between the foods that can and cannot be sold on a Sunday: they are extremely vague and subject to various interpretations. The result of this is that not infrequently the only way to discover what the law means is to go to court and obtain a ruling. Another serious drawback of the present regulations is that they are impossible to enforce. Anybody
1120
with even a superficial knowledge of the situation knows that shopkeepers frequently sell articles which are not covered by the current exemptions. Local authorities simply have not the staff or the enthusiasm to prosecute them. Set against these considerations, and ignoring all the others, the Bill before your Lordships' House could be regarded as a long-overdue, common-sense measure. However, it is also necessary to consider its likely effects on the volume of Sunday trading.
Opponents of the Bill seem to be firmly convinced that if the proposed measure is passed into law the result will be widespread Sunday opening by food shops and supermarkets. In my opinion, the situation is not quite as clear-cut. On the one hand, it can be argued that there is no real need for widespread Sunday opening and that many supermarkets will find that demand will be too small to make full or even partial Sunday opening economic. Secondly—and this is a very important point—I believe that they will find it extremely difficult to obtain staff except at very high rates. On the other hand, there is a real possibility that some food stores will take advantage of the proposed alterations in the regulations and open on Sunday with a view to increasing their business at the expense of their competitors.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: What is wrong with that?
LORD SAINSBURY: If that happens, it will not stop there. Other retailers, no matter how reluctant, will find it necessary to counter this by opening their stores; and we may in time arrive at a situation in which Sunday opening by food shops will be the rule rather than the exception. This I would regard as wholly and highly undesirable. It is undesirable, first, because no matter what arrangements are made with regard to shift working, it will have the effect of increasing the number of people in food retailing who will work on Sunday. A large number of shop workers are married women with children, and such a development would have a particularly adverse effect on their social and family life.
We must also think of the small, family-owned shops, to which my noble friend has already referred. Many of

1121
those would lose trade unless their owners sacrificed part of their Sunday. Quite frankly, my Lords, I do not believe that the community has the right to expect more shop workers and more shop owners to forgo their Sunday rest. Secondly, it is undesirable because it is bound to put up the cost of distribution. Experience has shown that widespread Sunday trading does not increase turnover; it merely spreads it over seven days instead of six. This has been shown in North America, where some shops are open seven days a week from early morning until late at night. As a result, the trade is spread so thinly that it is quite possible to go into a large supermarket early in the week and see no customers at all.
So, my Lords, although there are arguments for and against the Bill, since there is a fair chance that its acceptance would lead to a significant extension of Sunday trading I hope that it will be withdrawn; but if the House is divided I shall vote against the Second Reading. I believe that the present regulations provide adequate exemptions to ensure that most consumers do not suffer serious inconvenience. In view of this, widespread Sunday opening by food shops and supermarkets is too high a price to pay for doing away with the undoubted anomalies and confusions in the law relating to Sunday trading.
7.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I must start by apologising to my noble friend Lord Derwent, for I am afraid that I must disagree with him on this point. I hope he will not take it personally but I look forward to co-operating with him on other occasions. I should like to start by asking your Lordships to remember the sign that one used to see in the war-time railway carriages: "Is your journey really necessary?" I should like to ask the question: Is this Bill really necessary? I ask it seriously, because I have never found any evidence of any hardship resulting from the present Sunday trading laws. I should like to ask, "Who really wants this Bill? What organisations are supporting it?", so that we can weigh them in the balance with those organisations who are opposed to it.
I am sure we shall all agree that as few people as possible should be forced to work on Sundays. If supermarkets
1122
open on that day then, as other noble Lords have said, the small shopkeepers will be forced to do so in order that they do not lose their trade. This Bill is being strongly opposed by the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations and the Grocers' Federation. As has been said, many of the people who will have to work on Sunday will be women, many of them married women, so that there will be an interference with family life. Surely in this permissive age, this is not something that we want to encourage. Furthermore, people will be hindered from worshipping if they wish to do so.
Other noble Lords have said that under the present economic conditions it will not be easy to get people to work on Sundays if they do not wish to do so. But there is no guarantee that these conditions will continue, and I feel it wrong that people should have to choose between continuing in their job, and working on Sundays, or not. It is true that alternative time off will be given, but, as other speakers have pointed out, this is not entirely satisfactory because a shop assistant may not be off work at the same time as members of his or her family—his girl friend or her boy friend.
My Lords, I wonder whether there is a public demand for this opening. Even supposing that there is, is this something that ought to be satisfied? For example, if our debates in this House were televised, it might be said that Sunday would be much the best viewing day. But how would your Lordships feel at having to turn up here every Sunday? The noble Lord made much of the present anomalies; but it is a question of where the anomalies are. It may be said that when the Government are trying to discourage smoking, it is an anomaly that cigarettes should be able to be sold on Sundays. I feel that on this general question of anomalies we must be rather careful. There may be some who would suggest that this House, or some parts of it, is an anomaly. I hope that the noble Lord is not thinking of abolishing himself; for in that event we should then not have the pleasure of hearing him. My fear about this Bill is that if we abolish some anomalies we may find that others are created. For the reasons I have given, and particularly because of the Bill's

1123
effect on family life, I must oppose the Motion for Second Reading.
7.36 p.m.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, I rise to oppose this Bill in its present form. May I first try to identify the principal areas of disagreement? When people are enjoying their leisure on Sundays they take meals and refreshments on premises and they buy chocolate, ice cream, petrol and other things. They can do that under the present law and will be able to do so under this Bill. There is no disagreement there. Similarly our chemists' shops are open, on a rota system, for two hours on a Sunday. The customers who are handed urgent prescriptions often want to buy toilet goods and it is right that they should be able to buy them. There is no disagreement there. But at the present time we have very severe restrictions on the range of food which may be sold on a Sunday. Those severe restrictions are effective in allowing the small, convenient shop to remain open but to discourage the supermarket. I strongly believe that either these limitations should remain or that other limitations should be put in their place; otherwise there will be a decisive change of policy.
I have read with interest the Crathorne Report, and I suggest that there is not popular consumer demand for this Bill; that the workers are opposed to it and that the vast majority of employers do not want it. In support of that I will indicate the paragraphs concerned. May I first refer your Lordships to page 37. Here, under the heading, "Evidence given on behalf of consumers" we read:
"We received little evidence from individual members of the public or from bodies representing consumers."
The Committee then goes on to deal with two minor surveys. One of these surveys was by the Federation of Consumer Groups. They issued, before giving their evidence, 3,000 questionnaires—not to the public in general or to consumers in general, but to members of consumer groups; that is to say, to people who were sufficiently aware in consumer affairs to take an interest in this kind of thing. Of the 3,000 questionnaires circulated, only 1,338 were returned—less than one-half of those interested consumers took the trouble to
1124
send back the questionnaires. That is the measure of the public demand. The other survey was made by the Institute of Shops Act Administration. They issued a questionnaire to 37 of their members in local authorities.
In the same paragraph the Crathorne Committee sum up these surveys very neatly. They say:
"Both surveys indicated that the chief demand was for the sale of groceries for the part of Sunday."
This Bill is not dealing with groceries only: it deals with the whole range of foodstuffs. It does not deal with part of Sunday: it authorises trading during the whole of Sunday. So it is not supported by the consumers' evidence given to the Crathorne Committee.
My Lords, may I turn to page 38, where is given the evidence of the trade unions? Here you have the interesting fact that the evidence given by the trade unions was supported by a number of employer federations. I think it would be worthwhile to read the whole paragraph. It says:
"… we found no general support among our witnesses for the abolition of all Sunday trading restrictions. The Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers and the Co-operative Union were strongly opposed to the suggestion and did not agree that Sunday rates of pay would, in themselves, prevent unnecessary Sunday employment. They said that the highly competitive conditions in the retail trade would force many shops to open and working proprietors of small businesses would be obliged to work seven days a week. Similar views were expressed in the evidence submitted by the National Federation of Grocers' and Provision Dealers' Association, which represents many small businesses, and also by other organisations of traders. They emphasised that most shop workers worked on Saturday and that Sunday provided the only opportunity for a day of rest and recreation with their families and with friends in other occupations."
The workers in the service industries recognise that they cannot have hours which coincide with the workers in offices and factories and they are prepared, within reason, to be available to give their services on occasions when factories and offices are closed. Had this Bill been introduced when the staffs of factories and offices were working a six day week, or a five and a half day week, there would have been a much stronger case for it than there is to-day. Most people who work in offices and factories work a five day week and there is ample

1125
opportunity for management and workers to do their shopping on a Saturday, which is the sixth day. The shop worker accepts that he should go to work on a Saturday to meet that need, but he regards working on a Sunday as completely unnecessary.
This Bill, as has been said, considerably weakens the position of the workers. Those who do not like working on Sunday can at present be forced to work only two Sundays out of four. If this Bill becomes law, it could be insisted that they work every Sunday. It is suggested that they would get a day off. The implication is that time during the week is of equal value to time on Sunday, but everybody knows that it is the practice to pay double for Sunday work. One hour on a Sunday is equal to two hours worked during the week.
I turn now, my Lords, to the evidence of the employers, which may be referred to quite briefly. On page 44 of the Report, paragraph 158, it states that the grocers did not want the law extended as is proposed by this Bill; they merely wanted it clarified. It goes on:
"… the Federation of Grocers said that the exemptions for the sale of 'meals and refreshments' and 'newly cooked provisions' should be restated in clear terms to give effect to the original intention of the statute."
They wanted the law clarified; they did not want it extended. On the same page the meat traders said:
"… the National Federation of Meat Traders' Associations did not consider that there was any demand for this or that it was desirable."
Let us see what the fishmongers had to say. On page 43, paragraph 155 it states:
"The National Federation of Fish Fryers Limited told us that 'they had no desire to see fish and chips carried through the streets on Sunday'."
That is just what this Bill would allow. The consumers have not made any demand for this; the workers are opposed to it, and the vast majority of employers are opposed to it. I came to the conclusion that the only body that wanted it was the Institute of Shops Act Administration, the local government officers. Indeed, they have left a strong fingerprint on Clause 2 of the Bill where you have an extraordinary position. Normally it is a local authority which takes to court any alleged offenders under the Shops Acts. Under Clause 2 of this Bill it is laid down that if a trader is tried by a
1126
magistrates' court and is convicted by that court, the court shall not proceed to decide the sentence; the trader shall be referred to the local authority who brought the prosecution and they shall decide the sentence. I hope that that kind of law will never reach our Statute Book.
This Bill makes a decisive change in policy. It is clear beyond all doubt that if we remove all limitations on the sale of food for the whole of Sunday we shall encourage supermarkets to open rather than discourage them; and once the supermarkets have opened there will be a clamour for the sale of other commodities than foods to be permitted. We shall end up with the High Street being exactly the same on a Sunday afternoon as it is on a Saturday afternoon. We live in a fast-moving society in which there are great frustrations. It is a society in which there are tensions and where there is a high degree of mental illness. There is more drug-taking now than we have ever known before in our history. This is not a time when we can afford to sacrifice our day of rest; we need to keep it. If we lose that day of rest we shall make these problems all the more difficult.
Up to the present, my Lords, we have steered a middle course on the question of shop closing. We have avoided the extremes; on the one hand, the extreme to be found in Australia where in the majority of towns shops in the High Street close at 11 o'clock on Saturday morning and the High Street is dead until the following Monday morning, and on the other hand in many States in America the Sunday afternoon trading in the shopping centres is equal to that on Saturday afternoon. I have seen this at first-hand. Earlier this year I spent four successive Sundays in American shopping centres. Some of them were busier on Sunday afternoon than on Saturday afternoon because the shopkeepers had put out special offers in order to attract the customers. We have avoided those two extremes up to now; let us continue to do so.
My Lords, this Bill is only part of the story. There is also before Parliament a companion Bill, the Shops (Weekday Trading) Bill which is being debated in the other place to-morrow. That Bill seeks to remove all restrictions on closing

1127
so that anybody and everybody can open 24 hours a day if they wish. Such extreme measures as that invite extreme reactions. I believe it would be possible to alter our Shops Acts by a large measure of agreement. I am not against change. I believe that two changes are needed. First, the majority of the food shops dealt with in this Bill cannot open for all the six working days. Does it make sense to allow them to open on Sunday when they cannot open for all the six working days? I believe that any trader who sends a written declaration to the local authority saying that his workers have a five-day week but that he wishes to open for six days should immediately receive back from the local authority a notice acknowledging receipt of his declaration and authorising him to open for six days a week, so long as that notice is kept hung in his staff room. That is one change we could make which I think would be a substantial improvement.
The other change which we could make is one relating to Sunday. It is true, as the noble Lord who introduced this Bill said, that the courts have thrown great doubt on the present limitations. There is a choice of the kind of limitations that can be made. One can try, as was tried in 1950, to have limitations on the commodities that can be sold. The alternative is to have a limitation on time. I suggest that a big improvement could be made so far as Sunday is concerned if the whole range of food for consumption off the premises—and we must remember that food that is bought for consumption off the premises is largely bought for consumption in the home and not by people out enjoying themselves—were allowed to be sold up to 12 noon. That would be fair to the consumer. People would be able to buy anything they had forgotten up to 12 noon. It would be fair to the small trader, who could open until 12 o'clock and could happily close then, knowing that everybody else was closed and he would not be forced to stay open. But I suggest that the worker should have the same protection as he has now and should not be forced to work more than two Sundays in a month. Those are two changes which would be a vast improvement on our Shops' Acts. But that is not, of course, the purpose of the present Bill.
1128
Only a week ago this House was considering the Courts Bill, in particular the responsibility of the City of London for some of our courts. Nobody denied that the law was outdated; nobody denied that it was illogical; but your Lordships decided to keep the law because it maintained tradition and did no harm. I am asking your Lordships to maintain the tradition of limited trading on a Sunday, not because it does no harm but because it does a great deal of good.
7.53 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, at this late hour I will be very brief. I am afraid that I feel isolated from my noble friends on my side of the House. I feel sympathy only with one noble Lord—she is a Lady—and I cannot join in the refrain from the male noble Lords on this side, "Never on Sunday!" I welcome this Bill. I welcome it because it introduces greater flexibility into shopping hours, which I think is the way the world is going to-day. I do not share all the gloomy predictions about having High Street department stores open every Sunday. I do not know where my noble friends have seen this. There are no High Streets in New York, where I was for four years, which had most department stores oven on Sundays.
I believe that this Bill helps the consumer, the housewife, and women who work. I do not think that it will necessarily open the floodgates to the exploitation of the workers in food shops; nor do I see why it should necessarily lead to high prices. After all, shops are not compelled to stay open on a Sunday. I notice that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury seems to be slightly abashed by a little competition from the big supermarkets. I do not think he need be. After all, his stores decide when they are going to close. They close fairly early on Saturday and do not open again until Tuesday. This happens to be a hardship for many poorer people. If stores like these have the freedom to close when they like, I do not see why other shops should not have this freedom to stay open on a Sunday.
I think that things have a way of levelling themselves out. If Sunday opening really becomes a problem for shopworkers—and here I may say that I learned a great deal from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—I do not see why they should not be organised.

1129
Surely it is not beyond the wit of trade union leaders to organise them. Already in Britain there are many large department stores which open all day on Saturday. No one would have believed a year or so ago that this was possible. I think that it would be a valuable piece of research by the Consumer Council to find out whether those department stores which remain closed do in fact lose custom. I am not sure that they do. The question of consumer choice is a very peculiar thing.
LORD SAINSBURY: My Lords, may I interrupt for a moment? I do know something about retail trade. I think that we cannot convert the position in Oxford Street into the position in country towns. If you go to any country town big enough to have a department store, you will see that it opens all day on Saturday.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I was talking about department stores in London that are open on Saturdays. A year ago stores like Liberty's, Harrod's or Marshall and Snelgrove were not open on Saturday: to-day they are. I do not see why they should not open on a Saturday, if people want to shop on that day. In modern society more and more women work either whole-time or part-time. They amount to one-third of the working population in the country. My Lords, I have little more to say. I still think that Sunday opening of food shops is a boon to housewives and women who work. But I should like to underline what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, said about conditions for the people who do work, and also what was said by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, who emphasised that workers have to be protected.
7.59 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I will not detain the House for very long. This is a complicated Bill and it would not be constructive at this stage to go in detail into the considerable changes which the Bill recommends. I thought that the debate we have listened to successfully disentangled the issues of principle which lie behind the proposal from the detailed changes which are contained in the Bill. I intervene at this stage simply to give some idea of the Government's attitude towards the Bill which my noble friend Lord Derwent has
1130
introduced. I am sure that we should all like to thank my noble friend for giving the House another opportunity to debate the subject. It has come before the House on a number of previous occasions, and most recently in 1968 when the noble Lord introduced a Bill fairly similar to the one which is before us this evening.
Sunday trading is a subject which naturally arouses some controversy, although, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, has just said, not of a Party political kind. Opinions that are provoked run across the Parties, and a number of opposing views and interests are involved. So, in short, this is very much the sort of subject on which attitudes are likely to vary and change with the times. Therefore the noble Lord's Bill is welcome in that it represents a useful opportunity to gauge to what extent opinion may have changed on this matter.
My noble friend reminded us, in introducing the Bill, of the background to his proposals. He explained that the present law on Sunday trading is set out in Part IV of the Shops Act 1950. But it is the case, as he remarked, that the Shops Act 1950 reflects the wording of Statutes going back to 1936, and embodies a number of assumptions—social assumptions and religious assumptions—about the nature of Sunday which go back a great deal beyond that: indeed, I believe that the general law restricting trading on Sundays can be traced back as far as 1448. More recently, the noble Lord who was present in the chamber a little earlier, Lord Crathorne, presided over a Committee of Inquiry on the Law of Sunday Observance, which reported in 1964. The Committee examined the existing law on Sunday trading in great detail and endorsed many of the criticisms that have been made of it. These included the opinion that the law is out of date, unduly restrictive, confusing in its effect and impossible to enforce. The present law, as my noble friend Lord Derwent explained, has also been criticised in the courts.
I think it is right to say that the criticisms have been directed mainly at the provisions dealing with the sale of food and drink, and also medicines or medical or surgical appliances. Each of these has given rise to difficulties of definition

1131
and to resultant anomalies. There is no need for me at this stage to add anything to what my noble friend Lord Derwent said on this point. It is Schedule 5, paragraph 1(b) of the Shops Act 1950, dealing with the complicated question of what constitutes meals or refreshments which can be sold for consumption on or off the premises, which has given rise to most of the difficulties of interpretation.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, from his considerable experience, criticised the present position before going on to explain the reasons why he did not feel able to support the Bill. I hope I shall not be going too far from the subject of to-day's debate if I take this opportunity to say what an enormous debt thousands of shoppers up and down the country owe to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and to his family and his former associates. The retail food shops that carry his name have always set a standard of cleanliness, quality and courtesy that has been in advance of what public taste has demanded that the shopkeeper shall provide, and society has greatly benefited. I speak, I hasten to add, in an entirely personal capacity, but I did not think that a contribution to a debate of this sort by somebody who has a fair claim to be Britain's greatest grocer should go entirely unmarked.
What the Crathorne Committee recommended went rather beyond a relaxation and a clarification of the existing position set out in the Shops Act 1950. While proposing that shops generally should still be closed on Sundays, the Committee recommended also that the law should be clarified and that its exemptions should be extended. Thus, recommendations Nos. 10 to 30 of the Committee's Report represented an attempt not only to provide a clearer basis for the law on Sunday trading, but also to bring it into line with modern trading practice and to allow transactions on Sundays which are not permitted at the moment. But probably the most important of the Committee's recommendations was that the sale of all food and drink for consumption on the premises should be permitted on Sundays. The Committee also proposed that any shop dealing mainly with food and drink, if it was registered with a local authority, should be able to sell all the articles in its stock; and this recommendation was to take account of the
1132
increase in mixed businesses in different types of commodities and the emergence of food shops dealing with different types of food.
The Crathorne Committee's other recommendations would have removed a good number of other anomalies, including many of the difficulties referred to by my noble friend Lord Derwent. At the same time, the Committee recommended that the existing safeguards for shop workers should be retained. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, with some support from the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester, spoke about the importance of maintaining safeguards for people who work in shops, and was arguing that the days off which the shop-worker took should include a large number of Sundays or be entirely Sundays.
I do not want at this stage to be drawn into a discussion on the Consumer Council's recommendations. If the Council wish to let the Government know what they have in mind, we shall of course welcome any information that they care to put to us, but I should point out that the context in which the Consumer Council made their proposals was a different one from that contained in the present Bill. It was in the context of proposals which would remove completely all controls on Sunday trading, whereas Lord Derwent's Bill maintains a number of controls on Sunday trading. The most important of these controls is that food and drink shops would not be permitted to sell other articles in their stock. The Bill also departs from Crathorne in the sense that it would retain some control over what can be sold in chemists' shops. Your Lordships will forgive me if I do not deal with all the items which, under the Bill, shopkeepers will be permitted to sell on Sundays. A lot can be said for and against the inclusion of any particular items, and the method that my noble friend has proposed of setting out in a Schedule the permitted transactions seems to us necessarily to be the best way of proceeding.
The opposition to the Bill has been mainly on the lines that an extension of the type envisaged by the Report would lead to a substantial increase in Sunday trading. This was argued by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and by other speakers. Another line of criticism which developed in the debate was about

1133
the position of the people who work in the shops, both from the point of view of the hours worked and time off. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Leicester referred to the fact that some rather young, impressionable people might drift along into something without particularly wanting to work on Sundays. They might find themselves in that situation without having the ability to resist it. We have heard those arguments developed very strongly this afternoon.
It will not surprise any noble Lord to learn that the Government are in principle in favour of a clearer and more rational system of law, or that they are in favour of wider consumer choice. We are not at present convinced in the particular case of Sundays that these considerations should outweigh all others. The Bill raises a number of conflicting issues, and the Government are not yet ready to take a view on their relative importance. Thus, while welcoming Lord Derwent's initiative in introducing this Bill, the position of the Government at this stage must be one of neutrality.
If the Bill obtains a Second Reading, we shall follow with considerable interest its progress, and pay close attention to the reactions to the Bill, both inside and outside Parliament. So it follows from what I have said that the Government certainly would not wish to obstruct this Bill in any way whatever, but nor can I offer anything in the way of drafting assistance, or Government Amendments, if the Bill receives a Second Reading. We are aware of the noble Lord's interest in this matter; we are grateful to him for bringing this Bill before Parliament again, and we believe this to be a most useful way of providing an opportunity to test opinion once more, both in this House and outside.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as this Bill is based on three years' study by a Departmental Committee set up by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Saffron Walden, and largely follows a Bill of 1968 which was passed by this House, are not Her Majesty's Government now urging this House at least to give this Bill a Second Reading?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think it would be for me to do that.
1134
The other day the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, made some very interesting and profound remarks about the position that the Government should take on Private Members' Bills. He urged the Government not to leap in at the beginning of debates; not to say, "We must take this position" or, "We must take that position". He reminded us once again that the essence of a Private Member's Bill is that the Private Member should be able to deploy his argument; that other noble Lords should be enabled to say what they wished to say, and that it would probably be helpful for the Government to say how they saw things at some stage in the debate. That is exactly what we are doing to-day. I think it is the position adopted by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, in her remarks from the Opposition Front Bench. That seems to me an admirable position: the Government situation is one of neutrality, and I think that is the position of the official Opposition spokesman as well.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, speaking about Bills on which the Government had themselves called for advice from their own Departmental Committee?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not think that alters the situation. I have been thinking about this in the past few weeks and the important point is that it is a subject on which public opinion is extremely relevant. It is necessary to gauge public opinion, which shifts. There are various interests; the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, referred to some, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, who referred to trade union interests. At the same time, there is a consumer interest; there are various other bodies which are in favour of greater relaxation. These are all legitimate. It was 2½ years ago that the previous Bill was introduced, and it was a good long time before that that the Crathorne Committee reported. It was six years ago. Opinion changes and it is useful to gauge it from time to time.
8.15 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I will not keep your Lordships more than a few minutes, but I must answer some questions. May I thank those who have, in principle, supported the Bill, particularly

1135
the noble Baronesses? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, that we might have had a little more help from the Government. I quite see why the Government are neutral. I agree that that should be so on a Private Member's Bill, but we might have had more help as regards their thinking. In 1968, when noble Lords now sitting opposite were over here, the then Government were also neutral, but they gave the House their views. That was of considerable help in the first stages of that Bill—and it was not such a good Bill as this one. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, to the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, and the right reverend Prelate, that I listened to what they said about Clause 4. I will have another look at it, if the Bill gets a Second Reading (as I hope it will), and perhaps they will have a shot at drafting some Amendments. I thought that the arguments they put forward were sound ones.
I cannot answer every question because the hour is getting late, but may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hamnett, I did not understand his argument at all about the increase of prices. He said that shops would be forced to be open on Sundays; that it would be very expensive and they would not make a profit unless they put up their prices. That may be true, but surely the contrary argument also applies. The shop that does not open on Sundays need not charge as much in the rest of the week, and in that way it will get more business. One would think one was forcing shops to be open when they were not going to make a profit. But of course no one is going to be forced to be open. So I do not think that is a valid argument.
The noble Lord, Lord Ardwick, and my noble friend Lord Ingleby asked, in different terms, why there was a demand for additional shopping. There was as far back as 1964 a demand, and the Committee definitely found that point. People move about more; they are apt to need food for moving about; or they diet. More women work full-time, and therefore they like to do some of their shopping on a Sunday. There is a public demand, and although we have heard a great deal about the shop-worker I agree with what has been said about the public demand. So far as I know, the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, was the only person who mentioned the consumer. And the public are to be considered in
1136
this matter: there is a demand. Where there is not a demand, these shops will not open. In those circumstances, a shopkeeper would be mad to open.
Various noble Lords who were opposed to the Bill, including the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, stated categorically, and in strong terms, that this would cause all the supermarkets to open all over the place and thereby force the other smaller shops to open. My Lords, it is the smaller shops that open now, and not the bigger ones. What happens in France and on the Continent of Europe? The small shops open when they want to, and when there is enough business, but the big shops do not. Why should it be different here? The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, more or less killed his own argument because he said that it was very expensive to open on a Sunday. In that case, he would not open, so do not let us pretend that he would. These arguments do not seem to me to be very satisfactory.
If my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu puts down an Amendment, I shall be most interested to look at it. It seems to me that it might well be sensible. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, made a great many points, but I do not think I can answer them all now. He kept on quoting the Grocers' Federation, the Butchers' Federation, and so on. I quite understand that. But, of course, they do not represent the whole of the trade that sells their products. Before the Second World War a grocer was a grocer, a butcher was a butcher and a fishmonger was a fishmonger. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that nowadays a fishmonger often sells vegetables; a butcher very often sells groceries of various kinds; grocers sell tinned meat and frozen meat. Except as regards membership of a federation, the actual separation as between different kinds of shops is not clear nowadays.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, the butcher who sells vegetables and other goods is still a member of the Meat Traders' Association.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, some butchers are; some are not. But a grocer who sells meat is not a member of that Association.
There is one point that I would bring to the notice of your Lordships. Many

1137
Sunday shopworkers work at other jobs during the week, and they work on Sunday in a shop because the pay is good, they like the company concerned, and for a variety of reasons. Some Sunday workers work only on Sundays. But I really do not believe that, with things as they are, it will be possible, now or in the future, to coerce people to work on Sundays if they do not want to do so, or that they will be sent away from their weekday job because they will not work on Sunday. I just do not believe a word of it.
I quite appreciate that if your Lordships give this Bill a Second Reading, as I hope you will, there may be a good many points that you will wish to alter on Committee. I think that the clause which probably needs altering is Clause 4. But, having said that, I close by expressing the hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.22 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
THE DEPUTY SPEAKER (LORD JESSEL): My Lords, Tellers for the Not-Contents have not been appointed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 48. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the Contents have it.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

RURAL COMMUNICATIONS
8.32 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the growing concern in the decline of services in rural communications. The noble Earl said: My Lords, following that exciting result on the Second Reading of my noble friend's Bill on Sunday trading, I should like now to raise a different issue which has in fact been on the Order Paper no fewer than five times. The issue I should like to raise is the serious subject of the decline over the last ten years of the country's rural public transport services and communications. I mention that this Question has been on and off the Order Paper since before the last Election only to explain my determination to persevere to-night. It is, as I have already said,
1138
an important issue, and I have every confidence in my noble friend Lord Sandford to deal with it, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, with encouragement and with a clear guidance as to the plans the Government have to ensure that those who live in rural areas, those who work in rural areas and those who rely on rural communications can look forward to a better to-morrow. Perhaps I could add at this stage that, despite the lateness of the hour, I personally very much regret that the Opposition Front Bench appear to regard rural communication with such a singular lack of interest that they are unable to field even a twelfth man to give their views on this subject.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will realise that there is at least a thirteenth mart.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, perhaps I was being unkind; maybe they have not quite the stamina of those on this side of the House. May I say immediately how glad I am for the support of other speakers, and I am sure everyone looks forward to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, on this subject. My purpose is to demonstrate what I believe to be now an unacceptable decline in the standard of rural communications. I hope by the end of the debate my noble friend will be convinced, as I am and I think many others are, that there is now an urgent need for Her Majesty's Government to review this whole subject.
When we take the past ten years and examine what has happened in general terms of rural communication—and here I include both public transport and the Post Office services—we find, I suggest, that there are five major points to consider. The first is that all Governments over the past ten years have agreed that rural communication should be protected by an adequate standard of services and that a policy against depopulation of the rural areas should be actively pursued for the good of the country. My second point is that public transport in rural areas is in a state of transition, where more and more people have their own cars, which makes the rural transport services perhaps that much more uneconomic. My third point is that British Rail have reduced their services in rural

1139
areas by the closure of branch lines by some 85 per cent. of their services, closing over 2,200 passenger stations and leaving some 15 million people living in rural areas without accessible rail services. I should like the information that I have gathered to be confirmed, if possible, by my noble friend, and if he could give us the trend—and the future trend—of the rail closures I should be much obliged.
My fourth point is that the rural bus services, including those which were introduced as an alternative service following the rail closures, are being withdrawn or their frequency of service drastically cut, to the great concern of users and such responsible bodies as the Rural District Councils Association and the Parish Councils Association. I have no specific figures on these withdrawals but perhaps again my noble friend could give us some information on this subject. My final point is that the sub-post offices or the village post offices are gradually being withdrawn. My figures here—and I draw them from the Post Office Half-Year Report, the first half-year of their operations—shows that some 150 sub-post offices have been closed in the last six months.
All in all, I believe that the rural dweller to-day faces a gloomy future if the present trend of decline is allowed to continue. No rail services, decreasing bus services and fewer and fewer post offices in villages, all, I suggest, amount to a decline in the standards of rural communications. It is, I know, all too easy to criticise from the Back-Benches the standard of rural services when for the Front Bench the issue is largely one of finance. One appreciates that it is the duty of any Government to weigh up both the standards of service that are necessary, against, to some extent, the cost of central grant for running those services. Most of us know that at the present time the Government are actively concerned with grants under Section 34 of the Transport Act 1968. Those grants enable the cost of rural services to be shared by both central and local government. The purpose of my drawing attention to the rural services does not involve the grant system as to whether or not it is working satisfactorily—although I hope that when my noble friend replies he
1140
will be able to give us some information as to the co-operation between central and local government in regard to the grants.
My Lords, the purpose of my question is really to draw attention to the many areas which are now suffering, and also to the fact that no adequate machinery appears to be available, either to protect the users' interests or to advise the Government of the current standard of service. It is not difficult to discover numerous examples of rural areas where public transport services are grossly inadequate, particularly, of course, the more thinly populated areas, such as Scotland, Wales, Devon, Cornwall and Dorset, to name but a few, and I am sure my noble friends who are to take part in this short debate will produce a number of other examples.
Perhaps I may be permitted to quote two short examples that have come to me. The first came from a clerk of a council in Pembrokeshire and it emphasises the effect that a rail closure has had on passenger and freight services. He says:
"For a considerable period of time my Council and other Councils in the Pembroke County have made numerous representations to the Ministry of Transport, British Railways, the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of the retention and improvement of railway services in the area. The policies of British Rail have resulted in the fact that inadequate facilities exist at various railway stations throughout the area and because of reductions in services the community have become dependent upon other forms of public transport.
In the Narberth area two Bus Companies operate … It is considered by my Council that services operating in the south of the district area and coming into the town of Narberth are inadequate to meet the requirements of the public, whilst in the north of the area, no such public transport facilities exist and people are solely dependent upon the use of private motor cars."
The second example I should like to quote is a case from Honiton in Devon, and again from a member of a local council. He says that in the last few years there are a number of villages in that area which have lost their school, their policeman, their pub, their post office, their local railway service, and now have only a very indifferent bus service as communication. I think this example clearly emphasises the consequences of the decline of rural communications and the damaging effect it has on the community.

1141
May I now turn to the present machinery of consultation between the user, the operator and the Government when bus services or rail services are being either withdrawn or reduced? I believe it is this that the Government should reconsider and indeed strengthen. These closures, one may add, are continuing still at a great pace, and the situation is not helped by the very temporary grants, often for only two or three years, that are given for the so-called unremunerative service. There is a system by which the T.U.C.C. call a public inquiry and report to the Minister, and they report on the fairly narrow issue of the local hardship that will be caused to the users. For a number of years this body in their annual report have stated that they feel that their existing powers are so narrowly drawn that their value as an effective body is very limited. Nevertheless, the procedure for a closure allows users to voice their opinion. This privilege is not extended to bus services, nor for that matter to air services. Both of these services can be withdrawn at fairly short notice should the operator wish, with no public inquiry and with no reference to the Minister.
The system of withdrawal of bus services was, I believe, particularly aggravated by a total change of policy by the last Administration to those services which were operated and treated as an alternative service following the rail closure. In 1965 the previous Government's policy for alternative bus services following a rail closure was summarised by a Statement on May 13, 1965 which said:
"The additional and revised bus services are a condition of the closure being effected. If, for any reason—for example, operators being unable or unwilling to provide them, or the traffic commissioners not licensing them—they are not provided, the closure cannot take place, unless or until my right hon. Friend varies the conditions. Let that be perfectly plain. The conditions are laid down and they must be satisfied according to these terms."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 13/5/65, col. 871.]
In 1969 this clear undertaking and policy was reversed, when it was announced that the bus operators could withdraw their alternative services without reference to the Minister so long as that service had operated for at least two years. Why the magic period of two years was put in has never been properly explained.
1142
If my noble friend accepts that the Government have a responsibility to see that the rural areas have adequate services and communications, I would suggest to him that one of the ways to secure this would be to amalgamate the present T.U.C.C.—the Transport Users' Consultative Committee—and the Traffic Commissioners into one body, as is being done in the civil air transport field, and to give this body adequate powers to act as a protector for the retention of adequate standards of service for rural communities.
May I now turn briefly to the withdrawal of post offices in rural areas? I should be grateful if my noble friend could advise us as to the intentions and policy of the Post Office towards the future of the rural post offices. And would he also inform us how the Government themselves view the need for the continuation of village post offices in the interests of village life? I was particularly disturbed in one case of a recent closure of a country post office in Aberdeenshire: this was in the small village of Auchmacoy. Before it closed earlier this year, this post office had a gross turnover of over £10,000, and when it was announced that the Post Office were to withdraw the service and close the post office there was a united objection from practically all the residents. Yet the Post Office shut down this post office on the ground that there was not sufficient business turnover, and not, as I should have expected, on the ground of social interest; nor, surprisingly, on the ground that they were not able to find a new postmaster. I should like my noble friend who is to reply to comment particularly on the criteria that the Post Office will use when closing down country post offices.
As my noble friend will be aware, the Jack Committee examined rural bus services, and reviewed the standard of services in 1959. In their Report the Committee made a number of conclusions and recommendations. Perhaps I may quote four of them—they are all fairly short. The first was that:
"The rural bus problem is the product of a number of factors, the chief of which is the increase in private transport."
The second was:
"Some rural bus services must therefore be regarded as inadequate "—

1143
this followed on from the information they had disclosed. The third point was that:
"Steps should be taken forthwith to improve these services and to ensure the continuity of other services so long as these may be required."
Then the fourth point was:
"The cost of financial assistance should fall partly on the Exchequer and partly on the County Councils."
My Lords, I feel that all these points are very relevant to-day, and if the Jack Committee were sitting at the moment I believe they would find a considerable further decline in the standards of services since ten years ago. I hope that when my noble friend replies he will be able to say what steps the Government intend to take to review the situation of the decline of rural communications.
Finally, may I say, as I shall not have a chance later, how much I look forward to listening to my noble friend Lady Berkeley, and how pleased I am that she should have chosen the subject of this short debate to break the veils of silence to make her maiden speech.
8.50 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for initiating the debate on this Unstarred Question because, as he well knows, I live in a part of the world, in the Highlands of Scotland, where the deterioration in public transport is painfully obvious and is getting steadily worse. There are a good many reasons for this, but I will not go into them at any length because I have said all this before in numerous other debates that we have had dealing with the Highlands, and particularly with roads, transport and railways.
When the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, started what I considered to be this wholesale destruction of the railways we were at least promised an efficient alternative form of transport. I know of no case where the transport provided has been anything like efficient, and in many cases in my own part of the world the local transport has ceased to exist altogether. Again there are many reasons for this. Local contractors cannot afford it, as my noble friend said, because of the widespread use of the motor car. But a number of people who live in far-flung
1144
places have no car. There are also old people who travel. There are people with children, and with luggage, who find it difficult when they come off a train, if they are coming from the South with luggage, even to find where the bus starts from. It is supposed to connect with the train, but it does not. I could go on at some length about this matter, but time is short.
However, I should like my noble friend the Minister to ask his right honourable friend to think most carefully before we lose another railway—I refer of course to the West Coast line, from Inverness to Kyle, the only railway we have in the North, which connects the East Coast with Kyle and Skye. The reason for this suggested loss sounds wonderful. It is that we now have a bypass—an unheard of thing in my part of the world. The new bypass, by the side of Loch Carron, avoids using the old ferry. But I hasten to add that this bypass is only 11 ft. in width and has a single track with passing places. And not only that: it has steep gradients. The bypass was opened only a few months ago, and already it has been closed for a considerable time by land falls. These, I may say, will continue: I know that part of the world. There you get frost and heavy rains, and land falls will be a typical hazard in bad weather periods. There is another hazard. Every year we get an increasing number of caravans going over these roads. Can your Lordships imagine a caravan, probably heavy, hauled by a car without sufficient horsepower, and getting stuck? Can your Lordships imagine half a dozen of them together? There is another reason for opposing the closure of the Inverness-Kyle line. It would mean that we should have no route whatever in the whole of the North of Scotland down the South-West of Ross and Skye.
One may use the argument that the line does not pay. I have always been most suspicious of any accounts produced by British Railways. I admit that I do not understand accounts—I am not very good at them. But such extraordinary figures have been produced by British Railways on occasion, and then, for some other reason, they will produce other figures that contradict the first lot. I am perfectly certain that this railway, if properly run, could be a wonderful tourist attraction.

1145
The line to which I refer is probably one of the most beautiful scenic railways in Scotland. Up to a few years ago we had an observation car on the train, which started from Inverness, came round to Dingwall and right through to Kyle. It was absolutely packed with people. People waited for it but could not get on it. This happened right through she summer months. The observation car was an old car, dating back, I suppose, to somewhere about the end of Queen Victoria's reign. The railway authorities thought it was getting a bit dangerous, so they took it off; whereupon they lost considerable income. Yet they have never thought of replacing it. Surely, at least in the summer months, three or four such coaches would Pack that train with passengers; and the rest of the train could be used for freight.
British Railways are adopting a shortsighted policy. I have a great suspicion that this line is desperately neglected. There are various ways in which we could make this railway pay. One reason for the neglect is that it is run from London. I know that there is what is called a Scottish Region, which has its headquarters in Glasgow; but I also happen to know that its orders come from Euston Station. That is quite wrong. This is most important, and I hope that the Minister will consider suggesting to British Rail (I know that they are a national Corporation) that if they cannot run this line they should give it to somebody who can. The people who know this railway best are those who work on it; and I know most of them. I will not say more on this most important matter, except that I think it would be a terrible mistake, from the point of view of those who live there, to close this line; and also a very great mistake from the point of view of the tourist industry.
My Lords, the only other suggestion I have concerns places where there are no railways—and that means the majority of places. I suggest that we go back to the old system whereby the Post Office ran a vehicle which carried goods and passengers, as well as mail. They were serving a useful purpose, but they seem to have given up that sort of thing. It was always done 30 or 40 years ago all over the West Coast, and I cannot see why it should not be done again. I will not say any more, because the hour is
1146
late. But I would ask the Minister to have a jolly good look at the preservation of our last line to the West Highlands.
8.56 p.m.
BARONESS BERKELEY: My Lords, it is with very great diffidence that I rise to address your Lordships this evening, as I am not accustomed to making speeches at all. Therefore I would crave your indulgence for my shortcomings, but I will not detain you for long. First, may I say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for initiating this debate. I wish to speak on rural bus services, as the unsatisfactory nature of these is causing grave concern to country dwellers. This form of transport is more necessary than ever, now that so many local cross-country rail services have ceased and stations are closed in many parts of the country. I know that there are other aspects, such as that of workers travelling to work by bus; but in many cases they have their own cars, and some factories run private coaches to collect their employees. Some even bicycle to work. So many are not dependent on a bus service.
But I wish to put the point of view of two types of the community who depend on buses; namely, the village housewife and the elderly—not so much the very old and frail, who are well looked after by relatives or by kindly neighbours who have cars. These, too, if in need, can call on the Social Services for home helps or meals-on-wheels—that splendid service which solves many problems for the aged. But I have in mind the elderly who are able to get about and who wish to be independent, and quite rightly so, but who are not able to walk long distances. If they live in the country they must be able to get to the nearest post office to collect their pensions, and to the shops, and to visit friends and relations and possibly those in hospital. Some companies run extra buses on hospital visiting afternoons. In many towns, too, there are clubs for the elderly, for recreation and companionship, run by voluntary organisations. All these would be impossible for the elderly to attend without public transport.
Then there is the village housewife. Her husband may own a car but will probably have gone to work in it. She will be stranded without a bus service.

1147
If she has small children she may have to take them to the doctor or to the welfare clinic at the nearest centre, unless there happens to be a mobile clinic which visits her village. She may have old parents at a distance, to visit and to look after. Above all, the housewife must be able to reach the nearest town or city to shop in order to feed and clothe her family. My Lords, delivery of goods by shops, with a few exceptions such as of dairy produce, is a service which, alas! has almost vanished during these last few years. So the housewife has to carry all her purchases, which places a very heavy burden on her, and transport becomes more necessary than ever.
I have no car, and have used the local bus service for about twenty years, so I understand and share the feelings of dismay of other travellers when there is talk of the number of buses being cut on a certain route. Or, worse still, the removal of an entire service, as this would cause real hardship and distress to those who use it. In the area where I live there used to be quite a good and fairly reliable bus service. Since last spring conditions have greatly deteriorated—the buses run at longer intervals and are far less reliable. At times a bus may not run at all, and without any notice. Passengers are stranded by the roadside, sometimes in pouring rain without any shelter, waiting in the hope that the next bus due will not fail to run. I am told that this occurs also in many other parts of the country.
Despite increases in fares—and these have risen considerably lately—the companies appear to have difficulty in maintaining enough staff to run the buses efficiently, partly due, I believe, to provisions in the recent Transport Act 1968. In order to keep down costs, would the answer be much smaller buses for rural areas staffed by only one person? Or could we follow the example of the Swiss, with their excellent post-bus service. I was unaware that this had ever run on the West Coast of Scotland. I know that it runs in various parts of the Continent. This combines delivery of mails with passenger service. Has this been considered? It might prove more economical and suitable for sparsely populated areas, where passengers are few.
My Lords, I hope that Her Majesty's Government realise how essential good
1148
and dependable transport services are to the rural community, and that they will treat this as a matter of great urgency. If nothing is done soon, the situation will worsen and break down altogether. So may I beg Her Majesty's Minister to do his utmost to see what remedy can be found to put rural transport on a sound and firm basis, and so keep the buses moving; moving down the winding roads and up the broad highways.
9.3 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I have a very pleasant duty to perform in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, on a very warm and sensible maiden speech. My noble friend Lord Grenfell had to wait for thirty years to perform a similar honour, but I have had to wait barely three. I congratulate the noble Baroness, who, as I say, has made a very warm and sincere speech on rural transport. The next person I must congratulate is my noble friend Lord Kinnoull, who has brought forward this subject. I consider this to be equally as important a subject as, if not more important than, pollution, as it affects the dereliction of the rural areas and their ways of communication. I am pleased to see that although at the beginning of the discussion on this short Unstarred Question there was only the one noble Baroness, there are now five members of the Opposition, which is a welcome improvement.
I will now come quickly to the present situation, in order not to keep your Lordships waiting. Many villages are now being cut off and licences are being surrendered. Furthermore, through staff shortages, buses simply are not turning up, which means that many people in the country going to work or shopping, and especially going to work, have to wait and look along the road for the bus to arrive, and no bus arrives. I put that forward merely as an introduction. That is what has happened, and it has produced general frustration for people living in country areas.
My noble friend has extended this debate from rural transport to post offices, and I want to make a short comment on that subject which has not been made yet. It is a subject I know little about, but I am sure a very important one. If country post offices are closed, I the shops will go too, because it is only

1149
the salaries which the Post Office provides for the small post offices in the country which have enabled those places to carry on. I know that there are general buying groups, and grocery groups, which help to alleviate the position in remote rural areas, but eventually there will be nobody to buy anything at all. I am glad the noble Lord opposite is agreeing with me.
Now I go to another question, and that is, what should we do? I am going to ask my noble friend Lord Sandford what the situation is regarding fuel tax, but I gather the tax on stage services is now 2s. 6d. If it were taken away altogether, it would mean a relief of 2½d. per passenger mile, and that would mean a very great deal to the rural transport industry. The National Bus Company, which has grown up in the last thirty years, has done an excellent job, which one would not like to see taken away from the rural areas, but I am afraid the time has now come when perhaps it would be opportune for the services to go back to independents. I do not say that because I am speaking from this side of the House, but because small, independent corn-panics can run more cheaply; therefore it would be much better.
That brings me to the subject of rural bus grants. I must congratulate the Labour Government for the part the Transport Act 1968 has played. I was in hot disagreement about drivers' hours, a matter about which I shall say a little later, but the Transport Act gave grants for rural bus services. Unfortunately we had to wait a very long time for an explanatory memorandum from the honourable member the Minister of Transport, Mr. Fred Mulley, but it finally came. Here I must congratulate the County of Devonshire, who appointed an information officer, or the equivalent, to deal with the problem. They were far ahead of anyone else in the country in trying to reach a solution in this field. Rural bus grants are a necessary evil. We do not like to have grants, but even if the National Bus Company were relieved by independents of some of its services, which I believe it wants to be, grants would still be necessary.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister about season tickets, because they might afford a solution. I have talked oil this matter to one or two people
1150
in authority and they feel that it is a road which they might follow. If a village could produce a sufficient number of people and a certain amount of money to supply a viable, service, people could buy monthly, quarterly or, preferably, yearly season tickets. Probably most people could afford only monthly or quarterly tickets. But a bus service would then be able to run and could make a profit on any chance trade which came along, and that money could help keep down the cost of the season tickets in the following year—always provided that we did not get too much inflation, which I very much doubt.
My noble friend Lady Berkeley, in her excellent maiden speech, mentioned minibuses. I agree with her only partly here, because independent operators generally like a vehicle in which to take out parties in the evening. However, there are one or two companies in various parts of the country which run mini-buses, especially in the thinly-populated areas of Scotland and Wales. In practically every county in England there are thinly-populated areas. In Surrey, Suffolk and Essex there are thinly-populated areas which have to be served, just as much as the desert areas of mid-Wales and parts of Scotland.
I am going to wind up this rather incoherent speech by saying that I hope that this Government in the next five years will solve the problem of drivers' hours. I was hotly against the Transport Act 1968, which cut drivers' hours. It was done in the best interests of the Party opposite, who thought it was the best way of keeping down accidents, but there is no evidence whatsoever that driving for long hours causes accidents. Indeed, it has been proved that one becomes safer after the first four hours' driving. I did an experiment in the Summer Recess of 1968 which I have mentioned previously. I should like the Government to look at this problem.
During the Second Reading of the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill, we heard a good deal about people working weekends. Weekend work is very unpleasant, but one sometimes has to do it for the good of the community. Sunday early turn on the buses was not too bad, because there were the Sunday papers and the crosswords and one was going to be off by lunch time; but the late turn was perfectly hideous, because the whole day

1151
was absolutely ruined. One realised that instead of going for a walk or seeing a friend one had to have a sandwich, walk down to the end of the road, get into the bus and chug it away, perhaps for only a few sweet old ladies. There were very few people about and it was a perfectly miserable day. One does not wish that on anybody. But I hope that in the next five years, by some means or other, perhaps by some method of payment, the Government will solve the problem of shift work, which disrupts family life. If shift work did not do that, I might still be driving a bus now. Once again, I thank the noble Earl for raising this most important Question.
9.12 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive me for intervening. I am grateful to the noble Earl for raising this issue, but I make profound apologies for not being here at the beginning. As a countryman who for many years lived in the wilds of Wales, and for thirty or more years has lived in the most rural parts of Staffordshire, I am grateful for this opportunity to trespass on your Lordships' hospitality and kindness for two minutes in order to say something about this subject.
I had the privilege of knowing my late right honourable friend Stephen Swingler, who was Minister of State for Transport and did a magnificent job of work on this issue. I nodded my head in agreement with practically everything which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said about transport in rural areas. It was Kipling who uttered the axiom that transport is civilisation. One of the most steadying influences on this country's phrenetic life to-day, the steadiness which is necessary for a balanced view of life, comes very often from the countryman in the remotest parts of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
I wish people would realise that in the rural areas to-day probably nine people out of every ten still cannot afford, and in some cases would not want to afford, the luxury of a motor car. When you have a county hospital some 30-odd miles away and the old gentleman or the old lady cannot visit their life partner after years of helping to build the countryside because there is no country bus, but must depend on the local vicar or somebody
1152
who has a car for their kindness in transport, you realise that the time has come to look at rural transport. I shall not trespass on your Lordships' time to make a lengthy and deep argument, but I sincerely hope that, wherever the authority may be, and whatever Government are in power, this little debate to-night is given the attention of which it is really worthy, inasmuch as there is still a fundamental necessity to get cheap and good transport between rural areas and the focal points of our cities.
I do not want to go into the economics of this question. The aridity of the economists sometimes breaks my heart, but there are more things in life than economics. It is the joy of living and the radiance of the human being which matters. This our country folks are sometimes missing in the very simple way that even to get to market once a week is often more difficult than the city dweller believes. Therefore, though I may not have listened to what must have been constructive, cogent and pungent arguments about this, may I add my voice in support of this little debate that has taken place to-night?
9.16 p.m.
LORD DE CLIFFORD: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes. The noble Lord who has just sat down has really said, basically, what I wanted to say. Sitting here in your Lordships' House it is very difficult to realise that, stuck out in the middle of nowhere on a dark night, there are people who have literally no means of transport other than their legs or the kindness and goodness of heart of their neighbours. They are dependent on one bus a week to be able to do their shopping. If they want to go to visit anybody in hospital, they may have to walk anything from three to five miles to get a bus to take them to a hospital 17 miles away, and then walk the same distance back to their homes. The only alternative is to get a kindly neighbour to take them to the bus and fetch them back, or to get a taxi—and the expense of that is quite beyond some elderly people living in these country districts at the moment.
Due to economies which have been going on, the state of the rural roads is now getting appalling. In areas where I live grass is growing up in the middle of the roads; ditches are cleaned out only

1153
once a year; and verges encroach on the roads. These verges are not cut back, and this makes it practically impossible for any bus of a normal size to get down the road. In any event, I am not of the opinion that in these country districts what is required is a 35-seater bus. I am very much with the noble Baroness when she says that what is required is a minibus. I am also of the opinion—and I trust that this point will be considered—that the people who run these minibuses should not be the bus companies situated in Birmingham, Nottingham and similar places. I believe that power should be given to some local person in the centre of the rural district to organise these minibuses to connect with the main bus services.
We need to work from within the rural districts to the outside, and not have the outside coming in; because if you do that the chap who is coming in on a snowy day says, "To hell with this! I am not going down that hill to collect the poor vicar who is waiting to go to see his wife in Kidderminster: I am off home. The road is dangerous". Who is to say that it is not, except the poor vicar who is standing at the bottom and can see cars going up and down? It is entirely a matter for the rural life of the country to be allowed to organise itself. The present Government are all for making people organise themselves. There are people within country districts who, I am convinced, given the opportunity, would run a very reasonable bus service to connect up with the main bus services. All I can hope is that this question of mini-buses will be given very serious consideration.
The Question deals with rural communications, but as the hour is late I will not go on to the second point which I think comes under communications, the subject of telephones. But certainly it is my view that the telephones in rural districts of this country are an appalling disgrace. There is barely a house in the area in which I live where the nearest public telephone is not at least a mile and a half away. On rainy, dark, snowy nights how can one expect some poor, unhappy, elderly pensioner to leave her home and walk a mile and a half to telephone? Or she may have to go half a mile over dirty fields to a farmer's
1154
house to do so. I feel very strongly for these elderly pensioners, and people in the country generally, on the subject of telephones. They should be enabled to have telephones to call for help if necessary. They are people; they need help. If you drive down a motorway you may see every few yards a sign "S.O.S. Telephone". We put out hundreds of telephones to save the motor car; but not for people, not for the elderly person who needs an S.O.S. telephone—a telephone which could be treated solely as an S.O.S. telephone. I think that the telephone is a vital part of the communication. Communications are between people; so that people in trouble can call for help to other people. I think it needs a great deal of consideration. My Lords, I apologise for going on for so long at this hour; but I feel that this is a matter which needs far more consideration and far more debate than we are able to give it at this hour and at short notice.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE; My Lords, may I intervene for one moment? I should not like this debate to pass without a word of very warm congratulation from this Bench to the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, on her maiden speech. She spoke with such deep, personal knowledge of local problems, and with such tremendous clarity; and above all—and this is what pleased the House—she spoke with such deep sincerity that I hope she will not keep us waiting for quite so long before she speaks again. We shall all look forward to hearing her more often.
9.23 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, from this position on her maiden speech. She said that she was not in the habit of making speeches; one would not have guessed that. I hope that she will now get into the habit of making speeches and that we shall hear her many times again from to-day onwards. May I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Kinnoull on his stamina and persistence. If there were a tendency to allow this subject to become a Cinderella—which there is not—his persistence and advocacy on rural communications would ensure that this did not happen. We have not spent a lot of time—at least, with the exception of

1155
my noble friend Lord Cromartie, to whose points I will come later—talking about railway closures; but Lord Kinnoull asked me some specific questions.
In answer to those, I can say that since the effect of Lord Beeching's plan came into operation in 1964 there have been 85 railway closures in rural areas out of a total of 315 over the country at large. Set against that, in 1970 there were 235 rural services being grant-aided, of which 150 were serving rural areas, at a cost to the Exchequer of £30 million. On the particular case of the Kyle line raised by my noble friend Lord Cromartie, all I can say is that I hope that his eloquence will be deployed at the inquiry which, I believe, is yet to be held into the closure itself. As the subject is a matter of inquiry, he will understand if I do not comment on it further now.
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull asked a question about the possibilities of extending the role of the transport users' consultative committees. Their statutory role is a fairly narrow one, and legislation would be needed to extend it. But that is not to say that it might not sometimes be a considerable help in particular areas if those people who serve on transport users consultative committees were to bring their special knowledge and experience to bear in a private capacity, or in a collective private capacity, in making representations about local road transport needs to the Traffic Commissioners. I hope that the suggestion my noble friend has made will commend itself in appropriate places, but I cannot give any promises to him about legislative action to give statutory power to what he was proposing.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked me about fuel tax. All I can say is that that is primarily a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in due course. On the other hand, there was considerable interest regarding rural buses and bus services, and I will deal with them at rather greater length. The fact of the matter is, as we all know, that the rural bus services are supported by profits made on the urban routes; but the urban profits are being eroded and have been in many cases, by mounting costs and the continued loss of passengers. The bus companies are in the situation where they
1156
must find alternative sources of revenue to finance these rural services. The National Bus Company in particular ran many of the rural services. It has a statutory duty to break even financially, and therefore the subsidiary companies have approached the local authorities about the services which they propose to withdraw unless assistance can be given.
The local authorities have power to assist operators in providing rural bus services. The Secretary of State reimburses them to the extent of 50 per cent. of their expenditure on grants for this purpose. The remainder of their expenditure qualifies for rate support grant in the usual way. The local authorities can give assistance to many buses—a number of noble Lords were interested in this—and cars and taxis, or vehicles designed to carry passengers and goods, as well as buses, depending on where the best value for money lies.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, I can say that over 50 services are now being assisted with grants, and many others are under consideration, particularly in view of the National Bus Company's need to withdraw its most uneconomic rural services unless they are grant-aided. Services in the South-West, especially in Devon and Dorset—the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, mentioned this—are receiving support; and in parts of the North as well, such as those in the North Riding. In addition to this we have set up two pilot studies in Devon and West Suffolk, because we believe that it is necessary to take a new and urgent look at the problems facing people in the rural areas—this debate will have helped to focus attention on that point—to learn more about the diverse transport needs of people in rural areas such as those which have been mentioned.
For example, we shall be able, through the studies, to see what scope there really is for fare-paying passengers being carried on school buses, for locally organised car pooling arrangements and for other local services. The proposal made by Lord Teviot about season tickets could be tested and considered. The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, suggested that postal mini-buses could be an answer. They are certainly one of the number of possibilities we are looking into. Four

1157
mini-bus services are already being operated by the Post Office in Montgomeryshire, Devon, Westmorland and East Lothian. As noble Lords will understand, the Post Office's first responsibility is to the carriage of mail and there is a problem of reconciling the postal requirements with the needs of the travelling public. That does not mean to say that it is not a possibility. I am pleased to say that the Post Office has agreed to co-operate with the Department in the two studies which I have just mentioned.
That brings me to the other question of the rural services of the Post Office, which the noble Earl introduced and other noble Lords followed up. As your Lordships will know, under the 1969 Act the Post Office has the duty to ensure that post offices are sufficient in number and are so placed as to give the best possible service to the community as a whole. They provide nearly 25,000 post offices altogether, of which 23,000—a very large proportion—are sub-post offices, often set up in a village shop. It is true that there has been a reduction in the number of sub-post offices, amounting to 200 over the past two years, but I think your Lordships will agree that in relation to the total of 23,000, this number, though significant, is not enormous. This is not the result of any deliberate policy or review aimed at reducing the number of post offices in rural areas. Post offices are closed either where the volume of business transacted indicates that there is no longer a public demand or where the sub-postmaster retires and no replacement can be found.
I am assured that the Post Office tries very hard to fill vacancies for sub-postmasters in rural areas and closes the office only as a last resort. If this does happen, they do all they can in other ways to alleviate possible hardship, by sending staff from the nearest head post office to a local hall for one or two days a week or occasionally by making a mobile post office available. Of course, these are costly ways of providing a service, but the Post Office shoulders this burden when the need arises. In rural areas, too, the delivery postman will sell stamps and postal orders on request, accept letters and parcels and help in other ways as he goes on his rounds.
1158
I hope that this brief but, I trust, comprehensive reply to this debate will assure your Lordships that although the problems in the rural areas are difficult and not susceptible of any easy solution, they are being attended to by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and by those of us who are his colleagues.
9.33 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, if it were not that I consider this an important matter, as obviously did the noble Baroness, Lady Berkeley, in her most acceptable maiden speech, and my noble friend Lord de Clifford, I should not impose myself upon your Lordships at this late hour. But there is one point that I should like to re-emphasise. This is the point raised by my noble friend Lord Teviot about fuel tax. The noble Lord who spoke from the Box said that it was not a matter for him; and I agree that that may be the case. But nobody has mentioned the cost of the fares and the way they have gone up.
For some twenty years, until recently. I lived in a rural neighbourhood, and when my children were young it cost 4d. to go the three miles into the shopping centre, 7d. return. To-day the fare is 1s. 2d. each way. I know, as my noble friend Lord de Clifford said, from the number of lifts one gives to poor people, old-age pensioners and the like, that 2s. 4d. is a big sum for a three-mile trip on week-end shopping. I urge the Minister to bear this point in mind, and that the possibility of a reduction in fuel tax might enable small bus people to operate from centres, such as my noble friend mentioned, and make the service pay. The reason they have not done it is that they cannot make it pay. I will not weary your Lordships with the economic problems of running a small bus—the question of wages and the possibility of full loads.
There is one other point that has not been emphasised, and it is that on single-man buses there is inadequate provision for luggage, prams and the like. If somebody comes back from Australia, there is only one man on the bus and there is insufficient luggage room for a trunk. I think this is an important matter in relation to rural transport, and great suffering is being imposed on a great many good-hearted country people. My noble

1159
friend has had to wait to put down this Question, but I hope that this short debate will do something to alleviate the situation.