Lords Sitting of 25 January 1971

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.

SOVIET UNION: MIGRATION RIGHTS OF JEWS
LORD BURNTWOOD: 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 whether they will consider making representations to the Government of the U.S.S.R. on behalf of Jewish Soviet citizens who desire to migrate to Israel in accordance with Articles 13 and 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights where such Jewish citizens have not, at the time of application for permission to migrate, been convicted of non-political crimes or of acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, the Answer to the noble Lord's Question is, No. We have no formal standing in this matter, and I do not believe that further approaches at present would be helpful to Soviet Jews.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Marquess aware that that Answer will give little satisfaction to those of us who are anxious to try to help not merely the Jewish people but the U.S.S.R. in their own problems? Many of us have had sympathy with the problems in general of the U.S.S.R. and feel that they would have nothing to lose by releasing these citizens who apparently desire to go to Israel.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's feeling in this matter, and it is something which I am certain noble Lords in
700
all quarters of the House share. It is very much a matter of judgment as to when and how one makes representations. The noble Lord might like to know that the subject was raised informally with Mr. Gromyko when he was over here in November.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess this question? If, for reasons of protocol, it seems inadvisable to make official and public representations to the Soviet Union, would the noble Marquess care to discuss the matter with his right honourable friend, the Foreign Secretary, who may feel inclined to indulge in private representations—not official or public representations—indicating his sympathy with this subject? If his right honourable friend should feel so inclined and meets with a favourable or sympathetic response, would he care to notify those noble Lords who are interested in the matter?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to inform my right honourable friend of the noble Lord's remarks in this regard. As I said before, I think we all feel sympathy with the situation of the Jews in Soviet Russia at the present time, and it is just a question of deciding, as a matter of judgment, how best to go about the matter.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, in view of the fact that we are signatories to the Declaration of Human Rights, would the noble Marquess consider whether it is possible for some official steps to be taken? Is this possible, in view of the horrible situation which exists at present in the U.S.S.R. and the vast sympathy that was shown to the Jewish community there by the public in this country and in other countries, and particularly in the United States, which I had the privilege of visiting recently? Is it not terribly important that this matter should not go by default and that every possible effort should be made, especially in view of the present situation, with further trials and so on, which are horrifying the world.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I agree that it is a matter of importance. The noble Lord has mentioned the Declaration of Human Rights, and that is something which we may be able to act upon. As I think he is aware,

701
one does not always get the positive results one wants by raising matters at the United Nations. Nevertheless I will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he thinks that positive harm will be done to these unfortunate people by public expressions of disgust at this recrudescence of the most beastly of political emotions, anti-Semitism?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I hope not, but I will certainly take into account what the noble Lord has said.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is not the noble Marquess aware that the very strong protests that have been raised throughout the world have at least had some influence on the U.S.S.R.? Is it not a fact that they want to be regarded as civilised people, and that what they are doing at present is bestial and uncivilised?
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, would the noble Marquess at least be prepared to approach his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, and ask him to explain to the U.S.S.R. that many people in this country find it impossible to understand how there can be this attitude towards the Jewish citizens of the U S.S.R., hearing in mind the dominant role played by the U.S.S.R. in the defeat of Hitlerite Germany and that régime's persecution of the Jewish people?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly draw the noble Lord's views to the attention of my right honourable friend.

MERCURIC CONTAMINATION OF CANNED TUNA FISH
2.40 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: 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 why there has been a major discrepancy between the administrative action taken in the United Kingdom and that
702
taken by the Government of the U.S.A., on the mercuric contamination of canned tuna fish.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the administrative action we have taken is intended to deal with quite different conditions here as compared with those in the United States of America. We have accepted the advice of the Pharmacological Sub-Committee on medical aspects of food policy that there is no need at the present time to set a limit for the level of mercury residues in canned tuna fish. My right honourable friend has also acted on the committee's request that a full study be made of mercury residues in food. My right honourable friend announced recently the details of the monitoring scheme which is now in operation.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Earl satisfied that we have taken such administrative action as we have taken with the fullest possible scientific advice available to us? Is the noble Earl further aware that there appears to be some indication that, in the light of recent action taken by the Government in this matter, certain extremely efficient and competent retail organisations have put this particular canned food back on the shelves for sale to the public, although there is more and more evidence that the absorptive capacity of the human body in the matter of mercuric poisoning is not, as yet, fully understood?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's concern over this matter. The fact is that my right honourable friend has taken the advice of the Pharmacological Sub-Committee, which was strengthened by five experts on mercuric matters when the United States first found this problem. I would stress that conditions here are different from those which appertain in the United States, if only because we in this country consume one-tenth of the tuna fish which the United States consumes.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us in what respects conditions are different? Is he aware that the fact that we as a community consume only one-tenth is no indication of the total intake of mercury which certain individuals may have. It would be helpful if we could have a

703
fuller statement on these risks. I acknowledge that the noble Earl has to listen to the advice which he is given.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the important point is the amount of mercury consumed by an individual. The Government have taken samples over the period 1966–67 of different quantities of foods consumed, and the amount of mercury available was down to the least detectable amounts. Obviously, conditions are different in this country since the amount of tuna fish consumed is very considerably less than in America. In America there is a guideline of 0·5 parts per million which is acceptable, but in Japan and Sweden, which are both great fish-eating countries, the legal limit is double that at one part per million.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if the same group is consuming this tuna fish, is it not possible that they are getting very near to the danger point?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, when considering this point the Pharmacological Sub-Committee took into account those people who were larger consumers of tuna fish; namely, those people on a slimming diet. Apparently, you can eat up to a tin of tuna fish a day without any risk whatsoever.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that, time after time, the pronouncements of the Food and Drug Administration of the United States have been proved to be better informed than the pronouncements of similar organisations in this country and in Europe, which very often pronounce too late on the same subjects?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, my right honourable friend takes the advice of the Committee, and part of the advice which it gave was that a monitoring system should be set up. My right honourable friend has decided to do that, and the system will specifically monitor 3,000 different types of foods consumed by different individuals, on the point of the mercurial residues in them.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl if he will consider again with his right honourable friend whether the advice on these matters comes in time? For instance, is he
704
aware that it is 12 or 15 years since concern was expressed about mercury seed dressings and other toxic chemicals, and that it was some years before the situation was corrected? While acknowledging that advice has to be listened to, may I ask the noble Earl whether he will put to his right honourable friend some of the searching questions which I am sure he himself can think of?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord's interest in this matter, and I will certainly pass on his observations to my right honourable friend.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to recall that it was the Food and Drug Administration of the United States which told the people of the United States not to consume thalidomide, and that the Government of this country and the Governments of Western Germany and other European countries reassured the people and told them not to take any notice of that warning? Does the noble Earl recall that in consequence the United States did not have one malformed child, whereas this country and Western Germany had thousands?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I appreciate the point which the noble Baroness has made. While taking account of the recommendations which other countries make, we in this country must have our own bodies to advise Ministers.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, having listened to the exchange between the two Front Benches, I am satisfied that the authorities will have been alerted about this problem? Finally, may I ask whether he is aware that one of the great anxieties is that the advice tendered to the United States Administration is that it is not really known how dangerous is the gradual build-up of the mercury intake into a human being, when a diet includes the periodical eating of tuna?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, that is perfectly true, and that is why my right honourable friend has set up this monitoring system. It will then be possible to see whether the levels of mercury in foods which are consumed will lead to an unacceptable standard.

LESOTHO: DETENTION OF MR. MOKHEHLE
2.49 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: 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 make representations to the Government of Lesotho for the release of Mr. Mokhehle, the Opposition Leader, who is understood to have won the last election in that country.]
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's Question is, "No". Her Majesty's Government have no locus standi to make representations on Mr. Mokhehle's behalf, and to do so would depart from our policy of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other Commonwealth countries.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I ask him whether he can recollect that after the election in Lesotho, when the Government cancelled the results, Her Majesty's Government withdrew for a time aid to that country? In view of the fact that aid has now been renewed, and that British officers have been seconded to Lesotho service, are there not grounds for making some representations that the Leader of the Opposition in Lesotho, who has been in detention since the election, should now be released?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, on the general point I do not think I can add to what I said in my original Answer. As the noble Lord will appreciate, the restoration of aid which followed on the recognition of the Government of Lesotho was of course dependent on the criteria for recognition; and to depart from our policy of non-intervention and use aid to influence internal political developments in any other Commonwealth country would, I think, be unacceptable.

SHIPBUILDING CREDIT GUARANTEES
LORD SHINWELL: 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 it is intended to continue the credit and other financial facilities to the shipbuilding industry which have been in operation for several years.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Government are reviewing the situation, but meantime, as announced on July 24, have stated their intention to raise to £600 million the limit on credit guarantees to United Kingdom yards. I cannot say more than this in advance of the completion of the Government's review.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will recognise that that Answer goes some way in my direction and in the direction of providing some assistance to the shipbuilding industry of the country. But does he also recognise that although the shipbuilding yards have a substantial number of orders at the present time they are very much concerned about the severity of competition which faces them from those other countries where shipbuilding receives facilities of a credit character, and also a vast amount of subsidy? Will the noble Lord take that into consideration?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords; I am sure the Government will take this into consideration in the review which they are making.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I put this further supplementary question? Is anything being done about the position of Upper Clyde Shipbuilders and the position on the North-East coast, where they are faced with unprofitability because of fixed charges when tendering for orders?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in touch with the Upper Clyde Shipbuiders' position at the present time.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, in view of the supplementary question from my noble friend Lord Shinwell, will the noble Lord not forget that if it had not been for the support that was given by the previous Government in regard to the Furness Shipyard between 2,000 and 3,000 people would have been unemployed at that particular time but were

707
taken over by the shipbuilding organisation?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure that this is one of the considerations which will be in the mind of the Government in making their review.

BUSINESS
2.54 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House a question about the arrangement of business to-day. When the House last met, on Thursday of last week, the order of business for to-day showed the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill as coming before the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill. Apparently some time on Thursday afternoon a decision was taken by the Government, or the Government Chief Whip, to reverse the order, and we now find the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill coming before the Shops (Sunday Trading) Bill. It is in my experience quite unprecedented to make a change in the order of business not merely without informing the people most concerned but, in fact, without getting their agreement.
I can understand that it may suit certain Lords—whether it is the Lord Chancellor or other noble Lords who are involved—to take the Second Reading first. But I should have thought it would have been reasonable to inform noble Lords, such as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, interested in the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill of the change. Knowing that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, had a point of interest arising on the Bill, and having been told that he did not plan to be here until later in the afternoon, I spent quite a lot of time getting a message to him. I am not sure, either, whether the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was consulted about the change. I do not wish to press the Leader of the House too far on this, but my noble friend Lord Shepherd, I am sure, can confirm that when we were in Government we did not change the order of business without getting the agreement of the noble Lords concerned. The position has been made more difficult because on this occasion the Whip went out showing the wrong order of business, and the fact that it was corrected in the Notices and Orders of the Day on
708
Friday was of no help to most people because there was no post to ensure that the Minute was delivered.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I confess that I should like to join with the noble Lord in making a protest. For those of us who live in the country and who have virtually been incommunicado, owing to the postal strike, this sort of thing is exceedingly inconvenient. It was only by pure luck that I happened to come up by an earlier train than I had intended and when I got up to London found the messages which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, passed round to me.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for giving me notice that he intended to raise this point. I would make it perfectly clear at the outset that although, as I shall mention, there was, I think, a regrettable failure of consultations through the usual channels here, there was no contravention of our Standing Orders. The position, as I understand it, is that my noble friend Lord Derwent was asked by the Government on Thursday afternoon, purely as a matter of convenience, whether he would be prepared to put off the Committee stage of his Bill until after the Second Reading of the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill, and the noble Lord kindly agreed to do this. The change of business was of course duly recorded in the Notices and Orders of the Day which were printed last Thursday night, but as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says, as a result of the postal strike it may very well be that certain noble Lords—indeed, the majority of noble Lords—became aware of the change of business only when they collected to-day's Order Paper.
The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has suggested that there did not appear to be the usual consultations through the usual channels about this alteration of business. My Lords, I have not been able to consult my noble friend the Chief Whip about this matter, as I heard of it only during the lunch-time interval, but it is my impression that where Private Members' business is concerned it is always rather hard to draw any sharp line as to the amount of consultation that should take place. On this

709
occasion, however, I have no doubt at all that there should have been full consultation, and if there was not I regret that it was so. I particularly regret the inconvenience which has been caused to those noble Lords chiefly concerned—my noble friend Lord Cranbrook, and there may well be others who are interested in these two Bills. If they have suffered inconvenience I can only regret that that was the case.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I very much appreciate the noble Earl's apology, but judging from his remarks I do not think he fully appreciates the seriousness of the action that has been taken in this matter. First of all, the fact that there is no Standing Order has absolutely nothing to do with it. Most of our activities are not carried out under Standing Orders, and it may well be that if this sort of thing is likely to happen we shall have to have a Standing Order to require an order of the House to alter business. I appreciate that the noble Earl is in a difficulty because the Government Chief Whip, who presumably is responsible for these arrangements, is not available, but I must tell the noble Earl that I think he has been misadvised if he assumes that there is a difference between one kind of public business and another. A Private Member's Bill is equally public business. I should like to know the position, because my information is that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, was just told that he had to accept the situation. The noble Earl is in a difficult position and I do not wish to press him further, but it is a very unsatisfactory situation and I hope it will not occur again.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, perhaps I had better explain what happened so that there is no misunderstanding. When I was told that the business would be altered, I then asked how long the inserted business would be likely to take. I was told that it could not take more than half an hour; that there were only a couple of speakers. I said that in those circumstances I would not protest too strongly; although I had been "messed about" before. I was consulted to that extent. Now I find that there are many more speakers, and I am sorry to say that noble Lords taking part in my Bill may have to sit rather late.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I put another point to the noble Earl? Any noble Lord seeing the Order Paper on Thursday would have assumed that the proceedings on the Shops Bill would have gone on for at least two and a half hours. There may be noble Lords who may wish to speak on the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill who have not put down their names. Now, because of the change of business, they are put in the position of perhaps not being able to take part in the debate at all. I hope that the noble Earl will give this matter very careful consideration, because so far as I know it has not happened before. In the past when there was a change of business, there were consultations not only with noble Lords responsible for the Bills, but so far as possible with all noble Lords who had an interest in the legislation. The noble Earl is aware that a great number of Amendments have been put down to the Shops Bill by noble Lords on all sides of the House.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, far be it from me to intervene between the Front Benches, but may we have given to us any reason for this change? And is there any reason why we should not return to the order as it was originally?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the reason for the change was that it was a great deal more convenient for one of the main participants in this legislation, the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill—namely, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. When this matter was raised, it was my understanding that the change would take place only if it was agreeable to those concerned—not only through the usual channels; but agreeable to all noble Lords concerned. I have made it clear that I very much regret that this was not the case.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, I think that it would be technically possible to revert to the previous situation; but I think that it would be a mistake now to do so. I am very much in the hands of the House here, but I think it probably better to stick to the order of business as it is now on the Order Paper. Again I express my regret for the inconvenience suffered by my noble friends and by the other Members of your Lordships' House involved.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, unless the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, himself wishes to press this matter further, I agree with the noble Earl the Leader of the House that we should keep to the order of business that we now have. May I make one further remark to the noble Earl? In matters of this kind, my recollection is that the Government Chief Whip or some Member of the House has usually personally consulted those concerned. It is not enough, if I may say so—and perhaps the noble Earl will put this to his noble friend—just to assume that things are going to happen; especially when they happen as late in the day as has happened on this occasion. I accept that the noble Earl has expressed very complete apologies and I do not wish to press the matter further.

SYNODICAL GOVERNMENT (SPECIAL MAJORITIES) MEASURE
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure concerns a technical point on the way in which the General Synod may vote.
The procedure of the Synod is largely governed by its Constitution, which is set out in Schedule 2 to the Synodical Government Measure 1969. Article 5 of that Constitution requires that every Motion shall be carried by a simple majority of these present and voting except when some Measure already lays down that there shall be a two-thirds majority. There have been cases in the past, and there may well be cases in the future, when the General Synod will feel that a matter before it is of such far-reaching importance, or for the protection of minorities that it would be desirable to provide that an issue shall be decided only if carried by a special majority. So Clause 1(1) enables the General Synod
712
to resolve that the final approval of a scheme for constitutional union or permanent or substantial change in relationship between the Church of England and other Christian bodies shall require a special majority of the General Synod or of the three Houses. The majority required for the General Synod and the Houses may be different.
Subsection (2) of Clause 1 gives power to the General Synod to require a special majority for the suspension of Standing Orders. Power to suspend Standing Orders already exists under Article 11. It is, however, felt that it is so drastic a step that the Synod should at any rate have the power to lay down a special majority rather than a straight majority before Standing Orders are suspended. Subsection (3) is consequential. The Ecclesiastical Committee is of the opinion that the Measure is expedient.
My Lords, in presenting this Measure for an Affirmative Resolution, I may remind your Lordships that this is the last Measure to emanate from the Church Assembly. In future, Measures will bear the imprimatur of the General Synod. I see that the Report of the Ecclesiastical Committee is its 161st. In passing this Resolution, as I trust your Lordships will, we may look back on the fifty years of co-operation between the Church Assembly and your Lordships' House and look forward to what we trust may be a similarly profitable co-operation with the General Synod. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Synodical Government (Special Majorities) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of Chester.)
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I should like to ask one question of the right reverend Prelate. In view of the fact that the last week has been an Ecumenical week in various Churches and that we who are members of the various Churches all hope for greater unity, could he tell us what percentage of votes the Synod are likely to require before they pass the Measure of Union with the Methodists?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot foretell what would be the required majority; but

713
in the vote which has already taken place it was required that there should be a two-thirds majority in each House and a 75 per cent. majority for the whole of the Church Assembly.
On Question Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

VEHICLES (EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HYDROCARBON OIL (CUSTOMS AND EXCISE) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

WILD CREATURES AND FOREST LAWS BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, in rising to move that this Bill be now read a second time, I have it in Command from Her Majesty the Queen, and from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales, to acquaint the House that, having been informed of the purport of the Wild Creatures and Forest Laws Bill, they have consented to place their prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I must apologise for inviting your Lordships once more to enter into the animal kingdom. This time we are no longer concerned with the distinction between animals ferœ naturœ and mansuetœ naturœ, cattle trespass or sheep sitting on the roads. This is a Bill very largely of historical interest. In the course of their attempts to reduce our Statute Book to a manageable size the Law Commission lighted upon an obscure branch of the law, of paramount importance in the days of the Norman and Angevin kings, but largely obsolete for the last few centuries. If we can abrogate this obsolete law, the seven pages of archaic enactments in the Schedule to the Bill can be repealed, and this will be a useful step towards the Commission's goal.
This is not a simple Statute Law Revision Bill, otherwise under our Standing
714
Orders it would be taking a slightly different course. It is a law reform Bill because, as well as repealing many spent and obsolete enactments, it abrogates the whole of the forest laws and abolishes certain of Her Majesty's prerogative rights. I do not think the House will expect me to enter into a great deal of detail, which would be possible were I to embark upon a discussion of essarts and purprestures, free warren, legal parks and galees and the Court of St. Briavel. I think that I can deal with the Bill in a more intelligible and perhaps more contemporary way.
Clause 1 does two things. In the first place, it abolishes certain Royal prerogative rights (together with some now obsolete franchises) relating to wild creatures other than swans; and, secondly, it abrogates the whole of the forest law except in so far as it relates to verderers. These two provisions are the essence of the Bill, and I must explain them a little more fully.
The origin of these prerogative rights is said to be that at common law certain articles thought to be particularly valuable and distinguished are set aside for the King. That they should include swans and sturgeon is, perhaps, only right, as in the Middle Ages they were considered great delicacies, until the native swan was superseded by the alien turkey—and the sturgeon, perhaps, by canned tuna. As for Royal fish, there is an agreeable tradition that the head was for the King, the body for the fishermen and the tail for the Queen. This was based upon an anatomical fallacy, because it was supposed that the whalebone, which was used for the Royal corsets, was in the tail. In fact it is in the head of a whale. However whales, I must rule, are Royal fish, whatever the scientists may say; and if anyone says that a whale is a mammal I shall refer him to the Gospel according to St. Matthew, chapter 12, verse 40, and leave him to the Bench of Bishops.
Quite apart from this, the existence of the prerogative right to Royal fish is of no benefit to Her Majesty; and occasionally, as students of A. P. Herbert's Misleading Cases will remember, it causes some inconvenience to other people. In particular, the disposal of the carcase of a stranded whale poses problems, because it is not often realised how to get authority to dispose of the carcase. Everyone thinks that there is

715
something special about it, but not everyone knows what to do. In practice, the Receiver of Wrecks carries out what is a disagreeable business.
My Lords, I have lighted on a marginal use to which the Royal prerogative on whales has been put, and this was well stated in a centre page article in The Times last Saturday. This may be a Committee matter, but I am anxious to reassure naturalists, among the greatest of whom I include my noble friend Lord Cranbrook who, I am glad to notice, is present in the Chamber. The point is that the Receiver of Wrecks informs the British Museum whenever a whale is stranded, and this has enabled the Museum to make an important compilation of information about cetacea. I understand that some noble Lords may be anxious lest the abolition of the prerogative would result in the Receiver of Wrecks no longer being willing or able to inform the Museum of a stranding. I am happy to say, my Lords, that the Receiver—whose present activities anyway are purely discretionary—is willing to continue to inform the Museum of the stranding of a whale, until assurances satisfactory to the Museum are received from any authority who may take over responsibility from the Receiver for the disposal of the carcases. I hope that this undertaking will prove satisfactory to those who are concerned with the point.
Swans, however, are another matter. The existence of the Royal prerogative enables Her Majesty to make highly cherished gifts to foreign Heads of State and is also the authority under which is organised the conservation of swans on the River Thames by the immemorial custom of swan-upping. Her Majesty's prerogative is, therefore, of some value to-day; and this Bill does not seek to interfere with it. I could leave the swans there, but I must make it clear that to be the object of the Royal prerogative the swan must be white, swimming in open and common rivers, and wild and unmarked. Why the black swan should be discriminated against in this way I cannot pretend to know—perhaps the Race Relations Board can tell me. At any rate, as noble Lords may know, the Dyers' Company and the Vintners' Company each have a one-
716
third interest in the swans on the River Thames, these rights having been granted by the Crown by Royal Charter.
My Lords, by Clause 1(2) the forest law is abrogated. Again, to explain fully what it was and still, theoretically, is would take me, even if I had the necessary scholarship, a somewhat long time. If I may put the matter to your Lordships somewhat generally, in mediæval times the King had a special right to preserve his own hunting in what was called "the forest", which did not necessarily belong to him at all. Complaint was made that the Norman and Angevin Kings wanted to expand the area of forest to suit their own sporting convenience, and it was to regulate this that much of the subsequent legislation was passed. In those days protection of the deer was the main object of the law, and it is now.
One of our oldest authorities, the Dialogus de Scaccario—in which scholars will recognise our old friend the Exchequer—makes the constitutional point that the forest law was at the King's will, and it was not surprising that the King's will did not always coincide with his subjects' interests. Be that as it may, the great 16th century authority on the forest law, Manwood, who wrote in 1598, could already say that the forest laws were by then
"gone clean out of knowledge in most places in the law"
and had
"grown into contempt with many individuals in forests."
The fact is that they were largely obsolete by the reign of Queen Elizabeth, and in spite of an unsuccessful attempt by King Charles I to revive them for the purposes of raising revenue, they have been obsolete ever since. The only point in the forest administration which still exists actively consists of the verderers of the New Forest and the Forest of Dean. These will continue to function under enactments which will not be repealed if the Bill is passed.
My Lords, I hope that I can take the rest of the Bill very shortly. Clause 1(3) will not prejudice the close seasons applicable in the Forest of Dean or the New Forest because any currently effective restriction on rights of common for this purpose operates under enactments

717
which are not repealed. Clause 1(4) introduces the repeal Schedule; Clause 1(5) preserves existing rights of common or pannage, which is feeding swine on acorns; Clause 1(6) preserves the system for electing verderers for the Forest of Dean, and Clause 1(19) preserves the statutory right of purchasers from the Duchy of Lancaster to appoint gamekeepers. Whether there are any such purchasers enjoying any such right to appoint gamekeepers I frankly do not know. If there are, they are free under this Bill to go on appointing them. Perhaps it is only a salute to Lady Chatterly's lover.
On Clause 2, which is the application to Scotland, I have only two points to make. Apart from a technical point on the Night Poaching Act, Scotland's only interest in the Bill is in Royal fish. Again, for reasons that I do not pretend to understand, in Scotland, Royal fish do not include sturgeons, and they do not include things like little whales, but only "whales of a large size", the test of whether it is of a large size being the possibility of dragging the whale to land on "a wain with six oxen". In Northern Ireland the forest law is inapplicable, but the prerogative relating to Royal fish and wild creatures applies. To repeal this is beyond the power of Stormont, and it therefore has to be done in this Bill.
There is obviously a great deal of learning behind this Bill, and I should like to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for the pains that they have taken in unearthing this extraordinary piece of almost archæological law. We ought to get rid of it, however picturesque it may be; and this Bill gets rid of much of it. If any noble Lord wishes to cross-examine me on the details of the Schedule, or even of the substantive clauses, I hope that he will give me adequate warning. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.22 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, the House will want me to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the entertaining manner in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I would respectfully congratulate both the Law Commission for their Report and the Government on having introduced the Bill. Some years ago, being interested
718
in our Statute Book, I read large parts of Manwood on Forests, which is the leading textbook, published in 1598, and a number of the ordinances, charters and statutes, of which there are some 50, and I came to the conclusion that there were so many and they were almost incomprehensible, and that nobody, including the Law Commission, would ever be able to do anything about this particular black patch on our Statute Book. However, nothing seems to be beyond the Law Commission, and I am delighted that they have been able—and it has indeed been a great work of erudition—to produce this Bill for the consideration of the House. I hope that we shall speedily give it a Second Reading.
This having been in the past such a black patch, may I, without I hope trespassing on the time of the House, ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, having given him due notice, about four other rather black patches on our Statute Book. First, there are the burial laws, which the leading textbook in 1956 described in this way:
"This particular branch of the laws of England is indeed unrivalled in its complexity of authorities, areas, enactments, procedures and personnel. For instance, more authorities are directly or indirectly concerned with burial and cremation than any other modern public service. The relevant burial legislation is mainly to be found in nineteenth century statutes which have long been in dire need of simplification, amendment and consolidation."
Whenever the appropriate Ministry—that concerned with local government—has been asked about this the answer always has been that they are just about to produce a Consolidation Bill.
As many of your Lordships will remember, on February 5, 1963, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, took the brave course of himself introducing a consolidating Bill. I remember he told us that when sitting in a train outside Oxford he had composed this verse:
"Stinking gasworks, burning bright,
Beside the sidings half the night,
What immortal hand or eye,
Made this awful cemetery?"
There was a very learned discussion as to when a graveyard is not a graveyard, when it is a cemetery or when it is a burial ground. The Bill was supported in all parts of the House: by my noble friends Lord Taylor and Lord Birdwood; by the noble Lords, Lord Amulree and Lord Milverton, and by the right reverend

719
Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. In replying for the Government, the noble Lord, Lord Hastings, said (and I quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 226, col. 508) that the noble Viscount had agreed
"to withdraw his Bill in order to leave the way clear for a more comprehensive Bill to be prepared for him on the lines I have described."
The noble Lord, Lord Hastings, went on:
"I am sure that this was the right decision. I have, as he has said, undertaken, on behalf of my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that instructions to the draftsman will be prepared as quickly as possible. By that I mean without delay, though I cannot yet say definitely, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, knows perfectly well, when the comprehensive Bill will be ready. Therefore I cannot give a definite date, any more than he would be able to do if he were in my position.
"My noble friend Lord Colville of Culross and other interested parties will be consulted regularly and from time to time as the work proceeds, and the House may rest assured that no one will be more pleased than my right honourable friend and I when this bewildering mass of nineteenth century legislation is brought up to date. We intend to proceed on those lines, as I have said, without unnecessary delay and as soon as possible."
Next week, my Lords, it will be seven years since those remarks were made, and I wondered if I might properly ask the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack whether the instructions to counsel have got there yet; and, if not, when they will.
Then, secondly, are we not a little tired of being told the position about those guarantees, very often with beautiful scrolls, accompanying contracts for the sale of goods, the sole object of which is to take away the statutory rights under the Sale of Goods Act of the unfortunate purchaser? Here successive Governments keep making promises. Only as recently as the 15th of this month the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Trade and Industry in another place said—and I quote from col. 483 of the House of Commons OFFICIAL REPORT for the day:
"The fundamental question is whether it is right for anyone to take those rights away from the consumer by the so-called exclusion or exemption clauses to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
"The balance of opinion is clear—that it is not right that such exclusion clauses should be allowed."
720
One might have thought from that statement that legislation was very near, but the Minister ended by saying (col. 486) only that he hoped that:
"one day we will be in a position to bring forward legislation to deal with the matter."
I appreciate that this is one of the branches of our law which the Board of Trade arrogated to themselves and not one, maybe, for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. However, I am sure that the House would be grateful, and particularly those here representing consumers, if we could be told what the immediate prospects are.
The third black patch is the law about hall-marking, of importance to the commercial community. Here again, I am afraid, it is the responsibility of the Board of Trade, and no one would complain perhaps, the Law Commission having quite enough to do, if the Board of Trade decided that it would like to get on with the reform of certain branches of our law. But as the Chairman of the Law Commission has recently pointed out, in this field we have the ordinance of 1238, and then we have the statute of 1300. He says:
"These two ordinances—for Parliament had as yet hardly aspired to the production of statute law—were the fore-runners of a long and confused strand of statute law regulating the standards to be observed in the manufacture of gold and silver. So confused had the law become that in 1855 a Select Committee was appointed 'to inquire into the offices for assaying silver and gold wares in the United Kingdom'. This Committee reported in 1856 that the law was in a most confused and unsatisfactory state, and strongly recommended that its anomalies and confusion should be ended by consolidating into one statute all the provisions requisite for the establishment and regulation of Assay Offices throughout the United Kingdom. Parliament did nothing. In 1878 another Select Committee looked into the matter and reported the existence of considerable uncertainty in the application of the law in consequence of the number of statutes in which it is found, and expressed the opinion that consolidation and amendment should be carried out without further delay. Parliament did nothing. In Westwood Ron v. Cann Lord Justice Denning said:
'I would observe that in 1856 and 1879 Select Committees said that the law as to hall-marking was uncertain owing to the number of statutes in which it was to be found; and they expressed the opinion that the consolidation and amendment of the law should be carried out without further delay. Now, 73 years later, in 1952, I may perhaps be permitted to express the same opinion.'

721
Nothing has since been done …. In 1959 a Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Stone took another look at hall-marking and reached the by now hardly original conclusion:
'that the numerous statutes that touch upon hall-marking and the protection of the public against the flood of adulteration in its purchases of wrought gold and wrought silver are so confused and obsolete as to be incapable of being patched up by amendment so as to form a workable and enforceable code.'
They went on to recommend the substitution of a consolidating Statute in place of the existing confusion."
My Lords, for 114 years various Committees have gone on saying this, but nothing happens. The last time that I looked at the Civil Service List there appeared to be more lawyers in the Board of Trade than in the Lord Chancellor's office. What they do I am not sure, but I believe that something is now stirring, and for this reason. Lately, our EFTA partners have said, "Would it not be sensible if we all had the same hall-marking laws? These are ours. What are yours?" My Lords, ours are so awful that the Board of Trade dare not tell them. I believe that they have now got into a corner hurriedly to try to do something. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor: What is afoot?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, may I remind the noble and learned Lord, before he leaves that part of his speech, that at least ten years ago, when a Bill was before the House to suppress the assay office in Chester, I raised this point on the Stone Committee and I was assured then. I think by the noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, that the matter was to be dealt with immediately. As I say, that was ten years ago.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am much obliged to the right reverend Prelate. The fourth example is the one about which I feel most strongly, because of the great hardship which it has caused to so many individuals, all of whom are deserted wives. The point is very simple. In 1920, Parliament, with general approval, passed the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act. All that Act did was to enable our Government, if they thought fit, to make with other Commonwealth countries reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of maintenance orders. As the 1920s went
722
on, it was generally thought by everyone (because there is nothing Party political about this) that that Act was defective in two respects. First of all, it ought to have included affiliation orders, for somewhat similar reasons. Secondly, neighbouring European countries were beginning to ask whether we would not make with them a reciprocal agreement for the enforcement of maintenance orders, and we had to say that we were sorry but the British Government had no power to do so without legislation. It became even graver when Eire left the Commonwealth, because that meant that women in England who were deserted by husbands who had gone back to Eire could obtain no maintenance at all. I know that in recent years the Government of Eire themselves have been pressing us strongly to enter into a reciprocal agreement with them.
This being generally recognised in the 1920s, I believe that in 1931 a Bill was drafted and prepared to be introduced, but in the end it was squeezed out from that Session's programme. On a matter which is in no way Party political and on which, so far as I know, there is no controversy at all, it appears to me, if I may respectfully say so, that there is something wrong with a Parliamentary system under which 39 years later the Bill has still not been introduced. The only reason for this, so far as I know, is—and this again is not a Party issue; it does not matter which Party is in power—that each year the Home Secretary of the day has always had other Bills that he wanted to deal with. I was aware of this during the lifetime of the last Government. I think I can say that had that Government been returned to power at the Election, that Bill would have been included in this Session's programme. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether I am right in so thinking. If so, it must be observed that there must be a Bill ready, and I should like to ask when it is going to be introduced. My Lords, I apologise for having taken up the time of the House on this review of other black patches of our Statute Book. Nothing I have said detracts in any way from my already stated admiration, both for the Law Commission for having prepared this Report, and for the Government for having introduced the Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble and learned friend a question before he sits down? While he rightly said that the omission to introduce legislation making maintenance orders reciprocal has involved hundreds of thousands of women and children and caused them great hardship, would he not agree with me that this year, when the new Divorce Act comes into operation and when it is possible for a woman, completely innocent of any matrimonial offence, to be divorced against her will, it is even more necessary to introduce this legislation? Then the man or woman responsible cannot entirely divest himself or herself of all responsibilities by getting on a hovercraft to France or an aeroplane to Ireland. I ask the House to bear in mind what my noble and learned friend has said, and, when the time comes, to give their support to any legislation which I hope the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be introducing.
3.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I return to the Bill which we are supposedly discussing this afternoon. We have heard a very interesting dissertation on cemeteries, guarantees, hall-marking, Bishops, and deserted wives. I must confess, my Lords, that it tempts me, as the main point about which I wish to speak this afternoon is whales, to go off at a slight tangent, which I had not otherwise intended to do, and remind your Lordships that the Royal prerogative in whales was due to the shortages of oil and meat in early centuries, when the Crown insisted on having these oily creatures to render down when they were washed ashore.
The earliest record that we have of the use of whale oil and meat for human consumption is, curiously enough, associated with one of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, was mentioning. We find in Xenophon's account of the return of the Greeks from the Persian Expedition the first record that I know of, not only of the use of whale oil and meat but also of the permissive society, of which the noble Baroness disapproves so much. As the Greeks came to the country of the Abominable Mossinoiki they found that the Mossinoiki were in the habit of doing publicly things which the Greeks thought
724
ought to be done only in the privacy of the bedroom. They decided that of all the barbarian tribes they encountered, they were the most barbarous—a lesson which some people might learn to-day and adopt in this country.
Going further into the land of the Mossinoiki, as they looted the country they found large jars filled with whale oil and, what is more, filled with cooked whale meat preserved in hot oil, which had been allowed to become cool. It is interesting that not only did the Mossinoiki, in advance, see the sort of thing which is going on in many countries to-day as far as sexual mores are concerned, but they also anticipated Leibig, Pasteur and Lister, by a couple of millennia in finding out that you could keep things which had been boiled in oil in good condition for a long time.
Having been able to divert myself a little from the right way, may I return to the Bill? I suggest that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack was rather by-passing some of the more important parts of the Royal prerogative so far as whales are concerned. I speak as an interested party. I am a trustee of the Natural History Museum, which for some sixty years has had an arrangement with the Board of Trade, as representing the Crown, under which, as the noble and learned Lord said, the appearance of any of these cetaceans on the coast of England is reported. The museum is allowed to take the first pick, either of the whole specimen or a part of it, and, as a result, has been able to build up a collection of material which is probably unrivalled by any comparable institution in the world. The museum is consulted by scientists from all over the world, and a great deal of extraordinarily interesting and important scientific research has peen carried out.
The noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack, and his noble and learned predecessor, were congratulating themselves that some six pages (I believe that is the number) of obsolete Statutes are being removed from the Statute Book by this Bill. Only one of those refers to the Royal prerogative and the Royal prerogative over Royal fish, which is far more important than the noble and learned Lord has led us to believe. The fundamental point about the prerogative

725
is that the coastguard who finds the whale or dolphin is enabled, by reason of the fact that it belongs to the Crown, to prevent the casual tripper from taking odd pieces of it, thereby destroying the specimen and its usefulness for science. It is of fundamental importance that somebody should continue to have the rights to these things in order that the scientific material necessary to the museum may continue to go to it, not by the permission of the local authority, who would in future have the responsibility of disposing of the carcase, but as a right delegated to it by the Crown.
I can certainly well understand that that large number of Statutes which we see in the Schedule relating to the forests, completely, as the Report of the Law Commission says. "obsolete and unnecessary" enactments, should go. They are obsolete because the Crown no longer exercises a prerogative which it can under those Statutes; they are unnecessary because there would be no national advantage if they did. But that is not the case so far as Royal fish are concerned; they are not obsolete. The Crown has never ceased to exercise its prerogative. They are not unnecessary because they are still needed in order that the material may be available for the museum.
I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to one other point made by the Commission in their Report. There is a statement therein that it is necessary to revoke the Royal prerogative because the carcase of a whale may become a public health menace and considerable delay may be involved in seeking the permission of the Crown to dispose of it. That simply is not a fact. I have made every inquiry that I can. I can find no case where there has been any unnecessary delay which made it unfortunate that any reference had to be made to the Crown or elsewhere. What in fact happens is that the coastguard discovers the body; he immediately sends a telegram to the Museum, asking whether or not the material is required. A telegram is immediately sent back, either asking for it or saying, "Destroy it immediately". The only delay is that involved in sending the telegram.
726
There has possibly been one occasion when some slight delay occurred, when a telegram was received to the effect that the "Countess of Wales was floating in a rocky pool and unapproachable". I believe that some delay was caused by the Museum looking through the Peerage to try to find the name of the noble Earl whose Countess was so unapproachable. Very soon the confirmatory telegram arrived, and it was the carcase of a whale that was rotting and unapproachable. That was an apocryphal story, but that is possibly the maximum amount of delay which has occurred.
The other point I would make is that here we have a Bill which vitally affects one of our more important scientific institutions, and which to a lesser extent affects the public health authorities, who are now going to have to take upon themselves a duty which was previously carried out by a Government Department. I have made inquiries of the associations of local authorities, who were not consulted in any way. Most certainly we at the Natural History Museum were not consulted in any way. I cannot think that any deliberate discourtesy was intended to either body, but I am bound to feel that the Commission did not have before them all the facts which they ought to have had before them when they reached the conclusion that this one Statute out of the long list in the Schedule should be repealed. It is neither obsolete nor unnecessary. It is in fact almost exactly on a par with the Crown's right to treasure trove. So far as treasure trove is concerned, as your Lordships will be aware if there is any inquest and some discovery is found to be treasure trove—a good example are the half dozen gold torques recently discovered near Ipswich—the antiquity goes to the British Museum and the finder is rewarded. This is exactly the same, mutatis mutandis, as treasure trove. If the whale is required for scientific purposes, or the porpoise is required for scientific purposes, it goes to the museum, and not the finder. But the local authority who would otherwise be responsible does not have to incur the expense of disposing of it.
My Lords, I hope that between now and the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord will give this matter serious

727
consideration. Real damage will be done to science if whales are not combined with swans in being excluded, even if to collect the whale does not appeal to the same pageantry as swan-upping does.
3.47 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, since my home is in the centre of a small one-time Royal forest long since alienated, and since I took my Title from its name, perhaps I have an excuse for being a little more romantic than some of the speakers in this debate. I, as are other noble Lords, am all for simplifying the law where it can be done, but I am not convinced here that the Government and the Law Commission have not gone too far, and not least since in line 4 of page 2 they have to fall back on claiming that certain subsections to be repealed are no longer of practical utility, which I feel could cover almost anything that might enter into a bureaucrat's mind.
The noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, who unfortunately is not here to-day because he has not been well, has drawn my attention to one point which I think is of interest to nearly all noble Lords in the Chamber at this moment. It is in Chapter XI of the Charter of the Forest, which is the first item in the Schedule of Enactments repealed, on page 3. Chapter XI reads as follows:
"What deer noblemen may take.—Whatsoever archbishop, bishop, earl or baron",
but not, let it be noted, Duke, Marquess or Viscount,
"coming to us at our commandment. [passing by] our forest, it shall be lawful for him to take and kill one or two of our deer, by view of our forester, if he be present; or else he shall cause one to blow an horn for him, that he seem not to steal our deer. And likewise they shall do returning from us, as it is aforesaid."
I would assume that "passing through our forest at our commandment" would include answering a summons to attend Parliament and to attend your Lordships' House, and that this Chapter XI of the Charter of the Forest could still have some practical significance. It could indeed be of advantage to noble Lords who live some distance from London. I am not sure how many Royal Forests there still are, but the tedious journey to London that many of us have to make weekly from different parts of the country
728
could be made of greater interest if on occasions we were entitled to have a day's recreation en route.
The deer population of this country has not decreased recently. Since the war it has increased, and since there is likely to be a rise in the price of meat if we join the European Economic Community, I do not think we should be over-hasty in letting this small privilege be taken from us by the Government, aided and abetted by lawyers.
3.51 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I had not intended originally to take part in this interesting debate; and had it not been for the brilliant explanation given to us by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor I should not have done so. There are three relevant details that I would wish to comment on. First of all, may I thank the noble Earl opposite for his contribution; I am fully aware of the great contribution his ancestors gave to forestry in this little island of ours centuries ago.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was talking about the Forest of Dean. One section of my family were famous hammer throwers, and my great grandfather learned the art of hammer throwing because he had the right in the Forest of Dean of going there with a mandrel or pick, which we colliers knew about in those old days. As far as he could swing a pick he would draw a string, and the entire area round his feet was his to work privately to get coal. In fact, now that the Government in power are so much for the apotheosis of private enterprise I would suggest that they abolish the National Coal Board and go back to this old-fashioned method, which was full of virility and competition. Has that right been abrogated?
Looking at the Schedule to the Bill, "Enactments Repealed", I see at page 8 a reference to Section 25 of 24 & 25 Vict.:
"An Act to make further provision for the management of Her Majesty's forest of Dean, and of the mines and quarries therein and in the hundred of St. Briavel's in the county of Gloucester."
Has that right been abrogated? If my ghostly forefathers could come back, would they still have the right to work those areas for coal?

729
I was glad to see a reference on page 4 to:
"An Act for the better cultivation of navy timber in the forest of Alice Holt in the county of Southampton."
I wish we had kept that in, because I deprecate the nature of the reafforestation right throughout Britain, and especially on our hills in Wales and in the Peak District, where the deciduous trees and the grand old English oak are no longer planted. I would have kept that Act and said that we need it still to plant the oak, because the silhouette of the mountains in the Highlands, in Scotland and in Wales is being changed. I hope that in repealing these forest laws that are supposed not to fit in with the times in which we live we shall still keep up our forests and see that a little more deciduous wood is planted for the generations that come after us, because this is our duty to our descendants.
3.55 p.m.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My Lords, I rise briefly to welcome the Bill, and to raise one point which affects my particular area in the New Forest. It is not unnatural that a Bill dealing with wild creatures and forest laws should include a number of New Forest Acts which are considered no longer of practical use. I have been asked by the Rural District Council of New Forest to raise one matter. I am not a member of the Council, but as a ratepayer I have an interest to see that their functions are carried out efficiently and for the general good of the public.
Among the Acts scheduled for repeal is the new Forest (Sale of Lands for Public Purposes) Act 1902, mentioned on page 9, line 37. This Act authorised the sale of forest land to a local authority for public health purposes free of any rights of common, and under it the Council have purchased land for sewage disposal works, cemeteries and so on. Then Section 102 of the Housing Act 1957, which is also up for repeal, provides that the provision of houses shall be deemed to be a local sanitary requirement for the purposes of the 1902 Act, subject to a limit of 30 acres. These provisions apply also to other local district councils, such as Ringwood and Fordingbridge.
When it was pointed out to the Law Commission that it was considered that the procedure under the 1902 Act was
730
advantageous to the councils, they replied that the powers of the Commissioners of Woods under the 1902 Act are now vested in the Forestry Commissioners, who cannot exercise them since the ownership of the New Forest is now vested in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Unfortunately, the Forestry Act 1945, which vested the Forest in the Minister, did not include a provision for transferring to him the powers of the 1902 Act. Whether this was deliberate or an oversight it is difficult to say.
The Law Commission state that it is not possible to include in the Bill a provision transferring the powers to the Minister as such a provision would be quite outside the scope of the Bill. Nor can the transfer of powers be made by Order in Council under the Ministers of the Crown (Transfer of Functions) Act 1946. It is the view of the Law Commission that a special Bill would have to be introduced for this purpose. However, the Commission are unwilling to remove the 1902 Act from the Repeals Schedule. They state that this would not take the matter any further, as the 1902 Act is quite short, and any Bill to transfer its powers can just as easily be done. There is, unfortunately, so far as I am aware, no other statute which confers a general power to sell to the New Forest Rural District Council land free of commoners' rights, and if the proposed repeal takes place without a concurrent vesting of similar powers in the Minister, it appears that the effect will be that land cannot be sold to the council without such rights of common and the Council will be left to clear off these rights as best it can. It will be appreciated that this will lead to delays while negotiations are taking place with the Verderers and others.
I wonder whether between now and the Committee stage the noble and learned Lord would perhaps look into this matter and see whether it would not be more appropriate if Section 102 of the Housing Act 1957 were removed from the Repeals Schedule and the appropriate steps were taken for the powers of the Commissioners of Woods to be vested in the Minister of Agriculture. If this was in fact an oversight when the 1945 Act was being drafted, then perhaps it is up to the Government to rectify the situation. In the meantime, considerable delay in public works and housing, and

731
so on, in the New Forest, and considerable embarrassment and suffering to local residents, could be caused.
3.59 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I have been listening with fascination, as I am sure all of your Lordships have been, to this short debate. I would like to assure the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that I am not going to spring any questions on to him to which I desire an immediate answer. There may be other noble Lords who, like me, have been waiting with excitement to hear whether we are to have any authoritative explanation of either the fence month or the winter heyning—phrases which no doubt should be intelligible to me but I must confess are not.
However, my principal reason for rising is to express some disappointment that neither the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, nor my noble relative, Lady Brooke of Ystradfellte, nor any other noble Lord of Welsh descent has called attention to the proposal to repeal an Act of 1535 described as "An Act for the abuses in the forests of Wales". It may be that the noble Lord felt that as this was an Act for abuses, and not against abuses, it was high time after 436 years that it should be repealed. But I have refreshed my memory as to the terms of this Act; naturally I was fully familiar with it when I was Minister for Welsh affairs, but since then the precise provisions had slipped my memory.
The Act appears to be misnamed, as it really is against abuses in the forests of Wales. Perhaps it does not matter so much; the principal abuse against which it was directed appears to have been a custom employed by Welsh "foresters, rulers, walkers or farmers", to stop anybody they found going through a forest who could not produce the appropriate token, and deprive him forthwith of all the money and gold on his person. I do not think that kind of thing happens in Wales now, and I doubt whether this 1535 Act is still required. But it certainly seemed to me, from my experience as a former Minister, that I should alert noble Lords of Welsh descent to the proposed repeal of this Act, so that between now and the Committee stage of this Bill
732
they can give the question more careful study.
4.1 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in dealing with some of the points that have been raised, may I start first with that of my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor, the "Act for the abuses in the forests of Wales", 1535, 27 Henry VIII, Chapter VII. It is proposed to repeal that Act as being obsolete. The Forestry Commission and the Welsh Office have both been consulted and see no objection. The Act is referred to in the Chronological Table of Statutes as, "Local forests in Wales". It is not in the Statutes Revised. It will, however, be found in the Statutes of the Realm, volume 3, at page 536.
The Act abolished certain longstanding unreasonable customs and exactions whereby the foresters imposed tolls and fines upon persons going through the forest. In default of payment a person straying from the highway was liable to lose a joint of one of his hands. The foresters also seized cattle which they retained unless redeemed by their owners. Hence, perhaps, the phrase, "Take two cows Taffy". The Act declared that all subjects may pass through forests without the exaction of any such tolls or fines, but any cattle straying or fief taken in the forests might be reclaimed by their owners within a year, upon reasonable payment for their keep. My Lords, I think perhaps there is no useful purpose in retaining this particular Statute.
Dealing with the case put forward by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, it is proposed to repeal the Act of 1902 because it has become inoperative since Crown Land in the New Forest was transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under the Forestry Act 1945 (Chapter 35), now re-enacted in the Forestry Act 1967 (Chapter 10). I could give a rather longer explanation than that, but I hope that this will satisfy his correspondents in the matter. However, I will look at the matter again in the light of what he said, and I will write to him if there is anything to add.
The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was interested in two factors. First, the hammer-throwing method of obtaining coal in the Forest of Dean. I suspect,

733
without knowing, that that was abolished when the mines were nationalised generally by the Labour Government of 1945–50. Again, should I prove to be wrong I shall have to write to him. His point about navy timber is truly taken, but the plantation of national forest does not now take place under the Act which it is proposed to repeal. The Forestry Commissioners have more up-to-date machinery. I take the noble Lord's point about the desirability of a certain proportion of deciduous timber, if only for its amenity value.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood raised a point about the privilege of Peerage. I happen to know something about this, for a rather peculiar reason, which I will now confide in the House. When I was much younger I did not want to become a Peer at all. My father took quite a different view and was quite determined that when the time came I should become a Peer. I, however, discovered by reading in the old books what I thought would be a way of making the Peerage ridiculous: because I too, like my noble friend, read of this practice of taking a deer on your way to Parliament after sounding your horn. I said to my father, "If ever I succeed to your Peerage of Hailsham of Hailsham I shall shoot a deer in Richmond Park, blowing a motor horn first". My father went into the matter and told me the privilege was wholly obsolete and that, so far as he could ascertain, it had never been exercised. So I hope this repeal, too, may not be considered a serious encroachment upon the rights of your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook raised a point about whales and accused me of bypassing the point. I do not think I did. I had thought that the assurance which I gave him in the course of my opening speech more than covered the point he was raising, because I assured him that the present procedure would be followed as regards notification to the Museum, until one which they found acceptable was substituted for it. At least, that is what I thought to be the effect of the assurance I gave. If, on reflection, and reading what I said, he considers it to be in some way inadequate, I certainly would seek to improve upon it, if possible. But I think it is taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut to insist
734
that every porpoise which is landed on the coast of Norfolk is the property of the Crown, and can be removed only by the Receiver of Wrecks, if all that is wanted is for the National History Museum to be sure they have another porpoise for the purposes of science. I think perhaps my assurance will cover that case. But, as I say, if it is not good enough I hope the noble Earl will let me know, and I will then look at it again, before the Bill becomes law—and preferably before the Committee stage if he can let me know in time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, asked me about four matters which are neither in the Bill nor in the Long Title to the Bill. I never know quite how far one can go in this House, but I think I could not give a disquisition on the whole of the law relating to hall-marking, burial grounds, exemption clauses and reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders. But if the House will bear with me I think I can give some kind of answer to the noble and learned Lord, although I seem to have lost most of my notes.
First, as regards the reciprocal enforcement of maintenance orders I think that the Home Office will have a Bill ready before long. It will probably be the first of the four subjects to be ready for legislation. I cannot confirm or otherwise what the noble and learned Lord told us about the state of what would have been the Labour Government's programme, because he probably knows that there is a constitutional convention whereby civil servants are completely prohibited from telling successor Governments what was in the minds of their political predecessors. So I cannot confirm that, but I have no doubt that what the noble and learned Lord has said is correct. It would never cross my mind to doubt his account of the matter.
As regards burial laws, I think I can confirm that the law is in a state which demands action; indeed, the noble and learned Lord gave reasons for making it difficult to do 'anything else. I can tell the House that discussions between the Department of the Environment, which is the Department with the right of initiative in this matter, and the Law Commission have been taking place to see whether the matter can be considered by the Commission. Certainly

735
I shall be happy if this turns out to be the case.
I know something about the hall-marking law because by a curious coincidence for the first time in my professional life I was asked to advise about it last year. I again confirm what the noble and learned Lord has said. I am told that work on the reform began in 1969 and has now reached the stage where it should shortly be possible to put proposals before the interested bodies for comment and discussion, which is the necessary stage in our modern technique of law reform. Obviously, we need to repeal all the old legislation and replace it by a modern Statute, but I could not give a date for the Bill at the present time.
As the noble and learned Lord said, the Sale of Goods Act is a matter for the Department of Trade and Industry. It is a matter not quite so easy as it sounds, because the English and the Scottish Law Commissions arrived at diametrically opposite conclusions on certain points; but the situation is, I hope, that advances and progress will be made. Again, I cannot give much better news to the noble and learned Lord than that the subject is under more or less active consideration by my right honourable friend. I am afraid that it would be imposing on the House to deal more than summarily with the four points put forward by the noble and learned Lord. I hope that I have dealt sufficiently with them and have covered all the points raised in the debate. I hope that the House will now be prepared to give a Second Reading to this imperious little Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [General exceptions from Sunday closing]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD ROYLE: I feel that we should not part with Clause 1 without some discussion. I notice that no Amendments are put down to this clause. I notice, too, that it is the paving clause for the rest of the Bill. Therefore, it becomes almost the basis of the principles of the Bill. It substitutes for Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950 a new Schedule of shops which are to be permitted to be open on Sunday. On the evening of the Second Reading debate on this Bill the House sat very late. The Second Reading debate was not started until quite late and, if I remember rightly, the attendance in your Lordships' House at that time was not large. I was unable to stay on that night. I therefore apologise for the fact that in a few words I am going to say what I would have said on Second Reading had I had the opportunity. I feel that with a better attendance it is wise that we should, on the Committee stage, give some real consideration to the clauses of the Bill.
There are two reasons which would justify change in social legislation of this character: first, any public demand or public need for such legislation; secondly, an agreement or a demand on the part of those responsible for carrying out the legislation after it had reached the Statute Book. Obviously those would be the retail traders. I submit that neither of those reasons has been proved in introducing this Bill. I read the Second Reading debate closely, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that in 1964 approaches had been made to the Home Office about the anomalies which existed. That is not sufficient for me. I do not believe that what he indicated meets the condition of public demand and public need that I am trying to lay down. Where has the public demand been expressed? Is there any indication anywhere in our mass media that the public have been demanding that food should now be included in the items which can be sold on Sunday? Has application been made to the Home Office? Has there been agitation from any source to the

737
Home Office demanding that these things should be done?
My second point concerns the trade. I know that the National Chamber of Trade, the Co-operative societies, U.S.D.A.W. (the main trade union for the distributive workers), some multiples, the National Federation of Meat Traders and the Grocers' Federation have all indicated their opposition to the principles of this Bill. They do not regard it as something that should go on to the Statute Book. I am speaking to Clause 1 because that is the basis of the Bill. The noble Lord opposite knows of my past interest in the matter. In the case of the meat trade, I submit that the Bill puts the clock back not for twenty-one years, but, in the view of the trade, for thirty-five years. This is an interference with the lives of shop assistants. It is asking that distributive workers in food shops and stores should work for seven working days. We are living in a time when so far as productive workers are concerned there is talk of a working week of five, four or four and a half days, yet at the same time we are introducing legislation which would have the effect, so far as distributive workers are concerned, of imposing on them a seven-day week.
It is all very well to say that nobody need adopt this provision. But as against the larger multiple firms, the small trader has a great problem. If the larger people are going to open their shops on Sundays for food sales, the small traders will be forced to adopt the same line in defence of their own business, and will have to trade on Sundays. I listened closely one day last week to a debate in your Lordships' House on civil aviation. The noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said, I think, that no more actual business would be done if such-and-such a change took place. Only a certain amount of food is sold in this country, and it can be sold just as easily in five or six days as in seven days, without interfering with the family lives of those concerned, as this Bill would do if it became law. In these days wages are paid not later than Thursday evening. The shops are open until late on Friday, and 5 p.m. seems to be the recognised closing time for food shops on Saturday. Surely that is sufficient time for anybody to stock up their food needs for the weekend without imposing this added burden
738
on small traders and on people who are employed by the larger firms.
Is it a service to the public to increase these hours of work? I do not believe it is. Is it the will of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and some of his friends, that small traders should disappear from our trading life? This Bill is a real threat to them. I should have thought that anybody who called himself a "Conservative" would be one who wanted to see that the small traders' interests were maintained. That is all I want to say about the matter. I feel very strongly about it, and to such an extent that if I have any support for going into the Lobby on Clause 1 I will certainly do so.
4.21 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: May I rise in answer to my noble friend's plea? I will certainly support him, and if we were the only two there I think we should go in. I was unable to be here at the Second Reading of the Bill, but I regard it as a most important social measure. What astonishes me is that in the years I have been in this House I have observed that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has, on occasion, adopted a welcome feminist attitude to many Bills which affected women and which called for deep thought, and which too many men would dismiss lightly with a laugh. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has risen and, to my amazement, shown me that he had given great thought to them and had recognised that the usual male flippant approach on certain matters affecting women should not be adopted.
I find it very difficult to believe that he is piloting this Bill through. It is a measure which I believe to be absolutely anti-social and which one could expect to find in some primitive country but not in Great Britain, where we pride ourselves on our social services and our laws concerning the social conditions of the people. If there is one Bill which is being piloted through this House and which will be detrimental to the lives of women, it is this. Does the noble Lord realise that in this Schedule all the activities except one which will be able to take place on Sundays but which cannot do so at the moment are activities which concern women? The only one that does not is No. 10,
"The transaction of the business of a funeral undertaker."

739
I have never yet found a woman funeral undertaker. I am thinking of adding a codicil to my will and asking my executor to look for a female undertaker. Apart from item No. 10, does the noble Lord realise that every one of these things—the selling of sweets, alcoholic drink, medicines in chemists, flowers, tobacco, stationery, greeting cards, photographs and photographic films and plates, domestic fuels, and food for animals—will be sold by women on a Sunday?
LORD DERWENT: May I interrupt the noble Baroness? First may I say that she also is making a Second Reading speech. Secondly, nine-tenths of these things are now sold on Sunday.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I am a Londoner and in the part of the world where I live, which is the Highgate world, you can get a few of these things; but I can think of shop after shop—and I have lived in the area for nearly forty years—which is closed for these things. I welcome the noble Lord's intervention as it means that he is listening to me. He has not thought, "We are going back over the Second Reading" and gone to sleep. I think he will come to regret this. In his old age, when he will look back on this, he will say, "One of the things I regret in life is this Bill".
I ask the Committee to consider the lot of the ordinary working woman. I believe that half of our labour force are women, and that a third of them are married. They are women who work during the day and in the home. I am not going over the old arguments, but may I just remind the Committee that, whatever job a woman does, if she is married she also keeps an eye on her home. I know precisely what my husband is going to have for dinner tonight, and I shall know every day what he is eating. We do not regret the fact; we enjoy that we are made in that way. Our ductless glands are such that we care, and we like looking after the male. What a confession from me! But it is a fact. Our maternal instinct is so strong that we take within our embrace not only our children but our husbands. All during the week these women—and we are calling for them to do a job in industry—work outside the home and come back to their homes and prepare a meal every
740
night. Often on Monday night they do the washing, and skip around and do the housework, making up the beds. During the weekend they say, "What I have not been able to do during the week, I will do now."
The great joke is that when the man goes out and watches football on a Saturday afternoon, his wife is cleaning the home. She does not complain; she wants to be there. But the noble Lord now comes along and proposes to put Sunday work on to her shoulders. It is cruel; it is thoughtless; it is brutal; and I find it difficult to understand how the noble Lord can do this. I am thinking of the wife in a small shop (though it will apply also to the big shops, because they will follow suit) and who says, "Thank God, to-morrow is Sunday and I can put my feet up". Think of the husband, who is perhaps old, and the wife who, in her usual way, says, "I can look after the shop. You rest to-day."
We who are privileged, and who belong to an income group which does not have to do anything like this, must not sit in this place and pass legislation that will bring hardship to every woman who works in a shop during the week by imposing on her now work on Sundays. It is brutal. I ask the Committee to consider Clause 1 again and to reverse this decision. If the noble Lord wishes to call a Division, I shall be only too pleased to support him.
4.28 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: Although it is not strictly relevant to Clause 1, may I start this afternoon by saying that I am a Yorkshireman and not a Scotsman or Irishman? I bring that to the attention of your Lordships only because I see 'from the Minutes of Proceedings, that when this Committee was announced I was referred to as "The Derwent". I will not say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Royle, and even more the noble Baroness, are stretching our easy methods of debate too far. The noble Lord, Lord Royle, did tie his speech to the Question. That Clause 1 stand part; the noble Baroness just remembered in time. But I really feel that they should not expect me to make a Second Reading speech all over again in reply to them; and I am not going to do so, because I believe that it would be abusing the procedure of the House.

741
It is quite clear from the speech of the noble Baroness, and partially clear from the speech of the noble. Lord, Lord Royle, that they did not read the Second Reading debate very carefully. I think the noble Lord has not looked at some of the Amendments which are down from noble Lords opposite and which I am going to accept. Both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness talked as if food shops were not at present open on a Sunday, when in fact they have been open on a Sunday for years. They both asked what the demand was. But, of course, if there was not the demand, the shops would not open. The noble Baroness said that in her area there is very little demand, and except for the odd shop which thinks there is a demand they do not open. Well and good; why should they? This Bill does not compel them to open.
The object of this Bill, and I repeat it again, is that the courts, quite rightly, have said that the present Act on Sunday trading is in many respects a nonsense—particularly as regards what is a meal and what is not a meal. The courts have had to rule on the extraordinary legislation under which we live. They have ruled that anything that is edible in the shop without further process is a meal; and you can buy meals on a Sunday. But some foods, such as tea and flour, you cannot buy because they need a further process. However, that is not quite so, because the courts have also ruled that if you buy some bread and some butter you can buy a bag of tea, because it is then part of a meal. That is the sort of nonsense which the present law brings about.
With the possible exception of meat and fish and chips, the only alteration that will be made by the Bill is that this nonsense will be stopped, because when a shop opens for the sale of food it will be able to sell all food. There will be no question of whether something is part of a meal and so on. This is something for which the courts have been asking for a long time. I am not going to make a Second Reading speech, but that is the case for this Bill. The House approved the Bill on Second Reading, and I am quite prepared to rely on the House again.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): This has been a rather unusual opening to a Committee stage. Perhaps it is due to two factors: first, that the Division on Second Reading was called very late; and, secondly, that it was not possible to gauge the extent of the support for the noble Lord's Bill and the opposition to it because of a misunderstanding, in that the Opposition did not appoint Tellers in time. Otherwise, there would have been a Division and we might have had some guide as to the support for and the opposition to the Bill. The noble Lord asked whether there had been representations on this subject. I am informed that the Home Office has had representations from individual traders, from representatives of certain trade associations, from some members of the general public and from the Consumer Council. I should not want to put that too high, but the information may be helpful to the noble Lord.
As the debate on Second Reading took place very late, I ought to repeat very briefly the Government's position on the Bill. We are in favour of having a clearer and more rational system of law. There are anomalies in this field and it is certainly desirable to try to clear them up. It will not surprise any of your Lordships to hear that, as a Conservative Government, we are in favour of the widest possible range of consumer choice. But at the same time we are not convinced that that consideration should outweigh all others. This Bill raises a number of important issues many of which are in conflict, but the Government welcome it as an opportunity to gauge opinion and to hear from people inside and outside this House, who will be concerned with the working of the legislation, before deciding whether or not it is desirable to move in this direction. Therefore, the position of the Government now, as it was on Second Reading, is one of strict neutrality.
LORD PLATT: I do not propose to say very much in this Committee stage and I shall probably not speak to any of the Amendments, but I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Royle. I began by being completely neutral about this Bill, but at the end of the Second Reading debate I was far more convinced by the arguments against the Bill than by those in favour of it. The arguments

743
which particularly impressed me were that the Bill was to the detriment of the small shopkeeper, that it was to the detriment of family life and that, if it had any effect at all, it would increase the cost of living, one of the greatest evils that we have to avoid at the present time. The only argument I heard in favour of the Bill was that the present position is nonsense.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Clause 1 agreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Registration of food shops]: 4.44 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, leave out from ("which") to ("ingredients") in line 15 and insert ("food is sold, or").
The noble Lord said: The intention of this Amendment is not to change in any way the operation of the Bill. Its aims are brevity, which I consider to be an objective in itself, and clarity, which I suggest is not perfect in the clause as it stands at present. Clause 2 introduces
*See col. 761.
But there are other ways of putting nonsense right than by introducing a bad Bill which, in my view, this is. I shall support the noble Lord, Lord Royle.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 52; Not-Contents, 37.*

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gisborough, L.

Milverton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Gray, L.

Molson, L.

Avebury, L.

Greenway, L.

Monson, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Butler of Saffron Walden, L.

Hanworth, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Byers, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Caccia, L.

Hereford, V.

Reigate, L.

Clwyd, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Roberthall, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Kilmany, L.

Shannon, E.

Effingham, E.

Kinnoull, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Lauderdale, E.

Swansea, L. [Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Thomson of Fleet, L.

Falkland, V.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Lovat, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Fortescue, E.

Meston, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Ardwick, L,

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Beswick, L.

Ingleby, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

McLeavy, L.

Slater, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Summerskill, Bs. [Teller.]

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Platt, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Diamond, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Faringdon, L.

Rhodes, L.

White, Bs.

Fulton, L.

a new concept which does not exist in the 1950 Act, that is, the registration of food shops which will be allowed to be open on Sunday. It describes these shops as:
"… shops in which is carried on the sale for human consumption of food (other than sweets, chocolate and other sugar confectionery; ice cream and edible wafers or containers) and drink (other than alcoholic drink) …".
When I first read this clause I misunderstood it—and I suggest that it can be quite easily misunderstood—because I somewhat naturally, I think, supposed that the shops to be registered were those in which food was sold but not those particular commodities which are set out

745
in parentheses—sweets, chocolate, other sugar confectionery and so on. But in this I was mistaken. The commodities in question are among those set out in Schedule 1(3) and they are therefore allowed to be sold in any shop on a Sunday, and it is for this reason that, in this clause, they are excluded. What is meant by the draftsman of the Bill, I understand, is that shops do not have to be registered if they do not sell any food other than sweets, chocolate, other sugar confectionery, et cetera. Therefore, it seems to me that putting in this long phrase is completely unnecessary, because such shops (confectioners, and so on, or shops that sell drink) will never bother to apply for registration. Shops will be put on the register only if they apply to their local authority to be put there, and, of course, a confectioner—somebody who is selling ice cream, or something of that sort—will not bother to apply to be put on the register; and a shop that is on the register is enabled to sell these commodities because they are among those listed in Schedule 1. Therefore, I am proposing that the shops on this register should be described simply as, "shops in which food is sold, or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink". I beg to move.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER): I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that, if this Amendment is agreed to, Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 cannot be moved.
LORD DERWENT: I am very much on the side of the noble Lord in wanting to simplify matters, but I would ask him to withdraw this Amendment for two reasons. First, I am told that the wording of this clause should be as near as possible to that of the 1950 Act, because if you omit from this Bill words which appear more or less exactly in the 1950 Act, then when people come to compare the Bill with the Act—that is, people who have not studied the Bill as carefully as has the noble Lord himself—they will think that this is something quite different, and they will get muddled. That is one reason. The other reason why I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw this Amendment is because I believe that Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 are more important than this one. If this Amendment is agreed to, we cannot have Amendments
746
Nos. 2 to 6, and there are one or two important Amendments among those Amendments. I sympathise with the fact that the noble Lord wants to simplify things, but purely on those grounds I would ask him, at any rate at this stage, at the Committee stage, not to press this Amendment, particularly, if I may use a cryptic phrase, because of something that I am going to say on the Motion, That Clause 2 stand part of the Bill.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I do not think that it would be right for the Government to intervene more than is necessary during the Committee stage. However, there may be times when, on points of drafting or interpretation, I can assist. One of them may be on this Amendment. I am advised that by omitting drink from this clause difficulties would arise when drinks were neither alcoholic nor soft drinks. There are a number of drinks in that category, the most obvious being milk. The Amendment would have the effect of simplifying the wording of the Bill; but, on the whole, I am advised that the original wording of the clause as tabled by Lord Derwent, complicated though it may seem, would be more effective in practice.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I cannot wait to hear the "cryptic" remarks that the noble Lord has promised us on the Motion, That Clause 2 stand part. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, was speaking mainly about the difficulties of removing any reference to drinks. In this connection I must admit that milk for consumption off the premises is something that had not occurred to me as being necessary to itemise as being covered by neither "intoxicating" nor "non intoxicating" liquor. I do not think that milk could be called a non-intoxicating liquor, although "liquor" is defined in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as, "drink (usually fermented or distilled)". Possibly, therefore, milk might come under that definition. If not, some further amendment is going to be necessary in Schedule 1, because I think it is clear that it is the intention that all drinks required for consumption off the premises (whether soft drinks or non-alcoholic drinks or whatever the phrasing is) should be permitted.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that it was desirable, where possible, to

747
keep very close to the wording of the 1950 Act. I myself feel that we should try to devise a better Act. If in doing so we must depart from the language of the previous Act, that has to be accepted. The noble Lord referred to the desirability of considering Amendments Nos. 2 to 6 which, if this Amendment were carried would fall by the wayside. I believe that all the points contained in those Amendments could be raised on subsequent clauses in the Bill. None the less, in view of the sympathetic way in which the noble Lord has considered what I have to say, I do not intend to press this Amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 11, leave out ("for human consumption").
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee to consider Amendments Nos. 2 and 6 together. They are among those to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said we might give sympathetic consideration. My Amendments are purely on a matter of semantics. When I read Clause 1 I was put out by the repetition of the word "consumption" in lines 12 and 14. I think the awkwardness of that phraseology can be seen if we read those lines without the words in parentheses. It talks about
"… the sale for human consumption of food … and drink … for consumption off the premises from which they are sold or of ingredients for the preparation of food or drink."
It seems to me to be very much simpler and clearer to say, "in which is carried on the sale of food and drink for human consumption off the premises". That is the effect of Amendments Nos. 2 and 6. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: I am not a Parliamentary draftsman and I am not quite sure whether the word "human" is necessary. I do not imagine that my noble friend on the Front Bench has considered this either; but the Amendment seems to me to be harmless and I am prepared to accept it unless any noble Lord thinks that it alters the meaning. It is purely a question of semantics.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.53 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, after ("containers") insert ("; and fried fish and chips").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 3. Perhaps it may be convenient if I were also to speak to Amendments Nos. 25 and 30 which cover the same point; namely, that of maintaining the existing prohibition on the sale of fried fish and chips from a fried fish and chip shop, which has been the state of the law since 1936. What do the fish fryers themselves say? I should like to read from a statement by the National Federation of Fish Friers, Ltd. I should explain that I have no connection with this Federation although I must say that there is a certain fish shop which my family find it difficult to pass by without calling in. I should like to read the Federation's statement which has been signed by Mr. Peter Worthington, their General Secretary.
"… in considering this legislation we hope that Parliament will keep in mind that the interests of traders are also important and that it is a poor bargain if convenience to certain sections of the public is obtained only at the expense of hardship to other sections.
"Generally speaking, fried fish shops are family businesses, usually run by man and wife, sometimes with part-time help at busy periods. Sunday is the one day of the week when the family has leisure. (This is underlined over and over again in our own Federation when social events have to be arranged on Sundays as being the only day on which friers are able to take part).
"The fish frier works long hours, and he is employed in his shop at times when other people are enjoying their leisure. He has, if anything, a greater need of Sunday off than any other trader.
"He gets this Sunday break at the moment only because of the operation of the Shops Act 1950 which prohibits the sale of fried fish and chips on a Sunday at a fried fish and chip shop.
"It has been argued that the new Bill will give the trader free choice as to whether he opens on Sunday or not. This is a fallacy. There are some friers who would undoubtedly choose to open on Sundays and because of the keen competition in the trade and the close proximity of shops this opening by a minority of friers would very quickly result in large numbers of other friers having to open in self-defence. It is not merely that friers will be forced to open in order to share the Sunday trade—there would be the fear that customers would take trade on weekdays also to the shops obliging enough to open on Sundays'….

749
"The National Federation of Fish Friers has 6,000 members, all proprietors of fried fish and chip businesses. We have discussed the question of Sunday opening at recent National Conferences, including our 1970 Conference, and there has been an overwhelming majority on each occasion in favour of retaining the prohibition on Sunday opening of fried fish and chip shops. The fish frying trade does not want Sunday opening; Sunday trading would create a great deal of hardship for friers; the advantage to the general public would be more imaginary than real; and this advantage would be secured only by injuring the fish friers themselves and increasing the costs of fried fish and chips to the public at large."
I think that it is clear from that statement that the fish fryers themselves—an overwhelming majority we are told—do not want Sunday opening. They feel that if Sunday opening is allowed a small number will open and the rest will be forced to open in self-defence. I submit that their feelings are important and that we ought to think very carefully before passing legislation which, they fear, will force them to open on Sunday against their wishes and will deprive them of a leisure day to spend with their families. I beg to move the Amendment.
LORD ROYLE: I want to say one or two words in support of this Amendment. I have an Amendment down to Schedule 3 which deals with the meat trade in the way in which this Amendment deals with fish and chip establishments. As I said during the discussion on Clause 1, I think that the basis of the question is: does that trade want it? It is pretty evident from what what the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has told the Committee, that the fish and chip trade does not want it; and I repeat: if there is no public demand for it, and the trade does not want it, it ought not to be in the Bill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I would only say that the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has expressed, on behalf of the fish fryers, what no doubt many other trades would desire to say if they were so well organised. It just happens—I cannot understand why—that the fish fryers are very well organised. They have said what I sought to say in my speech on the first Amendment: that they want Sunday with their families, and they do not want legislation introduced which
750
will make them work seven days a week. What goes for the fish fryers should go for all other trades. Unfortunately, there are other trades which are not well organised, and I want once more to draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to the fact that when it comes to a well-organised trade expressing its views in this matter, it says, "Please save us from this and give us a rest". I still hope that the noble Lord will have second thoughts when he comes to give us those final words.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This is a matter which has caused a lot of concern among fish fryers. The Government are already aware of the views expressed by the National Federation of Fish Friers. The fish fryers have a number of legitimate worries; we have heard them explained fully by the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby. By and large fish and chip shops are family businesses and do not enjoy the same protection under the law as other shop assistants. Moreover, fish fryers have to work long hours and we can therefore appreciate their concern that they may be forced to open against their will in order to combat competition. At the same time, it is fair to say that the Bill would not require them to open by law. If they decided to do so it would be because of the competitive position in which they found themselves. It may be that these fears are exaggerated. Fish and chip shops are not unique in being small family businesses, and it is a matter for discussion whether shop legislation is really intended to protect shopkeepers from competition and to safeguard a shop owner's leisure time.
It may be argued that the case for treating fish and chip shops exceptionally has to be proved. Having said that, I appreciate that the noble Viscount's Amendment, taken together with the subsequent Amendments that he mentioned, is designed simply to preserve the status quo. As a result of it, the position would not be changed but would be left as it is under Schedule 5 to the 1950 Shops Act. So the noble Viscount is not trying to establish a restriction which does not apply at present under the existing law, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether or not this change should be made and whether fish and chip shops should be treated as a special case.
5.6 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: May I declare an interest—though not as a fish fryer? As I have told your Lordships before, I am the President of the Institute of Shop Acts Inspectors. They are the poor devils who have to try to carry out the present law, and what they say in private is something worse than the courts have said in public. I mention this now because I will give certain facts, not invented by me, but produced for me by people who have to try to enforce the law. The way the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has talked about fish fryers, and so on, sounds very nice, but it is difficult to know what proportion of the proprietors of fish and chip shops actually belong to the Federation of Fish Friers. What we do know is that there are an increasing number of fish and chip shops that have been opened in recent years the owners of which are not members of the Federation. Therefore I do not know what proportion the Federation speaks for. That is the first thing.
The second thing is that by this Bill we are trying to do away with anomalies. The present law says that anyone who sells food can sell fish and chips (that is virtually what it says)—except, of course, fish and chip shops. That does not seem very sensible to me. Restaurants and cafés can sell fish and chips; even grocers can sell fried fish and chips. Your Lordships may have seen cooked fish fillets which are put into refrigerators. When you want to buy some of that fish very often you ask for it from a grocer; and you can buy chips at the same time. That, strange to say, is a meal. One would think it was impossible to eat the fish, although it is cooked, without its being further cooked: the fillets are meant to be bought and heated. But in fact people do eat them cold with sauce—and chips. It is perfectly legal for grocers, if they are open on Sundays, to sell fish fillets, and that is the sort of nonsense that we are trying to do away with by this Bill.
There is a further point—and here I wonder whether the noble Viscount really knows quite fully what he is talking about. Fish and chips has always been rather a favourite food in the Midlands. It is one of the English foods that a great many immigrants like; and in fact a great many immigrants have opened fish and chip shops. What happens?
752
They cannot of course do anything so evil as to sell fish and chips on a Sunday. But what they do has created considerable difficulties for some of the inspectors. They can legally open on a Sunday and sell sausages and chips; they fry chicken and sell it with chips; some sell fried fish without chips, and some have gone so far as to sell fried fish and fried potatoes which are not chip potatoes. They fry whole potatoes and cut them up; but they are not chips. So far the advice given is that they are within the law. That is the sort of nonsense one is trying to stop.
In a small area—I am talking about an area of three or four streets where there is a fish and chip shop—I do not think that if the proprietor does not work on a Sunday someone will open another fish and chip shop in the area and outsell him. I do not believe that, because in any given area there is a limited market for fish and chips. I believe it is necessary to get away from what I consider to be a complete nonsense, because it is not operated right throughout the country. As things stand a man can keep his fish and chip shop open and sell fried fish and roast potatoes or mashed potatoes. So all this talk about these being mostly family businesses, as indeed they are is I think arguing a bit too far.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: It seems to me that some attention should be paid to the person who wants to buy fish and chips; and so far he has not been mentioned. I have a rapidly disintegrating relationship with the consumer movement, although I am in no sense briefed to say anything. However, I feel strongly that if somebody (and I should have thought that under the present Government this would be official policy) wants to work a little harder, earn a little more money and give the public what they want, we should not stop him—and least of all a closed shop of organised traders. I do not want to enter deeply into this subject, but in principle I believe that, subject to the employment of paid labour, people should be allowed to buy and sell as often and as freely as they can, and I think we should all benefit if fewer obstacles were put in their way.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should like to say a word or two in support of my noble friend, while regretting having to

753
disagree with other noble friends. It seems to me quite extraordinary that the proposal, for no particular reason that I can think of, is that, of all the food and drink that we should be able to buy on Sundays, in future there should be a single exception, that of fish and chips. So far as the fish fryers are concerned, if they do not want to open on Sundays, they do not have to; and if there is not a demand from the consumers, they will not want to open on Sundays. As one who personally finds it very convenient when in this country, and rather hungry in Hammersmith on a Sunday evening, to go to the fish and chip shop round the corner and come back with my fish and chips in the News of the World (and it is well known that it is far better in the News of the World than in any other newspaper), I must say that I oppose the noble Viscount's Amendment.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: I admit, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that there are loopholes in the existing law. I think they concern a fairly small proportion of the trade, in that they are mostly concerned with the "on" trade—that is to say, fish and chips consumed on the premises—whereas the great majority of the fish and chip trade relates to what people take away. So I think that the extent of these loopholes can be exaggerated. I am concerned only that we shall not jump out of the frying pan into the fire. The frying pan, I think, is a fairly small one, and we may jump into the fire and find that we have done away with Sunday for all these good fish fryers. That is why I moved the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 4 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("and") and insert ("or")—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.14 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 14, leave out ("alcoholic drink") and insert ("intoxicating liquors").
The noble Lord said: My noble friend Lord Windlesham has pointed out to me that in the Shops Act what I call "alcoholic
754
drink" is referred to as "intoxicating liquors" and it would be better to have the same wording in this Bill. I beg to move.
LORD KILBRACKEN: The noble Lord may possibly get into slight difficulty with this Amendment, because in this clause the words in parentheses are commodities which are permitted to be sold under Schedule 1, paragraph 3. The noble Lord has an Amendment down at a later stage to change "alcoholic drink" in paragraph 3(ii) to "intoxicating liquors". Therefore if he is intent upon including these words in parentheses in Clause 2 (1), this particular sentence should read:
"and drink other than intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors",
because intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors are both going to be permitted under Schedule 1 if his subsequent Amendment is carried. I suggest, therefore, that the noble Lord should look at this point again and ask himself whether it makes sense to refer here to drink other than intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquor.
LORD DERWENT: I do not think the noble Lord is quite right, and perhaps we can look at the Schedule for a moment. What we are referring to in this subsections in the registration, and what we refer to in the Schedule is what can be sold. Alcoholic drink, intoxicating liquors, is not for the registry, because shops are not to be registered for the sale of those commodities. They come under the licensing justices. So the wording, subject to my Amendment, is correct.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Surely that is the whole point. It is here being laid down what is to be sold in registered food shops. What a shop has to sell in order to have to apply for registration is food other than articles permitted in general under paragraph 3 of Schedule 1. If the noble Lord is going to amend paragraph 3(ii) of Schedule 1 to read "intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquors", then shops selling intoxicating and non-intoxicating liquors do not have to be registered. Those drinks can be sold without the shop being registered. Therefore it is drink other than those two forms of drink that must be sold in shops that are registered.
LORD DERWENT: I will certainly look at this point again, although I think the noble Lord is wrong. If you do not put in "other than the 'hard stuff'" it will be assumed that you have to register with the local authority if you are selling only the "hard stuff", and that is not so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KILBRACKEN: Amendment No. 6 is consequential upon my Amendment No. 2. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 14, after ("for") insert ("human")—(Lord Kilbracken.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1, line 20, leave out from first ("to") to ("or") in line 21 and insert ("carry on such business").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment again might be considered to be purely a question of semantics. The point I am concerned about is that in line 20 the Bill speaks about the shop continuing to sell "articles referred to in the foregoing subsection". If we look at the "foregoing subsection" we see that the articles referred to are:
"Food … and drink … or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink".
I do not see that food and drink can be correctly described as "articles". I am, therefore, proposing to delete those words, and simply to say:
"whilst the shop continues to carry on such business".
My next Amendment, Amendment No. 8, is entirely concerned with the same matter and therefore I shall mention it briefly at this stage. Again, in line 26, there is reference to selling on Sunday articles other than articles mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. The articles in question are food and drink. I do not think these can be called "articles". My Amendment would make the Bill refer to:
"transacting business on Sunday other than business "—
that is the business mentioned in paragraph 2 of Schedule 1. I beg to move.
LORD AIREDALE: I cannot think that this Amendment is quite satisfactory from a drafting point of view. The words
756
"such business" pose the question, "what business?" If you search the clause for any reference to a business, I do not think you will find it. So, from a drafting point of view, I should have thought that this Amendment was not satisfactory.
LORD DERWENT: That is the advice which I have been given. I am not a Parliamentary draftsman, but I too was told that one cannot refer to "such business" when the business has not been mentioned. "Such business" in this context does not refer to anything in the Bill. That is the best advice that I have been able to obtain, so perhaps the noble Lord will not press this Amendment.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I do not intend to press the Amendment, but it seems a rather strange reply, because in subsection (1) there is a reference to shops in which is carried on the sale for human consumption of food or drink, or ingredients for the preparation of food or drink. It seems to me that is quite clearly a business. When I say "such business" this is the business to which I am referring. If those with far greater legal knowledge than I have (which it would not be difficult to possess) think otherwise, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.23 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 1, leave out from ("Act") to end of line 4 and insert—
("the Court may order the local authority to remove the shop from the register and the shop shall be so removed from the register upon a subsequent conviction, in either case for such period as the Court shall determine.")
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 9, with the permission of the Committee I will also speak to Amendment No. 10, since I believe that this will be for the convenience of noble Lords. These two Amendments, taken together, are based upon the proposition that justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. The Amendments attempt to improve the Bill in three ways. First, the Bill provides that if a shopkeeper is convicted by a magistrates' court, he may be suspended from the register by the local authority. The local authority is normally the prosecutor

757
in the case of alleged offences under the Shops Act. The Bill, in effect, as it now stands, is providing that the court shall convict, but the prosecutor shall determine the sentence. One of the purposes of my Amendment is that the court, in addition to deciding whether or not to convict, shall also decide the sentence and, if it thinks fit, order the local authority to delete the name of the shopkeeper from the register for such period as the court thinks fit.
The second improvement in the Bill that the Amendments seek to make is that the Bill, as it now stands, provides that on a second conviction there shall be removal from the register. It does not say what will happen on a third or subsequent conviction. The Amendments say that on any subsequent conviction there shall be suspension from the register. The third way in which these two Amendments attempt to improve the Bill is that the Bill, as it stands at present, allows either the local authority, or the shopkeeper, to appeal against a decision of the magistrates' court to the quarter sessions, but the appeal, as the Bill stands, can only be in reference to an order made by the court; that is to say, there can be an appeal only on the sentence. Of course, the shopkeeper has a right to appeal against conviction, and the local authority has a right to appeal against non-conviction. The Amendment, therefore, provides that either the shopkeeper, or the local authority, can appeal to the quarter sessions against any of the decisions taken by the magistrates' court. I understand that these Amendments are acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Dement, and I hope that they will be acceptable to the Committee.
LORD DERWENT: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, argued this case on Second Reading, as he has done again to-day. I have given it very careful thought, and I have come to the conclusion that he is entirely right. I am very happy to accept the Amendment, and I will also accept the next one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES: I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 2 line 5, leave out from ("shop") to end of line 11 and insert:
("or the local authority if aggrieved by any decisions so made by the Magistrates' Court,
758
may appeal to Quarter Sessions and this Court may vary the decisions so made by the Magistrates' Court.").—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DERWENT: I should like to say something about this clause. The machinery of registration is somewhat cumbersome. I have reason to know that since the Bill was drafted it has not been very much welcomed by certain local authorities because they think it will give a great deal of extra work to their staff, and some of them are short staffed. This clause was put in in order to put some teeth into the Bill. Under the present Act the penalties are absolutely absurd: £5 for the first offence of breaking the regulations, and £20 for the second offence. What is that to a shop? So Clause 2 was put into the Bill to give it teeth.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has a later Amendment, Amendment No. 20, where he seeks to increase the existing penalties ten times. Frankly, I hope that your Lordships will accept that new clause. My difficulty is that at the moment I cannot take any notice of Amendment No. 20 because it is not part of the Bill; we cannot really discuss it on Clause 2. If that new clause is agreed to, I suggest that we should seriously think whether registration will be necessary at all. I hope that we may have consultations between now and the Report stage, and I particularly hope that I may have discussions with noble Lords opposite, who have taken an interest in this Bill. It will have to be seriously considered whether the new penalties, if they are agreed to, will be a sufficient deterrent to people wilfully breaking the regulations. It may be the right figure, it may not; I do not know. It sounds all right to me: £50 for the first offence and £250 for the subsequent offences. I ask your Lordships to agree Clause 2 now, as amended, and see what happens on Amendment No. 20; and between now and the next stage of the Bill see, in discussions perhaps, whether we think the penalties will be adequate. If on my discussions with various people—not only in your Lordships' House—I decide that Clause 2 is not necessary, I shall put down an appropriate Amendment on Report. If noble Lords disagree

759
with what I propose, then of course it is up to them to disagree. But I should like, if possible, to get rid of this rather cumbersome procedure.
LORD ROYLE: May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, a question? In the event of this clause being passed and going into the Bill, which department of local authorities does he envisage will take charge of the job—health, weights and measures, markets or police? All of them are overburdened.
LORD DERWENT: It will affect the shop inspectors, who in some cases are the same individuals as those who deal with weights and measures, although in some local authorities the two departments are quite distinct. Those concerned will be the Shops Acts inspectors.
LORD JACQUES: I should like to support the proposal put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. Parliament increasingly throws work upon local authorities. It has done so over the years, more particularly in recent years. Some of that work is essential, but other parts of it are not essential. I suggest that the registration of food shops that are going to open on Sunday is certainly not essential and should not be thrown upon local authorities when so many of them have other burdens which are essential. I hope that the noble Lord will eventually make up his mind that the penalties as proposed in Amendment No. 20 are better than inflicting this additional work upon local authorities.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Power to authorise Sunday opening of shops for sale of certain articles]:
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 11 is purely drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 14, leave out ("Sunday") and insert ("Sundays").—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY VISCOUNT INGLEBY moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 28, at end insert—
("Provided that no order shall be made unless the occupiers of not less than two-
760
thirds in number of the shops or classes of shops to be affected by the order approve the order".)
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 12 on behalf of the National Chamber of Trade. It would maintain a safeguard that was included in the 1950 Act but has been left out of this present Bill. The safeguard is that two-thirds in number of the shops or classes of shops affected by an order should approve of it. This would protect the majority of shop owners against pressure from a minority for Sunday opening. As I said, this provision is supported by the National Chamber of Trade; they consider that the existing provision is useful and effective. I beg to move.
LORD JACQUES: I support this Amendment. As I see this Bill, it makes two principal changes in regard to the powers of local authorities to make orders for Sunday trading. First of all, it gets away from the idea of authorities in holiday resorts, and says that any local authority may make an order. Secondly, it gets away from the hole in the 1950 Act. I believe it is essential that traders should be consulted before local authorities make orders, and that the best way of consulting the traders is to take a poll. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted by the noble Lord.
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I do not like this proposal at all. I never have liked the idea. In fact, it would put at risk the business of certain traders—the reasons may have nothing to do with trade—who want to open when others do not. If the ones who do not want to open are the more powerful people in the locality they may y in such a way that the other traders are not allowed to open when they think it would be profitable. There is a safeguard. The next subsection of this clause provides that the local authority must take notice of any objections. Then, there is a further matter. Mathematically, of course, the proposal is nonsense. Nowadays in semi-country areas—and I mean "semi-country"—where many visitors for one reason or another go (it may be a beautiful view) there may be only two food shops in a large village. If one wants to

761
open and the other does not, the one that wants to do so will not be allowed to. This question cannot be dealt with mathematically. Provided that it is laid down in the Bill that the local authority must take notice of objections—and, obviously, if there were a large opposition to an order the local authority would take notice of it—then these matters are best left in the hands of the local authority;
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH): I am informed that the Division Lists on the first Division show that the Contents were 54 and not, as announced, 52.*
Clause 4 [Sunday Employment in Shops]:
5.47 p.m.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 29, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: Perhaps we may discuss Amendments 14 and 15 with this Amendment as the three Amendments
* See col. 744.
and competitors who have the right of objection should have no final say in the decision. I do not like this Amendment at all.
5.37 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 12) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 35; Not-Contents, 44.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hoy, L.

Rusholme, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Ingleby, V.

Sainsbury, L. [Teller.]

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Shackleton, L.

Burntwood, L.

Lindgren, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Moyle, L.

Slater, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fiske, L.

Platt, L.

White, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Popplewell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenway, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Albemarle, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rea, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Hatherton, L.

Reigate, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hereford, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Conesford, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Kilbracken, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strang, L.

Effingham, E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Teviot, L.

Fortescue, E.

Molson, L.

Thurso, V.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Gray, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

deal with the same point. In the discussion on Second Reading it was made clear from various parts of the Committee, including by the right reverend Prelate, that the Committee did not want the time off for Sunday working to be altered from what it is at present. Although I think the point of view is somewhat old-fashioned, I am quite prepared to agree to it. The point is that I believe my Amendment is the right one and that the two Amendments tabled by noble Lords opposite do not really make sense. As a result of their Amendments subsection (1) would read:
"Section 21(3)(b) of the Shops Act … shall be amended as follows".
Then their Amendments would take out paragraphs (a) and (b) and so the phrasing would then be left in mid-air, whereas my Amendment takes out the whole of

763
subsection (1). Therefore I hope noble Lords opposite will agree to my Amendment and will not move theirs. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DERWENT: This Amendment also deals with time off for Sunday, and passing this Amendment would leave the law as it is at the moment. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and I both had the same idea about this. Obviously I agree with my own Amendment, and I agree with his part of it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).—(Lord Derwent.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 2, leave out paragraph (c).
The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment, hoping that it will be accepted by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and expecting that it will be—for this reason. He has already proposed an Amendment which maintains the status quo for assistants. This Amendment deals with pharmacists. The present position is that if a pharmacist works only two hours on a Sunday, and is given time off on some other day, he does not get the protection given to assistants. If he works more than two hours on a Sunday, he does get that protection; that is to say, he will be expected to work only two Sundays a month. Since the noble Lord thinks that the shop assistant should continue to have protection, I assume he would agree that the pharmacist should also continue to have the same protection as he has now. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: Pharmacists are not, in fact, for various reasons, quite in the same category as ordinary shop assistants. In practical terms, since the 1950 Act was passed the position raises no real problem one way or the other. If a pharmacist wants to work extra hours, there is such great demand that he will get paid what he wants. So I am quite happy to accept the Amendment.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: The Amendment about the protection of shop assistants on Sundays went through so quickly that I did not get the opportunity
764
to thank the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for meeting the point which was so strongly put by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, as well as by myself. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Lord, and my excuse is to lend formal support to the Amendment now before us.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
5.53 p.m.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 18:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Mobile shops
" . This Act shall apply to a mobile shop or a vehicle from which sales are made in the same way as it applies to shop premises except that for the purposes of section 2 above the mobile shop or vehicle shall be regarded as part of the premises from which the goods for sale are normally kept for loading on to the mobile shop or vehicle as required."
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is quite simple. It is that any restrictions which apply to shops should apply also to mobile shops. The application of the principle may be a little difficult. In the Amendment it is proposed that for the purposes of registration the vehicle shall be regarded as part of the premises from which the goods for sale are normally kept for loading on to the mobile shop. It may be contended that there are few mobile shops that do not have a depot, a place where reserve stock is kept. If we do not have registration, this problem will not arise. In any case, if this problem does arise and it is argued that this Amendment is not practicable because some shops do not have a depot, I will withdraw it now, but at the Report stage I will submit an exactly similar Amendment suggesting that the premises for registration should be the place where the vehicle is kept overnight, on the assumption that the vehicle has got to be kept somewhere, and if it is kept somewhere that can be the place for the purpose of registration. I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: This Amendment raises some important issues. It has been held by the courts that in England and Wales a mobile shop which stops to make a retail sale is not a place where any retail trade or business is carried on; nor is the piece of ground on which the vehicle stops. This new clause would

765
create a situation in which mobile traders were subject to the shops law on Sundays but not on weekdays. Therefore, on the face of it, and subject to anything further that is said in this debate, to accept a new clause on these lines would introduce an anomaly into the law. The noble Lord may feel that the right way to deal with the wider issue of whether or not mobile shops should be subject to control is through amendment of the Shops Act 1950, so that "shops" would include specifically mobile shops. I will, of course, listen very carefully to what is said in this debate, but I wanted to draw these considerations to the attention of your Lordships at the onset.
LORD DERWENT: For the reasons that my noble friend Lord Windlesham has given, and for the reason which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, himself gave—the difficulty about the place where the vehicle is overnight—I suggest to the noble Lord that he should, at any rate at the moment, withdraw this Amendment. I am entirely on his side in wanting to bring mobile shops under the Shops Acts, but I do not think it can be done by altering the Sunday trading provisions. It can be done, I think, either by the Home Office eventually having a completely new Shops Act—(and I do not suppose that will happen for the moment), or as my noble friend suggested, by having a Private Member's one-clause Bill bringing mobile shops under the Shops Act. I do not think that anything satisfactory in this direction can be done under the Sunday Trading Act, because they would not then be covered during the week. That is my own view, although I am in sympathy with what the noble Lord wants.
LORD KILBRACKEN: In view of the definition of "shop" brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it may be relevant to point out that some of the sales permitted under Schedule 1 do not seem prima facie to be transactions which normally take place at shops. I do not expect an immediate answer to this, but I wonder if the Committee would like to consider it. If we look at paragraph 5, do fishermen who sell freshly caught fish at the point where it is landed do so in a shop? If you sell produce at a farm, does there have to be a shop on that farm? Can it be said that a funeral undertaker conducts business
766
in a shop? Surely the heading, "Transactions for which shops may be open on Sunday", ought to be changed. In many of these instances the transactions do not take place in what can commonly be understood as shops.
LORD JACQUES: What I should like to see is that mobile shops are made subject to the same laws as ordinary shops. I can see the anomaly that might be created if they were to be regarded as a shop for the purposes of Sunday trade but not for other purposes. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment now, but I hope that at some date this matter will be given consideration in the wider context.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Extension of exemption under Shops (Airports) Act 1962]:
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 3, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with the certain old Acts which I now find have already been abolished under the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969. Therefore this paragraph does not apply. This is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
LORD JACQUES LORD JACQUES moved Amendment No. 20:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of s. 59 of Shops Act 1950
" . In section 59 of the Shops Act 1950 (offences connected with Sunday Trading for the word 'five' in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the word 'twenty-five' and for the word 'twenty' in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) there shall be substituted the words 'two hundred and fifty'."
The noble Lord said: At the present time the maximum penalty for offences after the first offence is one of £20. There are places in the country where traders persist in doing things which they ought not to do, and when they receive a summons consequent upon a subsequent offence they simply send back the summons with a cheque for £20 and do not appear in court. Under this Bill the court will have power to suspend a trader

767
from the register. We do not want traders to be in the position of merely ignoring the decisions of the court. Surely, if we are to have a decision by a court suspending a trader from the register then we must reinforce the present law in regard to penalties; thus, a trader who is suspended from the register will know that he ignores the court at his peril. The maximum fines proposed in the Amendment are in keeping with recent legislation and are not excessive, and I have pleasure in moving the Amendment.
LORD WINDLESHAM: As the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has just explained, the effect of the Amendment would be to increase the maximum penalty for offences connected with Sunday trading from the present level of £5 for the first offence and £20 for subsequent offences, to £25 for the first offence and £250 for subsequent offences. When the noble Lord spoke on the Question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill, my noble friend Lord Derwent indicated that he was disposed to accept an Amendment on these lines, and said that if the level of tines was increased he intended to reconsider whether or not food shops needed to be registered. He indicated that he might put down an Amendment on Report to deal with that aspect.
The only points to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention at this stage are these. The new penalties in this Amendment do not conform to the recognised scale which over the past few years it has been the normal practice to include in Government Bills and to encourage private Members to include in Private Members' Bills in the interests of simplifying the law. The recognised scale is in the stages, £10, £20, £50, £100, £200 and £400. In particular, the differential between the maximum fines for a first offence and the level for second and subsequent offences is not normally more than one stage in the scale that I have just described. However, the argument for having a much greater increase in this particular instance, and bearing in mind the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is inclined to accept the underlying approach, means that the Committee ought to decide whether or not they want such a large increase between the
768
first offence and the second and subsequent offences. I should point out that this would be unusual, and also that the figure of £250 is not in the recognised scale at all. There is nothing between £200 and £400.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry that the gap between the penalty for a first offence and those for subsequent offences is wider than normal, but I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will not give way on this matter. I believe it to be most important. A shopkeeper may commit a first offence of a fairly serious kind for which perhaps a fine of £20 is sufficient, though it does not mean very much to him. But if the shopkeeper continues committing offences later, the gap between the first penalty and the maximum for the further penalties ought to be very wide. My noble friend does not like £250. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, might consider making it £300, or £200. Possibly he would rather the figure be £200; I do not know—that is a matter for the noble Lord opposite. But really anything less than this fairly large fine and this big gap will not stop a dishonest trader; the consequences will not matter to him. So I hope that the noble Lord will keep his penalties wide as between the first and subsequent offences, and will keep a high scale of fine between the second and subsequent offences.
LORD JACQUES: May I suggest that the Committee accept this Amendment, and that if the two noble Lords opposite get their heads together between now and Report stage and arrive at somethilng upon which they agree, the matter could then be reconsidered?
LORD WINDLESHAM: So far as the Government are concerned, that is a perfectly acceptable suggestion. As I said, I should not want to express a view on the merit of the proposal; but since it has commanded general agreement between the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it may be that we could advise the noble Lord on what scale of penalties is most in line with the recognised scale and is contained in other legislation. On behalf of the Government I should certainly be willing to accept the suggestion just made.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
6.9 p.m.
LORD SAINSBURY LORD SAINSBURY moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 18, leave out subsection (1).
The noble Lord said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we considered Amendment No. 21 with Amendment No. 28, the former being consequential on the latter. These two Amendments offer the Committee a compromise between those who are in favour of the Bill and those who are its opponents, because the effect of the Amendments will be to permit food shops registered with the local authority to sell a full range of food on Sundays up to 12 noon only, as opposed to all day as in the Bill. I consider it a very reasonable compromise. This will enable those, however few in number, who cannot do their shopping on other days to buy a full range of foods on Sunday morning. It will also meet the needs of the housewife who wants to make some last minute purchases. Thus, it will eliminate the very real anomalies of the present law, in the periods which are likely to be most convenient to the public.
At the same time, these two Amendments go a long way towards protecting those who work in foodshops. It is likely that small shops would take advantage of it and open to 12 o'clock on a Sunday in areas where there is sufficient demand. However, the fact that the Amendments restrict full-scale trading in food to Sunday morning would probably make it uneconomic for the large stores to open. Thus it would lessen the risk of Sunday becoming just another shopping day so far as food is concerned. As a result, the Amendments would have the effect of safeguarding the Sunday of a large number of shop employees and of guaranteeing at least half a Sunday for the small shopkeeper. The Amendments are also in the interests of the shopping public, as I believe they would prevent the large stores from opening and eliminate the risk of Sunday becoming just another shopping day. They would also prevent the rise in costs and prices that full Sunday opening would inevitably bring. The Bill, as was stated at Second Reading, is not a Party matter, and I believe that this Amendment should appeal to all those who, while being concerned
770
with the reasonable interests of the shopping public, are also concerned with the welfare of those who work in shops. Therefore, I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
6.13 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, that this is an extremely important Amendment, together with the others that hang with it. It is one that is central to the purpose of the Bill. What the noble Lord and his friends seem to be saying to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent (perhaps in view of the vote on Clause 1 somewhat reluctantly), is, "In the light of the result of that division we will let you have your reform, in this House at any rate; but in the interests of employees the hours should be restricted until 12 noon on Sundays only".
We have heard the noble Lord say, with his considerable personal experience in this field, that he believes that a change up to 12 o'clock only would not have the effect that he described so vividly on Second Reading, that supermarket owners, the owners of the large stores, would also find it necessary to open their stores, with the result that staff costs would be higher and prices might go up, and, as he has just said, Sunday would become just another shopping day.
I think the statement he has just made is one to which we should pay close attention, because it represents a move away from the opinion he expressed on Second Reading, when he was considering Sunday as a whole day rather than as a half-day. Here we reach the crux of this Bill, which is to try to strike a balance between the interests of employees and traders and the convenience of the shopping public. In line with the Government's declared policy, which I mentioned again at the beginning of to-day's debate, I shall not express any opinion on the merits of the argument, but I will certainly undertake to listen very carefully to the arguments that take place on this Amendment, and to study what noble Lords who take part have to say.
6.16 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Although I have to confess that I am

771
not in the mood to compromise, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, recognises that this Amendment which he is asked to accept embodies a most important compromise. It seems that this House contains, on the one hand, noble Lords who feel strongly about protecting the employee and, on the other, those who feel that the freedom of the consumer is being ignored by rejecting this Bill. Here, everybody's conscience can feel relieved, because the noble Lord is being asked to allow shops to remain open until 12 o'clock, so that any customer can buy what he wants up to that time.
Surely he is not going to argue that if a housewife, or anybody else, is short of some food, or other commodity, on Sunday that she should not be expected to buy it before noon. If she wants her fish and chips, all right; let her have her fish and chips. But at least if the shop closes at noon then the individuals who have to stay there, and who have been there, perhaps, every other day of the week, will be able to enjoy their midday meal at home and relax during the afternoon with their family. Surely here we have a compromise which the noble Lord cannot reject, and which should be accepted by the whole Committee.
6.18 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, but there are reasons why I do not like this Amendment. I do not feel very rigid about it, and I agree that most shops that open on Sunday, food shops particularly, do in fact shut about 12 or one o'clock. I have one near me (actually it is not in the town; it is just outside) that does not open until half-past ten on Sundays, and it shuts at one. That is the time he finds his customers want to come to him on Sunday. At the present time, foodshops can open all day Sunday, but they do not. On the other hand, when we come to certain areas, particularly in the summer, when people move about a lot, opening in the morning in some areas is not worth while because the visitors do not arrive until midday.
What I dislike about the Amendment, first, is that it seems to me somewhat retrograde, after many years, and when
772
it has done no harm, suddenly to forbid shops to open when they have been able to open—although, I agree, not to sell everything. Secondly, I do not like the rigid 12 o'clock. I do not know whether the noble Lord would consider saying opening for so many hours, or something of that kind. It seems to me that it would bear very hardly on certain shops which open now if they had rigidly to shut at 12 o'clock. Other shops, of course, would not want to stay open later than 12. I do not know if the noble Lord would like to comment on that thought.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: While the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is considering that matter, perhaps I may say a word. When the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, was speaking, I felt that this was the kind of subject which a Bishop ought to support at once. In fact, he made the same kind of speech as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and I made repeatedly when we were discussing Sunday entertainment, only it was the other way round. Then we were saying that there should be no sport until after lunch, while here it is said that there should be no trading after lunch. We should look at this matter rather carefully before we do anything. We must remember that in accepting an Amendment about the protection of workers on some Sundays, in the light of their working on other Sundays, we have already gone a long way towards protecting employees from an undue imposition upon their Sunday lives.
But what I was really thinking was that a large number of purchases would be of the sort one wants to buy on outings and trips. It is not for me to think up objections and be a kind of devil's advocate. But would it be possible to bring home, say, some Devonshire cream? I do not think you could get it after 12 o'clock, under the noble Lord's proposal. There are all kinds of local specialities which people want to bring home after a trip and they would be caught by this Amendment.
LORD JACQUES: May I point out that this Amendment does not apply to paragraph 3 of Schedule 1? It is not concerned with sweets, chocolate, alcoholic drink, medicines, toilet requisites and so on. It is concerned only with paragraph

773
2, which deals mainly with groceries. I should like to make a final plea to the Committee before it divides on this issue. Surely this is an issue on which Parliament should hear what the parties concerned have to say. It should weigh up the evidence and see whether there can be some reconciliation. In this case there are four parties: the employer, the worker, the customer and the poor chap who has to enforce the law. Let us look at each of those and see whether there is a possibility of reconciling their points of view.
So far as the employer is concerned, most of the evidence is given in the Crathorne Report. We know from that Report that the Federation of Grocers are against any extension of Sunday trading; that the meat traders are against it; that the fish fryers are against it, and that the Co-operative Societies are against it. Also, I received an entirely unsolicited communication from the National Chamber of Trade telling me that they were opposed to this Bill but that, as a compromise, they hoped that my Amendment would be carried. Therefore, the employers favour this restriction. I have been in retailing all my life and I know the principal retail trade associations, but I do not know of one association that is in favour of this Bill. If the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, knows of one I shall be very glad to hear of it. We know how the workers stand, since they made their representations to their trade union. At paragraph 138 of the Crathorne Report, the union told the Crathorne Committee that Sunday is the only time when shop assistants have the opportunity of social intercourse with their friends and relatives, because that is the only day on which both shop assistants and other trades are away from work. They pleaded strongly that there should not be any extension of Sunday trading. So much for the employees.
Let us now look at what the consumers and the shop inspectors of local authorities
want. The Federation of Consumer Groups passed a questionnaire to each group, in order to get their opinion. The Institute of Shops Acts Administration did exactly the same with the local authority inspectors, and sent them a questionnaire. Both of those bodies condensed the questionnaires and presented them to the Crathorne Committee. In the words of the Crathorne Committee, at paragraph 134 of their Report:
"Both surveys indicated that the chief demand was for the sale of groceries during part of Sunday."
This Amendment meets the demands of the Federation of Consumer Groups and the local authority inspectors. They want groceries to be on sale for part of Sunday. The Amendment goes a little further and states that all food may be sold up to, but not later than, 12 noon. It is an Amendment which reconciles all four points of view, and I suggest that Parliament should take notice of it. It does not apply to catering; it is concerned merely with groceries, meat and so on, for consumption off the premises. I hope that your Lordships will regard this Amendment as a fair reconciliation of the points of view of the parties concerned, and that you will accept it.
LORD DERWENT: I still think that I am speaking for the consumer. Habits have altered since the Crathorne Report was published: people move about much more, and they may well need food. There may be some other way of limiting the period when a shop may be open, but I still think that it should be left to the retailer to decide when he will open. He knows what the consumer wants, and that is why he opens at certain hours. I am not prepared to accept this Amendment as it stands.
6.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 27.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Falkland, V.

Lindgren, L.

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Beswick, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Chester, L. Bp.

Jacques, L. [Teller.

Platt, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Popplewell, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Royle, L.

Rusholme, L.

Shackleton, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Sainsbury, L. [Teller.]

Shepherd, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

St. Davids, V.

Slater, L.

Woolley, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Greenway, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Norwich, V.

Birdwood, L.

Hacking, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Hatherton, L.

Rea, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Inglewood, L.

Reigate, L.

Effingham, E.

Kilmany, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Fortescue, E.

Leicester, L. Bp.

Vivian, L.

Gray, L.

Milverton, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 3, line 29, after ("resident") insert ("or employed").
The noble Lord said: Clause 6(2) is concerned with those hospitals, nursing homes or other establishments of the like kind, or hotels or clubs, in which there is carried on the business of a hairdresser or barber. I have no personal interest in this Amendment. As the Bill is at present drafted, such a business may be open on a Sunday
"for the sole purpose of enabling persons resident in that establishment, hotel or club to be served in the course of that business."
I am proposing that such a business should be open for persons who are resident "or employed" in that establishment. This would not mean that any commis-waiter or "washer-upper" in the Savoy would automatically be entitled to patronise the barber's shop in that hotel: that would be a question, for the hotel to decide. I am thinking of hospitals and nursing homes, in particular, where there are such establishments, and where these establishments are used by nurses and doctors.
As the Bill is at present drafted, nurses (and it is of them that I am thinking in particular) would not be allowed to use the hospital hairdressing facilities unless they were actually resident in the hospital. I have been in touch with some of the nursing associations and organisations, and I learn that these establishments are used at any rate in many cases by nurses, and I do not think that they should be debarred from doing so simply because they happen not to be resident in the hospital. Your Lordships will notice that members of a club will not be allowed to
776
use the club's hairdresser or barber on a Sunday simply because they are members of that club; they will have to be resident there. But I am not particularly concerned with clubland: I am concerned with nurses. I think that the enterprises in question should be allowed to be open for anyone who is employed there, whether or not they are resident. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: This seems to me a sensible Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: This is a drafting Amendment. The other provisions have already been repealed. This Amendment is merely putting them in order.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) The provisions of the Shops Act 1950 described in Schedule 3 to this Act are hereby repealed.")—(Lord Derwent.)
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Transactions for which shops may be open on Sunday]:
6.41 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 4, leave out from ("food") to ("for") in line 6 and insert ("or drink").
The noble Lord said: The aim of this Amendment is brevity. I suggest that the words I am proposing to delete are unnecessary. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 sets out the sales of food and drink that are permitted for consumption on the premises at which they are sold. It starts by saying:
"The sale of food for human consumption…"

777
I have tried to think of places where food is sold for animal consumption on the premises, and I have been able to think only of zoos, where one can buy monkey nuts or other commodities for consumption by animals on the premises. But the sale of food for animals is already permitted by paragraph 3(xi) specifically. Therefore the words "for human consumption", I submit, are unnecessary.
In the same paragraph appear the words:
"The sale of food … (including sweets, chocolate and other sugar confectionery) and ice cream …"
I do not see why it is necessary to state the particular commodities that are included in the word "food". You may as well say that "food" includes "cockles and mussels" or any other food that comes into your mind. If "food" is authorised for sale then it must include those foods particularised. I am therefore suggesting that Paragraph I should read simply:
"The sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises at which they are sold."
I beg to move.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I am advised that there is a reason for the inclusion of these words which may not be obvious at first sight. It may be helpful if I mention it to the Committee. The concern which would arise if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted relates to the sale of alcoholic drinks on the premises. It may be thought that the inclusion of alcoholic drinks together with certain other items in Paragraph 3 covers that situation; but this is what is known in draftsmen's jargon as a "belt and braces" provision. It is in both Paragraph 1 of the Schedule and Paragraph 3 because it is by no means certain that the courts would interpret Paragraph 3 as covering the sale of alcoholic drinks or beverages on the premises. Paragraph 2 deals with the situation of off-licences and consumption off the premises; and Paragraph 1 specifically refers to the sale for consumption on the premises. Paragraph 3 does not refer either to "on" or "off". If the result of this Bill's passing into law would be to place magistrates in some uncertainty as to whether or not they could permit the consumption of alcoholic drinks on the premises in a public house
778
on a Sunday, we should not be thanked by the public.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I do not intend to press this point; but I do not very much like the concept of "belt and braces" which, in English grammar, is, I believe, known as either a pleonasm or as tautology. I should have thought that if one said, without any qualification, that the sale of drink was permitted, then it must be assumed that that means both "belt" and "braces", both alcoholic and non-alcoholic drinks. But if it raises doubts in that mystical object, the legal mind, then I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 26 is really drafting. The principle has already been agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("alcoholic drink") and insert ("intoxicating liquors").—(Lord Derwent.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 27, I must point out that if this Amendment is accepted I cannot call Amendments Nos. 28 to 31. I note that the noble Lord is not moving Amendment No. 27.
LORD SAINSBURY: I beg formally to move Amendment No. 28. It is the counterpart of No. 21, which has been carried.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 8, at beginning insert ("Up to but not later than twelve o'clock noon").—(Lard Sainsbury.)
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 31 which is drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("alcoholic drink") and insert ("intoxicating liquors").—(Lord Dement.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before calling Amendment No. 31A, I must point out that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
6.48 p.m.
LORD KILBRACKEN LORD KILBRACKEN moved Amendment No. 31A:
Page 5, line 14, leave out sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and insert—

("(i) intoxicating liquors;

(ii) soft drinks, chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery; ice cream and ice lollies (including wafers and edible containers);")

The noble Lord said: Here in paragraph 3 are set out the goods that may be sold on Sunday for consumption off the premises and at shops that are not registered with the local authority. I have not felt happy about the language used in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) and I have several suggestions which I should like to mention. The paragraph starts off by permitting the sale of:
"sweets, chocolate and other sugar confectionery …"
I have been in touch with a number of enterprises and also with the Cocoa, Chocolate and Confectionery Alliance who inform me that this is not quite the right phrase to use. What we, the general public, normally think of as "sweets", is, apparently, divided into three great categories: chocolate, chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery. "Chocolate" means plain chocolate or milk chocolate. "Chocolate confectionery" means any other kind of sweets made out of chocolate. "Sugar confectionery" means all other kinds of sweets. So, again, it is repetitious to start off by saying "sweets" and then to say, "chocolate and other sugar confecionery". In any case, one cannot say "other sugar confectionery" when chocolate is not sugar confectionery; because you have chocolate confectionery and sugar confectionery and you cannot have, "other sugar confectionery".
The next point concerns the phrase, "ice cream". Here I have been in touch not only with the manufacturers but also with the Ice Cream Alliance, and they tell me that the phrase, "ice cream" by no means embraces all of what we, the general public, think of as ice cream. I have always thought that ice cream ought to contain cream, but, of course, that would be too much to hope for. It does not include ice lollies, which is what we would—or I personally would—refer to as "water ices". And the phrase used in the Purchase Act is "ice cream, ice lollies and similar frozen products".
Next we come to the phrase, "edible wafers or containers". Here I would only comment that the adjective "edible" should be qualifying the noun, "containers," and not the noun "wafers", because all wafers are edible. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, mentioned that it was good, where possible, to keep to the language of the 1950 Act, and I would point out to him that in the 1950 Act the phrase used is the same as I have used, without "iced lollies". It is, "ice cream (including wafers and edible containers)."
In sub-paragraph (ii) there is this reference to alcoholic drink and I had pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, that, obviously by mistake I think, nonalcoholic drinks, or soft drinks—whatever we wish to call them—have been omitted from sub-paragraph (iii). I think he will agree that it was as a result of my mentioning this to him that he is now proposing to amend paragraph (ii) to read, "intoxicating or non-intoxicating liquors". I have no quarrel with the phrase "intoxicating liquors" which is the one used, in the 1950 Act, but I do not think that "non-intoxicating liquors" is the right phrase to apply to what we normally refer to as "soft drinks". Here, not surprisingly, I have the support of the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers which is what the appropriate trade organisation is called.
In the 1950 Act we find the words "table waters". I am told that that is now archaic, and that "soft drinks" is the phrase used throughout the trade, and in existing, legislation, to describe what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is proposing to call "non-alcoholic liquors". I do not think that when we buy a bottle of fizzy lemonade we think of it as being "liquor". I am therefore proposing that the first two sub-paragraphs should be replaced and that the first subparagraph (here I am exactly following the 1950 Act, which should recommend it to the noble Lord) should put "intoxicating liquors" in a class by itself, which is what the 1950 Act does. Then, in paragraph (ii) we should lump together:
"soft drinks, chocolate, chocolate and sugar confectionery; ice cream and ice lollies"—
I am leaving out, "similar frozen products" because the manufacturers inform me that they constitute only a very small and technical difference and then in brackets:
"including wafers and edible containers."

781
I think this is an improvement on the existing language and I hope that it may commend itself to the Committee.
LORD DERWENT: I do not know what my noble friend Lord Windlesham has to offer about this proposed drafting, but it seems to me that if we accept this Amendment, and we cannot move the later ones, we get to the question about soft drinks. I am quite certain that the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, is right about the chocolate question, but I am advised that, apart from milk, Coca-Cola and ginger ale, "soft drinks" is still understood in the trade to mean lemonade, orangeade and so on. But it is doubtful in particular whether Coca-Cola and ginger ale are soft drinks within the accepted meaning of the term in the trade. They are covered by the term "non-alcoholic". I will have another look at it, but I rather doubt whether the noble Lord's Amendment will do. I hope that my noble friend on the Government Front Bench, who has available more advice from the drafting people than I, will have something to say to the Committee.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, obviously has done a great deal of extremely careful research. He has talked to several trade associations. My noble friend Lord Derwent also has his own close contacts with the trade. Far be it from me to try to stand between the two of them. All I would suggest is that there are some reservations—my noble friend Lord Derwent has mentioned one or two—and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, might wish to withdraw these Amendments and meet with Lord Derwent to see whether between them they can hammer cut the best form of wording to cover the articles referred to in the Schedule. If my Department can be of any help, I hope that the noble Lords will get in touch with me, but I think that it is a matter between the noble Lord responsible for the Bill and the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, who is seeking to amend it on the basis of his very considerable knowledge.
LORD DERWENT: May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, that this Amendment appeared on the Marshalled List only late on Friday night. I have received advice, but because it was put down so late, I have not been able to
782
take the further more skilled advice that I should like. I hope that the noble Lord will not press this Amendment. We can have discussions and I shall get more advice, but I was not really given time to get all the advice I wanted.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should think that a court would find the intention of Parliament fairly clear. I take the point about soft drinks. My old grandmother used to make herb beer and nettle beer. It was a very fine drink, which seems now virtually to have disappeared; although there are country shops in parts of Wales and in some other parts of Britain where nettle beer and herb beer is sold. I should think that all it would mean would be the addition of, "herb non-intoxicating liquors". I think there is a case for looking at this, so that it is absolutely clear what was intended when we were discussing it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, for having put down this Amendment at a late date. I was not assisted by the postal strike. I put it over by telephone, and I apologise for putting it down at the last minute. I cannot speak about nettle beer, unforunately, and I do not know whether it is intoxicating or non-intoxicating.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Non-intoxicating.
LORD KILBRACKEN: If It is not intoxicating I should have thought that it would come under the heading of a soft drink. I was informed by the National Association of Soft Drink Manufacturers that the term "soft drink" covered all forms of drink other than intoxicating liquors. We have since had the question of milk raised. I do not think much milk is sold for consumption on the premises, except where it is obtained from a registered food shop where it would not present any difficulty. So I do not think that point arises.
The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, also objected to my Amendment because it would mean that Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 could not be moved. But I suggest that if my Amendment were accepted those Amendments would not be needed, because the points they raise are already embraced by my Amendment. I am in the hands of the Committee to a great extent. I feel that my drafting, although it is not perfect, may be closer

783
to the final language than that in the Bill, and possibly the Committee may agree that the Amendment should be approved, because then there would be less amending to do later to reach agreement on its eventual form. If that were the feeling of the Committee, then I should wish to divide; but if not, I will withdraw it for consultation with the noble Lord.
LORD DERWENT: I can say that the drafting will have to be altered in any case. If the noble Lord gets his drafting, it will have to be altered, and if I have mine, that also will almost certainly have to be altered. If the noble Lord wants this Amendment to go through at this stage, I am quite happy about it.
LORD KILBRACKEN: I should prefer to have my words there.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 5, line 24, after ("accessories to,") insert ("tents,")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with accessories and parts for things like caravans, and so on, so that if something goes wrong one can buy a spare part. I have been asked to include also accessories for tents, because somebody might want some new guy ropes, or something. I beg to move.
7.3 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 5, line 25, at end insert ("and gardening requisites")
The noble Earl said: We move away from chocolates, soft drinks and iced lollies, and I want to direct the attention of the Committee to gardening requisites. May I say, in moving this Amendment, that although I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate on the Bill, I fully support the main purpose of my noble friend's Bill and I congratulate him on his perseverance and stamina. This Amendment is drafted to include the words "and gardening requisites" in Schedule 5 line 25. Sub-paragraph (vi) would thus read:
"Flowers (other than artificial flowers) plants and shrubs and garden requisites".
I believe this to be an important Amendment, because it would put right in the
784
Bill, and indeed in the law, one of the many present nonsenses that exist under the 1950 Act.
The Amendment is designed to improve the position in which garden centres find themselves to-day. I am sure that few would disagree not only that garden centres to-day are rapidly expanding—I am told that 250 have opened in the last three years in Southern England—but also that they fill a social need. They grant to many an outlet from the age of bustle, noise and pollution. What today is the busiest time for garden centres? It is hardly surprising to find that it is at week-ends. Sunday is the family day, when the husband and wife, the children and the dog all go off in the car and arrive at a garden centre. They can look round, enjoy, choose and eventually purchase at their leisure all the various shrubs, trees and beautiful plants. But that enjoyment is somewhat curtailed for the family when, having chosen their special shrubs for their garden and purchased them, they realise that they need the peat and stakes to go with them, all of which they are told they cannot have on Sunday but they can certainly have if they come back the next day, Monday. It is easy to appreciate that most people find it difficult to get there on a Monday, and they would then have to wait possibly until the following Saturday to acquire these essential extras.
The current situation, I suggest, is a nonsense. What happens in practice, as your Lordships are aware, is that garden centres are controlled, first, by the weights and measures officer, and secondly, by the public health inspector. One has knowledge that the interpretation of these two officers throughout the country differs widely. It depends very much how sympathetic they are to gardeners. I have racked my brain as to who would want to resist the purpose of this splendid Amendment, and cannot think of anyone. It would, I suggest, be those who do not appreciate the real pleasure given, and do not appreciate that the trade is mainly done at week-ends, on Sundays. The old proverb, I suggest, still stands:
"The rule for gardening ne'er forget,
To sow dry and set wet."
I submit that this proverb is being frustrated by a nonsense, and I ask the

785
Committee to put it right by accepting the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: This is a very potent case, but it really must not be allowed to go on. The most important thing about a Bill of this kind is that it must not lead to unfair trading. I know that garden centres want to sell on Sundays what they sell on weekdays. Apart from plants and flowers, they want to sell mowing machines, spades, forks and so on. Because they have gardens they can open on a Sunday. But there are hundreds of shops all over the country which sell all these garden implements, and they cannot open on Sunday. It would be grossly unfair to let these things be sold at garden centres and not to allow shops to sell them. We do not want that sort of trading on Sunday.
LORD JACQUES: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, on this point. Strong objections are corning through the National Chamber of Trade that gardening centres are already selling lawnmowers, spades, forks and so on on Sunday, while the ordinary trader who sells them for six days a week is not allowed to sell them on Sunday. The term "gardening requisites" is far too wide, and I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment.
LORD PLATT: I wonder whether some compromise could not be made here. I appreciate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, but I also appreciate the point of the noble Earl. I wonder whether some wording could not be found which would say "flowers, (other than artificial flowers) plants and shrubs and necessities to plant the same", or something of that kind. That would prevent the selling of lawnmowers and so on, on a large scale. I wonder whether this could be looked at, as it were, privately and brought up at the next stage of the Bill.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I am grateful to the noble Lord for making that suggestion. I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment and confer with my noble friends. I will reserve my right to put down another Amendment at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DERWENT LORD DERWENT moved Amendment No, 36:
Page 5, line 29, leave out ("of philatelic value") and insert ("sold for philatelic purposes").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment. The wording in the Bill apparently created some doubt as to whether it differentiated sufficiently between postage stamps purchased for postal purposes, where there is a post, and collectors' stamps. It has been suggested to me by the Home Office that the wording I now seek to put down is the more satisfactory form. I beg to move.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: With the permission of the Chairman, I should like to move en bloc Amendments Nos. 37 to 42 inclusive:
Page 5, line 33, leave out ("or")
after ("gallery") insert ("or historic house or historic place open to the public")
line 34, leave out first ("or")
after ("gallery") insert (", house or historic place")
line 35, leave out ("or")
after ("gallery") insert (", house or historic place")
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I raised the question of the sale in historic houses and historic places of all the items contained in subsection (4) which are at the moment suggested as being sold in museums and art galleries. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that there are nearly 800 historic houses and places open to the public, attracting over 20 million visitors a year, and many visitors go to them on a Sunday. I feel that historic houses and similar places should be treated in the same way as museums and art galleries, which could be almost next door, or up the street. You will notice that I have specified that they should be open to the public, and I hope that these Amendments will meet with the Committee's approval.
LORD WINDLESHAM: The effect of accepting these Amendments, which fall together, as the noble Lord explained, would be to extend to historic houses and historic places open to the public the provision in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill which permit outright the sale

787
at museums and art galleries of reproductions of works of art on display, or souvenirs associated with the premises. As the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, said, he raised this subject on Second Reading and he then forecast that he would be introducing Amendments on these lines. The noble Lord, Lord Derwent, said that he would be pleased to look at any such Amendments. I intervene at this stage for one reason only, and that is that it may be thought preferable to use the description, "place of historic interest", which is that used in Schedule 5 to the Shops Act 1950, rather than the more cumbersome phrase "historic house or historic place open to the public" used in the Amendment. However, for the sake of seeing this principle approved, if it is the wish of noble Lords to approve it, there would seem to be no objection to accepting these Amendments and then discussing this point with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, before Report stage.
LORD DERWENT: I promised to look at this point. I have looked at it; I like it.
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 43.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out ("Corporation").— (Lori Derwent.)
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall be the first Schedule to the Bill?
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I should like to underline something said earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken: that the inclusion of the word "shops" in the heading to this Schedule seems rather misleading, because you will find, for instance, that in paragraph 6 the Schedule covers sales at a farm, and so on. Paragraph 5 covers the sale by fishermen of fish landed on piers. If you were looking for the law as to that, and came to a Schedule in an Act headed, "Transactions for which Shops may be Open on a Sunday" you would not be likely to look at that Schedule and would miss the reference to fishermen on piers. So perhaps, before the next stage of the Bill, we might consider whether we could not eliminate
788
the word "shops" from the heading to the Schedule.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Articles which may be sold on Sunday pursuant to Orders of Local Authorities]:
7.18 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 6, line 11, leave out ("or") and insert ("and")
The noble Lord said: I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, for pointing out that there are about 12 instances in Schedule 1 where Amendments identical to this could equally well have been moved. I decided not to I pepper the Marshalled List with a large number of identical Amendments, thinking that perhaps we might use this one as a test case; and if it is found to be right we can make the other Amendments at the next stage of the Bill.
The word "or" in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 does not seem quite right. It seems to convey the idea that a shopkeeper has to decide whether he is going to sell on Sunday either works of art or reproductions of works of art, but not both. That cannot be what is intended. I should have thought that the test was, where you have, as in the Schedules, things which can be put into a straight list without any conjunction, either "and" or "or", then if they are to be strung together by a conjunction, the conjunction should be "and" and not "or". I beg to move.
LORD DERWENT: You can argue this the other way: that if you put in "and" such as in "fish and chips" you have to sell both or none at all. I do not think there is anything in the argument either way, and as at least on one occasion the noble Lord has supported me, unless the official draftsmen do not like his Amendment, I am happy to accept it.
LORD WINDLESHAM: There is no reason why this Amendment should not be accepted. We doubt whether in practice the inference that the noble Lord has mentioned would be drawn, but it is conceivable. However, there seems to be no reason why the wording should not be accepted.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 45. These enactments have already been repealed. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 15 to 21.—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD JACQUES: This Amendment, Amendment No. 46, is consequential on Amendments on employment which have already been accepted. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, leave out from ("day";") to end of line 28.—(Lord Jacques.
LORD JACQUES: Amendment No. 47, again, is consequential on Amendments Nos. 20 and 28, to which the Committee have already agreed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 30 and 31.—(Lord Jacques.)
LORD DERWENT: I beg to move Amendment No. 48. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, after ("58") insert ("(a)").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 49 is drafting. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 35, after ("fifty-two") insert ("and").—(Lord Derwent.)
LORD DERWENT: Amendment No. 50 is drafting. These provisions have already been repealed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, leave out lines 37 to 39.—(Lord Derwent.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: Before I call Amendment No. 51, I think I should point out to the Committee that
790
if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 52.
7.21 p.m.
LORD ROYLE LORD ROYLE moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 6, leave out line 40.
The noble Lord said: I will be as brief as I possibly can be, but I want to say just a few words with regard to this Amendment. As compared with the first intervention I made this afternoon, I am now moving from the general to the particular and this Amendment deals only with the question of the sale of meat in butchers' shops. The arguments are roughly those I used in the course of my first intervention, but there are one or two extra points which need to be made. This Amendment would take the sale of meat on Sundays out of the Schedule, and therefore out of the Bill.
By way of explanation, may I say that the 1950 Act contains the Meat Trade Act 1936; by consolidation it was brought into the 1950 Act. The 1936 Act was introduced on behalf of the meat trade—if that is the right expression in Parliamentary terms. It was as a result of the meat trade's agitation, and at their special request, that an honourable Member in another place, and a noble Lord in this place, carried the Bill forward and it ultimately became the law of the land. This was done because of the feeling that there was creeping into the meat trade something which was very undesirable. So far, as I say, we have discussed Sunday trading in only a very general sense.
At that time, in 1936, the mass of the meat trade did not want to open their shops on Sunday, and they tell me that they do not want to open their shops on Sunday now. It is the old, old story. If some opened, competition would force many others to open and business would be lost by small people. I have argued this point previously in the course of our discussions to-day. But I want to add one other point which is very important indeed and concerns the question of inspection. There is no trade in the country which is more concerned with inspection as a result of legislation than is the meat trade. With many other trades, it is involved so far as weights and measures legislation is concerned; but, in addition to that, there is the question of hygiene inspection and regulations.
In regard to weights and measures legislation, meat sale is highly specialised. It is not comparable with taking cans down from a shelf. Meat has to be cut up; a carcase has to be turned into chops or steak, and the situation is very different indeed. The Trade Descriptions Act covers shrinking and draining, which affects weight. A butcher might easily weigh a joint of meat—beef particularly—and put a ticket on it to show its weight and therefore what its price is; but, because of shrinkage, by the time he sells it to a customer it must be put on the scale again; it has to be reweighed and repriced. This is what the weights and measures inspectors are concerned with. I want to know whether it is going to be possible for the weights and measures inspectors to work on Sunday in regard to meat to ensure that the Act is carried out in butchers' shops in the way that all of us, including the meat trade, want it to be carried out.
Hygiene inspection is even more important. Are health inspectors going to work on Sunday and examine butchers' shops with regard to the level of hygiene? Because, obviously, the best people in the trade want proper hygiene and want their standards to be maintained. Therefore, they welcome inspection from the health inspectors. I want to know whether the health inspector is going to work on Sunday to ensure that Acts of Parliament are carried out in the shops. It is quite impossible at the moment, I understand, to get these inspectors working in slaughterhouses on Sunday. In point of fact, the Meat Inspection (Amendment) Regulations 1966 were specifically introduced to enable local authorities to restrict slaughtering in private slaughterhouses to five days, for inspection purposes. It seems to me to be contradictory that we can think in terms of employing meat inspectors, veterinary officers, and so forth, on only five days a week in slaughterhouses, and yet ask the same people, apparently, to go into butchers' shops on Sundays for inspection in the retail trade. This is a contrast which needs to be taken into consideration. In view of the passing of the Amendment which would limit the opening of shops until 12 noon, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, does not think I am being rather mean in pressing for the whole hog, as it were, in
792
this way so far as the meat trade is concerned. It is something different. It involves factors which do not apply to other trades, and those in the meat trade themselves are very anxious indeed that their shops should not be open on Sunday. I beg to move.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I should like to take up the time of your Lordships for a moment or two in order to have some points clarified. Schedule 3 broadly says that the extent of the repeal is Section 60 to Section 65 of the Act of 1950—the Act I have in my hand. These are genuine inquiries; they may be inquiries resulting from ignorance and therefore I am not going to delay the Committee. But reading that, and being a layman in this sphere, I would say that therefore the whole of the retail meat dealers' shops in England and Wales could now, if they wished, open on Sunday. I am not at all clear what happens. I am not of the Jewish faith myself, but in Section 62 of the Shops Act 1950, there is entire exemption in respect of the Jewish retail shops. But on Saturdays there are limitations. Does that still stand as it is in consequence of this repeal?
Furthermore, on the question of repealing, Section 65 of that Act says:
"Nothing in this Part of this Act shall prevent the sale, dispatch or delivery of butchers' meat required by any person for a ship or aircraft on her arrival at, or immediately before her departure from, a port or aerodrome."
Does the repeal of that provision mean that items can no longer be delivered to ports and aerodromes? These are the questions I would ask. It is obvious to those who are familiar with this legislation that I am quite a layman, but I think it is right for the situation to be made clear at this juncture.
LORD DERWENT: May I clear that point up before the noble Lord goes further? If you are allowed to sell any food you like on Sunday, these parts of the original Act are not necessary. You may sell them.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: What about the repeal of Section 65 concerning delivery to aerodromes and ports?
LORD DERWENT: I do not want to be difficult about this meat question, but

793
anomalies about meat are one of our present difficulties. I fully understand the view of the butchers—which term I use in the old-fashioned sense; I refer to traders who really are butchers. I understand that they do not want to open on Sundays. What is more, I am certain that if they did they would lose money, because they would need to employ skilled cutters and so on. And in the ordinary way, shoppers do not buy meat on a Sunday. They do not want to. Shoppers go to butchers rather differently from the way they go to grocers, particularly in the big town. One goes to a butcher either because one likes his prices or because one likes the quality of his meat or the way it is cut. One goes to a butcher for a variety of reasons. One sticks to one's butcher until a better one opens. I do not think there is the slightest chance of any butcher's shop, in the old-fashioned sense, opening on a Sunday, because if he did he would lose money.
One might almost ask, what is a butcher? There are other shops which sell meat nowadays. In 1936, the butchers' legislation really got going, and in 1950 it was not common for shops to sell different produce if they specialised in a particular kind. Nowadays, butchers sell all kinds of tinned food, and very often they sell eggs. Fishmongers sometimes sell meat and grocers nearly always have in their refrigerator nowadays the odd chop or cutlet. Incidentally, those are the things for which there is a demand on a Sunday. You come back from a journey, or somebody arrives at your house unexpectedly and you go and buy a couple of cutlets. The fact that a grocer who happens to be open is going to sell a couple of cutlets will not have the slightest effect on the butchers' trade. It will not be any form of competition and it will not make any butcher's shop open. We are not talking about great competition for the butchers.
Already by the Amendment which has been accepted the Committee has made it impossible for anyone to go to bed except hungry if he arrives in, say, London after a particular hour. We have closed all the delicatessen shops after 12 o'clock. It is a most extraordinary decision. But if we are going to do that and a shop is open for the sale of food,
794
surely the shopkeeper can take a couple of cutlets out of the refrigerator. If the noble Lord, Lord Royle, thinks that that would lead to the weights and measures inspectors having to be out on a Sunday, then his idea is completely out of date. We are trying to do away with anomalies. There may be some other wording which we could introduce to stop proper butchering on a Sunday. But if we are going to do away with anomalies, let us do so in this case.
LORD ROYLE: I am not at all convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has said. The couple of cutlets in a little corner grocer's shop is not the answer. Great stores will be opening their departments. Large quantities of meat could be sold in large stores, and, as we argued earlier this afternoon, this would almost compel the real butcher—as the noble Lord puts it—to open his shop. He would lose trade constantly, not against the little grocer's shop selling the couple of cutlets but against the greater amount of trade that would be done in the large stores. I am not at all happy at what has been said and I must press the Amendment.
LORD DERWENT: I will just say this about the large stores: shops can open to sell food now, but not butchers' meat. That does not seem to have induced the big stores to open on Sundays, and whether they would open their butcher's department is even more doubtful. Big stores do not open if they are not going to make money. That is the beginning and the end of the matter, and we have not seen the opening of big stores.
LORD ROYLE: I can only say that the noble Lord is guessing.
LORD AIREDALE: I do not understand this argument about the big stores opening on Sundays. I thought the strongest limb of the argument which persuaded the Committee to pass the Amendment limiting Sunday sales to Sunday mornings was the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, as I understood it, that it would be satisfactory because it would lead to the small shops opening on Sunday mornings for the convenience of the public but that the big stores were not going to open on a Sunday.
LORD ROYLE: I have listened closely to my noble friend's argument about the stores, and frankly I am not convinced. I am quite sure it applies to Sainsbury's but I am not at all sure that it applies to others I could mention. I am not at all satisfied.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I want to press the point, because your Lordships have not made it clear to me and I am hoping one of the lawyers will spring into the lists. This will be my last Parthian shot. If I understand English—being a Welshman, I do not know—I am told here that Sections 60 to 65 are to be repealed. Section 65 says:
"Nothing in this part of the Act shall prevent the sale, despatch or delivery of butchers' meat required by any person for a ship or aircraft on their arrival at or immediately before their departure from a port or aerodrome."
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: There have voted, Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 8. As it appears that fewer than thirty Lords have voted, in accordance with Standing Order No. 52; I declare the Question not decided and, pursuant to the Standing Order, the House will now resume.
House resumed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (QUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS) BILL
7.47 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is a short Bill; it contains only three clauses, and I shall therefore describe it as briefly as possible. The Bill has a simple purpose: to widen the qualifications enabling people to stand for election to local councils. I should say at the outset that the Bill has nothing whatever to do with voting.
If we are now told that we have repealed that, can I now deliver meat to an aerodrome or a ship that is departing? According to my Welsh English, one cannot do so.
LORD ROYLE: I question whether my noble friend is talking about the Act of Parliament which exists, or this Bill as it is now drafted, or whether it would be this Bill with my Amendment in it. All I can say about it is that if there was any doubt at all and my Amendment were carried, we could appease my noble friend by putting the matter right at the Report stage.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 51) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 21; Not-Contents, 8.

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Fiske, L.

Lindgren, L.

Beswick, L.

Greenway, L.

Milner of Leads, L.

Blyton, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Platt, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Crathorne, L.

Ingleby, V.

Royle, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L. [Teller.]

Jacques, L.

St. Just, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Albemarle, E.

Hatherton, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Derwent, L. [Teller.]

Kinnoull, E. [Teller.]

The present position is that since February 16, 1970, only those who live in the area of a local authority have been eligible to stand for election to membership of its council. But for more than fifty years, until the Representation of the People Act 1969, anyone who owned freehold or leasehold property in the area of a local authority, or who was the occupier of premises of a rateable value of £10 or more, was also qualified. Section 15 of the 1969 Act removed this eligibility, although councillors living outside the area covered by their council who had previously been elected because they owned property or occupied premises inside the area were enabled to stay on until their current term of office expired.
Section 15 was strongly opposed by the then Opposition in both houses. We have been quite consistent in our belief that it is wrong to narrow the range of people who can stand for election to local councils, and that many local authorities

797
would be greatly strengthened if those who either occupied premises or had their place of work inside its boundaries, but their home outside, were enabled to stand for membership. In this we have been supported by the majority of local government associations and by the 1967 Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud. This was the first Inquiry he undertook, not to be confused with the later Inquiry of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England.
In the Report on Management of Local Government, paragraph 424, the Committee concluded that:

"(a) the present legislation makes it difficult for certain people to stand for election, and may be the cause of their resorting to arrangements to enable them to satisfy the requirements of the law;

"(b) mobility of people increases; many have just as much interest in the area in which they work as in the area in which they live and this should be recognised;

"(c) the effect of the law is to exclude some people who might be valuable candidates for election to local authorities, particularly in urban areas."

This Bill, therefore, not only restores the right of people living outside the area of a local authority to stand for membership of the council, if they have a qualifying connection through the occupation of premises, but adds a new qualification on the lines of paragraph 425 of the Report of the Committee on the Management of Local Government; namely, that any person who for a period of 12 months before the election had his principal place of work within the area of the authority should also be eligible as a candidate for election to the council. Subsection (2) of Clause 1 of the Bill gives effect to this.
Noble Lords may remember that when the Representation of the People Bill was debated in this House in 1969 the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, moved to insert a new clause on these lines, which would have enabled people to serve whose principal place of work was within the area. That clause was inserted by a majority in this House, but was later deleted in another place.
We believe that it is important that the range of candidates offering themselves
798
for election to local authorities should be as wide as possible, bearing in mind especially the very heavy demands that are made on councillors, particularly experienced councillors who act as chairmen of committees, mayors or leaders of majority or minority parties. We accept that councillors should have, indeed must have, a close connection with the areas they serve; but in these days when boundaries are difficult to delineate we cannot agree that a man whose business or principal place of work is in the area has any less appropriate a connection than somebody whose home is within the area.
Noble Lords know better than I do that in practice it is a very common pattern in local government for a younger councillor to be elected while both his home and his work are in the area covered by the local authority. His family then increases; he finds himself wanting a bit more space, and he moves out into the suburbs. Sometimes these are within the same local authority area; but sometimes they are outside. But the man's connection with the area, and his interest in its affairs, is surely not any less because he works there during the day, often spending two or three evenings a week on the council's business, before travelling home to sleep over the boundary.
Some time ago I served on the council of an urban authority, and I remember very well the tremendous contribution made to the running of the council and the welfare of its citizens by councillors whose connection with the area was through their place of work, rather than through their home. Because all local government electors must now be resident in the area, the effect of the two qualifications added by this Bill will be that, probably for the first time, people will be offering themselves for election who are not on the register of local government electors for that area. The Government recognise that this is a new situation and have included in Clause 2 of the Bill a provision which allows the particulars on which the candidate relies for his qualification to be available for public inspection. We were glad to be able to agree in another place to this provision, which originated in a suggestion made by members of the Party of noble Lords opposite.
My Lords, I do not think that I need say any more in commending this Bill to your Lordships and asking, in the interest of healthy local government, that it should receive a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Windlesham.)
7.55 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for the clarity of his exposition of this Bill, particularly after the long and tiring day that he has spent on the Front Bench opposite. We regret that he has had to stay here for the whole of this time. That is not our fault, but is due rather to the arrangement of business.
I can understand the haste of the Government in introducing this Bill, because if it is to become the law relating to the nomination of representatives for local authorities, it is, I think, to everyone's advantage that it should become law before the Elections of 1971. I would give that to the noble Lord, and say that I think it is right that this should happen, if it happens.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said that the Party of which he is a member has been consistent and persistent in its attitude to this Bill. I think it has been. But I believe that it has been consistent and persistent in error, because I believe that this Bill is a mistake and ought not to go on to the Statute Book. In connection with the purpose of local government, I am sure that Lord Palmerston was right when he told the clergy of Edinburgh, who were asking for a day of prayer and fasting to avert the dreaded disease of cholera, that,
"the best course the people can pursue to stay the course of cholera will be to free their towns from filth and other sources of contagion which, if allowed to remain, will breed pestilence and death, in spite of the prayers and fasting of a united but inactive people."
That was good sense. Expressed in other words, what Lord Palmerston was saying was, "clean up your own doorsteps." I believe that he was absolutely right in that. I believe that local government is about your own doorsteps and what you do about them.
If it appears in this short speech that the personal pronoun "I" is often used, it is because I believe that this House is often best served by those who are able
800
to speak here from personal experience. It is many years since I entered local government, but I remember well that when I accepted nomination I was strongly advised to read up the subject in the classic text book, Clark's The Local Government of the United Kingdom. Almost the very first words in that book are:
"Local government is that part of the government of the nation or State which deals mainly with such matters as concern the inhabitants of a particular district or place, and which it is thought desirable should be administered by local authorities subordinate to the central Government."
I think that the stress in that paragraph must be laid on the word "inhabitants". I have always accepted that to mean, in that context particularly, that the local authority is, or should be, governed by the local inhabitants themselves in the appropriate matters. Certainly it is not, in my opinion, desirable that the local inhabitants should be governed by people who come in from outside the area, and whose interests may conflict substantially with the real needs of the inhabitants in that particular district.
When I was a member of a local authority, my main interests were housing and education, and becoming the chairman of both in turn I pressed with all my energies for the clearance of slum dwellings, the building of new houses for people displaced by slum clearance, and to house the large numbers of people condemned by the housing situation to life in apartments, with all the misery of two women to one kitchen sink. In education I struggled for the best that could be got for the children, and in particular I was desirous of bringing into operation without delay the feeding of children in schools by the institution of a school meals service, for I wanted to end the malnutrition I saw in my every day in that area, then afflicted by massive unemployment.
The charge on the rates for the improvement of both services was a very high one, and I knew full well that it had to be added to an already almost intolerable rate burden. I was engaged in a low paid job and was hard put to it to keep up a very modest style of living, but I never resented paying the near record high level of rate because I lived so close to the very conditions I wanted to end. I was part of them, I was in it,

801
and I could not divorce myself from it by going outside the area at night to sleep, or go anywhere else.
However sympathetically minded people from outside the area might have been, whether occupiers of premises or workers in the various town offices, and so on, it would have been very difficult for them to have had the same approach to the problems as I had. Occupiers of certain types of premises who do not live in the district, whose children are not going to the local schools, whose doorstep is ever free of the applicants for council houses (as mine never was; indeed, the applicants for council houses seemed to be wearing a groove in my doorstep when they were there seeking the opportunity of getting into some decent housing conditions), cannot be expected to have the same readiness to spend money on such services, for rate burdens are always thought to be high, and too high by certain types of people. To some extent the same thing would apply to those who only work in the area, whose thinking might be dominated by what might appear to be best for his employer. For example, the man employed by a road transport undertaking might be prepared to spend a wholly disproportionate amount of the local income on road improvements as against expenditure on education, et cetera.
The aphorism "Taxation without representation is tyranny" has stood the test of time because it is at the very heart of the struggle for, and the continuance of, our type of democracy. I believe that it is equally true that conversely representation without taxation is undesirable, and for that reason I was always opposed to those who sought 100 per cent. grants from the central Government for locally controlled purposes. As I said before, I knew that I had to help pay for the services that I so much desired to see in operation. That was as it should be, for it tempered, to some extent, an idealistic approach by stern practicalities.
I have seen it said that the safeguard here is always that, whether the councillor comes from inside or outside the local government district, he has to be elected by people who live inside. That has always been rather a strong point. It was, I think, a strong point when the original Amendment was moved to the
802
1969 Bill, as it then was, before this House. There is something to be said for that. But if we really believe that that should be our policy on this matter, no such qualifications as exist, or are proposed in this Bill, are necessary. The field should be thrown open to anybody who can secure nomination, no matter from whence he comes. But the simple fact is that this Government, as have other Governments, have sought to protect local government by ensuring that nominees have some qualifications that bear some relevance to the area to be governed. That is true of this Bill, and it is true of all the Acts of Parliament governing these matters in the past.
I do not think that this is a good Bill; I do not think that what they are embarking on is the right thing to do, and I say this for the reasons which I have very briefly given. So far as the terms of the Bill are concerned, I am bound to say that the very vagueness of some of the terms used in Clause 1:
"… occupied as owner or tenant any land or other premises …"
and the
"… principal or only place of work …"
are bound to cause great difficulties of interpretation for those who will have to interpret this Bill, if it becomes an Act. But these are Committee points to which we might return on the Committee stage.
My Lords, I do not advise my noble friends to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. Indeed, I am not going to call a Division hoping that we should not have a quorum on it, which perhaps I might do in the circumstances of the last vote that we went to. But we hold the view that only in very exceptional circumstances should this House vote against the Second Reading of a Bill which has passed through the other House. We believe that they should be paramount in this matter, except in the most exceptional of circumstances. We might ask the House later to divide on an Amendment at the Committee stage, but I fear that even then we shall not have the advantage that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, had of a built-in majority when he moved the Amendment that was, in some ways, the precursor of this Bill. We do not like this Bill. I should like to see it prevented from becoming an Act of Parliament, but, as I say, I certainly am not going

803
to ask my noble friends to vote against it at this Second Reading stage.
8.8 p.m.
LORD FISKE: My Lords, at this very late hour it is not my wish to keep you for long, especially in view of the ordeal that the noble Lord opposite has had this afternoon in having to stand up to the Committee stage of the Shops Bill. However, there are one or two more comments that need to be made, after the very human plea that has been put forward by my noble friend on this side of the Chamber.
One would have hoped that when the Representation of the People Act 1969 had been passed the course of British constitutional history and electoral law had arrived at the situation in which every man, and every woman, had a vote for local and national elections in the places where they resided, whether it was for a parish or for a rural district, an urban district or a county council. In the case of elections to Parliament, of course, they merely had to have residence anywhere in the United Kingdom. This point of residence in the area in which one sought to have a vote was, to my mind, eminently right. This Bill disturbs—it is intended to disturb—that pattern, so that a rural or suburban element can be brought into the government of our large towns and cities, and that is something which I think is to be regretted. I know that, in theory, the operation could work in reverse, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his opening remarks made the point that he visualised this as bringing other people into the government of a city or a large town: bringing rural or suburban into urban government.
I do not know whether, in framing this Bill, proper consideration has been given to the—I was going to say the sort of people, but that is not quite what I mean—differences that exist between dwelling in a city and dwelling in its outer suburbs, outside its boundary, or in the countryside beyond. I assure your Lordships that the differences are quite profound. The city dweller lives tightly packed on the ground. He looks outside for his life, for his educational facilities, for his recreational facilities, for his sporting facilities—for the lot. He is an extrovert. But the people living further out usually live in larger houses—certainly
804
with gardens, if not with more extensive grounds. They are much more self-contained as family units and they are introverts. Therefore the two do not necessarily blend when it comes to deciding what is best and what is not best for any given urban area.
Perhaps I can illustrate that most easily by referring to the present position in London. London has had its government reformed, and the Greater London Council is under the control of the Party opposite—because, in the end, these matters boil down to political concepts. But the Inner London Education Authority, representing the area of the old London County Council, is under the control of the Party of which I am a member. That is one measurement of the differences of approach between the city dweller and the dweller outside the city boundary. To bring the one in to dominate the other should be done only in the most acute situation, and with the greatest possible care. So why do it, my Lords?
This is a little Bill, as we can see. One might have the suspicion that the Party introducing it find difficulty in producing candidates in city areas to fight local elections. If that is so, then perhaps the noble Lord opposite will admit it. But it certainly would not be necessary to bring in this Bill if we were to have the larger local government areas of the Redcliffe-Maud reform proposals.
What I want, very pointedly, to ask the noble Lord opposite is: does the introduction of this Bill mean that no reform of local government will be taking place in the lifetime of this Parliament? That is a very important point on which we need an answer, because it has been so much in the air for so many years. We thought we had now got down to rather basic concepts—not necessarily the whole chapter and verse of Redcliffe-Maud, but very near to some possible and sensible proposals for one of the most urgent reforms in the country. Are we now to believe that we shall not see these for at least the next four or five years?
8.14 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful for the points raised by the two noble Lords opposite who have spoken. The advice which the noble

805
Lord, Lord Champion, gave his supporters is extremely wise. However strong one's feelings, to vote against a Bill—particularly one concerned with electoral representation—which has received a Second Reading in another place is not the normal practice of this House, and I am sure that it is wise not to extend it. I have taken note of what was said by the noble Lord, that he feels it may be necessary to press an Amendment at Committee stage. We shall certainly be ready to provide information, or to do anything else we can to help in advance of that date.
The noble Lord spoke about the inhabitants of the area and the fear that people from outside whose interests conflicted with those inside might come to predominate. But I would reply not only with the answer that he gave to the House, having posed his question, that the electors can decide whether or not they wish to elect somebody whose place of residence is outside; but, perhaps more important in the Party system, that the selectors—the people from the different Parties represented on the council—will be able to decide whether that person is the sort of person whom they wish to have stand as candidate for election to represent the people who live within the area.
Without wishing to be in the least disrespectful to the noble Lord's own experience, I can think of people in his own Party who rendered very great service to local government and who lived outside the area which they represented. A case was given in this House when the Representation of the People Bill was debated, of a former Member of this House, Lord Cohen of Brighton. Nobody would deny his service to Brighton, but I understand that, because of the side of the road on which he lived, his home was in fact in Hove. There was the case of a man who lived outside an area although his business, his local government work and all his very wide range of activities were in Brighton. He would have been disqualified on the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Champion.
Another example, if the noble Lord will look at the Report of the Second Reading debate on this measure in the House of Commons, is that of the present Member of Parliament for Stockport,
806
North. Here is a straightforward example of a man who has given many years of service to local government, including serving as Mayor of Stockport, and who lived outside the city boundary. So one has to be pragmatic about this. I do not think there is any real risk of councils being flooded with people who have no interest in the area. The Bill does not originate in the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, or in the Amendments put forward in another place in 1969 by members of my own Party, but in the recommendation of the Maud Committee on Management of Local Government, which neither of the noble Lords opposite has mentioned at all. This stated specifically that what matters is the strength of local government. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Fiske, what matters is not that a Party cannot find any candidates, but whether it can be sure that it is finding the best; whether the qualities of the candidates are of the highest, particularly those—and he knows better than most of us from his experience in London—in the very big areas where people are acting as chairmen of committees, with enormous influence and power.
I was asked two specific questions. The first was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Champion, and was about definitions. He was not happy that the phrase "principal or only place of work" would be easy to interpret, and he also had doubts about the words "occupied as owner or tenant". The Bill does not seek to define the principal or only place of work, because we do not wish to be unnecessarily restrictive. There is no reference to work which is paid or which is unpaid, and there is no exclusion of work which is voluntary. I am advised that we expect this phrase to cause very little difficulty in practice, and that it will be interpreted in a common sense way. In the vast majority of cases, it will be the place where a man spends most of his time and earns his living. There may be some fringe cases which will need to be interpreted, but we have confidence that they will be interpreted in a common sense way, as I said. On the question of occupying as owner or tenant, I must point out to the noble Lord that this phrase is one which has been consistently used since 1832 in Acts dealing with electors, and has not in practice caused any great problems of

807
interpretation. So that phrase is one which is already well recognised in electoral law.
The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, asked me about the implementation of the proposals of the Royal Commission on Local Government in England, and asked for an assurance that this Bill would not affect the way in which the Government looked on those proposals. The two are quite separate, my Lords. This is a detailed Bill to deal with a very tightly defined situation, while the implications of the Royal Commission are enormously wide. We accept that, with larger units of local government, particularly those which cover an urban area and its surrounding countryside, the need for these two qualifications may be less in future if the recommendations of the Redcliffe-Maud Commission, or an interpretation based upon them, are implemented. But there will no doubt still be areas, particularly in the case of second tier authorities, where a man has a legitimate interest in one authority area and happens to live in another.
My Lords, let me end by repeating what I said when introducing the Bill. It is concerned with widening the range of people who can stand for local government office. It does not deal with voting; it does not even deal with the ownership of property. That has not been restored. The Bill is concerned with the occupation of premises or the principal or only place of work in a particular area. So we are bringing in here, for the first time, a wide range of people who have their main work in the area. They may perhaps be in factories or offices, and may be doing a wide range of work. The noble Lord, Lord Fiske, hinted that there might be some social overtones in the phrase, "the occupier of property". But this is not so in the "principal place of work" qualification. I think the noble Lord will probably accept that, and certainly it was implicit in the recommendations of the Committee on the Management of Local Government. My Lords, it is for these reasons that we have introduced this Bill, and we feel strongly that it will lead to a healthier and a stronger local government in future.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GUARDIANSHIP OF MINORS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.