Lords Sitting of 29 March 1982

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Agricultural Training Board Act,

Industrial Training Act,

Canada Act,

Travel Concessions (London) Act.

Heathrow: Names of Lounges
2.33 p.m.
The Earl of Kimberley: 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 why the British Airports Authority deem it necessary to change the names of the lounges at London Airport from Alcock and Brown to Hillingdon, and from de Havilland, Brabazon and Kingsford-Smith to Hounslow.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the choice of names for the VIP suites at Heathrow Airport is a matter for the board of the British Airports Authority and not for the Government. I understand that the proposed changes were prompted by the reduction in the number of suites in the central area from four to two and the consequential difficulty of choosing which of the four names of equally famous aviation pioneers to drop.
The Earl of Kimberley: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for his Answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that this is one of the greatest insults which could have been given to these brave pioneers of British aviation? Secondly, will he confirm that there is already a VIP lounge on the south side of the airport, called Southside, and that would make a total of three? Does he not agree that this is just another example of the British Airports Authority's bureaucracy?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we would certainly agree it is very sad that these famous names will no longer be noted and attached to the suites in the central area at Heathrow. I will certainly convey your Lordships' opinion to the British Airports Authority. My noble friend is quite correct; I understand that there is an additional VIP facility, as he described, and I shall check whether a name might be applied to that facility.

Housing: Council Sales and Market Value
2.34 p.m.
Lord Beswick: 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 what was the market value, as estimated by the local authorities of the 171,400 council dwellings sold between 1st April 1979 and 30th September 1981.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, the department's estimate of the market value of the 171,400 council dwellings sold in England and Wales is £2,640 million.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether this does not mean that something like £1,900 million of public property has been made available to private individuals?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, one can look at it in that way if one wishes. One might also look at the fact that the people who have bought them now own their own homes, which many feel is a very desirable state.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, speaking as one who is greatly in favour of private ownership, is that sufficient reason for expecting my fellow ratepayers to subsidise ownership? When the Government's account comes finally to be reckoned, will not this very large amount of public property made over to private individuals be added together with the hundreds of millions of pounds worth of publicly-owned industry which has also been made available to private individuals at less than market value?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, when one talks of "market value" one really has to talk about historic costs. Market value is a notional figure which has no meaning until a sale is made. One has to look at the historic costs of these dwellings to really ascertain whether a profit or a loss has been made. That, surely, is a better way to assess the real performance.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that this marks a singular advance towards the attainment of a property-owning democracy?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, and I certainly do agree.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no one in private industry would ever be guided by historic costs? There has been inflation for years. How can the historic cost be of any importance when what matters is how much the property can be sold for at the present time?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I would hardly have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would press the

1151
point about how much the property could have been sold for at the present time when it is the policy of the party opposite not to sell at all.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not a fact that as a result of these sales there is no question of the ratepayer subsidising them? Ratepayers have now been relieved of sums of money, since the upkeep, painting and repair of these houses is now undertaken by private owners, who are very proud of their houses.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I certainly endorse his remarks.

Lead in Petrol: EEC Consultations
2.42 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: 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 what consultations they are having with our EEC partners with a view to reaching agreement on a date for phasing out lead in petrol.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in May last year the Government announced a reduction in the maximum permitted lead content of petrol from 0·4 to 0·15 grammes per litre to take effect by 31st December 1985. The Government chose this option as the quickest way in which to achieve the largest reduction in lead emissions. A European Community working party is, however, assessing the need and scope for, and consequences of, a reduction in polluting exhaust emissions from vehicles, including lead, and the United Kingdom is taking an active part in this study.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that very helpful Answer. Nevertheless, does he not agree that there is now unequivocal medical evidence of the highly detrimental effect which lead in petrol has on children's health? Will he not accept that, if the Government cannot persuade the EEC to change its directive on the lead content of petrol, the Government would be justified in taking action to set a date to remove lead from petrol in Britain, citing at the same time Article 26 of the Treaty of Rome in defence of their action?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am afraid I would not agree with the noble Baroness that the evidence is unequivocal. High levels of exposure to lead are certainly dangerous, but the working party on Lead and Health chaired by Professor Lawther reported that the evidence of harmful effects of low level exposure was not conclusive. More research work is in hand in a search for greater certainty, and, as a further indication of the Government's determination to tackle the problem root and branch, a wide range of measures is being taken to abate lead pollution from a variety of sources.
Lord Renton: My Lords, while not doubting my noble friend's and the Government's desire to eliminate lead in petrol when it is found to be a cause of damage to the human brain, would he bear in mind that there are far too many people in this country suffering from mental handicap for which the causes cannot be established, and, when there is a cause that seems likely to be established, will the Government please take it very seriously indeed?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed I take note of my noble friend's remarks. It is important to reduce people's exposure to environmental lead as far as possible and as quickly as possible, and that is what the Government believe they are doing.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that, at the time of the report by Professor Lawther to which he referred, the Conservation Society, of which I have the honour to be president, issued a counter report, entitled Lead or Health, in which it was clearly demonstrated that Lawther had failed to take into consideration some of the evidence which is available from the United States and Australia on the effects of exposure of children to low levels of lead in the environment, and that, since Lawther reported, new evidence had become available tending to the same conclusion, that the effects on children of small quantities of lead are extremely harmful and cause behavioural and intellectual disturbances which parents in this country are no longer prepared to tolerate.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed we are aware of the various findings which have been produced more recently, but, as I said, further research work is in hand. The Medical Research Council and the Department of the Environment are both supporting specific studies on the effect on children of low-level exposure to lead. We still believe that the steps the Government took last May are the most apposite for us to take at the moment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Minister which countries throughout the world now have lead-free petrol?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed the noble Baroness may. The two I have in mind are the United States and Japan. I believe Australia also has it, and I think there is one other country. But if the noble Baroness wishes to draw from the fact that they have lead-free petrol that that is because of health hazards, she is, of course, wrong.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the noble Earl recall that in his Answer he gave the quantities in litres. Can we not have it in gallons? I apologise for being British.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord is quite able to translate it himself.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, the noble Earl said that it was not for health reasons that these countries had lead-free petrol. May I ask him for what reasons they do have it?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, it is because of the smog; the catalysts which are necessary in order to get rid of smog are no use when there is lead in petrol.
Lord Mowbray and Stourton: My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that it is also true that having lead-free petrol means having very large engines which are very expensive in energy?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I do not think it means having larger engines, but it does mean considerable research, and this is one of the reasons why the Government took the steps they did in order to get the position of two-thirds less as soon as possible.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, will the Government take into full account the strength of public opinion on this matter, which is overwhelmingly in favour of getting rid of lead in petrol?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course the Government are aware of the public pressure.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, the Minister said that the countries which have lead-free petrol have it in order to get rid of smog. May I ask him, is not smog harmful to health?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed it has a health factor, but not, I think the noble Lord would agree, as lead has.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, as the noble Earl said in his original reply that the Government thought that the measures they were taking were the quickest way to deal with this matter, does not that show that there is some urgency and why did not the Government go further?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, in May of last year the Government embarked on a positive policy. I am sure that the noble Lord will remember the Statement made at the time, which set out what that was.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl one other point? Would he not agree that, unless our motor industry starts to think of manufacturing cars to run on lead-free petrol, they will become even less competitive with Japanese cars, designed to run on both kinds of petrol, which are selling massively all over Europe?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, the noble Baroness's original Question was about the European Community, and we do have to go in step with them. The research which I mentioned in my original reply to the noble Baroness underlines that point.

Heathrow: Baggage Handling by Volunteers
2.48 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
1154
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will congratulate British Airways and the British Airports Authority on the effectiveness of the improvised arrangements in recent weeks for handling baggage at Heathrow, which have greatly assisted passengers, including disabled people.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am glad that, despite the present dispute at Heathrow. inconvenience to air travellers has been kept to a minimum. It would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in this dispute, but I do hope that in everyone's interest a settlement will be reached very soon.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his perceptive and helpful reply. Is he aware that volunteers, including pilots and other aircrew, have been helping to maintain this essential service on the ground? Is my noble friend further aware that passengers who are unable to carry their own baggage, such as the elderly, have benefited also from the disappearance, during this period, of the pilfering which has been so deplorable a feature of Heathrow in the past?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend's first question, I understand that it is indeed the case that other members of the British Airways staff have assisted in various duties which are normally carried out by the ramp workers. As to my noble friend's second question, there have been reports on the point he has indicated, but I am afraid we should require verification from British Airways management themselves.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is indeed a pleasant change when the travelling public is considered in these matters? Would he further agree that in disputes such as these it is always the person in the middle, wherever the dispute may be, who suffers? Finally, would he feel able to congratulate those people in British Airways who have contributed to this action and who have done it either instead of their own jobs or in their own free time? In addition, as I understand it, British Airways did not offer any payment for this until after the volunteers themselves had begun their work.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, in so far as British Airways are not always aware of the comments of the noble Baroness, I shall certainly draw to their attention the noble Baroness's remarks.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind what my noble kinsman said in his supplementary, that there has been a very large diminution in pilfering? Would he at least encourage the trade unions, when they come back and do some work, to follow the very good example of the volunteers?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I can endeavour to bring the remarks of both my noble friends to the attention of British Airways, but, as there is to be a meeting of the union side tomorrow, I do not think that I should go any further on that this afternoon.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it has been widely reported that as many as 50 cases each week are reported of robbery from or within baggage going through London Airport? Is it not a fact that, since the volunteers took over, that figure has dropped from 50 to nought? This is a highly effective and responsible action by those volunteers.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I do not know from where my noble friend obtains his information, but it is a trifle dangerous to suggest that something is, indeed, a fact, when it may not be. But I shall give the assurance, which I gave to both of my noble friends, that I will bring his remarks, together with theirs, to the attention of British Airways.

ISRAEL: FOREIGN SECRETARY'S VISIT
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will defer his visit to Israel".
Lord Denham: My Lords, in view of the fact that my noble friend the Foreign Secretary cannot be at the House today and that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has only recently arrived at the House, I shall, with the leave of the House, arrange for my noble friend to answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I announce that dinner will be available at the usual time this evening. Subject to progress of business, the Committee stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill may be adjourned at approximately seven o'clock for a short period.

Antiquities Bill [H.L.]
2.53 p.m.
Report received.

Copyright Act 1956 (Amendment Bill) [H.L.]
Lord Fletcher: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment he discharged.—(Lord Fletcher).
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: 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.—(Baroness Trumpington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeals]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, after ("III") insert ("except sections 44(2), 45 and 46").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 and for the clarification of your Lordships, and with your Lordships' leave, I shall be speaking to Amendment No. 2 as well. The purpose of these amendments is to propose certain rights of shopworkers under the provisions of the Shops Act 1950, so far as that is possible, consistent with the main object of the Bill which is to repeal the restraints which exist under the present law on the hours during which shops may open. It is no part of our purpose to reduce unnecessarily the rights of shopworkers. Under the existing law, the rights of workers and the rules requiring shops to be closed at certain times are woven together. We need to unweave them and, in doing so, a certain amount of legislative tidying up becomes necessary. It is that tidying up which these amendments bring about.
The Bill repeals with one bold gesture Parts I, III and IV of the Shops Act 1950 which deals with hours of trading. I must refer at this stage to Part II of the 1950 Act which is headed, "Conditions of employment", because it is left on the statute book and it is not our intention to remove safeguards for workers provided by law under that heading.
Turning to Amendment No. 1, as the Bill stands at present, Sections 44(2), 45 and 46 would be swept away with the rest of Part III of the 1950 Act. On closer inspection it now transpires that this would not be appropriate. My amendment preserves those sections and concerns special cases. First, Section 44(2) concerns post office business. The effect of this amendment would be to continue the existing exemption that post offices have from the requirements of Sections 17 to 20 of the 1950 Act. These sections cover such things as the entitlement of shop assistants to weekly half-holidays and meal intervals, with special requirements applicable to young persons. Post offices have for a long time enjoyed immunity from those requirements of the Shops Act, so it is appropriate that we should continue that immunity.
Next, Section 45 concerns:
"any fair lawfully held or any bazaar or sale of work for charitable or other purposes from which no private profit is derived".
The same goes for non-profit-making libraries. Perhaps some of your Lordships will be surprised, as I was, to learn that a fair or bazaar could, in law, be considered a shop. Such, however, seems to be the case. So by amending the Bill in this way we succeed

1157
in preserving the immunity they already enjoy, together with non-profit-making libraries, from these requirements and which I am sure we would all want to see continue.
Finally, we get those enterprises enjoying immunity from the provisions about half-day holidays and meal intervals by virtue of Section 46. This, I venture to guess, is even more remote from the everyday experiences of your Lordships. It covers:
"any library which, on the first day of January nineteen hundred and thirty-six, was carried on by a society registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Acts, 1893 to 1928".
I must confess to being unable to acquaint your Lordships of the number of libraries that still exist within that description. I dare say there are a few. Since they were exempted when Parliament last addressed its mind to the subject in 1950, it is right that we should continue their exemption from what will be left of the Shops Act 1950, when we have repealed those parts of it which cover shop opening hours. Therefore, with a view to preserving the exemptions currently enjoyed by those kind of places—post offices, fairs, bazaars and libraries of the kind that I have outlined—this amendment has been tabled.
For this amendment and for the others tabled in my name, which are largely of a technical character, am greatly indebted to my noble friend Lord Belstead and to officials of his department for the help they have given, and in particular for their advice and drafting expertise. The whole Committee will be indebted to them for the improvements to the Bill which will thus be brought about. Whatever views individual noble Lords may have about the merits of the main proposals of the Bill, I am sure that all of us want to see a Bill which is technically in good order. I thank my noble friend most warmly for his help.
I now turn to Amendment No. 2 standing in my name. Amendment No. 2 seeks to add to the Bill certain repeal provisions to supplement those already in the Bill. The first amendment adds a repeal provision to Clause 1 and the other adds, after Clause 2, a schedule to the Bill setting out in detail the provisions which are to be additionally repealed. They fall into two categories. First, it repeals those words in the surviving parts of the Shops Act 1950—in fact, Parts II and V—which need to be repealed in order to enable those surviving parts to make sense now that we are repealing the remainder of that Act. We need to remove from Part II cross-references to the provisions of the parts of the Act that we are now repealing, and that is what is achieved by the references in the schedule to the Shops Act 1950.
Secondly, and consistent with that principle, there are provisions in other enactments—the London Government Act 1963, the Post Office Act 1969, and so on—which carry references to those parts of the Shops Act 1950 which we are now proposing to repeal and which need to have deleted from them those references. That is what the rest of the schedule does. They are essentially consequential repeals. However, as their purpose is to preserve workers' rights effectively, I hope that the Committee will bear with me if I attempt to describe their effect in a little more detail. I think that this will serve to illustrate the general tenor of the policy of those of us who have prepared and promoted this Bill.
Your Lordships will observe that included among the repeals arising from these amendments are three affecting Section 22 of the Shops Act 1950. This section, which I emphasise is to be retained and will remain part of the law, deals with Sunday employment. Your Lordships will know that under the existing law some kinds of shops—just a few—may open on Sundays. They are listed in the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act and include a curious variety of establishments. They range from shops which may sell intoxicating liquors to the sale of fodder for horses and mules; fresh fruit and vegetables; and meals also are included. There are a few others.
Section 22 makes special provisions for safeguarding the rights of shopworkers who, under the existing limited provisions, may work on Sundays. It requires that a shopworker who has to work more than four hours on a Sunday must have a whole day off in lieu at some other time during the week. One who works four hours or less on a Sunday must be given a half day off in lieu during the week. There are back-up provisions to enable this to operate effectively. It is the intention of this Bill that these provisions protecting shopworkers should continue to apply.
As your Lordships will readily appreciate, these provisions will have considerably more significance once this Bill goes through, if it does, because then any shop will be able to open on a Sunday, instead of the restricted list of shops allowed to open on Sunday at present. So in future the provisions allowing shopworkers time off in lieu will have far more importance, as they will bite on a far wider range of shops than at present.
However, there are some parts of the Sunday employment section—that is, Section 22—which ought to be trimmed off in order that it should make sense in the new situation. Thus, in subsection (3) we find a provision requiring shops open on a Sunday to keep proper records of the names and of the hours worked by shopworkers on Sundays. The subsection refers to the shops open:
"…by virtue of any provision of Part IV of this Act, other than section sixty-two".
That refers to the existing provisions allowing the limited range of shops to open on a Sunday. Now, of course, all shops will be so allowed to open, so we need to remove the reference to Part IV and so on from the section in order that it should bite, as it now will, on any shop open on a Sunday.
The result will be that every shop which opens on a Sunday, as allowed by this Bill, will have to keep proper records of who are employed on a Sunday and of the hours worked. This will help to ensure that those shopworkers who work on Sundays will get their entitlement, on a comparatively generous basis, to appropriate time off in lieu during the week. What is more, such workers will be allowed to work only on two Sundays a month. That is also found in Section 22 (1) (a) (ii) and, in fact, is preserved. Your Lordships will also notice that the amendment would have the effect of repealing subsection (5) of Section 22. The reason for that is as follows. It is a little complicated.
Under the present law an ordinary butcher's shop is not allowed to open on a Sunday. The only exception is a kosher butcher's shop, which falls within the special

1159
provisions of the existing law allowing Jewish shops in certain circumstances to open on a Sunday instead of on the Jewish Sabbath. Those kosher butchers who open on Sundays at present are exempt from the requirements under the present law to give workers who work on Sundays time off in lieu during the week, and from keeping records. However, when this Bill comes into force a different situation will arise. Then any butcher's shop will be allowed to open. It is considered that it would be an anomaly if butchers' shops as a whole were treated differently in these respects from other shops. There is no reason why they should be. So we have brought all butchers' shops, including kosher butchers, into line with other shops. They, too, will be required to give time off in lieu and to keep the necessary records. This, we have to accept, will impose a new burden on kosher butchers' shops, for at present they can open on a Sunday without having to meet these requirements. But in future they will have to do so.
I have been given to understand that the Board of Deputies is not opposed to this. No doubt the reason is that other Jewish shops—that is, shops other than kosher butchers' shops—already have to comply with the provisions of Section 22 when they open on a Sunday. So it is not asking too much of kosher butchers' shops to step into line in this respect. In effect, it is an extension of the existing provisions protecting shopworkers, and I am pleased to be able to do this as I am keenly mindful of the interests of shopworkers.
Finally, there are the repeals from enactments other than the Shops Act 1950. Let me mention two of them. Your Lordships will see that they include Section 88 of the West Midlands County Council Act 1980. This deals with the National Exhibition Centre near Birmingham which, by that provision, is exempt from the requirements of the Shops Act 1950 as regards weekday and Sunday trading restrictions. This will no longer be necessary once this Bill goes through, so the provision is repealed. The same goes for the Earl's Court and Olympia Exhibition Halls covered by the Greater London (General Powers) Act 1981. These exhibition centres will no longer need to be dealt with by special exempting provisions, as they will be covered by this Bill. I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness for the way she has moved her amendment and for the detailed explanation she has given in justification of it. So far as the amendment itself is concerned, I believe she is right in saying that this is a tidying-up amendment. I ought to say that, while I speak for the Opposition, by the nature of this Bill my noble friends will of course themselves consider the matters drawn to their attention and decide and vote accordingly. From my own position of what is a new term of benevolent neutrality, if there are Divisions, I may not be noticeable in the Division Lobby.
The noble Baroness is bringing before the Committee an issue of great importance. Indeed, the noble Lord the Minister, in the Second Reading debate on 9th February, at column 166, said:
1160
"I…genuinely thank my noble friend again for giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue, which is of major social and commercial importance"
I am sure your Lordships' Committee would not wish a matter of that dimension to pass through without having certain assurances and information regarding the background of the noble Baroness's investigation into the matters which she has drawn to our attention. Indeed, she has just said that she is keenly mindful of the interests of shopworkers. That kind of comment is reassuring but it would be useful, and helpful to her in my neutrality, if she would give the Committee a little more information about the background.
In her Second Reading speech, the noble Baroness said that she claimed the right of freedom of shops to open and close when they wish. That of course is inherent in the measure. The noble Baroness will appreciate that there are at least three parties in a business partnership. They include not only shopkeepers but the workers in the shop, who are involved in the enterprise as well as the customers.
On the last occasion, when we debated this on Second Reading, we had information regarding the views of some of the consumers from the National Consumer Council. At the same time, customers are also workers, and they include many people who are members of families and who may wonder how this measure will change the pattern of their family life if they have to work—because there appears to be very little choice about whether one works later in the evenings, or has any religious or other scruples about working on Sunday. Regardless of the religious or other dimensions of the matter, it could substantially change the pattern of family life as we know it in this country. While we want to enjoy to the maximum leisure and other facilities, we may not, as workers, wish to contribute in the way the measure may demand and where we may have no choice.
The dilemma facing your Lordships' Committee is that the present law is indefensible and is unenforceable. This point, I thought, had the unanimous support of the House when the noble Baroness brought forward this Bill on Second Reading. As the Government have refused to give us what I, and many, think is a long-needed and comprehensive review of the present position, we may feel inclined to think that this is the only alternative to that situation and that we ought to do something about it on this occasion.
There are a number of other important amendments before the Committee which are not contrary to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 of the noble Baroness, and undoubtedly those who have tabled the amendments will be speaking in support of them when the time comes. When we debated the matter on Second Reading, several questions were put to the noble Baroness which still require a reply. One important question concerned consultation which the noble Baroness has had, or not had, with the industry and the trade itself. This Bill will radically affect the trade and all those involved in it, whether as employers or employees, or as customers. Have all the trading and business organisations been consulted and are they happy about the prospect of unfettered trading? What about the Churches? What about the representatives of the Jewish and other faiths?
The noble Baroness mentioned the Board of Deputies. I am not sure how much consultation there was before

1161
the amendment was tabled. What about the retail trade? Of course there is more than one category. It includes the small shopkeepers, the medium-sized people, businesses generally, and the multiples. Are they all happy about the prospect, if some of their competitors wish to open late at night, or to have an all-day Sunday opening of shops, that they will be able to compete without any undue effect on prices, with overtime, energy and other costs which may be involved? It would be helpful if we were to be told of the consultation which has taken place with the trade.
Then, what about the men and women who work in the shops? Has the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has nearly half a million members, been consulted? What observations has it made to the noble Baroness, apart from the letters which some of your Lordships have had since the Bill was first tabled early in the year?
I noticed that, in a letter of 29th January of this year, USDAW says:
"It is the considered view of the union's 440,000 members that there is no real or genuine need for the abolition of the major part of the 1950 shops legislation as proposed in the current Bill".
It goes on to claim that many shopworkers would be placed at a social disadvantage when they are required to work on Saturdays and Sundays. They go on to refer to the important economic and social consequences which a measure of this sort would bring.
These are some of the misgivings which have been expressed. I think your Lordships would not wish it to be thought that we passs legislation of this sort without some assurance that all those who may be affected have been asked to give their views and that the views expressed have been taken into account. I suggest that the TUC might have been consulted. It is not only the matter of the shopworkers, the people who work behind the counter, that we are considering here today. There are the supply units: the people who drive the lorries and the vans to re-fill the shelves in our supermarkets; the people in the banks who will have to cash cheques and provide the money and collect the takings. I know that there are often means whereby this can be done without human intervention, but these are some of the services which may be affected. The Post Office, which is mentioned in the schedule among the changes, may be required later when the pattern of trading changes to provide their services. The transport services are important; the security aspects; the police and fire brigades, and others.
The local authorities are affected, too, because we shall have the need for car parks to be open on Sundays when people buy their bedroom suites on a Sunday evening and other goods at a later time in the day, or all day Sunday when the facilities become available. Car parking attendants are involved. A wide range of people will be affected if this legislation goes through.
Although the noble Baroness claims that the number of hours overall which workers work may not be affected, to a football enthusiast who wants to see a match on a Saturday afternoon the prospect of having Tuesday off is not something which is likely to make him feel very pleased. Without straying on to some amendment which we shall discuss later, even in matters of conscience it is difficult to define the areas of loyalty relating to various aspects of our lives.
1162
Therefore, we have other areas of conflict as well, all of which require certain assurances that a wide range of organisations and representatives have been consulted by the noble Baroness.
If people are to shop later and if business hours generally are to be unlimited, then the prospect, for instance, of people wanting to drink in public houses at later hours may require those establishments staying open until midnight or even later. I do not know whether publicans and the licensed trade have been consulted about that. Just as some publicans dread the thought of one or two drinkers sipping their pints until gone midnight, it may be that those who supply other needs in shops may not wish to stay open late simply because their competitors are open.
I question whether the totality of goods and services provided will be any greater because shops are open much later, when, if we knew they were closing earlier, we could get our shopping done earlier, with no great inconvenience to those who have to serve us in those shops. On the other hand, the tourist trade must be taken into account—the changing pattern of needs throughout the country—and in some areas the tourist trade makes special demands which are not being met in an altogether satisfactory way at the moment, as the noble Baroness and others have said as a justification for the proposed change.
Those are a few questions on which it would be helpful if the noble Baroness could give some indication of the action that has been taken already. Many noble Lords will be sorry that the Government have said they are unable to take any action at present on a matter which many consider requires a comprehensive review. It may be that after the present stage of the Bill the Government will reconsider their view in that respect. In the meantime, it would be helpful if the Committee could have replies to some questions, of which I gave notice on Second Reading, about what the Government have rightly described as a matter of major social and commercial importance.
Lord Derwent: I had not intended to intervene in the debates on the Bill in any way, although I was occupied with the subject for many years. I suggest, with respect, that the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, was in the nature of a Second Reading speech. Accordingly, if my noble friend Lady Trumpington tried to answer all the questions asked by the noble Lord we might get into a muddle. Nearly all the points he raised arise on later amendments and therefore it would be of help, certainly to me—it would stop me, and possibly the Committee, from getting muddled—if my noble friend dealt with those points when we come to those later amendments.
Lord Bishopston: I had considered raising those points on the clause stand part, but by then a number of amendments would have been discussed and the noble Baroness might have been at a disadvantage, wondering whether some of the points I put had been taken into account.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches greatly welcome the amendment. The reservations we expressed on Second Reading were due to the fact that we were not sufficiently reassured about the position of workers,

1163
and the amendment goes a long way to allaying those fears.
3.25 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): It might be convenient if commented on the two amendments which the Committee is discussing, because my noble friend Lady Trumpington was good enough to express appreciation for help with the drafting. On Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, drew attention to certain deficiencies in the drafting of my noble friend's Bill, particularly references to parts of the 1950 Act which are to be repealed as well as references to parts which would remain if the Bill were enacted. The point was reinforced by my noble friend Lord Mottistone, along with the suggestion that the Government might give my noble friend help with drafting, should she wish to have such help. The amendments follow discussions I had with my noble friend.
In very simple terms—I say this because it is a few minutes since my noble friend explained the effect of the amendment—as I understand the position, Amendment No. 1 will preserve certain exemptions and Amendment No. 2, taken with the schedule which is Amendment No. 7, will extend some protections for terms and conditions of service. The drafting of all those amendments is in line with the undertaking I gave on Second Reading—they tidy up the drafting—and, like the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I do not think need spend more time on that.
I should like to comment, however, on the question of consultation because Lord Bishopston was really asking my noble friend with whom she consulted before bringing the Bill before your Lordships' House. While cannot, of course, answer for my noble friend on that, I am sure she had in mind the fact that when the Home Office conducted their review—it was a departmental, not a public, review—we had discussions with certain interested parties. Discussions were held at official level with interested parties who heard about the review and got in touch with us; the Retail Consortium, British Multiple Retailers, National Federation of Meat Traders, Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration, Board of Deputies of British Jews, Lord's Day Observance Society, British Tourist Authority and the English Tourist Board. An omission from that list is the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, but we have made it known to that union that the Home Office would not embark on public legislation unless we had warned the union that we were intending to do so.
It was as a result of that departmental review that my right honourable friend decided—indeed, announced in the House of Commons—that, with regret, he could not embark on public legislation because he did not think there was sufficient agreement among all interested parties and the general public for the Government to introduce a public Bill. However, on behalf of my right honourable friend I made it clear for the Government on Second Reading that we found no point of principle as to why the Government should not be benevolently neutral—indeed, as friendly as possible—towards my noble friend's Bill. The reason for that was that the Home Office review had thrown
1164
up the fact that in Scotland the same situation regarding Sunday trading did not apply. The Home Office review had borne out the conclusions of the recent inquiry conducted by the National Consumer Council that the current pattern of trading in Scotland was very similar to that in England and Wales, the only difference being that in Scotland it was being carried on solely within the law.
It was for that reason, almost more than any other, that we felt we wanted to be as helpful as possible in debate with my noble friend. That is why I say, with respect, to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that a great many of the questions he asked fall. If the sort of legislation that my noble friend Lady Trumpington has in mind were to reach the statute book, I do not think that many of the problems the noble Lord foresees would in fact come to pass.
Baroness Trumpington: I welcome the noble Lord's benevolent neutrality. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, I am certainly not ducking any of his questions but I would ask him whether we may stick to the point of the two amendments with which I have dealt so far. If at any later stage he wishes to come back on any point, I shall be glad to answer.
Lord Bishopston: Before the noble Baroness sits down, will she accept from me that I believe that her contribution and the Minister's comments a few moments ago will be helpful to her and to the Committee as background when we discuss other amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 8, at end insert—
("(3) The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent specified in the third column of the Schedule.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon: I think that this might be a good moment to take the Private Notice Question. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Israel: Foreign Secretary's Visit
3.31 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, for a second time, I beg to ask a Question of which I have given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will defer his visit to Israel".
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, may I first apologise to your Lordships for not being in my place about half an hour ago, when it would have been appropriate to answer this Question, but I think that the noble Lord and the House will know the

1165
reasons for that. The Answer to the Question is as follows: No, my Lords. We have taken careful note of representations requesting my noble friend Lord Carrington to cancel his visit to Israel because of the situation on the West Bank. We deplore the dismissal of the democratically-elected mayors and have called for an end to the violence. However, we believe that it would be wholly unproductive to cut off communications with Israel at a time when it is vital to try to persuade the Israeli Government to show restraint and work for an overall settlement.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, may I ask whether he is aware that the Foreign Secretary's efforts to promote a peaceful settlement in Palestine have been widely admired, but that, no matter how toughly he talks when he gets to Israel, the mere fact that he is willing to make a courtesy call at this time is bound to help Mr. Begin to resist his critics and to continue colonising and oppressing the Arabs in Gaza and on the West Bank? Is it really appropriate that a British Foreign Secretary should pay a friendship visit to a Government whose international conduct is so widely condemned, universally condemned, and which is indeed so outrageous?
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there is a very strong feeling in the country and in the House that, precisely because of the dangers and difficulties in the Middle East at the moment, we feel it is essential that his noble friend should carry out his visit to Israel? The most productive gesture that could be made at this time of great danger would be for the PLO to declare formally its belief that the state of Israel should exist, particularly since there are many Israelis who do not approve of their own Government's methods on the West Bank. Will the noble Lord urge his noble friend to repeat that plea to the PLO?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, I would say that my noble friend's visit will be considerably more than a mere courtesy visit, as he suggested. It will of course be an opportunity for an exchange of views at the highest level within Israel. Not only will my noble friend be able to convey his views to the Israeli Government, but the visit will be of great value to him to hear their views at first hand as well. It is, I think, important to maintain the dialogue in this situation and not to cut off communication, as would happen if the visit were to be cancelled.
With regard to the point made by the noble Baroness, I certainly agree with her that it would be of the greatest value if the PLO could, for example, be persuaded to accept the right of Israel to existence as a state, and in the same context it would be of great value for the Israelis to undertake a dialogue with the PLO.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while I quite understand the reluctance of the Foreign Secretary to cancel his proposed visit to Israel, will he take the opportunity of the visit to express to his Israeli hosts his strong displeasure, and I should hope also that of the European Economic Community, at the recent dismissal of many
1166
Arab mayors by the Israeli authorities, and at the imposition of what on the face of it seems very like martial law on the West Bank of the Jordan?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we view the developments on the West Bank with grave concern, and we deplore the dismissal by the Israeli military authorities of the democratically-elected mayors of Nablus and Ramallah, as well as the earlier dismissal of the mayor of El-Birch. We have again appealed—and I would do so now, if I may—for an end to the violence there. It can only harm the prospects of a settlement which gives the Palestinian people the right to choose their own future.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that whether or not the Foreign Secretary visits Israel, whatever intentions he may have—whether he intends to visit Israel, or remains away from Israel—there is not the slighest prospect of peace in the Middle East until the Arab countries, whether collectively or individually, decided to recognise the state of Israel? Let there be no doubt about this: I say it with the utmost emphasis in meaning what I say—and backing Begin, if necessary—there must be an assurance that Israel's security is assured, while at the same time there is a readiness to enter into negotiations. Let that not be forgotten—and Camp David provides for it; let that not be forgotton, either. Until such assurances are given, there is not the slightest prospect of peace in the Middle East. There is also a danger. If, whether in this House or elsewhere, there are some people who, for some reason or another known to themselves but unknown to other people, continue to attack Israel, or anybody associated with Israel, they will not promote peace; they will make for war.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord that the Israelis are entitled to the kind of assurances to which he has referred. But one must say that one of the sources from which they seek the assurance—namely, the PLO—is one organisation with which they refuse to have any dialogue at all.
Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, bearing in mind the word "outrageous" used by the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, may I ask the Minister whether it is not outrageous that most of the Arab countries still consider that they are at war with Israel, and that all the Arab countries, with the exception of Egypt, do not recognise her Government or her existence?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is really an extension of the point that I think was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, but I should prefer not to use words such as "outrageous" in any context in the Middle East situation, hoping that we can move forward to a consensus agreement in due course.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he will convey to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, how sincerely we appreciate his initiative, in particular through the European Community, for a solution of this problem by recognising both Israeli frontiers and the Palestinians' right to self-determination? But is it not the case that this visit,

1167
at this time, might prejudice the conclusion of such an arrangement? In view of what is happening on the West Bank, might it not antagonise Arab feeling, which is growing in favour of the proposal, and might it not strengthen the position of the Begin Government when they are in crisis on this very issue?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, one of the purposes of the visit of my noble friend will be to convey to the Israeli Government the views of the British Government on the various events that have been taking place recently, in particular the most unhappy events on the West Bank, and I think that, if the visit were to be cancelled, that opportunity would be lost. I am firmly convinced, I must say, that the way forward is to maintain a dialogue with all the parties to this dispute, for to cut them off, as is suggested in the Question, would not contribute to that end.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that by virtue of the fact that, happily, Israel is a free democracy, the views which have been expressed in this House which are critical of happenings in the West Bank have been freely expressed in the Israeli press and certainly freely expressed in the Parliament of Israel, where a substantial vote on this very issue was registered against Government policy last week?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, of course it is true that Israel is, happily, a democracy, and hopefully the views of their Government will reflect the views of the Israeli people.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there are distinctions between not making a courtesy visit and cutting off all communications, which is not, I think, suggested by anyone? But is he also aware that his replies about the need for reciprocal recognition will be very warmly welcomed—the PLO must of course recognise Israel, but reciprocally the Israelis must recognise the PLO—and that in this context his statement, in striking contrast to the statements of the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, produces a hope for the future? But, really, one cannot expect the PLO to recognise Israel when Mr. Begin says repeatedly that even if they do the Israelis will never recognise the PLO.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the PLO is not, of course, a state as we would understand it, and therefore the concept of recognition may not be precisely the right description of the relationship which should be evolved with that organisation. What we have said, and what I repeat now, is that there is no prospect of peace in the Middle East without taking into account the views of the PLO, who clearly represent a substantial portion of Palestinian opinion.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, talks about my not having a future, I have a far better future in comparison with his awful past?
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we all look forward to an indefinite future for the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell?

Shops Bill [H.L.]
3.43 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge Lord Robertson of Oakridge moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Exemption from employment on Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday on grounds of conscience
.—(1) It shall be a term of employment of any person employed in a shop that he shall not be required to undertake work in that employment on any Sunday, or on Christmas Day or Good Friday, if he conscientiously believes on religious grounds that he ought not to do so.
(2) In this section "shop" has the same meaning as in the Shops Act 1950.").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this amendment is to protect those who work in shops and who feel on religious grounds that it is wrong to work in shops on Sundays, Christmas Day or Good Friday. But I would emphasise that this amendment covers all who work in shops, including, for example, cleaners. Throughout the Bible we see the principle, which was specifically endorsed by Our Lord, that one day a week should be kept holy to the Lord. In the Old Testament this was the seventh day of the week; after the Resurrection it became the first day of the week—ie, Sunday. There is a surprisingly large number of people who, in this day and age, still strongly hold to the principle that Sunday should be set apart to God for worship and recreation with their families. Recently I had occasion to let it be known that I was interested on one local matter which affected Sundays, and I had letters from literally hundreds of people on the subject. I was extremely surprised at the strength of feeling. As the Church in this country recovers its strength, which I am sure it is going to do, that number of people will increase.
It may be said that we already have some Sunday trading without having exemption on the grounds of conscience, so why do we need it now? I believe that the sweeping changes envisaged under this Bill create an entirely new situation which makes the exemption appropriate and necessary. It may also be said that there are other forms of employment which require work on Sunday, and that we do not have this kind of exemption for them. For example, no one would consider being a policeman if they did not feel it possible to work on Sundays. However, people in shops do not necessarily expect to work on Sundays. Some people who work in shops do feel it is wrong that shops should open on Sundays, and I think there is a different situation requiring this exemption.
The amendment does not provide any means for testing whether a belief is conscientiously held. That seemed to me to involve the creation of unnecessary machinery. I believe that in the case of the Vaccination Acts it was necessary for those seeking exemption to make a statutory declaration, but there it was probably

1169
required because it was a criminal offence to refuse to vaccinate a child. Here, no criminal offence is involved.
A more serious consideration, I think, is the position of those who on religious grounds are unwilling to work on some other day, such as Friday or Saturday. I felt that this point was outside the scope of this amendment. Your Lordships will be aware that Section 53 of the existing 1950 Act makes special provision for persons observing the Jewish sabbath. This provision will be swept away with the rest of Part IV. I think there may well be a problem here to which attention might be given by either the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, or by the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: In purely emotional terms it would be my desire to applaud and support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge. On the face of it, his amendment supports my declared desire to make sure that no shopworker suffers any hardship as a result of my Bill. Having said that, I find that in practical terms I cannot commend this amendment to your Lordships on the following grounds. Terms of employment are not regulated by the Home Office, and my Bill is entirely a matter for the Home Office.
Were the noble Lord to seek to make such a requirement law, then I would suggest he would have to frame his own Bill, addressed to the appropriate Ministry or Ministries; but were he to do so, he would find that he would have to include postal workers, transport workers and many other different kinds of workers. Therefore, a shopworker who felt himself to be victimised or unfairly dismissed on such grounds could appeal through already existing channels. So I fear that I must therefore turn down the noble Lord's amendment on the grounds that it is inappropriate in the context of my Bill.
Lord Davies of Leek: I should like to point out that I would have difficulty here. Perhaps I had better declare an interest on the pharmaceutical side. Local radio and newspapers now tell you, weekly, which chemist's shops are open on a Sunday; and it may be of absolutely vital importance that a particular drug is available on a Sunday in shop X, which may be open anywhere in a particular area in Britain. As your Lordships' know, reports are given out regularly as to which chemists' shops are open on a Sunday.
While I agree in exactly the same emotional way with the noble Baroness, I think we have to be very careful here, particularly in this area of pharmaceutical services to the public. It may be a matter of life and death, and, consequently, the religious issue would have to be worked out inside the chemist's shop. I do not know how it would be done. I think the Lord cured on the sabbath day anyway. The right reverend Prelate will perhaps tell me whether I am correct in my recollection of the Scriptures.
Lord Beswick: I quite agree with my noble friend that we have to be careful in these matters. Nevertheless, I should like to support the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has moved. On Saturday I listened to some very cogent words from the right
1170
honourable lady the Prime Minister about the permissive society and the social deterioration that has set in since the early permissive legislation of the right honourable Member for Hillhead. I look at these matters with the greatest degree of generosity, but it seems to me that the Bill which the noble Baroness is bringing forward is part of this permissive trend and is part of the social deterioration that has been taking place over the last 10, 20 or 30 years.
Of course the present legislation about shop opening is unsatisfactory. There are two ways of dealing with that unsatisfactory position. One is the way chosen by the noble Baroness—which is to throw up one's hands and say that anything goes, open when you like, let us have a free for all! That is one way. But I think that if we choose that way then social values will continue to deteriorate. I see the noble Baroness shakes her head. I do not want to get into a Second Reading speech, but I compare that sort of situation with that in the town where I was born, where on a Sunday morning when I was a schoolboy all that could be heard were the church bells ringing.
It is very different today and much less satisfactory. The noble Baroness is encouraging this deterioration in social values. To some extent, the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Oakridge, has moved is trying to sustain something which I thought we all valued in this country, especially conservatives. To that extent, I am glad to support what he has moved and I hope that your Lordships will accept this amendment.
Baroness Seear: I should like in general to support this amendment. I think, however, that it is somewhat defective. It refers to Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday; but we are a multiracial society with a number of different religions, and if we are to have a clause of this kind in the Bill—and I hope we shall—it should be drafted in such a way that all religious scruple should be taken into account: that of Jews, Moslems, and the other religions which we now have in this country. I believe that the purpose of this Bill is correct, but I believe also that it should include a clause to make it possible for those people who on conscientious grounds feel they do not wish to work on these days, not to do so.
I do not understand the point that the noble Baroness made with regard to this being a Home Office Bill. Once it is a Bill and then an Act, it is the law of the land; it does not belong to the Home Office. If we want to put in religious exemptions for people with religious scruples, then this becomes part of the law of the land whether the Home Office like it or not. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, may consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage, in order that it can be reconsidered on broader grounds to cover the points that I have made, and then brought up again at a later stage.
The Lord Bishop of Rochester: In moving this amendment the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, referred to the fact that one of the parts to be omitted from the original Act did away with certain provisions which affected the Jewish faith. I think that that underlines the importance of what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has just said: that it would appear that there is

1171
ground for revising this in a more general way without the particular emphasis that the noble Lord has put on this amendment. I would support the noble Baroness in asking that he think about it again between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness Phillips: I must declare an interest in that I try to be a Christian and a Catholic—sometimes that is very difficult with some of the people one has to contend with. I am very intrigued by the fact that this is to be put into this Bill. As I have said before, there would be no electricity or transport or telephone service on Sundays if somebody did not work. Already thousands of people have to work. I merely ask whether they have this right to say that they are Christians and do not wish to work. I am not going to say that it is right or wrong; but why do we select one particular trade or profession in inserting a qualification like this?
Lord Robbins: Listening to the speeches which have recently been made, I ask myself whether in those parts the relevant laws of which do not include such an exemption as is proposed by the noble Lord's initiative, there has been a marked contrasting effect as regards permissiveness and the deterioration of public morality. I have not observed it.
Lord Sainsbury: Although I am very sympathetic to this amendment, I am a little concerned about its effect on smaller shops where no alternative labour is easily available. It is doubtful whether it would prevent dismissal or the threat of dismissal from being imposed. Perhaps the Minister would give us some guidance as to whether these workers would be protected under the existing law.
Lord Belstead: I think I can answer that question off the cuff; but what occurs to me on hearing the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, is that I think his speech chimes in very well with the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, which suggested that in businesses which are depended upon for producing vital articles—and the noble Lord, Lord Davies, gave the example of a chemist's shop—which are probably not going to be particularly large businesses, it is necessary for the matter to be worked out at local level. It is with that point of view that I think the Government strongly agree.
Lord Collison: I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said. Obviously any number of people must work on Sundays to provide electricity, gas and water and all the other things which go to make up a decent civilised life. I do not want to get into theology but I cannot see that people who are prepared to do those jobs on Sundays are acting wrongly in terms of the Christian faith or any other faith. I intervene because I think that what has been said so far applies to farming, where we have a responsibility for animals which have to be fed, milked and looked after. One should think very carefully, I believe, before agreeing to something of this kind which other people would claim should be extended to their operations.
Baroness Trumpington: I should like to reply first to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. I hope she will forgive me; I agree that I made a mistake. I am so very young in this House, but I take her point. I tried to bring out the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. Why shopworkers, and why not all the others? I believe that in its application to this pluralistic society in which we live this amendment is too narrow. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, will agree that he has received a very sympathetic hearing and will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, for those final remarks, and I am also grateful to other noble Lords who have spoken. To deal with one or two points that have been raised, the original objection raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, that this would raise technical complications, is in a way more the problem of the sponsor of the Bill than my problem. It is the noble Baroness who is sweeping away the present law and creating a number of problems—solving some, I agree—and all we can do is put down amendments to the best of our ability and at a subsequent stage resolve any difficulties.
I take the point about differentiating between various kinds of workers. Regarding the remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Collison, there is all the difference between farm workers, who naturally have to work on a shift system seven days a week, and shopworkers who do not.
Regarding other faiths, I did not feel that I was qualified to speak for them. However, I take the point. I accept the misgivings expressed by the Committee. I should like to consider the points which have been raised and, with the Committee's permission, withdraw the amendment, bearing in mind the possibility of raising it again after further consideration at Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Jacques moved Lord Jacques moved Amendment No. 4:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Sunday trading.
.—(1) Every shop shall, save as otherwise provided by section, be closed for the serving of customers after 1 p.m. on Sunday:
Provided that a shop may be open for the serving of customers on Sunday for the purposes of any transaction mentioned in Schedule (Transactions for the purposes of which a shop may be open in England and Wales for the serving of customers on Sunday after 1 p.m.) to this Act.
(2) Where the area or any part of the area of a local authority is a district which is frequented as a holiday resort during certain seasons of the year, the local authority may by order provide that on such Sundays as may be specified in the order shops or any class of shops, being shops situated in the district or in such part thereof as may be so specified, may, subject to such conditions and during such hours as may be so specified, be open for the serving of customers, provided that the Sundays specified in any such order shall not be more than eighteen in any year.
(3) Goods sold retail to a customer shall not be delivered or dispatched for delivery from a shop at any time when under the provisions of this section a customer could not be served with those goods in that shop:
Provided that this subsection shall not apply

(a) on any Sunday being also Christmas Day; or

(b) on any Sunday when the succeeding Monday is Christmas Day.

(4) Nothing in this section shall prevent the sale, dispatch or delivery of victuals, stores or other necessaries required by any person for a ship or aircraft on her arrival at, or immediately before her departure from, a port or aerodrome.
(5) The foregoing provisions of this section shall extend to any place where any retail trade or business is carried on as if that place were a shop, and as if in relation to any such place the person by whom the retail trade or business is carried on were the occupier of a shop.
(6) In the case of any contravention of any of the foregoing provisions of this section, the occupier of the shop shall be liable to a fine not exceeding—

(a) in the case of a first offence, one hundred pounds;

(b) in the case of a second offence, five hundred pounds;

(c) in the case of a third or subsequent offence, one thousand pounds.

(7) A person who carries on the business of a shop, or carries on retail trade or business at any place not being a shop, on Sunday in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section, shall not be deemed to commit an offence against any of the following enactments, namely

(a) the Sunday Fairs Act 1448; or

(b) the Act of the third year of His late Majesty King Charles the First, chapter three, for the further reformation of sundry abuses committed on the Lord's Day commonly called Sunday; or

(c) the Sunday Observance Act 1677.

(8) This section shall not extend to Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and, with the leave of the Committee, speak on Amendment No. 8 which is associated with Amendment No. 4. This Bill is concerned with shop hours. It tends to ignore completely the views and interests of both employers and employees. While there is a case for resisting domination by sectional interests, there is not and never has been a case for disregarding the points of view of those people who are most directly affected. In this case, it is the retailer and the shop-worker. These are the people whose views have been completely ignored.
The objections to this Bill from the chambers of commerce in the localities are just as strong as the objections from the trade unions. The employers are objecting just as strongly as the employees. After this House gave this Bill a Second Reading, the Retail Consortium, because it was so disturbed, immediately asked the Secretary of State to receive a deputation.
The retail consortium takes the view that before there is any change there should be an attempt to assess the consequences of the change. Surely that is reasonable. It also suggests that the best way of assessing the consequences of the change is to have an inquiry at which all parties are represented—that is, employers, employees and customers. I believe if that were done a satisfactory solution to this problem would be found, and it would be followed not by a Private Member's Bill but by Government legislation, which is the proper course for business of such public importance.
The consumer co-operative movement nine months ago came to the view that some kind of inquiry would inevitably be necessary within a very short time on the question of shop hours. It set up a study group to consider how best the interests of the consumer, the retailer and the shopworker could be reconciled; what possibilities there were of reconciliation in order that there was give and take to ail concerned, so that it was not one-sided. That study group reported in
1174
February. One of its most important recommendations, which has been accepted by the consumer cooperative movement, is this amendment which is now before the Committee.
The clause in this amendment is not new. It is taken from the 1950 Act and has been revised. This has been taken from Part IV of the 1950 Act and has been revised in order to bring it up to date and to give and take in such a way that there can be some kind of agreement. For example, subsection (1) is exactly as it is in Part IV of the 1950 Act except that the restrictions apply all day on a Sunday in that Act but in this amendment the restrictions will apply only after 1 p.m. That change is fundamental because it immediately eliminates a large part of the anomalies which have arisen. It means that on a Sunday morning a trader will be able to sell any goods. There will be no restrictions. If a customer went into a shop to purchase a newspaper and then decided to buy other items, he would not be told he could not buy something else. A customer would be able to buy anything up until 1 p.m. on a Sunday. That is the first change recommended by this amendment.
The second change is that we have looked at the schedule of transactions which are allowed on Sunday afternoons. This is the famous Schedule 7 to the 1950 Act. We have revised that schedule. Amendment No. 8 is the revised schedule of transactions which will be permitted on a Sunday afternoon. So far as we know we have eliminated all the anomalies which arose. For example, the schedule in the 1950 Act forbids the sale of fish and chips. But since 1950 there have been new developments such as Chinese take-away food shops. Consequently, it has been possible to purchase a Chinese take-away meal but not fish and chips. That is a clear anomaly and we have put that right. In that particular case, we have referred to ready-made meals on a take-away basis. That covers the lot.
Also in revising the schedule, we have brought it up to date. For example, we have tried to cater for the garden centre. The garden centre would up until one o'clock he able to sell everything, the same as any other trader. Up until one o'clock it would be able to sell those goods which made them a garden centre, but they would not be able to be a hardware shop as well—and that is what many of them are.
The exemption which is given here for Sunday afternoon sales is for,
"seeds, trees, plants, fertilisers and other chemicals or minerals used in gardening".
This clearly covers the garden centre in the correct usage of the term.
Lord Sainsbury: May I interrupt? Does it logically and completely cover the garden centre when garden tools and accessories are not mentioned? This illustrates that it is almost impossible to produce a schedule which does not draw arbitrary lines.
Lord Jacques: What I said—and what I repeat—is this: if the garden centre also wants to be a hardware shop and a builders' merchants, it can be up until one o'clock on a Sunday. Similarly, the builders' merchants and hardware shop could open until one o'clock. After one o'clock the garden centre could only sell the goods indicated in the schedule.

1175
The third change which has been made is in relation to holiday resorts. Under the present Act, the local authorities are given power to make orders in which they can authorise the sale of photographic materials, commodities needed for swimming and bathing, food and so on. That is a very limited range. This amendment gives local authorities power to make an order for a shop in that resort to sell everything it wants, but, during the holiday season, and the holiday season is taken to be as it is under the present law—18 Sundays a year—
Baroness Phillips: Would the noble Lord forgive me? Is there a definition of what is a holiday resort?
Lord Jacques: On that, we have retained the existing provisions of the present law: we have made no change. The fourth thing we have done, having improved the law to make it much more satisfactory, is to introduce fines for contravention of the law. Those fines are given in the amendment. I should like to say to those people who want seven-day free trading: you have to take into account the views of the retailer and the shop-worker, and by this amendment you are getting 93 per cent. of what you want. If this amendment is adopted we have free trade for 6½ days and on a time basis that is thirteen-fourteenths, or 93 per cent. So this amendment is conceding to those who want complete freedom for 7 days a week 93 per cent. of what they want.
We have also had from the consumer lobby agitation that we should be the same as Scotland. This amendment goes beyond the Scottish position. In Scotland at present you can have 6½ days' trading in the week, but you are subject to restrictions. On one day of the week you have to close at 9 o'clock and on the other days you have to close at 8 o'clock; so it is not completely free for 6½ days. But this amendment is giving complete freedom for Q, days without any restriction, and so it is going beyond the Scottish position. There is one point of difference. Whereas in Scotland at present the half-day for closing may be any day of the week, depending on where you are in Scotland, in this amendment in England and Wales the proposed half-day would be Sunday afternoon. Other than that, this amendment would give greater freedom than the law allows in Scotland.
There will be Members of this Committee who object to Sunday trading on either social or religious grounds, or both. I would say that we are with you in heart, but we believe this is the best way of doing it. If those who take that view act stubbornly and say: "No, we are going to have no change", eventually we shall reach the position where a free-for-all will be inflicted upon us whether we want it or not. We believe the best way is to be flexible and reasonable. Therefore, we suggest that the best way of avoiding the commercialisation of Sunday is to compromise, to have trading until 1 p.m. We believe that if there is trading until 1 p.m. only the small traders will be interested. There is no reason why the small traders should not be open to oblige the housewife until 1 p.m. if they want to. The multiples, the department stores and the hypermarkets would not be interested because of the closing at 1 p.m.
1176
We believe that this amendment would avoid the commercialisation of Sunday. Let nobody tell me that we are unlikely to get the commercialisation of Sunday. After seeing what has happened in certain states in America, I am fairly certain that we would get it. There are towns in America where the sale starts at 2 p.m. on Sundays as a regular thing and the high streets are busier than they are on Saturdays. That commercialisation would be avoided by this amendment and I therefore commend it to your Lordships.
In addition, I would say that if the Bill goes down the corridor to the other place with this amendment embodied in it, it will be regarded for what it is—an honest attempt to compromise, to be flexible and to have a bit of give-and-take and reach an agreement which is giving something to everybody and is not just one-sided. Because it is an honest attempt at compromise, it may get more support than has been given to shop Bills over the past 20 years. But if the Bill goes along the corridor without this amendment or some similar amendment, then it will be regarded for what it is—an attempt by the consumer activist lobby to impose their view on the retail trade and on the community in general, whether they want it or not, and it will suffer the same fate as other Bills have suffered in the past 20 years. That is my case and I present it for the consideration of the Committee.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Trumpington: Let me say at once that I greatly welcome the significant shift of opinion which is represented in the amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has so ably and courteously moved. Until recently certain interests have been implacably opposed to any change in the present law about shop hours, and in particular about Sunday trading. I do not say that the noble Lord is a spokesman for all those interests, and I dare say that at least some of them are still implacably opposed. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome the acceptance, which is implicit in this amendment, of the idea that all shops in England and Wales should be allowed to open at least on Sunday mornings.
However, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, with whom he has consulted? With regard to the opposition en bloc of chambers of commerce, he is, if I may say so, wrong because I have had consultations with, and the utmost support from, the Croydon Chamber of Commerce, for instance. My noble friend the Minister, following the original speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, really said it all with regard to consultation, from my point of view. However, I have carried out certain consultations of my own—of course I have—and I have consulted certain members of the different Churches. I have actually been telephoned by members of the Jewish faith and the retail trade, certainly; but it takes two to tango and I may say that USDAW has not seen fit to tango with me!
If, as I understand it to be the case, it is now the view of the Co-operative movement that shops should be allowed to open on Sunday mornings, that represents a considerable change of heart on their part, or at least it represents a public expression, for the first time so far as I know, of the acceptance of the idea of Sunday trading. It may well be that it deserves

1177
the accolade of that somewhat over-used epithet and should be called "a breakthrough". Although the amendment does not go quite so far as having the support of the shop workers' union, USDAW, it has what I might call the next best thing. Coming as it does from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is a matter of the greatest consequence in the long battle for the reform of the shop hours law.
I am tempted to accept the compromise which is offered in the form of this amendment. It would certainly be a great improvement on the present position, and it could very well be that if the Bill goes through in its present form almost all shops who wish to trade on Sundays will open only on Sunday mornings and that their purposes—and, more importantly, those of their customers—would be met by a change in the law such as that represented by this amendment.
I wish therefore that I could accept the amendment, but I regret that I cannot. The reason is this: the whole principle on which this Bill is based is that it is not for Parliament, not for Ministers, not for councils, not for bureaucrats, not for consumer organisations or anybody else to dictate to shops when they are to open and when they are to close for trade. Ours is a free society—or it is meant to be—and unless there are powerful reasons why a person should not do what he wants to, then he should be allowed to do it. I simply do not see why the law should dictate to a shopkeeper, whether he likes it or not, that he must be closed on a Sunday afternoon. It is, in point of principle, just as inappropriate as dictating to him that he must be closed on a Sunday morning. We have no business at all to dictate to him. We wish to give to the shopkeepers of England and Wales the freedom and the opportunities which are already available to the shopkeepers of Scotland. That is the main reason why I am, with regret, unable to accept this amendment.
I now come on to consider some of the other provisions which are proposed by this amendment. The noble Lord puts forward a set of exemptions to the Sunday closing requirements, which are set out in the schedule. These have a sadly familiar look to them. It is true, as the noble Lord said, that some of the more glaring anomalies found in the Fifth Schedule to the 1950 Act have been removed, but many nonsenses remain. Let me point out just one or two. We start, as always, with intoxicating liquors. They always seem to rank first in any list of this kind. They are still there, and I congratulate the noble Lord, on agreeing that they should continue to be sold even on a Sunday afternoon. But I fail to see why they are singled out in preference, for instance, to tinned baby food. It will remain the law, under the noble Lord's proposals, that a mother may buy gin for herself but not tinned milk powder for her baby. This is one of the anomalies in the present law, which are highlighted by those who have campaigned for an end to the present abominable absurdities, and it will remain one, even if the matter is improved in the way that the noble Lord now proposes.
Then I see that the noble Lord proposes that there should be an exemption for,
"(e) products without which it would not be possible to keep a vehicle (including a caravan) on the road, with corresponding arrangements for aircraft and boats".
1178
That proposed exemption replaces one in the Fifth Schedule to the present Act, which states:
"(h) aircraft, motor, or cycle supplies or accessories".
What do we make of that? It seems to me that the noble Lord wishes to introduce boats and caravans to the present list of privileged means of transport which may be serviced on Sundays. Fine, but what about bicycles? The noble Lord seems to have eliminated them altogether. I do not know whether the noble Lord has anything against bicycles, or whether they have been left out of the list by mistake. But at one fell swoop, your Lordships' freedom to buy a puncture repair kit or a cycle pump on a Sunday after 1 p.m. has vanished.
If you happen to be cycling to Evensong to listen to an inspiring sermon, then in such circumstances the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, proposes that it should become a crime for you to buy such a kit or such a pump, or even a new inner tube, after 1 p.m. on a Sunday, even though both you and the cycle shop wish to trade in this innocent way, and even though it is permitted under the present law. What are we to make of that? I rather thought that, with the energy crisis and the recession, bicycles were coming back into use again on a large scale. The noble Lord is doing little to encourage them with his amendment.
The new schedule of exemptions does something to improve the lot of garden centres, as the noble Lord said when he mentioned them. But if I am with my family at a garden centre on a summer afternoon and buy some seeds and fertiliser, why should the garden centre have suddenly changed its nature just because I am there at two minutes past one? I simply cannot understand it. Why also has the noble Lord omitted that much-maligned partly cooked tripe from his list? I could go on. I could easily attract a few cheap laughs by pointing out further anomalies in the noble Lord's list of exemptions, but I do not wish to do that.
The noble Lord has striven manfully, or should I say nobly?, to produce a sensible list of exemptions but it cannot be done. It is inherent in any list of exemptions of this kind that absurdities and anomalies will arise. It is one of the main reasons why I want to see them all swept away. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, commands the greatest respect of all sides of this House, and outside this House as well. If he is unable to come up with a list of exemptions which make sense, which does not lend itself to the ridiculous, we then may safely conclude that it is beyond the wit of man to devise such a list. Therefore, I think we ought to conclude that the right course is to reject this approach altogether, and that is what the Bill does. I have not dealt with the other provisions in this amendment, but they are substantially to like effect. They tinker with the law where the bold approach is called for. With regret, therefore, I am unable to accept them.
Baroness Seear: When I hear that the employers and the trade unions are in agreement about something, I know that there is a snag in it and that somebody has to say that there is another interest which needs to be defended. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that we need to have an inquiry. We have been pressing for changes in the Shops Acts for at least

1179
20 years. They have had 20 years in which to have this inquiry, and it has not come.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord has a seductive look at first sight. There is an attraction in the idea of continuing only until midday on Sunday, although, having regard to what we were talking about on a previous amendment, if it was attendance at church services that people were concerned about we might say that shops should keep shut until one o'clock and open on Sunday afternoon. That would he quite a powerful argument if we were to divide Sunday. But there can be no doubt that the noble Baroness is right and that this, for all its seductive appearance, is a wrecking amendment. It cuts across the whole purpose of this Bill, which is to leave it to the decision of the shopkeeper and his employees whether they will keep open or not, and they will make a judgment as to what their consumers want. I should like to make the point that it should not be assumed in this discussion that, because some shops keep open, all the others will be forced to do so. That is not what will happen. As for the schedule, the noble Baroness has said enough. The schedule simply enshrines the old schedule touched up, or tarted up, here and there to make it look like 1982. We do not want schedules of this kind. They are a nonsense. I fear that we on these Benches cannot support the amendment.
4 27 pm
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I venture to intervene on this new clause, because my first ministerial task was concerned with the 1957 Shops Bill—the abortive Bill. I then formed the view, from which I have never departed, that the present law is quite indefensible. It is riddled with anomaly; so riddled with anomaly that it is widely disregarded, and that brings the law generally into disrepute. Unfortunately, I could not attend the Second Reading of the noble Baroness's Bill, but I read the report of the debate with great interest and admiration. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, although apparently losing nothing of his strength of expression, showed a tendency to compromise; and this new clause is undoubtedly an attempt to compromise. I take with a pinch of salt his figure of 93 per cent. which he has conceded, because he is by that taking credit for such freedoms as are vouchsafed by the existing law. What he has done is to concede 50 per cent.
He rightly claims that his new clause gets rid of some of the anomalies. So it does. It gets rid of such of those anomalies as are shown by what happens in England and Wales before one o'clock. But after one o'clock, all the anomalies stand absolutely unimpaired. I was glad that the noble Baroness was not tempted by the noble Lord's blandishments to accept the amendment as a compromise. This Bill stands no chance, I fear, of passing into law this Session. No Government at this stage of a Parliament would risk touching sabbatarian opinion. So nothing is gained by yielding, as both noble Baronesses have pointed out, a whole mass of existing anomalies. That is my first reason for venturing to oppose this clause: that it perpetuates the anomalies which have
1180
brought the existing law, and thus the law generally, into disrepute.
My second reason is that it is quite unnecessary. That is shown if one looks at subsection (8) of the new clause. The new clause does not extend to Scotland. And rightly it does not extend to Scotland, because Scotland gets on perfectly well without a clause of this sort. When I was a Member of another place the most effective debater there was Aneurin Bevan. One of his most striking phrases was, "Why read the crystal when you can read the book?" As I read the Second Reading debate, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, some other noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich had looked into the crystal ball and had been horrified by what they saw there. What they saw were shops open 11 hours a day, seven days a week, shop assistants tied to the counters for all those hours, their trade union quite impotent to help them, and the co-operative having to follow suit and similarly ill-use their employees.
In addition to the employment aspect, what was also seen in the crystal ball was the disruption of family life: a woeful falling-off from the dignity, the cohesion and the stability which at the moment marks family life in England and Wales. Naturally the noble Lord and those others who looked into the crystal ball were repelled by what they saw. But if they had not looked into the crystal ball and instead had read the book of Scotland they would have seen that those phantasmagoria were quite unnecessary and non-existent.
All that the noble Baroness asks us to do by her Bill is to follow Scotland in a sensible law. Although, therefore, I recognise that the noble Lord put forward this new clause in a genuine spirit of compromise, I was glad that the noble Baroness would not accept it.
4.33 p.m.
Lord Underhill: To a number of noble Lords, particularly myself, this debate shows the difficulty which we are in. One recognises that there are anomalies, that the law is in disrepute and that therefore one needs to change it. But the more I hear some of the speeches the more I come to the conclusion that, if we can see anomalies in my noble friend's amendment, the position had better be left as it is.
The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, asked what right anybody has to interfere with the rights of shopkeepers and consumers. But do I want to see Ilford Broadway on a Sunday as it is on a Saturday, with all the surrounding streets chock-a-block with cars? Do not those people have an interest? They may not want to go to the shops and they may not be shopkeepers. Surely they have an interest in this. Similarly I made up my mind not to watch my local football team play on a Sunday, first because I have other things to do, and secondly because it affects all the surrounding streets. Residents surely have an interest, but nobody has mentioned their position.
It is argued that if we support the noble Baroness's Bill the changes will be very slight. Who can guarantee that? We are not passing a Bill just for 1982. We are passing it for 1987 or 1992. Gradually the shops will open and the character of Sunday trading will change. It has been mentioned that there may be inadequate protection for shopworkers. If we

1181
look at the reports of the number of workers at Foyle's who have been dismissed just for joining a trade union, I think we shall have to consider very carefully the position of any man or woman who says that for social or family reasons he or she does not wish to work on a Sunday. What will be their position? Surely people who do not wish to work on Sunday must be exempted.
One can argue against my noble friend's amendment and make jocular remarks about it, but either we find a way of amending my noble friend's amendment at another stage or noble Lords like me will be tempted to oppose the Bill because we believe that an extension of Sunday trading on the lines proposed by the noble Baroness will lead to a change of life. It will affect areas around the shops. We are not thinking just of the corner shop or of the village shop. We are thinking of a possible change in the large and even in the suburban shopping centres which will affect all the people living around those areas. They must be considered.
Lord Milverton: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that if the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, cannot be agreed to, we should oppose the Bill, for the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, gave. Surely there ought to be one day in the week when a man and a woman need not think of money-making. That is one reason why I support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. As the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, said, unless we are careful, Sunday will become just another money-making day. I know that there have to be gas and electricity, but surely one ought to try to keep to a minimum the supply of such necessary services. This is one day in the week which ought to be kept apart for worship and for healthy recreation.
4.38 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: May I express regret that the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, do not appear to be intending to take part in the debate. I would not claim to he a very good substitute for either, let alone for both of the noble Baronesses. They spoke on Second Reading as housewives and as Christians who are concerned with attending church but as people who saw no necessary conflict between that and the removal of restrictions on shopping. I find myself in an identical position. I always find it more convenient to go to morning service at my church. After the 10.30 service, and lingering over some fellowship and coffee, I would not derive any advantage from the concession offered by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. It may give somebody else 50 per cent. of freedom, but it would deny me 100 per cent. of my freedom to go shopping with my family on a Sunday afternoon.
There are all kinds of circumstances in which that might be a sensible and harmonious activity.
I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who intervened to point out that as soon as you begin to draw lines you throw up anomalies. There are a whole variety of ways in which each of us might wish to specify particular exemptions and make a strong case for them, but it is a preposterous thing to keep on
1182
making distinctions between days of the week and hours of the day. If one looks at the amendment and the schedule, there are real problems. The noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, pointed out that bazaars on a Sunday are particularly well attended, and bazaars are usually held in the afternoon. We find that after one o'clock, under the schedule, non-profit making sales are allowed, which might include bazaars—but only sales of second-hand goods. However, there are bring-and-buy stalls and tombolas which are not confined to offering alcoholic refreshment but also such items as a bottle of tomato ketchup. I forget what the fine was in the earlier part of the amendment, but there would be a substantial fine for including tomato ketchup in the tombola at a church bazaar after one o'clock on a Sunday.
I pointed out at Second Reading that a great example had been set by the noble Duke, the Duke of Bedford, and the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, by opening their country homes throughout the week, and throughout the year in some cases, to provide a remarkable opportunity for family outings. Visits to Woburn and Hatfield House are a great delight for people living in north London, as I do. Associated with those visits are a variety of shops and stalls. It would be preposterous to have people going round with lists of what it might he permitted to sell after one o'clock, or what it was forbidden to sell after that time. I argued at Second Reading, as I do now, that it is better to leave it to Dukes and other tradespeople to decide when it will suit them to have customers and to ply their mutually beneficial trade.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, pointed out during her speech at Second Reading, from her great experience as a shopper, that one shop—I believe it was Whiteleys, a furniture shop—might have been saved if it had been allowed to open during times forbidden under the old law, but had gone out of business. Another noble Lord, who is not with us today, declared an interest in garden centres and pointed out that the law allowed the sale of plants but prohibited the sale of decorative pots in which to put them; or allowed the sale of trees but forbade the sale of a spade with which to plant the tree. This Bill exactly reproduces many of these dilemmas. I applaud the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his readiness to make concessions, which obviously he would have been reluctant to do at an earlier stage. I hope he will take comfort from the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, who said that, if one looks into the record of Scotland and indeed of France, where I have travelled a certain amount in visiting my family, one does not find that Sunday becomes just another Saturday, which is one of the noble Lord's refrains.
Lord Jacques: If the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, will kindly give way, I should like to make it clear that Scotland is quite different from England and Wales so far as shopping is concerned Apart from two or three large towns, Scotland is a series of small towns and villages. The multiples are not established in Scotland as they are in England and Wales. The outcome of this Bill would be entirely different in England and Wales from what it would be in Scotland; it would be more like what happened in America.
Lord Harris of High Cross: I have lived some of my life in Scotland, in Edinburgh and Kirkcaldy, and I was not even aware that the Shops Act was different in that country from that of England, with which I am more familiar. Returning to Scotland, I gather that there has recently been a development, particularly in Glasgow and Edinburgh, where some of the large shops have opened on Sundays just before Christmas. Again, this provides an opportunity for many families to go shopping together. Not every shop opened; some shops opened but others stuck to their guns and did not open. The argument that it has to be "all or nothing" and a free-for-all, with the abandonment of any kind of restraint, is not one that is fulfilled in experience. I urge the noble Lord to consider whether the logic and coherence of a simple Bill to repeal these old and discredited statutes, which the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, is proposing, should be marred by an effort to bring back bit by bit some of the old anomalies and whether, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, we should say that we can rid ourselves of anomalies until one o'clock but restore the full effect of them after that time.
4.46 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, did not seem to me to speak in the warmest possible terms about the consumer activist lobby, which is what he thought it right to call it. Speaking on behalf of that lobby—and on this question, I believe that I can speak for the Consumers' Association and for the National Consumer Council—I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the sign of movement that there has been on his part. I should like to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, has already said in expressing her gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and those who are with him on this point. It does represent a considerable advance. In one way, one could say that the Co-operative Movement (and we hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, speaks for the Co-operative Movement) is not now going to regard Sunday trading as wholly wrong, but only wrong in the afternoons. Although that might not seem, on the face of it, such a large advance, it seems to me that, if a change in the law of this kind was made, the people of this country would find shopping a good deal easier, and would feel more sure about where they stood.
Even so, and even after expressing this gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I should like to urge him to go further than he has been prepared to go in the past few weeks (though that is a good way) and urge him to go the whole way, as a means of removing the anomalies about which we have heard so much. The noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, gave us a list of the anomalies as they will again stand, even under the proposals made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. There has been some tidying up in the schedule to this Bill, but I fear—and I believe other noble Lords would agree with me—that in tidying up some of the anomalies, there is introduced a major new anomaly related to the queston of time. This major new anomaly will, I fear, act only to bring the law further into disrepute. It is something that I hope we would all be very much against.
1184
Imagine the situation in a general store in a village, a town or part of any of our cities on a typical Sunday morning. It is getting near the critical and crucial hour of one o'clock. People may have their radios on. Big Ben strikes. The father says to his wife, "Good Heavens! What can we do now? Can we sell tinned food, now that it is after one o'clock? "No, we cannot. But can we sell fresh food? Yes, I think we can. Go and look at the schedule to the Bill. Bring it down and let us have a close look at it, to make sure what we can and cannot do". As the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury said, if it was a shop that sold seeds, it would not be allowed to sell spades. Before one o'clock, perfectly all right; after one o'clock not.
All these anomalies that are present anyway in the law at the moment, and would be there even under the law as amended, would in some ways be made more grievous just because there is a new time limit on what can be done and what cannot be done. I think the people of this country would find it even more difficult to understand the good sense in a law which allowed anything to be sold before one o'clock and then only what would appear to most people to be an arbitrary list of certain things to be sold after one o'clock. All these exemptions and time limits and so on seem to me to show that in this kind of partial, compromise amendment to the law there can be no reliance upon principle, and if there cannot be reliance upon principle retailers will be confused, the police will be confused and certainly members of the consuming public will be confused.
The only sound principle we can act upon is that of freedom: freedom of shopkeepers and shop assistants to decide when they want to open, whether on Sundays or not, and freedom for consumers to buy where and when shopkeepers are willing to sell to them. Scotland, as we have heard, has already observed this principle, with no great harm but only good to the consuming public. It seems to me right that we should now rely on the principle that should have been there long ago, which now, if Lady Trumpington's Bill is supported and this amendment is rejected, will be the principle upon which the law will be based.
4.53 p.m.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: May I speak for a moment against this amendment. which I see as being very much a two-edged weapon. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, attempts to give with the one hand and rapidly takes away with the other in the terms of his schedule. r really cannot believe for one minute that the disaster which he foresees is likely to happen. I cannot see either that there is likely to be any conflict between an employed person and his employer. May I remind the Committee that I ran petrol stations for some years and I had to work on a Sunday because my staff liked to go to church or do other things. Other people came in in the afternoon. That kind of work, indeed the kind of work likely to be offered in the smaller shops, is going to appeal to those who want part-time work. The part-time worker comes from all walks of life—socio-economic groups I think they are now called. Sometimes it is for need of additional money and sometimes the need to get out and do something they think useful.
I find myself quite surprised that the noble Lord, Lord

1185
Beswick, in his remarks on the earlier amendment, and also in the same vein the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, both seemed to reject change. I find that totally remarkable: on the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, involved so heavily as he has been in industry and commerce, the failure of which is because we will not make change. Then the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, who has been so involved with work and workpeople and opportunities, does not want the change in Sunday trading throughout all the range of goods, be it liquor or tea, be it porno magazines or bibles, be it petrol or bicycles; that that opportunity should not be given to enterprising shopkeepers. If the shopkeeper cannot employ the people he will not open; if the customers do not come he closes his business; he is not going to just stay open unless he sells something.
So far as the area is concerned and the reduction in the standard of life, what a lot of nonsense that is! We live in a real world, where all sorts of things should and do happen. If the streets surrounding these residents become totally congested on a Sunday there are adequate resources open to the local authority to stop that. The anomalies that any schedule will produce will always exist; you have really got to get rid of it. You either want enterprise, the job opportunity that such enterprise brings, or you go back to the totally unsatisfactory state which has existed for the 20 years we have been talking about it, and before that. Let me remind your Lordships that most prosecutions come about as a result of an informer; trading standards officers do not want to work all the days and so there has to be rostering to cover the matter. You would get rid of all that aggravation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has sweetly proposed a return to the old days, in contradiction to the ideals that my noble friend Lady Trumpington sets down in offering this Bill.
Lord Beswick: I really fail to see why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, should think that because I want one quiet day a week I am against change. Of course I am in favour of all sorts of change. I have been involved in one industry most of my life which has possibly seen more change than most others. But I want industrial change so that we can improve the quality of life. I do not think this sort of change is going to improve the quality of life. I think we should consider very carefully before we follow the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the right honourable gentleman the Member for Hillhead any further down this permissive road.
I am bound to say I was almost tempted to engage in debate with my noble friend Lord Harris, whom I am pleased to see back, about the merits of stimulating eight o'clock communion as against the rather lazy 10.30 eucharist that he apparently favours. I will not pursue that. I do not understand why, if he wants to go to church on Sunday morning, he should still say it has got to be noisy in the afternoon as well.
I have been worried by the way this debate has gone, because I think we are tempted to get too clever about compromises. It is so easy to be funny about selling ketchup at five minutes past one as against 12.55. I was amazed when noble Lords started talking so cleverly and wittily about the implications of a six
1186
o'clock or eight o'clock closure. A lot of the best things in life have arisen from the fact that we have said: "So far and no further; we can go to a certain time but we do not want to go any further."
I was going to rise earlier because I wanted to pay tribute to the wonderfully reasoned speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. For half of her speech I thought she was going to give way and I was feeling very warmly disposed towards her. Then she advanced some most extraordinary reasons for being against the amendment. I look at the noble Baroness, whom I have always regarded as being a pillar of conservatism, and I wonder how far she is now prepared to go. She herself said she could go even further. I do not know quite in what direction. She said not for her, or not for the Government, not for any law should shopkeepers be restricted; it was not for the Government, it was not for the law makers to say how we should behave. I wonder if she really means that. We might as well say to boxers in the ring that it is not for the referee to say how they should knock each other out. Surely we must have some type of rules if we are to have anything approaching a civilised life?
If the noble Baroness gets the Bill through, is she going to abolish all licensing laws'? Apparently she will have the support of the Social Democratic Party, because they hate to think that anything should be wrong at 10 minutes past 10 when it was legal at 10 minutes to 10. Is the noble Baroness going to embark upon a crusade in that connection? What about safety legislation? When we get going down this slope, why should we have all these rules and regulations even if they do involve safety? I know that there is a difference. But I am telling the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, that once we get going down this slope it will be very difficult to hold up.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: I think that the noble Lord is perhaps a little unfair in looking at me, because I was smiling at the way in which he had taken out of context what my noble friend had said.
Lord Beswick: If I have done so and if I have misrepresented what the noble Baroness said, then I am sorry. But it seemed to me that the noble Baroness was making a very powerful case in the second half of her speech for a complete free-for-all in our economy and our society. I am venturing to say that, if we pursue that course, then we shall have cause to regret it. My noble friend Lord Jacques has come forward with a compromise. Anybody who brings forward a compromise can he criticised for inconsistency—he can have one matter played off against him by another. I know that there is a difficulty for a "compromiser". However, I think that it is a sincere compromise that he is putting forward and, although I have hitherto voiced the opinion of being against any movement along the lines suggested in these amendments, I would support the amendment and I hope that the Committee will support it. If we do not support it, I hope that will be the final reason for not accepting the Bill at all.
Lord Somers: A great deal has been said about the matter of making compromises. I think that we must all realise that some compromises are absolutely inescapable. If one lives alone or without any domestic

1187
staff, for instance, one must take into consideration the fact that that one has to do one's ordinary cooking and cleaning and so on, on Sundays. In the far distant days when I was a professional organist, one's chief work came on a Sunday. None the less, I think that one can accept those compromises and yet keep the feeling of Sunday being different from other days, and preserve the feeling of the sanctity, as it were, of the Sabbath in spite of making these, on the surface, compromises.
Lord Jacques: I am hoping that this might be the time to close this debate. I have a whole sheaf of notes which would allow me to reply to the debate, but quite frankly I think that your Lordships have all made up your minds as to whether you are going to vote for or against. I suggest that we take the vote and I therefore invite the Committee to divide.
5.4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 4) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 118.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Kearton, L.

Blease, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Blyton, L.

Listowel, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Longford, E.

Briginshaw, L.

McCarthy, L.

Brockway, L.

Milverton, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Molloy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Oram, L.

Cledwyn of Penhros, L.

Peart, L.

Collison, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Shinwell, L.

David, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Strauss, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Underhill, L. [Teller]

Gaitskell, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Ingleby, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L. [Teller]

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Daventry, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Davidson, V.

Ampthill, L.

Denham, L.

Ardwick, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Avon, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Aylestone, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Banks, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Bellwin, L.

Foot, L.

Beloff, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Bessborough, E.

Gainsborough, E.

Blake, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Cathcart, E.

Glasgow, E.

Cockfield, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Colwyn, L.

Gormanston, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Grey, E.

Cowley, E.

Gridley, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Haig, E.

1188

Hailsham of Saint

Perry of Walton, L.

Marylebone, L.

Porritt, L.

Halsbury, E.

Portland, D.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Hayter, L.

Reigate, L.

Henley, L.

Renton, L.

Hives, L.

Richardson, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Robbins, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Romney, E.

Hunt, L.

St. Davids, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sandford, L.

Ilchester, E.

Sandys, L.

Jeger, B.

Seear, B.

Killearn, L.

Seebohm, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Kimberley, E.

Sharples, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Lothian, M.

Spens, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Lyell, L.

Stedman, B.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Strathcona and Mount

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Royal, L.

[Teller]

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swinfen, L.

Margadale, L.

Terrington, L.

Marley, L.

Tordoff, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Mersey, V.

Trenchard, V.

Monk Bretton, L.

Trumpington, B [Teller]

Monson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mountevans, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, E.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Vivian, L.

Newall, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ward of Witley, V.

Northfield, L.

Winstanley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Orkney, E.

Young, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Pender, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.14 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to point out to the Committee that if Amendment No. 5 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 6.
Clause 2 [Short title, commencement and extent]:
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 12, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
("(2) This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may appoint by order made by statutory instrument; and different days may be appointed for different provisions of this Act and for different purposes of the same provision.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment substitutes different commencement provisions for those provided in the Bill. At present Clause 2(2) provides that the Bill is to come into force one month from the day on which it is passed. This may be too swift. Instead, it will now be provided that the Bill, when it becomes an Act, shall:
"come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may provide by order made by statutory instrument",
and he can make parts of it come into force at different times if he wants to.
This reason is as follows: under the Shops Act 1950 there are various sets of regulations which have effect for various purposes. Some of these were made

1189
under parts of the Act which are now to be repealed. Other regulations were made under parts of the Act which are to be retained, and these may well need some adaptation to meet the new situation. Those arising under the parts to be repealed will have to be revoked. All this may take a little time to work out. A certain amount of consultation will be necessary before the new regulations can be prepared. Until they are ready, the existing law ought to continue in force before the day arrives when shops are first able to open as they want, which is the purpose of the Bill. All the necessary tidying up, not only to primary legislation, but to subordinate legislation, will have to be attended to. I very much hope that there will be no undue delay in bringing the Act into force on this account, and I accept the necessity of delegating to the Home Secretary the power to bring the new provisions into force without tying him down to naming a date. I beg to move.
Lord Bishopston: I speak briefly, to say that I think the Committee will welcome this change of view from "one month" at present in the Bill. I hope that it also affords more time for consultation with all those who may be affected by the subsequent changes.
Baroness Seear: We on these Benches also welcome this amendment. One month was undoubtedly too short for consultation. This is a great improvement.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Trumpington Baroness Trumpington moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 2, insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE

REPEALS

1950 c. 28

Shops Act 1950.

In section 21(8), the words "and Part III of this Act".

In section 22—

(a)in subsection (3), the words from "by virtue of" to "sixty-two";

(b) subsection (5); and

(c) in subsection (6), the second sentence.

In section 44(2), the words "Save as aforesaid" and "Part I or".

In section 45, the words "Part I or".

In section 46, the words "I or".

In section 69(1), paragraphs(b)to (d) and, in paragraph (e), the words "Part I" and "Part III".

In section 71—

(a) in subsection (1), the words from "and of" to "those provisions" and the words "and such orders as afore said"; and

(b) in subsection (7)(b), the words "or Part IV".

In section 74(1), the definition of "butcher's

meat", "closing order", "early closing day". "general closing hours" and "Kosher meat".

Schedule 1.

Schedule 2.

Schedules 4 to 7.

1963 c. 33.

London Government Act 1963.

Section 51(3).

1969 c. 48.

Post Office Act 1969.

In Schedule 4, in paragraph 51, the words from "Schedule 2" to "on Sunday)".

1971 c. 23.

Courts Act 1971.

In Schedule 9, in Part I, the entry relating to the Shops Act 1950.

1972 c. 71.

Criminal Justice Act 1972.

Section 31.

1977 c. 49.

National Health Service Act 1977.

In Schedule 14, in paragraph 13(1)(b), the words "and 57";

1980 c. xi.

West Midlands County Council Act 1980.

Section 88.

1981 c. xvii.

Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1981.

Section 20. Schedule 3.")

The noble Baroness said: I have already spoken to this amendment and, therefore, I move it formally.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
5.18 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Belstead.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 89B:
After Clause 22, insert the following new clause:
("Control of road-side sales.
—(1) Except as provided in subsection (4) below, no person shall, for the purpose of selling anything, or offering or exposing anything for sale, use any container or vehicle, or stall or similar structure, kept or placed on—

(a) the verge, including any lay-by, of any road to which this section applies; or

(b) any common land or unenclosed land of any description adjacent to, and within 15 metres of, any such road;

where the use of that thing for that purpose causes or is likely to cause danger on, or obstruction of the passage of traffic over, the road.
(2) This section applies to any trunk road and any principal road which is not specified in a control order under section 7 of the Act of 1976.
(3) Any person who contravenes this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.
(4) This section does not apply to—

(a) the use of any container, vehicle, stall or structure placed on private property by or with the consent of the owner or occupier of the property;

1191

(b) the sale, offer or exposure for sale of things from or on, or on a container on, a vehicle which is used only for the purpose of itinerant trading with the occupants of premises, or which is used for that purpose and for purposes other than trading;

(c) the sale, offer or exposure for sale of newspapers; or

(d) anything done at a market in respect of which tolls, stallages or rents are payable.

(5) In this section:
"trunk road" shall have the meaning assigned to it by section 329(1) of the Highways Act 1980.
"principal road" means any highway classified as a principal road in accordance with section 12 of the Highways Act 1980.").
The noble Viscount said: I apologise to the Committee for putting down this rather lengthy amendment at this stage in the proceedings, but since our previous discussions on this Bill it has become apparent to me, and I think to many others in local authority circles, that there is here a loophole with which we should seek to deal. There is the possibility for highway authorities that roadside sales, which I have tried to define in this amendment, are a hazard. They have caused accidents and are liable to cause accidents, and should be controlled in some way or other. Highway authorities should have power to deal with them.
There is no objection in principle to selling things beside the road, and it is commonly and frequently done; but it has been known to cause serious accidents. People park on one side and run across to the other side to buy a newspaper, or an ice cream, or whatever. In the interest of public safety, the Association of County Councils, which comprises most, if not all, of the highway authorities of England and Wales, would like to see this clause inserted in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The Government have no objection in principle to further provision to control roadside sales. However, there is a need to amend the drafting of this clause so as to avoid speaking in terms of an "obstruction of the passage of traffic over, the road", when it appears that an obstruction on the highway, irrespective of its effect on passage, is a nuisance. Also, it appears to be necessary for other changes to be made to fit the clause into the context of this Bill. I should therefore like to tell my noble friend that we would want to consider the clause in more detail with a view to a Government amendment being put down at Report.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: While not disagreeing with the noble Viscount—and I have not been approached by any organisation—I am a little concerned about the long distance lorry driver. Going along trunk roads in the country one finds that many long distance lorry drivers use the lay-by and take their hot bacon sandwich and mug of tea and their rest as part of the statutory rest time which the lorry driver has to take. I am concerned that perhaps that might be abolished by this clause.
We are all trying to get the long distance lorry drivers out of the towns, and this would limit the number of places where they would be able to pull up and take refreshment on their long journeys, bearing in mind the statutory duty on them to have a rest. I rise purely on those grounds to see that the facilities they have are safeguarded, bearing in mind that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, I am sure, will want to preserve
1192
many of our old towns from the danger inherent in the intrusion of long distance lorry drivers. If this clause went through it might mean that they would have to come into the towns and there park.
Viscount Ridley: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. She is right to raise the problem of the long distance lorry driver. I think there is almost no Member of this House who has not occasionally used a roadside lay-by and bought a sausage, or something, in the course of passing by. There is no intention to prohibit this. Clearly we ought to have some means of control whereby the dangerous ones can be moved on. I shall not, but I could weary your Lordships with terrifying photographs of dangerous places where these things happen and where no control exists. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the suggestion that this situation could be looked at and dealt with by a Government amendment, which would undoubtedly be better than anything I could produce. With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Paving of yards and passages]:
Lord Bellwin moved Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 23, line 11, leave out ("the owner of the building") and insert ("any person who is the owner of any of the buildings").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 24 [Building regulations]:
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 24, line 19, after ("which,") insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: This is also a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Control of demolitions]:
5.25 p.m.
Lord Bellwin moved Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 28, line 30, leave out from ("who") to ("shall") in line 32 and insert ("contravenes subsection (2) above").
The noble Lord said: This amendment will provide that any person who fails to give the local authority notice of intention to begin a demolition or who begins one before the local authority have served a notice containing conditions—or before expiry of the "relevant period", as defined, if no such conditions are given—shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine of up to £500.
As the clause is presently drafted, the £500 penalty can only be imposed where the person carrying out the demolition has failed to notify the local authority of his intention to demolish. It does not cover the situation

1193
where, even though such notification may have been given, demolition is begun before the local authority have served a notice containing conditions—or before the "relevant period", as defined, has expired if no such notice is served. It is considered important that the local authority should have redress in such cases and the amendment is thus designed to remedy that defect. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 28, line 44, leave out ("the Public Health Act 1961") and insert ("this Act").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 29, line 1, after ("them") insert ("to have begun or").
The noble Lord said: The amendment will enable the local authority to serve a notice containing conditions on any person who appears to them to have begun a demolition to which Section 29 of the Public Health Act 1961 applies. As presently drafted, the clause allows the local authority to serve a notice containing conditions only on a person who appears to be intending to begin a demolition and not on a person who has already begun such a demolition. This amendment corrects that position by authorising a local authority to serve a notice in both circumstances. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Foot Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 94ZA:
Page 29, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) A local authority which becomes aware of circumstances entitling it to serve a notice under subsection (1) of this section shall consult with the relevant gas and electricity undertakers and, unless the authority is satisfied as a result of such consultation that there is no supply of gas or electricity to, in, under or through the building, shall serve such a notice and shall include in it a requirement such as is specified in paragraph (h) of section 29B(1) of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I should like to speak, with the leave of the Committee, not only to this amendment but to the four amendments which follow on it, B, C, D and E. I should like also to apologise to the Government for having put down this amendment so late in the day. The same applies to the amendment which I shall be moving a little later. The matter is probably so simple that the Government will not be embarrassed in any way by the short notice which they have had.
These amendments in my name are being put forward by me on behalf of the electricity and gas industries. It may be sufficient to say that a great deal of thought has been given to these amendments by those responsible for those industries. Clause 27 of the Bill is concerned with certain precautions which should be taken on the demolition of buildings. It is designed to strengthen and to amend Section 29 of the Public Health Act 1961. That intention is wholly welcome to those on whose behalf I speak. Their only feeling in the matter is that it does not really go quite far enough, certainly so far as electricity and gas are concerned.
This series of amendments is designed, first, to try to avert any unwitting or unintended damage to gas or
1194
electric installations in the course of demolition works and, secondly—and more importantly perhaps—to strengthen the provisions for public safety. I do not think it is necessary for me to emphasise to the Committee the considerable dangers which can arise with regard to electric and gas installations when buildings are being demolished. To make the point, I need to quote two short passages from a memorandum I have received from the British Gas Corporation. The first is:
"From time to time gas engineers have been called to sites where demolition works are in progress and have found the service pipe to be live with gas escaping from the severed service pipe. The attendant danger to demolition contractors' operatives on site and also to adjacent property is the risk of ignition or explosion of the escaping gas. Furthermore, if the live surface pipe is hooked out by a digger, serious consequences can flow from a possible fracture of the gas main to which the service pipe is connected".
The second quotation includes what I regard as two startling statistics:
"In the London distribution area of South Eastern Gas, which comprises six districts each with approximately 150,000 customers, in the period since 1st January of this year"—
I emphasise that, since January of this year—
"in the Southwark district, there have been some 16 separate gas escape incidents involving demolition works; and in the Lambeth district during the same period there were 14 such incidents of gas escapes involving demolition works, and in each case no prior notification of the intended demolition works had been received".
I need not argue the seriousness of the matter, Clause 27 as drafted empowers a local authority to serve a notice on anyone intending to demolish certain types of buildings. That notice may impose on that person—whom perhaps I may call "the contractor" any of the requirements set out in the new Clause 29B; and among the requirements in that new provision is paragraph (h) which provides that a notice under Clause 29A(1) may require the person on whom it is served—that is, the contractor—to make arrangements with the relevant statutory undertakers for the disconnection of the supply of gas, electricity and water to the building.
The defect, if that is the right word, in that procedure, as we see it, is that the authority's power to include that requirement—the requirement of communicating to and making arrangements with the statutory under takers—is purely discretionary. Indeed, it is not obligatory on the local authority to serve a notice at all, and in that sense there could be an occasion when no notice of that requirement would be served on the contractor. The second defect, as we see it, of the clause as it stands, is that the electricity or gas board concerned will be put on notice of the demolition only if the authority has included in its notice the requirement under paragraph (h); or if, by chance, under another clause of the Bill, the statutory undertaker happens to be the owner or occupier of an adjoining building.
I think it would be sufficient, to explain what this series of amendments propose, if I read Amendment No. 94ZA:
"A local authority which becomes aware of circumstances entitling it to serve a notice under subsection (1) of this section shall consult"—
that is, where the local authority becomes aware that some demolition work will take place—

1195
"with the relevant gas and electricity undertakers and, unless the authority is satisfied as a result of such consultation that there is no supply of gas or electricity to, in, under or through the building, shall serve such a notice and shall include in it a requirement such as is specified in paragraph (h) of section 29B(1) of this Act".
That is designed to ensure that whenever the local authority is contemplating the issue of a notice to a contractor or to any other person, it shall consult—be under an obligation to consult—with the gas and electricity undertakers to make sure just what the situation is. I imagine that almost all responsible local authorities would be inclined to consult with the electricity and gas undertakers in any event. If so, then, if the amendment were carried, making it mandatory would not impose any additional burden on local authorities, because it is probably what they would do in any event. It would only seal up a possible loophole and make it obligatory and mandatory on every local authority in those circumstances always to consider and consult the statutory undertakers.
Amendment No. 94ZB is designed to strengthen paragraph (h), to which I have referred. As drafted, paragraph (h) requires the contractor to make arrangements with the statutory undertakers for the disconnection of the supply—I underline the word "supply"—of gas, electricity and water to the building. The amendment relates to making safe, additionally, any electric apparatus in or under the building, not merely the electrical or gas apparatus which supplies electricity or gas to the building. The object of that amendment will be clear without further explanation from me.
The remaining three amendments to which I am speaking relate to subsection (3) of the new Clause 29B. Subsection (2) of that new clause empowers a contractor, or the authority in certain circumstances, to break open a street in connection with a demolition. Subsection (3) as at present drafted provides that, in so breaking open a street, the contractor is not exempt from certain obligations under the Water Act 1945. The amendments, to put the matter briefly, simply provide that the contractor shall not be exempt from certain similar obligations in respect of electricity and gas. I hope that is sufficient explanation of this group of five amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: I, too, propose to speak to the group of five amendments. We feel that in practice it is unnecessary to require a local authority to consult statutory undertakers. Our concern is that consultation could prove inflexible and onerous, not to say time consuming. For example, in a great many cases a local authority will be aware, without needing to consult, that the services of statutory undertakers are likely to be affected, and indeed as the noble Lord, Lord Foot, himself very fairly said, it is reasonable to suppose that in such circumstances the authority will properly exericse its discretion under paragraph (h) of Clause 29B(1) and serve a notice containing the appropriate condition. Therefore it would perhaps be a rather costly waste of the time of both the local authority and the statutory undertaker to require consultation, and in some circumstances it could unnecessarily delay the start of demolition works. Similarly, there might be cases where it was patently
1196
obvious that no such services could be affected and there it would be pointless to require consultation.
However, in cases where the local authority is in doubt about whether gas or electricity services might be affected, there is nothing to stop the authority seeking the advice of the relevant undertakers. Alternatively, the authority has the power simply to go ahead and impose a requirement for the demolisher to make arrangements with the statutory undertakers in any event.
I should have thought that it is more satisfactory to leave the matter to the discretion of local authorities and to rely on them to exercise their powers responsibly, rather than to impose an inflexible and, as I say, a time-consuming requirement, which could place unnecessary burdens on all the parties concerned.
With regard to Amendment No. 94ZB, my observations are very similar, since surely it is reasonable to expect that an undertaker, on making arrangements, could ensure that a demolisher left electricity lines and apparatus, for example, electrically dead as part of any other arrangements in relation to the disconnection of the supply.
Having said that, I should add that we have thought carefully about the point that the noble Lord raises. For the reasons that I have just given, we think that what he proposes is not entirely necessary. Nevertheless, he has raised one or two points which ought to be thought about a little further, and we are considering possibly tabling on Report an amendment which would require demolishers in all cases to inform statutory undertakers of a proposed demolition. I think that that would go a long way towards meeting what the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is seeking. In regard to those amendments and the others to which he has referred, I would add that we are prepared to consider the matter with a view to putting down a suitable Government amendment on Report. Perhaps in the light of that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Foot: I never like to look a gift horse in the mouth, and certainly I should be ready to withdraw the amendment at this stage, but I hope that I am not precluded from making one or two observations on the noble Lord's arguments. He said, if there were a rigid system whereby on every occasion when a demolition is contemplated, the local authority must consult the undertakers as to whether there are any electric, gas, or water installations involved, that would impose a heavy burden upon the authority. I am afraid that I cannot at all understand that view. The amendment does not specify the way in which the consultations must take place. If it is a mandatory requirement that in every case where a demolition notice is contemplated, automatically the local authority must communicate with the statutory undertakers, the authority could do that perfectly well by lifting up the telephone if it chose.
The great advantage of making consultation mandatory is that it would avoid the exceptional case—and I realise it to be exceptional—where for some reason or another (perhaps because somebody has not thought of it) an inquiry is not made and then perhaps a fatal accident ensues. I should have thought that if one weighed one argument against the other there is an overwhelming case for making consultation mandatory

1197
and that in practice it would not impose any serious obligation on the local authority. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 94ZB, 94ZC, 94ZD and 94ZE not moved.]
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 28 [Protection of damaged buildings]:
5.46 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 94ZF:
Page 32, line 45, at end insert—
("(2A) In this section and sections [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] and [Applications to court in respect of expenses of works] "building" includes structure.
(2B) Subject to subsection (2C) below, in this section, the sections mentioned in subsection (2A) above and section [Appeals against notices] below "local authority" means a district council, a London borough council and the Common Council of the City of London.
(2C) This section and the other sections mentioned in subsection (213) above shall have effect, in relation to a building in respect of which—

(a) an undertaking that it shall not be used for human habitation is in force by virtue of section 16(4) of the Housing Act 1957 or paragraph 5 of Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980; or

(b) a closing order is in force by virtue of section 17, 26 or 35 of the Housing Act 1957, section 26 of the Housing Act 1961 or paragraph 6 of Schedule 24 to the Housing Act 1980,

and which is situated in an area which in pursuance of section 40 of the Housing Act 1969 or section 49 of the Housing Act 1974 is for the time being declared by the Greater London Council to be a general improvement area or a housing action area, as if for the words "the local authority", in each place where they occur, there were substituted the words "the Greater London Council".").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to refer to Amendment No. 95ZA. These are simply drafting amendments which deal with the definitions of the local authorities which are to be empowered to execute works under the clause. In relation to the Greater London Council, that council's powers are confined as at present to certain buildings (for example, in relation to which a closing order has been made) in areas declared by the council to be housing action areas or general improvement areas. I beg to move.
Baroness David: May I ask whether the Minister really was speaking to Amendment No. 94ZF?
Lord Bellwin: I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 94ZF and 95ZA.
Baroness David: Amendment No. 94ZF refers to,
"Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board—"
Lord Bellwin: It is Amendment No. 94ZF; the noble Baroness is quite right.
Baroness David: I should like to ask the Minister a few questions. Amendment No. 94ZF is a new amendment, which is contained in the third Marshalled List, but was not in the earlier Marshalled Lists, as was the case with three other amendments, Nos. 94A,
1198
95B and 95C. They were presented to us only this morning, and I should like to make a slight protest, since it is rather difficult to cope with new amendments within the short space of time between collecting the Marshalled List rather late this morning and talking about the amendments this afternoon. Since this is the third Committee day on the Bill it seems to me rather hard to include these amendments at this late stage. It is very difficult for us to master them and to find out what they are all about.
I should like to ask one or two questions. Amendment No. 94ZF states that "building' includes structure". Several amendments relate to British Railways' land and statutory undertakers' land. Amendment No. 95A proposes a new clause, headed:
"Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers",
which states:
"This Section applies to operational land—".
Then in subsection (7) of the new clause in Amendment No. 95A there is the most extraordinary definition of "operational land". The first part of it is comprehensible to me, but then it goes on to say:
"not being land which, in rsepect of its nature and situation, is comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of carrying on such undertakings".
I do not know whether perhaps the Government can try to get the language a little clearer. They were in a hurry, too, I suppose; but it seems to me that the ordinary person having to cope with this provision will have a great deal of difficulty.
I should also like to draw attention to subsection (2C) of Amendment No. 94ZF, which I really do not understand, and I should be very glad to have an explanation from the Minister. It appears that very wide powers are being offered to the local authorities. I realise they can choose them, that they do not have to take them on; but why cannot British Railways and the statutory undertakers do their own work? I should also like to ask, who bears the costs? The Minister has not spoken already to Amendment No. 95C, so perhaps I had better keep my questions about that until later.
Lord Bellwin: I am glad the noble Baroness keeps those questions until a little later. Might I say that I entirely accept her point about the shortage of time in which to deal with amendments. I would also hope that she would accept from me that there have been times when I have sat on this Bench and been given manuscript amendments which were handed in five minutes previously and upon which one has been expected to make observations and comments. I am sure she will have the same sympathy with me as I have with her on this point.
Baroness David: If I could make one comment on that, it is one thing for the Government with civil servants behind them and another for us without them.
Lord Bellwin: I sometimes wonder about that. I gave an illustration recently, did I not?, in your Lordships' House of the kind of briefing one can get from time to time. Some may consider it helpful; some may not. Perhaps no more for the moment—

1199
and "Yes, Minister", indeed.
Quite clearly, on the drafting of these definitions I shall have to come back to the noble Baroness. I am sorry I cannot give a detailed breakdown of them at the moment. As she fairly says, she has difficulty in coping with these interpretations. I could easily give my own interpretations of these things as they seem to me, but I think it would be right and proper if I were to give them to her in a written form. Then it can be brought back again should anyone have concern about any particular aspects of it. Perhaps the noble Baroness might agree that, with that, we might move on. I take her point entirely, and will try to get that for her.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 94A:
Page 33, line 1, leave out from ("below,") to end of line 5 and insert ("before undertaking any works under subsection (2) above, other than works on land to which section [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] below applies a local authority shall serve a notice that they propose to undertake works under this section in connection with the building on each owner or occupier of the building.
(3A) A notice under subsection (3) above shall specify the works in connection with the building which the local authority propose to undertake.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 94A go Nos. 94B, 94C and 94D. These really are simply drafting amendments, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 94B, 94C and 94D:
Page 33, line 6, leave out ("as is referred to in subsection (3) above").
line 8, leave out ("carry out the proposed") and insert ("undertake").
line 14, at end insert—
("(4A) A local authority shall not undertake works specified in a notice under subsection (3) above before the expiry of the period of 48 hours from the service of the notice.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 94B, 94C and 94D en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 94E:
Page 33, line 14, at end insert—
("(4B) For the purpose of exercising the power conferred on a local authority by this section any person duly authorised in writing by the authority may enter—

(a) the building in connection with which works are to be undertaken;

(b) any land that appears to the local authority to be appurtenant to the building; and

(c) any other land if—

(i) it appears to the local authority to be unoccupied; and

(ii) it would be impossible to undertake the works without entering it.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment will confer on local authorities power to enter buildings, and particularly land, to undertake works under the clause. It is thought proper that that power should not extend to occupied land which is not appurtenant to the building in question. It is considered that the power
1200
is essential for the clause to be effective. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.55 p.m.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal Baroness Fisher of Rednal moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 33, line 21, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Baroness said: As it is written, the clause gives power to local authorities to carry out works to a building which is not effectively secured or is likely to become a danger to public health, and it spells out quite clearly that local authorities can recover the cost of carrying out works except where a closing order is in force under the Housing Acts or an undertaking has been given that the house will not be used for human habitation. In our view local authorities should also be able to recover their costs in closing order and undertaking cases.
We feel quite strongly that closing orders are made or undertakings given in situations where, for whatever reasons, owners have allowed their properties to deteriorate to such an extent that they are unfit for human habitation; and closing orders are most commonly made on tenanted property, in which case the local authority has a duty to rehouse the occupier within the provisions of the Land Compensation Act. In the majority of cases of this type they also make a home loss and a disturbance payment to the tenant; rehousing them becomes the responsibility of the local authority, and that rehousine, quite obviously, is another financial burden that the ratepayer has to undertake. Therefore, a closing order is not action which a local authority takes lightly.
I think it is important to remind your Lordships that case law shows quite clearly that unfit properties have to be dealt with by local authorities. Unfit properties are designated as unfit for human habitation, and therefore local authorities are under a duty to take action with regard to them. While that action might not always result in a closing order, if it does they come under the statutory provisions of the Housing Act 1957.
I know that on Second Reading Lord Bellwin was not very encouraging to the thoughts that we had on this amendment, and I remind him that he said to us then that he was not sympathetic to our argument because it was thought that such a power would impose an unfair burden on owners who had already lost the use of such buildings by virtue of the order or the undertaking. I do not agree with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, on behalf of the Government, because the owner does not always lose the use of the building. He has one, two or perhaps three alternatives that he can use in these circumstances. The house can be used for commercial or other non-residential purposes. The owner can apply for a grant—and the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, will know more about all the grants that are available than I do, but they are statutory under the Housing Act 1980.
Alternatively, after the tenant has been rehoused by the local authority the owner may repair the house, then secure the lifting of the order and sell it with vacant possession. There is clear evidence that in the London area this is a considerable loophole and

1201
that considerable profits accrue from this loophole. Therefore, what we would say is that overall closing orders and undertakings involve the local authorities in considerable expense; and involving local authorities in considerable expense means that the ratepayers have to pay. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me and to my noble friends that, in circumstances where an owner has allowed his property to deteriorate to the extent that a closing order is necessary, and where the building is also a danger to public health within the meaning of Clause 28, then the local authority should be entitled to recover its costs of removing that danger. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: It was because the local authorities could not recover their expenses in the kind of cases to which the noble Baroness referred that they were given power to take speedy action in Housing Act cases with no right of appeal for the owner. The noble Baroness will no doubt be pleased to hear me say that we are proposing that there be a Government amendment to give owners a right of appeal against an authority's notice of proposed works or against a demand for costs where no notice is given. This will remove any objections on those grounds to local authorities being able to recover their costs. Consequently the Government are content that subsection (6) be omitted from the Bill, and we accept the amendment.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I am overwhelmed. I appreciate the observations which the noble Lord made. In the Second Reading debate he was not so helpful. Perhaps in his re-reading of the debate I and my noble friends convinced him. I thank the noble Lord.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 95ZA:
Page 33, line 35, leave out subsections (8) and (9).
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Foot Lord Foot moved Amendment No. 95ZB:
Page 35, line 45, at end insert—
("(10) When a local authority give notice under subsection (3) above they shall at the same time send to the relevant gas and electricity undertakers a copy of the notice and, NN here subsection (4) above applies, the local authority shall give to the relevant gas and electricity undertakers such notice as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case.
(11) Nothing in this section shall prejudice the rights of the relevant gas and electricity undertakers to enter upon a building in exercise of their statutory powers in that behalf but, without prejudice to any other obligation or liability arising in respect of any entry in the exercise of statutory powers, the said undertakers in exercising their powers of entry in respect of any unoccupied building shall ensure that it is not left less secure against unauthorised entry by reason of the exercise of those powers.").
The noble Lord said: This clause is concerned with the securing of unoccupied premises against entry and preventing them from becoming a danger to the public and to public health. The clause as drafted enables a local authority to undertake works with these objects in
1202
mind and the authority, as the clause stands, is under no obligation, before they set about shutting up premises in this way and making them secure, to consult with the gas and electricity undertakers before the premises are made secure. We think that there is a real risk in the isolated case if the undertakers are not consulted that a building might be bricked up or closed up while still containing live wires or other dangerous equipment, and it is possible that vandals or children, in spite of the efforts to secure the premises, might find their way on to the property to their great danger.
All that this amendment seeks to do is to require that the local authority, when they give a notice of intention to secure premises in this way, shall at the same time send to the relevant gas and electricity undertakers a copy of the notice; and where subsection (4) applies—and that is the case where the authority are acting in an emergency and must do the job right away—the local authority shall give to the relevant gas and electricity undertakers such notice as is reasonable in the circumstances of the case. I do not think I need trouble reading the other new subsection here. The effect of it generally is that if the undertakers go into premises to see the state of them and exercise their rights to enter the building under their statutory powers, they will, when they come out, leave the premises as secure as they found them before they went in. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The Government cannot accept this amendment. It is thought that the requirement for local authorities to copy to the gas and electricity undertakers (but not, I notice, to the undertakers concerned with the supply of water) any notice they give under the clause would impose an unnecessary burden on local government at the present time. The local authority can be expected to consult on the matter if that was thought to be necessary. We do not think there is a need for a provision to save undertakers' rights to enter buildings in exercise of their statutory powers. The view taken is that nothing which a local authority does under the clause can prejudice the exercise of statutory powers conferred on statutory undertakers to enter buildings for the purpose of carrying out work to their apparatus.
Also, the proposed requirement on undertakers to ensure that buildings are not left less secure by reason of the exercise by the undertakers of their powers of entry would seem to extend beyond the scope of this Bill. Having said that, I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Foot, will take the point that the powers in the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 seem to deal with the matter. That may be something he would want to look at. We cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Foot: I will look at that. I am completely ignorant of the terms of the Act which the noble Lord quoted. I am glad that I am not moving a third amendment because the noble Lord becomes less forthcoming the longer we go on. I am grateful for the answer. On this occasion, I shall not do anything other than to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 28, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
Baroness David: Some authorities seem to be worried that when a notice is served on somebody asking them to carry out works and they do not do it, there is no penalty that can be imposed in the Bill for that. Will the noble Lord comment on that so that we may think whether we might want to put down an amendment on Report?
Lord Bellwin: The question of a penalty or otherwise is one thing. The Government feel that the reason why (apart from the earlier reasons) we did not want to accept the noble Lord's amendment was because there were the powers in the Rights of Entry (Gas and Electricity Boards) Act 1954 which we think cover the point. There should be no problem. One would want to look into that more carefully. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Foot, and the noble Baroness will do so.
Baroness David: If the person on whom the notice is served could do the work but simply refuses to do so, should there not be a sanction against that?
Lord Bellwin: I am not aware of any specific requirement in that way. One can have a look at it. That I shall gladly do.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 95A:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers
.—(1) This section applies to operational land—

(a) of the British Railways Board (in this section referred to as "the Board"); or

(b) of persons (in this section referred to as "the statutory undertakers") authorised by any enactment to carry on an undertaking for the generation or supply of electricity or the supply of gas or water.

(2) Subject to subsection (4) below, before undertaking any works under section 28(2) above on land to which this section applies a local authority shall serve notice that they propose to undertake works under that section in connection with the building—

(a) on the Board, if the works which they propose to undertake will be undertaken on operational and of the Board; and

(b) in any other case, on the statutory undertakers on whose operational land the works will be undertaken.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) above shall specify the works which the local authority propose to undertake.
(4) A local authority need not give any such notice where they consider that it is necessary to undertake works immediately in order to secure a building against unauthorised entry or to prevent it from becoming a danger to public health.
(5) A local authority shall not undertake works specified in a notice under subsection (2) above before the expiry of the period of 48 hours from the service of the notice on the Board or the statutory undertakers.
(6) In carrying out any works under section 28(2) above on land to which this section applies a local authority shall comply with any reasonable requirement which the Board or, as the case may be, the statutory undertakers may impose for the protection or safety of their undertaking.
(7) In this section "operational land" means, in relation to the Board or the statutory undertakers—

(a) land which is used for the purpose of carrying on their undertaking; and

(b) land in which an interest is held for that purpose, not being land which, in respect of its nature and situation, is
1204
comparable rather with land in general than with land which is used, or in which interests are held, for the purpose of carrying on such undertakings.").

The noble Lord said: This new clause is designed to meet a request of the British Railways Board. It sets out a procedure for local authorities to follow before they execute works under Clause 28 (Protection of damaged buildings) of the Bill in relation to buildings that happen to stand on operational land of the British Railways Board and statutory undertakers. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: If I may follow the point made by the noble Baroness about the definition in subsection (7), in requesting and obtaining this, the board and the statutory undertakers have obtained rather a good deal. If the land is not "operational land", then presumably my noble friend will confirm that the local authority would take action under Clause 28, as we have just been discussing it. There is no reason why any question of operational land should come in. If, however, it is operational land, then on the face of the clause the British Railways Board and the statutory undertakers have a perfectly reasonable concession in subsection (6) of this new clause in that they can ask the local authority, in carrying out the works, to do anything necessary to protect the safety of the undertaking.
If the board or statutory undertaking satisfactorily succeeds in persuading the local authority that the land is "operational land," and that there is a building on it that the local authority says is not effectively secured or is likely to become a danger to public health, then the local authority can go ahead subject to notice and to taking the necessary steps to protect the undertaking, but who pays? If it was not "operational land" under Clause 28(5) the local authority would be able to recover the expenses from the owner. If the board or the statutory undertaker successfully argues that the building is on operational land, then the poor old local authority cannot reclaim anything. So the board, merely by going through the argument that this is land—and therefore the definition becomes of great importance—which can be described as "operational" can get out of paying for something which everybody else in the country will have to pay for. What possible justification can there be for that?
This is a straight subsidy by the local authority for work done on buildings which belong to the Railways Board or statutory undertakings which ought to know better than to allow them to get into this state. Then the local authority has to deal with it, foot the bill and pay for any extra precautions to protect the undertaking. Is that really what the board have requested and the Government have intended to give them? If so, they have done jolly well.
Lord Bellwin: Clearly one will want to consider carefully what my noble friend says. I had longer speaking notes but felt it seemed fairly straightforward. Having listened to my noble friend, it sounds anything but straightforward. It would be only proper that I should say that we ought to look at this amendment again in the light of what has been said. The object of the whole exercise is to make it a better way to

1205
operate. If it should be that the points raised by my noble friend mean that difficulties will be caused, then we must reconsider this aspect. I will not press this amendment. I will gladly withdraw the amendment.
Baroness David: I am very pleased that the Minister has taken this line. We need some more explanation, for I was also going to ask: "Who pays?". It seems a great burden. I was delighted that the noble Viscount spoke first. It seems that quite a burden is being put on local authorities, and I am very pleased that the Minister is going to withdraw this amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 95B:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Appeals against notices.
—(1) A person on whom a notice is served under section 28 or [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Roard and certain statutory undertakers] above may appeal against the notice to the county court.
(2) No such appeal may be brought after the expiry of the period of 21 days from the date on which the notice was served.
(3) The ground of any such appeal may be—

(a) that the works specified in the notice were not authorised by section 28 above; or

(b) that they were unnecessary; or

(c) that it was otherwise unreasonable for the local authority to undertake them.

(4) If such an appeal is brought, the local authority

(a) shall cease from any works specified in the notice which they have commenced; and

(b) shall not commence any further works so specified except as provided by section (7) below.

(5) The court may make an order confirming or quashing the notice or varying it in such manner as it thinks fit.
(6) An order under subsection (5) above may make such provision as to the recovery of expenses arising in connection with the works specified in the notice as the court thinks fit.
(7) Upon the confirmation or variation of a notice the local authority may commence or recommence the works authorised by the notice as originally served or, as the case may be, as varied by the order of the court.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this amendment previously. I beg to move.
Viscount Colville of Culross: With respect, a manuscript amendment is required to leave out:
"or buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers",
because that clause is not at the moment in the Bill.
Lord Bellwin: In view of what I have said, my noble friend is right—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 95C:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Applications to court in respect of expenses of works.
(1) If a local authority seek to recover expenses incurred in undertaking works under section 28(2) above in connection with a building—

(a) where the building is on land to which section [Buildings on operational land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] above applies, from the Board or the statutory undertakers; or

(b) in any other case, from an occupier of the building; and

(c) they did not serve notice of their proposal to undertake the works under section 28(3) or [Buildings on operational
1206
land of British Railways Board and certain statutory undertakers] (2) above on the Board or, as the case may be, the statutory undertakers or that occupier,

the person from whom they seek to recover the expenses may apply to the county court for a declaration—

(i) that the works undertaken in connection with the budding were unnecessary; or

(ii) that it was otherwise unreasonable for the local authority to undertake them.

(2) No such application may be made after the expiry of the period of 21 days from the date on which the local authority first requested payment of the expenses.
(3) If the court makes a declaration under subsection (1) above, it may make such order as it thinks fit in respect of the payment of the expenses incurred in connection with the works.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this amendment formally.
Viscount Colville of Culross: I was not making the point that the whole of the clause ought to be deleted. It may well be in every other respect it stands perfectly well on its own rights. All I was saying was that as Clause 95A has not been moved and is not in the Bill, it is improper to put in another new clause which has a reference to that clause. Amendment No. 95C has references to other clauses—for instance, Clause 28(3)—to which we have no objection and that has already been passed. There is nothing wrong with that so long as—if my noble friend wishes to pursue it—he moves manuscript amendments to leave out the reference to the clause that he has not moved. It means two manuscript amendments in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) and paragraph (c) of subsection (1).
Lord Bellwin: I should prefer to reconsider these amendments and bring them all back together. That will be the proper way to deal with them. I have not the slightest doubt that what my noble friend says is technically correct. It will be as well, if we are looking at the other points, to look also at this.
Baroness David: The county court is referred to in Amendments Nos. 95B and No. 95C. In the main part of the clause—in subsection (7) page 33—it is the magistrates' court to which the person has to go to recover expenses. I wonder why it is the magistrates' court in one case and the county court in the other two cases.
Lord Bellwin: I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a magistrate. I am a magistrate—as I know many other noble Lords are—and normally it is a question of level. I would have thought that was the reason why there is one in one case and the other in the other. As the whole matter is being taken away we shall look at that. When we bring it back I shall make an observation on that to the noble Baroness.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Drumalbyn): May I make a correction? There appears to be a mistake on the Marshalled List: I call on Lord Sandford, not Baroness Sandford!
6.20 p.m.
Lord Sandford Lord Sandford moved Amendment No. 96:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Assistance to Industry.
PART
LOCAL AUTHORITY ASSISTANCE TO INDUSTRY AND COMMERCE
.—(1) A local authority may, subject to the provisions of this section, incur expenditure which in their opinion is necessary for the purpose of providing support and undertaking measures for the economic development of their areas including the provision of finance for small firms carrying on or intending to carry on industrial undertakings, but a local authority shall not, by virtue of this subsection, incur any expenditure for a purpose for which they are, either unconditionally or subject to any limitation or to the satisfaction of any condition, authorised or required to make any payment by or by virtue of any other enactment.
(2) It is hereby declared that the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under subsection (1) above includes power to do so by contributing towards the defraying of expenditure by another local authority in or in connection with the exercise of that other authority's functions.
(3) The expenditure of a local authority under this section in any financial year shall not exceed the product of a rate of 2p in the pound for their area for that year or if some other higher amount is fixed by an order made by the Secretary of State shall not exceed the product of a rate of that amount in the pound for their area for that year.
(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3) above may apply to all local authorities or may make different provision in relation to local authorities of different descriptions.
(5) Any such instrument shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(6) The accounts of a local authority by whom expenditure is incurred under this section shall include a separate account of that expenditure, and section 228(4), (6) and (7) of the Local Government Act 1972, shall have effect as if any reference to the abstract of the accounts of the local authority included a reference to any such separate account as aforesaid.
(7) The product of a rate of 2p or any other amount in the pound for any area shall be computed for the purposes of this section by reference to the product of a rate of 1p in the pound for that area as determined for those purposes in accordance with rules made under section 113(1)(c) of the General Rate Act 1967.
(8) The power conferred by this section on local authorities shall be in addition to that conferred on them by section 137(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 ('power of local authorities to incur expenditure for certain purposes not authorised by any other enactment); and accordingly that section shall have effect as if this section had not been enacted.
(9) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires—"expenditure" shall not include any part thereof as may be defrayed by grant or other contribution; "industrial" has the same meaning as the Industry Act 1975; "local authority" means a county council, a district council, the Greater London Council, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London; "small firm" means a person or body of persons (whether corporate or incorporate) employing not more than 50 persons.").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 96 and to forgive the Public Bill Office and Her Majesty's Stationery Office for any ill intent they may have had. I think what has happened is that all that talk about sex shops at the beginning of the Bill put them off their stroke! I should like to start my remarks by welcoming the Government's consultation paper, which we will all have received, which has come out since I tabled my amendment and since the Second Reading of the Bill. I have in my hands an extensive critique of the consultation paper, a lucid exposition of my amendment, clause by clause, and quite a few points on which I should like to stress to the Government the importance of legislating in this Bill. I also would like to suggest one or two changes to what is
1208
recommended in the consultation paper. However, a little bird has told me that my noble friend on the Front Bench has some good news for us over this theme of local authorities' assistance to industry and commerce, and therefore I shall abbreviate those remarks and listen eagerly to what my noble friend has to say.
The consultation paper is particularly welcome, not least because it agrees at so many points with the terms of my own amendment, and that at least shows that two great minds are thinking like! I shall briefly go through my amendment. Subsection (1) contains what the Government say in their consultation paper is desired in this area; namely, a simple, broad, wide-ranging power for local authorities covering this whole field. The second part of subsection (1) seeks to prevent overlap and confusion between this new power and other existing powers. Subsection (2) provides for joint schemes between authorities and here my subsection (3) corresponds to paragraph 19 in the consultation paper; and there is a certain disagreement there between the size of the resources which should be made available to local authorities for this form of assistance. I will return to that in a moment.
Both my amendment and the consultation paper provide for some flexibility in this clause by way of an order made by the Secretary of State and that, I think, is highly desirable. Subsections (6) and (7) are technical clauses drawn from the existing Article 137, under which local authorities have power to do anything which is for the general benefit of their area.
Subsection (9) deals with a rather important point, which I will not go into at this stage, about net of grant and so on. The final part of subsection (9) defines the size of enterprises to which this clause refers. Here again, there is a small disagreement between myself and the Government. I have put "50" and they want to confine it to "25". That is a very short review, which if necessary I could elaborate upon, but I do not want to do that in present circumstances. The main point which I want, if possible, to secure before this Bill leaves us is that there is legislation in this Bill on this topic. The consultation paper raises our expectations on that point and I hope that my little bird is correct when it indicates that my noble friend may be able to give further assurances on that point.
The other matter on which I should like to spend a moment or two is the matter raised in paragraph 19 of the consultation paper and subsection (3) of my amendment; that is to say, the extent of the resources to be made available to local authorities—though not necessarily to be used—for the assistance they give in support of industry and commerce in their areas. The consultation paper prescribes the product of a halfpenny rate. This may be ample for the larger authorities such as Bristol and the metropolitan districts, but it is not really enough for the smaller local authorities that make up a large part of the membership of the ADC. I can understand the Government's reluctance to provide as much as two-pence for the larger authorities because in some cases that would be perhaps more than £1 million. I believe—and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give some assurance on this—that the Government, in turn, see the case for the smaller and more rural local authorities having a good deal more than would

1209
be provided for them if we worked to a figure of a halfpenny. It should not be beyond the wit of the Government to devise a formula that would meet the anxiety of the Government not to be too generous and the wish of the Association of District Councils to make proper provision for their smaller authorities. With that very brief introduction, I beg to move this amendment and will listen eagerly to what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Mottistone: I am advised in what I have to say by the CBI who, in principle, agree that some amendment of this sort is necessary; but there are certain aspects of it that they are unhappy about, and having heard about the "little bird" that my noble friend Lord Sandford has mentioned as to the fact that my noble friend on the Front Bench may have something to say about it, I think I should mention a few of the CBI's misgivings before he does so, in the hope that they will be reflected in any statement the Government have to make.
The quandary is demonstrated by the fact that we welcome co-operation between business and local authorities, but we do not want any excuse for an increase in business rates, for whatever reason. We support well-judged financial assistance for business, and especially for small businesses; but we are uncertain whether local authorities are really equipped to provide the necessary commercial judgment. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, we believe there certainly ought to be different rules, quite apart from the freedom to use the rates, for small authorities as opposed to large ones. In general, we believe that the powers which are written into this amendment are very much wider than could be accepted by industry. The Government's consultative document, which is dated March, only came out this month. It calls for consultation, and we wonder whether the Government have been able to consult sufficiently widely to come to a decision as to what they should advise the House to accept as being the right balance within this amendment, or something similar to it. I hope those words of caution may in fact be reflected in what my noble friend has to say.
Lord Northfield: I do not join the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in entirely welcoming this consultation paper. I was glad that a consultation paper of some kind was issued, but I thought that this one had escaped the eagle eye of the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who is so familiar with local government, and so came out in rather a half-baked form, if I may say so. He must have let someone else in the department deal with it, instead of grabbing it himself before it leaked out.
The paper's difficulty is that, when it comes to its recommendations it is full of contradiction, if not schizophrenia. In paragraph 10, it uses resounding words:
"The Government agree with the Burns group's conclusion that local authorities also have a positive role to play in sustaining and fostering local economies in employment. How they can best do so will differ between one area and another within the constraints imposed by national economic and industrial policies. A local authority itself is the best judge of what is appropriate for its own local circumstances."
Those are rcsusunding words of support for local government initiative. Then it ends with a few paragraphs
1210
saying that it is all to be contained within a ½p rate. This kind of schizophrenia results from not considering where we are. What the Government are hound to is the present statement on regional policy, and the noble Lord is sinking with the regional policy flag flying, just when everybody else is jumping off the ship.
The simple fact about regional policy is that more and more people are now aware of its limitations and weaknesses. If one looks at regional policy, which depends on defining assisted areas and then providing large cash grants in order to attract footloose manufacturing industry into the area, one sees that it is becoming more and more insufficient in present circumstances. For a start, only some service employment is covered by regional assistance policy and we know today that, with the change in the British economy, service employment is of more and more importance in the regions. We know, secondly, that the great danger with assisted area policy has been that branch plants are established in some of these areas and then, when any bad times hit the country, those branch plants are closed down and the company retreats to its headquarters. So often there are no decision-making activities in those companies in the localities.
Thirdly, it is a responsive service, not with any conscious help, looking for what is suitable for a particular area and helping to draw it in. The regional policy begins to operate only when an industry or a company begins to look for a location and approaches the Department of industry. Whereas what we in-increasingly realise is that the various districts that are suffering from high levels of unemployment need more and more to build a service which attracts the industries, which goes for self-reliance and growth and which has some relationship to the skills and opportunities of the area, according to a kind of understanding that local authorities often have of what can succeed and what will be most viable in those areas. That does not mean twisting arms. It just means preparing the ground so that private enterprise can flourish.
Lastly, the great disadvantage with regional policy as it exists at the moment is that the real difficulties of the economy are not just in the assisted areas. I ask your Lordships to look at the West Midlands and at the districts all over the non-assisted areas, which now have higher levels of unemployment and a greater need of industry than whole districts inside the assisted areas. So we have now reached the situation where regional policy is to a considerable extent out of date and needs reinforcing by alternatives. I am not saying that the policy should be cancelled. I am saying that it is not good enough by itself.
The alternative to this, which is really in the noble Lord's amendment, is that local authorities should have a very modest power to carry out their duties. This all comes from the reorganisation of local government in the early 1970s, when new district councils of much greater size, with a much greater sense of duty about the extent to which they are in charge of the welfare and the economic livelihood of the areas which they represent, came into being.
The chairman of the District Councils Association, in a foreword to one of their own publications about

1211
industrial development, said:
"The creation of jobs locally to alleviate unemployment and bring prosperity to our cities, towns and villages is a first priority for most of us".
He was there talking about the district councils. So to shunt this off on to a ½p rate is rather derisory and ludicrous.
But in the end, and more important than that, there is no regional development agency in England—and I speak particularly about England—to help make up for the lack of direction and the lack of initiative in regional policy. So local authorities are increasingly left as the only bodies in England which are able to have that more purposeful look at their local unemployment and try to do what is best.
So we are back to the conflict between the 2p rate and the ½p rate. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, some of the figures in many publications are quite ludicrous; and, indeed, I have a Question down tomorrow about some of them. But Radnor would be able to spend less than £10,000. Oswestry, in my own county of Shropshire, with 13 per cent. unemployment, would have £13,000 to spend. Alnwick in Northumberland, which is one of those most suffering from unemployment of 15·2 per cent.—and I know it very well—has a very deserving and go-ahead district council. But a 1p rate would give them £14,000. We are getting nowhere.
Many of us have had a letter from Chesterfield, stating that the present 2p rate of £236,000 would he reduced to £59,000, although their present sum is almost entirely taken up by existing initiatives—industrial grant schemes, helping persons to start small businesses, the Chesterfield training centre which trains bricklayers, stonemasons and so on, and which is partly funded by the Manpower Services Commission, and the proposed business advice centre. In a place like Chesterfield, £250,000 is not a great deal of money to spend on making the seed-bed ready for as much private small industry as is possible.
I agree with what the noble Lord will probably say. We do not want local authorities to have so much money that they go in for wasteful competitive advertising all over Britain, and all over the world, in order to attract big industry. But the amendment would not allow that. A 2p rate would not allow local authorities to do anything like that.
Finally, under the Government's proposals it is even more disastrous than the noble Lord has, perhaps, realised for a number of districts. Some of these districts are rural, and certainly not inner urban, but look at what will happen. Under the Government's proposals, the inner urban areas would not only have the ½p rate; they would also stick to the 2p rate, giving them a 2½p rate. So the poor district councils, which have 20 per cent. unemployment, will find even greater competition from some of the big boys in the inner urban areas in advertising and recruiting all over the world. So is a final inconsistency in the Government's proposals.
If it is true that this kind of campaign—I think that is the second small debate we have already had in this House on these arrangements—is making the Government think again, I shall be delighted. But I want to register the fact that if this had been left to the noble
1212
Lord, Lord Bellwin, in the first place, I do not think we should have had this inconsistent and contradictory consultation paper.
6.39 p.m.
Baroness Stedman: I, too, should like to welcome the amendment. A little bird has been very busy twittering around, and I hoped that we might have had a song from the noble Lord opposite, which indicated whether those twitterings were on the right lines. But, obviously, that is not to come yet. I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the difficulty in getting any economic regeneration in the smaller districts, where they have only the p rate. I should like to refer to Corby, which is very near to my area. Unemployment there is at the rate of 21·4 per cent. and a ½p rate would bring them in just over £35,000. In East Lindsey, which is also very close to me, a ½p rate would produce only £58,600, yet they have an unemployment rate of 22·7 per cent. Fenland, which is adjoining my area, have written to me to say that they would be in an impossible situation, since the training centre which they are operating with Manpower Services Commission money would have to count against their 2p expenditure entitlement under the Local Government Act 1972. If they were limited to a halfpenny rate, they could not even support the training centre, let alone undertake any other industrial projects. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, referred to Chesterfield. There they have an unemployment rate of 12·9 per cent. Something like £59,000 will go nowhere in an area like that.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, I come from a new town area. Most of us from new town areas have seen the provision made by the development corporations to attract industry into our areas and to provide unit workshops and land to help small businesses. But the life of the new town development corporations is now drawing to an end. As the new town development corporation fades out of existence, we shall want to see our own district councils able to take on the role of bringing about economic regeneration and job creation at the local level.
I accept that we have got the consultation paper and I hope that as a result of what is said today in your Lordships' Committee there will be some alterations to it. I believe that the Government completely fail to recognise how councils can help to act as local catalysts. They know and understand what are the needs of their areas far better than do civil servants. The district councils are, naturally, very concerned that they have to finance all their activities to help local firms, except for land, infrastructure and advance building, within today's very tight financial limits.
I believe that the central Government's task is to create a national and regional strategic framework so that they can help industry but that local authorities ought to be given a reasonably free hand to respond to their own local needs. There has been conjecture in some places over the past months that perhaps the Government ought to consider setting up an urban equivalent of CoSIRA, about whose workings the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, knows far more than I do. But that initiative has not been taken. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will support the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Tordoff: May I from these Benches join in supporting the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, though with some slight qualifications. I do not want to get into the debate which we had the other evening on the Un-starred Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, but I hope that when considering this amendment the noble Lord the Minister will look again at some of the points which were made that evening.
There is a dilemma here. From what has already been said it is clear that a halfpenny rate is far too small for many district councils. Many of these places in rural areas have very high levels of unemployment. If the total number of people unemployed in those areas is not so high as it is in the inner cities, nevertheless, as a percentage of their citizenry, it is very high indeed. This weekend I had the pleasure of spending some time in Ilfracombe, North Devon, where the unemployment level is now, I believe, 28 per cent. In areas like that a halfpenny rate is clearly going to be of very little use.
What worries me about the amendment, to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, are the words at the end of line 4:
"including the provision of finance for small firms carrying on or intending to carry on industrial undertakings".
I have some worries about what is meant by "the provision of finance". As I think I have said before to your Lordships, I am worried about local authorities getting into the business of venture capital. It is not their job. They do not have the skills to decide between those ventures which are likely to be successful and those which are not. It may have been true some time ago that the banks were reluctant to lend money to small ventures, but I believe that the evidence now is that the position has changed and that it is much more possible for ventures which are likely to be in any way successful to get money from various financial sources. As I have said before, what is needed is a certain amount of collateral to support small industries—or, in a very few cases, a few hundred pounds to get an individual man "off the ground". However, I am a little worried about the phrase "the provision of finance".
May I also take up the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, from the point of view of the CBI: that large industries do not wish to be saddled with an increased rate. I should have thought that this might he more an area in which large industry would be prepared to pay money into the rates than many others. It seems to me that large industries should be prepared—and in many cases they are prepared—in a variety of ways to support small industries, for their own good as well as for the good of the community as a whole. It is more an area where I should have thought they might be prepared to pay slightly higher rates than others. In general, therefore, I support what has been said this afternoon, and I look forward to somebody singing from the Front Bench.
Lord Mottistone: Before the noble Lord sits down, would not he agree that large companies are now paying such enormous business rates that anything extra is thoroughly undesirable?
Baroness David: I should like, very briefly, to say
1214
that we on these Benches support the amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. I should also like to say that we agree with the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the consultation paper. We do not think quite so highly of it as does the noble Lord, Lord Sandford.
May I ask a question about paragraph 17 of the consultation paper. It says that in England and Wales the local authorities for districts designated under the IUAA would however continue to be able to make use of Section 137. It seems to me not to be quite clear whether that means that just the 2p can be raised by the designated district. To take Nottinghamshire as an example, Nottingham is a designated district council. Could Nottingham raise the 2p, or could the County of Nottinghamshire raise 2p in all its districts, or could the county raise a 2p rate just for Nottingham?
I should also like to ask the Minister whether he would dissociate himself from the remarks made by his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry at the Local Government Conservative Conference when he made it clear—so it is alleged—that the Government's proposals are intended to stop authorities like the GLC from pouring out thousands of pounds to their friends in the Marxist co-operatives.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am somewha worried by the amendment, in particular because I happen to be a member of the GLC. At present, 2p means over £40 million. As I listened to other speakers describing the small amount which would be raised by 2p in their areas, I realised that we are facing quite different situations.
A noble Lord on the Liberal Benches mentioned that he did not believe that local authorities should be moving into venture capital, yet this is exactly what the GLC propose to do with their present £40 million plus. If this amendment were passed in its present form without any ceiling being attached to it, it could represent yet another £40 million plus. We are concerned—I am speaking for many members of the GLC when I say this—about the effect upon the ratepayers. In the case of, say, a shop like Selfridges, with rates payable per annum of over £1 million a year, 2p extra on top of that would be a very substantial amount. All businesses within the expensive areas of London are suffering badly at the moment. For enterprise capital to be provided to set up businesses in competition with many of the existing businesses in London could be harmful.
I would ask the Minister, if he is considering accepting the amendment, to consider placing a ceiling upon the amount which would be used by any authority, because we are not viewing this as an overall situation. We are seeing quite different situations in different parts of the country.
Viscount Colville of Culross: May I ask my noble friend two questions? As I understand my noble friend's amendment—and I appreciate that this may not be the definitive version, but nevertheless it enables one to discuss the matter—it seems to me that several noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have taken part in the debate may not have understood what the proposition is. My noble friend would help

1215
me greatly by explaining this quite clearly. First of all, we have the provision in subsection (8) which excludes the powers under this section for the purposes of Section 137. That means that, notwithstanding the powers to spend money under this section which will be a statutory provision, any local authority can still spend the full 2p rate on any project that it thinks fit, provided the project is not covered already by some other legislation. I believe that is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, was making.
There are in addition the inner urban area districts, which have the power already to use the money available to them under the Inner Urban Areas Act and, in addition, spend the 2p rate as if there was no Inner Urban Area Act passed, on exactly the same sort of project. Those local authorities already have the power to spend inner urban area money on this sort of thing and the 2p rate on it as well.
What is being suggested, as I understand it, in subsection (3) of this amendment is that all local authorities shall continue to be able to spend the 2p rate if they choose, in whole or in part, on giving assistance to industry and, in addition, they shall have the extra 2p rate which they are specifically entitled to spend on giving assistance to industry, whether or not any part of the "ordinary" 2p rate is going that in direction or on the provision of a training college or anything else. In other words, they will have a 4p rate; 2p of which will he completely at liberty and 2p of which goes to assisting industry. If the authority is an inner urban area authority, it will have the money provided under that Act as a third form of assisting industry. In those circumstances, is it not right, in view of the effect upon rates which has been mentioned by several noble Lords, to consider quite carefully this figure of 2p as a starting point? It would in effect be 4p in the hands of some local authorities if they wished to use it all for these purposes. Therefore, whether the halfpenny is right or not, will my noble friend tell me whether my analysis is correct or not, so that we can see what it is that we are talking about in total?
Secondly, there is the question of the provision of finance. I have had a number of dealings with local authorities in a professional capacity that I no longer hold, on the question of how they may provide finance to industry. One of the questions they always asked, was, could they guarantee bank loans? I have always told them, and perhaps my noble friend can confirm whether this is right or not, that under existing law they cannot do so. But the wording of subsection (1) of my noble friend's new clause must be such that it is at any rate arguable that they would be able to guarantee loans raised from the market for the purposes of setting up new industry.
This may or may not be a good thing, but I can see the most dreadful troubles coming if, having guaranteed a loan specifically under this new clause, with a limit to what it can spend under this new clause, the authority then has to pay hack the guarantee because the firm fails. What will happen to the rest of the authority's expenditure under this 2p rate and under the "general" 2p rate under Section 137? There may be a very large call in some years which will disrupt projects such as the college referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady
1216
Stedman. If these wider powers to underwrite private loans from the market are going to be built in, what safeguards are there going to be, so that other projects which are being financed out of the 2p rate, probably on a continuous basis, are not going to be prejudiced by the sudden failure of the firm which has been so guaranteed? If my noble friend can clarify those two points, it would certainly help matters very greatly.
6.55 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: As can be seen from the long discussion which has taken place—and which, I suspect, would have continued even longer were it not for the hour—this is a matter of considerable interest, and it is right that it should be so. As the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, said, this is not something new, something that is being raised all of a sudden. This has been going on for a long time. It has been brought to a head by the fact that in 1984, the powers which local authorities currently have will be coming to an end and therefore, something has to be done. The noble Lord was very kind in what he said about my own participation in the wording of the report; to the extent that I was not involved, he is quite right. But that would not lead me on to say that I did not think that the Burns Report, as it has come to be known, is other than a very helpful document. After all, it is what it says; no one has made the point sufficiently clearly that it is a consultation paper and, as such, it is open to anyone to comment upon it in any way they wish. As I said at the time of our last debate on this subject, the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, will, as on this occasion, make a very considerable contribution to our thinking.
I, too, like my noble friend Lord Sandford, do not intend to go into the depth that I might otherwise have done had we been going into the "nuts and bolts", if I may call them that. In many ways, the proposals that we have are not, in my view, ungenerous. Where the difficulty arises is in the points which have been made about the very small district authorities who, clearly, do have a problem. If there was a limitation they would be restricted; but it is also right to point out that at the present time, with the powers they currently have, out of a total of some £90 million available to them, they are taking up only £12 million. That may be a reflection of the interest they have taken hitherto or, in fairness, it may be that the problems have not been as great hitherto and are becoming greater only at the present time. One has to be objective when looking at this. Nevertheless, when talking about the totality of this amount of spending, the fact is that out of the sum available of £90 million, the amount being taken up at the present time is £12 million. Let us put that into the picture when trying to come to a proper conclusion.
The other points made were also very fair. My noble friend Lord Mottistone and the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, and certainly my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, raised a very important point too: the question of to what extent local authorities should be in the business of venture capital. There are question marks over this. There is a whole range, starting with the small authority which can give vital assistance to "pump priming", in getting a business going. I am sure everyone would accept that in the

1217
right circumstances and subject to proper supervision, such assistance can be most helpful. On the other hand, there is the extreme case mentioned by my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. One cannot have a situation where every local authority, with access to millions of pounds, is suddenly going into business. The whole matter of accountability comes into this. We would be deluding ourselves if we were to say other than that we all know of cases where such a system could be abused. I will go no further than saying that tonight, but on another occasion, perhaps I might go further.
There it is. Without my going into great depth on what has been said, I hope, first, that everyone will accept that we are concerned, that we are not trying to say this is what we propose and on this we stand. It is not like that. We put out a consultation document. We are waiting for the responses to that. We recognise that there is a degree of urgency, because I know, from conversations with my noble friend Lord Sandford and others, including the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, that there are certain situations at the moment that are tending to hinder. The prospect of what might come forward is tending to create certain reservations in the minds of those who might put forward money and so on. We are anxious to get that out of the way as quickly as possible. That means that we accept that there is a need for some speedy decision. The consultation process is about to finish and we will pick it up very quickly and move on, but I hope no one would say that we can do other than await the response; otherwise how can one talk of consultation.
If I may comment on some of the specific points made, before I respond as the little bird to which my noble friend referred, I think I have covered most points. The noble Baroness, Lady David, asked about the 2p and who should have this. At the present time both the county councils and the designated districts would have the 2p. Again it is a matter of consultation and we would have to see. The noble Lord, Lord Northfield, made a point about the regional policy. That is a point of view. I hear what he says and he knows that I have great confidence in his views on matters of this kind. In turn, I hope he will accept that there could be other points of view as well. I think on this we would probably agree to differ and perhaps try to persuade each other privately when we discuss it. So I will not tonight go into the matter of regional policy, slightly tempted though I am; I think that is for another occasion.
I would want to say this, and I hope no one would quarrel with me on this. There can never have been any Government in this country who have done, and are doing and intend doing, what we are doing to help small businesses. I say that categorically, not as a political point, but a point that it is fair to make. There are now over 60 measures we are bringing forward to try to help small businesses. How, therefore, can anyone feel that we are other than anxious, or consider that what we are proposing might go in the opposite direction. We are concerned and we are going to go on being concerned, and we are going to go on doing things to help small businesses. That is why what is being said by my noble friend's amendment is important to us, because we do not want it to have the adverse effect which he thinks it might have.
1218
I think I should comment on the point my noble friend Lord Colville made when he asked: Can any local authority spend the 2p rate under Section 137 and would this mean that they would in addition have the additional money? My understanding is that they would have the additional money and we would then be talking about 4p or 4½p. We are at the stage of consultation, but that is as I understand it. I suspect that that would confirm to my noble friend Lord Colville that it is a matter for concern that has been expressed all the way round.
Let me say this in conclusion. I hope your Lordships will gather that we have taken all the points made here. We undertake to consider these very carefully indeed. In saying this I stress the urgency. I have stressed the urgency; I do not need anyone to stress it for me, so far as time is concerned. We have a Bill going through at the present time and we want to see how far we can get with that. I am, unfortunately, not able to be as forthcoming as perhaps one might like to be, but I give this absolute assurance; that we will take this away and consider very carefully what has been said. I cannot say what will happen at other stages of the Bill, but I hope I have said enough to assure your Lordships of the serious intent to take very seriously all that has been said.
Lord Sandford: I am most grateful to my noble friend and all those who have participated in this short debate, particularly those who have supported the general spirit behind this amendment. I was one who welcomed the consultation paper as an indication that the Government were now seriously applying their mind to this issue. I did say that I had a number of criticisms to make, but I forebore to deploy them on this occasion. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, for doing so, and there is more that could be said of that kind.
I would like to put this to my noble friend Lord Mottistone. Would he not rather see local authorities spending money in this area rather than in some other areas, and therefore would he not possibly welcome this clause? I hope he will consider and ponder the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff. As to the number of different 2p's that could be spent, my intention, though I may not have been successful, was that the effect of subsection (1), the last few sentences, was to preclude the use of Clause 137 for assistance to industry once this amendment or something like it is on the statute book. Of course there is another possibility of spending 2p under the inner areas Act, but perhaps we need not go into that in great detail.
The guaranteeing of bank loans is one of the things that local authorities are able to do now under local Acts, but these are all due to expire in 1984. Noble Lords will realise quickly enough that any contract, a contract of employment, a contract for sale of land, a contract for the erection of buildings, anything of that kind depending on an Act which is going to expire in 1984, is not the slightest bit of good when you are asking bank managers to consider the contracts or solicitors to draw up documents. Powers vested in local authorities by local Acts expiring in 1984 are inoperable at present and more and more of them are becoming so. This illustrates the need for urgency,

1219
and I am grateful to my noble friend for taking the point.
Now that we have a consultation document it is important to see the way in which the consultation period and the parliamentary progress of this Bill interact. Thanks to the unwitting alliance of my noble friend Lord Nugent, with the sex shops, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, with his dogs, this Bill has been conveniently delayed; I understand that the Report stage and the Third Reading cannot be taken until after Easter, which means that the Bill will go back into another place just as the consultation period is ending. So what we have succeeded in doing is to enhance the consultation period and bring the Government's mind to bear on this issue to a degree which the consultation paper on its own might not have done. I hope that will encourage my noble friend to stick to the assurance that he was on the point of giving, but did not quite give, that we shall see legislation in this Bill. Anyway, we can accept my noble friend's assurance and withdraw this amendment because we have one more stage; when we have enjoyed our Easter Recess we can come back again and we have the option of looking at the Government amendment, which I hope to see, or reintroducing this one if we do not see a Government amendment. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Denham: I think this is probably a convenient moment to adjourn temporarily the Committee stage. I suggest we re-start the Committee stage at 8 p.m.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.10 until 8 p.m.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause:
("Control of stray dogs.
PART
DOGS
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, every local authority shall assume responsibility for the control and welfare of stray dogs within its area and for this purpose may exercise the power of section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906 with respect to the seizure, detention and disposal of stray dogs in its area.
(2) If a local authority inform the Secretary of State that in their opinion a direction should be made under this subsection because the small number of stray dogs or the ntaure of the problems of control or welfare caused by the stray dog population in the local authority area are such that the assumption of responsibility under subsection (1) above would not be justified, he may, after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, direct that the provisions of this Part shall not apply to that local authority.
(3) Where a local authority assume responsibility for the control and welfare of stray dogs under subsection (1) above, they shall perform the duties in Part I of Schedule (Dog Wardens) to this Act.
(4) Where a local authority assume responsibility for the control and welfare of stray dogs under subsection (1) above, they may appoint do wardens to enable them to carry into effect the provisions of this Act.
(5) Where a local authority appoint a dog warden under subsection (4) above, the dog warden may exercise the general powers set out in Part II of Schedule (Dog Wardens) to this Act.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that your Lordships, who have come back from supper suitably refreshed, will be able to join my two noble friends and myself in something of a legislative adventure. In moving
1220
Amendment No. 97 I ask your Lordships to consider at the same time 14 other amendments to make a composite whole. Your Lordships may say that this is another Bill—a Bill within a MI. That is quite true: it is one miscellaneous provisions Bill inside another miscellaneous provisions Bill. There has been nothing quite so bold since the Government themselves introduced sex shops into this Bill at the final stages of its progress through another place. On sex shops, the Government, under the cover of a clause of modest length, included Schedule 3 which takes up 12½ pages of small print. Nothing so audacious is proposed in the amendments which I submitted to the Committee just now. What we are proposing is something socially more useful: more pleasant to deal with; and of greater benefit to the community.
In debates of this kind I nearly always find a companion in an article in a most useful magazine called New Society. Your Lordships might find it useful as an aid to taking part in debates in your Lordships' House. On 26th June 1980 there was an article on "The rise in the domestic pet". It said that in Britain we are said to be pet mad, but we are not so animal-ridden as France and we are not so potty about pets as the Americans. With a feeling of being very much in the middle of the road on pets we can proceed to consider how we deal with the nation's dogs.
These amendments are really a revised edition of a Bill which almost went through another place. Sex shops scrambled through in the last day of the Report stage in another place. But people wanted to be so nasty to sex establishments that they really did not stop to consider what they were doing. However, as regards the Bill that contained these amendments, Members of Parliament spent a whole day debating a Private Member's Bill introduced by Mr. Jack Aspinwall, the Conservative Member for Kingswood, called the Dogs (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. Unfortunately, it came to grief that day. Although Mr. Aspinwall had been lucky enough to have a high place in the ballot for Private Members' Bills and had the first order of the day on a Friday, at the end of the day he failed to muster enough support to carry the closure and the Bill was talked out. That was probably due to some misunderstanding on his part and possibly some confusion in the minds of many other Members of another place who were asked to consider the Bill.
The Aspinwall Bill in another place, which was talked out on 19th February, had been trimmed from the structure of recommendations upon which it was based—and with which I shall deal a little later—in order to meet objections put to him by the Home Office that the Bill was rather unwieldy and had certain defects, and if it could be made shorter and simpler it would be more acceptable. So he did that, but when it came to the point, the Home Office Minister had no advice to offer Members in another place. He had not had time to consider all the implications or he had not had enough time to consult other departments. There was lame excuse after lame excuse for advising Members in another place that he had no advice to offer. That led to the Bill coming to grief.
So my noble friends and I have followed what I shall describe as the "Mansfield Law"—namely, if you want to do something grasp the first opportunity of any vehicle that will take you on your way. That

1221
is what the noble Earl said on the Deer Bill, and I thought what good advice it was. I had no idea how speedily I could follow it. Here it is: we have grasped at this Bill. It is a miscellaneous Bill; it is full of everything—street trading, the licensing of eating houses, the licensing of everything under the sun. A golden opportunity opened up to repair the damage done to our legislative process by the curious happenings along the corridor. I see no reason why your Lordships' Committee should not repair the deplorable defects in procedure which are attached to Private Members' Bills in another place. That is my introduction.
I now want to explain, in order to make the Committee's acceptance of my proposals so much easier and so much simpler, that both the Aspinwall Bill to which I have referred and these amendments, taken as a whole, are based on two independent reports on the subject of dogs in society. The first was a report of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, of which I was chairman. There is nothing more respectable than a report of a committee of which I have been chairman, especially on the subject of dogs, on which we spent a very long time and took a good deal of evidence. That advisory committee was composed of all the dog welfare organisations in the country. Anybody who was anybody on dogs was a member of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society—JACOPIS for short.
The Labour Government knowing how important a task we were embarking upon, decided to set up their own show and appointed an inter-departmental committee which they called a working party. It produced the Report of the Working Party on Dogs. Our report came out in 1975; their report came out in 1976. Governments have been shilly-shallying on both of those reports ever since.
The Official Working Party on Dogs followed very faithfully indeed the recommendations that my own committee made to them. Therefore, the two reports came broadly to similar conclusions. Ever since 1976 JACOPIS and local authorities, which are very keen on all this, have been urging successive Governments to take action. Various delegations have met Ministers. But what it was that made it difficult for Governments to tackle this question I really do not understand: whether, politically, they were afraid that it was undesirable to raise the dog licence fee, or whether they thought that they ought not to be imposing additional responsibilities upon local authorities. There are quite a number of reasons why they said that the time was not suitable to take any action.
The recommendations of both the reports were, first and foremost, to transfer the responsibility for dealing with the problem of stray dogs from the police to local authorities. I need not enlarge on that recommendation; it was unanimous on both committees. It has been the keystone of the proposals ever since. As to the size of the stray dog problem, the Under-Secretary at the Department of the Environment told the House of Commons last November that there are probably about a million dogs generally on the loose in this country. We all know from reports of sheep-worrying, of accidents on the roads being caused by stray dogs and other problems, that there is considerable concern about stray dogs.
Both of the reports to which I have refrered recommended that the transfer of responsibility from the police to the local authorities should be mandatory—should be statutory and not optional. Mr. Aspinwall's Bill made it optional for the local authority to assume the responsibility for care and control of stray dogs. It was a responsibility which it could assume if it wished, but not otherwise. That was the Bill which was dealt with in another place.
As I have said, the two reports which I have mentioned were in favour of statutory transfer. Therefore, in these amendments we have provided for the transfer from the police to local authorities to be imposed on local authorities, with a proviso in subsection (2) that any local authority which feels that a direction should be made to exclude it from assuming this responsibility can make representations to the Minister who:
"after consulting such persons as he thinks fit, [could] direct that the provisions of this Part shall not apply to that local authority."
So it would not be mandatory on local authorities which felt that there was a strong case for excluding them.
The second important respect in which the two committees were in agreement was the source fixing the dog licence fee and the amount. Both committees felt that the dog licence fee should be fixed by the Minister, who has powers to do so at present; that it should be a national contribution by dog owners, and the money would go to the resources of the respective local authorities. The Bill that was dealt with in another place and these amendments leave the fixing of the dog licence fee to the local authority, which, in deciding the amount, shall have regard to the cost that it incurs in running the scheme of dog wardens and other administrative expenses. In passing, I want to mention that two ministers who we saw from two Governments both suggested that it might be desirable to have the fee fixed by local authorities and not have a mandatory fee fixed centrally.
The working party suggested a fee of £5 at 1975 prices. That would be an increase from 37½p at the present time to £5, but, of course, we all know that 37½p was 7s. 6d. in the old currency and dates back to the last century. We know that no more than half the dogs in the country are licensed at present: and we also know that every dog licence now paid costs the state more to collect than it receives. Actually, if we want to save public expenditure at the present time, we should tell people not to pay any more licence fees for their dogs. But, of course, there is more to it than that. The committee of which I was chairman suggested that probably a fee of a little less than £5 might be appropriate in view of the fact that the police costs are already borne by the state, and in the transfer of their powers and work to local authorities, some contribution might be regarded as appropriate to the local authorities themselves.
The third important matter relates to enforcement of the payment of the licence fee and the display by the dog, like the motorcar, of evidence of the possession of a licence. The two advisory committees were not of the same mind on this proposal. The committee of which I was chairman was strongly in favour of requiring a dog to have a collar which should bear a disc issued by the licensing authority bearing the

1223
identity of the dog, the name and address of the owner and evidence of the payment of the licence fee. The official working party did not go as far as that, but entrusted the dog wardens with power to demand production of the dog licence from anyone in a public place with a dog. However, in our amendments now before your Lordships—Amendments Nos. 100 and 101—we include provision for the issue, with the licence, of an identity disc to be worn by the dog when in a public place. That seems to be the most satisfactory and complete way of ensuring that dogs have licences, and evidence of them will be worn.
As to the duties of local authorities and the principles and powers of the dog warden schemes, one might say that there is general agreement about the powers and duties of dog wardens. We include them in the amendments, but there are already quite a few dog wardens about in numerous local authorities. The only drawback for many local authorities at the moment is that, while they have the dog warden scheme, they cannot levy the dog owners an additional licence fee. Therefore, they have to provide for all this to be done out of other revenues and, under the law, they are not allowed to levy an additional rate greater than 2p to pay for services of this kind.
But I want to stress the fact that Mr. Aspinwall in another place trimmed his Bill in the hope that some progress could be made and an end brought to the dilatoriness of successive Governments on this question. He did the trimming, but he did not get his Bill. I stress the urgency of this matter. This Bill provides an opportunity to make progress on something upon which Governments have not chosen to do it for themselves. I think we should now insist on its being done.
I want to draw the attention of your Lordships to two grave dangers at the present time. One is rabies. I do not know whether we have really contemplated the panic and the shambles that there would be in this country if we had a serious outbreak of rabies. We would not know where half the dogs in the country were. We would not be able to trace the ownership of more than half the dogs in the country at the present time. It is desirable that we have to keep track of dogs in the event of an outbreak of rabies, otherwise some panic measures of slaughter, or impounding, anything in a situation of that kind, would be regarded as justified to meet the emergency that had arisen.
The other threat, the other danger, is a comparatively new one. Here I am not speaking for any society. Your Lordships must be aware of the financial problems of voluntary societies at the present time. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has had to seek, and obtain, a substantial subvention from the Government to carry out its work, especially in the removal of children to care and prosecutions for cruelty. Voluntary societies cannot be expected to carry the responsibility for enforcing the law indefinitely, or of undertaking duties which properly belong to the police.
The article in New Society, to which I referred earlier, says that something like 300,000 dogs are put down in this country every year. That is on top of over half a million puppies which are destroyed very soon after birth because they are not wanted. If the figure of
1224
300,000 is anything near accurate, then the RSPCA alone destroy one-fifth of the total number of dogs destroyed in this country every year. That is a most distressing and unwelcome responsibility.
It is not the job of voluntary societies, who are there to save animals from cruelty and destruction, to have to undertake this large slice of killing of dogs which should properly fall on statutory authorities. This cannot go on indefinitely. I do not think that the careless, the heartless, and the positively cruel human beings should be able to rely for all time on the voluntary donations of members of voluntary societies to spare their rejected animals from a cruel fate. Noble Lords should pay serious attention to what I am saying in this regard.
It is about time that greater discipline was encouraged and, if necessary, enforced among dog owners and in the treatment of dogs in this country. I do not believe that the trouble that arose in Burnley would have arisen had we had a scheme of this kind in operation. I sincerely hope that this is not going to be regarded as just a piece of show business. It is not. We are in earnest. Nobody else is, and we are. I hope that your Lordships are going to be in earnest about this.
I conclude by indicating to your Lordships the mechanics of what I propose should be done. The keystone amendment is 97. That is the assumption of responsibility. That places the responsibility for stray dogs upon the local authorities, but it allows in subsection (2) local authorities that feel that it would be inappropriate for them to take that responsibility to represent to the Minister that they should be excused from doing so.
The duties which are assumed by local authorities if they take them under Amendment No. 97 are set out in Amendment No. 127A. The duties of the dog wardens covered also by Amendment No. 97 are set out in Amendment No. 127A and Part II of the schedule. I suggest that the matter should be decided on Amendment No. 97. I suggest that your Lordships can take Amendment No. 97 as being the key clause.
Are you in favour of this broad scheme of transfer from the police to the local authorities, to be accompanied by dog warden systems and all the other associated matters to make the scheme composite and workable? If so, then I submit to you that you can adopt Amendment No. 97 and then accept all the associated amendments in order to complete the picture. If Amendment No. 97 is rejected, then the whole fabric of the amendments that I am moving collapses. The associated amendments are 97, 98, 99, 100 to 104, 126, 127A and B, 128, 132, 135, and 136.
What a wonderful thing it would be to make progress in this Committee if your Lordships could swallow the lot as I have suggested, put these amendments into the Bill, and let us give these amendments a Committee stage on the Report stage of this Bill. There is nothing like taking opportunities as they occur, and the Report stage would offer an opportunity of replacing the Committee stage which these proposals failed to get when the matter was dealt with in another place. Or send the Bill, with all the amendments in it, back to another place where they can sort out these amendments, as they should have done had they dealt properly with the Bill when they had it. That, I think, is the neatest legislative job that has come before your

1225
Lordships' House for quite a long time.
My final word is that if the Government would provide time for the completion of the Second Reading of that Bill in another place, then we should be relieved of the responsibility of having to repair the harm that has been done so far. There are precedents for this. When I was in the Government we decided as a matter of policy that no Private Member's Bill that got a Second Reading under its own steam should be frustrated for lack of time. We got some contentious Bills through as Private Members' Bills because we gave the time for Parliament to reach a conclusion on a matter of wide public interest which needed to be attended to.
Indeed, on one occasion when the Sex Discrimination Bill Second Reading was talked out by the late Sir Ronald Bell, the indignation and pressure on the Government were so strong that the Conservative Government gave extra time for the Second Reading of that Bill to be completed and it then went forward to a Select Committee. Therefore, there are precedents for it. If the Minister cares to assure us that the Government are considering it and would like to do something to further the progress of that measure, then there is no need for us to spend time on it here.
Although I have taken a long time, I doubt whether there are many blocks of 15 amendments that have been moved seriatim in so short a total of time as I have taken on this series. Besides, this is a very important subject, a new slice of the Bill, and it is an opportunity which the Government should take. Seven years is long enough for Governments to consider recommendations on a matter of great social and canine importance. Here is the opportunity, now is the time; all we need is the will. Unfortunately, there is not much sign of will sometimes in your Lordships' House. But here is an opportunity, in the interests of dogs and those who own them; 23 per cent. of all households in Britain have dogs, and one in eight of those have two or more. Thus, this is not just something incidental, a sort of tram ticket affair. This is an important side of our social life and the amendments provide rebates for and exemptions from the dog licence fee in suitable cases. I am grateful to the Committee for listening so calmly to what I have said. I beg to move.
8.32 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: In supporting the admirable speech of my noble friend Lord Houghton, I shall follow his good example and speak at the same time to the other amendments relating to dogs. They hang together because they are all part of a scheme for setting up a nationwide dog warden service run by district councils for the control of stray dogs. I wish to underline, as Lord Houghton did, the proposal to transfer responsibility for the control of stray dogs from the police to local authorities. The main purpose is not to relieve the police, although this is a responsibility with which they are often glad to part because the police already have too much on their hands; they are undermanned and over-stretched for their primary functions of maintaining law and order and traffic control.
In the past, it has surely been unreasonable to add to that burden, as we have, by making the police responsible also for the control of stray dogs. It is not
1226
surprising that they have been completely unable to prevent the damage that has been, and still is being, done by stray dogs that are not controlled by their owners, both in urban areas and the countryside, and I will give some examples.
The National Farmers' Union complain of the loss to farmers from injury to their animals from, for example, sheep worrying done by dogs, often hunting in packs. In the last year for which we have figures, 1978, nearly 6,000 farm animals were injured in that way, and of course many other cases were not reported to the police. In the three years between 1975 and 1978, the average annual figure for farm animals killed or injured by dogs was 10,000, and the situation, although entirely different, was no less serious in the towns.
During the years I have quoted, nearly 2,000 people were injured in road accidents in which dogs were directly involved. Every car driver—your Lordships will be among them—will remember seeing solitary dogs on main roads often trying on their own to get through the traffic. To that danger should be added the nuisance of the fouling of pavements and playgrounds by dogs that are not controlled by their owners. Another evil of the present situation, and not the least, is that the police are not even able to enforce the licensing laws. It has been estimated by the Department of the Environment, as my noble friend Lord Houghton pointed out, that half the dogs in the country have not been licensed. So the case for transferring police powers for control and law enforcement in this respect to the local authorities is really unanswerable. The police have not been able to, and cannot, discharge this responsibility.
So that local authorities may be able to do the job, they will require to employ full-time or part-time dog wardens, such as many of them, I believe up to about 100, do at the present time. Those wardens would take over from the police the job of catching and holding stray dogs and of enforcing the licensing laws. But they should be regarded by the local community in which they work as the friend and not the hostile or carping critic of dogs or dog owners, for their first duty on apprehending a stray dog would be to try to trace the owner and return the dog, and that would give the warden what would probably be a very suitable opportunity to explain the need for responsible dog ownership.
Local authorities would, of course, be obliged to raise more money to pay for and equip their dog warden service. We therefore propose in this series of amendments to give them power to fix a reasonable fee for dog licences in their areas at a level which would cover their costs and would take into account not only the provision of a dog warden service but the cost of collecting the licence fees and paying rebates to those entitled to a free licence. A higher licence fee would hardly be unreasonable, considering that the present fee has remained unchanged for over 100 years and is now, as my noble friend pointed out, at a level insufficient even to pay for the cost of collecting it; I understand that the cost of collecting licence fees is about £3 million whereas the Revenue receives about £1 million.
I think the Committee will also agree that some dog owners should be exempted from any payment. They

1227
should include the blind, those in receipt of supplementary pensions and the working dogs of shepherds and farmers, if the local authorities think fit. The Government should agree, on the facts, that the present state of affairs is a disgrace to us all; the public in town and country are not adequately protected against dogs that are not controlled, and the law is both out of date and, because of its non-observance, being brought into contempt. If the Government reply that this measure is premature and is not the proper way to introduce a major change in the law relating to dogs, which I suspect may be the Minister's reply, I would remind him that the defects in the existing law have been drawn to the attention of successive Governments repeatedly for many years but without the slightest positive response.
They have turned a deaf ear to pleas for effective action made in both Houses and have ignored the recommendations in the report of their own departmental working party, in addition to the working party of which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, was chairman; and their own report is already six years old. If they turn down our proposals in these amendments, as they have turned down other proposals in the past, and persist in refusing both to introduce their own legislation and to allow time for a Private Member's Bill in another place (which would be alternative ways of doing what we ask for) the least that they can do this evening is to tell the Committee how they consider that this serious social problem can be solved.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: Having all my life owned and trained dogs, from sheepdogs, to watch dogs, to sporting dogs, I support the amendments. The noble Earl who has just sat down made the very good suggestion that there should not have to be a licence and a licence fee for sheepdogs—and of course the present fee is absolutely absurd. But I think that there could be a danger here so far as sheepdogs are concerned. In an area in which, let us suppose, the local authority decided on a licence fee of £10, members of the urban public would say, "We can buy a sheepdog puppy and so won't have to pay a licence fee". But sheepdogs are not good dogs to have in urban areas because they require a great deal of work. They have to gallop miles and miles when they are working and have to be very well exercised. Therefore I would not agree with that suggestion of the noble Earl. I think that the same licence ought to be paid for all dogs, of all breeds.
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, with regard to the problem of stray dogs. They have become such a problem in the last 10 or 12 years This is because in towns many people pass a pet shop and see a lovely little puppy, and say, "What a lovely present!", thinking of their daughter or son. They buy the puppy, but they do not appreciate that a puppy chews up things, and grows, and has to be house trained. After a few months they probably grow tired of it. Then they want to go on holiday, and they say, "What on earth do we do with the dog?" So many people just abandon their dogs. There have even been cases of dogs being left locked up in houses, which is extremely cruel. Many people drive out on to a main road and simply abandon their dogs. That is a very dangerous thing to do. It
1228
can cause an accident in which a human being might be killed and in which the dog probably is killed. On two occasions I found on the road dogs which had been run over. They were still alive, and it was extremely distressing to see them.
With regard to the welfare of dogs, I agree that it would be better if the local authorities were given responsibility for stray dogs and if dog wardens were appointed. I recall the Bill under which traffic wardens were introduced. That relieved the police of much trouble and unnecessary responsibility. After all, the police are there to catch criminals, and I think it is quite wrong for them to be given added duties regarding stray dogs. It would be far better to have dog wardens.
With regard to the licence fee, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that it would be far better if the local authorities set the licence fee, rather than have a mandatory licence fee fixed by the Government for all areas. If a local authority sees no use for dog wardens because it does not have stray dogs in its area—which could be so in certain country areas—there would be no point in having a high licence fee in that area, but in an area where there are a lot of stray dogs the licence fee ought to be at least £10.
There is also the question of rabies. If rabies ever came to this country—which God forbid!—it would be a great advantage to have stray dogs properly organised, which is not the case today. There is also the matter of sheep worrying, which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, raised. There is a lot of sheep worrying by stray dogs. People from the towns go into the country and let their dogs free for a walk. The dogs then savage sheep. I agree that dog wardens could not do anything about that, but they could be helpful in another way. People who do not understand dogs allow them to stray and the bitches get in pup. If there were dog wardens, they could advise the owners to have their bitches spayed, which is a very simple operation.
I support the amendments, since what is proposed would relieve the police of an unnecessary duty. It is not a suitable duty for the police. It would also be of help to dog owners, in particular urban dog owners, if dog wardens could advise them on how to look after their dogs and stop them from having endless litters of puppies.
8.49 p.m.
Lord Cottesloe: I shall follow the admirable example of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and speak to all 14 amendments together, since they create, or are designed to create, a complete and coherent system, but I hope perhaps that I shall not follow the noble Lord at such great length. The system which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, explained would consist of transferring to the local authorities responsibility for dogs, in particular stray dogs. It would alter the arrangements in respect of dog licences, and it would create an army of dog wardens throughout the country. I am quite sure that the proposed new clauses are put forward with the best possible intentions, but I am equally sure that they are thoroughly misguided, and I hope that the Committee will not accept them.
This is not in any way a party matter. I have no interest that I should declare to the Committee in this matter. I have a great interest in dogs in general and

1229
in stray dogs in particular; in particular because for the last dozen years I have been the chairman (an unpaid chairman) of the Dogs' Home, Battersea, a charitable institution, more than a century old, which every year deals with 18,000 dogs in the Greater London area, nearly all of them strays.
Under the Dogs Act, as your Lordships know, the responsibility for stray dogs rests at the present time on the police, who have to keep them for seven days to enable their owners to claim them, after which, if they are not claimed, they are free to dispose of them in whatever way seems best. Incidentally, that period of seven days was fixed many years before the present Dogs Act 1906, at the express instance of Queen Victoria, no doubt because the weekend is the only time when people who are at work all the week are able to go and search for and reclaim their dogs—a point which Lord Houghton's committee seem to have overlooked when they recommended that the period should be reduced.
In London, the Battersea Dogs' Home carry out the statutory duty of the Metropolitan and City of London Police under contract, the police making each year a payment under the contract of the ascertained cost of keeping for the seven days the dogs that they pass on to us. We collect the dogs as required from the 190 or so police stations in the metropolitan area, we look after them for the statutory period, and if they are unclaimed we find new homes for the great majority of them. We also keep dogs for people who are unable to look after them while they are in hospital or, it may be, while they are detained in prison.
These arrangements work smoothly and happily, and we have representatives of the police on our committee. The total number of dogs we deal with each year has remained pretty steady at about 18,000; but while the number of strays reclaimed by their owners is only about 15 per cent.—a figure which makes it clear, I am sorry to say, that many of the strays are what I may call deliberate strays; dogs turned out by owners who, for one reason or another, find they cannot manage to keep them—the number for which we have found new homes has in recent years been doubled (in January, we found new homes for more than 1,000 dogs) and the residue that ultimately have to be put down has been halved. Of course, many of the dogs that we receive come to us diseased and irrecoverable, but in principle we never, and in practice we very seldom, have to put down a healthy dog.
I am not well informed about the arrangements outside London, but in some cities I know the RSPCA operate a similar service. At all events, the arrangements in the metropolitan area work smoothly and efficiently, and I am entirely without doubt that a transfer of responsibility from the police to the local authorities—whether, in London, to the large number of metropolitan boroughs or to the Greater London Council itself—would prove very much more expensive and very much less efficient. It would, in fact, be disastrous. I say that as one who has had some experience of local authorities, not only as a ratepayer but as having served for ten years after the war on the London County Council, which was, if I may say so, a more efficient body than the Greater London Council which succeeded it, and for five years on the old Hampstead Borough Council, an infinitely more
1230
efficient body than the Camden Borough Council, which absorbed it.
I may add that while of course we must all agree that the police have very many more important things to look after than stray dogs, my friends in the police force tell me what I am perfectly sure is true, that even if such a transfer as is proposed were to be made, they would still have to do all the work. So the change, with its establishment of an army of dog wardens, who, if they were armed with the powers to exercise their functions effectively, would form a great new bureaucracy as much detested by the public as are the traffic wardens, would bring a new system which would be cumbrous, inefficient and very expensive, and there is every reason for the Committee to reject it.
There is, however, one facet of these proposals that I warmly welcome, and that is that the dog licence fee, set more than a century ago at 7s. 6d and now standing at the equivalent figure of 37½p, should be increased to a figure more realistic today. I think it should certainly be increased to £5, possibly to a figure higher than that—a figure that would be worth collecting and would make the dog-owner feel that he had something worth looking after. The distasteful pill of an increase in the fee might perhaps be sweetened by including a right, initially, to a free inoculation, or something of that sort.
I also warmly support the suggestion that all dogs licensed should wear collars with the name, address and telephone number of the owner, and a disc to show that the licence fee has been paid. But even here, over licences, the proposers of the new system have got it wrong. It stands out a mile that whatever the fee may be there should be uniformity throughout the country, as with other licences, and not one figure in one local authority area and a different figure in another. It does not need very much thought to see that that would produce such a host of local anomalies that it would in fact be a nonsense. So on every ground I hope that these amendments will be withdrawn, but if they are not I hope that your Lordships will defeat them, and defeat them decisively. in the Division Lobbies.
Lord Evans of Claughton: May I express general support from these Benches from the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton? I suppose I should declare an interest as a dog-owner myself—a neutered Jack Russell. May I also say that, as the noble Lord the Minister is probably as aware as I am, we are now in the season of the year when people are rushing about canvassing for the local elections, and the biggest single problem with which they are confronted (at least in the part of the world where I come from and where I was a councillor for many years) is dog fouling.
But there is a much more serious problem in urban areas about dogs, the lack of licences for them and the way they are turned out from homes after they have been given as Christmas presents to the children, and that is the packs of dogs that very often terrorise housing estates in urban areas. They terrorise housing estates in the part of the world in which I live, and I am sure that this may be the experience of others of your Lordships who live in urban areas. So I think

1231
there is a clear need for control of a more specific kind than exists at present.
I respect very much what the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said about the work that is done in the Battersea Dogs' Home and in various other organisations of that kind, but I think almost on his own confession the record outside the metropolitan area is, at best, very patchy. Some local authorities, like the one of which I used to be a member, do have dog wardens, but the Wirral Borough Council, with a population of 400,000-odd, had two part-time dog wardens, who could not do a very effective job in dealing with the problems presented by the number of dogs with which they had to deal. There seems to be wide agreement that, first, the dog licence should be very much increased over the absurd sum which is the present licence fee. I think it should be related to the cost of administering the service. If a local authority requires a large number of dog wardens, then in spite of the difficulty which, I recognise, would result from having different amounts in different districts, it might be more expensive to own a dog in an urban area than in a rural area. But that is probably a good thing because the more expensive it is to own a dog, the more careful the dog owner's will be in looking after them and not allowing them to disturb other people's lives. I take the point about the difficulty of having variable rates in different parts of the country; but where the problem is greater, the licence fee should be greater; and this would reduce the problem.
In the same way, I think that the owners of dogs that have been spayed or neutered should get a rebate on their licence fee because they are, in fact, discouraging the spread of the dog population and assisting in keeping it within limitations. I notice from the amendments that the age of attainment to qualify for a licence is six months. I think there is much to be said for introducing a puppy licence in addition to dog licences. Some of the greatest cruelty is done to very young dogs in the early days after they have ceased to be the overnight pets of children and are then thrown out while very young. There is a case for requiring either dog licences to be imposed earlier or that there be puppy licences, in addition.
I do not think this would result in a whole army of dog wardens. I think, that what would happen if we imposed a more economic dog licensing system, if we enforced that and if we had sufficient wardens to enforce it and took it from the police—which is a job they do not like doing—then, in a comparatively short time, the major problem of cruelty to dogs, of packs of dogs causing terror in neighbourhoods and the general cruelty to young dogs would disappear—not quickly, but would cease to be the major problem that it is today.
I support broadly the amendments put down by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. I think that his proposal that we should regard the Report stage as a Committee stage for these clauses is a good one. Although I broadly support the amendments put down, like most of your Lordships, I would like to be able to think of improvements that might be done to the various amendments moved en bloc. We would support this as a useful and important measure particularly for people living in urban areas.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: These amendments bring together the interests of those aggrieved by the pets of irresponsible owners and those very responsible dog owners who want to keep their pets and to live at peace with their neighbours; and, therefore, I believe they ought to have a wide appeal. They are necessary because of the widespread nuisance caused by stray dogs, of which the police dealt with 20,000 last year alone—a job they do not want, and understandably, for they can act as little other than dog catchers. There is a much wider problem involved in the education of pet owners as well as in dealing with the results of the actions of irresponsible pet owners.
That is why a whole range of organisations interested in animal welfare have come together; JACOPIS, with which I and my noble friends are associated, the RSPCA, the National Farmers' Union, the Local Authority Associations and, particularly, the ABC, of which I am vice-president. The problem, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said, is great and urgent. In 1978, the last year for which figures were kept, 5,738 farm animals were injured by dogs; in the years 1975 to 1978, 10,000 a year were bitten or mutilated by uncontrolled dogs in Great Britain. On the roads 1,950 people in 1978 were injured in road accidents where a dog was involved and 11 people were killed; in 1979, 1,761 were injured and 14 people killed. The RSPCA say that dogs can spread unpleasant diseases and can create a serious nuisance by fouling pavements. Many people fail to take out licences and the Department of the Environment report in 1976 said that 1 out of 2 were not licensed. Dog ownership is entered into far too lightly and many pets are abandoned. Apart from financing the dog-warden scheme, it would discourage this irresponsible purchasing of pets and their abandonment.
The question is how best to deal with the problem. We believe that transferring responsibility to the local authority from the police—I have been a member of a local authority for 30 years and am still a member—and giving them powers to carry out this function is the best way to deal with the problem.
Both the RSPCA and JACOPIS believe that this is the way forward; the ABC is prepared on behalf of local authorities to accept responsibility. They all believe that by this means standards are likely to be inculcated in the dog-owning public to the advantage in welfare terms of dogs in general. Why legislate? Some may say that this is not necessary. Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 provides the basis for the appointment of dog wardens. But the ability to incur expenditure in the interest of inhabitants is circumscribed by Section 137(4) which provides that the total amount of such expenditure may not exceed the sum raised by a 2p rate. Those of us involved in local government know that there are plenty of demands on Section 137, anyway.
There are a number of objections to this. Section 111 of the 1972 Act is a catch-all provision. Where there is a specific need known in advance by the local authority, we believe that specific provision ought to be made. Many councils do not believe that they have adequate powers. Why else resort to private measures in private Bills? There is concern, too,

1233
that the district auditor or an aggrieved ratepayer may challenge successfully the establishment of a dog warden scheme; and for a council it is one of the things relevant to the assessment of the needs and resources of its area. It transfers the burdensome responsibility of dealing with stray dogs to local authorities as local authorities under the Dogs Act 1906 do not have power to deal with stray dogs. It relieves the police of this requirement. This would be pointless unless the local authority had power or authority to enforce this legislation and new powers are essential to deal with the problem. It is not comprehensive, as was originally intended. It does not deal with the issues of breeding or sale. Nor is it an attempt to codify the existing legislation which runs from the Act of 1839 to the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
It is a modest attempt to deal with the issues raised by stray dogs, by transferring to local authorities the responsibility for dealing with them by providing a warden service which will deal with this serious and growing nuisance and at the same time help with animal welfare, and particularly with the job of educating pet owners about how they can keep their pets without giving offence to others. I hope that tonight the Government will be able to give in principle at least support to this proposal, one which we believe is overdue.
Lord John-Mackie: If I may delay the Committee for one moment, first I should like to declare my interest. I am a farmer and a dog owner. The point has been made that somewhere round about 6,000 cases of dog worrying take place every year. Anyone who has seen—as I have—the result of dog worrying among a flock of sheep, especially at lambing time, will realise that some control of dogs is very necessary indeed. Whether this is the right method or not I leave the Government to decide, but I support some system of the control of dogs.
I agree that the licence fee must be a national, uniform fee. I do not think one can expect every local authority to decide on the licence fee. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that we should not rely on the RSPCA or the Battersea Dogs' Home; but there should be, I think, tremendous co-operation with the RSPCA. They have done a tremendous job in trying to control stray dogs. I understand they catch nearly half a million a year. They dispose of less than half of that number and have to destroy more than half of them. It is a big job and any council should co-operate with them.
Education is required. As has been said, it is amazing how many people think that a little puppy will remain that size, whereas it will grow—and I exaggerate—into a great St. Bernard. I blame pet shops a lot for this. There should be some control. I do not know whether there is any control from the Home Office of pet shops, but I think that the pet shops have a lot to blamed for regarding stray dogs.
When I was at the Ministry in the middle of the 1964–70 Government there was pressure from the NFU to have something done about dog worrying. It was left to me to see what could be done. I made the suggestion that first there should be an increase in the dog licence to £2. I remember an official at the Ministry saying: "What about the hounds?". I said that the last thing I would worry about—
1234
with all due respect to the noble Lord, Lord Margadale—was the hounds each having a licence at a cost of £2.
This matter was brought up at a Cabinet Committee meeting. I put this forward and it was left to be discussed. It was decided that it was politically a bad move. We were approaching an election and we would lose votes if we made the dog licence £2. I thought that this was ridiculous. However, I was overruled. Funnily enough, two weeks ago this was being discussed—and I shall not mention by which party—and they said: "Do not do anything before the Hillhead by-election. As the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, said, do not make it a party matter and then we might get something done. As I have said, I tried to do something round about 1967–68, which is nearly 20 years ago, and nothing has been done. My noble friend Lord Houghton pressed the Government that now is the time, and I think something should be done.
I should like to refer to rabies. In my time at the Ministry we had an outbreak of rabies in one dog in the New Forest area. If we had had some control or some register of dogs at that period it would have made life a lot easier in trying to trace any animal that might have been in contact with the dog that had rabies. As it happened, the dog was caught in time. There seemed to be no connection and the rabies did not spread. But it is a very real point.
I cannot understand why the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, thinks that dog wardens are in the same category as traffic wardens. I am sure they would be far more popular. As has also been said, there are a number of people who are disgusted with the mess made by stray dogs in parks and streets. If wardens did something to improve on that, I am sure they would be very popular instead of the other way about.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: I will not keep your Lordships very long at this late stage, but in view of the fact that the whole of the amendments we have before us are asking that the local authorities should take over these powers, I think that before the Government take any decision they should make sure that the local authorities are consulted in great detail. It is all very well giving them powers, but the powers are likely to involve them in expenditure. We heard what the noble Lord said about Battersea: in Birmingham we have three very large homes for dogs and the only way the police can operate the Dog Licences Act at the present moment is by the co-operation of the voluntary bodies who will take the dogs from the police. But who will take the dogs from the local authorities if there are no voluntary bodies in the various localities?
I have quite a large knowledge of dog wardens because the Birmingham constituency I used to represent was an inner city area, and it will be found that people living in the city in what we call "slum clearance houses" tend to have big dogs that bark very loud; they have those dogs purely and simply on the grounds of safety because their homes are very easy to get into and are substandard, with all that that involves. Then, when the local authority rehouses them and puts them into these lovely multi-storey blocks of flats, the local authority says: "No pets are allowed".

1235
Therefore, from my own knowledge of stray dogs I know what happens. It is not a question of just one or two dogs going down a motorway or two or three dogs chasing sheep, but as many as 40 or 50 in a pack going round the newer developments that have been constructed. I do not know whether we were very successful in keeping them down. We tried our best, but it is a difficult problem and all I would say is that if local authorities are being given powers which will involve them in expenditure they should be very seriously consulted. I raise no objections to the principle behind this, but it is consultation with local authorities that I am asking the Government seriously to consider.
Lord Collison: I think I am in order in speaking now—I had been hoping to rise before my noble friend on the Front Bench got to her feet. I would like just to comment that when the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, mentioned that this matter had been discussed a number of times before in this Chamber, I well remembered speaking myself on this subject several years ago. I spoke on it because, although I know the figures that have been given to us by the National Farmers' Union, I have also experienced the effects of sheep worrying myself on farms where I have worked. Of course, it is not a pleasant thing to observe or try to deal with when you see a dog with a sheep: to get him off takes some doing.
I also said when I spoke before to your Lordships that any dog can suddenly take on this proclivity for worrying sheep. I have a cousin who bought a so-called sheepdog, a collie, and the dog was perfectly house-trained; nobody could possibly have any objection to it. It would be taken for walks in the usual way; and then they brought this dog down to the country where I was living and working, and the first time the dog was taken out and let off the lead he immediately rushed for the sheep and began to worry them. Of course, it is not only sheep which are worried but other animals on the farm.
I do not want to detain your Lordships now, but the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, mentioned the problem of puppies. This is one of them—you never know. The noble Earl mentioned that this matter has been discussed before. So it has—many times—and I hope that we can get assurances from the Government on this occasion that something will be done about it.
9.19 p.m.
Lord Bellwin: May I first of all say that I have listened very carefully to all your Lordships who have spoken, and especially at the beginning to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. May I say that I admired very much, as I always do, his assiduousness and his articulation. He is always so persuasive, but I think he knows better than most, perhaps, that this is not an easy one to put over to your Lordships. May I say also that I unreservedly accept that the movers and the supporters of the amendment are, as he says, in earnest and that they feel very deeply about this matter. I think that should be made quite clear straight away.
1236
In turn, those who have spoken in favour of the amendments would also accept that there are strongly held and differing views on the subject of dogs. It is evident that, despite the concern about dog nuisance problems, with which the Government are sympathetic, there are major differences of view about the extent and nature of the problems and about the right way of dealing with them. Clearly, this is reflected in the different approaches already employed at local level to deal with dogs. Although there are said to be deficiencies in existing local authority powers, much can be done and local authorities can assess local problems and priorities as regards action on dogs. If they have a dog nuisance problem, they are surely best placed to decide on the most appropriate way of proceeding, given local circumstances, and they can, and do, in my experience, take action under existing legislation when public annoyance and even distress is caused by dogs.
For example, local authorities use their powers to make by-laws, confirmed by the Home Secretary, in respect of fouling and dog control. In addition, some local authorities have made orders designating roads in their areas on which it is an offence to allow a dog without a lead. Authorities can also use their powers to make curfew regulations in respect of dogs to try to prevent cattle worrying. Other authorities have obtained powers, similar to those of the police, to deal with strays where they feel that they have a particularly serious problem of dog nuisance. While many authorities have already set up dog warden schemes, many others have not done so. Whether or not they do so must be a matter for local discretion, given local circumstances, local needs and local priorities. This is an area in which, traditionally, local authorities have been free to act as they see fit using all, or any, of their existing powers as necessary.
There has been discussion and observations have been made about the licence fee itself and its collection costs. Clearly, the fee now is derisory, but any alterations—and I do not think anyone would quarrel with this—must be made as part of a general revision of the law as a whole, in relation to dogs, which may one day or another take place. I regret that the Government have been unable to accord a high priority at the present time to overall consideration of the subject of dogs. It is for this reason that, as has been indicated before now, we have no plans for early action on follow-up to the working party's report on dogs. However, I note that the amendments appear to conflict with the recommendations of that report; for example, in proposing local determination of the level of the dog licence fee. Seemingly, they would create a very complex system involving both central and local government for dealing with dog nuisance problems.
It will be useful if I turn for a moment to the amendments and their ramifications. These amendments seek to place new duties on local authorities, and those duties are to be mandatory—not discretionary. Even the Aspinwall Bill was discretionary. Every local authority is to assume responsibility for the control, welfare, seizure, detention and disposal of stray dogs in its area, and to perform the duties specified in Part I of the schedule, entitled Dog Wardens. The duties set out in the schedule involve the local authority in surveying its area; for example, to determine the

1237
identity and location of stray dogs. A local authority will not be responsible for carrying out these provisions; if the Secretary of State directs that the provisions of the Act shall not apply. To arrive at this situation, a local authority would have to inform the Secretary of State that, in their opinion, a direction should be made, because the size and nature of the stray dog problem in their area does not, in effect, warrant their being obliged to carry out the requisite mandatory responsibilities.
I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Fisher of Rednal, made the point so well about the powers and duties of local authorities. She, like me, and I am sure many others, has also had experience of this situation, which can be very difficult. I certainly want it to be dealt with by authorities in their own way, as they think best. It is their responsibility and they have the opportunities and the powers, if they wish to use them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said, the licensing arrangements proposed in the amendments would, it seems, work in tandem with the system of assigning numbered registration discs to be worn by dogs in public places, and the licences issued would license a particular dog identified on the licence form by a full description, including any distinguishing marks. One can only guess at the amount of paper work which would be involved. In addition, the resource implications for local government of new mandatory duties or of getting rid of some of them, once acquired, have to be evaluated and very seriously considered. Finally, there is the question of need in relation to mandatory or discretionary powers. There are arguments favouring one or other approach, just as there are as regards a nationally or locally determined level of licence fee.
We do not consider that the package which the amendments present offers a satisfactory or practicable solution. In looking at the problem it is necessary to consider the position of dogs in society, both rural and urban, and see how all the problems of nuisance and control square up with existing legislation, of which there is an abundance. This is an enormous task.
It is appreciated that many of your Lordships have been concerned for many years about the control and welfare of dogs. For example, the Government are well aware of the activities of the Joint Advisory Committee on Pets in Society, but I am sure noble Lords will recognise that there are a number of complex issues relating to dogs. I am sure noble Lords will also recognise that strong views are held on dogs, both for and against ways of tackling the problem. I would suggest that these cannot be solved here and now by creating a new and complicated piece of legislation. Furthermore, I would point out that the subject matter of the amendments does not meet the criteria for including it in the Bill. These proposals are not based on a sufficiently broad consensus of opinion. For example, they are not well precedented in post-April 1974 local authority Acts, which contain only some discretionary provisions concerning the control of dogs.
Disappointed though I know the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, will be (and, indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, the noble Lord, Lord Irving of Dartford, and all those who have spoken as they have) the Government do not consider it to be appropriate to try to deal comprehensively with the issue of dogs—which, I say again, involves control of strays, dog
1238
warden systems and licensing arrangements—within the context of the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, who will certainly agree that there has been extensive discussion tonight of the matter, will feel that he does not wish to press the amendments. It is with that perhaps optimistic hope—but I never fail to be so—that I sit down, having presented the Government's position.
9.29 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: The noble Lord's expectation that I would be disappointed puts it mildly. He has just given us the classic prescription for Governments doing nothing. Why appoint committees to go into problems and then disregard the work that they do? And why not heed a good deal of public concern about this problem?
I was very surprised by the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe. I will make it my business to look up the evidence of the Battersea Dogs' Home to the working party in 1975. I am sure it will be worth while studying and I shall make it my business to find out what they said. They gave oral evidence to the working party, besides putting in a written document.
On local authorities generally, the impetus behind these amendments and the work which we are doing in this field comes from local authorities. Noble Lords do not know what is going on. What is going on at the present time are seminars and conferences with local authorities all over the country under the auspices of JACOPIS, and consultation with local authorities and police authorities—who are all behind the broad structure of the reforms which I have put to your Lordships' Committee tonight. I can assure my noble friend Lady Fisher of Rednal that not only are local authorities being consulted, they are making the running, because they want the additional powers that these amendments will give them. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, that local authorities certainly do have dog wardens at the present time; they have taken the initiative.
The Bill that the Government could not make up their minds about in another place did not make mandatory the provisions in these amendments. As I pointed out, they were trimmed at the suggestion of representatives of departments in order to move the thing forward without imposing too heavy a burden upon local authorities, a burden that did not want them. We thought it was desirable to present to your Lordships a stronger Bill containing stronger recommendations, in order that your Lordships could see what the situation required.
Local authorities have no power to deal with the finances of the dog warden system; they cannot impose an additional levy upon dog owners. They cannot even make any money out of the existing licence. Do the Government really contemplate that the dog licence farce will go on indefinitely? What is the point of having a tax on dogs which is 50 per cent. evaded? The Government all go white when they think of the black economy and at the evasion of taxation in other fields, but apparently they can contemplate the wholesale evasion of dog licence fees. But with wardens, it is not a question of the dog licence fee but of knowing where the dogs are. They have no power to enforce

1239
the payment of the licence fee to any greater extent than is being done at present.
I am very sad about this, but when a noble Lord is as old as I am, the great thing is to live to fight another day. That is what I propose to do. I am going to beg leave to withdraw Amedment No. 97. I hope that I shall be spared the "Jack in the Box" operation of getting up and down to say "Not moved" in respect of the other 14 amendments. I should like to give notice now that I shall not move the 14 other associated amendments. To save me the risk of shortening my life by the action of popping up and down to say "Not moved", I hope that the Chair can accept that, and will let it rest there.
I will withdraw Amendment No. 97, but I will consult with my friends as to what we will do in the later stages of this Bill. I respectfully thank all those who contributed to this debate. I will take note of the criticisms and suggestions which have been made, and we may wish to incorporate them in some revised version of what we propose to do. The "Mansfield Law" states that one should stick to one's vehicle and progress if one can. That is what we propose to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 98 to 104 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Enforceability by local authorities of certain covenants relating to land]:
9.34 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 105:
Page 34, line 6, leave out ("become") and insert ("are").
The noble Lord said: Since Clause 29 replaces Section 126 of the Housing Act 1974, Amendment No. 106 is necessary to ensure the continued enforceability of covenants to which Section 126 applies. Amendment No. 105 is consequential on the previous amendment, No. 106. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 106:
Page 34, line 25, after ("section") insert ("or section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 (which is superseded by this section)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 35, line 13, at end insert—
("(4A) If a person against whom a covenant is enforceable by virtue of subsection (2) above requests the principal council to supply him with a copy of the covenant, it shall be their duty to do so free of charge.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment simply puts an obligation on the local authority, if so requested, to provide free of charge a copy of any enforceable covenant to persons against whom the covenant may be enforced, where they were not party to the covenant when it was entered into. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 35, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for the omission of subsection (5). That subsection is
1240
unnecessary since Section 1(1)(d) of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 deals with the matter. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 36, line 13, at end insert—
("(10) Section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 (which is superseded by this section) shall cease to have effect; but in relation to a covenant falling with subsection (2) of that section, section 1(1)(d)of the Local Land Charges Act 1975 shall continue to have effect as if the reference to the commencement of that Act had been a reference to the coming into operation of the said section 126.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment provides for Section 126 of the Housing Act 1974 to cease to have effect and, in consequence of Amendment No. 108, ensures that covenants falling within subsection (2) of Section 126 will continue to be registered as local land charges. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 29, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Control of fly-posting]:
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 110:
Page 37, line 14, after ("borough") insert (" and as respects an area being or comprising the whole or any part of a National Park, the National Park Committee Joint Planning Board or Special Planning Board").
The noble Viscount said: I am afraid this is dull stuff after all the dogs, but I hope it will take a good deal less time than they did. This amendment refers to Clause 31 which as at present drafted enables district councils, which are the authority responsible for advertisement control under town and country planning legislation, to remove illegal advertisements. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a very valuable and useful new power to have, that unsightly advertisements should be able to be physically removed.
The Government have clearly linked this new function to the advertisement control system, and indeed the Minister in introducing this clause at Report stage in another place said that the new power is deliberately linked with the system of planning control over outdoor advertising. But I think I must introduce this amendment because district councils are not responsible for the control of advertisements in national parks. This function is exercised by the national park authorities. Your Lordships will recall that we have had numerous debates in previous legislation about the planning functions of national parks authorities, which are quite distinct from the functions outside national parks.
Of course, it can be argued that the physical removal of offending advertisements will be carried out by the staff of the district councils involved because they have such staff equipped to do it outside national parks. I am quite certain that it does not mean that the district council should have the statutory authority. That is why I move this amendment. It is, of course, possible for the national park authority to enter into an agency agreement with the district under the Local Government Act 1972 which allows the district to do this work for it. But it is right, I

1241
think, that where the control of advertisements rests the new power of control should also rest. I can only give one example, the Peak District, where there are at least 9 district councils, all of whom might have separate operations, and confusion could result. I think it would be much better if national park authorities responsible for the control of advertisements and the issuing of planning permission were responsible for the removal of offending advertisements. This is all the amendment seeks to do. I think it is a simplification.
I would only add that I have the support of the Countryside Commission, who are the Government's advisers in these matters, who say—and I think they are right—that it would make very good sense for control of such things to rest with the national park authorities and for them to deal with advertisement control.
Baroness David: The noble Viscount also has the support of our Benches. It seems quite right that the national parks, as planning authorities, should have this right of control as well.
Lord Beliwin: I understand that my noble friend's amendment is inspired by a suggestion that he has had from the Association of County Councils, with some support from the Countryside Commission. I have listened, as I always do, very carefully to what my noble friend said, and I know that officials in the Department of the Environment have listened just as carefully to the Association of County Councils, whose views on matters such as this we always respect. It is, therefore, with some regret that I say to my noble friend that, after this most careful consideration of the issues which this amendment raises, we feel that we are unable to accept it.
If I may say so, I think that the ACC have misunderstood the basic purpose of the new power given to district councils by Clause 31 of the Bill. It is not an additional power for planning control over outdoor advertising: that is why the clause is not drafted so as to give this new power to local planning authorities in England and Wales. If it were such a power, then I quite agree with my noble friend that it would be entirely appropriate also to confer the power on the national park authorities for England and Wales. Instead, what the clause does is to give district councils a new power to remove or obliterate a particular type of nuisance, namely: "fly-posting". This is consistent with other powers district councils already have—for example, in the Public Health Act 1936—to remove or abate various nuisances. Moreover, the new power has been carefully modelled on the example already set in three local Acts where district councils have been given a similar power in the areas of South Yorkshire, Tyne and Wear, and the County of Kent. These provisions have been thoroughly discussed with the local authority associations and nobody has suggested that the clause, as drafted is not workable in practice.
There is one further consideration which I hope that my noble friend will find persuasive. If a national park authority or one of the two planning boards, want to exercise this power, I am advised that it should be practicable for them to do so by means of an agency arrangement entered into under Section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972 with the district council,
1242
once Clause 31 in this Bill has been enacted. I do not say that I would necessarily want to encourage this in all national parks because there may be reasons why it is not always appropriate. But the possibility is there and I commend it to my noble friend. I hope that, with those brief remarks, my noble friend Lord Ridley perhaps now appreciates why I cannot accept the amendment. But I think that what he wants can be achieved in practice by another route. I hope, for that reason, that he will not feel it necessary to press the amendment further.
Viscount Ridley: I am not at all persuaded by my noble friend the Minister. He does not seem to have answered any of my arguments as regards the amendment which is meant to simplify the Bill. However, it is not a matter of such importance that requires a Division. I just remain unsatisfied and I may raise the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.44 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs Baroness Ewart-Biggs moved Amendment No. 110A:
Page 37, line 15, at end insert ("or other unauthorised message").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 110A. The purpose of this amendment is to provide that the control by local authorities of fly-posting should be extended to include the spray painting or, indeed, the inscription by any other method, of slogans and expressions on walls and buildings. In my view, a powerful argument in favour of this inclusion is that these two forms of defacement clearly go together. If fly-posting is found to be offensive, then so surely, equally, is the scrawling on walls of slogans. I do not see how one can possibly be divorced from the other.
This clause has been drafted on an adoptive basis and I expect some local authorities will find no possible necessity to avail themselves of it. There will be no imposition on them to do so. However, on the other hand, certain local authorities in areas where the National Front is particularly active, in multiracial areas where the National Front makes a habit of scrawling its odious slogans on walls with one particular purpose, of course—of inciting racial and other forms of hatred—surely might well be grateful for the power to remove as soon as possible such provocative inscriptions before the sensitivities of too many in that locality have been inflamed.
As we all know, within our particular system there are very few measures at our disposal to control and counter the highly offensive, provocative manifestations of racialism, with all the ensuing inflammatory effects. So surely we should not let the opportunity provided by this Bill slip by without availing ourselves of this measure to stop walls being desecrated, by, as I say, these highly offensive racialist inscriptions. Therefore, for that reason, together with the fact that fly-posting and spray-painting go so naturally hand in hand, and that local authorities will be left at complete liberty whether or not to avail themselves of the power, it seems eminently reasonable and sensible to make this inclusion. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: Briefly, I should like to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. I support the principle and the concept behind it. I suspect that it will be a little difficult to enforce in the context of this permissive legislation, but in principle I still think that one should give a very clear message that the kind of graffiti to which the noble Baroness refers should be regarded—and I think can, under existing legislation, be regarded—as a breach of the law.
One of the things that I find most extraordinary is that the people who claim to love Wales the most and those who, no doubt, claim to love Scotland the most—and the nationalist parties are always telling us that this is their great basic belief—then go to enormous trouble to deface all the most beautiful areas of Wales with notices saying "Cofia Treweryn" and other Welsh remarks which, translated to your Lordships, remind us of the temporary defeat of the Welsh by the English in 1294, and things of that nature. It always strikes me as quite extraordinary that some beautiful areas of both Scotland and Wales are completely defaced by huge nationalist signs. It should, I submit, be fairly easy to identify who is responsible for that and, therefore, to do something about it, because whatever one's view are about one's own district or the way one's race has been treated, that position is not improved by defacing and destroying some of the most beautiful parts of those areas.
Perhaps the Minister can reassure us about the heading "or other unauthorised message". The political parties—and here I include all the political parties—particularly in country districts during a general election, and indeed sometimes a local election, go about defacing everything in sight—traffic signs, telephone boxes—with slogans of "Vote for John Jones, Conservative" or "Fred Williams, Labour". Of course, the Liberals never commit that kind of solecism. Would those kind of unauthorised messages also be included in the type of draconian legislation which local authorities are being invited to adopt? I hope that they will be.
Lord Bellwin: Of course, everyone shares the distaste for the spray-painting of slogans or other expressions on walls and buildings, and the Government no less than the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, the noble Lord. Lord Evans, and I am sure everyone in your Lordships' Committee. However, we do not think it advisable to extend Clause 31 to spray-painting, because it would then be brought within the statutory system of planning control over outdoor advertisements, thus giving it an additional importance which we feel is unwarranted. In practice most of these slogans or expressions appear on public buildings or other buildings, or street furniture, whose owner is either a public body or some other person or organisation who will not want offensive or defamatory slogans or expressions to appear on their premises.
In these circumstances, the Government do not think it would be advisable to create a presumption that it is the job of every district council in England and Wales to make staff available to remove or obliterate spray-painted slogans or expressions from premises for which the council have no responsibility. Furthermore, this is not a power that local authorities have sought in the rationalisation Bills that they have introduced into
1244
Parliament since 1974. We are not aware that they would in fact welcome this power. For this reason, we cannot accept the amendment. But having said that, certainly the principles behind what the noble Baroness has said are unquestioned.
Lord Mishcon: Would the noble Lord the Minister permit me to ask him to reconsider the nature of his reply? I say this because the inference from his remarks was that in fact this would give an importance to the spraying on the walls and so on which the whole subject did not deserve. Every one of us in this House is most anxious to see that a section of our community is not unduly insulted. Indeed, there was a debate in this House the other day when we were trying to deal with the causes of crime and public disorder.
I cannot think of anything more offensive, more inciting to young people who happen to have a different colour from our own, than to find on buildings—and they may be disused buildings, and therefore the owners are not there to try to remove it—an invitation, not always courteously worded, to return to their own country, with expressions like "niggers out" that all of us have seen defacing the walls of many of our districts in the metropolitan area, and, I have no doubt, outside it.
I sometimes try to put myself in the position of young people—citizens of this country—walking around finding those slogans and finding nobody to remove them. I suppose if they were to be seen trying to do something about it, they might even be committing an offence—it may be trespass, it may be something else. As my noble friend so properly said, this is an adoptive power. A local authority need not take it on if they do not want to. There are some local authorities, I feel sure, who happen to have as a large section of their population coloured citizens, and I believe that those authorities might wish to adopt this power.
Would the noble Lord the Minister at least say that he will reconsider the matter in the light of what has been said today, in the hope that at Report stage this amendment need not be put down again because the Government themselves will come out with a phrase—and I entirely accept what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said—which might be a little more helpful than the words used here, which I know have been given a lot of consideration but with which nevertheless none of us would be terribly happy? Obviously, if the message that "Jill loves George" came within this description—we have also seen that sort of thing scribbled on the wall—it would be hardly likely that we would be trying desperately hard to cover that situation.
Lord Bellwin: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord said and certainly I shall discuss this with colleagues. The problems which it would present, as I suggested in my original remarks, are perhaps greater than we realise. However, I am so sympathetic with the intention behind what is proposed that I think the very least I can do is to say, yes, I will take it away to look at and consider it with colleagues. The Committee will understand that I am not able to go further than that, and that I cannot promise we shall be able to do anything. However, I understand what is being said and I shall take the matter away and we shall talk about it.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I thank the Minister very much for that assurance. I hope he will be able to improve on his original answer and, in view of his remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 39, line 15, leave out ("held under a grant or presumed grant or") and insert ("the right to hold which was acquired by virtue of a grant (including a presumed grant) or acquired or established by virtue of").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment to remove any doubt as to whether markets held merely by virtue of the planning permission conferred by the Town and Country Planning General Development Order 1977 might be exempt from the prior notification requirements of this clause. The amendment ensures that subsection (6)(a) exempts only markets which are held by right of a franchise or statutory authority. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
9.56 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 31, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness David: I have a few questions to ask about the clause. Subsection (3) says:
"A council shall not exercise any power conferred by subsection (1) of this section where a placard or poster identifies the person who displayed it or caused it to be displayed unless they have first given him notice in writing ".
Would the Minister think it a good idea if that provision included the need for the address of the person or company to be given? A great deal of time could be wasted trying to find who the person was. I should be obliged if the noble Lord could at least comment on that. I should also like to know whether "A" hoards are covered by the clause; I am sure noble Lords will have seen such boards, for example, standing on the pavement outside shops. My final question is about leaflets being distributed outside schools, in particular leaflets which tend to stir up racial hatred. A new clause was proposed in another place on 3rd February, on Report, when the Minister, Mr. Raison, said:
"I have already told the House that measures under the existing criminal law extend to the distribution of literature that is likely to stir up racial hatred".
He went on:
"We are considering whether the legislation is effective and I repeat my firm assurance to the House that we must get the law right and not use it simply as a vehicle to express sentiments which I fully accept are strongly and justifiably held".
Has any further review been done on that and has any progress been made, because it is another point about which we are very anxious?
Lord Mishcon: Most of the discussion on this clause has taken place around the question of racial incitement, and we have covered flyposting, spraying and so on. But a major reason for incitement is the marches which take place with one object only in view through certain areas, and that is to promote and provoke racial incitement. I appreciate that that may not come within the purview of this measure and I know that consideration is being given to the whole matter under the Public Order Act with a view to possible amendments to that. If the Minister could give an assurance that that is being actively progressed, it would be unnecessary for us to table amendments for Report of this Bill.
Lord Bellwin: With regard to the last point, I understand that this is part of the present Home Office review of the public order situation. Certainly the Government are very cognisant of the points made, and I am sure that the noble Lord, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady David, who touched on this aspect during her questions, know that we all want to achieve the same ends. It is a question of how we go about it. I am assured that this matter is part of the present review. With regard to the question about "A"
1248
boards, I am advised that we do not think that these are at present covered. We are considering the point about addresses, and we shall have to see how far we can get with it. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising that. I hope that those remarks cover the point raised on clause stand part.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 32 agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 111A:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Work undertaken by local authorities and development bodies under certain agreements with Manpower Services Commission. 1980 c. 65
.—(1) The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 20 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—
"(4) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (1) above, in this Act "construction or maintenance work" does not include work undertaken by a local authority or a development body pursuant to an agreement made with the Manpower Services Commission after the passing of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisons) Act 1982 which specifies the work to be undertaken by the authority or body and under which the Commission has agreed to pay the whole or part of the cost of the work so specified.".
(2) The words ("(4)") shall accordingly be substituted for the words "and (3)" in the definition of "construction or maintenance work" in subsection (1) of that section.
(3) This section extends to Scotland.").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 137A and 138A. The object of this new clause is both straightforward and beneficial: to exclude from the regulatory provisions of the general legislation on local authority direct labour organisations (DLOs) work undertaken by local authorities in relation to certain agreements with the Manpower Services Commission. It would extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
The DLO legislation is designed to impose effective controls on local authority construction and maintenance work. It requires councils: first, to compete with private contractors for a proportion of their work, rather than to let their own employees undertake it; secondly, to achieve a prescribed rate of return on the capital they employ; and thirdly, to meet various accounting requirements. Manpower Services Commission schemes are entirely different. They consist of work which would not otherwise be undertaken by an authority. No purpose would be served in requiring an authority to earn a rate of return, or to go out to competition with contractors for such MSC-sponsored work. Both local authority and building contractors' representatives agree that these schemes are irrelevant to the DLO legislation and should be specifically excluded from it. Local authorities may otherwise be deterred from taking on adult MSC Community Enterprise Programme employees; and contractors will see no purpose in tendering for schemes which the authority itself must undertake if it is to take on these employees.
I can assure the Committee that the new clause will not create any loophole by which local authorities

1249
could claim to exclude from the DLO controls other construction and maintenance work undertaken by their DLOs as part of their normal work programme, on the specious grounds that it was part of, or associated with, a MSC-sponsored scheme. The amendment ties the exemption to work specified in an agreement between the authority and the MSC. Such agreements specify the work to be done, the maximum number of employees to be taken on, the recruitment procedures for these employees, and the maximum period of employment for each individual. This means that the only work that is specified in the agreement is that which is to be undertaken by CEP employees themselves, the number of which is also part of the agreement.
Amendments Nos. 137A and 138A are consequential ones. The first takes account of the extension of the new clause to Scotland. The second is an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill, so as to admit the new clause. I beg to move.
Baroness David: We welcome the new clause.
Lord Evans of Claughton: We warmly welcome the new clause.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 112:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Power to attach conditions to permits for amusement with prizes machines
.—(1) The following paragraph shall be substituted for paragraph 9 of the Ninth Schedule to the Gaming Act 1968:
"9. On granting or renewing a permit in respect of any premises the appropriate authority may grant or renew subject to a condition limiting the number of machines to which Part III of this Act applies which may be made available for gaming on the premises together with such other conditions as are deemed appropriate".
(2) Paragraph 10 and sub-paragraphs 3(c) and 12(2) of the Ninth Schedule to the Gaming Act 1968 are hereby repealed and the words "or paragraph 9" in paragraph 22 shall be omitted.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to give power to local authorities to attach conditions to permits for amusement with prizes machines—sometimes called gambling machines. To achieve this we aim to amend paragraph 9 of Schedule 9 to the Gaming Act 1968. The primary distinctions made by law in dealing with amusements with prizes is between, first, those premises used wholly or mainly for providing amusements, and, secondly, those premises, such as cafes and public houses, in which the amusements are no more than an incidental feature. Local authorities have adequate powers to control the second; local authorities have powers to adopt policies either not to grant permits (for example, in retail shops) or to restrict the number of machines which may be installed in such premises. We are here concerned at the lack of powers available to local authorities to control premises used wholly or mainly for amusements with prizes; that is, amusement centres or arcades.
The general background is that evidence on this was submitted by the AMA to the Royal Commission
1250
on Gambling, which reported in July 1978. They were supported by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, the Association of Chief Police Officers of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the Police Federation, the Justices' Clerks' Society and certain probation officers. All these very important groups asked that the existing controls over these places should be strengthened. The chief complaint levelled against them, and more especially against arcades in the larger cities, is that they tend to become resorts for prostitutes, of young people liable to be picked up for immoral purposes and of truanting schoolchildren.
The Royal Commission recommended a wide range of improvements in the existing arrangements, including Recommendation 259:
"Local authorities should be empowered to regulate illumination, advertising and window displays, and to apply limitations to the age of those admitted to the premises".
Recommendation 260:
"Local authorities should also have power to require the display of notices and the provision of information on the premises about the conditions pertaining to the permit".
Then there were other recommendations about the time that such places could be shut, and a number of others on the subject. There is grave concern that nothing has been done to bring these recommendations into operation.
In the last two years there has been a considerable proliferation of these premises, possibly a response to the growing number of the unemployed, but more likely, probably, to their being so profitable. The AMA recently conducted a survey of all metropolitan districts and London boroughs. The responses showed widespread concern. The sort of conditions that authorities considered most important related to hours of operation, provision of music, supervision of the premises, resort by criminals or prostitutes and the dishonest operation of machines, illumination and display of notices required by the local authority and admission of children.
Regarding age limits, authorities were generally in favour of a ban on unaccompanied children. Experience of voluntary bans on unaccompanied children varied, but several authorities expressed their dissatisfaction as to the inadequacy of voluntary bans. One referred to a case as follows. It appears that in May 1980, while interviewing a 15-year old schoolboy reported as missing from home, it came to the notice of the police that the youth had stolen his father's building society passbook and had made a number of withdrawals to the value of £350. The youth and three other youths attended at one of the particular premises and spent a large part of the money there. Significantly, the police say that since this offence they have made a check of the premises and found many youths frequenting them when they should have been attending school.
Another authority in the past refused a permit for amusement with prizes machines on the ground that,
"this council would have no power to control the admittance of children to the establishment".
The applicant appealed to the Crown Court, and his appeal was upheld. In respect of this particular ground for refusal, the judge stated that Parliament had not seen fit to allow licensing authorities to

1251
make conditions with regard to juveniles. We are striving to change that, and if this amendment is passed we shall do so.
Another authority in whose area is a holiday resort point out that they have defined a resort area within which amusement arcade facilities are considered to be appropriate. Obviously, any policy on the admission of children must be variable to reflect differences in the nature and location of such establishments. Local authorities are aware of, and responsive to, local variations, and they should be trusted to implement their powers on a differential basis. They know the nature of their problems. We all know that children mature at different ages, and it is not always easy to identify those under 16; but control is more likely to be effective if a ban is in operation, as it is in the case of public houses.
Are the Government going to bring in a Bill to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission? A week or so ago I asked Lord Rothschild whether he thought they would, and he said he did not think there was any chance. Perhaps we shall hear tonight. We think it important that urgent action is taken to extend control over amusement arcades in the interests of young people and urban communities. The new clause sets out to empower at least the imposition of conditions to deal with such aspects as I have referred to, although the Rothchild Committee recommendation went far wider. I beg to move.
Lord Belstead: I am worried by the proposals put forward by the noble Baroness in this amendment because Schedule 9, which this amendment seeks to amend, specifically exempts from blanket controls premises used wholly or mainly for the provision of amusements by means of gaming machines. The reason for that is that the Government at the time that Schedule 9 was legislated felt that it might be possible if there was a blanket ban for the business concerned to be put wholly in jeopardy. Having said that, the Government are aware that some local authorities feel strongly that their existing powers to control the proliferation of amusement arcades are inadequate and the Home Office is in touch with the local authority associations on this matter.
Some constructive recommendations for amending legislation are now being considered but the Government are not yet in a position to put forward firm proposals. I am afraid that I cannot respond to the noble Baroness's direct question on whether there will be legislation to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Gambling, because that will he something which the Government must consider for a future legislative programme. I have to say on this amendment that I do not think it would be acceptable to give local authorities unlimited power to impose conditions proposed by these amendments and to remove the safeguards which Parliament thought it right to provide for the amusement trade. I repeat that we are now looking most seriously at recommendations for amending legislation.
Baroness David: I thank the Minister for that reply. I shall have to study it in relation to Schedule 9(9) of the Gaming Act. I am grateful for what he has
1252
said about the Government recognising that there is a problem and that some action is being considered. I was not quite sure whether the action was going to happen by Report stage or whether it would happen in separate legislation at another time. I should like to have the answer to that before I withdraw the amendment.
Lord Belstead: I regret to say that it is extremely doubtful whether it would be by Report stage. I have no briefing to that effect.
Baroness David: I shall withdraw the amendment and shall consider what I might do at the next stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.12 p.m.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 113:
After Clause 32, insert the following new clause:
("Occasional sales
.—(1) The council of a county or a London borough may resolve that the following provisions of this section shall apply to their county or borough; and if a council so resolve and within 14 days of the passing of the resolution give notice of the resolution by advertising in a local newspaper circulating in their area, those provisions shall come into force in their county or district on the day specified in the resolution.
(2) A resolution under this section may be rescinded by a subsequent resolution made in a like manner except that in relation to the time when it takes effect a resolution under this subsection shall take effect on such date as may be specified in it being any date subsequent to the making of the resolution.
(3) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires, "occasional sale" means an event at which articles are offered for sale to the public by one or more sellers in the course of a trade or business on premises of which the sellers are not in rateable occupation and which are not used by those sellers for the sale of those articles on more than 5 consecutive days or for 4 or more days during any calendar month.
(4) Subject to subsection (5) below, any person who intends to hold an occasional sale to which this section applies shall give to the local weights and measures authority not less than 7 days before the holding of the intended sale notice of his intention to hold it.
(5) Where any person intends to hold an occasional sale to which this section applies less than 7 days after forming an intention to hold such a sale, he shall give notice of his intention to hold it to the local weights and measures authority and to the owners of the premises on which the intended sale is to be held within 24 hours of entering into a contract to use any such premises or of issuing any advertising material concerning the intended sale whichever is earlier.
(6) A notice given under subsection (4) or (5) above shall be in writing and shall specify—

(a) the proposed date, location, time of commencement and expected duration of the intended sale;

(b) the name and business address of every person who it is proposed shall promote or conduct the intended sale; and

(c) in general terms the type or types of articles to be offered for sale at the intended sale.

(7) If any person discloses to any person any information obtained by him in pursuance of this section he shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200 except where the disclosure of information is made—

(a) for the purpose of facilitating the performances of any functions under this section, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968, the Fair Trading Act 1973, any Minister of the Crown or any enforcement authority; or

(b) in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence or for the purpose of any criminal proceedings; or (c) for the purposes of any civil proceedings.

(8) Any person who promotes, conducts or assists in the conduct of any occasional sale shall—

(a) for the duration of the sale permit entry on the premises on or in which the sale is held by any person duly authorised in that behalf by the occupier of the premises; and

1253

(b) display in a prominent position or in the premises, and state on all notices, leaflets and posters distributed by him or on his behalf in connection with the sale, the full name and business address of—

(i) himself; and

(ii) every other person concerned in the promotion or conduct of the sale.

(9) Any person who contravenes any provision of this section shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(10) Nothing in this section applies to—

(a) a market held by virtue of a grant from the Crown or of prescription or under statutory authority;

(b) a market wholly or mainly for the sale or auction of farm livestock or deadstock or the contents of a building; or

(c) a sale by auction of the contents of a building the majority of which have been used by the occupiers of that building for not less than 12 months;

(d) a sale conducted by persons who have been exempted in writing by the local weights and measures authority from notifying occasional sales subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified by the authority;

(e) any event promoted or conducted by a body registered as a charity under section 4 of the Charities Act 1960 or exempted from registration by virtue of subjection (4) of that section or qualified for registration under the Recreational Charities Act 1958; or

(f)any event held or for the benefit of a body existing for learned, educational, political or sporting objectives.

(11) Where an offence under this section committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body corporate or any person who was purporting to act in such capacity, he, as the body corporate, shall be guilty of the offence.
(12) Where the affairs of a body corporate are managed by its members the foregoing subsection shall apply to the acts and defaults of a member in connection with his functions of management as if he were a director of the body corporate.
(13) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the person charged to prove that he took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence.
(14) If in any case the defence provided under subsection (13) above involves the allegation that the commission of the offence was due to the act or default of another person, the person charged shall not, without leave of the court, be entitled to rely on that defence unless, within a period ending seven clear days before the hearing, he has served on the prosecutor a notice in writing giving such information as was then in his possession identifying, or assisting in the identification of, that other person.").
The noble Viscount said: I apologise for the length of this amendment, which is appalling to look at. I hope my remarks will be briefer. In recent years there has grown up a practice of holding one-day occasional sales promoted by itinerant traders. These sales are set up to promote the sale of a limited variety of articles and are advertised by leaflets distributed in the immediate vicinity. There is no doubt that there is a considerable number of reputable operators of these sales, and also no doubt there is a considerable number of dishonest ones. A survey recently taken of 22 county councils showed that in two years there were over 4,000 one-day sales which gave rise to 840 complaints relating to such things as unsafe and dangerous electrical goods being sold. These complaints resulted in fines totalling over £22,000 being imposed, with three suspended sentences. They relate to a number of Acts in the weights and measures field with which I will not weary the Committee.
From the enforcement point of view, one of the major difficulties is in establishing the correct name and address of the promoter responsible. All too frequently the name and address proves to be false. At the present
1254
time, there are outstanding in East Sussex alone seven summonses and four warrants which cannot be served for this reason.
Another difficulty is that the operators saturate an area with sales leaflets a few hours before the sale begins. The leaflets do not contain any name or address of the person promoting the sale. The first knowledge that the weights and measures authority have is the complaint which they receive the following morning, by which time it is too late.
Clause 32 of this Bill relates to temporary markets. It might be thought that this clause sets out to deal with the mischief which I have tried to outline. Unfortunately, this is not the case because these one-day sales are generally held in hotels, village halls, et cetera, and they will not be covered by the definition in subsection (6) of the clause. It is for this reason that I am moving that this further clause be added to the Bill.
The definitions in subsection (10) of my clause, exempted sales and other such worthy causes, have been extended in accordance with the suggestions made by the Department of Trade. For this clause 1 have considerable support from the Institute of Trading Standards Administration, the Society of Chief Trading Standards Officers—who are, not unnaturally, concerned with this matter—and also the National Chamber of Trade. I realise that in subsection (5) 24 hours may be too late for the notice that is required, but at least it would mean that the name of the applicant would have to become available and future enforcement must be possible.
It may well be thought, and perhaps many of the Committee do think, that the doctrine caveat emptor could be applied and that people taken in by these one-day sales have only themselves to blame. We may also feel that there has been much too much consumer protection legislation and unnecessary detail in recent years. I am persuaded by evidence from many county councils that there is a real problem here. Many people are being cheated by dishonest persons and the case is made out that this clause would be helpful to the enforcement of weights and measures legislation passed by Parliament. I beg to move.
Lord Drumalbyn: I should like to support my noble friend. This is a problem which has come my way in the past, mainly through the control of advertising. However, this is not a question of the control of advertising. It works in this way: the operator of the occasional sale has to give notice in some way or another. He can do this by advertising in newspapers or by distributing leaflets. The experience that I had was that the dishonest traders were prone to advertise at the very last moment so that the newspaper had no opportunity of checking the advertisement, or the traders distributed the notices of the occasional sale at the very last moment.
This is to some extent a question of educating those who are making premises available to these sales, be they hotels or halls. I know that it is felt that the only way to tackle this is to get these operators to notify the trading standards authorities, the weights and measures authorities, as soon as they contract to make the premises available. It is, I know realised

1255
that many of those who make the premises available are working on a voluntary basis, be they for church halls or other places of that kind, and it is not intended to expose people of that kind to undertake an obligation which, if they fail to fulfil it, makes them liable to prosecution. That is by no means necessary.
In this kind of field you have, on the one hand, to contrast the shopkeeper, who is by nature static and whose premises are regularly inspected—very often at least once a year—by the local weights and measures authorities and who is exposed to prosecution if he fails in any way to comply with his obligations under the various trading standards and weights and measures Acts. Why should those who have no static location and who move around, very often giving false names and addresses, be exempt from the weights and measures authorities who are there to protect the public? Why should they be immune because it is thought to be onerous to place obligations on those people who are letting the premises?
It is a perfectly simple matter and the weights and measures authorities are perfectly willing to undertake this. It is a comparatively easy matter—a question of identifying the hotels and the halls where sales of this kind are customarily arranged, and persuading those who do the letting to let them know when the sales are to take place. There is no need to attach any sanction to not being told, and in many cases it has to be admitted that any operation of this kind cannot give 100 per cent. coverage. But that is no reason for the Government not to allow local authorities to take steps which will, as far as possible, give protection to the public. That is what is being asked for in this amendment, and I should like to support it very strongly.
Lord Belstead: Of course, I take this amendment very seriously, moved as it is by my noble friend Lord Ridley and supported by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, but I am advised that one-day traders are already subject to the same statutory requirements as normal traders and that their activities are monitored by trading standards officers. Successful prosecutions have been brought against dishonest traders and I think this clause would be onerous to operate. As drafted, it is open to two main objections. In the first place, we think it would place unnecessary burdens on bona fide traders whose activities give no cause for concern. Subsection (3) embraces a number of such activities: for example, a demonstration of a product in a department store or an exhibitor selling his products at a reputable exhibition and also what is sometimes called party-plan selling.
Secondly, the clause could readily be circumvented by the unscrupulous trader. He may avoid the requirement to give notice by booking a hall for five days and then selling out on the first day. I will content myself with giving that single example. Since the clause imposes extra controls on the honest trader, without ensuring that the unscrupulous one is tightly enough regulated, I do not think this amendment will do as it stands. I do not know whether my noble friends would like to put their heads together, perhaps with me, to see whether there is a way forward. But as
1256
the amendment stands, we do not think that it is acceptable.
Lord Underhill: Before the noble Viscount replies, I raised this very matter on the Civic Government (Scotland) Bill because there was no item on this matter included in that Bill. I was told that the matter was receiving consideration by the Department of Trade in connection with this English Bill. I hope that the noble Lord's reply means that the Department of Trade have considered the matter and decided not to take any action, because, for all the reasons advanced by the noble Viscount, one has to protect the innocent people, and they are the people who are deluded by these one-day traders. If the Government consider that the amendment as drafted could be unfair to the honest trader, I hope they will take the amendment back and bring forward their own amendment which will tackle the unscrupulous person at the same time as protecting the honest trader.
Lord Drumalbyn: With great respect, I fail to see how it is unfair to anybody. How is the honest trader in any way disadvantaged by the trading standards authorities being informed of the time when he will appear in a particular town and occupy premises there? I cannot see any reason at all why that should not be done. So far as honest traders are concerned, they generally go back again and again to the same premises quite regularly. They will be well-known and, very likely, the weights and measures inspectors will not bother to visit them. But what one is trying to get at is the less reputable traders, to make certain that some kind of notice, at any rate, of their intention to have an occasional sale is notified to the local weights and measures authorities, so that they can protect the public.
Lord Belstead: I am grateful to my noble friend for that extra advice. Certainly, I or my staff will look at what has been said, but I do not think that this is necessarily getting in a watertight way at the dishonest trader. That is one of the reasons which leads to the reservations which have been expressed for the Government by myself.
Viscount Ridley: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, for their valuable support in what I think the Minister recognises is a genuine problem. I readily accept that the drafting of an amendment of this length is bound to be at fault in some way or another, and that it therefore needs altering. If my noble friend is seriously suggesting that discussions could be held to make this watertight, then I shall be very pleased to enter into talks with him before the next stage. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 [Power of local authorities to insure voluntary assistants]:
10.27 p.m.
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 40, line 26, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that a local authority may make provision for sums equivalent to the

1257
sums mentioned in subsection (1) of this section by means of a fund established under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to this Act, and any sum so provided shall be treated in all respects as if it were a sum received by the local authority under a contract with authorised insurers in accordance with this section.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I shall win your Lordships' prize for the briefest speech in moving an amendment. Employees are safeguarded against personal accident by many local authorities, by way of insurance funds which are established under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972. There is no doubt about the ability to do that and about the validity of the contract, because there is obviously an insurable interest. Here we are dealing with voluntary assistants and, therefore, there may not be an insurable interest, which I imagine is the reason for this clause.
If your Lordships will look at the clause, you will find that it deals only with a contract with any "authorised insurer", and the purpose of this amendment is to make absolutely certain that an insurance fund of the same nature as that which I spoke about before, set up by a local authority, would equally make the contract valid and would be permissible. If the noble Lord the Minister can give me that assurance—and it will obviously be on record—then we need not have any further bother. If he cannot give me that assurance then, quite obviously, one would have to consider putting down an amendment at Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The difficulty here is that the amendment is open to two different interpretations, each of which will lead to unacceptable results. The first is that it would enable a local authority to establish a fund for the purpose of making payments to a voluntary assistant who has, for example, been injured, pending the receipt of a payment from an insurance company with whom, and for which purpose, the local authority had entered into a contract of insurance. The second is that it enables a local authority, irrespective of the new powers which will be conferred by Clause 33, to establish a fund to meet expenditure in the making of payments to voluntary assistants who are injured, killed or contract an illness as a result of the assistance which they offer to that authority. If the first interpretation is the correct one, the amendment is not desirable. A local authority might make a payment out of a fund to an assistant in the event of an injury—
Lord Mishcon: May I help the noble Lord the Minister, who is always so courteous. I am looking at the clock in the same way as he is. The purpose is not the first one that he is talking about.
Lord Bellwin: If the second interpretation is the correct one, then there are other difficulties. While a voluntary assistant doubtless plays a useful role in helping a local authority in the discharge of its functions, it should be recalled that a local authority has no statutory functions in relation to these assistants. They are what Clause 33 says they are—that is, volunteers. If a local authority has no statutory functions in relation to these assistants, how can it be argued that a fund which can only be established by an authority in connection with its functions can
1258
be established to meet expenditure in relation to persons in connection with whom it has no functions?
If my doubts as to the legality of such funds are well founded, then a declaratory provision of the kind now proposed will have no substantive effect. It is on this basis that we wonder whether the noble Lord wants to proceed with his amendment. Because of the hour it might be better for the noble Lord to study what has been said. If he would like to discuss it with me, then he knows I should be only too glad to do so, perhaps at a more relaxed moment.
Lord Mishcon: As always, the Minister is most courteous and helpful. However, I wonder whether he could shortly reply to this question (if he cannot, because of the lateness of the hour, then obviously we can do it by correspondence): I do not quite follow at the moment how the payment of an insurance premium by a local authority to an authorised insurer can be a proper exercise of a local authority power whereas the setting aside of its own insurance fund is not. If the noble Lord the Minister wants time to reflect upon that I shall understand, though if, with his usual agility of mind, he can answer immediately I shall be most grateful.
Lord Bellwin: I imagine that the point turns on the matter of a local authority's position in relation to the volunteer, but certainly this is a matter which we must take up separately. And, of course, I gladly undertake to do so.
Lord Mishcon: In view of the kindness of the Minister in promising to communicate with me upon this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 40, line 35, after ("includes") insert ("(a)").
The noble Lord said: With this amendment I will also speak to Amendment No. 116. Amendment No. 116 will extend, at their request, this clause to the Common Council of the City of London and to the Council of the Isles of Scilly. The powers of a local authority under the Local Government Act 1972 have been applied by order to the Council of the Isles of Scilly. This clause adds another section to that Act, and it is considered appropriate to apply the new section to that council. Amendment No. 115 is a drafting amendment consequential on the previous amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 40, line 37, after ("Act") insert—
("—

(a) the Common Council of the City of London; and

(b) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Viscount Ridley Viscount Ridley moved Amendment No. 117:
Page 40, line 46, at end insert ("and includes any officer or member of a voluntary or other organisation which provides services or facilities of the kind provided by the local authority in pursuance of its functions or to which the local authority makes any financial contribution").
The noble Viscount said: This is a very simple amendment. Its purpose is to extend the powers of this very important clause to cover the probation and after-care committees which, as your Lordships know, work very carefully and in very close co-operation with county councils as social service authorities. They attach great importance to the insurance of voluntary assistants, which is effected by virtue of the provisions of various existing local Acts. The circumstances in which voluntary assistants in the probation service work and the types of work which they undertake are all such as to lead county councils to feel that insurance cover against personal accident, disease or sickness contracted while engaged in his or her voluntary work is highly desirable. I am sure there would be no complaint about that.
At present there is no statutory power for a county council to provide this cover for persons who are not employees of a local authority or voluntary assistants engaged in the work of a local authority as apart from that of the probation and after-care committee. As I have said, my amendment seeks to extend the powers of this clause to those persons. I understand that the Home Office have indicated that it is acceptable in principle and I hope, for once, that my drafting will be acceptable in practice.
Lord Bellwin: We are sympathetic to this amendment, in so far as it covers probation service volunteers but feel—I am sorry to have to say to my noble friend—that the amendment as drafted, much as I should have liked to accept it, goes far too wide. If my noble friend will withdraw it, the Government will consider introducing a suitable amendment at Report stage, which will be within the scope of the Bill. If so, it will extend the power to insure voluntary assistants to probation service volunteers only.
Viscount Ridley: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and will withdraw my amendment on that assumption.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 34 [Lost and uncollected property]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 117A:
Page 41, line at beginning insert, ("Without prejudice to the provisions of any other enactment, whether passed before or after this Act, or any other rule of law.").
The noble Baroness said: In speaking to Amendment No. 117A, I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 117B, 118A, 118B, 119A, 120A and 123B. Clause 34 makes provision for the disposal of property which has been lost by its owner and been found on local authority premises, or which has been deposited with a local authority but not collected by the owner. Amendments Nos. 117A, 118B, 119A, 120A and 123B are consequential upon Amendment No. 118A. The purpose of Amendment No. 118A is to apply the provisions of the clause for the disposal of lost and uncollected property to property which has been abandoned or which constitutes a trespass by being left on local authority premises without consent.
Difficulties are frequently caused by property being left, sometimes in considerable quantities, on local authority premises by outgoing tenants, licensees, mortgagors and squatters, some of whom also leave owing money—for instance, the rent. The property has to be stored until arrangements can be made for the owners to collect it or until they agree to its disposal by the council, or such period of time has elapsed—which can be considerable—as will enable the presumption to be made that the property has been abandoned.
Particular problems arise from trespassing animals—for example, horses belonging to gipsies which have been found trespassing at Thamesmead and elsewhere. The Animals Act 1971 contains provisions enabling the landowner to deal with straying animals, but these provisions do not cover leaving animals behind on land as a deliberate trespass. The council has had to round up trespassing horses and require owners to pay the costs, including veterinary and stabling fees, but its right to dispose of the property if the owners refuse to pay is doubtful.
So far as the proposals contained in Clause 34 are concerned, there seems nothing in principle to distinguish between, on the one hand, lost and uncollected property and, on the other, abandoned and trespassing property. Bringing the latter within the provisions would be a help and save money for local authorities. Where a local authority takes possession of premises in the exercise of its powers as a mortgagee and finds there goods belonging to the mortgagor, it is sometimes possible to dispose of the goods under Section 12 of the Torts Act 1977: Bailees' power of sale.
The purpose of Amendment No. 117A in making Clause 34 apply without prejudice to any other enactment is to preserve for local authorities the ability to use the 1977 Act or any local Act of which they might avail themselves where the circumstances of the case enable the authority to do so.
Since the Bill was first presented to the House of Commons there has become available the judgment of the Court of Appeal on Parker v. British Airways Board, which shows that the finder of lost property can, depending on the circumstances of the case, have a better claim to the property than the occupier of the premises on which the property has been found. Subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 34 of the Bill provide for the vesting of lost property in the local authority, and, apart from what appears to be a discretionary power in subsection (8), there seems to be no provision for what might be a better claim to the property by the finder of it during the periods described in subsections (4) and (5), before the property vests in the local authority.
The purpose of Amendment No. 117A in making Clause 34 apply without prejudice to any other rule of law—for example, such as that to be found in the Parker case—is an attempt to provide some safeguard for the rights of a finder. The references to "keep" and "keeping" in Amendments Nos. 119A and 120A are necessary because "store" and "storing" where used in the clause do not seem appropriate in relation to the horses referred to in connection with Amendment No. 118A. Amendments 118 and 12313 are drafting amendments required by Amendment No. 118A. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Perhaps I should mention to your Lordships in taking this group of amendments that when we reach Amendment No. 118B, if that is agreed to it will not be possible to call Amendment No. 119.
Lord Bellwin: I, too, speak to this amendment and to Amendments Nos. 117B, 118A, 118B, 123A and 123B. This clause is intended to confer on a local authority a clear and uncontroversial title to lost property or property simply left on local authority premises by its owner, and it could defeat the object of the clause to make these provisions subject or without prejudice to any rule of law to the contrary. The remedy to the owner of property under this clause is the requirement on the local authority to serve notice on him, except where it is impossible to do so, requesting him to collect his property. Similarly, there may be a number of enactments which deal, for example, with lost property. However, the provisions of this clause are intended to confer the general power referred to on a local authority irrespective of any enactment to the contrary, except in three specific cases. These are (a) property found on local authority aerodromes or in aircraft on such aerodromes; (b) property found on public service vehicles; and (c) property found on any premises belonging to the London Transport Executive or under the control of the Executive. In all these cases special statutory provisions are made which are not affected by this clause; otherwise the clause will apply as mentioned.
So far as the amendments are concerned, with regard to property left on local authority premises either by trespassers or by outgoing tenants or licensees in the circumstances mentioned, it is considered that the clause already makes adequate provision. Under the clause property can come into the possession of a local authority for the purposes of the clause, either where it is lost by the owner on local authority premises or where it is left there without permission.
The position in relation to property left by mortgagors in cases where the local authority takes possession under the mortgage is different. The clause would not provide for such property, and we do not consider that it should. It seems unjustified for local authorities to have rights which are not enjoyed by other mortgagees over personal property left in houses. There seems no reason why the local authority as mortgagee in possession should not come to come arrangement with the mortgagor for the removal or disposal of property. I realise that these matters, like so many others, required consideration, and I am sure that the noble Baroness, if I know her, and I think I do, would like to do just that.
Baroness David: I suspect that to be a not very satisfactory answer. I should certainly like to look at it when it is in print and to consider what I should do. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117B not moved.]
10.43 p.m.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 41, line 5, leave out ("such").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may speak to Amendments Nos. 119, 120 and 123 with this amendment. Amendment No. 118 is a drafting amendment, consequential on an amendment made to the clause in another place. Nos. 119 and 120 are also drafting amendments. Amendment No. 123 will, at their request, extend the clause to the Common Council of the City of London. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 118A and 118B not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 41, line 22, leave out ("they find property which has been lost") and insert ("property comes into their possession").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119A not moved.]
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 119B:
Page 41, line 40, leave out first ("the") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 120:
Page 42, line 10, leave out from ("making") to ("and") in line 11 and insert ("inquiries for the purposes of this section or serving any notice under subsection (2) above").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 120A not moved.]
Lord Evans of Claughton Lord Evans of Claughton moved Amendment No. 121:
Page 42, leave out line 15.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 121. I move this amendment with a certain optimism even at 10.45 p.m., because it is to restore to the Bill clauses, to cover lost property at aerodromes, which were in the original Bill in another place and were removed there, in what is now believed to be the false belief that such powers inserted in the original Bill were not needed because of the Civil Aviation Act 1968, Section 3; and the Civil Aviation Act 1980, Section 26. Those advising me and the other noble Lords involved in this amendment—and it has the support of the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities and, I believe, the Association of District Councils—feel that there is a serious doubt whether by-laws created under the Civil Aviation Acts can, in fact, vest the property in the local authority or in the aerodrome so that it can give good title to a purchaser.
Since this doubt exists, I would have thought that it would be appropriate to restore to the Bill a clause that was originally there and which would clearly give the same powers with regard to property left in airports as is given to other property left in other local authority premises. Therefore, it would seem to me that it would be useful, and a great saving in unnecessary administrative cost in proving title, if the amendment were accepted and the original clause restored to its pristine glory from its first period in another place. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: The effect of the proposed amendment would be, as has been said, to extend the provisions of Clause 34 to property lost at a local authority aerodrome or on an aircraft on such an aerodrome. I should remind your Lordships that, in their wisdom, various Governments have recognised that special problems arise at aerodromes which are not found in other walks of everyday life. In recognition of this, specific provision has been made for the regulation and operation of aerodromes and the conduct of persons while on aerodromes. In the case of local authority aerodromes, by-laws may be made—and, indeed, have been made—under the provisions of the Civil Aviation Acts 1968 and 1980. The latter Act relates specifically to property lost at local authority aerodromes and in aircraft at those aerodromes.
I think that you Lordships will agree that, in view of the existence of current legislation specifically designed to deal with the problem, it would be unnecessary, and indeed perhaps confusing, to accept an amendment which would have the effect of providing two pieces of statute dealing with the same issue in a different way. That is why the Government cannot accept the proposed amendment.
I would add that if the proposed amendment arises from concern that the 1980 Civil Aviation Act provisions do not extend to the vesting of property, or to the monies realised on its sale, then the correct procedure would be to seek an amendment to the provisions of that Act.
Viscount Ridley: I should like to add my support to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton. I asked him to move this amendment because his grasp of these matters, as a lawyer, is far greater than mine. But he did say—and I do not think that my noble friend quite answered his remarks—that there is doubt as to whether the existing Acts cover this problem. Therefore, if there is doubt, would it not be better at least to look at the whole subject again, to see that the doubt is removed in the interests of everybody concerned?
Lord Bellwin: Certainly I would say to my noble friend that I will gladly undertake to do that. I am advised that, in fact, there is no such doubt. But certainly I take the point and we shall look at it again. Should what my noble friend says be correct, then of course we would want to do something about it.
Lord Evans of Claughton: I may be a lawyer, but I think that the noble Viscount has a much more persuasive style with the noble Lord the Minister. The fact of the matter is that the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, of which my own local authority is, much to its great expense, a member—it loses nearly £2 million a year on its airport—has carefully examined the model by-laws relating to lost property at airports which the Department of Trade has produced under the powers contained in the Civil Aviation Acts. It is the Department of Trade that has been insisting that in connection with the word "disposal" one cannot include a vesting of the property in the owners of the airport. If, then, they seek to create by-laws to enable them to dispose of property which is not vested in them, they might well find that
1264
they will have claims—perhaps spurious, perhaps fraudulent claims—which they cannot defeat, because they cannot show that the property is vested in them.
It may be all very well for the noble Lord the Minister to say that we should seek to move amendments to the Civil Aviation Acts, but he knows jolly well how difficult that would be for us to do. I should have thought that it might be a great saving in money and in administrative difficulty if the Government would, as I believe the Minister has now indicated, be willing to look at this to see whether they share the doubts that apparently the Department of Trade, the local authorities and the Joint Airports Committee have. If, as I gather from his assent and his happy, smiling face, he does say that, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 123: Page 42, line 26, at end insert—
("and
(c) the Common Council of the City of London;").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 123A and 123B not moved.]
Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Belstead Lord Belstead moved Amendment No. 124:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Port health districts and port health authorities. 1936 c. 49.
—(l) In section 2(2) of the Public Health Act 1936 (constitution of port health district under port health authority)—

(a) for the words "(i) constitute a port health district consisting of the whole or part of a port "there shall be substituted the words" constitute a port health district consisting of any area, being a port or part of a port, or of two or more such areas, or consisting of such an area or two or more such areas together with so much (being either the whole or any part or parts) of the district or districts of one or more riparian authorities as (not being comprised in that area or any of those areas, as the case may be) is specified in the order"; and

(b) paragraph (ii) shall be omitted.

(2) In section 3(1)(a) of that Act (which specifies the waters and land over which a port health authority is to have jurisdiction) for the words from "waters" to "so specified" there shall be substituted the words "waters and land within the port health district"o
(3) In section 41 of the London Government Act 1963 (port health authority for the Port of London)—

(a) in subsection (1), after the words "Port of London" there shall be inserted the words "together with so much (being either the whole or any part or parts) of the district or districts of one or more riparian authorities as (not being comprised in the Port of London) may be specified in an order made by the Secretary of State";

(b) in paragraph (a) of that subsection, for the words from "waters" to the end of the paragraph there shall be substituted the words "waters and land within that port health district";

(c) in paragraph (c) of that subsection, for the words from "mentioned in paragraph (a)" to "so mentioned" there shall be substituted the words "and land within that port health district"; and

(d) at the end of the section there shall be added the following subsection:—

"(4) In this section "riparian authority" means a riparian authority within the meaning of Part I of the Public Health Act 1936 as amended by subsection (3) of this section.".
(4) The amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above shall not affect the validity of any order made under section 2(2)

1265
of the Public Health Act 1936, or under section 41 of the London Government Act 1963, before the passing of this Act; but the power conferred by section 9(2) of the said Act of 1936, or by section 90 of the said Act of 1963, to amend or vary orders shall include power to amend or vary any order so made so as to have effect in accordance with the provisions of the Act in question as amended by this section.").
The noble Lord said: The effect of this amendment is two-fold. First, the Secretary of State will be able to constitute one riparian authority port health authority for a port health district comprising the whole or part of one or more customs port. Prior to this amendment, only a joint board comprising representatives of two or more riparian authorities could be constituted port health authority for a port health district, consisting, of any two areas being ports or parts of ports. In large local authority districts, since local government reorganisation, the fact that customs port boundaries do not bear any relation to local authority boundaries has led to difficulties in the current programme of reconstituting port health authorities.
Secondly, the amendment clarifies that in order to carry out their functions port health authorities have jurisdiction over parts of the district of the riparian authorities. The amendment will ensure that the whole of the area over which the port health authority has jurisdiction will be the defined port health district. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Denham: I think that this is probably a suitable time to break off for the night. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.