Lords Sitting of 23 January 1986

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

European Airlines: Competition
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, further to their Answer on 21st November (H.L. Deb. col. 654) concerning the European Commission and European airlines, they will make a statement on the decisions reached and recommendations made at the informal meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers held on 9th January.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, informal councils are intended to bring members to a closer understanding of each other's positions and cannot reach formal decisions. The meeting on 9th January, which my honourable friend the Minister for Aviation and I attended, showed that there is a growing consensus behind our efforts to secure greater efficiency and competitiveness in European air services. We again stressed our determination to achieve this and were particularly strongly supported by the European Commission.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, while accepting that the Government wish to make more speedy progress on this matter, but remembering that the European Commission said that it would intervene if the Councils of Ministers could not make necessary decisions, may I ask the Minister what action the Commission is now taking? Secondly, as the French and ourselves have recently reached the momentous agreement on the Channel Tunnel, do the Government think that this could be a spur for further and more speedy developments on air transport? Does the Minister think that we could ask the French to join with us in a special effort to reach more concrete decisions at the next meeting of the Ministers, which I believe is on 27th March?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, at the meeting in The Hague on 9th January both the commissioner for competition matters and the commissioner for transport were present in The Hague and made it clear that the Commission has now started detailed preparation of possible court cases against member states. Such cases may become essential if progress remains blocked in the council. I hope that the Commission's latest moves will persuade other member states, including France, of the urgent need for quick discussions which introduce real competition. Nothing less will do, in our view.
328
I can advise the noble Baroness and the House that it now looks as though the next council will be on 17th March rather than the 27th.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the noble Earl has referred to the stress on competition. Does he recall that on both the last occasion, the 21st November, and the previous occasion on which the noble Baroness put this Question—on 24th October I think it was—I stressed the need for co-ordination as well as competition, and the noble Earl agreed that that was the proper point? Does the noble Earl recall that? Was an emphasis laid on co-ordination at this council meeting as well as on competition?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I well remember what the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me on both occasions. There was a general discussion; but we must proceed with competition and co-ordination at the same time. We cannot do one without the other, as the noble Lord said. But competition is the most important first step.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, can the Minister say whether at the meeting on 17th March account will be taken of what he has told us as to what the Commission is now doing, and whether we can expect further action on that point?
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I think we shall have to wait and see what happens on 17th March. My understanding is that the Commission are taking matters a stage further.

Corporal Punishment and European Court Ruling
3.9 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what they intend to do to comply with the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Campbell and Cosans case.
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are still considering this matter. An announcement will be made as soon as a decision has been reached.
Baroness David: My Lords, it is very disappointing to have exactly the same Answer that I had three months ago, and more than six months after the Education (Corporal Punishment) Bill was withdrawn. Is the noble Earl aware that only yesterday another corporal punishment case was declared admissible by the European Commission of Human Rights—the L Family v. United Kingdom? If these cases go on being heard it is at very great expense to the United Kingdom, quite apart from anything else. Will the Minister try to hurry up some legislation to get rid of corporal punishment altogether? Can we expect there to be a clause in the school management Bill, which I understand is to be taken in this House early in March?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness is disappointed when the Government give a consistent reply to a persistent Question.
With regard to the case which was reported yesterday, the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the complaint has not yet been formally notified to the Government. When it is, it will be carefully considered. I am afraid that the noble Baroness, like me, will have to wait and see what is in the forthcoming Bill on education.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that the history of this case illustrates the slow and unsatisfactory working of the current machinery for the resolution of human rights issues? Does the noble Earl recall—and I am sure that, delving into the inexhaustible quarry of his knowledge, he does—that it was 1976 when Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Cosans submitted their complaints, 1980 when the Commission reported, 1982 when the European Court pronounced judgment?—and the matter is still outstanding. Is this not clear and convincing evidence of the need to provide judicial remedies in the courts of the United Kingdom? Will Ministers now review, revise and rationalise their hitherto disappointingly negative approach to the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Bill?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Campbell and Cosans was about respect for philosophical convictions and did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that, at a time when there are grave problems of discipline in our schools, it is more to the point to give freedom to teachers to take the measures which they think desirable than to put the decision in the hands of a clutch of Continental jurists remote from the scene and gorging themselves on pâté de foie gras in Strasbourg?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I feel quite weak! As your Lordships know, I am on a very strict diet, and even the thought of pâté de foie gras fills me with such visions that I do not know whether I can answer the question! However, my noble friend has a very serious point. It is the Government's view that the decision on whether or not to use corporal punishment is best left to the professional judgment of teachers and to the wishes of parents.
Lord Mulley: My Lords, as the noble Earl has stressed the consistency of the Government's position, let me point out that he has on more than one occasion given an assurance that it is the Government's intention to comply with the European Court's judgment. As next month will be—as the noble Lord opposite has mentioned—the fourth anniversary of the judgment, would that not be an appropriate occasion upon which to introduce the very necessary small piece of legislation to give effect to it?
The Earl of Swinton: Yes, my Lords, I can reiterate that it is the Government's intention to comply with the ruling. However, as I said in answer to my noble friend earlier, the particular case was about respect for philosophical convictions and did not call for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Lord Renton: My Lords, does not the decision in this and some other cases reveal that the European Court of Human Rights is overruling our own laws from time to time and requiring us to change them? Has not the time come for us to reconsider our commitment in this matter?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords, I would not agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. The European Court of Human Rights was established under the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom was one of the architects of the convention and was the first to ratify it. We cannot just opt out because we do not always agree with the judgments that we find inconvenient.
Lord Elystan-Morgan: My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that when the ill-fated Bill was brought to this House in the last Session of Parliament, the Government gave the clear undertaking that it should conform with the ruling of the European Court? Is the resolution of the Government now any weaker than it was in the last Session of Parliament? If it is not any weaker, will the noble Earl kindly give an assurance that a Bill will be proposed to deal with this all-important matter in this Session?
The Earl of Swinton: No, my Lords. The decision of this House turned round the Bill which the Government considered was in keeping with the European Court, and that is why we are considering what action to take.
Lord O'Hagan: My Lords, as my noble friend has not yet fully answered a question put earlier, will he now reaffirm Her Majesty's Government's commitment to the European Convention on Human Rights and say whether, in fulfilling that commitment, it would not be simpler if we incorporated the European Convention into British domestic law so that these embarrassing cases arose at home and not abroad and were decided by British judges and not by judges elsewhere?
The Earl of Swinton: My Lords, I think that I have answered that question. We are committed to the European Court of Human Rights, and we stand committed to it.

Telecommunications Planning Orders: Consultations
3.16 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what telecommunication trade associations were

331
consulted before the Department of the Environment issued planning orders laying down that dishes for receiving satellite broadcasts had to be less than 90 centimetres in diameter while terrestrial dishes could, without including the size of the mounting, be up to 130 centimetres.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, I understand that the telecommunications trade associations included in the consultations were: the Association of Telecommunications Services; the British Electrical and Allied Manufacturers' Association; the Cable Television Association; the Computing Services Association; the Confederation of Aerial Industries; the Independent Television Companies' Association; the National Television Rental Association; and the Society of British Aerospace Companies.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, while listening with interest to my noble friend's views, perhaps I may point out that this morning I have been in touch with the most important of the trade associations in the electronic industry; namely, the Electronic Engineering Association. That body was not consulted. This is a very technical matter. The Cable Television Association are deeply concerned because the whole growth of this new technology and the jobs which go with it depend on fair and equitable judgments as well as imaginative judgments being made. They tell me that whereas they were consulted some two years ago, they have not been consulted since. Therefore, will my noble friend deal with this consultation matter and recognise that, when matters of this complexity arise, it is desperately important to put the sponsoring Ministers in the DTI in the picture and to make sure that they have up-to-date consultations with the people who are most sorely affected?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am concerned to hear that my noble friend has been told that an important association has not been consulted. I ought to add to what I said that, in addition to the eight trade associations to which I have referred, we wrote to 37 telecommunication companies; 20 environmental bodies; the four local authority associations; the BBC; the IBA; and 94 other associations and organisations, and we made a press release. I am very sorry if the matter did not come to the notice of the organisation in question.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend do anything about the situation to make sure that there is fair and equitable treatment as between those trying to develop the use of satellites and those concerned with terrestrial communications?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I shall certainly take care to see that nothing has been done that is unfair. My noble friend will realise that the requirement for a planning consent does not stop these things being put up; it merely means that they cannot be put up without permission. The 90-centimetre limit enables not only high-power but allows medium-power transmissions to be received. Therefore, the difficulty may not be as great as my noble friend believes it to be; but I shall look into the matter.

Equities: Average Annual Return
3.20 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether their policy of restraint on wages takes account of the fact that the average annual return on equities in the United Kingdom in the five years 1980–84 was 28 per cent., which is higher than the corresponding return in France, Germany, Switzerland, United States, Canada, Australia and Japan.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, after converting to a common currency, the average annual return on equities between 1980 and 1984 is lower in the United Kingdom than it is in the United States and Japan although it is higher than in the other countries mentioned by the noble Lord. The Government do not have a wages policy. Pay in individual firms is a matter for negotiation between employers and employees; but excessive pay rises increase our unit labour costs and damage employment prospects. In the United Kingdom unit labour costs are growing more rapidly than they are in our major overseas competitors.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that the figures which I have put in the Question are taken from a table produced by Phillips and Drew? If the Minister so wishes, I shall send him a copy of the table from which my calculations were made. Is the noble Lord further aware that, so long as we have this kind of return on equities and the kind of increases in top salaries that we had last year, the Government can expect applications for substantial increases in wages from all conscientious leaders of trade unions?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I would welcome applications on the wages front from conscientious leaders of trade unions who would take into account all conditions. The figures issued by Phillips and Drew (and I have a copy of them) are in local currency. They are adjusted to a common currency, and I see that we finish third in the list. I should also like to point out that in the period from 1975 to 1979—a period for which the present Government do not hold responsibility—the figure was 35·9 per cent., and in many cases this figure is a function of inflation rather than of real return.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the fact that Japan and the United States have a higher return on equities is an indication of the profitability of their industry? That is in two countries where employment is high and growth is great. Is my noble friend also aware that, unless there is good profitability in industry, there will not be the attraction for investment which will create further growth and more employment? My noble friend would be making a great mistake if he restricted a good return on capital, because that capital would simply be attracted to other places in the world where it could obtain a better return.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for pointing out the elementary facts of life. I totally agree with him. The most important factor is that our unit labour costs should be lower than those of our competitors. Last year our unit labour costs rose above the rate of inflation; those of the United States increased but were below the rate of inflation; those of Japan and Germany actually fell. Those are the indicators for employment, and nothing else.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, will my noble friend thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for the uncovenanted tribute that he is trying to pay to the success of the policies of Her Majesty's Government and at the same time invite the noble Lord to share his investment advice with other Members of your Lordships' House, so that we can all enjoy a 28 per cent. return on our investments?
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, in spite of what he has just said, the Government do have a wages policy, which is a policy of keeping down wages while all other forms of income are allowed to increase? Has not this policy been very effectively introduced, with the result that British industry has gravely declined and unemployment has increased? Is this not an integral part of the Government's policy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, an integral part of the Government's policy is to bring about conditions in which employment can increase, and by any standards that has been a success. Last week I announced that since the first quarter of 1983 employment has increased by 709,000 jobs. Ultimately unemployment can only be reduced by the rate of increase of new jobs overtaking the increase in the labour supply. That and that alone is the measure by which matters of this sort can best be judged.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Government have set their sights on the wrong target? If we want lower wages costs, we must have both lower profits and lower increases in high salaries. There must be leadership. What happens at the top is copied lower down, and anyone who has been concerned with leadership knows that.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I do not wish to take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on the question of leadership, but if we look at the leadership which has been exhibited in, say, the nationalised industry sector, or that part of it which has gone into the private sector over the past year or two, we will find many cases of inspired leadership, irrespective of the salary level of those at the top. Leadership and example are not merely the result of measuring money; they are the result of measuring all those other factors which come into account: quality of goods, delivery on time, and many other matters. I suspect that on this issue we are missing the main point. The main thrust of Government policy is to restore that sense of enterprise into our economy which once made our nation great and which will do so again.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, in this Industry Year is it not most important to encourage heads of industry not only to be well-rewarded but also to show that they are well-rewarded in order to attract the best people to industry, rather than into banks and financial services?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, the main thrust of Industry Year as it develops will be to restore into our educational system a respect for industry and wealth-creation so that the flower of our youth will be interested in going into those activities. In that lies our hope for the future.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, can the Minister explain what we are talking about? When we talk of "return on capital", what is capital? Does it mean capital revalued from various historical points in time as paid-up capital, rights issues and so on, and reserves formed at different times? Is the whole thing updated to modern money values?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I must confess that at times I find it difficult to understand what I am talking about, and I cannot answer for your entire Lordships' House. However, I must direct the noble Earl to Phillips and Drew, who prepared these figures. From looking at the figures, I suspect that they are in terms of historic costs and are not therefore updated. Inflation is a very real factor. There have been periods when inflation has been greatest in this country and we have had the greatest apparent return on assets. Those are the periods when we were sowing the seeds of our doom.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, if, as the noble Lord claims, the Government have no wages policy and hence no policy of restraint on wages, can he tell us by what logic wage settlements can be regarded as excessive and why Ministers keep on trying to talk down wage settlements?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, when noble Lords opposite talk in terms of a wages policy they talk in terms of a prices and incomes policy and they talk in terms of wage restraint. We consistently draw to the attention of industry the supreme importance of getting unit labour costs down, and every time that I have answered a Question in your Lordships' House it has been on the basis of unit labour costs. It is that factor, and that factor alone, which is important. Indeed, wages can go up if unit labour costs come down.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, is it not a fact that, under governments of the party opposite, for a very long time the return on capital investment in this country in real terms was actually negative? Is it not also a fact that, unless profits provide an adequate return on investment, real wages cannot increase?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, it is significant that only in the past four or five years when we have had the highest growth rate in the whole of Europe—and in one or two years it has been even higher than that of the United States—we have been able to afford to see conditions in which real wages rise

335
above the rate of inflation. Throughout the entire period from 1970 to 1982, when we were constantly bottom of the growth rate in Europe, noble Lords will find that the rate of growth averaged three-quarters of 1 per cent. compared with the 3 per cent. per annum which we have fortunately enjoyed over the past four or five years and will, as long as this Government exist, I hope continue to enjoy.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what the non-oil growth rate was during that period?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, there are many factors to be taken into account. We have oil; we have non-oil. It is a long way from the Question. I shall write to the noble Lord opposite with the detailed figures. What is important is that during this period of oil income we have seen our overseas investments, which stood at £2½ billion in 1974, stand a few months ago at £73½ billion; and that is the restoration of our fortunes for the future.

Business
3.30 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Westland.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the Committee stage of the Shops Bill will be adjourned at approximately 7 p.m. for approximately one hour, and that during this adjournment the three Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations and the Second Reading of the Gaming (Amendment) Bill will be taken.

Outer Space Bill [H.L.]
Lord Denham: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth, I beg to introduce a Bill to confer licensing and other powers on the Secretary of State to secure a compliance with the international obligations of the United Kingdom with respect to the launching and operation of space objects, and carrrying on of other activities in outer space, by persons connected with this country.
I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Westland: Disclosure of Information
3.32 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister on the outcome of the inquiry into the disclosure of part of a letter from the Solicitor-General.
336
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the outcome of the inquiry into the disclosure of certain information in my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General's letter of 6th Janaury.
"As the House knows, the Chairman of Westland plc, Sir John Cuckney, wrote to me on 30th December 1985 asking whether Westland would no longer be considered a European company by the Government if a minority shareholding in the company were held by a major international group from a NATO country outside Europe.
"This question was of fundamental importance to the company in making its decision as to what course it was best to follow in the interests of the company and its employees. It was therefore essential to be sure that my reply should be in no way misleading to anyone who might rely upon it in making commercial judgments and decisions.
"The reply was accordingly considered among the departments concerned, and the text of my letter of 1st January 1986 was agreed in detail by my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my right honourable friends the then Secretary of State for Defence and the Chief Secretary, Treasury, and finally by my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General.
"My letter was made public.
"Two days later, on 3rd January, my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence replied to a letter of the same date from Mr. Horne of Lloyds Merchant Bank asking him a number of questions, covering some of the same ground as my own reply to Sir John Cuckney. The texts of the letters became public that same day.
"My right honourable friend's reply was not cleared or even discussed with the relevant Cabinet colleagues. Moreover, although the reply was also material to the commercial judgments and decisions that would have to be made, my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General was not invited to scrutinise the letter before it was issued.
"On the morning of 6th January my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General wrote to my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. He said—and I quote:
'It is foreseeable that your letter will be relied upon by the Westland Board and its shareholders.
'Consistently with the advice I gave to the Prime Minister on 31st December, the Government in such circumstances is under a duty not to give information which is incomplete or inaccurate in any material particular.
'On the basis of the information contained in the documents to which I have referred, which I emphasise are all that I have seen, the sentence in your letter to Mr. Horne does in my opinion contain material inaccuracies in the respects I have mentioned, and I therefore must advise that you should write again to Mr. Horne correcting the inaccuracies.'
"I have quoted extensively from the letter which was published a week ago. As I have already indicated, it was especially important in this

337
situation for statements made on behalf of the Government, on which commercial judgments might be based, to be accurate and in no way misleading.
"That being so, it was a matter of duty that it should be made known publicly that there were thought to be material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected in my right honourable friend the Member for Henley's letter of 3rd January, which as the House will recall had already been made public.
"Moreover, it was urgent that it should become public knowledge before 4.00 p.m. that afternoon, 6th January, when Sir John Cuckney was due to hold a press conference to announce the Westland board's recommendation to shareholders of a revised proposal from the United Technologies Corporation/Fiat consortium.
"These considerations were very much in the mind of my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the copy of the Solicitor-General's letter was brought to his attention at about 1.30 p.m. that afternoon of 6th January.
"He took the view that the opinion expressed by the Solicitor-General in his letter of 6th January to the then Secretary of State for Defence should be brought into the public domain as soon as possible.
"He asked his officials to discuss with my office whether the disclosure should be made, and if so whether it should be made from 10 Downing Street as he said he would prefer.
"He made it clear that, subject to the agreement of my office, he was giving authority for the disclosure to be made from the Department of Trade and Industry, if it was not made from 10 Downing Street.
"He expressed no view as to the form in which the disclosure should be made, though it was clear to all concerned that in the circumstances it was not possible to proceed by way of an agreed statement. My office were accordingly approached.
"They did not seek my agreement: they considered—and they were right—that I should agree with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the fact that the then Defence Secretary's letter of 3rd January was thought by the Solicitor-General to contain material inaccuracies which needed to be corrected should be made public knowledge as soon as possible, and before Sir John Cuckney's press conference. It was accepted that the Department of Trade and Industry should disclose that fact; and that in view of the urgency of the matter the disclosure should be made by means of a telephone communication to the Press Association.
"Had I been consulted I should have said that a different way must be found of making the relevant facts known.
"The report finds in the light of the evidence that the Department of Trade and Industry acted in good faith in the knowledge that they had the authority of their Secretary of State and cover from my office for proceeding.
338
"An official of the department accordingly told a representative of the Press Association of my honourable and learned friend the Solicitor-General's letter and material elements of what it said. The company was also informed. The information was on the Press Association tapes at 3.30 p.m.
"Mr. Speaker, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was in my judgment right in thinking that it was important that the possible existence of material inaccuracies in the then Secretary of State for Defence's letter of 3rd January should become a matter of public knowledge, if possible before Sir John Cuckney's press conference at 4.00 p.m. that day.
"In so far as what my office said to the Department of Trade and Industry was based on the belief that I should have taken that view, had I been consulted, they were right.
"My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney-General has authorised me to inform the House that, having considered the report by the head of the Civil Service, and on the material before him, he has decided after consultation with, and with the full agreement of, the Director of Public Prosecutions and senior Treasury counsel, that there is no justification for the institution of proceedings under the Official Secrets Act in respect of any of the persons concerned in this matter. In order that there should be no impediment to co-operation in the inquiry, my right honourable and learned friend had authorised the head of the Civil Service to tell one of the officials concerned, whose testimony would be vital to the inquiry, that he had my right honourable and learned friend's authority to say that, provided that he received full co-operation in his inquiry, the official concerned would not be prosecuted in respect of anything said during the course of the inquiry. The head of the Civil Service did indeed receive full co-operation not only from that official but from all concerned. My right honourable and learned friend tells me that he is satisfied that that in no way interfered with the course of justice: on the facts as disclosed in the inquiry there would have been no question of proceeding against the official concerned".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating that long and serious Statement. It is in fact very serious, for it affects the way in which Ministers and senior civil servants deal with the nation's affairs. I am bound to say that the critical points are clothed in a good deal of verbiage. A number of important questions arise from the Statement.
In view of the deteriorating relations between the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Defence, which involved the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry as well—differences which all of us know became apparent over a fairly long period and came to a head on 6th January with the Solicitor-General's letter of that date—why did the Prime Minister not discuss the matter at that time with the Secretary of

339
State for Defence instead of discussing it with other Ministers behind the back of the Secretary of State for Defence?
The charges against the Secretary of State for Defence in the letter by the Solicitor-General were extremely serious. In those circumstances, why was there no proper discussion while he remained a senior Minister and member of the Cabinet—one of the most important members of the Government? The Prime Minister now says that the matter should be made public. Was there any meeting to decide how the matter should be handled and how it should be made public? The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, according to the Statement, also said that the matter should be brought (I quote him) "into the public domain".
Why was this not done in a more open fashion? Why did the Prime Minister not ask the Secretary of State for Defence for his resignation at this point, if she thought the matter was as serious as it is clear from the Statement she did? The Prime Minister kept the right honourable gentleman, the Secretary of State for Defence in office during the whole of this period. She allowed him to attend the Cabinet where both she and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry had agreed that there should be a leak of the letter: a letter which was damaging to her colleague who sat with her in the Cabinet that Thursday morning when he walked out.
Is the noble Viscount aware that from the wording of this Statement it appears that there was a deliberate conspiracy within the Government to destroy Mr. Heseltine?
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, the Prime Minister says, according to the Statement, that she would have found a different way. She had ample opportunity to consider the way she was dealing with it. She is the Prime Minister of this country. She has ample advice at her disposal. Why did she allow this squalid development to take place without adequate concern for her colleague in the Cabinet?
At this time it is not the Westlands argument that is at issue; it is the way the Prime Minister has handled the matter that is at issue. It is a sad and deplorable story. I am bound to say on my first reading of the Statement, which I saw only a few minutes ago, that in all the circumstances and against this background I am glad that no proceedings are to be taken against any civil servant, because it is not the civil servants who are to blame in this matter. I should think at this stage that the Ministers involved must consider their position very seriously.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I, too, on behalf of my colleagues in the Alliance, should like first to thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating this Statement. I am sure that I shall have everyone's sympathy in endeavouring to be as constructive and responsible as I can on a matter of this importance, which is on the basis of a Statement which, inevitably—I blame no-one for it—was in my hands for only ten minutes before the noble Viscount rose to deliver it.
340
This is a disreputable and damaging series of events. It is damaging to the chances of good government on three major counts: it is damaging to the fully accepted practice of joint Cabinet responsibility; it is damaging to the fully accepted practice of confidentiality in Government matters; and it is damaging to the standing of the Law Officers, on whom every Government and Opposition equally depend. It is damaging to joint Cabinet responsibility and therefore to the possibility of good government by the present Government in the future because we have seen disclosed a squalid row between two individuals. It is not (I repeat, not) a circumstance normal to every one of your Lordships who has attended Cabinet meetings. It is not the proper airing by heads of departments of their respective views and of the interests of their departments on difficult matters brought before Cabinet. That is what Cabinet is there for. It is the disclosure on personal grounds, on a tit-for-tat basis, by senior heads of the most important departments in our country, one against the other, so that each should achieve his own method and purpose by less than honourable means.
It is damaging to confidentiality because here we have matters not published, but leaked. We all understand the difference. Leaked; and a disclosure made under pressure. Look at the number of days that this matter has been going on: and it is only today that we get a full statement of what has been happening. Under pressure, we find that these matters have been leaked.
Of course I am right in saying, "leaked" and not "published". We were told by the Press Association's recipient of the news that under no circumstances would he disclose who had given him the information. Why not? If it comes on behalf of the head of one of the most important and senior departments of the country, what is wrong in saying, "I am so-and-so, and I am speaking on behalf of the Secretary of State for so-and-so"? That is the normal way of making public something that ought to be made public. Here was a disgraceful way, damaging to that sense of confidentiality without which no good Government can arrive at the best possible conclusions in the interests of the country.
It is wholly damaging to the Law Officers because they have been brought into party issues and personal squabbles. May I ask the noble Viscount: on whose initiative did the Law Officer concerned, that honourable and learned Member—I think it was the Solicitor-General and not the Attorney-General, but it matters not—write to one of his colleagues? Was it his own initiative? Was it his sense of outrage at the way in which the law of the country was not being observed? Or was it a suggestion made to him by some colleague that it would be convenient if he would give his mind to this matter?
That is the first question; and, with respect, I should be very grateful if the noble Viscount would give a clear answer. On whose initiative did the Solicitor-General write that letter? The second question is this. When he wrote that letter, was it within his knowledge that that letter was about to be leaked? Did he write it with a view to it being published to the world at large, or was it a letter written to a colleague in confidence? That is question number two.

341
I share the view that has been put forward by the Leader of the official Opposition on other aspects of the damage of this case. I apologise if I am somewhat heated about it. One ought not to be so; it is a very, very serious matter indeed. I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will accept that, with the greatest possible sincerity, as one who spent a number of years assisting and taking part in government and who tries, as every noble Lord in this place and every honourable Member in the other place equally tries, to achieve the best form of government in the interests of this nation, I feel that lasting damage has been done.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Cledwyn and Lord Diamond, for their very important comments on what I accept is a very important Statement. I will do my very best to answer a great many of the questions, all the questions that I can—and there have been, quite properly, a very large number of them. First of all, I will seek to answer the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. He suggested that the Statement is surrounded by a good deal of verbiage. I must say to your Lordships that since I learned of this matter I have had one overriding consideration in my mind. Perhaps it is reasonable for me to say it because I have actually been a Cabinet Minister of this country for 11 out of the last 16 years, so I have some experience of Cabinet Government. I think that I am entitled to say that to your Lordships' House.
I felt it was essential that the clearest possible Statement should be made of all the facts surrounding this matter, and I am bound to say that I believe the Statement that has been made today has been exactly that. It has sought to bring everything clearly before another place, this House and, indeed, the public. I do not accept the charge of verbiage.
I then turn to some of the points made about the relations between my right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Defence. I think your Lordships will know that I am not in the business, and never have been in the business, of seeking deliberately to run down my colleagues or, indeed, to be unpleasant about other people in any parties at all. But I think I am bound to say that, having observed what went on at close quarters, I have never in my time in Cabinet seen more extraordinary behaviour, to his Prime Minister and, indeed, to all his colleagues, than was exhibited during this period of time by my right honourable friend the Member for Henley. If one looks at many of the things that have happened, that, I must say to your Lordships, is one of the areas why it was so difficult to carry on Cabinet Government in this period.
I should like to refer, in answer to another of the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, to the position of the Cabinet. On 19th December the Cabinet met and agreed, as was announced by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister that same afternoon in another place, that the Cabinet would be impartial between the two bids; that neither side would campaign. It was recognised that there were strong feelings; and the Secretary of State for Defence never made any secret of the fact that he had decided that he wanted a European option. But it was agreed,
342
and the then Secretary of State for Defence was party to that decision.
I have to say that those who examined what went on between that date and, indeed, the 9th January, when the then Secretary of State left the Cabinet, can have had no doubt in their minds that such an agreement of not pressing for one side had not been kept. On the 9th January the then Secretary of State for Defence was, I think, prepared at that stage, before the meeting of the company, to follow the policy; but when it came to suggesting that everyone should reasonably check their statements with the Cabinet Office, he refused to do this and said that this was unreasonable.
There have been complaints this afternoon about a lack of the proper joint Cabinet responsibility. I do not see in what the then Secretary of State for Defence did anything which made joint Cabinet responsibility at all possible. I think it is only fair to say that, because it happens that I feel deeply and bitterly at the way that I, personally, as a Cabinet Minister, was treated over that period of time; and so, indeed, do all my colleagues. We are entitled to feel it; and if I feel it, I shall certainly say it. I am sorry. I bear my right honourable friend the Member for Henley no personal ill-will, but I cannot pretend that I feel that I was well treated as a colleague in the Cabinet. I cannot feel that.
I turn to some of the other questions which were asked by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn. Was there a meeting to discuss how the letter should be handled? No, there was no such meeting. Was there any proper discussion about how it should be handled between Ministers? No, there was not. I think it is fair to say that it was during a Parliamentary Recess. I do not give that as a particular excuse, but a great many Ministers were not in London at the time and there was no such ministerial discussion. There was, however, great urgency that the facts, the material facts set out in the Solicitor-General's letter, should get into the public domain before that meeting of the shareholders because there were material inaccuracies in what the then Secretary of State for Defence had set out in his letter.
4 p.m.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, first raised the question of joint Cabinet responsibility. I have dealt very clearly with that. I think also I have dealt very plainly with the question of confidentiality. I accept entirely the importance of the position of the Law Officers: indeed, that is very important. The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, asked: Why was a full Statement only made today? For the very best of all possible reasons: the report of the inquiry conducted by the Secretary of the Cabinet was received by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister only yesterday. I repeat, the report was only received yesterday. The noble Lord seems to be surprised, but I have to tell him that that is a fact, and I can tell him that I did not see the report myself. The report was in the hands of my right honourable friend yesterday, and for a Statement to be made as quickly as this is very proper and very right.
I then turn to the question whose initiative it was that encouraged the Solicitor-General to write the letter that was pubished on Monday, 6th January.

343
The initiative came from the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry because he believed—and in my opinion rightly believed—that there were material inaccuracies in a letter which the then Secretary of State for Defence had written, and that these would adversely affect the company if they were not corrected. I must make it clear once again that the then Secretary of State for Defence was party to the letter which the Prime Minister wrote to Sir John Cuckney earlier that week and agreed with it; and then subsequently put out his own letter without any consultation at all. It was that letter which was felt to include material inaccuracies. I have done my very best to set out what I accept to be—
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I do apologise for intervening and I am most grateful to the noble Viscount who, as usual, is being most honest and fair with the House. However, I did ask a second question to which we attach importance. When the Solicitor-General wrote that letter—and we now know on whose initiative it was done—was he aware that the letter was going to be published or, as subsequently happened, leaked?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I understand that he was not so aware. I apologise to the noble Lord for not having answered that question previously. However, I have done my best to answer many questions about what I accept to be an unhappy story. I have given my personal version, which I think your Lordships would expect, of some of the events from my personal experience, which as a member of that particular Cabinet I think it is only fair to do. I still believe that if one member of a Cabinet decides to conduct a campaign such as the then Secretary of State for Defence decided to conduct against the policy of the rest of the Cabinet, it is extremely difficult for good Cabinet government, for confidentiality and for joint Cabinet responsibility to be preserved.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for the way he has answered the questions, but he has not dealt with a major point which I raised in relation to the hole-and-corner way in which this matter was dealt with. It was made clear by Mr. Chris Moncrieff on behalf of the Press Association that the information was passed to him confidentially. Why was it done in that way? Why was it leaked at all? Why was it not put forward in an open public fashion? That is the question people are asking.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I think, without excusing the fact, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister herself also said, the answer, first of all, is that those concerned believed it was very urgent indeed in the interests of the company that if there were material inaccuracies in that letter it should reach the company in time for the meeting at 4 p.m. They believed that was very urgent indeed. Secondly, I think it is fair to point out that here lies the problem of the way the whole campaign was being conducted by the then Secretary of State for Defence and the whole difficulty for Cabinet government: that is, if a statement had been made it would have to have been a statement by one department flatly contradicting a
344
statement put out by another Secretary of State. I think that is one of the problems which undoubtedly and inevitably arise.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that leaks and squabbles between ambitious Ministers are commonplace and that the only thing, if we use the term somewhat loosely, which distinguishes this particular episode is the maverick behaviour of some of the participants, which cannot be defended by anyone? But would not the noble Viscount also agree that there is now a danger that this whole episode is becoming totally out of proportion, to the level of near-farce? Will he not confirm that many people—and one hopes that the Government would agree—believe that there are other things to which the Government should be directing their energies at the present time?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, because I am going to start my answer to him by making a statement which could not be contradicted, if I may say so, by the members of any party who have ever been in Government, even those who may have been a very long time away from government. Of course, he is right when he says there have been leaks and squabbles in all governments. There is no one in this House who could pretend otherwise at all in any way. There always have been, and I suppose frequently there will continue to be, these sorts of troubles. I personally hate them and think they are a great pity, but I can understand how some of them arise. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is right when he says that this issue is occupying far too much time.
Yes, it may be amusing for some noble Lords, but one of the reasons why I was so keen to see this Statement set out in full today was to try to get the whole matter properly out in the open so that it would come perfectly plain and clear; then that would be the moment to leave this issue and all that has gone with it and get on with some very important problems which face our country at the present time.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount two simple questions? Following the Statement, he has made it clear to the House that there has been no mystery whatever about how this letter was leaked. Why, then, was it necessary to have an inquiry at all, and particularly an inquiry which has pin-pointed a civil servant and given the civil servant's career, to say the least, no advancement? Is it fair to pillory a civil servant in this way, when all the facts were apparently known and no inquiry was necessary? Secondly, can the noble Viscount tell the House whether, when the letter was leaked, the Solicitor-General was asked or informed about it before that leak was made and the letter was published?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, first of all, it comes very surprisingly from the mouth of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, that there should not be an inquiry. No one has spent more of his time during waking hours considering inquiries of one sort or another, over a long period of time, than the noble Lord. I should have thought that had there not been an inquiry the noble Lord would have been to his feet, determined not to

345
lose the opportunity to pursue a great deal more quarry in various parts of inquiries. The answer as to why there was an inquiry was that it was very important to receive the full facts and to make sure that they were in the open.
As to the question of civil servants, it is certainly not the responsibility of the Government that one civil servant was named in another place. I must make it very clear that I deeply regret that that should have happened, but that was not the responsibility of the Government, and it was not the reason for having an inquiry. So far as the Solicitor-General's letter is concerned, I understand that he was not informed.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, may I ask the noble Viscount when the Solicitor-General was informed that this letter had been leaked from the office of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? Secondly, is he aware that many of us remain puzzled as to why there was a leak inquiry at all? Given the fact that, on the basis of the Statement we have heard from the noble Viscount this afternoon, this leak took place as a result of approval given by the Prime Minister's own office, why did the Prime Minister then order an inquiry at all?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, the noble Lord's first question was: when was the Solicitor-General told that his letter had been leaked? I imagine, though I cannot give the exact time, that clearly he knew it when he saw it on the tape at about 3.30 that afternoon. But I do not imagine that he can have known it much before that, since his letter was only written and received in the Government departments at 1.30. It must have been sometime in that period. In answer to the question as to why an inquiry, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister believed that as much as possible of the facts of what had gone on should come out into the open. As she made very clear herself, she did not know what had been done at that time. Therefore, she believed it was right to have a leak inquiry and that is why she had it. I believe that there would have been enormous criticism if there had not been the inquiry, and there would have been many calls for one.
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, to revert for a moment to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is it not a fact that the only person who has been remotely responsible for pillorying an individual civil servant is a Back-Bench Member of the Labour Party in another place?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Maude, I have no doubt it is, as one might say in this field, in the public knowledge that the name of the civil servant was given in another place by a Member who certainly—it is also in the public knowledge—is a member of the Labour Party.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Viscount, but on the last point that he made in answer to my second question may I ask him whether his case is that the Prime Minister was not told by members of the office that they had given authority to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to leak this letter? Is that correct or is it not?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, certainly she was not told that, because it was not true. They did not give authority. They had no power to give such authority. The Statement made perfectly clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave the authority to his own civil servants. He it was who gave the authority to his own civil servants.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, are we therefore to suppose that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry did not tell the Prime Minister that he had given that authority?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge, no, he did not.
Lord Silkin: My Lords, in view of what the noble Viscount said a moment ago, why, when this matter first became public and questions were asked about it, did not the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry disclose, "There is no leak. I gave authority for the disclosure"?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that must be a matter for my right honourable friend to answer himself. I could not answer.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that one of the few people to emerge with dignity out of this whole affair is Sir John Cuckney, the chairman of Westland, and that the company would probably recover much more quickly if it was less beleaguered by politicians and press than has been the case heretofore?
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend Lord Montgomery, in the very difficult situation in which he has been placed there must be throughout the country a considerable amount of admiration for the way that Sir John Cuckney has conducted the whole of the affairs. As to the last point that my noble friend made, I should have thought that probably no one would feel that more keenly than Sir John Cuckney himself.

Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill [H.L.]
4.14 p.m.
Read a third time; an amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Australia Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young): 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 be discharged.
Moved, That the order of commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): 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 Glenarthur.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 3 [Rights of established shopworkers concerning Sunday working]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg to move—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Before the noble Lord proceeds, may I ask whether there has been another agreed list of groupings of amendments? If there has been and there is a spare copy, I should be very grateful for it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: To the best of my knowledge, the groupings that were available on Tuesday are the same today. There have been no additions and no further amendments submitted. So if the noble and learned Lord has a copy of the groupings available for Tuesday, it is the same list.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have just got it. I only had the original list. I am very grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I beg to move that Clause 3 shall not stand part of the Bill, in order to facilitate what I am sure will be a very short debate, at the end of which it will be my intention not to press the matter to a vote. This Motion has been put down because, as those who have followed these matters will have learnt from the proceedings on Tuesday, in particular, there is immense dissatisfaction not just with Clause 2 but also with Schedule 1, which is the substance of Clause 3.
The main debate, which I believe ended with some satisfaction on Tuesday, allowed the Minister to use a form of words which quite clearly indicated that, whereas before he was only going to look at things carefully, now that we have moved on to the employment clauses he will look at them very carefully. Without reading too much into that, some of us believe that there will be opportunities for improving the Bill. Certainly the amendments that are due to follow provide the Minister with a number of opportunities to do so. But I take the view, as do those who support me in general on these matters, that at this stage it would not be helpful to the Committee if we sought to delete the clause from the Bill.
Lord Sandford: I wonder whether I may rise before we leave Clause 3, so as to make some suggestions to the Committee and particularly to my noble friend on
348
the Front Bench. These are suggestions which occur to me as a result of reflecting on what was said to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Stockton on Tuesday evening. He said that we ought not to allow the occasion of this Bill to become one where the conditions under which workers in the distributive trade have to operate, as a result of the change in Sunday trading, are made more difficult. This was something which the Auld Report itself recognised, and they pointed out in paragraph 288 that the whole of the retail trade will now face as a result of the enactment of the Bill rapidly changing and uncertain conditions. That is what they envisaged would follow deregulation, and that is certainly the case.
In what I want to say next I should like to make clear to the Committee that I am departing from much of what I have been saying so far on the Bill where on Clause 1 I have been seeking to draw the attention of the Committee to the views of the Association of District Councils, whose president I am, which are responsible for three-quarters of the enforcement of this legislation. In what I have to say now I am not expressing their views. They have no responsibility for the working conditions of the distributive trades and what I say are thoughts of my own. I should like also to say that in speaking about wages councils and conditions of work I am very much out of my depth. This is not a subject on which I have had much to do in the past. I have, on the other hand, given notice to my noble friend on the Front Bench of what I was about to say and I hope that he will be able to respond in some measure.
The final amendment that we were discussing on Tuesday night was one moved, I think from the same concern as I feel myself and many Members of the Committee will feel, by my noble friend Lord Renton. Many Members of the Committee will have been swayed by his moving account of the way in which the lives of the man in the choir and his son were going to be torn apart by the enactment of this legislation. I have to say that, much as I was moved as others were by this case, if it had been pressed to a Division I would not have voted for it. I think that the effect of the amendment would have been to establish permanently a huge and unjustified differentiation between all those people who in the future will be working on Sundays in the distributive trade, and all those who already and in the future will be working in other businesses which are needed to provide the essential services to keep the life of the nation going—nurses in hospitals, the drivers of trains, the people preparing the Monday newspapers, and so on and so forth.
So I do not think that is a solution to the problem which my noble friend Lord Stockton put before us. But I think there are two other options, and it would be helpful if—not today perhaps because I do not think the notice I have given my noble friend is sufficient—when we come to the Report stage my noble friend can indicate which of these two options is likely to appeal to him. It seems to me that, faced with the turbulence which will result in the distributive trades as a result of the enactment of the Bill, we need to do two things. We need to extend the remit of the wages council which we understand is envisaged by the Government in the legislation they are bringing before the Commons. Incidentally, I understand that the

349
wages council legislation in the Commons will be about a fortnight ahead of this legislation when they get it in a few weeks' time. The two will be in Committee in the other place at the same time and this will perhaps make it easier for them to deal with it than it is for us. That legislation should allow for the remit of the wages councils with responsibility in the distributive trades to be extended only for a limited period to get through the upheaval that the legislation will cause, and then to be reviewed, and to the extent that it is no longer found necessary—as I do not believe it will be—then to be taken away.
The alternative is for my noble friend to look again at Clause 2 and consider whether some parts of those sections which are mentioned there ought not to be retained for the period of transition—three, four or five years; not perhaps all of them, but some of them—and then reviewed, and, in the light of the way in which the industry has settled down, finally repealed. The suggestion I would put to the Committee (for us to hear what my noble friend can say now but certainly to return to it at Report stage) is that either the legislation on the wages councils should be brought forward; or that the legislation in Clause 2 of the Bill should not be dealt with in quite such a wholesale way as is at present intended but protection should be retained for those working in distributive trades for a limited period to see them through this transition which everybody agrees is going to be turbulent, with no one certain about the way it is going to work out. I hope that my noble friend can give some preliminary indication of how he sees that suggestion.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My noble friend Lord Sandford has made two interesting suggestions and although I do not go the whole way with him, I think one of them is worth consideration by my noble friend on the Front Bench. I would respectfully differ from my noble friend Lord Sandford when he suggests that the coming into force of this measure will create—I think he used the word "turbulence"—in the distributive trades. I very much doubt that. First of all one has to allow for the fact that a great many shops are already open on Sundays and have been for a very considerable time. There is going to be no sudden transition.
Secondly, those who run shops after the Bill becomes an Act will have to take a decision whether the additional costs incurred in Sunday opening will be justified by the demand which they will meet. That will obviously be a fairly slow process of decision, perhaps of trial and error and perhaps of Sunday opening and then abandoning it. Therefore I am bound to say that I foresee a much smoother transition when the Bill is enacted than does my noble friend. Having said that, I was very glad to hear him say, as I tried to say to your Lordships on Tuesday night, that it would be completely wrong, as was then suggested, to create two distinct categories of new workers: new workers in all other industries without exception where Sunday work takes place—we were told that there were something like 8 million people who work sometimes on Sundays—and those going into shop work. That really would be an indefensible creation of
350
special privilege, and I am sure it would give rise to a great deal of ill-feeling and jealousy. Therefore I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Sandford not taking that line which I was sorry to hear one or two of my noble friends taking on Tuesday.
My noble friend's other suggestion that any possible difficulties could be dealt with through the wages council machinery, involving, as would probably be the case, some amendment to the wages council Bill to enable this to be done, seems on the face of it to be worth consideration and it is certainly a point on which, in due course, I would be personally very grateful to hear the view of my noble friend the Minister. That would involve leaving this Bill as it stands in its present form but considering carefully whether or not—I have a fairly open mind on this point—some specific provision to deal with any temporary problem which might arise should go into the wages council legislation.
Lord Denning: Perhaps I may add just one point. At the last session we had on this Bill I understood that, in view of our criticisms of the obscure schedule and its unintelligibility and complexity, my noble friend the Minister indicated that he would ask the parliamentary draftsman to redraft it at least so as to make it intelligible. In the future stages, and even today, are we going to discuss the schedule in its present form when we know it is going in all probability to take a different shape in the future?
4.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I find myself very much in agreement with both the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. It seems to me absolutely wrong to treat shopworkers as a quite different category of employee in this respect from all the others who work on Sunday. On the other hand, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in feeling anxiety about the rapid revision that there is in Clause 2. I should like to see a transitional period. In particular, I revert to the point that I made last Tuesday; namely, that it seems wrong that the 16 to 18 year-olds are left without the protection of either the shops inspectorate and their legislation or apparently—so far as we can judge from the Secretary of State's letter—the wages council legislation.
With regard to the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning (whom we would all wish to welcome here on his 87th birthday), I did not understand that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, had undertaken that the schedule should be redrafted. I was going to complain about the fact that he had not done so, and add my criticisms to those that have already been directed at the drafting of this schedule, when the Motion that the schedule stand part is debated; but it seems to me that we have to deal with the schedule as it now stands. As we go painfully through the schedule, it will merely add to the case against its drafting.
Lord Sainsbury: As I understand it, under the existing law a shopkeeper can employ staff to work on Sunday—for example, in filling shelves—so long as he does not open the shop to trade. If that is so, then I find it difficult to justify the existing law. Under Clause 3 of

351
the Bill only existing employees who have not signed any contractual obligation to work on Sunday are protected from being compelled to do so. I favour the extension of that right to new employees who have not signed voluntarily a contractual obligation to work on Sunday. I hope that the Government will give that point of view very careful and serious consideration.
Lord Rochester: I rise only to say in my own words that which has been said already by other noble Lords. I did not have even the short notice that the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, will have had of what it was that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has just had to say to the Committee. However, I should like to welcome the very constructive approach that he has made—and more particularly to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, last Tuesday. It seems to me that the suggestion he has made that the wages council scheme should be extended to cover the situation of shopworkers, and in particular the lacuna that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, uncovered—not, as he inadvertently said, for those in the 16 to 18 age group but those in the 18 to 21 age group—merit our attention.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am very grateful to the noble Lord; he is of course quite right.
Lord Rochester: I am obliged to the noble and learned Lord. Alternatively, Clause 2 should be amended in whole or in part for the time being. I look forward very much to what it is that the noble Lord the Minister will have to say. I trust that he will be able to respond in the most positive way possible.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I want very briefly to support the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, to this matter and that the clause should today be agreed to. This in view of the undertaking of my noble friend the Minister given on the only amendment to Clause 3, Amendment No. 24, that he would
"study with great care all that has been said".—[Official Report, 21/1/86; col. 224.]
Not only for the reasons given by my noble friend the Minister is respect of Amendment No. 24 but also for those given by my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I would not for one moment support Amendment No. 24. That creates a curious situation because with the Bill as it stands, there is the inevitable linkage between the drafting of Clause 3 and Amendment No. 24. Only by Amendment No. 24 can one bring in the schedule and give it both pre- and post-commencement effect. So we are getting into a curious situation. I am making that point not to confuse your Lordships but for quite another purpose: to show that this whole situation warrants total basic reappraisal in the light of the approach of principle that was adopted by my noble friend Lord Stockton.
The whole matter of the approach to the employment aspect of this Bill warrants total reappraisal. At the moment it is in the state of a dog's dinner and no amount of amendment, jiggery, correction, niggling or changing can produce a satisfactory result. Against that, we shall have to attend with great care to the continuing debate. Take for example the amendments down in the name of the
352
noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and others—Amendments Nos. 24A to 24C. With the greatest respect to your Lordships, there is not the slightest object in debating those at all, because until we know whether my noble friend the Minister is prepared to move some way towards the paternalistic approach that was put by my noble friend Lord Stockton there can be no purpose in doing so. At this stage, I am therefore seeking some assistance from my noble friend the Minister that might enable the Committee to take a slightly more civilised and shorter course. This debate, although I gather it goes on possibly until 11.30 p.m., is, if I may say so with respect, pregnant with sterility, if that is possible. At least I have thought up a phrase that I have not used previously or heard elsewhere.
I am not seeking to confuse but making a personal attempt to clarify; I have not discussed this with any other noble Lord. The situation is, first, that surely we have to know whether my noble friend the Minister is prepared to move in the direction which I indicated to ensure that all Sunday working is truly optional and to ensure that a measure of safeguard for the shopworkers is provided on the face of the statute. That is the first thing we have to know. That is the approach to which I adhere through thick and thin, and I intervened to make that point at a previous stage in the debate.
But this approach does not of necessity involve the wages council factor. I do not want to take time on it. The paternalistic approach can be adopted without dealing with the wages council factor, or you can deal with it with the wages council factor. There are two ways. Therefore, it may well obscure the merits of the main point if you force the wages council argument too hard on the Government.
The other point I want to make in regard to the principle is that the Government must somehow let your Lordships know where they stand or it will become very difficult. They must surely accept that the approach does not involve nannying in any objectionable sense of the term. I think that some of these suggestions were misunderstood by my noble friend at one stage in the debate. What this approach will involve is three cardinal points of principle. The first is the removal of any distinction between pre-commencement shopworkers and post-commencement shopworkers in the context of Sunday working. The second point is that we must accept that Sunday is not to be treated as any other working day unless the workers concerned so wish to treat it.
The third point—and I dealt with this to some degree on, I believe, Amendment No. 18B the other day—is that we must have express provisions of safeguards; never mind how it is done. Amendment No. 11 seemed to me to be attractive. It attracted me, but it does not matter what attracts me. What matters is what attracts your Lordships. If the point of principle is sound and acceptable, how it is done does not matter in terms of words. But there must be express provision on the face of the statute for the reasons I have already given.
If my noble friend the Minister were to accept the validity of the three points that I have made, or any single one of them, then it follows that not only Clause 3 cannot stand in its present form on Report but

353
neither can Schedule 1. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Renton in his place, but neither can his Amendment No. 24 stand because, whether one is for it or not, on any showing it would then be otiose as it deals with the division point which would have been taken care of by the three points of principle to which I have referred.
Therefore, how can one proceed constructively from here? I have been through the schedule. There are parts of it—and I shall not take up the time of your Lordships' Committee by identifying them—which can of course be taken and incorporated within the new concept of the three principles. However, most of it cannot, and there is no way that one can twist and turn it and adapt it. Therefore, if we were to receive, perhaps even after a short adjournment, some form of indication from the Minister there would not be any necessity to consider the matter in great detail.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: It might be helpful if I remind your Lordships, and particularly my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway, who has made some most helpful suggestions, precisely where we got to on Tuesday with the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Renton.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I have read the proceedings, twice.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend. What I said then was that I would undertake to look very carefully at all that had been said. Only one day has elapsed since then, and it would be impossible to respond fully to all the suggestions that were made and the various arguments that were put forward.
My noble friend Lord Sandford has put forward another suggestion, on which my noble friend Lord Campbell commented. All this is within the ambit of the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, that he does propose to suggest that Clause 3 should not stand part of the Bill. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for giving me notice that he proposed to make this suggestion. I believe that, rather like the suggestions which came forward on Tuesday, this suggestion must be considered in the same spirit. I appreciate the point made by my noble friends Lord Sandford and Lord Boyd-Carpenter about smooth transition. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred to the drafting of Schedule 1. Again, I said, reported in col. 233 of Hansard, that I would have a look at it to see what could be done. However, I hope I did not give the impression then that I would manage to achieve that in the detail necessary before the next Committee sitting which is today. Certainly I stand by what I said and I shall see what can be done. If there is any change it will I hope come forward at the next stage of the Bill. Therefore, we have to discuss Schedule 1 as it stands at the moment.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford will be satisfied if I say to him that I certainly will consider what he said in the same spirit as I am now considering the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Renton and the whole question of the employment considerations. I
354
made it plain then that there were huge difficulties. Nevertheless, I stand by what I said and I shall do precisely that.
On the question of the wages councils Bill, the Committee will be aware that that Bill has not yet appeared, so there are certainly grave difficulties in saying from this Dispatch Box now that something can be done. It has to be considered in the same way that I am considering the other matters raised on Tuesday. I hope that I have explained sufficiently to the satisfaction of my noble friends Lord Campbell and Lord Sandford that I will continue to study what has been said in precisely the way that I said I would. Perhaps we can therefore agree that Clause 3 should definitely stand part of the Bill at the moment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful for this short debate. The Committee will appreciate that, with my intention not to press the matter, I could simply have stood up 32 minutes ago and said "Not moved", as I did on a number of occasions on Tuesday and as I intend to do later. But I had understood from conversations I have had that Members of the Committee wanted to use this opportunity simply to underline and reinforce, without committing any words to paper or putting words into the Minister's mouth, the feeling that there did appear to be the possibility of some improvement which would go a long way toward satisfying the general anxieties. So this short debate has certainly been helpful.
At the same time, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, it is not simply academic to leave on the Marshalled List later amendments which deal internally with the schedule, because in fact we are agreeing the clause. We have not agreed to the detail of the schedule. The noble Lord is saying to us: until we have heard from the Minister, why should we waste our time? With respect, I have some experience in another place as well as here, and one needs to use every opportunity—and this day of the Committee stage provides it—to make the case. We shall be pressing our case on later amendments.
The other point I wish to raise is this. I was interested to hear that the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, wanted there to be no differentiation between shopworkers who worked on a Sunday and any other workers working on that day. Such a differentiation would be quite unacceptable, but apparently what is acceptable is that there should be a difference between people who are shopworkers before the Act is passed and those who are shopworkers afterwards. In other words—
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Will the noble Lord allow me—
Lord Graham of Edmonton: In a moment. The principle of differentiation apparently is accepted in that particular instance.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I apologise if I failed to make clear to the noble Lord the view that I was expressing, and perhaps I may try again. I accept that some protection is right where Parliament changes the law affecting existing employees. They became

355
shopworkers under the old dispensation. They will find that Parliament, if it passes this Bill, has altered the law, and I think it is right to protect them.
On the other hand, it seems to me quite unacceptable that where someone newly comes into a trade which like every other trade can involve Sunday working, then he and he only should be given privileges which everybody else who is working on Sunday and going into a trade involving work on Sunday, is denied.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the noble Lord but I am bound to point out that there are many noble Lords, including myself, who believe that the protection for existing workers does not amount to very much at all. While we would not wish to deny them that protection, we shall certainly be questioning very strongly in later amendments the value of this protection. However, unless there is some other noble Lord who wishes to make a point, it is now my intention to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Renton: Before the noble Lord does that, perhaps I may say very briefly, without prolonging the discussion, that, owing to having to attend the Deputy Speakers' meeting and another meeting, I was not able to be here for the beginning of this discussion; but having heard some of it I should like to say that I welcome the move on the part of my noble friend Lord Glenarthur to consider further this very difficult question.
I must confess that I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, because I think that his view overlooks what the other night my noble friend Lord Wolfson called the invidious position where one has some workers in the retail business who are given protection by statute and others who are working in the same business who do not have it. I hope that my noble friend will bear that point in mind.
Lord Sandford: I hope that the Committee will agree with me that this has been a useful discussion and that the assurances given to us by my noble friend on the Front Bench about what he will try to do before the next stage of the Bill are very welcome. I should like to make just one further suggestion to my noble friend on the Front Bench: namely, that I believe the Committee (or it will be the House then) would welcome it if he were able to persuade his noble friend Lord Young, whose department is responsible for these matters, to come and join us at the point when we shall be discussing this Bill again at Report; because I think it would be helpful, as my noble friend Lord Campbell was suggesting, to have a clear view from the Minister who is directly responsible on the philosophy of employment and employment protection, which will underpin everything. Those remarks are intended to be helpful to my noble friend and are not the least bit critical of the way in which he is handling this Bill.
Lord Mishcon: I too do not wish to be critical of the way in which the noble Lord the Minister is handling this Bill. I think we are all very content with it. We should simply have loved a little surrender to the voice of reason now and again.
356
Having said that, I want to make a practical point. I have in mind some words, which we always value, from the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, who did not talk in paternalistic terms, if I may say so, when he said, if I understood him correctly, that we ought to be dealing with a Bill which deals with Sunday opening or Sunday closing and its regularisation or deregularisation. We ought not in any way at all to affect the rights of workers as they presently exist and, he said, a short clause to that effect, if that were the proper way of dealing with it, should be in this Bill. But if that is not the proper way, this is the spirit which ought to be the spirit of the Committee when dealing with this matter.
My practical suggestion is this. We shall have a lot of debates on the amendments now before us. It has been rightly said that, if the attitude of the Minister is changing, perhaps after consultation with his noble friend the Secretary of State who deals with labour matters, then it is a little disturbing because as we give further consideration to amendments during the interval—not a long one—between now and Report stage we shall not know generally, unless the Government put down their amendments in good time, where we shall be standing at that stage.
Bearing in mind the general attitude, which I know the noble Lord the Minister has noticed from all sides of your Lordships' Chamber, that there is anxiety about labour conditions in a field of employment which is very unprotected—that is the way I should like to put it—would he consider between now and Report stage seeing a delegation, perhaps in company with his noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment (though of course he cannot talk about committing him in his absence) in order that these matters could be discussed with the trade union representatives involved and with those who are very much concerned with this matter in your Lordships' Committee? Such a frank discussion—and we are not asking the Minister in advance to give away anything—would enable us to know that all the points of view have been put and been considered by the Minister, and reactions to them would enable us to know what we ought to be doing at Report stage. I wonder whether the noble Lord the Minister would react to that suggestion, which I hope the Committee will think is a practical one.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford and to the noble Lord opposite for their suggestions. I find myself in a rather difficult position because I cannot, as I think both noble Lords will appreciate, commit my noble friend. What I can say, however, in response to both suggestions, and particularly the first suggestion, is that it is something which I am sure that my noble friend will note. As regards the second suggestion of a delegation which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I accept the spirit in which he makes that suggestion, but I think that it really needs to be considered within the overall examination of the arguments that have been put forward on the whole question of the anxiety that he expresses about those who feel they are not sufficiently protected in this field. I am grateful to him for his suggestion and I shall react to it in due course, but not now.
Lord Rochester: I do not expect the Minister to respond, but I may have been guilty of a slip of the tongue. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, I may have suggested that Clause 2 should be retained in whole or in part as one of the alternatives. If so, I of course intended to say it should be amended. I apologise to the noble Lord.
Clause 3 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 24A:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause:
("Secretary of State's report on the operation of the Act.
.—(1) One year after the coming into force of this Act it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a report on its operation.
(2) The said report shall contain an assessment of the effect of operation of this Act upon the following matters, namely—

(a) the exercise of the right to worship;

(b) the employment, remuneration and working conditions of employees;

(c) costs and prices in retail and distributive industries;

(d) the interests and wishes of the consumers;

(e) the incidence of crime;

(f) the demands on transport; and

(g) the effect on the environment and the interests of residents.

(3) In preparing the said report it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to seek evidence from members of the public and from persons and organisations representing those directly affected by the matters referred to in subsection (2) above, including religious bodies, trade unions, representative organisations in retail and other business, local authorities, the police, representatives of consumers, representatives of residents.").
The noble Lord said: I cannot believe that any member of your Lordships' Committee will feel that the amendment is not most reasonable. It does not interfere in any way with a single line, comma or jot of the Bill. Those who believe that there is literally not a word wrong with the Bill will be relieved that the amendment does not seek in any way to alter the words, the spirit or the intention of complete deregulation and of the provisions in Clauses 2 and 3 and Schedule 1. Thus we can have a relaxed debate about the general situation which has been alluded to by a number of noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, believes that the transition from the law as it stands to the law as it will be will be reasonable; it will not be without problems but it will not merit the term that has been used—turmoil. From time to time noble Lords have pleaded in aid evidence gathered from surveys, observations, letters and arguments advanced from one quarter or another. Somebody puts up one argument and evidence then comes from another quarter. I am prepared to say, but not with absolute certainty, that a lot of people who believe that there will be no turmoil or distress will be surprised at the size of the problems that will emerge.
During the general argument over the past two or three years, although it has been going on for longer than that, a number of concerns have been expressed. This amendment says to the Government, "Have your Bill in full or in part but at least put to rest the anxieties on both sides of the argument". Twelve months is perhaps a short time, but whether there are problems or not, let us have a proper report; not a press release, a conference, a leak or anything of that kind, but let us
358
do it properly. Let us not tie the Government down about what they should do in the light of the report. This procedure has been carried out on a number of occasions in the past. We invite the Government, in effect, to put their money where their legislation is.
I completely accept the Government's sincerity. They believe that the measure is in the best interests of all those affected—the consumers, the workers, the employers and the local authorities. I do not dispute their sincerity. But I believe that there are many noble Lords throughout the House who feel it is possible for things to go wrong. For instance, let us consider the effect on the workers. The trade unions are apprehensive. They talk of hoaxes, disasters and catastrophes. Events may prove that to be unfounded. A report to Parliament in 12 or 18 months' time may prove that or it may produce other evidence that we cannot see now because we cannot gaze into a crystal ball.
In the Auld Committee report it is said that the measure may increase employment; on the other hand, it is argued that it will create more unemployment. In the retail and distributive sector in 12 months' time statistics on that question ought to be available.
Many of the trade unions are concerned not only about Sunday working but about late night working. As your Lordships know, I am not an alarmist, but various trade unions have told me that we should bear in mind that the bulk of retail workers are women and that many are part-time, and they need, sadly, to take into account the environment and ambience in which many of them work. They may be leaving work later at night in the future. I am talking of crime, mugging and fear in workers' minds. When we are talking about crime, I could quote, although time does not permit, letters from police chiefs who recognise that the longer shops are open the more shop related crime there will be. That is a fact of life, which could be assessed, tabulated and reported to the House.
Some people argue that costs will rise. There is the whole nexus of wage rates, premium rates and one rate. Will the costs be absorbed? Will Sunday become just another weekday? Some argue that the cost to the consumer will go up and others say that will be minimal, if anything. A report would be able to give us that evidence.
Some people talk about greater environmental distress for the people living in the areas of likely increased shopping. I live in Edmonton and know Edmonton Green. I am satisfied that if Sunday trading occurs the life of the people who live within a mile of the green (which is simply an enlarged car park) or around the town centre will be a misery on seven days, as opposed to six days, a week. I may be wrong. A report on the effect on the environment of residential areas could tell us that.
I do not say that the Minister has not consulted properly in the past, but a range of people will have a view—the churches, the trade unions and the retailers, and I am talking not just about the large retailers represented in the retail consortium. There is the national chamber of trade and groups such as the Hardware Federation, the meat retailers and the Bakers' Institute which represent the smaller traders. All those bodies are entitled after 12 months to tell the House their experience and to produce the evidence.
The councils will have a view also. I am talking not merely about the councillors and the Association of District Councils, which is well and authoritatively represented in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. There are also the shop inspectors. I remind your Lordships' Committee that they have said that the present law is not difficult to enforce provided that they have support. Let us hear what they have to say in 12 months' time. I can certainly see the police, the Consumers' Association and the consumer councils having a view.
All the arguments can be resolved without disturbing the Government's intention to bring in the Bill, though many of us wish that they would not. But let us test it in the light of experience. In 12 months', or, with the way that legislation goes, two years' time, let us see how the legislation is working, whether there are lessons to be learnt and whether we need to bring forward amending legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I am surprised that anyone as experienced and as practical as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has proved himself to be over the years that we have been in Parliament together, should think for one second that an amendment such as this would be inserted in a Bill by any responsible Parliament. Why should this be granted only to the people who work in the retail trade? The report would contain an assessment of whether they have had their right to worship interfered with, what their remuneration is, whether their working has increased prices or affected them, and about the interests and wishes of the consumers. If this one industry was asked to do this because of some special reason—which the noble Lord did not explain—why would it not apply to everybody who has to work on Sunday? Why should not all these questions be put to them?
To ask a Government to set up such a precedent, after having produced legislation which they truly believe is in the best interests of the nation, is to ask them to doubt the real effectiveness of what they are doing. It would be asking them to admit in advance that they have doubts about the real quality of the legislation which they are asking Parliament to accept.
I do not believe that any responsible Parliament could pick out one industry—in this case the retail industry—and say that it is the only one which ought to have this kind of annual report put on the records. If one does it in this instance one would have to do it in many others. I do not think it is being fair to the people who are engaged in the retail trade to represent them as though they are all that different from other workers in other industries. I am connected with the hotel industry. The people in that industry are workers; they give a similar kind of service—and by and large it is very good and very satisfactory.
By putting in this kind of safety chain one is giving the impression that those in the retail trade are in need of the special, almost unbelievable, protection of an annual report, which would cost money and time. The noble Lord is a practical man who is experienced in these matters. I do not think that he would expect one industry to have this written in without thinking that it would have to be extended over the whole of the industries where people have to work unsocial hours or on Sundays.
360
This sets a precedent which would boomerang in a way which I believe would be disastrous to business and commerce as a whole. The noble Lord was persuasive in presenting the amendment. That is one of the problems: the noble Lord is a very persuasive arguer on these matters, and his love of Edmonton was obvious to everyone when he quoted his example of how he obtains this knowledge. I come from the Midlands, Staffordshire, and I know that there are many industries in Staffordshire which would feel that, if this kind of thing was done for one industry, the same should be done for them. One would be opening the door to something which would not be very pleasant for Parliaments of the future. I do not think we ought to do that.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: I am afraid that I cannot support this amendment. To the retailer the prospect of a review after one year when patterns of trade have already been established would create the opportunity for the whole divisive controversy to be started all over again. The report suggested by the amendment would obviously require the setting up of another committee. If the committee covered all the matters mentioned in this amendment the work might easily take two years to complete, by which time the pattern of trade would be even more firmly established. Therefore, I think that this amendment, if pressed, should be opposed.
Lord Gallacher: I have a great deal of support for this amendment for reasons which I hope briefly to put before the Committee. First, what we are dealing with in this Bill is not merely Sunday trading but Sunday and Sunday night trading. It is not weekday trading along the present pattern of weekday trading under the 1950 Shops Act. It is the legalising of the right of retailers to be open from one minute after midnight until 23.59 on the same day. Thus, in effect what the Bill seeks to legalise, and what the Auld Committee recommended, was that the shops of this country, if they so wish, can be open for 168 hours a week. That, by any stretch of the imagination represents a major change in the social habits and the life of the people of this country.
There are two views as to how retailers may react to the freedom which the Bill proposes to confer upon them. There are those who say that it will not be very different from what happens in Scotland on a Sunday. There are others, including myself, who say that it will be vastly different. We have our reasons for that judgment, not least the fact that 50 per cent. of the multiple retailers are simply waiting for the starting gun. Fifty per cent. of them will open; the remaining 50 per cent. of multiple retailers in this country will have to give serious consideration to what is happening to their trade if their principal trading rivals are open and they are closed. We are dealing with a situation which is, in a sense, unknown and goes beyond anything of which we have practical experience in this country.
Turning to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, I think that the amendment makes it perfectly clear that the process of consultation is not one in which workers only are to be consulted but a whole range of interests which may be affected. I am

361
particularly concerned with those people mentioned by my noble friend Lord Graham who, through no fault of their own, happen to have the good fortune or misfortune to live close to areas which may suddenly find themselves transformed on a Sunday. If their only defence—once the Bill becomes an Act—is to rely upon the law of nuisance, then I think they may find themselves facing court proceedings and not getting very much joy out of those proceedings.
In deference to those people in particular sympathetic consideration should be given to this amendment. Modern retailing can be a fairly noisy business. Music comes into it—at least, I am told that it is music. Motor-cars certainly come into it; car doors certainly come into it. If one is saying that these effects can go on quite legally 24 hours a day, seven days a week, without the possibility of a review, one is making a very harsh judgment indeed and inflicting on the people of England and Wales a situation which I do not think Parliament has the right so to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, also mentioned the fact that nobody else has even had a review of parliamentary legislation in this way and that we shall be creating a dangerous precedent. I have had the misfortune to have been at this game quite a long time. I recollect quite clearly the occasion when the Bill on policyholders' protection was going through Parliament—admittedly a different kind of measure but one which aroused great opposition from the orthodox insurance industry. One irate insurance officer told me that it was a rogues' charter. Your Lordships will recall that the purpose of the Bill was to provide a fund for the protection of people who might be disadvantaged by the collapse of insurance companies. In deference to the kind of view expressed to me the Bill provided for just such a review as that now proposed after five years. The review was made, and, significantly enough, there was no question of any revision to the Act because the worst fears of the insurance industry about its operation were not realised.
It may be that under this amendment, if it were to become law, the review would take place and our worst fears for the people of this country and for their peace and quiet in the late evening would not be realised. But I say that at least the opportunity ought to be given.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, says that we shall be disturbing established patterns of trade. In my capacity as an assessor to the Auld Committee, I did a fair amount of legwork. I did not even charge for shoe leather! However, I went round the garden centres and the DIY shops which are currently breaking the law on Sundays, in order to observe how much trade was going on. I found—and I readily admit it—that a great deal of trade was going on, both on Sunday mornings and again on Sunday afternoons. I also found that, in so far as they were giving notice of what their opening times were on Sundays—and many of them were not doing so for fear of incurring the wrath of local authorities—most of them were closing at 6 p.m.
I personally felt that the Auld Committee made a mistake in going for total abolition, and it may be that at the Report stage of the Bill we shall ask the Government to think about this matter. If no one is
362
asking for midnight trading, then in my view it is an imposition on the people of this country to give it to them through a Bill of this character. However, as the Bill stands, I believe that the case for a review is very powerful. It may be that 12 months is too short a period. I think that it is. However, certainly within the period of one to two years those people who may be oppressed by what lies before them have the right to feel that the Home Office will be looking at the whole matter and maybe drawing conclusions as to the practical results of the operation of the Bill and possibly giving them some redress, some amelioration in respect of the disturbance which the Bill may quite unwittingly impose upon them. I support the amendment.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Lord opposite will forgive me if I do not follow him in that part of his speech which seemed, if he will allow me to say so, more appropriate to Second Reading than to the debate on this rather limited amendment. I shall confine myself to the amendment.
I am bound to say that I do not take quite as adverse a view of the amendment as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. In my view the amendment is very well-intentioned. However, like many well-intentioned proposals, it requires examination as to its practical effect. First, I agree with the noble Lord who has just spoken that it really would be quite absurd to have the review within a year. It is not clear from the way in which it is drafted whether the review is to start after a year or to be completed after a year. Quite obviously, if we look at what is proposed and know something about the speed with which governmental machinery works, we will realise that we are talking about a process of at least a year as regards the preparation of the report. On any view that would be too soon.
As was made clear by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who speaks with more experience of this matter than any of us, it would be quite absurd to start reviewing the Act (as it will then be) after so short an interval and before its real patterns have settled down. I understand the point of view of the noble Lord. Lord Graham of Edmonton, and that he feels that the Bill will have serious effects and that people may be reassured by knowing that it will be reviewed. I suggest to the noble Lord and to your Lordships that there is a much simpler and less cumbrous way of dealing with the matter.
For example, if any section of noble Lords opposite feel after a year or any other period that the Act has turned out to work less well than some of us hoped, there is nothing whatever to prevent them staging a debate in the House. In so far as they are in the Official Opposition—a position in which I think they will be, happily, for many years to come—they will be able to use one of the very large number of days which are allotted to the Official Opposition (a far larger number of days than allotted to my noble friends) to have a full debate. They will be able to put down a Motion and to ask for answers on a large number of points which appear in the amendment. The Government of the day will have to answer them. Surely that is a great deal less cumbrous, more efficient and a more flexible method than that proposed. Therefore, while to some extent I am with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, as

363
regards the intention, I am wholly against him as regards the method.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I hope that your Lordships will allow me to make a brief intervention. Of course I sympathise with the fears expressed by the noble Lord opposite. However, if we look at the matter objectively we realise that these provisions are wholly inappropriate to put on the face of a statute. They are not provisions which are apt to carry legal enforceability. If we begin putting questions of sentiment onto the face of a statute, however well-intentioned, we mess up the statute law. I therefore ask the noble Lord who has proposed the amendment to reconsider his suggestion.
Lord Milverton: I do not think that I can support the amendment, because I rather agree with my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls in asking why, if we are to do this type of thing for one group, it should not be done for others. As my noble friend has said, there are many other people who have to work on Sundays. One of the noble Lords opposite raised the question of noise. There are plenty of activities which occur throughout the country on Sundays which involve noise. For example, there are motor-car rallies. Some people may like them but some may find them a dashed nuisance. Therefore, I do not think that the point about noise being a nuisance is very relevant.
Basically, when it comes down to it, the question of business on Sunday and what work is done should be left to the conscience of people and, one hopes and prays, to the good conscience of employers to deal decently and respectfully with employees and to respect their conscience about Sunday and worship. That is the matter that will have to be watched and studied. If any employers do not honour that position, which I think is implanted in the Bill, they must be brought to account.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like very briefly to give my support to the amendment, for the following reasons. I am sure there is general agreement that one of the recurring themes in the debate on this Bill has been that we do not really know what exactly will come out of it at the end. We do not know how many shops will take advantage of the Bill. We do not know how many shopworkers will choose to work on Sundays. We do not know how much disruption it will cause to the communities living around those shops which stay open. Therefore, a great deal of the debate has been hypothetical.
That is the reason I should like to support the amendment. It seems completely logical and appropriate that there should be a review at some stage—be it one year, two years or three years after the Bill comes into law—to disclose not only what has gone wrong but also what has happened. In my view that is great justification for the amendment.
As my noble friend Lord Gallacher said, we are talking not simply about Sunday trading but about something which could cause much more of a fundamental upheaval to all kinds of aspects of life. The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said that the whole point of having a review would be simply to arrest some of the patterns from settling down. But surely, if some of those patterns are settling down in
364
the wrong way, that would be the point of the review. I am sure we would all agree that if the patterns were settling down to the disadvantage of people generally—shopworkers, consumers and sabbatarians—then it would be quite a good idea to stop them settling down altogether.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me for intervening. There is force in what she says if sufficient time is allowed. However, the amendment to which she is speaking would not allow time for patterns to settle down in a form or shape as regards which it would be possible to form an intelligent judgment as to whether that form or shape was good or bad. That is the point. If we were talking of a period of five years it might be a different matter.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: The noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, has made a very good point. The point about whether the interval is correct has already been brought up. I mentioned one, two or three years. I do not know what the correct time should be. However, I agree that one year would not be long enough to see exactly what is happening.
The different matters which my noble friend Lord Graham has listed, which he thinks would need reviewing, are eminently sensible. We would want to see whether the working conditions of employees were right. I know that it has been pointed out many times, but I do not think one can point out enough the percentage of women who are employed in the retail business. Those women's rights are always the most vulnerable and need the most protection. We certainly want to know whether they have been able to get home safely if shops have stayed open late at night on weekdays or Sundays. This is something which will be revealed when the Act has been in force for a little time. We shall have to see how our transport system has dealt with it; perhaps not many new demands will be made upon it.
However, these seem to be the most eminently sensible matters to be looked at in order to see whether any adjustment needs to be made. Therefore, I should like to give my support to this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: It is part of the function of Government to keep under review the needs of our society, to see whether new controls are needed and whether old controls have outlived their usefulness. It is part of this process that has led the Government to bring this Bill before Parliament. Your Lordships will know that the Government keep records and statistics of all the major aspects of our daily life. These records are kept by the different departments of state. For example, crime statistics—one of the features of the noble Lord's amendment—are produced by the Home Office; employment statistics are produced by the Department of Employment; information on costs and prices is produced by the Department of Trade and Industry; social trends generally are measured by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys; and matters of transport are dealt with by the Department of Transport. It is from the collation of all these figures and the make-up of the information which results that Government departments seek to distinguish long-term trends and to decide on future legislative needs.

365
The Institute for Fiscal Studies carried out an economic review for the Auld Committee and concluded that were there to be de-regulation:
"it is unlikely that … there would be effects of sufficient magnitude to be distinguished readily from the other changes which would be occurring as a result of other influences on the style and structure of British retailing".
Frankly, if the effects of this Bill on the style and structure of British retailing are unlikely to be separable from the other trends in this sector, I very much doubt whether the effect of the Bill on the right to worship or the incidence of crime would be able to be separated any more easily.
One section of this report might require a most elaborate analysis of the incidence of crime. Some research already takes place in order to determine the strategies which our society needs to combat crime. Yet for all the research that takes place, I suggest that it would be a foolhardy criminologist who would claim that he could attribute a crime to one particular reason.
Should this Bill produce any small effects, it will not be possible to separate and isolate them from the many other larger social and economic influences that affect the crime rate. The Government produce sufficient information in each of the fields mentioned as a continuing duty. It is unlikely that the effects of de-regulation will be distinguishable in any one of these fields.
The aim of the amendment appears to be to focus attention on the various aspects of the life of our society and to blame any deleterious effects on this Bill. This appears to me to be another example of, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, "tunnel vision". Government information and statistics are very detailed and have certain very valuable uses. This amendment proposes a report which would repeat information available elsewhere, which would shed little light on the negligible effects which the Bill would have and would be of little use to any of us.
It is the function of this House, as has been suggested, and of another place to bring to the Government's attention and to debate any problems that arise in the country as a direct result of legislation or from any other cause. Should difficulties arise from this legislation after one year or after five years or at some point in the future, we shall be free to discuss them. To lay down that such a wide-ranging report should be prepared would merely be to generate unnecessary expense and time-consuming work.
Your Lordships' House is never slow to discuss problems of this or any other sort which affect us in this country. As my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter pointed out, we do not need a report of such doubtful value, however well-intentioned it may be. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I apologise to the Committee for not being present earlier, but I have heard the Minister's reply and I should like to congratulate him on his opening remarks. His opening paragraphs were most statesmanlike in relation to the Government's activities. I do not blame the noble Lord for what is in his brief, but I think that his brief
366
has missed the whole point of the amendment. It is that one year after the coming into force of this Act there should be a report. Why is it put forward as:
"One year after the coming into force of this Act"?
There is great dissension throughout the whole country; there is great dissension in parts of your Lordships' Committee. There is great dissension in parts of the noble Lord's Party, some of whose members abstain from voting on this Bill because it raises such great issues in relation to social activities as well as details about the number of hours that shops should open. There is a great cleavage.
This Bill is a serious experiment, and after a year its operation may not be as good as the noble Lord the Minister and the Government think. Therefore, it seems reasonable that one year later certain aspects should be discussed and a report prepared and laid before Parliament on the operation of a very controversial Bill which raises such important matters as social aspects. I agree that some of the items in subsection (2) may not be of any consequence to discuss, but is the Minister on behalf of the Government able to say now that:
"the employment, remuneration and working conditions of employees"
will be absolutely satisfactory a year after the coming into force of this Act? How can he say such things?
Lord Glenarthur: With respect, I do not think that the noble Lord can have heard some of the other arguments that were put forward if he came into the Chamber only at the beginning of my speech. The noble Lord is missing the whole point. By not being present, he missed my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asking whether if we were to accept this amendment to this Bill we should amend in a similar way all the other Bills which we consider. What does the noble Lord think about that? I cannot believe that it is a sensible suggestion. Nor did I at any stage say that paragraphs (a) through to (g) would not be looked at through the normal machinery of Government and the various other means of collecting statistics.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that most helpful intervention. At the moment I am dealing with my case on Amendment No. 24A to Clause 3. In putting forward my argument, I do not have to concern myself with the arguments made by other Members of the Committee, however distinguished they may be. It may be amusing to Members opposite, but I am dealing with an amendment. I am entitled to put my case.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: This is not an amendment, it is a new clause.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, was so anxious and I could not deal with the duet.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I was wanting to help the noble Lord, of whom I am very fond. If he was arguing

367
on the basis that this was an amendment to Clause 3, he was wrong. It is not an amendment to Clause 3. It is a new clause which I claim sets up a precedent that we may not like when it is applied to other industries in the future.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: As always, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, is most helpful to me when I am floundering about. He corrected me on a technical point, and I did say that it was an amendment to Clause 3. I apologise for that great mistake. Of course, we are dealing with a new clause after Clause 3. I apologise to the Committee for having made that mistake.
I am entitled to put my view, and the view of many here, having heard the Minister. The Minister is replying to all the argument, while I am dealing with the Minister's argument and nobody else's and I am entitled to do that. I should have thought that the working conditions of employees ought to be considered carefully after a year. It is reasonable to want to understand, with this controversial Bill, whether what the Government are saying is right.
"Times have changed", we have heard from the Minister; "the country is all right; employers will know when to do this, that, and the other"—after the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. The noble Lord the Minister laughed about item (e) of the suggested new clause, the report about "the incidence of crime". Surely, crime, shoplifting—
Lord Glenarthur: With respect to the noble Lord, I really cannot accept that I laughed about anything to do with crime. I see quite enough of the effects from other matters to do with the Home Office. What I simply tried to do was to set out my answer to Lord Graham's amendment, for which he has had some support, but which some of my noble friends, and others including the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, have said does not make sense, I believe for various good reasons.
I also went on to say—and the noble Lord may have missed this—that the Government produce a mass of information in each of the fields with which this amendment deals as a continuing duty. I cannot believe, that the noble Lord feels, if that continuing duty exists, that there is a need to elaborate upon it in the way that this amendment proposes. That is all I am suggesting. I gave some examples of the kind of information collected.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: I am again obliged to the noble Lord, but of course he has misunderstood what I said. I strongly resent that he suggested that I thought he was laughing at the question of crime. I never laugh at the question of crime in relation to the noble Lord's outlook on these matters. I was saying that I understood him to be somewhat scornful of an amendment to contain a clause asking for a report on crime.
368
I took from the way the noble Lord was speaking that he was not scornful about the necessity for dealing with crime; he was scornful, as I understood it, about the need to have an amendment to the Bill which says that in a year's time we shall consider questions of crime, like shoplifting, or difficulties of monitoring the Bill and other matters associated with this Bill.
I feel that it would be reasonable after a year of the operation of this Bill, which causes such great dissension—and there is a cleavage of opinion throughout the country—to have this report because it would be helpful to the Government after one year to reconsider the whole position. I am sorry to have taken up the time of this Committee, and I apologise to those Members of the Committee whom I have not heard. But apart from the Minister, with great respect, what was said before I came in was irrelevant to the speech which I have now addressed to the Committee because I was merely dealing with the speech of the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I shall be exceedingly brief. I simply wish to reinforce a point eloquently made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. There is dissension on this whole issue, not merely in this Committee but throughout the country. I happen to elevate this issue higher than many others in this Committee who look upon this in the generality of legislation. I believe that the impact and effect of this legislation, once passed, will have enormous social consequences, as well as retailing consequences, etc. That is why I believe that it is very special indeed.
Scorn has been poured upon Parliament writing into primary legislation the need to review that which it has agreed is right. Three years ago Parliament passed legislation in respect of seat belts. It said that three years after the passage of that Bill it would be reviewed. This week it was reviewed. Therefore, those who pour scorn on the idea that it is right after a certain time to say, "We will look at it again", need to reflect seriously on what they are saying.
I take the point that perhaps one year may not be right. Perhaps two years or three years would be better, in which case, as the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, nods his head, on some other occasion he will get the opportunity to support the principle, not of one year but of perhaps two years. If it turns out that as early as a year later it can be clearly seen that what we have done is wrong, and a majority of the people of this country recognise that it is wrong, why do we not have a mechanism, a peg, upon which we can stop?
The Minister says that we do not need all of this, and that statistics are kept regularly. That negatives the argument that we shall be asking for a lot of work to be done under this new clause. If the statistics are there, they can be assembled and used. It is a sensible amendment which is in keeping with the unhappiness that I sense about the Committee and the other place. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, says, "Once it is done, it is done". I say that if once it is done it is seen to be wrong, we ought to have the opportunity to reflect and review. That is why I give the Committee the opportunity to express its view.
5.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 24A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 60; Not-Contents, 110.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Attlee, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Molloy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Collison, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Derby, Bp.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Diamond, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Donoughue, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Eldon, E.

Seear, B.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Serota, B.

Ennals, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stamp, L.

Ezra, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L. [Teller.]

Falkland, V.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Strabolgi, L.

Gallacher, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Underhill, L.

Gregson, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hooson, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Willis, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Wilson of Rievaulx, L.

Kagan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Glanusk, L.

Ampthill, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Arran, E.

Gridley, L.

Atholl, D.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Aylestone, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hayter, L.

Bauer, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Belstead, L.

Henley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Hertford, M.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Hives, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hood, V.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hooper, B.

Broxbourne, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Butterworth, L.

Kimball, L.

Caccia, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Caithness, E.

Lawrence, L.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Layton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Long, V.

Carnock, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cathcart, E.

Lyell, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Malmesbury, E.

Colwyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Margadale, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Marsh, L.

Cox, B.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Davidson, V.

Maude of Stratford-upon-

De Freyne, L.

Avon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Melville, V.

Dilhome, V.

Merrivale, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mersey, V.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Milverton, L.

Elton, L.

Monson, L.

Enroll of Hale, L.

Montague of Beaulieu, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

370

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Selkirk, E.

Munster, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Newall, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Norfolk, D.

Somers, L.

Norrie, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Orkney, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Portland, D.

Teynham, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Vickers, B.

Renton, L.

Vivian, L.

Rodney, L.

Westbury, L.

Romney, E.

Whitelaw, V.

Rugby, L.

Windlesham, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Wise, L.

Salisbury, M.

Wolfson, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Young, B.

Sandford, L.

Ypres, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly
5.55 p.m.
Clause 4 [Short title, consequential amendments, repeals and extent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the Minister about the meaning of subsection (3)? If it means anything, why is it in this extraordinary place and not in Schedule 2? I gave the noble Lord notice that I wanted to raise this question, but if he is not prepared to deal with this today I am content to have it dealt with on Report. I shall put down the appropriate amendment myself, or he can do it. Perhaps it would be convenient if I indicate the problem. Would that be convenient for the noble Lord the Minister?
Lord Glenarthur: I may be able to satisfy the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. Under Section 21 of the 1950 Act the occupier of premises selling refreshments may opt to apply the special provisions of Section 21 instead of the half-day holiday and meal break provisions of Sections 17 to 20. If he opts for this he has to display and maintain on the premises a notice describing the special provisions and the steps taken to comply with them. The form of the notice is prescribed by regulation.
One of the provisions described by the notice is the maximum number of hours—65—that an adult shop assistant may work in any week under these special arrangements. But this maximum does not apply to young persons employed on the premises whose maximum hours are set down elsewhere in Part II of the 1950 Act; that is, Sections 24 to 31. The restriction of Section 21 to young persons only means that this part of the provision is no longer relevant and it is being repealed by Schedule 2, paragraph 6. This means that the notice is accurate.
The simplest way to correct this notice is to deprescribe it and to give guidance on the form it should take in an information leaflet to be published. The provision does not remove the requirement of an occupier to display a notice explaining to his young shopworkers the details of the arrangements he has adopted. The noble and learned Lord asked me why this provision is in Clause 4. This matter is covered in Clause 4 because it is not consequential and therefore

371
cannot be in Schedule 2. I hope that that clarifies this for the noble and learned Lord. I am most grateful to him for having given notice that he would raise it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am grateful to the noble Lord. He has clarified matters, but on neither point has he given, in my respectful submission, a satisfactory answer—either on the question of what the subsection does or why it is in Clause 4.
The noble Lord has dealt with Section 21 and he has explained that that can now apply only to young persons. Therefore the requirement on the employer to display a notice in the form prescribed by regulation is no longer relevant. That is so, and therefore Section 21 including these words is of no possible interest for the reason that the noble Lord explained; namely, that the hours of young persons working are dealt with in a different section: that is, Section 24, which deals with young persons working generally and puts a maximum of 48 hours. Section 25 deals with the catering trade and therefore covers the ground covered by Section 21, which is the section dealing with the shops at which refreshments are consumed on the premises.
Section 25—which, as I have said, covers the ground of Section 21; so there is no need for one to look at Section 21 at all—prescribes a fortnightly maximum of 96 hours; in other words, twice the general weekly maximum of 48 hours. What is more, Section 25 requires a notice in the prescribed form, and that is the relevant section; so that, with all respect to the noble Lord, I cannot find his explanation satisfactory. In fact, if anything is needed to deal with Section 21 in any way at all, it should be in Schedule 2 because it disappears completely as to its relevance to adult workers, being repealed by Clause 2 of the Bill.
Therefore the repeal ought to appear in Schedule 2 of the Bill. So far as young persons are concerned, the relevant section of the Shops Act is Section 25. If that is to be dealt with at all—and I cannot see any need for dealing with it at all—it should be dealt with as a consequential provision and not tucked away in this kind of clause. I have never before seen this kind of provision in the final clause of a Bill or statute. Do I take it that the noble Lord has got another answer?
Lord Renton: Will the noble and learned Lord allow me to intervene? He suggests that this should be as a consequential amendment in Schedule 2. But surely it should be in Schedule 3, which deals with repeals. He has, quite rightly, described it as a form of repeal.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I think the noble Lord is right. It could be in Schedule 2 as a minor and consequential amendment in so far as it picks out particular words; or it could be in Schedule 3. The one place that it is certainly wrong for it to be is in the enacting provision of this Bill.
Lord Glenarthur: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble friend. It all goes to show that things are never quite so simple as one thinks. I must tell the noble and learned Lord that when he gave me notice that he intended to raise this matter, I was convinced that the Bill was right. But I have listened with great care to what the noble and learned Lord has said. It provides me with an
372
opportunity to correct one thing that I said when I was talking about the restriction of Section 21 to young persons only. When I referred to that, what I should have said was that it means that this particular part of the provision is no longer relevant and it is being repealed by Schedule 2(6). This means that the notice is inaccurate. I think that I used the word "accurate".
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: That is not the point. The point is that Section 21 does not deal with young persons. That is dealt with in Section 25. It does not deal with young persons and never has dealt with young persons.
Lord Glenarthur: I entirely appreciate the point. I was trying to correct some information that I gave the noble and learned Lord more generally on this point. What I should like to do, since this is a very complex matter, is to study what the noble and learned Lord has said and to write to him about it, having sought the advice of those who have drafted the Bill. I think that is the only way we can take it forward. I respect the sincerity which the noble and learned Lord has expressed and his concern that we have got it wrong. I shall do my best to examine it and explain it further.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. Perhaps I may suggest that he sends a copy of his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, who naturally keeps a fatherly interest in all matters arising out of the Renton Report.
Lord Glenarthur: I would not dare not to send a copy to my noble friend.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Rights of established shopworkers concerning Sunday working]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Nugent of Guildford): I should explain on Amendment No. 24B that if this amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 24C or Amendment No. 25.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 24B:
Page 3, line 9, leave out from beginning to end of line 14.
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move the amendment standing in my name in relation to the schedules. There has been a lot of discussion in the Committee about the complexity of Schedule 1. Certainly I share those views. In particular, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, finds it incompre-hensible, it is certainly very difficult for less experienced and less expert people to deal with it. I wonder how employers and workers are going to cope with it if it remains unamended.
I say at the outset that I am very much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for setting out with such clarity the principles that really underlie the series of amendments that stand in my name on the Marshalled List in regard to this schedule; because what I am seeking to do in this amendment and in those that follow it is really something quite simple. What I am saying—and other speakers have said so

373
already—is that I am not happy at all about the provisions for what amounts to a two-tier labour force where you have some employeres engaged on some sort of contract and others employed on other terms.
Lord Glenarthur: May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is speaking also to Amendment No. 26C, 27A and 31A? I believe that those are in her name.
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes.
Amendment No. 26C: Page 4, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
Amendment No. 27A: Page 4, line 25, leave out ("uncontractual").
Amendment No. 31A: Page 4, line 42, leave out ("uncontractual").
Perhaps it would be simpler if I were to do so, as they are all consequential one upon the other and stand together as part of a general concept.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I must apologise to the noble Baroness. I am rather lost. Are we on Amendment No. 24B and the others that go with it?
Baroness Turner of Camden: Yes, we are. If I may continue, I was saying earlier that I disagree with the concept of a two-tier workforce, with some employees employed on certain conditions and others employed on quite different conditions. I may say this is also the view of the TUC, which, in a document it has sent to me about the provisions in the Bill, says:
"This would create a two-tier workforce in the retail trade and the TUC is strongly opposed to the introduction of legislation which is divisive among workers and contributes to the downgrading of certain workers compared with others".
The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made rather similar points, I think, when he was moving his amendment on Tuesday evening.
If one departs from the concept of a two-tier workforce, one then does not have to have in all this wording about whether it is uncontractual or contractual; because what we are seeking to do in this series of amendments is to establish quite simply that every shopworker who is required to work on Sunday is enabled to do so in a quite voluntary way. As noble Lords have said earlier, there are many trades and industries where it is quite common for people to work on Sundays and also, if I may say so, to work overtime during the week. But it is not always part of a contract or contractual obligation.
In many instances—I speak as a trade union official of some experience in these areas—the employer has no difficulty in persuading people to work on a Sunday because he pays a premium rate for that work. He pays a premium rate for work in the evening on an overtime basis and he pays a premium rate if he wants people to come in and work on a Sunday. People do so quite voluntarily because they are prepared to work for those premium rates.
That is the object of the amendments that we are putting forward. What we want to ensure, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, explained with great clarity earlier this afternoon, is that there shall be a situation in which shopworkers, whether they have been employed for 20 years or whether they start working in a shop next year, may completely
374
voluntarily decide whether or not they wish to work on a Sunday, and the employer may, if he wishes to do so, pay a premium rate to encourage them to do so. We are able to ensure that they have that right by writing into the Bill a provision, which was originally in Amendment No. 11—to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, referred—for people who are forced to work, as they see it, on a Sunday when they do not want to do so and are threatened with dismissal if they do not work. If it is not in a contract they would have the right to take their case to a tribunal, and they are given rights to sue for unfair dismissal if they are dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays when it is not in their contract.
Those are the objects of these various amendments. Regarding the amendment in relation to uncontractual Sunday work, the paragraph about uncontractual Sunday work comes out if the concept of the two-tier workforce to which I referred earlier is abandoned. If one looks further down at the amendment in relation to paragraph 2(1) of the schedule, there again that is not necessary if the concept of the established shopworkers is abandoned. Over the page, the next paragraphs are also not required, again if the concept of the established shopworker is abandoned and all shopworkers are treated in an equal way and are not bound by contract to work on a Sunday and have the rights under the Employment Protection Act if by any chance they are threatened with dismissal or with actions short of dismissal if they refuse to do so. I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
Lord Renton: In spite of the fact that as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway said earlier, we may all be wasting our time discussing the first schedule because one hopes the Government will revise it, or perhaps even do away with it altogether, I think that the noble Baroness has done us a good service by saying what she has said, because she has touched on difficulties that arise on this first schedule, especially with regard to this strange concept of "uncontractual Sunday work". To my mind, as a simple lawyer, the expression "uncontractual work" is a contradiction in terms because all work is contractual unless of course it happens to be unpaid, casual, voluntary work done by somebody interloping almost as a bystander. Therefore I hope that when this matter is considered further this quite absurd new notion, which is almost a legal fiction, will be done away with; and to that extent we must be grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: On one matter I find myself in entire agreement with both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Renton: namely, that this part of the schedule, and indeed most of it, is absolutely baffling. Also I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Baroness and agree with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. When she says most shopworkers do not work under a contract, what she really means, I think, is that they do not work under a formal contract. I think I have appreciated what she means. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, is absolutely right when he says that, except for voluntary work, all work in

375
shops—in fact all pecuniary employment—is under a contract of employment. Therefore I agree with him that it does really make a nonsense to start off with a definition of "uncontractual Sunday work".
Then again this paragraph, which the noble Baroness understandably wishes to get rid of, is very difficult to understand because not only is it wrongly described but it is couched in a negative form, "other than". One really has to translate it into a positive form in order to see what it does. So far as I understand it—and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong—put positively, it means that a shopworker is bound to do Sunday work and the employer is bound to employ him and pay him for the Sunday work under a contract of employment, in two circumstances. The first is that if previous to the Act he was employed on Sunday work in that case he can—and indeed must—simply carry on and the employer is bound to employ and pay him on Sundays after the Act.
The other circumstance is that if he was not employed on Sunday work before the Act he has the same opportunity for opting for Sunday work as any other entrant to the shop trade. The only difference is that then he has to agree in writing to be employed on Sunday work, whereas the employee previously employed on Sunday work is employed afterwards under a contract of employment, either written or unwritten. It seems to me, apart from the infelicity of drafting, that the noble Lord has the matter right.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I hesitate to intervene and disagree with my noble friend Lord Renton, but I hope he will not mind my pointing out to him that there is no such thing as "a simple lawyer". It seems to me that in itself is a contradiction in terms. I wanted to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, a question concerning voluntary work on Sundays. If I understood her amendment correctly, she is proposing that Sunday workers should be on a voluntary basis. Can she please advise the Committee what would be the circumstances for a retail organisation when the workers, for some reason or another, did not volunteer and whether that organisation therefore would be able to obtain workers from elsewhere without any prejudice to their activities?
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is not an uncommon situation in industry where the employees are employed on contracts which set out the hours they work, and there is an arrangment under which if an employer wants to employ people outside those hours he offers premium rates to do it. Often, if he cannot get volunteers from his own workforce he will get them from elsewhere. But he pays for it separately, and the people who do it have a separate contract. It is a separate arrangement in relation to that work, and it is usually at premium rates.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: I find very offensive the idea of dividing into sheep and goats people who are working side by side, for the same employer, in the same conditions, in the same circumstances and at the same time. That is a situation which would create resentment and uncertainty; but it would have a further effect which would fly in the face of what is proposed in the Bill. It would give an employer an
376
incentive to get rid of all the existing workers, who enjoy a special protection. That is not difficult. Indeed, the cases of unfair dismissal which have filled the reports of tribunals demonstrate the ease with which it can be done. Any employer who has the attributes which I believe are held by those who welcome this Bill will know exactly how to get rid of people.
I believe that we have to protect the right not to work with the same enthusiasm as we protect the right to work. The right not to work individually, as with the right not to work collectively, is a distinguishing characteristic of a democracy. The right of workers to say, "No, I will not work on Sunday", and not be victimised as a consequence, is something which we should have very close to our hearts in putting legislation of this sort on the statute book. Therefore, I hope that your Lordships will bear that in mind.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord knows far more about these matters than I do, but is he right under this part to say that anybody is forced to work? As I read it, it is purely that an employee who worked on Sundays before the commencement of the Act is entitled to go on working if he wishes—it is put round the other way in the clause—whereas if he did not before then work on Sundays it is purely up to him whether he does or does not. The only stipulation is that he should agree in writing, and I imagine that that is for the sake of certainty.
Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has a highly optimistic view of conditions in the shops trade. If he believes that a person who had previously not worked on Sundays and who wished to continue not working on Sundays would be able to withstand the pressures put on him by an employer of the kind I am discussing, then my views of the qualities of that sort of employer differ from those of the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Glenarthur: I think we all agreed at an earlier point in debating this part of the Bill, and parts close to it, that this schedule is a very complex one. I listened with great care to the interpretation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, of how he understands the schedule to read if it is changed into the positive, to use the same form of words as he used. I do not think that the noble and learned Lord is quite right if he suggests that the schedule gives any right to employees to be offered Sunday work. The schedule gives rights—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I say that I think I put it right the first time, but I was conscious of putting it wrongly when I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Murray. If the noble Lord will look at Hansard, I think he will find that I got it right the first time.
Lord Glenarthur: Of coure, I will study what the noble and learned Lord said, and I am sure that he did get it right. But it is a complex area. If I may go on to explain, what the schedule does is to give rights to workers so that they cannot be compelled against their wishes to work on Sundays. But if workers have agreed to work on Sundays under a contract, then they will not have the statutory rights in the schedule.

377
My noble friend Lord Renton was concerned about the phrase "uncontractual Sunday work". It is defined in paragraph 1, and it expresses the idea of work which a worker is not obliged under his contract to do but which an employer may be seeking to compel him to do. The effect of these amendments would be that established shopworkers could not be held to their agreement to work on Sundays. Although shopworkers could enter into agreements to work on Sundays, there would be nothing that employers could do if the shopworkers decided not to keep to their part of the bargain. Employers would be put in an intoler-able position, as they would never know whether their workers would turn up on a Sunday. Employers would be unable to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work and would therefore be placed in the weakest of all possible bargaining positions.
I suggest to the noble Baroness, who expressed the purpose of her amendment with great clarity, that it would be increasingly difficult to run a shop efficiently with this handicap. Moreover, if the other amendments were passed shopworkers joining the industry after the commencement date would be placed in the same position. I wonder whether this sort of amendment and this change in English law is an appropriate suggestion. It introduces the concept of a unilateral breaking of a contract, and I cannot see that it is the sort of condition which is likely to safeguard either employers or employees. I hope that the noble Baroness sees the force of that argument and will not press her amendment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I am very sorry, but I feel that I must press my amendment because, although I am not committed overwhelmingly to the wording—and it has been very difficult, given the schedule and its complexity, to draft suitable wording—I should nevertheless like to test the feeling of the Committee on the principles that I have enunciated. I shall go over them very briefly again.
There is the issue of the two-tier workforce, to which I am irrevocably opposed; there is the question of having contractual and uncontractual working, which is a recipe for confusion; and there is the situation in which employees in the shops industry do not have the same kind of conditions as exist in many other industries, where the employer has, as it were, to provide incentives for people to go in and work on a Sunday through premium rates or in other ways, plus the other requirements that I envisaged in the amendments, that people dismissed or threatened with dismissal, because they do not want to work on a Sunday should have the right to sue for unfair dismissal under the provisions of the Employment Protection Act. Because I did not hear in the Minister's statement any acceptance of the validity of what I said. I feel that I have no alternative but to press the amendment.
6.29 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 24B) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 85.

DIVISION NO. 2

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Attlee, E.

John-Mackie, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Bottomley, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brentford, V.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Collison, L.

Nicol, B.

David, B. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Phillips, B.

Denington, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Derby, Bp.

Rochester, L.

Diamond, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Donoughue, L.

Seear, B.

Eldon, E.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Ennals, L.

Swinfen, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Underhill, L.

Gallacher, L. [Teller.]

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

White, B.

Hanworth, V.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Willis, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Lawrence, L.

Arran, E.

Layton, L.

Atholl, D.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.

Bauer, L.

Lothian, M.

Belstead, L.

Lyell, L.

Bessborough, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Broxbourne, L.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Butterworth, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Caithness, E.

Milverton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Monson, L.

Carnock, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Munster, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Cox, B.

Norfolk, D.

Davidson, V.

Norrie, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Orkney, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Penrhyn, L.

Elton, L.

Portland, D.

Ferrers, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Rodney, L.

Glanusk, L.

Romney, E.

Glenarthur, L.

Rugby, L.

Gridley, L.

Saltoun of Aberaethy, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Sandford, L.

Selkirk, E.

Halsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Somers, L.

Hayter, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Swinton, E. [Teller.]

Henley, L.

Teynham, L.

Hives, L.

Tryon, L.

Hood, V.

Whitelaw, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wise, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.36 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 24C:
Page 3, line 11, leave out ("the commencement date") and insert ("14th November 1985").
The noble Lord said: Again it needs to be said that clearly we are overtaken by events. We ourselves have conspired to provide the uncertainty that enables some noble Lords quite properly to say, "Is there any value in seeking to amend in tiny detail something that may very well be radically altered at a later stage in the Bill, if not in this Chamber perhaps in another place?" The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is in his place as always, has raised quite properly the wisdom of appearing to go over ground which in the event may prove not to be necessary. But as I have said—and I say it again—there are obligations on Members on this side to make the case because the later opportunity literally may not present itself.
I do not intend to delay the Committee too long, but I draw the attention of the Committee to the schedule. On page 3, line 9, the present wording reads:
"'uncontractual Sunday work' means, in relation to any shopworker, shop work to be done on a Sunday other than work which on the day before the commencement date the shopworker was obliged under his contract of employment to do".
I stress the words "the commencement date". We have taken out that nebulous concept. It will be quite clear and precise at a later date, but the commencement date is not clearly defined. We have sought to insert "14th November 1985". In other words, the schedule will read:
"'uncontractual Sunday work' means, in relation to any shopworker, shop work to be done on a Sunday other than work which on the day before 14th November 1985 the shopworker was obliged under his contract of employment to do".
Why do we choose the date 14th November 1985? That was the day on which the Bill appeared. That has some significance because in preparation for the possible passing of this Bill—and a Bill will of course eventually emerge in some form—a great many people have reflected on, and aim to protect, their interests. Employers have, legitimately and properly, in protecting their interests, given consideration to the best way in which they will be able to proceed from the commencement date, when they will be legally entitled to operate under all of the clauses of and schedules to the Bill.
It may be held to be reasonable for employers to prepare for the situation that will confront them. They have to earn a living and they have to remain in business. Competition is fierce, and employers need to examine the kind of contractual arrangements they will require to make. I am speaking not only of the provisions covered by this Bill but also of the negotiations and free collective bargaining that employers will have with the major trade unions.
We are of course advised by a number of people outside your Lordships' Committee. I should like to read to the Committee an extract from an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 16th December 1985. Under a major heading, "Union worried over forced Sunday working", Mr. David Thomas wrote:
"The shopworkers' union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, says that shop workers presently employed may be forced to work on Sundays once the Shops Bill has become law, in spite of guarantees by ministers to the contrary. The Bill says that shopworkers employed before its enactment would not have to work on Sundays. However, a little-noticed provision excludes from this protection shopworkers already contracted to work on Sundays. USDAW is concerned that retailers might write into the contracts of workers recruited before the Bill was passed the stipulation that they work on Sunday once the law permits.
380
Gateway, the food retailing chain, has stated on its application forms for two years that employees may be asked to work on Sundays if the law were changed and business were to require it. Mr. Peter Fisher, Gateway's personnel director, said, 'If people have been employed and it has been specifically drawn to their attention that they might have to work on Sunday and they have agreed, it is entirely reasonable that any legislation should not override this'."
But he added:
"It is most unlikely that we would turn round and say to someone, 'You must work on Sunday because you have signed'."
In other words, the employers are saying that although by some subterfuge or device, or as a result of openhandedness, they have the right under the contract that the employee has signed to insist that he does work, even though the law says that he cannot do so, they, the employers, will be able to determine whether or not they want to exercise their rights under the employee's contract.
What worries me and a great many people in the trade union movement, and I believe most fair-minded people, is that everyone has reasonably assumed that when the trigger is pulled, the date upon which it is pulled will be the operative date; that is, some time after Royal Assent. The Minister will do a service to the Committee, because his advisers will have done their research on the purport of this amendment, whether or not the Government accept it, if he will state whether his department has been able to ascertain whether or not Gateway's practice of writing in a condition of employment that seeks to override a subsequent Act is prevalent. I am told that Debenhams, in addition to Gateway, have also used that device.
6.45 p.m.
I am not building all this up as something sinister, and I am not speaking of some heinous crime. I am talking about an employer who is seeking to protect his interests in the event of this Bill becoming an Act. I shall not lay too much stress on that. We are simply saying that it is surely better that the date whereby the non-contractual part of the Bill becomes operative should be specific and be determined as the date upon which everybody knew precisely what was going to be in the Bill. I do not blame the Gateways and the Debenhams of this world—and I believe there will be others—who, perhaps shrewdly, have seen a way around the Bill.
From the trade unions' point of view and from the workers' point of view, and I believe from the point of view of this Committee, there is a genuine belief that any person who has been in regular employment as a shopworker before the commencement of the Act will be protected. I have drawn to the attention of the Committee the practice of some employers. I repeat that I do not malign them, but by such practices it is possible that someone who has been working as an established shopworker over the past two years will have signed such a contract.
One might argue that it was surely up to the employee not to sign. My noble friends Lord Murray of Epping Forest and Lady Turner of Camden, and many others, have pointed out that we are living in a climate of unemployment. In such a climate, one clause in a contract of employment containing many clauses may not have been understood or specifically drawn to the employee's attention, or the worker may

381
not have felt it necessary to question such a condition. He might instead have said to himself, "I have the chance of getting a job. I will get that job if I sign this contract, which includes a clause about Sunday working. If I do not sign the contract with that clause, then I shall not get the job. My prospective employer only wants workers who are willing to state that when the law is changed, and although it may say that people do not have to work on Sundays, their employer has the right to say that employees will work on Sundays—not under the Act but under their contracts of employment".
In our view it would be much more sensible to say to employers, as indeed the Prime Minister said to large organisations before Christmas, that they should not for goodness sake begin to act unlawfully before the law is changed. We are saying that we should make the law that will be changed eventually fair and reasonable. We cannot go back to an unspecified and undertermined date. We believe it is reasonable to start the new practices from the date when the Bill was published. That date was 14th November 1985.
I shall very much welcome the Minister's observations. This amendment has not been dreamt up as a device or a peg with which to delay the Committee. I have already declared my interest through my association with USDAW. The TUC, on whose behalf my noble friend Lady Turner has spoken so eloquently on more than one occasion, has asked us to establish whether the Committee is prepared to go a fraction of the way down the road to protect at least in part the intention of the Government that existing shopworkers shall be safeguarded in the future. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: Your Lordships will certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that one must have a precise date for ascertaining the status of the worker which gives rise to the rights that the Bill gives him. I do not know whether it was a slip of the tongue on the noble Lord's part, but commence-ment date is a precise date. The date of Royal Assent is the date that a Bill becomes an Act. Under a statute of somewhere near the end of the 18th century—I have forgotten its name—the Clerk of the Parliaments writes under the Title of a Bill, at the moment it receives Royal Assent, the date of Royal Assent. That is, by statute, part of the Act of Parliament and that is the commencing date unless some other date is specified.
The noble Lord also spoke—and I think probably did not quite mean it—of the employers writing into a contract an obligation for their employees to do Sunday work unless this provision were given retrospection. However, what the Bill says is this. If someone is doing Sunday work at the time of Royal Assent under a contract of employment, written or unwritten—as the noble Baroness pointed out, it is quite frequently informal but both the employer and the employee know perfectly well whether the employee is doing Sunday work—he cannot claim the privileges that are given under the Bill: the right not to be dismissed or have penal action short of dismissal taken against him if he thenceforward refuses to do Sunday work. In that respect, as I understand it, all the
382
Bill says is that the existing contract of employment, whether written or unwritten, is merely carried forward.
The other case is that where no Sunday work was done previous to the date of Royal Assent. In that case, under the Bill the employee has the right to claim protection from penal action only if he agrees in writing at that time to do Sunday work; in other words, at Royal Assent or thereafter. There can be no question of a unilateral alteration to the contract of employment by the employer between the date of publication of the Bill and Royal Assent. A change of contract must be, as with every other contract, bilateral.
The noble Baroness was quite right on the earlier amendment in drawing to our attention that quite frequently that is informal. I would expect to find that in a small shop; in other words, the employee is merely working Sunday after Sunday and then one would presume a contract of employment to do Sunday work. In the case of the big retailers one would expect—and I am sure this is the case where they have a personnel manager—the obligations to be in writing.
It seems to me that the commencement date here is the right date and I really do think that the noble Lord, Lord Graham, is seeing bogeys. Although I know he speaks with all the force of the TUC behind him, I think that they are afraid of shadows in this case.
Lord Renton: I hope the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, will not mind my saying that I hope he will withdraw this amendment as quickly as possible. It is against the interests of those for whom he is apparently speaking. I should have thought that it would deprive thousands of workers of the benefits of Clause 3 and the first schedule to the Bill. It will mean that those employed at the earlier date he mentioned of 14th November 1985 will have the benefit of the clause, but those who come into employment between that date and the commencement date will not have the benefit of it. That is entirely contrary to all that he has been working for.
The amendment, of course, also assumes the continuation of the two-tier system—the one that the noble Lord and I have both referred to as the "sheep and the goat situation"—so let us get this out of our way as quickly as possible.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: Before the noble Lord sits down, will he be good enough to tell me which clause he refers to as being detracted from as a result of this proposal? I am sorry, but I did not catch what the noble Lord said from the beginning.
Lord Renton: If the noble Lord had been here earlier and on Tuesday night he would realise that I was referring to Clause 3 and the first schedule.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: And the first schedule.
Lord Glenarthur: Now that I have listened to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, and his explanation I understand what this amendment seeks to achieve, but taken at its face value it will mean that existing employees who, since 14th November 1985, wish to work on a Sunday must put their agreement in writing.

383
This will mean that employees who have, since 14th November 1985, made an oral agreement to work on a Sunday will be able, retrospectively, to change their minds.
I believe that to be unreasonable. I think it is unfair to employers who have made agreements in good faith. I hope the noble Lord will not press an amendment which, I suggest, is blatantly unfair on employers and enables shopworkers to break agreements that they have entered into.
The Bill excludes from protection those who have entered of their own free will into contracts to work on Sundays. If employees do not wish to enter into contracts to do Sunday work they should not do so. They should just refuse to enter into such a contractual obligation and the employer cannot unilaterally vary the contract.
The noble Lord gave some examples of concerns that have been expressed about the matter. It has been said that pressure is being put on existing shopworkers to agree to work on Sundays in advance of the new rights under this schedule. This was very much the theme that lay behind the noble Lord's point. Existing employees cannot be forced to agree to Sunday working against their will. Employers do not have the right unilaterally to alter a contract of employment. If existing employees are dismissed before the Shops Bill comes into force for refusing to agree to work on a Sunday they will, according to the provisions of the Employment Protection Act 1978, be able to take their case to an industrial tribunal and claim unfair dismissal, provided that they have the normal qualifying period.
I listened with care to my noble friend Lord Renton. I am not convinced that he was absolutely right in the point he was making. I do not think the amendment alters the qualifying date for the rights, which is the commencement date; and, of course, the commencement date is defined in paragraph 1 of the first schedule. I believe—
7 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As the noble Lord has mentioned it, may I ask why we should define it, since it is already defined by the statute to which I referred? There are several other unnecessary definitions in that paragraph: "shop", "shopwork" and I think "shopworker". Why in particular is it necessary to define "commencement date"?
Lord Glenarthur: I wonder whether the noble Lord could point me to the relevant part of the Shops Act. He may have that definition already to hand. I think what lies behind it is simply a question of clarity. I do not think there is anything more serious than that underlying it. It may well be defined. I shall try to find it myself.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not intend to press this amendment to a Division, but I am wholly unconvinced that the noble Lord the Minister and other noble Lords who have spoken have it right in respect of the ability of employers to "persuade" their employees freely either to sign a contract when they become employed or even to agree to the insertion into
384
an existing contract of a clause which overrides their rights under this Bill.
Let me quote the words of an official from Gateway, the food retailing chain:
"it is entirely reasonable that any legislation should not override [our agreements]".
The official is saying, in other words, that where there is a conflict between an agreement and the law, then it should be settled in favour of the agreement that has been made with their employees. I completely accept that between November 14th and the commencement date (let us say it is 1st June, 1st July, or whenever) there will be a number of employees (I will not hazard a guess as to the number) who on entering employment will be invited to sign a contract which states that in the event of the law regarding Sunday work being changed, the employer reserves the right to say to the employee that he shall work.
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is an interesting one: whether in seeking to advantage a number of new employees we are actually disadvan-taging many thousands more. The noble Lord the Minister disputed Lord Renton's reading of the situation. I am certainly prepared to reflect on this and to have consultations with people from outside the House who have long experience of negotiations.
Lord Renton: My noble friend the Minister questioned what I said. But, with great respect, and I think that the noble and learned Lord agrees with me, it is unquestionable. If we look at Clause 3 we see the expression "at the commencement of this Act," and it is right up to the commencement of the Act that the protection afforded by Clause 3 is declared to be given. If we make the commencement date an earlier date then we deprive people of the benefit of Clause 3.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: With respect, if there is no question that existing contracts which take away that right are negatived by the passing of Clause 3, then it will be welcome news to a great many people because not everyone has been under that impression, and a great deal has been said about the protection of the shopworker, the conscience clause and the right not to work. However, if, despite a contract which has been entered into which specifically lays down not that shopworkers shall work but that in the event of legislation being passed the employer shall have the right to make them work, that kind of condition is, in effect, non-operable in the light of the passing of this Bill, then I believe that a number of people outside the House will be very well satisfied. It is clearly something that needs to be studied, as the noble Lord the Minister has said, with care and even on occasions with special care. Those outside the Committee will study very carefully what has been said. Does the noble Lord the Minister wish to be helpful?
Lord Glenarthur: I make only a brief intervention to say that, as I understand it, the amendment is limited to uncontractual Sunday work. I am not quite clear in what way it amends the content of Clause 3. I do not believe that it does.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I thought that the noble Lord had finished. I think he has now made his point

385
perfectly clear. What he is worried about is a new entry into employment after the 14th November last where the employer insists as a condition of employment that he shall agree after the date of commencement, or the Royal Assent, to work on Sunday. I had not understood it before. I think the Minister might be willing to look at that aspect. I have no idea how real is the fear.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I do not want to ask the Minister to look at it because that might invite him to say, "I hear what you say", which I have heard so often. It is a point which is of genuine worry to those outside the Committee. I have said more than once that I am not casting aspersions on employers, who have businesses to run, but the contents of the official record will certainly be looked at by people outside the House as well as the Minister and his advisers. If the point can be taken, and sympathetically taken, by the Minister, and he is able to make a suggestion either informally or even at Report stage, I shall be very grateful and be satisfied.
Lord Glenarthur: I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. I certainly agree that this matter is exceedingly complex. Sometimes I wish I were a lawyer; sometimes I am glad I am not. However, I can say that I still find myself floundering on issues such as this. I shall study what has been said with great care and perhaps I may write to all those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am most grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hooper: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if we take a break now. I suggest that we do not resume our deliberations before ten minutes past eight. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Local Government Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985
7.9 p.m.
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Representation of the People (Amendment) Regulations 1985 be approved. There are two other sets of regulations on the Order Paper, and, if your Lordships agree, it might be for the convenience of the House if I move the three sets of regulations together. The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has considered the regulations and has made no comment.
These regulations introduce a small but important change, for which enabling powers were taken in the Representation of the People Act 1985. Then main purpose is to provide electoral registration officers to supply the electoral register in computer-compatible form to local party political associations, to candidates and other users. The number of local constituency associations and others which have their own computers is increasing. It will make their job much easier if they can have access to the electoral register in the form of data, and it need not involve registration staff in much extra work. These regulations therefore make a most useful change which will be warmly welcomed by all the political parties.
There have been full consultations on the changes in the regulations. We issued a consultation document in January last year and we have held discussions with representatives of the political parties and the local authorities. The regulations as now drafted reflect agreements reached in the discussions, subject only to some local authorities wanting to charge a higher fee. We believe, however, that the fees that we have set are right, as I shall explain in a moment.
Let me now briefly explain about the main provisions in the regulations for England and Wales. The provisions in the regulations for Scotland and Northern Ireland are the same except in the few cases that I shall mention. Regulation 6 inserts new Regulations 29A and 29B into the Representation of the People Regulations 1983. New Regulation 29A(5) and (6) has the effect of requiring a registration officer who is a data user to supply data, on request, to the local Member of Parliament, local party political associations, candidates, and any other person who is entitled to a free copy of the printed register (Or the area. The officer is required only to supply data in the form in which he has it. The fee for supplying data to electoral users is in paragraph (7) of new Regulation 29A—£1.50 for each thousand names or part thereof, or £25, whichever is higher. Costs will vary from one area to another but overall this level of fee represents a small subsidy to electoral users.
The arrangements are different in Scotland because some electoral registration officers are responsible for many constituencies and would not be able to cope with supplying data for units smaller than a constitu-ency. I should mention that so far as Northern Ireland is concerned, these regulations just relate to the supply of data to electoral users in relation to parliamentary elections. Other cases are covered in a separate order.
Paragraph (8) of new Regulation 29A allows for the discretionary supply of data to non-electoral users at a much higher fee of £15 per thousand or part thereof. This will offset the cost of the subsidised supply to electoral users.
Regulation 29B leaves the supply of labels to the discretion of the registration officer in all cases. The fee for supplying labels to electoral users is £10 for each thousand and £20 for other users. The Government's aim on fees has been to ensure, so far as possible, that local authorities will recover their costs.
Regulation 5 increases the fee for the supply of additional copies of the printed register to electoral users from 15p to 20p per thousand names. The fee for other users is increased from £1.50 to £2.00 per

387
thousand names. The fees were last set in 1983. These changes have been agreed with representatives of the political parties.
Finally, Regulations 8 to 20, which affect England only, allow for the procedures for issuing and receiving postal ballot papers in ILEA and London borough elections to be combined. This is necessary to pave the way for the combined elections to be held in May.
The regulations are fairly technical and they have been the subject of full consultations. I hope that this explanation has helped to clarify some of the detail and that your Lordships will be content to approve them. I beg to move
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
7.15 p.m.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount for his clear explanation of the three sets of regulations. As he said, they are rather technical. I am pleased to note that there has been thorough consultation with the political parties, which are in agreement with the general provisions.
We naturally welcome the regulations that deal with the election of members of ILEA when the elections are at the same time as elections for a London borough. They are common sense. I note the increased charges for additional copies over and above the free issue. I might have questioned whether the charges were over and above the rate of inflation, but as there appears to be no dissent from the political parties, I presume that they have no objection.
The important regulations are those regarding the supply of tape data and labels. The advantage of tape data is that a constituency organisation which has its own computer facility will be able to run off as many copies of the register as it desires. May I have the noble Viscount's assurance that where a registration officer compiles his register on a computer, that will in no way affect the supply of free copies of the register under existing regulations, which are carried forward to the new regulations?
I note the reasons given why a tape of a computer-ised register cannot be supplied to other than a full constituency in Scotland. That is regrettable, and I note that that was discussed in the Commons Standing Committee. I understand the reasons, but it is regrettable that the request cannot be complied with.
I welcome in particular the new regulation for the supply of addressed labels. As the noble Viscount will know, many registration officers have supplied labels to constituency agents for election purposes for quite a time. It is good to have that put in statutory form. I regret that the supply of labels, even to interested parties—candidates, election agents and so on—is to be discretionary. Where a register is computerised that should be mandatory if requested. In the Standing Committee in the other place on 21st January the Minister said, at col. 5:
"That is an extra service which, though useful to the parties, is not in the same category of importance to them as the supply of the register. That is why it is not obligatory but discretionary".
Frankly, I cannot accept that.
388
The supply of the register is vital; indeed, free copies of the register are vital. The supply of tape data to prepare one's own register may be useful to many constituencies, but it is not essential. It is the supply of labels that many agents regard as essential. I personally have welcomed the supply of addressed labels, rather than having the effort of writing out envelopes to some 60,000 individual electors. The only problem is that registration officers can supply labels only for individual electors and not for families. Therefore, the cost of envelopes and election addresses is something that the agent has to consider.
But if the supply is discretionary, will guidance notes be given to registration agents, stating that notice should be given to interested parties well in advance? The plans of an election agent could be thrown completely out of gear if he is working on the basis of the new regulations and he believes that he will be able to get the labels, and the registration agent has computerised registers?
On the other hand, I accept the provision in two of the orders for the discretionary supply of labels other than to interested parties—that is, to commercial users. I thought that the noble Viscount said that in another order there was provision for Northern Ireland. This is not in the Northern Ireland order. Perhaps the noble Viscount could confirm that point for me.
I question whether the charge of £20 for 1,000 labels for commercial users is on the low side. Surely we ought to be doing all that we can to avoid the use of registration data to be used for mail order business and matters of that kind. I know that we can do nothing about that—it is in the regulations now—but I should have thought that it would be desirable to limit the use to which registration data is put by commercial users. Apart from those points, we welcome the three orders.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in congratulating the noble Viscount the Minister on explaining these regulations so clearly.
I note that there has been full consultation on the subject matter of all three regulations and that the fees have been agreed with the political parties. I suppose it was inevitable that the Data Protection Act should be cited in these regulations. I note that in Regulation 29A, which has the title "Supply of data", in paragraph (3) there is a restriction on what the registration officer can do about supplying data. There is a proviso in that paragraph. I am not quite clear why it is necessary to put that in, but it is not a very important question.
The proviso says:
"Provided that this restriction shall not apply to the supply of data to the returning officer for the constituency".
I wonder whether there is a restriction in these regulations on what the returning officer can do when he has from the registration officer full information which the registration officer cannot supply.
We welcome these regulations, but I should be interested to know the answers to the three questions that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked. Apart from that, we support the regulations.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, for their welcome for these regulations.
I can answer the questions by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, as follows. On the question about the free supply of the printed register, I can confirm that the supply of the electoral register in computer-compatible form under Regulation 29A would not affect any present entitlement to free copies of the printed register. The noble Lord asked at what stage the fee would be paid for data. Regulation 29A(6) requires a fee to be paid before the registration officer complies with a request for data. It will be for the applicant to establish before paying the fee that the computer system used by the registration officer is compatible with his own.
Regulation 29B leaves the supply of labels to the discretion of the registration officer in all cases. We did not think it right to impose an obligation on registration officers which could detract from their ability to get on with their main job of preparing the register. We acknowledge the usefulness of labels to the parties and we are sure that registration officers will do all that they can to meet requests for their supply. Provision for discretionary rather than mandatory supply was made after full consultation with the political parties. Local authorities are well aware that consistent refusal to supply labels will only lead to demands for their supply to become mandatory.
In regard to the fee for the supply of labels, the demand for labels from non-electoral users is uncertain. The fee of £20 per 1,000 labels will more than enable local authorities to recoup the cost of subsidised supply to the parties. If the level of the fee to commercial users is set too high it will deter potential purchasers and so defeat the Government's aim on fees, which has been to ensure, so far as we can, that, overall, local authorities recover their costs.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, I am informed that some of the data gives information which is not publicly available but is useful to the acting returning officer. I hope that these answers will satisfy both noble Lords. I beg to move.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 1985
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 28th November be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Representation of the People (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1985
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the regulations laid before the House on 4th December be approved. [6th Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Viscount Davidson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
7.28 p.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time.
I am particularly glad that the noble Lord. Lord Allen of Abbeydale, will be participating in the debate. I am glad for two reasons. The noble Lord is a former chairman of the Gaming Board and has immense knowledge and experience of this industry. He was also a notably successful chairman of that board. We all owe an enormous debt of gratitude to the noble Lord for the fact that, because of his high competence in that office, we in this country have avoided many of the problems that have arisen in other countries where casinos have not been properly regulated. I have another reason for being glad that the noble Lord is speaking. He is supporting the Bill, which makes it even more attractive that he is following me in this debate.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harding, is speaking, because he too has substantial knowledge of the industry. I think it is right to say that the noble Lord is approaching his 90th birthday, and in case he is not in the House again before that occasion perhaps I may say that we all wish the noble Lord the happiest of birthdays and hope that he will long be in our midst.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, this Bill is designed to implement two of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Gambling under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild. It would amend Section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968, which relates to the provision of credit and the use of cheques. I shall set out the central purposes of this Bill fairly briefly.
As the House is aware, the Gaming Act, among other things, governs the operation of commercial casinos in England, Wales and Scotland. One of its most important provisions is the strict control which it imposes on the operators of licensed casinos over the prohibition of credit. For this reason, the use of cheques is subject to conditions which do not apply in any other part of our commercial system in this country. When a licensed casino operator accepts a cheque in exchange for chips to enable someone to take part in gaming he is required to accept two conditions. First, it must not be a postdated cheque. Secondly, the cheque must be delivered to a bank for payment or collection within two banking days. The purpose of those requirements is fairly obvious. It is to ensure that cheques cannot be used as they might otherwise be: for the player to obtain credit or to incur debt.
After the Gaming Act came into operation in 1970 it soon became clear that the requirement for all cheques to be lodged at a bank within 48 hours

391
produced one inequitable and, in my view, entirely unnecessary side effect. When a player cashes in his chips at the end of the gaming the casino cannot allow him to redeem any cheque that he has given to purchase them at the outset or during the course of paly. Not only does the casino have to carry the risk of that cheque being dishonoured—indeed, there have been many cases where cheques have been dishonoured—but it must also pay cash or issue its own cheque for the value of returned chips even when the player has lost part of his original stake.
The risks involved in this procedure are fairly obvious. The casino can suffer a compounded loss if the player dishonours his cheque and cashes that of the casino. At the same time, many players dislike not being able to redeem the cheques they have issued or to recover them by giving a single consolidating cheque at the end of play.
The Royal Commission when it considered this matter after visiting 40 casinos up and down the country in the course of an inquiry which took somewhere in the region of two years, came to the following conclusion. I apologise that the quotation is slightly lengthy but is is absolutely fundamental so far as the central purposes of the Bill are concerned. It said:
"At present players are prevented from redeeming cheques they have written in the course of a gaming session, either with their winnings or with a single consolidating cheque. From our visits to casinos we have found that this aspect of the gaming laws causes more irritation than any other, both for the casino proprietors and for their customers. Casinos can also be exposed to considerable risk when they have to give cash or a cheque of their own to winning players whose cheques given in exchange for chips might subsequently be dishonoured. This risk could often be avoided if casinos could return a winning player's own cheques to him in full or part payment of his winnings. We therefore recommend that Section 16 of the Gaming Act should be amended to enable a casino to return a player's cheque to him in exchange either for the player's winnings or for a consolidating cheque."
Having made that recommendation, the Royal Commission introduced one rather important qualification; namely, that the prohibition of the giving of credit for gaming should not be eroded in any way, and for this reason the redemption of a cheque should be allowed only during or immediately after the playing session in which it was tendered.
The Bill implements those recommendations, providing no more and no less. I know that the Bill has the support of the Gaming Board, and I very much hope that of the Government as well. Indeed, it should do so, because on 29th October 1979–15 months after the Royal Commission's Report was published—the present Leader of this House (who was the then Home Secretary) the noble Viscount, Lord Whitelaw, when speaking in another place during a debate which was then taking place on the report of the Royal Commission, said at col. 853 of the Official Report:
"I can say that the Commission's recommendations for changes in the law relating to cheques and the provision of credit for gaming in casinos are acceptable and we shall be prepared to implement them when there is an opportunity for legislation".
More than six years have elapsed since that speech was made, and no such opportunity has arisen. In that situation we came to the conclusion that it was right to come forward with this Bill in order to end what I
392
think is generally recognised to be a highly unsatisfactory situation. In those circumstances, I very much hope that the Bill will obtain the support of the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
7.33 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to add just a few words, and I can confirm that those few words will be in support of the Bill. As chairman of the Gaming Board for eight long years, I suppose I can claim some acquaintance with the subject, but the views I shall express this evening in the next few minutes are my own and I am in no sense speaking for the board.
This is not the occasion to discuss the rights and wrongs of providing facilities for gambling, but it could hardly be disputed that, if there are to be casinos, it is important that they should be well run and that the risk of irregularities should be reduced to a minimum.
When casino gaming was legalised in this country in 1960, no adequate enforcement machinery was provided and things became very badly out of hand. When the Gaming Act 1968 was passed to clear up the mess, one of its most important provisions was Section 16, dealing with credit—the section which Clause 1 of the Bill seeks to amend. The aim of that section—and I was somewhat involved in this legislation even in those days—was to provide limits tighter than perhaps are to be found anywhere else in the world. However, there were obvious objections to gamblers being expected to wander around with large amounts of cash, and it was thought right, and inevitable, to allow the use of cheques, but subject to the very strict controls which the noble Lord has just explained.
I can confirm that experience in the very early years after the Act came into force suggested that in the one respect dealt with in the present Bill the section had probably gone a little too far. As has been explained, the Gaming Board itself—and this is now nearly 10 years ago—recommended to the Royal Commission on Gambling that this was one area for possible relaxation. We knew that it was a problem primarily affecting the London casinos, but in money terms the London casinos account for far more than all the provincial casinos put together. As we know and have been told, the Royal Commission, in its report published in 1978, accepted the board's recommendation.
However, it is worth bearing in mind that in that report the Royal Commission also said, in effect, that the board had completed its initial assignment of cleaning up the casinos and could now turn to other things. Characteristically, the board almost at once became involved in coping with irregularities in a number of casinos which led to what is sometimes referred to in the industry as the holocaust. Suffice it to say that a series of court cases resulted in a number of operators relinquishing their interest in running casinos, not always voluntarily.
One of the main areas of trouble in those exciting years involved the operation of the statutory provisions about cheques, and the problems of

393
interpreting just what Section 16 meant. Although there was nothing to cause the board to resile from the recommendation which it had put to the Royal Commission about the consolidation of cheques, that was not the only recommendation which the board had put to the Commission. The others were for a tightening up in various respects, particularly in regard to accepting cheques from players who had previously defaulted. The experiences in the years immediately after the Royal Commission Report heavily underlined the need for some further provision on those lines.
In the end, after a wide-ranging judgment from the Court of Appeal, it proved possible to achieve a solution to these problems by administrative means. The report of the Gaming Board for 1984 sets out guidelines dealing with the acceptance of cheques, including those presented by defaulting players, which had by then been agreed between the board and the British Casino Association under the benevolent chairmanship of my noble and gallant friend Lord Harding.
Therefore, the relaxation sought in this Bill is not to be looked at in isolation. It so happens that the relaxation requires an Act of Parliament, whereas the tightening up did not. The present proposal is therefore acceptable to me when seen in this wider context.
On a point of detail, I should like to ask whether the Bill will apply to third party cheques and to bankers' drafts. I take it that it could not in practice apply to travellers' cheques, notwithstanding that they are, slightly misleadingly, designated as cheques?
I should like to make just one further comment before I sit down. The present proposal is not without its risks. To take a very simple example, at present a punter betting on a modest scale might in the course of an evening present five cheques each for £20,000 and it might then turn out that the first three are honoured and the last two are not. Under the Bill, he could recover all his five cheques and substitute one cheque for £100,000, which would then be dishonoured in toto. I know that the operators would do their best to avoid such a contingency, but—alas!—experience suggests that these things happen.
It seems to me to be quite essential therefore that detailed records should be kept of all these transactions so that the Gaming Board's inspectors, and if need be the police, can see just what has happened; and it is equally essential that these records, like other casino records, should be kept in writing and not simply kept on a computer from which, in the event of trouble, they can be removed at the touch of a button. I take it that Clause 2 is designed to cover this state of affairs, and I look on it as a very welcome and necessary part of the Bill.
I have one incentive for supporting this Bill which has nothing whatever to do with gaming. As a member of two Royal Commissions whose reports have been almost totally ignored by the Government, I cannot but derive some satisfaction from legislation which, even years after the event, seeks to implement a Royal Commission recommendation. Who knows, perhaps the habit will be catching.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Harding of Petherton: My Lords, I intend to speak briefly in support of this Bill. However, first I must declare an interest as, for the past 12 years. I have been chairman of the British Casino Association, which is the trade association of the gaming industry in Great Britain and therefore responsible for watching over the interests of licensed casino gaming. There are at present some 120 licensed casinos in England, Scotland and Wales, and 117 of those—that is all but three—are members of the British Casino Association. Therefore, I think we can claim that the association is fully representative of the gaming industry in this country as a whole.
I also want to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for his kind and generous remarks about my approaching 90th birthday. Although I am of a great age, I hope that I am still of fairly sound mind and can speak intelligibly. The noble Lord. Lord Harris, has explained in detail the objects of this amending Bill and the importance of it for casino clubs in regard to financial management, the prevention of loss and the convenience of club members. I do not propose to go into all that detail again; but as regards the point which the noble Lord, Lord Allen, made towards the end of his remarks, I am quite confident that the casino association and the governing council body would be only too happy to reach agreement with the Gaming Board on the way in which records of transactions—that is, the redemption of cheques under the amendment in the Bill—should be recorded so that they are readily accessible to the Gaming Board's inspectors during their visits to casinos. I am quite sure that we can reach agreement on that point just as we reached agreement on the handling of cheques of members of clubs who are already indebted to their club, to which reference has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Allen.
With that reservation about records and knowing that the Gaming Board is in favour of this Bill and that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained in detail the importance to the industry of the amendments in the Bill, I should like to confine myself to emphasising a few points which I think are of importance and which I think are relevant. The first, as has already been made clear, is that the amendments in this Bill are strictly in line with the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Secondly, the amendments in the Bill in no way damage the social, commercial and financial provisions of the Gaming Act 1968. I should like to emphasise the word "social" because, as we in the industry see it, the social objectives of that Act are far and away the most important, although of course the others are important. However, the first ones are of particular importance.
Thirdly, the Gaming Board has been fully consulted throughout the preparation of this Bill and has made valuable comments which have been considered in the final drafting of the Bill. In conclusion, I think that the House will be pleased to know that, thanks to the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, has conducted the business of the Gaming Board over the past eight or nine years during which time he was chairman, relationships between the industry and the Gaming Board are, in my opinion, now on a sound and workmanlike basis. Matters of common concern

395
—for example, future regulations that will need to be published regarding records of redemption of cheques, and so on—are regularly discussed by the council of the association with the Gaming Board in an objective, realistic and constructive manner. As one with some personal experience and knowledge of the gaming industry and of the factual problems which face it, and particularly knowing the present standard of management throughout the industry and the relationships between the industry and the Gaming Board, I strongly support this Bill.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I should like to intervene for a few moments as one of the survivors of the Standing Committee of your Lordships' House which considered the 1968 Bill in immense detail. All those years ago we gave a great deal of thought to Section 16. At that time it did not occur to us that the redemption of cheques would, as a result of Section 16, become illegal. I remember being surprised and annoyed—and I most warmly support the Bill, because it is very wrong that one should not be allowed, if one has a good evening, to pay in what one has got for the cheque and pay your cheque out—when I first visited a gaming club after the Act came into force and happened to win, to find that I could not get my cheque back. That is completely wrong, and there is absolutely no reason for it.
The main point I want to make is that when I asked the cashier on that occasion why I could not redeem my cheque he replied, "Under the new Act any cheque that you give us must be paid into our bank within 48 hours", and indeed that is what the noble Lord said in his opening remarks. It was because such cheques had to be paid into the bank that they could not be redeemed.
My main purpose in rising is to suggest that in tackling this problem the noble Lord has perhaps tackled the wrong subsection. It is quite clear from the Bill that he is taking the view that if cheques are redeemed there is some contravention of Section 16(1) of the Gaming Act. Indeed, it says that if certain
"conditions are fulfilled, the return of a redeemed cheque … shall not be taken to contravene subsection (1) of this section".
I do not think that this is a Committee point. It is more than a Committee point, because what needs to be tackled is not subsection (1) but subsection (3). What we need to say is not that redemption of a cheque is a contravention of subsection (1) because it involves having given credit for the short period between the time when the cheque was written and the time when it was redeemed, but that it is wrong because that cheque must, under the existing Act, have to be presented to a bank within 48 hours.
Therefore, I feel that the way to do it is to leave out subsection (3) of the proposed Clause 1 and instead simply add words after the section about the bank to make it clear that redeemed cheques do not have to be paid into the bank.
May I comment for a moment on what the noble Lord, Lord Allen, said about the player who comes in and writes three or four cheques for £10,000 or for £1,000, or whatever it may be. It seems to me that that is not the worry in this case because it is a matter for
396
the casino whether they agree that the cheques should be redeemed or not, and if the cheques have been given and they do not want to redeem them they do not have to. Clearly the Bill is a good one. I feel it may not be correctly drafted, but in any case I support it.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, all speakers in this debate have shown their gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for producing this amendment to the Gaming Act. It has produced an interesting debate, as I am sure the Minister will agree—almost as interesting as the telephone bingo debate last night in which he and I shared. There is no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Allen, with all his authority and experience, as well as the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding, gave their support to the Bill. Although the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, agreed that there was a flaw in the present law, he suggested another remedy to it, and I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say to that.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, has based his Bill entirely on two of the recommendations made by the Royal Commission chaired by Lord Rothschild. Indeed, he quoted the relevant part. Without wishing in any way to repeat what he said, when I looked up these recommendations made by the Royal Commission it struck me that the most relevant point was that, following the visit of the members of the commission to the casinos, they said:
"We have found that this aspect of the gaming laws causes more irritation than any other both for casino proprietors and for their own customers".
I felt that just those two lines in the recommendations were powerful and gave force to what they then recommended.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Allen, pointed out that he preferred to see this change in the law set in a wider context. This was of great interest. He pointed out that, although this remedied one thing, it introduced another risk when punters offered a whole series of separate cheques. The point struck me with great force that the casino proprietor still was endangered.
The point that he made, reinforced by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding, was that the way out of this was that there should be a detailed record of all the transactions, and that these detailed records should be in writing. Therefore, they would be forthcoming and would be kept so that the authorities, the police and the inspectorate would have full access to them. This was his way of ensuring that the recommendations made by the Royal Commission and contained in Lord Harris's Bill would serve the purpose intended.
If I went on any longer I should simply be repeating what has been said before, and I do not think that that would serve any purpose. Therefore, may I conclude by saying that from my reading of the recommendations, and from listening to what previous speakers with all their authority and experience have said, I would agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, offers to us in his Bill. What he is trying to achieve seems clear and straightforward and entirely logical. Perhaps the only criticism could be that so many years have elapsed between the recommendations being made and the noble Lord, Lord Harris, bringing forward his Bill.
7.59 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has explained his Bill to us so capably and so fully that I hope I shall be forgiven for putting the Government's views briefly. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, that it has been a most interesting debate, and I also should like to add my congratulations to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Harding, and thank him for his extremely useful contribution to this debate.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has explained, Section 16 of the Gaming Act 1968 was very tightly drawn. It does not permit a player to redeem his own cheque. This can lead to risks for the casinos who may find that the original cheque is dishonoured, and it causes irritation among players. The Government support the recommendation by the Royal Commission on Gambling which reported in July 1978 that there should be a change in the law in order to allow cheques drawn by players in casinos to be redeemed, subject to necessary safeguards. This had been suggested by both the Gaming Board and the British Casino Association.
The Bill which is now before the House seeks to amend the 1968 Act so that in clubs licensed under the Act a player's cheque may be returned to him for its full value either during or within 30 minutes of the end of the playing session in which it was tendered. In order that records may be kept of these transactions the Bill also makes provision for my right honourable friend to make regulations governing the records to be kept of returned (or "redeemed") cheques. We propose to make regulations along these lines. The details will be worked out with the Gaming Board in consultation with the industry. The Bill will be welcomed by the casino industry and by players. It is a modest measure but a useful one, and the Government support its principle.
I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harris, on the drafting of the Bill, which seems to be very much on the right lines. There will be an opportunity to examine it in greater detail at Committee stage and to correct any minor defects there may be. In conclusion, I should like to reaffirm the Government's support for the principle of the Bill and to wish the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, every success with it.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I am much obliged to all who have spoken, not least the noble Viscount. All concerned have supported the central purpose of the Bill, and I have to detain the House for only a few minutes in order to deal with one or two questions which have been asked, primarily by the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken.
Taking the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Allen, first, he raised the matter of third party cheques, bank drafts and travellers' cheques. As I understand it, a third party cheque can be redeemed like any other that has been properly accepted in fulfilment of the conditions specified by Clause 16(2). Bank drafts and travellers' cheques are regarded as tantamount to cash, and their usage would remain unchanged from present use.
398
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kilbracken, on being one of the survivors of those who considered this matter some substantial time ago. I shall consider the point he made, as it is extremely interesting. However, I suspect that the approach of the Bill is probably right. There have been substantial discussions in which the Gaming Board has been involved, as has the Home Office, and the Gaming Board has been in touch with the Home Office over a period of time. I repeat that I shall gladly consider the point that he has made, but I suspect that were we now to try to start redrafting the Bill fundamentally it would die pretty swiftly and the next time we discussed it we should be complaining that an even longer period had elapsed between the publication of the Royal Commission's Report and action by Parliament.
I repeat that I am deeply grateful to all who have spoken. I look forward to meeting noble Lords again when this Bill goes into Committee.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until ten minutes past eight o'clock.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.4 until 8.10 p.m.]

Shops Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 3, line 14, at end insert ("and to which he has not withdrawn his agreement by notice given under paragraph 8(2) of this Schedule.").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 25, I beg leave to speak also to Amendments Nos. 28, 32 and 34.
Amendment No. 28: Page 4, line 25, at end insert ("or has given notice under paragraph 8(2) or otherwise that he intends to withdraw his consent to do shop work on a Sunday.".
Amendment No. 32: Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("or penalising him for giving notice under paragraph 8(2) that he intends to withdraw his consent to do shop work on a Sunday".).
Amendment No. 34: Page 5, line 19, at end insert ("so long as that employee has not exercised any right under this Act to terminate his agreement to that provision.
(2) An employee may at any time cancel his consent to do shop work on a Sunday by notice in writing given to his employer.
Such notice shall have no other effect on his contract of employment save to terminate his consent to do such work and to cancel the employer's obligation to pay for such work.
Any notice under this subsection shall take effect at (but not before) the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the notice is given.").
These are all part of the same argument. This amendment is designed to ensure that a worker who has contractually agreed to do Sunday work may withdraw from that agreement after a reasonable period of notice. It is modelled on the wording of Section 3 of the Payment of Wages Act 1960.
The Bill as it is presently drafted will place shopworkers in a highly inflexible contractual position. The right to protection against unfair

399
dismissal for refusing to work on Sunday depends on the maintenance of an existing contract. Thus, workers who are uncertain whether to accept Sunday working may be less likely to be prepared to accept a change of shift patterns for fear of losing the right to protection against unfair dismissal if they change their minds. Obviously, this inflexibility will also work against an employer's interest. On the other hand, vulnerable employees may be placed in a position where they unwillingly abandon their original contractual terms under pressure from the less scrupulous employer, thereby permanently losing any right to refuse Sunday working.
I am simply saying to the Committee that in this series of amendments we are continuing to try to protect the right of choice of employees as to working on a Sunday. In our view, the amendment will benefit both employees and employers. A decision to carry out Sunday working remains without a once-and-for-all disfranchisement from unfair dismissal protection. The amendment will contribute towards greater flexibility, which will help employers and will also enable workers more securely to balance family and leisure needs with the requirements of Sunday trading.
These amendments complement previous attempts, with which we have not made progress, and provide protection against victimisation or dismissal for those exercising their rights under other amendments. It certainly would not be our intention to press these amendments. We are at a stage of the Bill when we believe we can make most progress by raising matters and allowing the Minister and his advisers to give us the benefit of, undoubtedly, their greater access both to experience and record. It is in that spirit that I move this amendment.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with care to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, but if these amendments were to be passed they would give one party to a contractual arrangement carte blanche to change unilaterally the conditions of his employment and place the other party at a considerable disadvantage. It would place employers in what I believe would be really a quite impossible position. The amendments would give those established shopworkers who have entered into a contractual obligation to work on Sundays the right to change their minds as often as they wished without consultation or negotiation with their employer.
Indeed, if all the noble Lord's amendments were passed, similar licence would be granted to shopworkers joining the industry after the commencement of the Act. What is proposed in these amendments, I have to tell the noble Lord, is quite inequitable. Employers have rights just as employees have rights. They, too, deserve consideration. If these amendments were approved, employers would be unable to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work by their employees. Employers would be placed in the weakest of bargaining positions, and would find it much more difficult to plan their working schedules and their staff needs with efficiency or certainty.
I cannot see that at the end of the day it would be to the mutual advantage of the employees and the employers, and I cannot see that it is in the interests singly of the employees. What the noble Lord is
400
suggesting would not be a reasonable restraint on a bad employer. Rather, I suggest, it would be a charter for the unreasonable employee. I believe that these amendments are unreasonable. They would create a thoroughly unfair situation, and I hope the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I do not support these amendments in their present form, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has made one very important point. That is, I think there are a lot of people who are not quite sure whether they do or do not want to work on a Sunday. People who, some months ago, spoke to me about their never wanting to work on a Sunday are now saying to me that they think they might. But they appreciate exactly the point the noble Lord has made: that if they accept that opportunity to work on a Sunday, to give it a try, then they have lost their right ever to say that they do not want to do so. I think there is a case for some sort of a trial period by mutual agreement, perhaps, between employer and employee, which would still give them a later right. It seems to me that we may be losing a lot of people who, if they only had the opportunity to work on a Sunday, might find it suited them very well.
Lord Glenarthur: I do not know whether my noble friend was in her place when the earlier amendments were discussed, which made clear that on various points concerned with employment—notably on Amendment No. 24, put down earlier by my noble friend Lord Renton and debated again this afternoon on Clause 3 stand part—I had indicated that there may be food for thought in what my noble friend Lord Renton had said. I think that what my noble friend Lady Gardner is suggesting would perhaps be encompassed within those remarks. It may not necessarily mean that this particular amendment is suitable for ideas of the sort she is putting forward. Nevertheless, I did give an undertaking to consider very seriously and with great care all the remarks that were made in connection with earlier amendments, which might meet my noble friend's point.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I would thank my noble friend for that and state that I was not here. I have only just flown back into London. I have come in because I have an amendment down in my name. But I will read in Hansard what was said.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: As I told the noble Lord, Lord Graham, I feel considerably embarrassed in that I feel that I have to oppose this amendment after having told him that I was in general sympathy with him on this part of the Bill. So far as the noble Baroness's intervention is concerned, perhaps the Minister would bear this in mind. We are concerned here with written contracts. It would be perfectly possible to have the contractual obligation to work on a Sunday which was entered into after the date of Royal Assent provisional. I realise that is a lawyer's point of view, but I think it is a valid one. USDAW might consider putting out pamphlets pointing out that as a possibility—or possibly the Ministry might do so: I do not know. It seems to me that would be preferable to writing anything into the Bill. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Graham, seems to

401
me to run up insuperably against the objections offered by the noble Lord the Minister.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, hit exactly on the reason for the amendment; and that is the example of the employee who voluntarily enters into an agreement to work on a Sunday in the changed circumstances (shall we say?) of 12 months' time, and where there are financial inducements, but who finds in the event that it does not work out to suit him.
I take the Minister's point that employers have responsibilities and rights as well as employees, and this amendment argues for flexibility. I would imagine that when it comes to a question of working on a Sunday there will be much less flexibility on the part of the employer than on the part of the employee. I take the point that employers are likely to face problems. They need to be able to feel certain that it is within their gift to be able to say, "On every Sunday that I want to open I am guaranteed a workforce." It will not work out like that although it might: that is the sense of my amendment earlier, asking for a report to see how the Act had worked out in practice.
What in fact we are pleading for here is a modicum of flexibility. It talks of terms of notice: it does not say how long. I am very seized of the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that it would appear that these matters entered into after the commencement of the Act can be provisional. I should be very grateful if he can take the time of the Committee for a moment or two to explain to us the context in which something entered into is provisional. Does it mean that it is terminable at the will of either party? If so, that would certainly meet my wishes. I should be grateful for one or two more words on this matter.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I am not sure that the noble Lord is not drawing me on to very dangerous ground. I certainly do not like giving instant legal opinions—indeed I am much too old to give legal opinions of any sort—but it struck me that might be a way of meeting the point that both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness have in mind: in other words, an agreement without prejudice to reconsideration, say, after two months. I am thinking quite loosely. I have no doubt that the USDAW lawyers will be able to work out something very much better, and certainly the very able legal department of the Home Office.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: The Minister, without giving anything away, said to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that perhaps reference to earlier debates on these clauses might lead her to believe that, although nothing is being given away, all things are being considered with care at this stage. This is part of the consideration and there might very well be an outcome which would be acceptable to a great many people. It is in that spirit, again not putting words into the Minister's mouth, that I would beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hayter): I have to advise the Committee, before
402
calling Amendment No. 26, that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 26A or 26B.
Viscount Brentford Viscount Brentford moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 3, line 44, leave out paragraph 2.
The noble Viscount said: I should like, if I may, to speak not only to Amendment No. 26 but also to Nos. 26A, 26B, 27 and 31.
Amendment No. 26A: Page 3, line 44, leave out sub-paragraph (1)
Amendment No. 26B: Page 4, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (2)
Amendment No. 27: Page 4, line 22, leave out ("an established") and insert ("a")
Amendment No. 31: Page 4, line 40, leave out ("established")
The effect of these amendments is to remove the difference between established workers and others who are not established workers. If one looks for instance at paragraph 4 of Schedule 1, which deals with the dismissal of an established shopworker and says that it shall be regarded as unfair if the principal reason is that the shopworker has refused to do uncontractual Sunday work, if this amendment were accepted, it would mean that the dismissal of a shopworker shall be regarded as such.
We have touched on this issue a number of times of course, and I propose to skip very lightly over the points which have been made several times. However, there are one or two points I should like to make which, so far as I can see, have not yet been made to the Committee. In fact I have very limited experience in this Chamber, and what intrigues me at this moment is that much of what I am going to say has already been said by my noble friend the Minister in dealing with other amendments and I am "pinching" some of his arguments to use in support of my amendments because I have agreed with much of what he has said. So far as that is concerned, and to that limit of course, I am changing places with my noble friend.
There are a number of reasons why I believe that these amendments are important and would be clear-cut in what they do. First, I shall touch on the question of anomalies. We have had various examples of them raised here, but it seems to me extraordinary that if two people begin their employment on two different days—one employed the day before the Act becomes law and the other the day after the Act becomes law,—10 years later everyone would regard them as having been employed at the same time: but one of them is protected and one of them is not.
During the debates on this Bill I have been arguing that anomalies are perfectly acceptable and my noble friend the Minister has said, "Away with all anomalies: we shall not have any anomalies in this Bill." I am offering to help him now by removing an anomaly from this Bill and ensuring that it runs much more smoothly and clearly and along the lines of what he wants.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Good for you!
Viscount Brentford: I should also like to make the point, as concerning anomalies, and particularly in respect of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, said earlier, that we are only considering shopworkers, and not others, in the course of this Bill. Further, I should like to point out that to give

403
protection to shopworkers is not unique in the law. He will be far more aware than I of the protection afforded, for instance, to women and young people by Section 93 of the Factories Act 1961. We are not going against the current of legal thinking by providing unlimited and unfettered protection for people in this way. The principle of protection has already been conceded and this amendment simplifies and extends it, but makes it easier to work, in my submission.
Secondly, this amendment does not affect the principle of the Bill. It does not support what I am keenest on, which is keeping Sunday special: it permits complete deregulation of Sunday trading to continue. My noble friend Lord Stockton pleaded for protection for those who have least power, and I believe from my experience that shopworkers fall into that category. Thirdly—and here again I poach an argument from my noble friend the Minister—this Bill provides two categories of workers: those who are established and those who are not.
8.30 p.m.
My amendment removes these two categories and provides only one category of workers, and thereby simplifies the regulations. On Tuesday my noble friend made this argument in connection with another amendment, and I support his reasoning and am using it to support this amendment. Next I should like to point out that the schedule, which has been spoken against quite vehemently by certain members of this Committee, would be greatly simplified. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, have certainly commented on it. The removal of this distinction between established workers and others will make the schedule run much more easily. My noble friend the Minister has already undertaken to look at it and this would simplify his job a great deal.
As my fifth point, I should like to touch on the question of employment contracts. The Bill seems to me to write an extra condition into the employment contracts of those who are not established workers and I submit that this is not the right time for such an additional regulation to be made; this condition that, although there is no contractual obligation to work on Sundays, the employer has the right to make employees do so—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: May I ask the noble Viscount where he finds that?
Viscount Brentford: It is in the Bill. It seems to me that there is no condition in an employment contract for a new employee in a job in retailing to work on Sundays, and if this Bill is passed that condition will be written into the employment contract because the employer will be able to force the man or woman to work on Sundays.
I should also like, while I am talking about them, to make one or two other points on employment contracts. My noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter was, of course, absolutely right on Tuesday when he said that an employee would be able to ask for a term to be written into the contract, whereby he did not have to work on Sundays. But I seriously ask whether in practice he would. To quote another phrase of my
404
noble friend Lord Stockton, these are the humbler people of the employment industry and many of them would not dare to ask for special conditions to be written into the employment contract. Furthermore, I would question how many shopworkers do not have any written employment contract at all.
My last point is that I believe that without this amendment there would be increased discouragement to recruiting for the higher echelons of, in particular, the management side of the retail industry. I have had expressions of anxiety put to me about the calibre of the future management with this new provision for Sunday working coming in. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister does not want to discourage bright youngsters from going into the retail industry and, particularly, from taking up careers in the management side of retailing. Managerial skills will be needed as much in the industry as ever before. Those are six reasons why I believe these amendments that I have proposed should be accepted by the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have considerable sympathy with this amendment, on the ground that anything that lightens and mitigates the complication of this schedule is to be welcomed. But I do not, I am afraid, follow the noble Viscount when he says that the employer can force the employee to work on Sunday. All he can do is to hold the employee to a contract to work on Sunday, just as the employee can hold the employer to a contract to employ him on Sunday.
That contract arises in two ways. The first is if there was a pre-Act contract to work on Sunday, whether written or unwritten, or, as the noble Baroness indicated earlier, to be deduced from conduct, and that merely continues. The other is a new written contract to work on Sunday. It is only in those two circumstances where there is a bilateral agreement that there is any compulsion to work on Sunday.
On the other hand, as I have said, there seems to me to be a good deal to be said for this amendment. When I looked at this part of the schedule with considerable bafflement, it was obvious that the aim of the draftsman was to ensure that the pre-Act shopworker continues to be employed as such up to the attempted dismissal (paragraph 4) or other penal action (paragraph 6). When I originally tried to see what the draftsman was attempting to guard against, I could envisage only two situations, but the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, on another amendment mentioned a third, though not in this connection. Of those three only the first seems to me to have any weight and it can be much more easily accomplished than by this extremely convoluted provision.
The first is where there is a change of employer. The shopworker at the time of the passing of the Act is employed by employer A. He subsequently changes to employer B and this provision which the noble Viscount seeks to omit states that in those circumstances he cannot claim the protection of the Act. It seems to me to be right that he should not be able to do so, but, as I say, it also seems to me that that could be far more easily accomplished by a redrafting.
The second case that occurred to me was a change in the nature of the employment. The shopworker

405
starts as a shopworker, then changes his employment to, say, a separate accounts branch under the same employer, and later goes back to shop work. The noble Lord will tell me whether I have got this wrong. That seems to me to be one of the things that the draftsman had in mind, but it is so remote a circumstance that it is certainly not worthwhile going to all this trouble to deal with it.
The third case is that mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in another connection, where the employee leaves employment with employer A and subsequently goes back to it. Again, I admit that I had not originally envisaged that, but it is something that might happen. I should have thought that it is so rare a circumstance that it could be safely disregarded. I hope that the noble Viscount will give the noble Lord a chance to look at this provision if he thinks there is anything in what I have said, and not press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: I should very much like the opportunity of supporting the amendment put forward by the noble Viscount. I apologise for the fact that I am coming into the Committee as I recognise at a rather late time. Unfortunately, I was held up with obligations I had entered into before I knew that the Committee was going to be held today. We must be extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for elucidating the legal points and raising possible legal problems. But we are not really talking about the refinements of law in this matter. What we are talking about is whether a woman who goes into the retail trade after the introduction of this Act is going to be forced by the terms of her contract—of course it is by the terms of her contract—to work on Sunday.
I know the argument is that if she does not work on Sunday she should not enter into the contract to work on Sunday. Let us get to the level of reality. We are talking about a very large number of women, most of them married women at an unskilled level, who have very few other opportunities of employment and for whom the retail trade has been an absolutely essential opportunity to earn some money. That is what we are really talking about. If they are presented with a contract which requires them to work on Sunday they are not going to go in and say, "Yes, I should like to have the job very much, but I am not going to work on Sunday". They know perfectly well that in the present conditions of unemployment, put politely or not put politely, the person interviewing them will say, "Sorry my dear, there are heaps of people who will. Goodbye". That is what we are really talking about.
It is one thing to say, as I have heard said in discussing the Bill, that other people enter into contracts which involve them working on Sunday—air hostesses—but the life and attitudes of air hostesses are miles apart from the lives and attitudes of most of the women working in the retail trade. The reality is that if this passes as it stands, a very large number of women will have to accept contracts to go to work on Sunday; otherwise they will not get any work at all. That is the reality. Therefore, I do not wish to see this happen. It is most unfortunate if the only oportunity to work involves working on Sunday for people who have no desire to do so. Therefore, I should like very
406
strongly to support the amendment of the noble Viscount.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to the views that have been expressed both by my noble friend Lord Brentford and just now by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear. When he introduced the amendment my noble friend went some way towards indicating that the arguments on drawing the line, if that is the right turn of phrase to use, between those who would have been employed before the time the Act comes into force and those who would be employed subsequently had been debated at some length in the broadest terms on Tuesday and that I had then made quite clear to the Committee that I proposed to examine with the very greatest care all the arguments that had been deployed. I can if the Committee feels it appropriate rehearse some of the arguments that I deployed then again tonight. I am sure that my noble friend will realise that the undertaking I have given to examine carefully the points that were made was made in good faith and that I think the point he is trying to make is very close—not identical because it comes in a different part of the Bill—to the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Renton.
I understand the point that my noble friend made about simplification and many of the other points that he expressed in his list of six; but when it comes to the question of an extra condition on contracts, I very much agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, that there is absolutely no obligation in the Bill on shopworkers to work on a Sunday—none whatsoever. The obligation applies solely to contracts. I cannot feel in any sense that the theme of the amendment is very much different from that which was expressed by my noble friend Lord Renton.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised three points upon which, so far as I can possibly tell, I believe him to be absolutely right. Certainly, on the question of whether it is the same employer or the nature of the employment, if the nature of the employment changes, the employee would lose his protection, if I have it the right way round. That is an essential part and the noble and learned Lord was quite right to make those points. I shall study his points with care but I believe him to be absolutely correct.
I am reluctant to rehearse the many arguments—
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: The noble Lord is very good to say that he will look at this. My point was that two of them were so remote that they are not worth troubling about, and the only one that is worth troubling about can be dealt with much more simply.
Lord Glenarthur: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That again fits in with the whole question of the drafting of the schedule which I have said I shall look at to see whether or not it can be simplified. I do not know yet precisely how it can be, but I have given that undertaking. I am reluctant to embark upon a long debate setting out the reasons that I rehearsed before. I hope the Committee will accept

407
that, and that the noble Viscount will not press the amendment.
Viscount Brentford: I thank my noble friend the Minister. I agree with what he says and I am quite content to rely on his undertaking. My name was below that of my noble friend Lord Renton on his amendment. There were, however, quite a number of points that I made which had not previously been made in this debate. I hope that my noble friend will take those into account in considering the protection of shopworkers.
I should perhaps add that when talking about being forced to work on Sundays I was using a shorthand phrase for the fact that if he did not work on Sundays without having any contractual written obligation to do so, he could be dismissed without compensation. I was just using a shorthand phrase for that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos. 26A to 28 not moved.]
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 28A:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("Any agreement by a shop worker to do work on a Sunday may be withdrawn by the shop worker after one month's notice.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment covers in very simple terms the situation of a shopworker who undertakes to work on a Sunday but then decides that he or she would prefer not to do so. I know that we discussed this earlier this evening but I should like to make one or two points on this amendment because I think it is important.
In the first place, as the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, has so graphically illustrated, many women have no alternative but to opt for employment even though when opting for that employment they are going to have to work on a Sunday. Many women may quite honestly take on such a commitment and then find thereafter that they have great difficulty in carrying out the commitment to work on a Sunday—not only women, but men as well. The amendment provides an opportunity for a shopworker to withdraw his or her agreement to work on a Sunday by giving one month's notice. That seems quite fair and reasonable to me because the one month's notice gives the employer the opportunity, if he wishes to do so, to make some alternative arrangements. I do not share the view of the Minister that an arrangement of this kind—a similar kind that was discussed earlier—is in any way particularly unfair to the employer.
We are, as many noble Lords have indicated when debating this Bill, operating now in a situation where there is a large amount of unemployment and where other labour is available to work on a Sunday if the person concerned is unable to do so for whatever reason. Moreover, when the employee enters into a contractual arrangement with the employer, he or she really is not in a position of equality, as has already been demonstrated. The employee wants the job, and if he or she is not prepared to accept the stated conditions then he or she will not get that job—and rarely is alternative employment available.
This amendment would provide an opportunity for somebody who honestly and fairly has undertaken to work on Sundays to get out of that commitment if, because of domestic commitments or otherwise, he or she finds it impossibly burdensome to meet that obligation. It would also give the employer the opportunity, by the provision for one month's notice, to make alternative arrangements. I beg to move.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I should like briefly to support this amendment and to build on what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, in respect of the enormous importance to women of finding jobs within the retail industry. I remind the Minister that at one point he said that shops can only be run on the basis of goodwill between employees and employers. Those two attitudes contribute much to this amendment being a very good amendment.
Let us consider the case of a married woman who is a shopworker and whose family circumstances change because she and her husband separate or because there is some kind of problem for her as a parent. She may suddenly find that she can no longer be absent from the home on Sundays and that she should be there with her children, because her husband is no longer at home or because of some other change in her family circumstances. She may have undertaken to work on a Sunday in perfectly good faith, when her life was fairly well organised, but now finds that her life is no longer well organised and that her presence at home on Sundays is suddenly necessary. She could by this amendment give a month's notice to her employer, and by that procedure being followed the good relationship that the Minister has described in connection with previous amendments would be maintained. There would be fairness shown to women who need such jobs but who are very often mothers as well and therefore have a duty at home; and that duty may frequently be on a Sunday.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: This amendment seeks to do in another way that which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, sought to do with an earlier amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that if I had to choose between the two, I should prefer the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It has gone now!
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is the objection to this amendment—and this is really to elaborate on what was said earlier by the Minister—that such a provision could work very unfairly against an employer. Take, for example, the case of a small petrol filling station that has a shop, and the proprietor of which wants an attendant to work three days a week, including Sundays. One can take any figure one likes; it could be three half-days per week, including Sundays.
Even if the proprietor is given a month's notice to find an alternative employee for the Sunday work, his whole work schedule may be thrown out. In fact, the proprietor may find it difficult to employ somebody willing to work only one day a week. That seems to me to be the objection to either amendment. However, as I have said, if I had to choose between the two, I should

409
prefer the noble Lord's proposal for withdrawal in writing.
Lord Glenarthur: I listened with care to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, and to the remarks made earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, concerning women who may need jobs to fit in with the circumstances that surround their families. What I say in connection with this amendment will not detract in any sense from my understanding of the general proposal that the noble Baroness makes.
Amendment No. 28A would enable a shopworker who had entered into an agreement to work on a Sunday to unilaterally change his or her mind. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, has just remarked, a similar amendment has already been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Graham. It was not accepted by the Committee, or maybe the noble Lord withdrew it.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: It was withdrawn.
Lord Glenarthur: I hope that this amendment similarly will be withdrawn. I share the view of the noble and learned Lord that the earlier amendment was perhaps the better of the two, if there was any preference to be accepted.
If employees are allowed unilaterally to change their minds about Sunday working, then employers will be placed in an impossible position, as they would not be able to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work. They would be put in the weakest of bargaining positions. Moreover, it would be very difficult for employers to run their shops, or their garages in the way that the noble and learned Lord illustrated. They could not run them efficiently and would incur additional costs.
I accept the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, about goodwill towards employees, but I cannot accept that such goodwill should be so totally loaded against the employer. I fear that that is what the effect of this amendment would be. It would make it very difficult to run a business. If the amendment would make it difficult to run a business, it could make it equally difficult to attract employment in the way that we all wish to see.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: If the Minister will allow me to intervene, he makes a fair point about the arbitrary nature of an employee exercising his or her rights, if this amendment were to be passed. Take the case of the employee who comes to terms with a change in his lifestyle because his employer insists on Sunday working but then, because of the exigencies of his business, decides not to open on Sundays. The situation there is that, by force of competition, the employer arbitrarily declares to the employee, "I do not now want you to work on Sundays", even though the employee's lifestyle has already been reorientated towards Sunday working.
Lord Glenarthur: It is true to say that in many walks of life—and not just in shops—circumstances change, and it is possible for a business to want to alter its
410
approach in one way or another, whether that business be engaged in the retail trade or in any other. However, I do not accept that employers are necessarily such difficult people when it comes to a general change in an employee's family circumstances such as that described by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear.
I am not sure that the illustration given by the noble Lord, Lord Graham, was not one that would indicate that an employer would be in breach of his contract. I believe that may well be the case. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord.
9 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: What worries me very much about this amendment is its absolutely unlimited nature. As I read it, a shopworker could keep giving one month's notice. The shopworker could regularly keep saying to the employer, "Yes, I will work on Sundays" and do a few Sundays, then give another month's notice and be off again. There is no suggestion in the amendment that it should be a once-only notice.
An extraordinary family situation could arise, which I think is a worrying thought, and someone's circumstances change dramatically. I hope an industrial tribunal would look kindly on a case brought where there was a dramatic change in circumstances. Usually a reasonable attitude is expected on the part of the employer at least to take circumstances into consideration; for example, if an employee was suddenly widowed and had a family to cope with on Sundays.
However, the amendment as drafted is totally unlimited in that an employee could give the one month's notice two or three times a year. An employee could be hopping backwards and forwards on Sunday work and that would be a hopeless situation for an employer in trying to manage his workforce.
As I mentioned earler, I think there is a case for the once-only trial system whereby an employee going on to Sunday working at the beginning could say, "I will give it a try". There could be an agreement at the beginning that this should be a once-only trial. If employees found it was not possible it would not be held against them in employment dismissal terms.
Baroness Seear: I want to add a point to what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, and by a number of people while I have been listening to this debate. I refer to the assumption that provided an employee is protected against unfair dismissal at a tribunal he is all right, but the fact is that reference to an industrial tribunal rarely results in reinstatement. It results in some degree of compensation, but if one's livelihood depends on having a job in the retail trade winning an unfair dismissal case does not help. It tides you over for a while but it is rare that an unfair dismissal case results in reinstatement. It is no good saying that an employee will be protected by an industrial tribunal and that it deals with the matter. It does not.
Lord Glenarthur: I take the point that the noble Baroness is making but I do not understand in that case why there should be such a difference between those in the retail trade and employees elsewhere who

411
presumably are affected by the same set of rules, so to speak.
Baroness Seear: I follow the noble Lord in that sense, but we have all been arguing for the protection of women in the opportunity to refuse to work on Sundays. The argument refers to where a woman refuses to work on a Sunday and is unreasonably denied the right not to work on a Sunday—as was said, perhaps when there is a bad time at home and she does not want to work on Sundays—and the employer, instead of saying that it is all right and it will not be held against her, says, "Sorry, we cannot employ you any longer if you cannot work on Sunday". It is no adequate compensation to that woman to say that in those circumstances she will win an unfair dismissal case, because she does not get her job back. That is the argument.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: The point must be made here that in most of the cases I see people are not applying for reinstatement. Compensation is what most people are asking for. However, an industrial tribunal does have the right to order reinstatement.
Lord Glenarthur: May I clarify one point for my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes concerning the trials, which was the point in which she was interested. There is no reason why the employer and the employee should not agree in the contract for a trial of, say, three months or whatever. There is nothing to stand in the way of that.
Lord Coleraine: The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, is surely a good one. My noble friend is wrong. Even if the tribunal orders reinstatement—and I think it is right that they rarely do—there is no compulsion for an employee to be reinstated. I am sure the law recognises that where an employer and employee do not get on the only solution is compensation and not reinstatement.
I do not know whether this is valid, but it seems to me that, if an employer sacks an employee in such circumstances, in effect that means that forever after the likelihood is that the employee is not going to be an established shopworker, for the purposes of this Bill, and will lose the rights that he or she might otherwise have.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened very carefully to the debate and have decided not to press my amendment. On the other hand, I still think that there is a great deal of validity in what has been said by a number of noble Lords in the debate.
In particular, I agree with the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, concerning a woman who starts working on Sundays and, possibly through domestic circumstances, cannot continue. There may be a case, as has been said, for a pilot arrangement or something of that sort. Perhaps it would be possible to return to this point at Report stage, but in the meantime I ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 28B not moved.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton Lord Graham of Edmonton moved Amendment No. 28C:
Page 4, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) In the case of a dismissal regarded as unfair by virtue of paragraph 4(1) above the tribunal shall automatically remedy the complaint by making an order under sections 69(2) and 69(3) of the 1978 Act. Such an order shall be mandatory upon the employer subject to account being taken of the wishes of the complainant as to the nature of the order to be made.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment takes forward part of the argument that we have just been engaged upon. It attempts to do what the noble Lord opposite said might very well be exceedingly difficult to do; that is, in the event of a dispute, hearing, or award it could be exceedingly difficult for the employee to work again. I am referring to the atmosphere, loss of confidence and morale. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, said, most people come to the conclusion that the best way of settling matters is to endeavour to get the best compensation in cash—six months' wages, or whatever it might be. Around only 5 per cent. of successful complainants against unfair dismissal end in the worker being reinstated or re-engaged by their employers. I have references here which I would gladly give if necessary. However, that is our general view.
The amendment is saying that there are special circumstances. We are dealing with a category of workers and a change in their life style which, frankly, could be traumatic. I do not want to be too dramatic but it is a major upheaval. In those circumstances, we are saying that if the cause of dismissal is held to have been an unwillingness to work on a Sunday and that is heard by a tribunal and judgment is given in favour of the employee, then this amendment ensures that at the wish of the employee he or she should determine whether he or she wishes to be reinstated or to have compensation. In the present climate jobs are very difficult to obtain, but it may be accepted, as I accept it, that most employers are not unreasonable, even though there may be disputes and harsh words and strict company policies may be in force.
In fact, if the employer is fair, but he has put his case and it is held that it was wrongful dismissal, then I am hoping that this amendment will maintain harmonious relations—I am not talking about nasty employees, mischief-makers, trouble-makers or lazy people but about good workers who do not wish to work on a Sunday and are able to prove to a tribunal that the reason for their dismissal has been their refusal to work on a Sunday. This amendment simply gives the tribunal the possibility of ordering reinstatement or compensation at the option of the employee. I beg to move.
Lord Glenarthur: This amendment would require an industrial tribunal which has found a dismissal to be unfair under paragraph 4 to make an order that the employee be reinstated in accordance with Sections 69(2) and 69(3) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978.
I feel that it is completely unreasonable to tie the hands of a tribunal in such a way. For all cases of unfair dismissal brought under the current legislation, discretion is given to the tribunal to decide upon the appropriate remedy according to the facts of the individual case. Present legislation allows a tribunal, if

413
it has found proven a case of unfair dismissal, to order the employee to be reinstated—that is, to be re-employed by the same employer in the same job, or be re-engaged. In other words, to be employed by the same or a connected employer in a comparable job; or to be awarded instead the financial compensation which was mentioned just now by my noble friend Lady Gardner.
An industrial tribunal will order reinstatment or re-engagement only if the employee asks for it. There is really no reason why dismissals which come under paragraph 4 of this schedule should be treated any differently from unfair dismissals for reasons covered by the 1978 Act. Moreover, surely it is also unreasonable to take away from a tribunal the discretion to award the most appropriate remedy in the light of the facts brought to its attention. In many cases the employment relationship will have broken down completely and it would be unreasonable to expect the employer to reinstate the worker. Also, because of the breakdown of the employment relationship, many employees themselves will not wish to be reinstated.
I am not clear from what the noble Lord has said whether what he is trying to do with this amendment will enable shopworkers who do not wish to be reinstated to decide to accept an alternative remedy. I suggest that in essence what the noble Lord is trying to do will tie the hands of a tribunal in a most unrealistic way and that to proceed in this manner would be detrimental to all concerned.
Baroness Seear: May I ask the noble Lord for information? My memory is beginning to fade with old age, but I think that at one time it was possible that if a tribunal ordered reinstatement, an employer could avoid reinstatement by paying additional compensation. I am speaking absolutely from memory and such a course may never have been possible or may have ceased to be so, but I think that it is rather important in this context.
Lord Glenarthur: The memory of the noble Baroness is much longer than mine. I do not know the answer to her question but perhaps I can let her know in due course.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I intend to withdraw the amendment but I want the Committee to know that we believe that there are far more employees than employers who are likely to be hurt by the operation of this Act. I am not talking about employers who are vindictive. Employers have a business to run, a profit to make and they have to survive. I am talking in terms of situations where hard decisions are made by an employer who opens his shop and then the Act comes into force.
The Minister is right that the amendment seeks to tie the hands of a tribunal. If the tribunal is satisfied that the employee is right, automatically it could make an award and allow the employee the option of the right to reinstatment or to cash. I have listened carefully to what has been said. In fact, I shall sit down and listen again!
Lord Glenarthur: Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, which I think he is about to do, let me say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I believe that she is right. If a tribunal orders reinstatement but the employer disobeys the order, an additional award will be made.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am grateful to the Minister and even more to the noble Baroness for getting that put on the record. That may help those outside the Committee who are looking for amelioration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 4, line 27, after ("64(l)") insert ("a)").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 29. I shall deal with Amendment No. 30 also which is in my name and relates to the same issue.
Amendment No. 30: Page 4, line 30, leave out ("or has attained retiring age").
I put these forward as probing amendments. I am quite unable to understand the Government's thinking. The additional protection suggested in paragraph 5 on page 4 of the Bill would cover part-time workers and people over retiring age. I suppose that logically I should try to delete any major change in employment law affecting either category, but as I have such personal sympathy for part-time workers I should like to see them protected under the legislation. However, I feel quite differently about people over retiring age.
There is so much youth unemployment that we do not want to change employment law to give additional protection to people who should have retired and left the vacancy for a young person. That is why I cannot understand that the Government want to introduce a new protection for people over retiring age which is totally out of line with all existing employment legislation. My amendments seek to remove the additional protection. I beg to move.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I smiled when the noble Baroness said that we should not make provision for people over 65. In her absence on another day of this Committee stage great play was made by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and others about the nonsense of limiting a person's working life to the age of 65. As was pointed out, in this Chamber there are many good examples of people who work beyond that age—and I am not yet 65! Whatever figure is suggested, the other side argue that it is wrong. I shall be interested to hear how the Minister deals with the point of the noble Baroness, after having expressed great sympathy for what the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, said.
Lord Glenarthur: The amendment is intended to prevent established shopworkers over retirement age from making a claim for unfair dismissal if dismissed for refusing Sunday work. My noble friend has been good enough to say that it is a probing amendment. I shall endeavour to explain where a misconception in

415
her mind may have arisen about the basis of this schedule generally.
We believe that the more generous treatment proposed for established shopworkers is fully justified. It is also soundly based on relevant precedent. Under the 1978 Act employees over normal retirement age can bring a case of unfair dismissal if the reason for dismissal relates to the employee's membership or non-membership of a trade union or to his participation in union activities. Moreover, workers over normal retirement age are not debarred from complaining under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 or the Race Relations Act 1976. We believe that the right not to work on a Sunday is sufficiently important to be regarded as analogous to those fundamental rights and that the exclusions that apply to normal unfair dismissal cases should not apply to established shopworkers if they are dismissed for refusing Sunday work.
In a nutshell, that is based on trade union type legislation and not on the other legislation to which I referred—sex discimination, race relations, and so on. That is why the safeguards are built in in that way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. There are still a few points in it which do not satisfy me. Although people over retirement age—as he mentioned—can bring a case, as I understand it no compensation is payable to anyone over retirement age; compensation is reduced by so much per year for every year when one approaches retirement age. I understand that no compensation was payable for unfair dismissal over retirement age. However, if I am wrong I should like to be corrected on that.
The other point is that these over retirement age shopworkers can be dismissed for any other reason without there being unfair dismissal. There does not have to be any reason for dismissing them. If they are over retirement age they can be dismissed, as I understand it, at any time, the provisions of unfair dismissal do not apply to them, apart from those rare instances that the Minister has just mentioned.
I shall study the answer given by the Minister in detail. I should like at some stage to have an answer from him on whether I am right in saying that no compensation would be payable to these persons even if they had such a case. I do not know whether the Minister is able to comment now or whether he would rather reply at another time.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly consider the views of my noble friend—messages arrive with great speed in your Lordships' House. I understand that compensation is made up of two elements: a basic award which is not payable if the employee is over retirement age; and a compensatory award which is payable in all cases. Perhaps I can expand on that point to my noble friend in writing.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister. I can check from my own books on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 30 to 32 not moved.]
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 5, line 6, leave out ("sub-paragraph (3)") and insert ("paragraph 8").
The noble Viscount said: This is a purely technical amendment to correct a printing error in the Bill. I am sure that your Lordships have realised that the words "sub-paragraph (3)" do not make sense because there is no sub-paragraph (3) in paragraph 7. Clearly the correct words are "paragraph 8". I beg to move.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: There is obviously a mistake in the Bill but I wonder why it is subject to paragraph 8. Paragraph 8 says that an established shopworker can contract out of his rights under the Bill. As such it seems to me merely declaratory because the Bill has said earlier that he can contract out by writing on or after the Act comes into force.
I confess that I have not looked up the three sections of the 1978 Act which are mentioned in subparagraph (2) of paragraph 7, but I should have thought that paragraph 8 refers back to the definition of an established shopworker. I do not at the moment see why those three sections and Part IX should apply subject to paragraph (8).
Lord Renton: As we are discussing this subsection (2) in the course of dealing with this simple amendment to correct a printing error, I hope that it will not be inappropriate for me to say that I find sub-paragraph (2) very strange indeed. It refers to three sections of the 1978 Act, and asks us to assume that paragraph 6 of this schedule was contained in Part II of the 1978 Act. It is a mind-bending operation. In my view, if not only parliamentarians but the users of legislation are to receive any help from drafting at all, then this is just the kind of drafting that should be avoided.
Viscount Davidson: I am sure that noble Lords who have spoken will not expect me to give an answer off the top of my head, let alone from anywhere else at the moment! My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has already said that he will look at the drafting, and this matter probably comes under the drafting point that he mentioned earlier. All that I can say at this stage is that I shall ensure that my noble friend Lord Glenarthur writes to both the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord who have spoken on this point.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before we come to Amendment No. 33A, I have to tell the Committee that if that amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 33B or 34. I call Amendment No. 33A.
Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 33A:
Page 5, line 17, leave out paragraph 8, and insert—
("8. Any provision in an agreement (whether a contract of employment or not) shall be void in so far as it purports

(a) to exclude or limit the operation of this Schedule; or

(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to, or bringing any proceedings under this Schedule before an industrial tribunal.").

The noble Baroness said: As has already been indicated, paragraph 8 provides for the opportunity to

417
contract out of obligations under the Employment Protection Act. It is because we do not want that to stand in the Bill that we have tabled this amendment. The effect of Amendment No. 33A, which stands in my name, is to write into the Bill the actual provisions of Section 140(1) of the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1978. The wording is exactly the same. The Act says:

"(a) to exclude or limit the operation of any provision of this Act; or

(b) to preclude any person from presenting a complaint to, or bringing any proceedings under this Act before, an industrial tribunal".

Any agreement which provides for that would be voided under the terms of Section 140 of the Employment Protection Act.
What we want to do under the amendment is to continue to preserve for employees the right to sue under the Employment Protection Act and not to be under pressure from employers to negotiate away that right. I must say, for your Lordships' information, that the TUC is particularly concerned about the effects of this paragraph in the new Bill. It says that, unlike the normal unfair dismissal provisions, the Bill allows employers to insert terms into the contracts of employment of shopworkers which waive these new rights to lodge or pursue industrial tribunal claims on Sunday working.
It also says that under the unfair dismissal provisions of the Employment Protection Act, which I have just read, any such terms in employment contracts are automatically null and void. But if this is expunged as far as shopworkers are concerned under this paragraph, then it is not null and void and it is possible for employees to "negotiate"—in inverted commas—because very often, as we have just heard, employees do not have all that much freedom when it comes to negotiation, particularly if they need the job. It is possible for employers to bring pressure to bear upon employees to get them to waive rights which appear to be theirs under the legislation, under the Bill, as if they were established shopworkers, but which in fact they can be pressurised—and I use that term advisedly—into giving up if the employers apply sufficient inducement to them to do so.
The TUC has further told me that it is firmly opposed to the principles of contracting out of employment rights since, if that practice were to become accepted, it would undermine employment rights everywhere else and produce a very unfortunate precedent for other pieces of legislation.
Therefore, I emphasise that from our point of view this is an important amendment. We want to preserve the rights that exist already under Section 140 of the Employment Protection Act, to which I have just referred, and we do not think that it should be open to employers and employees to negotiate for those rights to be waived. It is a very bad precedent indeed and I commend the amendment to your Lordships on those grounds. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I have already indicated that it is at least arguable that the existing paragraph 8 is for no more than the avoidance of doubt. As such, I personally have no objection to it, but I would ask the
418
noble Lord the Minister in any event to look sympathetically at the substance, though not necessarily at the actual drafting, of Amendment No. 33A in the name of the noble Baroness.
Modern legislation very frequently intervenes to limit complete freedom of contract between two people where they are likely to be inherently unequal in power. Very usual examples are landlord and tenant, and the noble Baroness herself mentioned the Employment Protection Act. Obviously, the thought behind that is not likely to be between two persons of equal bargaining power. In so far as I remember, whenever a statute intervenes in that way there is always a provision against contracting out. I only had time to look up one which I had in mind, and that was the Agricultural Holdings Act which says in Section 3:
"This section shall have effect notwithstanding any agreement to the contrary".
Where the statute intervenes to prevent complete freedom of contract and to limit it in some respects, some such provision is almost inevitably necessary, otherwise you come full circle again to unequal parties contracting together under a new contract. Obviously this will not do in this form because there is already written in a contracting-out provision under the rather disliked paragraph about established shopworkers. Therefore, this would have to be subject to that. Otherwise, it seems to me a necessary provision of this schedule.
Baroness Seear: I should like to support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I accept that there are aspects of employment protection which in general terms need looking at again. It is not all holy writ; it could well be revised in some respects. However, the way to do it is not to allow people to contract-out in, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, has said, agreements between unevenly weighted parties. I do not think that that is the right way to modify employment protection legislation because it leaves people open to very considerable exploitation.
Lord Glenarthur: I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, is quite right. Section 140, which prevents contracting out of the statutory rights, applies to the rights in the schedule. All that the present paragraph 8 does is to ensure that an employee can enter into a contractual agreement to do Sunday work. However, the purpose of the amendment would certainly be to prevent established shopworkers from waiving their statutory rights and voluntarily agreeing to work on a Sunday.
As regards the employer, these amendments, rather similarly to the earlier amendments that we discussed, would make it extremely difficult to run a shop effectively. Although established shopworkers could enter into agreements to work on a Sunday, they could not be enforced, and employers would be put in an intolerable position as they would never know whether their workers would turn up on a Sunday. Employers would be unable to rely on any permanent commitment to Sunday work, and would therefore be placed in the weakest of all possible bargaining positions.

419
One can readily envisage the difficulties that this would cause for employers, especially the small shop, and I suggest that it would again place a thoroughly unfair burden on employers. Because established shopworkers could not waive their statutory rights, they would not be able to enter into a binding contractual agreement to work on a Sunday. If established shopworkers wanted to work on a Sunday they would be put at a disadvantage compared with new recruits, who would be able to make a contractual agreement to work on a Sunday. Employers may therefore prefer to give Sunday work to those employees who they know will be obliged to work on a Sunday because of their contract.
We are, in a sense, on the same theme here as we discussed on earlier amendments—the intolerable load that it would place on the employers. I repeat what I said earlier, that I do not believe that at the end of the day this would serve the interests of either the employees or the employers. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I hope that the noble Lord will consent to look at this point again. It is not really the same point we discussed before. It is really that if you limit in any way the power of perfectly free contract—and this Bill does limit to some degree the free contractual power of employer and employee—you need some such provision as this. I hope that the noble Lord will not close his mind to the matter, and will look at the debate in Hansard.
Lord Glenarthur: I shall certainly look at the debate in Hansard and study what has been said. I believe that notwithstanding the effect which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, described, the main point which the noble Baroness expressed in her amendment would be the effect I have just described. I do not think that I can detract from that one bit. But I shall examine what has been said, though without any commitment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened carefully to what has been said, and in particular to the interesting point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon. I, too, hope that the Minister will look at the points made in the debate. The point I made was different from the point that the noble Lord made in reply to me. We are talking, as I understand it, about a specific provision whereby rights which exist in Section 140 of the Employment Protection Act can be waived as a result of an agreement between an employer and an employee—and an employee who is certainly not going to be in a position of equality when it comes to negotiation with his employer.
That is why we regard this as important, and I hope that the Minister will have another look at it. I do not intend to press it tonight because the hour is very late, but I think we shall have another look at this at Report stage. In the meantime, I hope that the Minister will perhaps have second thoughts about this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 33B, 34 and 35 not moved.]
Baroness Seear Baroness Seear moved Amendment No. 35A:
Page 5, line 19, at end insert—
("Time off in lieu of Sunday working
9. Any employee who has worked on five days during the week and also works on the Sunday following, must be given 2 days leave during the following week.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment has a slightly different purpose from some of the previous amendments. The suggestion is that if an employee has worked for five days in the week preceding a given Sunday and he then works on that Sunday he should be given two days off in lieu in the following week.
The reasons for this amendment are several. One is that it will make employers think very hard before they decide to work on a Sunday. If they have to make arrangements of this sort, it is only when they are convinced that they will have heavy trading that it will be worth while calling people in on Sunday. This puts a brake on the introduction of Sunday trading, which, in itself, would be highly desirable. It is possible, and I think it will happen, that people who work on a Sunday will negotiate for double time on Sunday, as is the present practice. If that were accompanied with this amendment, there would be a considerable burden upon employers, which from my point of view would be desirable, before they asked people to work on Sunday, and they would have to think very hard about the real commercial advantages of so doing.
Although that is one reason for moving this amendment, it is not my primary reason. If we are to have Sunday trading it will present us with an opportunity to do something which a great many of us have been pressing for a long time; that is, to provide a much greater opportunity for a genuine sharing of work. There are a great many people who are out of work in the unskilled and semi-skilled grades who will not get back into full-time work ever. These are people who in many cases are quite capable of being able to cope with selling in a shop. The hope in introducing this amendment is that if the burden is put on the employer of providing two days off in lieu of Sunday working, that will be a strong incentive to employ people on a part-time basis to work at weekends. This will mean that people who are otherwise probably permanently unemployed would acquire part-time jobs, which would have considerable economic and social value to them. One would hope that it would be possible to combine this with an assurance that people who so worked would not have their benefits reduced. That would be a useful way of being able to improve the position of people who are otherwise permanently unemployed.
This would also make it easier for the people who are working a five-day week to have a normal weekend. It would mean that the housewife, of whom we have talked a great deal, who wants to be home on Sunday would be able to be at home on Sunday because the employer would have the part-time workers or weekend shift workers coming in. That would in many ways be a desirable development. It would be cheaper for the employers—they would not have to give the two days off in lieu—and it would be advantageous to the unemployed person because it would give him a job. If we are to have Sunday working this would be a desirable step. Such workers might become regular employees.
If I may say so in parenthesis, I have been slightly entertained with the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, about the employer being certain that people will come in to work. This is highly desirable from the employers' point of view, but a great many employers are familiar with the situation where employees do not come in to work all the time. I strongly suspect that if we have double time on Sundays what employers will really worry about is that people will not come in on Monday. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about this amendment. Obviously, it offers us a new idea and new concept about how this Bill is going to affect employees. It offers the idea that an opportunity for work sharing can be made available. Also I think that this amendment corrects the balance a little between the advantages to employers and employees. The noble Lord the Minister has spoken a lot about the problems that previous amendments would put on employers and how it would be impossible to run a business and so on if certain amendments which would advantage the employees were adopted. I think this is a very interesting amendment and I look forward to hearing what the Minister will have to say about it.
Lord Glenarthur: It was with great interest that I heard the last remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, about the difficulty of persuading people to come into work on a Sunday—
Baroness Seear: I was referring to the difficulties on the following Mondays.
Lord Glenarthur: Yes, or even a Monday. But the fact is that at the moment, so far as I understand it, there is no great evidence to suggest that there is difficulty in finding staff to carry out the work on either the Monday or the Sunday. Be that as it may, despite the fact that Sunday work appears to be popular the noble Baroness's point is directly concerned with Section 22 of the 1950 Act which provides that shopworkers are given time off in lieu if they work on Sundays. Perhaps to avoid confusion I could first of all explain that the Bill as drafted retains these provisions for young people at the same time as lifting them for adult shopworkers.
At the Second Reading debate the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, put forward the proposal which she is now raising in this amendment. As she described, her reason for doing so was that she believed that it would encourage shops to employ part-time employees on Sundays and that full-time staff would be discouraged from working on Sundays. At the moment shopworkers who are employed for more than four hours on Sunday are entitled to a day off in lieu. If they are now to receive two days off in lieu, as she suggested, then I would have thought it quite likely to encourage more full-time employees to work on Sundays and they would not be disposed to see Sundays staffed by part-time employees. But be that as it may, the Government believe that it really should be left to shopkeepers and their employees to decide who should
422
work on Sunday and how those who do so should be compensated for the Sundays upon which they work.
The abolition of restriction on hours of work for adults and the removal of restrictions on trading hours will mean that, as for the majority of employees in other parts of our life in this country, conditions of employment will be decided by collective or individual bargaining. Employers and employees will be able to decide what suits their particular circumstances, whether it be to provide time off in lieu on a weekly or monthly or annual basis or to provide additional payment for Sunday working or whatever.
I cannot agree with the noble Baroness that matters like this should be decided by legislation. I believe this should be left to be decided between the employers and employees. That is why I hope she will not press the amendment.
Baroness Seear: Before the noble Lord sits down, are the Government contemplating getting rid of all the restrictions on hours of work of women in industrial employment? The restrictions on hours of work for women in industrial employment have existed since 1833. I am talking about the Factories Acts. The noble Lord talks about all other fields of employment and there being no legal restrictions on hours of work. There is extensive restriction on hours of female employment in manufacturing industry, and that has been so for over 100 years.
Lord Glenarthur: The noble Baroness may have misunderstood me. What I was suggesting was that it was perfectly reasonable to expect individuals to come to arrangements with their employers, within their contracts, on this whole substance. I do not see any particular reason why the retail trade should be so different in the way the noble Baroness suggests. I am not suggesting that we are going as far as the noble Baroness suggests. What I can say is that the Government propose to remove restrictions on women's hours of work in a sex discrimination Bill. I do not think that goes quite as far as the noble Baroness feels I am going here.
Baroness Seear: There is nothing exceptional in legal restrictions on women's hours of work: that is what I am saying. It has been the practice in this country for over a hundred years and the Government are not, as I understand it, leaving the hours of work in manufacturing industry to be determined entirely by collective bargaining.
Lord Glenarthur: I wonder whether perhaps the noble Baroness and I are talking at cross-purposes. What I am saying here is that as things stand the 1950 Act provides that workers in shops are given time off in lieu—on that I think we are agreed—and that, as the Bill is drafted, provisions for young people will remain the same and they will be lifted for adult shopworkers. I then went on to say that the abolition of restriction on hours of work for adults and the removal of restrictions on trading hours will mean that for the majority of employees in this country conditions of employment—and those, I think, are the key words—will be decided by collective or individual bargaining. Is the noble Baroness saying that individual bargaining in other industries does not take place?
Baroness Seear: I am not saying that individual bargaining does not take place, but I am saying that the law limits what you can agree in individual bargaining about women's hours of work in factories, and has done for well over a hundred years. The noble Lord is trying to pretend that to put any restriction at all on hours of work in the retail trade would put women in an exceptional position. I am saying that, so far as women's employment is concerned, not having restrictions puts them in an exceptional position.
However, I do not propose to press this tonight. I shall return to it at a later stage. The reason I moved it tonight was to ask the noble Lord whether he would think seriously about the benefits that would accrue from really trying to use Sunday opening as a means of developing for a considerable number of people the opportunities of weekend shift working or part-time working. That is really what it is all about. I do not want to be sidetracked on this other argument, although I am quite certain I am right in saying that it would be quite exceptional if there were no restriction on women's hours of work in the retail trade when there have long been restrictions, and still are, in manufacturing industry. However, that is not the major point. The major burden of this is to ask the Minister—and he has been very generous about saying that he will consider a number of the points that have been made—to think about this, because it seems to me that it would be a very good opportunity to provide work opportunities for people who would otherwise never have them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Schedule 1, as amended, shall he agreed to?
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: In 1975 a very strong committee on the preparation of legislation, the chairman of which was the noble Lord, Lord Renton, started off Chapter 6 of their report:
"Our terms of reference imply a widespread concern that much of our statute law lacks simplicity and clarity".
In their recommendations, recommendation 8 said:
"In principle the interests of the ultimate users should always have priority over those of the legislators. A Bill should be regarded primarily as a future Act".
I take part in only one or two Bills a Session, but a recent Session included the National Heritage Bill where one of the schedules—a vital schedule—was so incomprehensible that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, moved to have it out of the Bill altogether, notwithstanding that that would have wrecked the Bill.
In the following year, 1984, we had the Housing and Building Control Bill, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, will remember because as a newcomer to the House he had to deputise at an important stage of the Committee for the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and he made an immediate impact on the House. There we had to struggle and finally, only after repeated debates and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor being brought in, did we get what was admittedly—admitted by Ministers—the incomprehensible Part I reprinted in the Statutes in Force in time in a form which could be understood by the council tenants who were affected.
424
Then, last Session, we had the Transport Bill and, again, one of the clauses was universally criticised as meaningless and unnecessary. Now we have this schedule which, I say with respect, is the worst of the lot. It has been stigmatised by my noble and learned friend Lord Denning, by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, and by the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
I ask the noble Lord, bearing in mind the Renton recommendations, to consider paragraph 1, subparagraphs (2) and (3), and paragraphs 5 and 7 of this schedule and to say who he thinks the users of this Bill will be. One thinks first of shopworkers and shopkeepers, including small shopkeepers. Does he really think that they could make anything of those provisions? I have spent most of my life as a lawyer, but it took hours finding the right section of the 1978 Act, seeing how far it was amended by this schedule and then re-applying it to the schedule. I am bound to say that that seems to me to be an absolutely shocking way of drafting.
There is one other point before I make a few positive suggestions. The noble Lord said on Tuesday (at col. 223 of the Official Report):
"I do not know whether there is scope for improvements in the drafting, and I take the point that my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter made. I shall see what can be done, but it is very much in the hands of the parliamentary draftsmen."
That is absolute heresy. Many of us have argued for a long time that parliamentary counsel will continue to flout the wishes of Parliament, and the recommendations of the Renton Committee, unless they are put in some department which can pay effective attention to their method of drafting. That has not been done; but until it has been done it is the Minister in charge of the Bill who is responsible for its drafting as well as its contents. I hope that the Minister will recant that heresy and assure us that this schedule will be recast in a form that can be understood by users and at least by Members of either House of Parliament. Speaking for myself, if it is presented in this form on Third Reading I shall find myself compelled on that very ground, although I am strongly in favour of Clause 1, to vote against the Bill.
10 p.m.
I have one positive suggestion in addition to the general suggestion of redrafting. Some of these most impenetrable paragraphs and passages such as subparagraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1 and the other ones that I mentioned should be recast as a Keeling schedule. A Keeling schedule is generally used only where a complete Act is amended and the amended Act is then reprinted as a schedule to the amending Act, distinguishing typographically between the original parts, the parts which have been superseded by the amending Bill and the superseded parts—three types. I see no reason why it should not be done with these provisions even though they are only parts of a Bill. But something must be done. I say with all respect that it is quite intolerable that Session after Session a Bill is presented, and your Lordships are asked to take responsibility for it, which is bound to be quite incomprehensible to the people who are affected by it. It is the very negation of parliamentary democracy.
Lord Renton: If I may say so, I think that the noble and learned Lord has done a great service by saying what he has just said. I should like to support him very warmly indeed. Perhaps I may add one short point. Sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 which purports to be an interpretation provision is the worst interpretation provision that it has ever been my misfortune to have to study.
The discussions that we have had on this first schedule do to my mind increase our gratitude to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for his undertaking to have its drafting reconsidered. As to this question of whether he or the draftsman is to have the last word, may I tell him the solution? All that he has to do is to say to the draftsman, "I do not understand this and I do not think that the shopkeepers and other people who are going to have to obey the Bill will understand it either. Please make it more clear". That is in Hansard, that can be quoted, and that I think is the solution of this problem which we often hear put before us—and even by Ministers who are learned lawyers. I hope that my noble friend will be so good as to bear that in mind.
I venture to say this, and on this the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, will not agree with me, but I nevertheless constructively put it forward as a solution. If the two-tier system envisaged by Clause 3 and by the first schedule were to be abolished, most of the problems both of drafting and of substance that we have encountered in our discussions of this first schedule would vanish.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I second that.
Lord Glenarthur: I have listened with care to what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Renton on the matter of the drafting of Schedule 1. I do not in any sense dodge my responsibilities because my name appears on the front of the Bill. When I said at col. 223 of Hansard—and the noble and learned Lord quoted me—that I would see what could be done but that the matter was very much in the hands of parliamentary draftsmen, in no sense did I mean to indicate, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord knows, that I was trying to dodge my own responsibilities.
I gave both the noble and learned Lord and my noble friend an assurance that the question would be looked at. I have to agree that it is incredibly complex. Everyone associated with the Bill agrees that it is incredibly complex. However, it appears to be so because it relates to many different provisions and there has not seemed up to this point any simpler way of dealing with it.
I willingly undertake to see what can be done. I would be only too delighted if the schedule could be in a simpler form now. If it has taken the noble and learned Lord with his colossal experience hours and hours to understand the schedule, he will readily appreciate that it has taken me weeks and weeks—and still I am not sure that I understand it. I cannot be drawn too readily on the question of the Keeling schedule because I shall need to be quite certain in my own mind what it involves. Certainly I shall examine what has been said.
426
I take the points that have been made. I hope that my noble friend with his experience, and with the benefit of the report for which he was largely responsible and which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, quoted, and the Committee will allow me to do precisely what I have said I will do: take this question away, look at it, and see what can be done.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Consequential amendments]:
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 6, line 12, leave out ("that effect") and insert ("the effect that that is his practice").
The noble Viscount said: This amendment merely tidies up the wording of new Section 17(4)(c) so that its meaning is absolutely clear. If the shop occupier wishes to prove that the holiday resort exemption applies in any case of contravention of Section 17, the notice that he displays under new Section 17(2) of the 1950 Act has to contain a statement to the effect that he gives all his shop assistants a holiday on full pay of not less than two weeks a year. The notice does not also have to contain a statement that the shop is situated in a holiday resort. This was a possible interpretation of new Section 17(4)(c) as it is currently worded in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 37 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Repeals]:
[Amendment No. 38 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that Amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 41 should be, but are not, due to a printing error, in the names of the Lord Bishop of London, the Lord Graham of Edmonton, the Earl of Lauderdale, and the Lord Beaumont of Whitley.
[Amendments Nos. 39 to 41 not moved.]
Viscount Davidson Viscount Davidson moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 9, leave out lines 45 to 47.
The noble Viscount said: This is simply a drafting amendment. Section 6(c) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984 amends article 8 of the order set out in the schedule to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Provisional Order Confirmation (Greater London Parks and Open Spaces) Act 1967. As the relevant part of article 8 is repealed expressly in Schedule 3, on page 9 at lines 12 to 17 above, there is no need to repeal Section 6(c). I beg to move.
Lord Renton: As this is the final amendment we are, considering, I hope that I may be allowed to say how much I admire the remarkable way in which my noble friend Lord Glenarthur has grasped, as a layman, the complexities of this Bill. Without his assistance we

427
would have been in even greater difficulties than we were. We should be most grateful to him.
Lord Glenarthur: I am most grateful to my noble friend. I am also grateful to him for the enormous help he has been in seeking to speed the progress of the Bill so far. However, we have other stages to go.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: I should like a tribute to come also from the Cross-Benches. We on these Benches have appreciated enormously the industry, courtesy and thoroughness of the noble Lord. We are truly grateful.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Without any authority whatever the noble Lord has given us nothing, and we are looking forward to something at later stages. I shall be much more flattering in my praise at later stages when that happens. However, I share the expressions of thanks from the Committee. I do not take from anything that has been said other than that the Minister has genuinely tried to understand our arguments. He has been unable to accept almost all of them, but we have had the feeling on this side of the Committee that he is genuinely sincere when he says that there are things worthy of consideration at a later stage. I certainly share in the expressions of gratitude.
On Question, amendment agreed to,
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.