Lords Sitting of 2 May 1995

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

Atlantic Tuna Fishery
Lord Campbell of Croy Lord Campbell of Croy asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect the latest international decisions on phasing out the use of drift nets will have upon the continuation by British fishermen of the Atlantic tuna fishery.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Howe): My Lords, in accordance with EU regulations, which themselves reflect United Nations resolutions on high seas drift nets, British fishermen may use drift nets up to 2.5 kilometres in length. No decisions have been taken which would lead to the phasing out of drift nets in the Atlantic tuna fishery.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. Does that mean that the EU Commission's proposal to bring this drift netting to an end is nonetheless still on the table? When the Atlantic tuna season reopens this summer, will arrangements be in place to avoid clashes, recognising the incompatibility of two methods of catching these fish—drift nets, used by British fishermen, and pole and line, used by the Spanish—if used in the same area?
Earl Howe: My Lords, technically the Commission's proposal remains on the table, although a number of aspects of it are now somewhat out of date. The Government are well aware that the conflict in the north-east Atlantic albacore tuna fishery is claimed to be one of gear incompatibility. The Spanish pole and line vessels mainly fish their gear during the daytime whereas drift-net fleets from the UK, Ireland and France generally shoot their gear at dusk and haul it in at first light. As a result of that separation in time, conflict of the kind my noble friend envisages, namely gear spoiling each other, need not occur. That point was examined by the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries in February this year. The committee reported that in principle there should be no reason why the different fleets should not operate in the same fishery.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Government allow drift netting in the North Sea which every year takes thousands of salmon which are searching for their spawning grounds in North Yorkshire and Scottish rivers, a practice which is contrary to salmon conservation? Is he aware that the North
1320
Atlantic Salmon Trust, the Salmon and Trout Association and the Anglers' Conservation Association all condemn that practice? Why do the Government allow it?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord's question is somewhat wide of that on the Order Paper. However, I say to him that to end the use of drift nets to catch salmon would impose considerable hardship on fishermen. It is not justified by any threat to stocks. The use of such nets in UK waters is strictly regulated, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware. There is no evidence that they pose a threat to stocks. That view is supported by the Commission's Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries, which also noted that effort in salmon drift net fisheries in coastal waters is likely to decrease further and that one effect of a ban on the use of drift nets is likely to be increased pressure on other fish stocks which may already be fully or over exploited.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on his perspicacity in foreseeing the question from the noble Lord. However, perhaps we may now return to tuna. Is it not a fact that in this case we are in the wrong and the Spaniards are in the right? Does the Minister agree that the pole and line fishing method is far more likely to catch good fish and to preserve stocks than sweeping fish into a drift net miles long, pushing them all together, squashing them and damaging them so that the fish cannot possibly be put back? Does he agree that the Spanish method is one of conservation?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I cannot agree that the UK is in the wrong in this.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Earl Howe: My Lords, the number of vessels from the UK operating drift nets in the tuna fishery is only some 16 whereas the Spaniards have roughly four times as many. Indeed, Spanish vessels account for a vastly larger percentage of the total catch. If we are considering conservation measures, it is important to look at the matter in the round. There is no doubt that the Spanish effort is very efficient indeed.
Viscount Brookeborough: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that although the damage done by drift netting is quantifiable, long-lining—which can mean hooks tearing the mouths out of tuna which escape and die thereafter—is not a system of catching fish which has no problems?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the use of pole and line is not self-evidently more humane.
Lord Carter: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what independent scientific research has been undertaken to show the effects of drift netting on fish stocks?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the EU Scientific, Technical and Economic Committee for Fisheries met in February to assess the scientific justification for the Commission's proposal of last year. It identified no case for cutting back on the length of drift nets or for banning them. It concluded that the tuna stock is not over-exploited

1321
although fishing effort should not increase, and it determined that drift nets account for only 30 per cent. of tuna fishing mortality. The remainder is the result of French pelagic trawling and Spanish pole and line fishing.
The tuna stocks are managed by the international convention for the conservation of Atlantic tuna. I shall make inquiries as to the methods that are used for determining stocks. I am aware that there are considerable gaps in our knowledge on the subject.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I understand that the Commission's proposals are lying on the table—whatever that may mean. Does the noble Earl consider that it might be better for the Commission to make its proposals after it receives the advice of the scientific and technical committee rather than before?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. We shall make sure that the force of the scientific committee's report is not lost either on the Commission or on the Council of Ministers when the matter is next debated.
Lord Sanderson of Bowden: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that with the abandonment of drift netting at sea in the Pacific as a result of Japanese over-exploitation of stocks, the general impression given by the Government is that drift netting at sea should be abandoned in due course in every part of the world?
Earl Howe: My Lords, the United Nation resolution to which I referred in my original Written Answer was a response to the wholly unacceptable practices in the Pacific Ocean and elsewhere involving net lengths of great size. However, we see no scientific justification for a ban on drift netting, to which the Question refers, or a ban on salmon drift netting.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, while my noble friend's statement about the separation of the methods used by night and day is welcome, is not special understanding needed, and monitoring required, since most if not all of the Atlantic tuna fishery takes place in the high seas beyond any country's fishery limits or economic zone?
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. That is why it is essential that the authorities of each member state co-operate satisfactorily to ensure efficient policing of the fishery on the high seas.

Marine Nature Reserves
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Nicol Baroness Nicol asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made towards designation of further marine nature reserves.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Viscount Ullswater): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales is currently considering a draft order made by the Countryside Council for Wales proposing the designation of the Menai Straits. He will announce his decision at the
1322
earliest opportunity. Objectors to the proposed marine nature reserve at Strangford Lough, Northern Ireland, were heard on 25th April. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will announce his decision at the earliest opportunity.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. However, has not the discussion (if that is the right word) been continuing since 1988? So far as I can ascertain, the Welsh Office has been sitting on the result for the past year without coming to a conclusion.
Is the noble Viscount aware that, of the seven sites identified in 1981, only two have so far been designated as marine nature reserves? In the interval a great deal of damage is being done to what are almost irreplaceable sites. Can he give any assurance that the process is to be speeded up?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, the noble Baroness is quite right. Two sites have been designated, at Lundy and Skomer. However, the Government consider that marine nature reserves should be established only after full consultation. Before designation, efforts should be made to ensure that there is agreement with those with a legitimate interest in the area concerned. As the noble Baroness indicated, that process can take longer than many of us would wish. But we remain of the view that time spent in gaining local support is worth while.
Of the list proposed, a number of voluntary reserves are operating successfully, including St. Abb's Head; and others are being considered for that voluntary status, including the Isles of Scilly and Loch Sween in Scotland.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the most important action that the Government can take towards restoring the marine flora and fauna around our coasts is further steps for the prevention of pollution, which still takes place on too large a scale?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. That is a problem about which we are indeed concerned. My honourable friend the Minister of State for the Environment and Countryside, Mr. Atkins, announced four coastal policy initiatives in July 1994. Those included a standing forum on coastal zone management. I believe that that will go some way towards dealing with that problem.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the people of Gwynedd are baffled and dismayed by the failure of the Government to reach a conclusion on this important issue? A delay of seven years or more is unforgiveable. I should be grateful if the noble Viscount could tell the House the reason for it, especially as a clear promise was given that a conclusion would be reached by 1st April last. People in North Wales are wondering whether the Government are waiting for the Menai Straits to run dry before they reach a conclusion.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I must repeat that some objections are still outstanding and those objections from interested parties are now being considered by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

1323
A decision on them will be made shortly. I understand that there will be a form of non-statutory public inquiry and that a decision on the timing will be taken soon.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, what is the main objection?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, I understand that it comes partly from the yachting community.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, is it not in keeping with your Lordships' wishes during the passage of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 that interested parties should be kept informed and their views listened to before a marine nature reserve is created? If the Menai Straits are made a marine nature reserve, is it not also a fact that further regulations could be added, with no right for anyone to appeal or even be consulted about the further regulations?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. When the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 was passing through another place, undertakings were given that marine nature reserves would be designated only after important differences of opinion had been resolved. However, that does not mean that everyone must agree with the proposal. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State will obviously take account of the views of all those who expressed an interest. I believe that in due course all marine nature reserves will be designated as special areas of conservation under the Habitats Directive.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, will the Minister agree that several types of sea bird which have been common around our shores for centuries are under threat? They are in particular the guillemot, the puffin and the gannet. The most important is the Manx shearwater; 90 per cent. of the world's breeding grounds for that bird are within British waters and the species is severely threatened.
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, under the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) Regulations which have just been enacted, such areas will be taken into account. A number of areas have been identified as possible special areas of conservation and the list published for consultation.
Baroness David: My Lords, the Minister mentioned Loch Sween. Can he tell us whether Scottish Natural Heritage is making efforts to hurry the process along?
Viscount Ullswater: My Lords, indeed, it is on the basis of recommendations by Scottish Natural Heritage that the proposal was put forward. Also, the concept that it should be run on a voluntary basis is being considered.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the special areas of conservation under the habitats directive. Are we now to assume that all marine nature reserves are to be subsumed under that rubric of "special areas of conservation"? If so, is the noble Viscount aware that the Menai Straits are not a proposed SAC? Is he further aware that the Welsh Office publication The Environment in Wales—Third Report included a commitment to reach a decision on the Menai
1324
Straits, as my noble friend Lord Cledwyn mentioned, in the financial year 1994–95? Is the noble Viscount therefore saying that the Welsh Office wishes to push the whole matter into touch until special areas of conservation have been decided?
Viscount Ullswater: No, my Lords, I do not believe that to be an entirely correct interpretation. Some 36 marine sites have been included in the recently published list of possible SACs. The noble Lord is quite right that the Menai Straits is not one of those; it is being pursued under the marine nature reserve policy. At the moment it is subject to a draft order, subject to a non-statutory inquiry. A decision will be taken very soon.

English Language Book Scheme
2.55 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to terminate the English Language Book Scheme through which the Overseas Development Administration provides subsidies to British publishers to enable them to produce textbooks at low prices for sale in designated third world countries; and, if so, whether they will urgently reconsider this decision.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the subsidy to British publishers under the Educational Low-Priced Books Scheme will be phased out over the next two years. During that time, in consultation with publishers and other interested parties, we will be developing new strategies to achieve improved access to key textbooks and other essential learning materials for the poorer students in the poorest countries in pursuit of our developmental objectives.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must declare an interest, as two of the medical textbooks which I wrote were once included in the scheme. The Minister referred to the difficulty of reaching the poorer students, but does he agree that the department's review concluded that the scheme's merits outweighed its minor limitations and that it should be retained, with some modifications? Is it not a precisely targeted scheme meeting an essential need among students who cannot afford textbooks at developed world prices? As such, it makes a contribution to Britain's influence and reputation abroad out of all proportion to its modest cost of £1.5 million a year.
Does the Minister further agree that 78.5 per cent. of books in the scheme are sold in low income and very low income countries? Does he also agree that the ELBS is much admired by USAID, which might well step in and publish American books with a similar scheme at the cost of British influence?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am sure that the Government agree with the noble Lord that the achievements of the scheme and the value of British books in developing countries are great. The problem, as we see it, is that this scheme has not been appropriately focused on the poorer students in the poorest countries.

1325
Since the review in 1988, it was determined that the scheme should be focused on countries which had a per capita income of less than 1,000 dollars per head per year. In fact, currently 22 of the 54 countries to which the scheme applies are now outside those guidelines. We are not satisfied that, taking the scheme as a whole, we are satisfactorily targeting the poorer students in the poorest countries. Some are less poor students in richer countries and in some of the poorest countries the price of the hooks is probably such that the poorest students will not be able to buy them anyway.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this is a deplorable decision? Is he further aware that it was a Conservative Government who in 1960 initiated the scheme, which has given some of the most effective kinds of aid to the poorest countries of the Commonwealth and engendered good will towards Britain in the best possible way? Does the noble Lord know that his colleague, the Minister for Overseas Development, has agreed to meet a deputation? When that deputation is heard, will the Government seriously reconsider one of the best pieces of British aid towards the Commonwealth?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we do not accept the noble Lord's criticisms. But we are concerned to ensure that the benefits of the scheme as provided in the past will be more closely focused and carried forward into the future.
Lord Quirk: My Lords, while it is certainly true that the ODA review of last year drew attention to grave defects in the ELBS, and while it is good to know that alternative means will be found to get British books into the hands of those in the poorest countries, will the Minister agree that one of the main achievements of the ELBS has been not just to allow poor students to read books in libraries but also to be encouraged and enabled to buy their own copies?
Lord Inglewood: Yes, my Lords, but the problem is that the poorest of all seem to have been excluded. That is one of the matters that we want to try to address.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, will the Minister explain how he proposes to help the poorest of all students?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the scheme will be phased out over the next two years. We are currently seeking advice from the Chief Education Adviser. Research will be put in place leading to pilot schemes. Secondly, we are discussing the matter with the publishers of the books concerned.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in that case, will my noble friend and his department consider the use of a
1326
non-governmental organisation, which would by definition have its focus much more narrowly drawn in the way that the Government currently intend?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. We shall endeavour to use whatever instruments give us the best result at the end of the day.
Baroness David: My Lords, does the Minister agree that 78.5 per cent. went to low-income and very low-income countries, which does not fit in with some of the remarks that he has just made? Can he guarantee that the same level of benefit will go to the user in any new scheme that is proposed? Will care be taken to ensure that the structure of geographical desks at the ODA will not create a bottleneck preventing the proper uptake of the books?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, we shall endeavour to ensure that the kind of problems to which the noble Baroness referred in the last part of her question do not arise. We shall endeavour to focus the resources that we shall use for this purpose in the best possible manner. I cannot guarantee that everything will work out, but I can guarantee that that is our intention.
Lord Rea: My Lords, in view of the highly cost-effective short and long-term benefits of this scheme, both to this country and to the developing world, using only 0.08 percent. of the ODA's budget, will the Minister agree to further talks with International Book Development, the administrators of the scheme, to discuss how best to take it forward?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I understand that the company is being consulted as part of the wider consultation exercise.
Noble Lords: Next Question!
The Lord Privy Seal (Viscount Cranborne): My Lords, we have one more Question to go and only six minutes, or rather less, in which to discuss it. Perhaps we should proceed to the next Question.

BBC Charter
3.2 p.m.
Viscount Caldecote Viscount Caldecote asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will ensure that when Parliament debates the new BBC Charter and associated Agreement neither will have been finalised, and in particular that the Charter will not have been presented to Her Majesty for approval.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Viscount Astor): My Lords, the Royal Charter of the BBC will be laid in draft and will not be presented to Her Majesty for approval until after debate in both Houses of Parliament.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that most satisfactory Answer. Can he give an assurance that the Bill amending Parts V and VI of the Broadcasting Act 1990 to merge the existing

1327
Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission will be passed before we have the debate on the new Charter and Agreement?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the merger of the two bodies that my noble friend mentions, the Broadcasting Standards Council and the Broadcasting Complaints Commission, will require an Act of Parliament. I cannot bind the next Parliament to when that will be.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the new Charter, before it is debated, be published so that we can study and examine it and have a very useful debate in this House?
Viscount Astor: Yes, my Lords, it will be published before we debate it.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether his Answer about the submission of the Charter in draft means that it will be open to this House to amend it?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, the BBC is not a creation of statute; its Royal Charter is granted under the Royal Prerogative and is not subject to parliamentary approval. The agreement will be laid as a signed document. However, that document will specify that it is not binding until it has been approved by resolution in another place. I expect that noble Lords will wish to take the opportunity for a debate before the agreement is debated in another place. That will enable the Government to consider any views expressed by this House before the agreement is finalised.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, have the Government closed their mind on the whole question of whether the BBC should have a Royal Charter, when everybody else has to put up with an Act of Parliament?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, we believe that the BBC should be governed by Royal Charter. Indeed, that was the recommendation of the Select Committee in another place, with which we agree.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Agreement, and the Minister himself, will receive the warmest support from this side of the House provided that the Charter contains a few simple and sensible obligations? Is he further aware that by "simple and sensible" I mean: a commitment to public service broadcasting as a supreme priority; obligations to continue full coverage of the arts, education and parliamentary proceedings; and obligations to due impartiality, freedom of expression and the highest taste in programmes? Given those few simple commitments, the Charter will be in no bad form to go before Her Majesty.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, documents and Bills laid by the Government
1328
before this House are always simple and sensible. I am sure that the noble Lord will be able to agree with that when we bring forward the Charter and the Agreement.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend give some indication of whether this matter is likely to come before this House before we rise for the Summer Recess or afterwards?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, that is a matter for the usual channels. I shall make sure that my noble friend's remarks are brought to the attention of the Chief Whip.
Lord Elton: My Lords, did my noble friend notice an omission in the list of admirable characteristics that were read out—or rather spoken from memory—by the noble Lord, Lord Donoughue; namely, a strict regard for the truth? In answering, will my noble friend also clarify what he said about the procedures for making the document binding in law, which, as I heard him say, depends only on the views of the other place and not on the views of this House?
Viscount Astor: My Lords, another place has the ability to vote on the agreement under Standing Order 55. There is no such Standing Order in this House. That is why there is a vote in another place and not in your Lordships' House. That deals with the arrangements for communications overseas.
As regards the other part of my noble friend's question, perhaps it might help him if I say that the BBC, in common with other broadcasters, is required to observe due impartiality in dealing with issues of public controversy. We intend to include specific and clear obligations along these lines in the new BBC agreement. We have taken full account of the genuine and understandable concerns expressed by noble Lords. The guidelines will be very similar to the ones that are currently used by the ITC.

Human Tissue (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Lord Finsberg: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require a person lawfully in possession of the body of a deceased person to authorise the donation of the body or any specified part of the body for therapeutic or medical purposes if the deceased person had requested such a donation. I beg to move that the Bill he now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Finsberg.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Liaison Committee Report
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, perhaps noble Lords will permit me to observe that the Liaison Committee met shortly before the Easter Recess. The report before the House today sets out the recommendations that were reached at that meeting.

1329
In particular, the committee recommends that the next ad hoc committee to follow that on sustainable development under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, which will report shortly, should consider relations between central and local government. In the usual way, the House will have the opportunity to consider and agree terms of reference for the proposed committee, and indeed its membership. I beg to move.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to [HL Paper 49].—(Viscount Cranborne.)
Following is the report referred to:
ORDERED TO REPORT

1. The Liaison Committee has given further consideration to a proposal for a select committee to scrutinise legislation for consistency with the European Convention on Human Rights. The committee does not recommend that the House should conduct the form of scrutiny proposed at the present time. We will invite the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to reconsider the proposal when the impact of deregulation orders on its workload has become clearer.

2. The committee has considered several proposals for inquiries by ad hoc select committees which were submitted following the notice to Peers of 12 December 1994. We recommend the appointment of an ad hoc committee on relations between local and central government; this committee should be appointed after the ad hoc Committee on Sustainable Development has made its report to the House soon after the Easter Recess. We will recommend appropriate terms of reference for the committee in due course.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill
3.9 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blotch): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
This Bill makes simple and logical reforms to our liquor licensing laws. It will relax Sunday licensing hours so that pubs and clubs may open during Sunday afternoons in the way that they already can on weekday afternoons. Off-licensed shops, including large stores such as supermarkets, will be able to sell alcohol for longer hours which fit in sensibly with their Sunday opening times. That, in a nutshell, is what the Bill provides. Our present restrictions on the times at which alcohol can be sold and drunk in public houses stem from the First World War. Successive governments have considered that there are valid reasons to limit the times at which public houses may open. Nevertheless, there has been a gradual easing of the restrictions over the years as working patterns, leisure activities and social attitudes have changed.
The most recent changes in the licensing hours were made in the Licensing Act 1988. The requirement that public houses must close during weekday afternoons was abolished and the normal licensing hours were standardised at 11 in the morning until 11 at night. There were some who predicted at that time that afternoon opening would give rise to more excessive drinking and disorder. Those predictions have not been fulfilled. What has happened is that licensees have had greater freedom
1330
to decide when to offer their services to their customers, and customers have had greater freedom to choose when they take advantage of those services. Some public houses have chosen to open throughout weekday afternoons. Others continue to close, as they did before the 1988 relaxations. In short, the abolition of the weekday afternoon break nearly seven years ago has given the licensed trade much greater flexibility to give their customers what they want when they want it. It has not given rise to any appreciable increase in drunkenness or disorder.
What the 1988 Act did not do was to alter significantly the times at which pubs may open on Sundays. An hour was added to the lunchtime opening session so that it ends at three rather than two in the afternoon. Otherwise, the Sunday licensing hours remained as they were. In other fields, there have been significant changes since 1988 in what people may do, and want to do, on Sundays. Sunday shopping, which was put on a rational footing last year by the Sunday Trading Act and has proved popular with a great many people, is the obvious example. More recently, in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act, Parliament relaxed the restrictions on betting and sporting activities on Sunday. It is now time to bring the Sunday licensing hours into line with people's current likes and expectations, and to remove unnecessary government interference in this area.
Clause 1 of the Bill will bring that about. At present, the Sunday licensing hours for on-licensed premises such as public houses and hotels are from midday until 3 o'clock in the afternoon, and from 7 o'clock until half past 10 in the evening. Clause I will remove the requirement to close between 3 o'clock and 7 o'clock.
Pubs will, therefore, he able to open continuously on Sundays from midday until half past 10 in the evening. They will no longer have to close during the afternoon. We regard that as a sensible change, which I am sure will be welcomed by those who run pubs and those who frequent them. Many pubs have for some time been tailoring their services to meet the needs and wishes of families—for example by providing family rooms. In addition, we took the opportunity presented by last year's Deregulation and Contracting Out Act to introduce children's certificates. Since the beginning of this year, licensees who wish to do so have been able to apply for a children's certificate. These permit children under 14 who are accompanied by an adult to be admitted to the bar, if the licensing justices consider that it provides a suitable environment for children of that age, and meals and non-alcoholic drinks are available there. Our aim, which I believe the licensed trade warmly supports, is to enable pubs which wish to do so to become more family orientated. But if that is to happen, it does not make sense for pubs offering facilities for families with young children to have to close on Sunday afternoon—the very time that many families are able to get out and spend their leisure time together. More generally, there is no good reason why people should be denied the pleasure of popping into the pub for a drink while taking a stroll on Sunday afternoon.
Clause 1 also extends and rationalises off-licence hours. At present, off-licensed premises may sell alcohol on Sundays from noon until 3 o'clock in the afternoon and

1331
from 7 until half past 10 in the evening—the same hours as pubs. The effect of Clause 1 is that, subject to the restrictions in the Sunday Trading Act 1994, off-licensed shops will be able to sell alcohol on Sundays from 10 o'clock in the morning until 10.30 in the evening. Large shops whose business consists exclusively or mainly of selling alcoholic drinks and small shops with off-licences, which are not subject to the Sunday Trading Act, will be able to sell alcohol throughout these longer hours. But like pubs, there is no obligation for off-licensed shops to stay open for the whole of the licensing hours. It is for businesses to decide the times within those hours which suit them and their customers best.
The change in the hours will, I know, be particularly welcomed by large stores which have off-licences, such as supermarkets; and I am sure that it will be equally welcome to their customers. Since August last year, large shops have been permitted under the Sunday Trading Act to open for any continuous period of six hours between 10 in the morning and 6 o'clock in the afternoon. Some have chosen from 10 o'clock in the morning until 4, others from 11 o'clock until 5, and yet others from midday until 6 p.m. But the present off-licence hours mean that whatever time those stores choose to open there is always part of their opening hours —before midday or after 3 o'clock—when they may not sell alcohol. So they have to cordon off their stocks of drink and make sure that no one takes a bottle of wine or some other alcoholic drink through the tills except between 12 and 3 o'clock.
That makes life unnecessarily complicated for the stores, and is undoubtedly a source of irritation to customers. People shopping on Sunday morning, perhaps for their Sunday lunch, can buy all the food they want. But they cannot buy a bottle of wine to accompany their meal. That really is absurd. The Bill will sweep away that petty and unnecessary restriction, and enable people to buy alcohol in supermarkets and other large off-licensed stores throughout the time that they can buy other goods in the store.
The Bill also deals, in Clause 2, with the hours during which alcohol may be sold on Sundays in clubs. A club may sell alcohol to its members or their guests in accordance with the club rules, if it is registered for that purpose with the magistrates' court. The hours during which alcohol may be sold on Sunday must be fixed in the club rules and can vary from club to club. However, as in the case of pubs, club hours may not exceed 6½ hours and may not begin before midday or end after half past 10 in the evening. But clubs may have a shorter afternoon break so that one might open, for example, from midday till 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. until 8.30 p.m., while another might open in line with the pub hours of midday until 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. to half past 10 in the evening.
Clause 2, therefore, will simplify these arrangements. In future, registered clubs will be able to sell alcohol throughout the period from midday until 10.30 in the evening, without an afternoon break, The Sunday hours for clubs will therefore be identical to those for pubs.
I referred earlier to the abolition in 1988 of the afternoon break in weekday licensing hours. There is no evidence of any appreciable increase in problems of drunkenness, nuisance and disorder as a result. However, there was some understandable apprehension at the time
1332
the change was made that things might not work out as well as they have. A power was taken, therefore, for licensing justices to make a restriction order which would effectively reimpose all or part of the old afternoon break at a particular pub if afternoon opening had led to annoyance, disturbance or disorder. The power also enabled magistrates' courts to make a restriction order to reimpose the old afternoon break at registered clubs in the same circumstances.
In the event, the power to make a restriction order has been needed only very infrequently. Nevertheless, it is a valuable safeguard. We therefore intend to extend it so that it is also available to reimpose the current Sunday afternoon break at pubs or clubs where afternoon opening gives rise to problems.
That is the effect of Clause 3. It will enable the licensing justices, in response to an application by the police or someone who lives or works close to a pub, to consider making a restriction order which would prevent that pub from selling alcohol for part or the whole of the time between 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. on Sunday afternoons. The licensing justices would, of course, have to be satisfied that this course was justified in order to reduce or avoid annoyance, disturbance or disorder. Clause 3 also extends the existing power of magistrates' courts so that they too will be able to make a restriction order prohibiting Sunday afternoon opening if serious grounds for complaint arise about registered clubs.
The licensing hours for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises on Christmas Day and Good Friday have traditionally been the same as for Sundays; and that is the position at present. The extended Sunday hours in the Bill, and the power to make a restriction order, will also apply to Good Friday. However, they will not extend to Christmas Day. In deference to views expressed during debate in another place, the Government moved an amendment which removed Christmas Day from the ambit of the Bill. Opening hours for pubs, clubs and off-licensed premises on Christmas Day will, therefore, remain as they are now.
The remaining clauses of the Bill are of less substance. Clause 4 makes amendments to the Licensing Acts 1964 and 1988 which are consequential to the changes which Clauses 1 to 3 make to Sunday opening hours and to the arrangements for restriction orders. Clause 5 provides that, following enactment, the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill will come into force on a date appointed by the Secretary of State. This flexibility is needed to enable the Home Office to inform the licensing justices, magistrates' courts and the police upon Royal Assent about the changes that the Bill will make. We do not envisage that this will take long, and so there should be no need for any significant interval between Royal Assent and the Act coming into effect.
Those are the effects of the Bill. I am sure that they will be popular with both the licensed trade and their customers. The Bill will allow pubs and clubs to get on with their business without unnecessary interference from government. That is what deregulation is all about. It will also, I am convinced, benefit tourism, and perhaps make our licensing hours a little more intelligible to visitors from abroad. For off-licensed premises too, there will be obvious benefits. In supermarkets, in particular, the

1333
visible evidence of outdated regulation—the cordoned-off drinks area before midday and after three on Sundays—will rightly become a thing of the past. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blatch.)
3.21 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I open my remarks, as always on matters of this kind, by saying that as far as the Opposition are concerned, this is a matter for a free vote and we do not in any way impose the Whip. I take some comfort, in view of the different views expressed by Members of my party last year on the Sunday Trading Bill, that none of my noble friends has chosen to speak on this occasion. I am sure that that will not inhibit them from taking part in the Committee and later stages if they feel strongly enough on the matter and, indeed, if they disagree with me, as they are fully entitled to do.
Let me state my position clearly from the outset. I support the Bill. I support the reduction, as far as is possible, in artificial restrictions on the right of people to do what they want so long as they do not harm other people. Having said that, the Government have not fully grasped the opportunity available to them to remove some remaining anomalies in relation to licensing laws. A number of anomalies, which, we are told by Mr. Forsyth, are to be covered in the consultation paper, could well have been covered in the Bill if the Government had shown firmness of intention.
The law in relation to late night opening of licensed premises is still very unclear. There is a formal closing time and a formal drinking-up time, but there are still considerable and varyingly used powers for magistrates to give extensions. I should have thought that it would be desirable to codify the basis on which magistrates ought to be able to consider extensions of that kind in order to satisfy any demand that may exist—I am not convinced there is such a demand—for wider late night opening.
Magistrates do not appear to be subject to any guidance, let alone statutory restrictions. They are perfectly capable, when considering licences, of saying, "This licence is not needed because there is no economic need for it". Surely the basis on which magistrates express local needs should be on local planning grounds rather than on making moral or economic judgments about the desirability of licensed premises being opened in any specific place.
We still have a quite unnecessary and damaging division between what is called a "pub" and what is called a "cafe". We should be more flexible, as are most European countries, in allowing alcohol to be sold either in conjunction with meals or not in conjunction with meals. We no longer have the dried-up sandwich, but anomalies still exist in that part of our licensing laws and the Government should take the opportunity to deal with them as well.
I was interested in what the Minister said regarding the experience of the new provisions for children in licensed premises. I am sure she would agree that these provisions
1334
are still finding their feet. There is no doubt that different magistrates in different parts of the country are interpreting the needs of families to enjoy themselves in licensed premises in a different and sometimes anomalous way.
I say all that in the firm knowledge that survey work by the Consumers' Association found by a majority of two to one not only that the people of this country want pubs to be open on a Sunday afternoon—after all, that is the prime purpose of the Bill—but also that, by a similar majority, people want publicans to make their own decisions about when licensed premises should be open. That is fundamentally my view. This is not an area in which the law should be engaged any further than is necessary for the protection of those who wish and need peace and quiet around where they live and where they need to be. The kind of liberal licensing provisions for the sale of alcohol in public places that exist in most parts of the Continent could perfectly well apply to this country without any of the paraphernalia which exists here.
In general, therefore, although I welcome the Bill, there are still anomalies in relation to our licensing laws and I look forward with interest to seeing what the Government propose to do about them. I almost forgot one small anomaly which is not provided for in the Bill. The Minister rightly said that it is an absurdity that parts of supermarkets are cordoned off and not allowed to sell alcohol except between 12 and 3 when the shops are open between 10 and 4 or between 11 and 5. Has she considered that cordoning-off will still apply on Good Friday mornings when supermarkets open at 8.30 or 9 o'clock and that they will have to retain whatever devices they have to stop people taking things off the shelf for one day a year? It would be more desirable to rationalise Good Friday while we are rationalising the rest of the licensing law.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I understood from my noble friend's opening remarks that precisely what the noble Lord is asking for is included in the Bill in relation to Sunday but not Christmas Day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, and also not Good Friday. The provision for off-licences is that they should be able to open at 10 o'clock. Christmas Day is not affected by the Bill at all, but supermarkets which have off-licences and which open on Good Friday before 10 o'clock would still have to cordon off their shelves until that time. It is a small anomaly which only happens once a year but the opportunity should be taken to deal with it.
My major proviso in relation to the Bill—and it follows a problem we had with the Sunday trading legislation last year —is the protection of those who work in licensed premises. That applies both to staff in supermarkets and, above all, to the staff and managers in licensed premises. I give notice now that my noble friends and I will be tabling amendments comparable to those we tabled last year to protect the quality of life and the interests of those who work in licensed premises.
The principles of the amendments will be similar to those proposed last year. If staff are not working now on Sundays, then any extension to Sunday working should be voluntary. If staff are working on Sundays, then any

1335
extension of their Sunday working hours should be voluntary. If there are volunteers—and the experience is that quite a high proportion do volunteer—then they should be entitled to enhanced pay. We argued last year on a sound basis that that kind of pay should involve double time. Such enhanced pay should apply not only to those who are working on a full-time basis but also to part-time workers, including Sunday only workers. Finally, in order to ensure that the legislation providing for workers on licensed premises is consistent with other employment protection legislation we would wish it to be included in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act.
There is a particular and even more serious problem for licensed house managers, which I hope your Lordships will consider sympathetically. They are not employees in the ordinary sense but they work at least 70 hours a week at the moment and have work to do before the pub opens and after the pub closes. They do not have the freedom which a tenant or a sole proprietor would have of saying, "I do not wish to open these extra hours." It is the owners who will decide when the premises will be open. They often have contracts which say that they will work as and when required rather than having defined hours. I am sure that noble Lords will have heard of the real difficulties they have and the threat that is posed to their family life by the situation in which they find themselves. I am very sympathetic to that and I should like to explore with other noble Lords what can be done to deal with the particular problems they face.
However, subject to my doubts about the adequacy of the law to deal with the anomalies which still exist, and subject in particular to the points I have made about the protection of the workers concerned, I, without in any way imposing a Whip, would urge my noble friends to support the Bill.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it may be helpful to the House if I resolve the Good Friday point. Perhaps I may repeat what I said earlier. The extended Sunday hours in the Bill and the power to make a restriction will also apply to Good Friday. The exception to the rule is Christmas Day.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry. It is my fault. I have not made myself clear. The legislation for Sundays and Good Friday proposed in the Bill is very clear. It says that off-licences can be open from 10 a.m. My point is that on Good Friday, though not on Sundays, supermarkets with off-licences open before 10 a.m. and they will therefore have to keep their cordons between 8.30 or 9 a.m. when they open and 10 a.m. I am sure that the Minister will agree that that is an anomaly.
3.33 p.m.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I accept the Bill, and I agree with most of what the noble Baroness said in her opening remarks. Perhaps I should declare my interest. I am the deputy chairman of the all-party group on alcohol misuse. I think I am speaking for most of my colleagues in that group when I say that it is not when people drink that is important; it is what they drink, where they drink and how they drink.
1336
We have quite grave problems in this country with the misuse of alcohol which lead to a good deal of harm and injury to persons and the break-up of families. Our total consumption of alcohol compared with other developed countries is relatively low. We can fairly confidently point to the main area of concern, which is drinking among young men between the ages of 16 and 24. Licensing hours in the 75 years or so during which they have been in existence have not been of enormous help. Some of my colleagues may disagree. The culture of drinking in this country over hundreds of years has been identified with a certain amount of rowdiness, damage and disorder and has largely been focused on the same group that I mentioned.
We have recently taken evidence from magistrates, probation officers and police officers with the intention of issuing a report which I hope will be published. The picture to emerge from the evidence given to us—particularly by the police and the magistrates—is fairly alarming. The amount of underlying alcohol misuse which goes relatively unnoticed by the public at large needs to be looked at. The difficulty is that alcohol is socially acceptable. It is usually a pleasurable activity to take drink in moderation. Most of the attention with regard to substances is concentrated upon those which are illegal. In an area where there has been a cultural change—I refer to drink-driving —the recently published figure of 500 people killed on the roads last year by drivers under the influence of drink shows that there is still a great deal to be done.
I therefore say that when the hours have been changed—I shall not enter into the debate between the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on the Labour Front Bench—there will need to be greater emphasis on the training of magistrates so that they are able to assess who is fit to be a licensee. It is also necessary to ensure that when licensees do not behave according to the standards we expect of them, proper sanctions are taken against them. I am thinking in particular of under-age drinking and of disorder, not only within public houses and places where drink is consumed—there is a great deal of it, particularly at weekends—but also outside public houses. Magistrates granting licences to establishments need to be very much better informed about the kind of environment involved and the likelihood of disorder taking place outside. Licensees have to take responsibility for what happens outside their premises when they know full well that disturbances may take place. That is the kind of area which our group is looking at.
Most important of all are the options in sentencing which need to be given to magistrates in dealing with people who, clearly, because of their repeated offending, have a drink problem. That applies not only to drink-drivers but to those who are constantly involved in brawls, assaults, sexual misbehaviour, and so on.
Perhaps I may refer to the general attitude in this country towards drinking alcohol. The recent decision by United Distillers to break with a 40 year-old convention that spirits are not advertised on television is disappointing. It has declared quite openly that it is now pushing drinks of this kind—the stronger drinks such as spirits and strong beers—as drinks for young people. That is a retrograde step and needs to be watched. I understand

1337
the pressure on those who purvey alcohol and the difficulties of competition and so on but a public responsibility falls on large groups, particularly those who have the power to advertise on television, to be especially wary where young people may be affected.
Having said that, I welcome the Bill, but there remains a great deal to be done in the whole area of alcohol misuse.
3.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Exeter: My Lords, I am most grateful for the retention of the break for Christmas Day. My reason for being grateful is the family life of licensees on Christmas Day, which is an important family day. I am also grateful for the provisions under Clause 3. But the question presents itself to me of my attitude to the removal of the mandatory break on Sundays.
I far prefer to be allied myself and in the office I hold with progress rather than to be obscurantist. But I find that there is a problem in that progress can sometimes be judged to be progress only if subsequent history—and sometimes considerably subsequent history—tells us that it was progress. Therefore, I feel bound to express some regret. There are many in this country who regret that under the Bill the Sunday break in public houses is no longer to be mandatory. One of my main reasons is again the family life of licensees. I was most interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, the points that he said he would be making at Committee stage in this regard.
It may be that the majority of licensees are not clamouring for the retention of the mandatory break, but I am bound to wonder whether this was not an occasion for far-sightedness —an opportunity for a legislature to question the desire to buy alcoholic drink at any time of day on a Sunday in licensed premises—and whether that desire will turn out to be appropriate for humanity in the long run.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, on this Bill. I do not see why certain restrictions on the sale of alcohol are still being preserved. I welcome the relaxation of those restrictions for which the Bill provides. That of itself is a very sound argument for letting the Bill go through. However, it retains a number of restrictions which seem to be rather questionable. One has only to compare our situation with that of our friends in Europe. Even if this Bill goes through, we will still restrict the sale of alcohol at times when the purchaser wants to buy it to a far greater extent than our European friends.
As regards the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken, I would point out that the Sunday break, while it may be very convenient for the licensee, is probably very inconvenient for a great many members of the public. On Sunday most people who are in work have the opportunity to go out with their wives and families. It may well be that it is just at the time of the Sunday break on Sunday afternoon that they would particularly like to go into a pub and have a drink themselves, give their wives a drink and
1338
introduce their older children to sensible and moderate drinking. Although it is natural to sympathise with the licensee, I do not believe that maintaining the Sunday break of itself is going to be of any great benefit to him. We are doing away with a great many other restrictions during the week. I do not believe that the life of the licensee is going to be particularly improved if a compulsory break is imposed on Sunday afternoon, whereas I am perfectly certain that a great many members of the public will be unduly interfered with.
I say to my noble friend the Minister that I wonder why in this day and age it is now thought necessary to maintain any restrictions at all. As I have said, these restrictions are not maintained by highly civilised neighbouring countries. They are not regarded worldwide as being of essential importance. It seems a little strange that we should still be maintaining, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, pointed out, quite complicated provisions restricting people who want to buy a drink from doing so and also restricting those who want to sell it.
Therefore, while I very much welcome the Bill and the improvement that it makes, I regard it as only an instalment in the right direction. I very much hope that the reception that this Bill receives, and the reaction of the public to it, will encourage the Government to a final Bill clearing up all the restrictions and putting us in the same position as our European friends.
I know that there are certain fanatics on the subject—I do not suppose that there are necessarily any of them in this House—who want to interfere with people having a drink. That is a mentally confused approach, because if one limits the hours one still does not prevent people from drinking too much if that is the intention. They can certainly do it quite effectively within the limited times. All that one is doing is confining their excesses, if they are going to drink to excess, to certain hours to the inconvenience of everybody else. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be prepared to take a robust line on this matter and to say that the Government are giving consideration not only to making the good changes being made by the Bill but taking the matter further and putting ourselves in the same position as many of our European friends.
I know that there are still fanatics, prohibitionists and fanatical teetotallers. Perhaps I may read to your Lordships a few lines of very entertaining verse which has been written about them:
"We zealots, made up of stiff clay, The sour-looking children of sorrow, While not over jolly today, Resolve to be wretched tomorrow. We can't for a certainty tell What mirth may molest us on Monday; But, at least, to begin the week well, Let us all be unhappy on Sunday".
3.49 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, it was about this time last year that we debated the merits of Sunday trading in the Sunday Trading Bill. When I spoke on that Bill, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter, I made my position clear as a total deregulator. When Parliament seeks to interfere with what is a healthy free market, it cannot avoid making anomalies, placing unnecessary

1339
restrictions on retailers and so causing dissatisfaction among consumers. Unfortunately, your Lordships chose not to agree with me on that occasion although what we now have in place is a lot better than the discredited Shops Act 1950. There are issues which I am sure are not subject to this Bill; but, for example, the opening of garden centres on Easter Sunday caused amazement among the public when they found that those garden centres were not open.
I mention the Sunday trading debate and the Act that followed for two reasons: first, because by liberalising Sunday trading it was inevitable that attention would soon have to turn to the country's archaic licensing laws and, secondly, because unless we deregulate licensing laws with vigour, we shall be perpetuating anomalies similar to those that I mentioned earlier.
On 1st November 1994, I asked Her Majesty's Government:
"Whether they will reform the licensing laws to bring the hours during which alcohol is allowed to be sold in large shops and supermarkets on Sundays into line with those during which those shops may open under the terms of the Sunday Trading Act 1994."
My noble friend who replied to that Question said that the Government were,
"considering whether to consult publicly about further reforms of the liquor licensing laws21/11/2549".—[Official Report, 1/11/94: col. 761.]
Therefore, I am delighted that the Government have come forward so soon with this Bill which does just that. My Question received widespread support from noble Lords of all parties. In fact, no noble Lord spoke against it.
I am sure that all of us have anecdotal evidence of the inconvenience which the Sunday licensing laws can cause. Indeed, that is why I tabled my Question last year. I had been caught out on more than one occasion either when trying to buy a bottle of wine on Sunday morning before midday or when entering a pub on a Sunday afternoon at 3 p.m. only to hear the cry "Last orders". Frustration is the overwhelming feeling, and in some cases that frustration can boil over into anger towards the very staff whom the law is presumably designed to protect. Forget the alleged damage that liberalisation has wrought on the British Sunday; it is the damage that the current law does to the traditional British sense of tolerance that alarms me.
Like other noble Lords who have spoken this afternoon. I should like the Government to go further and to remove licensing hours restrictions altogether. Why shops, supermarkets and off-licences should have any restrictions on the hours during which they may sell alcohol, I fail to understand. I appreciate that local residents may have objections to pubs and clubs having extended hours; but surely that is a local issue and can be dealt with, as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, suggested, as a planning matter.
I cannot accept the suggestion that longer opening hours would be an unwelcome imposition on landlords. A survey by Publican magazine showed that 57 per cent. of licensees thought that they would benefit from the freedom to open on a Sunday afternoon—more than twice as many as those who did not. The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to a survey by the Consumers' Association which showed similar results. Anyway, as
1340
has been said, there is nothing in the Bill which requires pubs to open on Sunday afternoons. Whether they do so is entirely a matter for them.
I suspect that the real reason for the restrictions that exist today is religion, to which the right reverend Prelate referred. The reason why pubs do not open until midday on Sunday and then close for the afternoon break from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. is so that we cannot nip off early and fail to show at communion or evensong. It strikes me that a great religion like Christianity was built on rather more secure foundations than whether, in the late 20th century, it can prevent people going to a pub on Sunday afternoons.
That argument holds true on one religious day in particular, Good Friday, when the licensing hours mirror those for Sundays despite, as honourable Members pointed out in another place, Good Friday being an ordinary working day in certain parts of the country. Pubs cannot open until 12 p. m.; neither can off-licences— although I accept that the Bill will bring that forward to 10 a.m. I fear that, given the amendments tabled by my right honourable friend in another place which have the effect of reversing the Bill's original intention of liberalising pub licensing hours on Christmas Day, I shall make little headway in seeking even more liberal hours for pubs on Good Friday than already envisaged.
However, so far as concerns off-licences, the Bill creates an anomaly to which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred. As the Bill stands, large supermarkets will be able to sell alcohol throughout their six permitted hours of opening on a Sunday. The Government are to be commended for that. However, those hours are then applied to Good Friday as well, but supermarkets typically open at 8 a.m. or 8.30 a.m. on Good Friday—they have been able to do so for years—so there will still be a two-hour period until 10 a.m. during which sales of alcohol will be prohibited. I believe that licensing hours on that day should be pushed back to the normal weekday time of 8 a.m. That would remove one anomaly for supermarkets and make matters considerably easier for customers. It would not be onerous for employees because whether or not they are selling alcohol, they are already at work. Therefore, such provisions would not make any difference to them. I intend to return to that issue at Committee stage when I shall table an amendment to that effect.
I finish where I began. I am against interference in the market, against anomalies and for deregulation. That is my ideal, but I accept that one often falls far short of one's ideals. I accept that a year ago the mood of your Lordships' House was not in favour of total deregulation on Sundays; and it may not be for total deregulation of the licensing hours now. However, like my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, I believe that this is an issue to which we shall have to return before too long. I think that we should reject the views of the ever-present doom-mongers and put our trust in the good sense of the British public. I warmly support the Bill.
3.56 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I rise to thank my noble friend who introduced the Bill to your Lordships. Following the excellent remarks of my noble friend Lord Brabazon, I shall refer to a third element in the argument. My noble friend mentioned alcohol and religion. I should like to refer to what appears to be an anomaly in Clause 2 which refers to casinos, of all things.
I understand that gambling does indeed take place on Sundays, and I understand that under the Gaming Act 1968 some licensed casinos provide meals as well as liquid refreshment, but not adjacent to the gaming area. That happens throughout the year. I wonder whether such establishments, which are licensed under the Gaming Act 1968, are classified as "registered clubs" for the purposes of Clause 2 of this Bill. If they are so classified, I understand that they are already entitled to provide alcoholic beverages for their patrons until 10.30 p.m. I would imagine that that applies even on Good Friday. I wonder whether my noble friend can confirm, either today or later, whether I am right in thinking that the Bill, and particularly Clause 2, will not have any restrictive effect on casinos that are licensed under the Gaming Act 1968.
One anomaly was addressed by the Royal Commission on Gambling which reported in 1978, which specifically recommended that casinos should be permitted to supply liquor on the same basis as other types of club. It is my understanding that the point that I have raised is covered by Clause 2. If I am wrong, perhaps my noble friend will advise me. If I am right, perhaps we can discuss the matter on another day. I give my warm support to the Bill.
3.58 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have been involved in consideration of all licensing reform measures. Indeed, I introduced one such measure myself some years ago. I therefore welcome the Bill which was so effectively introduced by my noble friend Lady Blatch. On such occasions, I am always happy to declare an interest—albeit an honorary one—in that I am a former President, now Patron, of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain.
In that context, I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, that there are still anomalies in our licensing legislation as a whole. I should like to mention one specific anomaly. Restaurants and cafés cannot serve alcoholic drinks unless they also serve food. That is not the case in pubs, most of which sell food and drink indiscriminately. I am glad to see my noble friend Lord Bradford who I believe may speak later. He is much more knowledgeable about that aspect of the matter than am I, but it is an important point.
My noble friend the Minister said that much of the licensing legislation was an unnecessary interference in consumers' lives. That point was reinforced strongly by my noble friend Lord Boyd-Carpenter. Surely the time has come for us to consider the total abolition of all licensing legislation so that consumers and dispensers of food and drink to the public have freedom of choice. That is important, and it is a point to which other noble Lords
1342
have referred. This modest Bill is a most welcome measure. I hope that it will have a speedy passage onto the statute book and an early implementation.
4.1 p.m.
Lord Kenyon: My Lords, I too welcome the Bill which in the words of my right honourable friend the Prime Minister will do away with an absurd, old-fashioned, out-of-date and patronising regulation that distinguishes Sunday from the rest of the week. The abolition in 1988 of the afternoon break on weekdays did not bring the problems that some people foresaw. I am sure that allowing the pubs to stay open all afternoon on Sundays will have no further adverse effects.
I should like to point out one glaring omission from the Bill—glaring, at any rate, for the people of Wales, who still suffer total prohibition on Sundays in one area and are now threatened with the possibility of a complete ban next year throughout the Principality by virtue of Sections 66 and 67 of the Licensing Act 1964. Those two sections impose a referendum on the Welsh every seven years. While in the last referendum only one area elected to stay dry, the turnout was so low that the prospect of a maverick poll cannot be ruled out. In Cardiff in 1989 just 9 per cent. of the electorate voted.
I am aware that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has indicated that he proposes to introduce legislation after the next poll which will cast in stone the result of that referendum. I do not agree that that is what we should be doing. If in the Bill we are doing away with absurd, old-fashioned, out-of-date and patronising legislation, surely we should consider the repeal of Sections 66 and 67 which fit those criteria to a tee. Old-fashioned they certainly are. They date back to the Sunday Closing Act 1881 and a later Act of 1915 when Monmouthshire was included by the Central Liquor Control Board as a wartime emergency measure.
Next week we shall be celebrating the 50th anniversary of VE Day. Is it not time we got rid of an outdated measure that precedes that day by more than 50 years? It does not even stop there in its absurdity, because in 1921 another Licensing Act allowed licensed clubs to sell alcohol on Sundays while the pubs were kept shut. Today any club can be opened on a Sunday but a pub cannot. So while a local person can join a club to enjoy his freedom to have a drink, a visitor or a tourist cannot. I am sorry to say it goes even further than that, because a hotel can serve drinks to residents on Sundays but not to casual customers. Your Lordships do not need me to paint the picture of a hotel dining-room at lunchtime on a Sunday: one table of resident tourists allowed to have their bottle of wine and anything else they want, while beside them a table of non-resident tourists having to make do with the finest bottle of Welsh water.
When I use the example of tourists I do so deliberately, because the only area in Wales that is presently dry is Gwyfor, which includes one of the most important tourist areas of North Wales—the Lleyn Peninsula and the resorts of Caerphilly, Abersoch and Portmadoc.
The Bill's Long Title is specific:
"to amend the provisions of the Licensing Act 1964 relating to permitted hours in licensed premises and clubs on Sundays".

1343
Even within that narrow scope, it would be possible, if the will were there, to include measures to bring Wales into line with the whole of the rest of the United Kingdom, instead of increasing the gulf between them, merely by repealing Sections 66 and 67, together with Schedule 8, of the 1964 Act. That would save my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales the trouble of having to find time in the future to introduce a further Bill, when I am sure that there are more pressing matters to be dealt with. It would also save the new unitary authorities the expense and effort that will be required to hold the referendum at a time when their efforts will be much better directed elsewhere.
The Government are committed to deregulation. Here is a ridiculous anachronism, together with a golden opportunity to put it in the dustbin of history where it belongs. I sincerely hope that they will seize this chance while they can.
4.5 p.m.
The Earl of Bradford: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Montgomery has referred to me as a bit of a restaurant busybody, I should declare one or two interests before making my point. I am president of the Master Chefs of Great Britain; chairman of the Westminster Considerate Restaurateurs Association; I sit on the committee of the Restaurateurs Association of Great Britain and the British Tourist Authority's Great Britain Great Food working party; and, finally, and very much not least, I have my own 200-seater restaurant (Porters) in Covent Garden.
I lend my support to the Bill, which should increase customers' choice but should not increase total drink sales. However, various noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, and my noble friend Lord Montgomery, have referred to certain anomalies. The Bill will enable pubs to compete effectively with restaurants. However, it does nothing to help restaurants to cope with the increased competition that they will face from pubs in the future because they will not be able to serve a drink to a customer who does not wish to eat. It causes confusion to tourists and customers. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will encourage the Government to look again at that point. It is an area that harms our tourist trade, and as pubs will now be allowed to compete more freely with restaurants, it will undoubtedly harm restaurants.
4.7 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I shall speak for just two or three minutes in the gap. There are two or three points I should like to make. I support what the noble Earl, Lord Bradford, has just said. I speak as one who for 22 years was the licence holder of the largest club in Manchester. One must not assume that all licensees operate under the same system. In registered clubs the licence is not held by the person who runs the bar, as is the case with a pub. The licence is usually vested in the secretary. It is not the same type of licence. It is known as a permission to supply people with liquor. So there is some difference.
1344
I am not an anachronism. I still like a drink. Having run a club for that many years, I am reluctant that a group of people should be able to tell a man and his wife who have historically worked in the club—the steward and his wife —that they have to work two or three extra hours on a Sunday whether they like it or not. Such matters must be taken into consideration.
Has there been any consultation with people representing licensees or managers? Sadly, over the past two or three years literally thousands of licensees have been driven out of existence by Grand Met's policies and the way in which it has applied them. It is not a subject to go into today, but those are the facts. That company has been criticised severely for ruthlessly making people bankrupt.
One of the earlier speakers referred to drinking and driving. I maintain that people who go drinking and then drive a car know full well that when they get into that car they are in charge of a lethal machine. It saddens me when people are killed because of that. When the matters go before the courts the sentences are almost trivial. In my opinion, they are insufficiently severe to deter some people.
A few weeks ago I was astounded to see a television programme shown in the North West about a number of pubs in the Salford area that are fully licensed but whose landlords dare not open them because of the activities of gangs running protection rackets in the area. At first, I could not believe that that happens in this country today.
I understand that it occurs in other big cities. Gangs move in on pubs and if the landlord does not cough up a certain amount of money, they organise a battle in the pub between the local gangs, and the pub is wrecked. In fact, guns were discharged in a pub in Salford and that has now closed down. I know that that has nothing to do with the Bill but it is a fact of life and it is happening in licensed premises in this country. I hope that the Government will issue guidelines to the police authorities to crack down on such behaviour in the severest way possible.
I believe that as the Bill goes into Committee certain issues need to be discussed and I have drawn attention to one or two. I have never been keen on the introduction of children to licensed premises unless specific areas are provided for them. In some licensed premises they sit with their families at tables or at the bar. The provision is not as simple as some people say; it can lead to most unfortunate practices. Indeed, the stage can almost be reached when some children become alcoholics. And please do not laugh; that is happening in France, whether one likes it or not.
I believe that in Committee certain matters should be considered. I am pleased to have been able to enter the debate for three or four minutes in order to make those few points.
4.12 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to conclude the debate. As I expected, we have had an interesting discussion and a number of important points have been made. With your Lordships'

1345
indulgence, I hope to address as many as I can, but I promise to write to my noble friends and colleagues on those that I miss.
Perhaps I may first pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey. He was anxious about licensing committees which refuse licences on the grounds of the lack of need for the premises. We are considering whether the grounds on which licence applications can be refused should be set out in statute and, if so, whether the grounds should include lack of need for the premises. Of course, that raises complex and important questions on which views differ markedly. There is, for example, the possibility of an over-concentration of premises leading to nuisance and disorder. While these complex reforms are under consideration, we should not delay in the simpler and more valuable task of deregulating Sunday licensing hours. I was taken in particular by the point made by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, which has some force. It is that perhaps the decisions should be planning decisions as opposed to blanket permit by statute.
My noble friends Lord Boyd-Carpenter and Lord Brabazon and the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, asked whether the Bill was a first chapter in the story of reform and whether we envisage proposing the removal of all controls on the sale and purchase of alcohol. I can assure all noble Lords on the first point; that it is a step on the road. However, I am afraid that I cannot give an assurance on the second point. We are considering whether to consult publicly on other possible reforms, including possible consultation on longer opening hours on some weekdays. However, we do not envisage proposing to remove all controls on the public sale and public consumption of alcohol which, if not properly controlled, can lead to local nuisance disorder and sometimes to other crime.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was anxious about other changes which he mentioned. We accept that there are other areas in the licensing system where changes have been advocated, and an extension of weekday hours is one such area. However, the purpose of the present Bill is to rationalise Sunday licensing hours in the light of the legislation in the last Session which deregulated Sunday trading. We are considering the different issues arising out of later evening opening. As my right honourable friend the Minister of State said in another place on 20th April, we hope to reach a conclusion on this shortly. Any changes that we might propose to weekday licensing hours would be subject to public consultation.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, referred to Good Friday. Perhaps I misunderstood the point, which accounted for my intervention. The noble Lord referred to Good Friday as an anomaly. That is, in fact, a matter of judgment. For many years the licensing law has treated Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday as the same for the purpose of permitted hours. When the Bill was introduced in another place it therefore proposed to deregulate the licensing hours in precisely the same way for all three days. However, the pressure in Committee in another place was to keep the present limited hours on Christmas Day and Good Friday. The Government decided to accept the former but not the latter. Good
1346
Friday is, of course, a major religious festival. While some people, such as the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, would like even longer hours for off-licences, others would like them to be shorter. Therefore, the Bill strikes a balance which at this stage we believe is the correct one.
The noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, was anxious about alcohol abuse. When the afternoon break in weekday hours was abolished in 1988 there was considerable concern that it could lead to increased alcohol consumption, drink driving and alcohol-related disorder. Experience has shown that those fears were unfounded. Research conducted in 1990, some two years after the afternoon break in weekday licensing hours was abolished, revealed that nearly half of the pubs surveyed—that is 44 per cent—had not extended their afternoon hours as a result of the relaxations. That does not suggest that weekday afternoon opening opened the floodgates to excessive drinking. Nor is there any research evidence to suggest that afternoon opening on weekdays has led to any appreciable increase in disorder.
While pubs may be more likely to take advantage of the opportunity to open on Sunday afternoons than they were on weekday afternoons, there seems no reason to believe that Sunday opening will create such problems. However, the noble Viscount made the point that we must be vigilant in ensuring that all that is monitored.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter was concerned about the effect of these measures on Sunday as a special day. I accept that some people believe that Sunday should not be like any other day and I respect their right to hold that view. Indeed, I am personally committed to that view. However, the Government believe that it is important that people should be able to choose how to spend their leisure time and that they should not be prevented from doing so by unnecessary government interference. The changes that we are proposing to the Sunday licensing hours will not enable pubs to open earlier in the day or to close later in the evening. Off-licences will be able to open from 10 o'clock in the morning, which is no earlier than the time at which large shops and supermarkets are permitted to open under the Sunday Trading Act 1994.
Furthermore, we have recently introduced a system of children's certificates, which allow accompanied children into suitable bars. We expect that system to help pubs to become more family-oriented. It would seem illogical not to allow pubs to open on Sunday afternoons when families with young children are most likely to benefit from the new arrangements for children's certificates.
In response to suggestions that some licensing committees are too restrictive in granting children's certificates, we are aware of reports that some licensing committees are setting very demanding conditions for children's certificates. In some ways that is no bad thing, but Home Office officials are monitoring the situation. If it is found that in some areas the system of children's certificates is not working as we intend, we shall consider what action needs to be taken.
The noble Lord, Lord Dean, was concerned that there was no consultation and wondered whether that was an oversight or needed to be remedied. I accept that we would normally consult publicly on proposals for licensing hour reform, but we decided to go ahead with

1347
these relaxations on Sunday licensing hours without formal consultation because we believe that they are sensible. I am sure that they will prove to be popular.
As regards the rationalisation of the present Sunday licensing arrangements, the noble Lord will have gathered from this debate that the anxiety which he raised is one justification for making a relatively modest change to fill that particular lacuna. Some of the other changes that have been mentioned in the debate must be subject to consultation. The point which the noble Lord makes is well taken.
The noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, rightly expressed his concern about employment protection. Under the law, employees are already protected against being forced to accept unwelcome changes in their hours of work. Terms and conditions of employment arc binding on both parties and cannot be varied without agreement although, as with any other type of contract, it is always open to either party to seek to renegotiate the terms. Licensing house managers are in the same position as other employers.
The Government do not accept that special protection should be introduced for people who work in public houses, although we did so for retail employees in relation to Sunday trading and for betting employees in relation to Sunday betting. That was in specific recognition of the fact that those groups of people would have entered employment believing that there was no prospect of them ever being lawfully required to work on a Sunday. That point was well made by my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara.
The position is quite different in relation to pubs. Sunday working is a long-established feature of that industry. Employees would have been aware that at some point they might be asked to take on such work. In any event, some pubs may choose to remain closed on Sunday afternoons in the future and employees there will be required to work no longer than usual. No doubt we shall return to that topic at a later stage.
I hope that my noble friend Lord Lyell will allow me to take away the matter which he raised. I shall consider it more carefully. I shall both meet with my noble friend and write to him.
The noble Lord, Lord Kenyon, raised the subject of Wales. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales has, after consultation, decided that the next Welsh polls in 1996 will be the last. The provision in the Licensing Act 1964 for polls every seven years will therefore need to be repealed. But the Government do not see the Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill as a means of effecting that repeal, especially as the final polls are not due to take place until the autumn of next year.
My noble friend Lord Bradford complained that a restaurant may not sell drink without food to a customer. Freedom to sell drinks only comes with an on-licence and a restaurant proprietor is entirely free to apply for such a licence.
Perhaps I may say in conclusion that the Government feel that the measures in the Bill to relax the hours when pubs, clubs and off-licences may open on Sundays are sensible and responsible and will, I am sure, prove popular with business and consumers alike. There are
1348
good reasons for introducing them quickly, rather than attempting to deal with a wider range of more complex, and perhaps more controversial licensing matters.
Relaxation of Sunday hours comes as one of a series of deregulatory measures introduced by the Home Office in the recent past. The Sunday Trading Act, which came into force last August, is a major example. Since then there have been various other measures. Following enactment of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act last November, provisions for children's certificates were introduced on 3rd January. Sunday betting was permitted under the deregulation Act, also from 3rd January, and at the same time restrictions on charging for admission to sporting events and activities were removed. Other measures are in the pipeline. The Licensing (Sunday Hours) Bill is part of our programme of deregulation. We have moved quickly to introduce other deregulatory measures. I hope that it will be possible to continue to move quickly on this particular measure. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
4.23 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(Earl Howe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Agricultural Tenancies Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line refer to Bill 40 as first printed by the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 27, leave out "before the grant of the tenancy" and insert "on or before the relevant day".
  2 Page 2, line 2, after "the" insert "tenancy or".
  3 Page 2, line 4, after second "the" insert "tenancy or".
  4 Page 2, line 8, at end insert:
  "( ) In subsection (4) above 'the relevant day' means whichever is the earlier of the following—

  (a) the day on which the parties enter into any instrument creating the tenancy, other than an agreement to enter into a tenancy on a future date, or

  (b) the beginning of the tenancy.

  ( ) The written notice referred to in subsection (4) above must not be included in any instrument creating the tenancy.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc.
  On Report and at Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, drew the attention of the House to a possible trap. As the Bill was drafted, any tenancy granted before 1st September would have been subject to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986, That would be the case even if the tenancy did not begin until on or after 1st September and the parties had intended it to be a farm business tenancy. The noble Lord tabled an amendment to Clause 36 which I could not accept, but I undertook to

  1349
  consider the issues which he had raised. He could hardly have anticipated the number of amendments which were needed to address his point!
  The first group of amendments relates to Clause 1 and will assist parties wishing to comply with the notice conditions. Under the Bill as drafted notices had to be exchanged before the tenancy was granted. An oral agreement to enter into a farm business tenancy might be held to be a contract of tenancy, in which case the tenancy would have been granted when this initial agreement was entered into. It would already he too late to exchange notices.
  The amendment allows notices to be exchanged at any time on or before the day on which the lease, that is the instrument creating the tenancy, is signed. Where there is no written tenancy, notices must be exchanged before the beginning of the tenancy. I commend the amendments to the House.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 4 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for explaining this matter. We warned him that that point might arise. We are glad that the Minister has explained that it is the date of signing the lease which is important rather than the date at the beginning of the tenancy.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  5 Clause 2, page 2, line 25, leave out from beginning to "or" and insert "the tenancy begins before 1st September 1995".
  6 Page 2, line 26, leave out "granted after that commencement" and insert "beginning on or after that date".
  7 Clause 4, page 3, line 12, leave out "granted after the commencement of this Act" and insert "beginning on or after 1st September 1995".
  8 Page 3, line 14, leave out "entered into after that commencement" and insert "beginning on or after that date".
  9 Page 3, line 15, at end insert:
  "( ) is granted by a written contract of tenancy entered into before 1st September 1995 and indicating (in whatever terms) that the 1986 Act is to apply in relation to the tenancy,".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 5 to 9 en bloc. With the leave of the House, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 28 and 29.
  This group of amendments also concerns the beginning of the tenancy and addresses the specific point identified by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher. We recognise that if farm business tenancies are to come into operation this autumn, people need to be able to plan ahead. The amendments to Clause 2 will make it clear that the date on which a tenancy begins will normally determine whether it is a farm business tenancy or 1986 Act tenancies. No farm business tenancies can begin before 1st September 1995. From that date the only new 1986 Act tenancies will be those permitted by Clause 4.
  The first two amendments to Clause 4 bring this clause into line with Clause 2. The third amendment is important. It will enable a 1986 Act tenancy to begin on or after 1st September provided it was granted by a written contract
  1350
  of tenancy, entered into before that date, which indicated that the 1986 Act is to apply to the tenancy. This provision is necessary to prevent the Bill having a retrospective effect on contracts entered into before 1st September where the parties intended the 1986 Act to apply.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment Nos. 5 to 9 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I imagine that it will be rare in the run-up to 1st September for anyone to set up a new tenancy under the 1986 Act. Will this provision apply to a succession tenancy which comes into effect before 1st September or will that follow automatically as a result of the 1986 Act?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, the noble Lord is right that any tenancies which come into effect prior to 1st September will legally have to be 1986 Act tenancies because the Bill comes into force only on 1st September. This provision addresses the possibility that parties may wish a 1986 Act tenancy to apply after 1st September and the contract is entered into prior to 1st September.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we need to be clear about the point. As I understand it, the parties will not be able to use the 1986 Act after 1st September. However, can the Minister confirm that it is only if the parties want to do so after 1st September, having made the decision before that date, that that would be the case? Is that correct?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, that is indeed the case, other than those specific exceptions allowed for in the Bill.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Clause 4, page 3, line 22, after "tenancy," insert,
  "( ) is created by the acceptance of a tenant in accordance with the provisions as to compensation known as the 'Evesham custom' and set out in subsections.(3) to (5) of section 80 of the 1986 Act on the terms and conditions of the previous tenancy,".
  4.30 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
  The amendment safeguards the position of existing tenants who took over their market gardens by making use of the Evesham custom. Noble Lords may be unfamiliar with the Evesham custom. The custom grew up last century in the Evesham area where there was a considerable number of very small market garden holdings, and enables an outgoing tenant, in effect, to sell a new tenancy if the landlord is willing to accept the new tenant. The payment made by the new tenant covers all compensation for past improvements that is due to the outgoing tenant and also generally includes a premium in return for receiving a tenancy conferring life-time security.
  Under the Bill as it left your Lordships' House, any new tenancy would be a farm business tenancy and would not really be,
  "on the same terms and conditions as the previous tenancy",
  which is what the Evesham custom requires. Tenants to whom the Evesham custom applies could suffer an immediate loss as their holding would become much less valuable as an asset if, for example, they needed a loan.

  1351
  The amendment ensures that where the custom applies and is used to create a new tenancy, that new tenancy will remain subject to the 1986 Act. That will resolve the problems in relation to this small group of market garden tenants whom we would not want to see suffering financial loss by reason of an unintended effect of the Bill.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we have all been intrigued by the Evesham custom; indeed, we all had to read up about it to find out exactly what it was. However, can the Minister say whether it applies in the Evesham area only or are there agreements outside of Evesham that use the custom?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, my understanding is that it applies only in the Evesham area. However, I shall take advice on that point and, if I am wrong, I shall write to the noble Lord.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  11 Clause 10, page 6, line 41, after "rent," insert,
  "( ) any date as from which there took effect a previous determination as to the amount of the rent made, otherwise than as arbitrator, by a person appointed under an agreement between the landlord and the tenant,".
  12 Clause 11, page 7, line 20, after "direction", insert ", determination".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 en bloc. These are technical amendments. Under the Bill, the parties may agree to the appointment of a person to determine rent "otherwise than as arbitrator". The amendment to Clause 10 is necessary so that the rent review cycle takes account of any such rent determination in the same way as if an arbitrator had determined the rent at a rent review. The amendment to Clause 11 is consequential.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  13 Clause 13, page 8, line 5, leave out "the grant" and insert "or before the beginning".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13, to which I spoke when moving Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13.—(Earl Howe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  14 Clause 19, page 9, line 43, leave out "the proposed provision of a" and insert "any".
  15 Page 9, line 44, leave out from "improvement" to "is" in line 45 and insert "the tenant under a farm business tenancy".
  16 Page 10, line 8, at end insert "but this subsection has effect subject to subsections (1A) and (2) below.
  (1A) No notice under subsection (1) above may be given
  1352
  in relation to any tenant's improvement which the tenant has already provided or begun to provide, unless that improvement is a routine improvement.".
  17 Page 10, line 21, after "RICS", insert "subject to subsection (7A) below".
  18 Page 10, line 25, leave out "proposed".
  19 Page 10, line 26, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (7A) below".
  20 Page 10, line 27, leave out "proposed".
  21 Page 10, line 35, at end insert:
  "(7A) Where, at any time after giving a notice under subsection (1) above in relation to any tenant's improvement which is not a routine improvement, the tenant begins to provide the improvement—

  (a) no application may be made under subsection (3) above after that time,

  (b) where such an application has been made but no arbitrator has been appointed before that time, the application shall be ineffective, and

  (c) no award may be made by virtue of subsection (5) above after that time except as to the costs of the reference and award in a case where the arbitrator was appointed before that time.

  () For the purposes of this section—
  'fixed equipment' includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works constructed on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or its produce, or amenity;
  'routine improvement', in relation to a farm business tenancy, means any tenant's improvement which—

  (a) is a physical improvement made in the normal course of farming the holding or any part of the holding, and

  (b) does not consist of fixed equipment or an improvement to fixed equipment,

  but does not include any improvement whose provision is prohibited by the terms of the tenancy.".
  22 Clause 22, page 11, line 47, at end insert:
  "( ) Where—

  (a) an application under subsection (3) above relates wholly or partly to compensation in respect of a routine improvement (within the meaning of section 19 of this Act) which the tenant has provided or has begun to provide, and

  (b) that application is made at the same time as an application under section 19(3) of this Act relating to the provision of that improvement,

  the President of the RICS shall appoint the same arbitrator on both applications and, if both applications are made by the same person, only one fee shall be payable by virtue of section 30(1) of this Act in respect of them.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 en bloc.
  The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, raised the subject of compensation for tenant-right matters during Committee, Report stage and at Third Reading. Similar concerns were also expressed in another place. The above group of amendments responds to those concerns.
  Under the Bill all improvements require landlord's consent in order to be eligible for compensation. In cases where consent is refused, the tenant has the right to go to arbitration (except in the case of planning permission). The concern was that some tenants, being used to the different approach in the 1986 Act, might not realise that

  1353
  they needed landlord's consent for certain routine operations for which they later intended to claim compensation. That point has now been addressed.
  The Government have reflected carefully and come up with an approach which can cover tenant-right matters such as growing crops, applying fertiliser and other individual routine acts of husbandry which add value to the holding, including those which add only a small amount of value compared with the overall value of the holding. The amendments to Clause 19 will ensure that a tenant can carry out "routine improvements" of that kind without losing the right to arbitration if for any reason the landlord withholds consent for them. This approach has the support of the Industry Group.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 14 to 22 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I have absolutely no locus in the debate as I farm in Scotland, to which the Bill does not apply, but, nevertheless, I have been a practical farmer for many years. I have studied the drafting of Amendment No. 21 as regards "fixed equipment". I congratulate the draftsmen on producing it, but wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will be kind enough to tell me exactly what it means.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I believe that there is an explanation in the Marshalled List regarding the meaning of the term. It says that "fixed equipment",
  "includes any building or structure affixed to land and any works constructed on, in, over or under land, and also includes anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption of the thing grown or its produce, or amenity".
  While the draftsmen are most certainly to be complimented on their phraseology, I would not wish to elaborate on such excellent wording. However, if my noble friend is still in doubt, I shall he glad to elucidate the matter further after today's proceedings.
  Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, I shall be most obliged if my noble friend will do so.
  Lord Carter: My Lords, in fact, I was about to ask the same question. When I looked at the definition of "fixed equipment", I could not for the life of me think of anything that would not be caught by the description of,
  "anything grown on land for a purpose other than use after severance from the land, consumption … its produce, or amenity".
  What is left? I just cannot think of anything else that would be "fixed equipment" under that definition. However, while I am making other points on the group of amendments it is possible that the answer may suddenly appear.
  I am extremely grateful to the Minister for referring to the approval of the Industry Group. Indeed, I should have been most disappointed if we had got through the Commons amendments without having the blessing of that group. However, when the Minister says that the amendments respond to the arguments that were made, that is a pretty cool statement bearing in mind all the arguments that we were given in the House during the Bill's passage as to why compensation for tenant right could not be paid. We are pleased that the Government have now accepted the argument.
  1354
  I also congratulate the draftsmen on the idea of the "routine improvement" which I believe catches the sort of things that we discussed. Obviously the basis of the valuation will be left to the parties to determine. That is clear. Moreover, in the case of what we used to call tenant right, it will now be the incoming tenant who pays, and again it will be up to the parties to determine that between themselves. As I said, it is clear and it meets the points that have been made, as I understand it, for those things which the tenant thought he would be compensated for in the normal course of business. But if such things have been forgotten, the new provision will cover the situation. We are all waiting with baited breath for the explanation of "fixed equipment".
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  23 After Clause 30, insert the following clause:
  ".—(1) Section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (leasing powers of mortgagor and mortgagee in possession) shall be amended in accordance with subsections (2) and (3) below.
  (2) At the beginning of subsection (13), there shall be inserted 'Subject to subsection (13A) below:.
  (3) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
  '(13A) Subsection (13) of this section—

  (a) shall not enable the application of any provision of this section to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made after 1st March 1948 but before 1st September 1995, and

  (b) shall not enable the power to grant a lease of an agricultural holding to which, by virtue of section 4 of the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995, the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 will apply, to be excluded or restricted in relation to any mortgage of agricultural land made on or after 1st September 1995.

  (13B) In subsection (13A) of this section—
  "agricultural holding" has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
  "agricultural land" has the same meaning as in the Agriculture Act 1947.'
  (4) Paragraph 12 of Schedule 14 to the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 (which excludes the application of subsection (13) of section 99 of the Law of Property Act 1925 in relation to a mortgage of agricultural land and is superseded by the amendments made by subsections (1) to (3) above) shall cease to have effect.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23. This is a rather technical amendment, but the effect is quite simple. Since 1948 the agricultural holdings legislation has effectively prevented mortgage lenders from putting restrictions on the letting of agricultural land by landowners who have mortgaged the land. The banks have now suggested, and the main industry organisations have agreed, that there would he advantages in treating agricultural land like any other land or property which is mortgaged and enabling mortgage lenders to control lettings if they so wish. Subsection (4) of the new clause achieves that objective.
  A substantive amendment to the Law of Property Act 1925 is also needed to avoid retrospection. As we made clear throughout the discussions on the tenancy law reform, the new legislation is not to be retrospective. The new clause adds a new subsection to Section 99 of the

  1355
  Law of Property Act 1925 to safeguard the interests of existing borrowers and people who are entitled to a new 1986 Act tenancy.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 23.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, this is a technical point. In order to be absolutely clear, I should be grateful for confirmation that this amendment applies to new tenancies under the 1986 Act and any tenancies which fall under this Bill but not to existing 1986 Act tenancies, so that there is no element of retrospection to protect the mortgagor of land which is presently let under the 1986 Act. Is that understanding correct?
  Earl Howe: My Lords, the essential point is certainly that there is no element of retrospection. The amendment will restore the right to contract out of Section 99 of the Law of Property Act in relation to agricultural land, but the new clause will retain the existing restriction on contracting out in the case of all loans made before the Bill comes into force and in the case of loans made subsequently which are secured on a mortgage of a tenanted holding which is still governed by the Agricultural Holdings Act of 1986.
  I am now in a position to shed a little further light on the question posed by my noble friend Lord Stodart. The definition of fixed equipment is very similar to that used in the 1986 Act. Fences, dry stone walls, hedges and so on fall within the definition. In relation to the amendments which we have just approved, we did not favour the idea that improvements should be listed, as proposed by the Opposition. We have now dealt with the problem by another method, as my noble friend will appreciate.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  24 Clause 34, page 16, line 17, leave out from beginning to "after" in line 18 and insert:
  ".—( ) Section 22 of the Solicitors Act 1974 (unqualified person not to prepare certain instruments) shall be amended as follows.
  ( ) In subsection (2),".
  25 Page 16, line 20, leave out from "any" to "drawing" in line 21 and insert "accredited person".
  26 Page 16, line 28, at end insert:
  "((In subsection (3A), immediately before the definition of 'registered trade mark agent' there shall be inserted—
  accredited person" means any person who is—

  (a) a Full Member of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers,

  (b) an Associate or Fellow of the Incorporated Society of Valuers and Auctioneers, or

  (c) an Associate or Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors:'.".

  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 en bloc.
  This group of three government amendments responds to points made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, at the Third Reading of the Bill. Noble Lords may recollect that at that time we had not completed consultations with the CAAV and ISVA about possible further amendments to the Solicitors Act. I am pleased to confirm that
  1356
  appropriately qualified members of the CAAV and ISVA, as well as the RICS, will be able to draw up tenancy agreements of more than three years' duration.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 26 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. This was a point that we pressed and which the Government said they would take away. The Minister will know that the amendment has met with considerable agreement among the members of the organisations which are mentioned.
  As we approach the end of the Commons amendments, I wonder when there will be a concession in response to an amendment that I moved. So far every concession has been in respect of an amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gallacher. That draws attention to his considerable powers of persuasion.
  Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I hope that members of those organisations will he properly qualified. I was anxious about that aspect of the amendment. It will not be the most simple of jobs to draw up these agreements.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may respond to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Stanley. The CAAV and the ISVA have provided full details of their examinations and internal professional standards. Both bodies require practitioners to have professional indemnity insurance. I emphasise that this provision will apply to appropriately qualified members of those bodies. We feel that there is no good reason to restrict the scope of the amendment to the Solicitors Act in favour solely of RICS members.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  27 Clause 35, page 16, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38 and insert:
  "(cc) it is given to him in a manner authorised by a written agreement made, at any time before the giving of the notice, between him and the person giving the notice.
  ( ) A notice or other document to which this section applies is not duly given to a person if its text is transmitted to him by facsimile or other electronic means otherwise than by virtue of subsection (2) (cc) above.".
  4.45 p.m.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 27.
  During the earlier stages of the Bill the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, introduced a number of amendments to Clause 35 (which was then Clause 34) and was particularly concerned that the position regarding service of notice by fax should be made clear. At Third Reading I assured your Lordships that we were working on an amendment to that clause but it was a complex area. The amendment is the result of our deliberations.
  The first part of the amendment deletes the specific provision relating to the sending of notices by any delivery service where the delivery is recorded. That means that if there is a dispute, the onus will always be on the sender to prove that the notice was delivered.

  1357
  Two new provisions are inserted. The first will give parties extra flexibility to agree other methods of serving written notice which may be used in addition to those listed in the Bill. The second new provision makes it clear that fax and other electronic methods can be used only if the parties have agreed in writing to their use. That will avoid confusion and will give landlords and tenants the opportunity to use the latest technology if they so wish.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No.27.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we welcome the amendment because it will add to the flexibility of the system. A problem may arise. The Government may find over time that, having specified "facsimile—although I understand why they have done so —as other means of transmission develop such as Internet or e-mail (although that is a poor example) it may be necessary to amend the Bill. Otherwise those means of transmission will be excluded. Nevertheless, I understand the reasons behind the amendment.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  28 Clause 37, page 19, leave out lines 4 to 7 and insert:
  "(4) For the purposes of this Act a tenancy begins on the day on which, under the terms of the tenancy, the tenant is entitled to possession under that tenancy; and references in this Act to the beginning of the tenancy are references to that day.".
  29 Clause 38, page 19, line 14, column I, leave out "beginning (of a tenancy)" and insert "begins, beginning (in relation to a tenancy)".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 28 and 29 en bloc, to which I spoke with Amendment No. 5.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  30 Clause 40, page 19, line 44, at end insert ", except that paragraph 9 of the Schedule does not extend to Northern Ireland.".
  31 In the schedule, page 21, line 10, at end insert:
  "The Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c. 65)
  —(1) Section 27 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (renewal of tenancy expiring during period of service or within two months thereafter) shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for the words from are an agricultural holding' onwards there shall be substituted—

  '(a) are an agricultural holding (within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986) held under a tenancy in relation to which that Act applies,

  (b) are a holding (other than a holding excepted from this provision) held under a farm business tenancy, or

  (c) consist of or comprise premises (other than premises excepted from this provision) licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises.'.

  (3) In subsection (5), after paragraph (b) there shall be inserted—
  1358
  '(bb) the expressions "farm business tenancy" and "holding", in relation to such a tenancy, have the same meaning as in the Agricultural Tenancies Act 1995;'.
  (4) After that subsection, there shall be inserted—
  '(5A) In paragraph (b) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section the reference to a holding excepted from the provision is a reference to a holding held under a farm business tenancy in which there is comprised a dwelling-house occupied by the person responsible for the control (whether as tenant or servant or agent of the tenant) of the management of the holding.'
  (5) In subsection (6), for the words from the beginning to 'liquor' there shall be substituted 'In paragraph (c) of the proviso to subsection (1) of this section, the reference to premises excepted from the provision'.".
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 en bloc.
  The amendment to the schedule provides protection for reservists who have been called up or recalled for service around the time their tenancy would have ended. It applies to farm business tenancies which include a dwelling house occupied by the person responsible for the management of the holding. That is analogous to the provisions in Schedule 5 to the 1986 Act. It allows the tenant, in certain circumstances specified in the 1951 Act, if the landlord does not extend or renew the tenancy voluntarily, to apply to the courts for a renewal of the tenancy on terms set by the court.
  As noble Lords may be aware, the Government's draft legislation for the reserve forces has just been published and comments are invited by 15th June. While it would have been possible to await that Bill and make provision for this contingency in that context, it seemed preferable to put a framework of protection in place from the start for reservists who are farm business tenants.
  The amendment to Clause 40 makes clear that the position in Northern Ireland is not affected, since the rest of the Bill does not apply there.
  With the leave of the House, I shall clarify one point which arose earlier in relation to the Evesham custom. I am advised that that custom applies mainly in the Evesham area, but it is available, in principle, to market gardens anywhere in England and Wales. However, in practice, it is very localised.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 30 and 31 en bloc.—(Earl Howe.)
  Lord Carter: My Lords, we accept this group of amendments and understand the reason for the amendments. However, as this is the last chance that we shall have to discuss the Bill, perhaps I may move a little outside the rules of procedure to thank the Minister for the way in which he has explained the Commons amendments and to take the chance to wish the Bill well.
  Perhaps I may repeat the undertaken given in another place by my honourable friend Dr. Gavin Strang. We know that the Labour Party has been pressed hard to state its actions regarding the Bill. We explained that when the Bill completed its course through both Houses we would make our position clear. We have stated that the next Labour Government will not seek to overturn any of the contracts entered into under the Bill after 1st September

  1359
  1995 and before we change the legislation, if we do so. There will be no attempt to amend retrospectively any of the agreements reached.
  Earl Howe: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for what he said; in particular for his repetition of the undertaking made by his honourable friend in another place. I am sure that that undertaking will be welcomed by the agricultural community at large.
  Perhaps I may thank the noble Lords, Lord Carter and Lord Gallacher, for the part that they have played in the passage of the Bill. I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords in wishing the Bill well.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
4.51 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 13 [Exclusion of defamation claims from Part III]:
Lord Mishcon Lord Mishcon moved the amendment:
Page 5, line 37, leave out ("libel, slander,") and insert ("libel or slander or for").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 13 provides for the exclusion of defamation from Part III of the Bill. The definition of defamation in Clause 13(2) (a) is:
"any claim under the law or any part of the United Kingdom for libel, slander, slander of title, slander of goods or other malicious falsehood".
At Report stage, I ventured to wonder whether it was accurate to give the impression that slander and libel were of necessity malicious falsehoods. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, with his usual courtesy, said that he would consider whether the matter was misleading. I then suggested that the way round it was to delete the word "other".
With further courtesy, the noble and learned Lord wrote to me and said that he took the point as to the possible misleading nature of the words "or other malicious falsehod" but suggested that, instead of deleting "other", a provision such as the amendment which now appears on the Marshalled List might be clearer. I accepted the improvement of the amendment. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Mackay of Clashfern): My Lords, for my part, I am extremely happy to agree to the amendment. I believe that it removes an infelicity which crept into the drafting because of the way in which two clauses which had previously been a little more distant had come rather close together, with the influence of the word "other" going back further than the draft had originally intended.
The noble Lord has resolved that infelicity in an extremely felicitous way. Therefore I am very happy personally to agree the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, before the Bill leaves the House, I should like to offer some general observations. It is a tripartite Bill on three separate subjects. As regards Part I and Part II, reactions can only be favourable. They introduce some modest reforms which should have been made long ago. There is no difficulty about them.
On the other hand, Part III is in a quite different dimension. It deals with a complex subject in a complicated way. I—and I do not believe that I am alone in this—have serious misgivings about it. I spoke as to those misgivings on Second Reading. I do not propose to go over the arguments I then made. However, much has happened since Second Reading and it is only fair to the large number of people who have contributed to the discussion on the Bill and who have provided evidence to review the situation.
Just to recapitulate, what we are concerned with in Part III is the double actionability rule—that is to say, a judge-made rule of law which requires that, when you are suing in a UK court in respect of a civil wrong committed abroad, you have to show not only that the wrong was against the law of the place where the act took place but that it was contrary to UK law. That double actionability rule has been criticised by academics as illogical, chauvinistic, anomalous and capable of creating injustice. I underline "capable" because there is a singular lack of evidence that it has produced any injustice whatsoever.
My position has been, and is, that this subject—torts with a foreign element—is not one which calls for legislative intervention or codification. It is much better to leave it to the judges, who have by two recent decisions —one as recently as July 1994—given themselves sufficient liberty of action to deal with the variety of cases.
As your Lordships know, the Bill was committed to a special Public Bill Committee. In passing, let me say that that procedure has shown itself very successful in saving the time of the House and in permitting extensive discussion. I might have a small reservation about the method of calling and dealing with evidence, but this is not the place to discuss that. Basically the procedure has shown itself to be very useful.
I should like, if I may, to pay tribute both to the Law Commission, including its past members who put in a great deal of work on this Bill in Committee, and, respectfully, to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the trouble that he personally has taken over the Bill in Committee and for the open-minded attitude that he took to individual questions. I was a member of the Committee and, though critical of the whole of the Bill in Part III, thought it right to contribute as best I could to the effort to improve it.
The Committee decided, as it could do, to receive evidence, and over 50 representations were made. The Committee heard also oral evidence—almost entirely from those supporting the Bill. It is printed in the very valuable report. I shall not go into the evidence in detail. I believe that it is fair to say—it does not overstate the case from my point of view—that the Scottish evidence was

1361
almost uniformly in favour of the Bill. I shall return to that point. The English evidence—academic, judicial and other —was pretty evenly balanced, with strong and well argued contributions each way.
The Government basically have two arguments. First, legislation is necessary for Scotland, and therefore we ought to bring it in for the rest of the United Kingdom. Secondly, this is a Law Commission Bill and there is a strong presumption in favour of such legislation.
Briefly, the reply is as follows. Scotland, it is true, is tied by a seven-judge decision which prevents their courts and their judges, from taking the flexible attitude open to English judges. My answer to that argument is that if—and only if—Scotland desires legislation, desires the position to be changed, that could be done much more simply than by this elaborate Bill. It could be done, for example, by enacting a clause similar to the ruling in Dicey's Conflict of Laws, Rule 203. In any case, the local difficulty in Scotland is not a good reason for imposing a statute over the Border where no such difficulty arises. There is here an argument, no doubt, for the Bill, but surely not a strong one.
Then, as to the Law Commission: I hope that by now the House realises that the Law Commission has no stronger supporter in this House than myself. I have advocated its cause in general and in relation to particular Bills many, many times. I agree in general that Law Commission Bills ought to go through easily; but this is rather a different case. In the form in which your Lordships are dealing with it, this is hardly a Law Commission Bill. It has been radically redrafted and radically changed. Leaving aside purely drafting points which are quite important, the Government have rejected the whole of the Law Commission's Clause 3—that is about one-quarter of the Bill—which contains at least two important provisions. One deals with torts committed in the United Kingdom, but with effects abroad, and the other deals with defamation.
I do not wish to take up too much of your Lordships' time, but I must say something about defamation. It is a very important and sensitive subject, in the light of modern information technology. Broadcasts from the United Kingdom may reach any part of the world. Newspapers are widely distributed and may be printed abroad, as is the Financial Times. The question arises: are they to be exposed in United Kingdom courts to actions based on foreign libel laws which may be very different from our own?
The subject is a very actual one, as your Lordships may appreciate. I give two examples. A noble Lord, who sits on these Benches and was at one time closely connected with a broadsheet newspaper, wrote an interesting article a few weeks ago about the heads of governments of various European countries. The theme which he advocated was this: "We may not be too happy about our own Prime Minister, but goodness! just look at the others". In a wide-ranging way, he went right over the countries of Europe, making pungent comments about this, that or the other heads of government: one is inefficient; one is corrupt; one is immoral, and so on. It was a well written and entertaining piece, if I may respectfully say so.
1362
That is all right as regards English law—fair comment, a matter of public interest and no question of malice. But if one brings in foreign law in respect of a foreign publication, one might be in a different position. There, it may be suable in the courts to attack the head of a government, an organ of government, to make disparaging remarks about the reputation of public figures. If that were to be the case, if foreign law were to be applied by the English court, the author might find himself in great difficulty.
A second example is that Mr. Bernard Levin wrote an article only last week which started off by saying: "Everybody knows or ought to know that all Cabinet Ministers"—in a certain country which perhaps I had better not name—"are crooked". Again, in this country there would be no problem, everyone is used to Mr. Bernard Levin's exuberant language. There would be no difficulty and it would hardly be worth bringing the matter to court. But think if that were published in the country concerned: it would be injurious to an organ of government; very injurious to the head of government; an attack on reputation. If one were to apply the law of that country in respect of a publication in that country, there would be serious trouble.
So something must be done. The Law Commission gave very careful consideration to the problem. It considered a number of options and finally proposed that defamation actions in the United Kingdom courts should be based on United Kingdom law, wherever there had been publication in the United Kingdom prior to or simultaneous with the foreign publication. I am sorry that the proposal is slightly complicated, but that is how it was phrased. It would have dealt adequately with both the examples I gave.
However, the interesting point is that the Government rejected the suggestion, They would not have it in their Bill. Nothing in the Government's original Bill said anything about defamation at all, so that the general rules in the Bill allowing actions based on foreign law would have applied. Both of the cases would have been suable in the English courts.
For some time there was silence because the subject of private international law (miscellaneous provisions) is not one which grips the media's attention. Then I suppose someone alerted a prominent newspaper and in one day there were three pieces in The Times. On that, the Government decided appropriately to invite evidence. So the committee heard evidence from the legal manager of The Times newspaper and from a lady representing the Guild of British Newspaper Editors. Having heard the evidence, the Government ran up the white flag. They put in a clause taking defamation actions right out of the Bill. Noble Lords will find that in Clause 13, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has just adverted.
I do not quarrel with the solution, it is probably as good as that of the Law Commission. But it rather raises a question of principle. There is the double actionability rule, the illogical, nationalistic, potentially unjust rule which, under the Bill, is to continue to apply to defamation, widely defined as it is in Clause 13. Surely, that destroys whatever logical or academic appeal the Bill

1363
may have. It disentitles the Government to shelter behind Law Commission infallibility. If double actionability is good enough for defamation, why not for other torts?
Of course, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may say, as he did in Committee, that defamation is unique, quite different from other torts; it is so widespread, it goes all over the world; one cannot give it a location and it is concerned with freedom of speech and fundamental rights. But the same argument may apply to other matters. There are a number of other torts with implications that are difficult to locate. Think of pollution; acid rain; a situation like Chernobyl. They are just as widespread; they may come anywhere. Think of investment negligence: it may affect investors all over the world, whoever happened to hear the broadcast or happened to read the newspaper.
I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is not in his place. As he pointed out in his evidence, many other torts are concerned with civil rights and liberties other than defamation. Thus if defamation is unique—as it may be—one suspects that it is in the strength of the interests behind it rather than anything else.
So this is the bottom line, the 64,000 deutschmark question: is it a good Bill? It is supposed to provide certainty as contrasted with judicial muddle. I invite your Lordships to look at Clause 12 which is riddled with words and clauses requiring interpretation and inviting legalistic arguments. The Bill lacks logical coherence. It deals anomalously with defamation, it does not deal at all with United Kingdom torts. It does not deal at all with torts unknown to United Kingdom law, as to which both the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and the firm of solicitors, Norton Rose, made powerful comments, leaving the situation to be disposed of by the doubtful provisions in the Bill as to characterisation and public policy. In three words, the Bill is complex, uncertain and incomplete. Could not the judges do as well as that?
Lest noble Lords think that this is a matter of personal eccentricity or some idée fixe, perhaps I may quote some opinions on the Bill. First, there is the evidence on page 53 of the Red Book, of Mr. W. E. Peel of Oxford University. It is rather complicated, but it is very well put:
"The change is from a general rule of double actionability supplemented by a flexible exception of uncertain scope and application"—
that is the judicial position as it is now—
"to a general rule of lex loci delicti"
(the law of the place where the tort takes place)
"supplemented by an exception of equally uncertain scope and application… there seems little merit in exchanging one uncertain rule for another… particularly one restricted by a statute".
My second quotation is from Mr. P. B. Carter of Oxford, writing in the March 1995 issue of the Cambridge Law Journal. He writes to the same effect about exchanging one uncertainty for another, and continues,
"any statutory interference, let alone interference of the root-and-branch type proposed in Part III, could scarcely be less appropriate".
Finally, Mr. Briggs, also of Oxford, writing in January 1995 in the Law Quarterly Review, which as noble Lords will know is our leading legal publication, states:
"Many would agree that undertaking reform by making a cautious addition to the common law"—
1364
that would be by the judges—
"is greatly to be preferred to erecting the monstrous carbuncle of the Law Commission's draft Bill".
My own final comment might be more parliamentary in language, even though the word "carbuncle" carries the Royal Warrant. However, I see Part III of the Bill passed with some sadness, tempered only by the hope that another place may put its wisdom to work upon it.
5.12 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we have had the benefit, as my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce said, of very detailed discussion of these matters in Committee. I am grateful for what my noble and learned friend said about my part. I thank him and all the members of the Committee, some of whom are able to be here today and a number of whom are not, for the time and effort that they put into this difficult matter.
As my noble and learned friend said, Parts I and II of the Bill, which are based on Law Commission reports, have been comparatively uncontroversial. The whole Bill has been uncontroversial in any kind of party political terms, but has been quite controversial so far as Part III is concerned between lawyers. My noble and learned friend made wise selections from the evidence of those who are opposed to the Bill. I could inform noble Lords with some examples selected by myself in support of the other side of the case, which, as my noble and learned friend accepted, was very balanced as between the legal and judicial communities, including the academic community, on these matters.
Considerable expertise has been devoted to trying to get a workable system. The present law, as I believe my noble and learned friend accepted, contains very flexible exceptions to the general rule, the precise import of which no one can readily tell.
The Bill substitutes for that a method of approach to the problem which in my submission is logical, although of course it contains words that are capable of interpretation and application to individual circumstances. Part III of the Bill contains a logical approach to the problems and provides a way forward for development which is in accordance with the policy of the Law Commission to make this general area of the law subject to statutory enactment.
So far as defamation is concerned, I took the view, which was shared by the majority of the Committee, that the correct answer to the defamation problem was the one which now appears in the Bill. I agree that it is an exception to the underlying logic of the Bill. On the other hand, I believe that it is an exception that is justified by the particular circumstances of defamation. The illustrations that my noble and learned friend gave of two distinguished contributors to the newspapers of this country might have been affected if it had been left in the way that the Law Commission had left it, and certainly if the Bill had not contained an exception in respect of defamation. As is implicit in my noble and learned friend's analysis of the situation, the present Bill gives a very considerable width of judicial application to the

1365
judges as to the way in which they take the logical structure forward. As noble Lords would expect, there is protection for the public policy of our law.
This is certainly a difficult issue. I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to it in Committee and on Report —and not least to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—for their contributions. I regret that my noble and learned friend remains sad so far as Part III is concerned. I have great respect for his sadness, as well as for the very considerable contribution that he made to the detailed consideration of the Bill in Committee. Here, as in few other places, no one is more authoritative in this area of the law in the light of a long judicial experience than is my noble and learned friend. Since he has played so distinguished a part in developing the law as a judicial creation, it is perhaps not entirely surprising that it is with an element of sadness that he sees that going from the exclusive control of the judges to a statutory framework under which, if the Bill passes in its present form, the judges will in future be called upon to operate.
1366
I hope that noble Lords will pass this Bill, and that it will receive favourable consideration when it arrives in the other place. I am grateful to the Opposition parties for the co-operation that they have shown in the procedures by which this Bill has been considered, enabling us to take it forward in a way which, without that co-operation, we might have found a good deal more difficult.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Law Reform (Succession) Bill [H.L.]
5.18 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that they, having been informed of the purport of the Law Reform (Succession) Bill, have consented to place their prerogatives and interests, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past five o'clock.