Sitting of 2 December 1985

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  TRANSPORT

    Rail Investment
    Mr. Gregoryasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many major investment applications by British Rail he has approved over the past year.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): Since 2 December last year we have approved seven major investment applications worth £272 million in all.
    Mr. Gregory: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on that impressive record, which clearly gives the lie to Opposition parties who suggest that we are not investing in the infrastructure. Has my right hon. Friend refused any applications during the period under consideration?
    Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those remarks and I agree that British Rail is going through a high-level investment period, with beneficial results. I have not refused any schemes that BR has put forward, but two schemes—the Bournemouth-Weymouth electrification and the Stansted airport rail link—are still under consideration.
    Mrs. Beckett: Will the Secretary of State tell the work force and management of British Rail Engineering Ltd. how they can sensibly plan to fall in line with these
    2
    investment decisions when they can beat the competition hollow yet still see that competition win the contracts that BREL should have?
    Mr. Ridley: The winner of any competitive bid is decided by British Rail, and the hon. Lady should address her inquiries to BR. I do not see any harm in keen competition developing to supply the railways. It means that we shall get better and cheaper stock.
    Mr. Adley: While perhaps sharing with the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) the view that the railways face unfair criticism in terms of safety and in some other respects, is it not a fact that my right hon. Friend's record on rail investment is impeccable? Indeed, is it not a fact that that record is the best of any Government for the past 20 years? Will he continue to keep me happy by giving an early yes to British Rail about the Dorset electrification to which he referred?
    Mr. Ridley: I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that my record is impeccable on all transport matters. I am delighted to accept that the Government have endorsed a high level of investment in BR. I shall not be able to give my hon. Friend an answer about Bournemouth-Weymouth until the studies have been completed.
    Mr. Madden: While I am in agreement with and welcome the electrification of the east coast main line, does the Secretary of State appreciate the widespread concern in Bradford about the refusal so far to electrify the line between Bradford and Leeds? Will he consider meeting representatives of Bradford city council on the matter? Will he read the report recently published by the city council and British Rail and sympathetically consider the proposal? Is he aware that if it does not proceed the efforts of the city to overcome the unemployment and economic crises facing it will be that much harder?
    Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman knows that either I or another Minister will always meet hon. Members who wish to see us. Investment in the railways is decided not by political pressure but by whether the investment makes good sense in terms of the return that is likely from it.
    Mr. Coombs: Will my right hon. Friend explain why this investment has meant the inevitable closure of the

    3
    Swindon railway works in my constituency—[Interruption.] For the benefit of Opposition Members who still fail to understand the point, will he confirm that even if all the investment to which he referred had been awarded in the form of contracts to BREL, it would still not have made any difference to the Swindon works?
    Mr. Ridley: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that there are growing signs that British Rail Engineering Limited is likely to begin obtaining substantial orders overseas. It has already obtained some. I think that there is still much business to be hoped for. It should be able to compete for and win orders in world markets as well as in domestic markets. A high level of investment in British Rail has the effect of reducing the need for maintenance and repair, because the new stock is better built, lasts longer and requires less maintenance. Indeed, that is why some of BREL's workshops have had to be slimmed down or closed. The higher the level of investment in the railways, the more that has tended to happen.
    Mr. Snape: Will the Secretary of State accept that the recently announced British Rail fare increase of between 8 and 10 per cent. is higher than the rate of inflation, that the workers at Swindon and York could well be employed in building rolling stock for BREL and thereby improve the quality of cross-country rail travel, and that, instead of listening to some of his Back Benchers, who are more anxious to curry favour than to defend the interests of their constituents, he should talk to regular passengers, who are fed up to the teeth with paying higher fares for a declining service?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not quite know what the hon. Gentleman can mean by that, since BREL has already won orders to build 170 DMUs and 184 EMUs, and the amount of work at York is certain to keep the staff occupied for at least two years.
    There is no question but that the Government's high investment policy is providing jobs for newbuild in BREL, but, as the hon. Gentleman seems to be completely incapable of understanding, the result is that there is less repair and maintenance work, such as was carried out at Swindon.
    Mr. Pawsey: Is my right hon. Friend able to say how much of the £272 million is being spent on rolling stock, particularly passenger rolling stock? Could he also say how much of that investment is likely to find itself on the London Midland region?
    Mr. Ridley: In reply to my hon. Friend's first question, in the past 18 months, £590 million has been spent by British Rail on investment. Nearly half, £272 million, was devoted to passenger rolling stock. I cannot give details of stock to be used on the line that my hon. Friend mentioned, but I will ask the chairman to give my hon. Friend the information that he seeks.

    British Rail Catering
    Mr. Boyesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise with him the subject of British Rail catering.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): No, Sir. Railway catering is a matter of management for the British Railways Board.
    Mr. Boyes: If the Minister finds an opportunity to meet the chairman and to discuss catering, will he pass on my praise for the courteous and caring way in which British Rail catering staff serve the public, often in difficult circumstances, when they have to solve problems that are not of their creation?
    Although I do not generally talk about individuals, Alec Gibb and his crew served the 7 am Durham to London train exceptionally well for many years. Now that they have moved to another line, I am taking the opportunity to thank them, and it cannot be suggested that I am currying any favours.
    Mr. Mitchell: I am delighted to hear the hon. Gentleman's praise for British Rail catering staff. I shall pass on his comments to the chairman. From my experience, in many cases praise is very well deserved.
    Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the admitted courtesy and helpfulness of the staff, the standard of catering on British Rail seems to be going steadily downhill? Is this not an area in which privatisation should be encouraged as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that we have asked the chairman of British Rail to obtain more supply and support services from the private sector, including train and station catering.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: The last time I was in north Wales the catering was supplied by private caterers who joined the train at Chester. While I agree that the catering has greatly improved, it would be a joy if travellers on British Rail, who are paying huge fares, could get into clean carriages from which all the rubbish, cups and saucers had been removed.
    Mr. Mitchell: I travel regularly on British Rail, and I am pleased at the speed with which the staff come in with bags to remove rubbish when the trains arrive at terminus stations. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has had an experience that has not given satisfaction. Other people have praised the private catering services provided on the Welsh line, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to that. I shall pass that comment on to the chairman, as it may encourage British Rail to introduce more private operations.

    Light Dues
    Mr. Colvinasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received following publication of the Arthur Anderson report on light dues.
    Mr. Ridley: I have received a large number of comments from individuals and from representative bodies. I am most grateful to all concerned for the thought and attention that they have given to the proposals. I am considering the issues carefully and I shall make a further statement in due course.
    Mr. Colvin: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the cost of collecting light dues from sea-going yachts will probably be greater than the revenue raised? Does he know of any EEC country that charges such dues and, if not, will Britain be the odd man out? How will my right hon. Friend overcome the difficulty of defining a sea-going yacht?
    Mr. Ridley: The cost of administering and enforcing any charge on yachts will depend largely on what measures

    5
    the Government decide to take. I have not reached any conclusions on that. I appreciate the problem of the definition of a sea-going yacht, but, again, I have not reached any conclusion. I can tell my hon. Friend, however, that the Republic of Ireland and Greece both charge light dues on shipping.

    Inter-city Services
    Dr. Marekasked the Secretary of State for Transport if, when he next meets the chairman of British Rail, he will raise the provision of fast non-stop services between the cities of Great Britain.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The pattern of services on the inter-city rail network is a matter for the British Railways Board.
    Dr. Marek: Does the Minister agree that the level of services on Inter-city provided by British Rail is appallingly low? On the west coast main line, on which I have been travelling for the whole of the year, I cannot remember one occasion when everything was right; for example, the train was late, the engine failed, the train was overcrowded so that there was standing room only, or there was no restaurant service. Does the Minister accept that that is a matter which goes beyond the day-to-day control of normal Inter-city services provided by the management? What will the Minister do about it?
    Mr. Mitchell: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman's experiences have been much less satisfactory than my own. The matters that he raises are for the chairman of British Rail, to whom we have given objectives to provide an efficient railway service that is reliable, attractive and punctual.
    Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend accept that the British public are increasingly fed up with the exceedingly nasty apple pies served on these trains? Will he do what he can to privatise the services and get rid of the current monopoly?
    Mr. Mitchell: I have said already that we are inviting British Rail to obtain more of its services from the private sector. Twice in the past week when I have travelled by British Rail the buffet car has closed one hour before arrival at our destination, so I share the hon. Gentleman's sense of unease and am aware of the advantages to be obtained from private sector operations.
    Mr. Flannery: I should like to reiterate the complaints made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) about the St. Pancras line. I am often asked by the Minster why I continually complain. It is because he does nothing about it. The reality is that although the individual train is faster, there are fewer of them, fewer carriages, they are regularly overcrowded, and from Sheffield the train often stops at Chesterfield, Alfreton, Nottingham, Leicester, Kettering, Luton and then London. That adds half an hour to the journey, which is added throughout the day. The trains are slower than they used to be when they ran hourly.
    Mr. Mitchell: Those are entirely matters for the management of British Rail. It is the job of Ministers to set objectives for the board. It is for the board to carry them out. If the hon. Gentleman has complaints about the way in which the board is carrying them out, he should address them to the chairman.

    Driving Tests
    Mr. Holtasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has any plans to modify current driving test standards; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Michael Spicer): There are no such plans at present.
    Mr. Holt: Is my hon. Friend aware that anyone can take a set of driving lessons, pass the driving test without ever having been allowed to drive on a motorway, and thereafter get into the fastest car, go as fast as possible, tow a caravan or a horse box with a couple of horses in it and create mayhem, at night and in the dark? Is it not time that the Ministry took on board the need for training those who will travel on motorways and the need to make motorway driving an integral part of the driving test so that we can lower the carnage on our roads?
    Mr. Spicer: The problem with allowing L-drivers on motorways in preparation for a test, as my hon. Friend suggests, is that it would increase the hazard to the other drivers already using the motorways, who are in the majority.
    Mr. Higgins: Is my hon. Friend aware that some motoring schools appear to be giving the impression that they can get a driving test arranged at an earlier date than would normally be the case for a private individual applying for a test? Is that true either for the first allocation of a date for cancellations?
    Mr. Spicer: I am not aware of the point mentioned by my right hon. Friend, but perhaps he will let me have the details afterwards. I am aware that the waiting lists have increased unacceptably. Our priority is therefore to employ additional examiners to reduce the waiting lists.
    Mr. Amessasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many residents of Basildon took a driving test in each of the last five years.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I regret that records of driving test applicants are not kept by their places of residence, and therefore that information is not available.
    Mr. Amess: In view of the very large number of my constituents taking driving tests and the considerable distances that they have to travel to the nearest test centres, does my hon. Friend understand my constituents' desire to have their own driving test centre in Basildon, now the most dynamic town in the south of England?
    Mr. Spicer: I understand that my hon. Friend has been assiduous in making that case on behalf of his constituents, but driving test centres are carefully selected to ensure that test routes around them are not too easy, and we feel that driving conditions in Basildon are not sufficiently difficult. As my hon. Friend knows, there are four centres within 13 miles of Basildon.

    Motorways (Fog Warnings)
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether he will consider installing closed circuit television cover in fog prone sections of motorways, linked to more prominent warning signals.
    Mr. Ridley: I have no plans to extend television surveillance to deal specifically with fog-prone locations.
    Mr. Ross: Does the Secretary of State agree that there have been some tragic accidents in fog on our motorways in the past month or two, including one in the last couple of weeks? It is not time to experiment with more sophisticated closed circuit television systems, which I believe are available, or fog-sensing devices?
    Mr. Ridley: I do not think that television is the answer because television cannot see fog in the dark for a start, and that seems to be a fundamental defect. I would even go so far as to say that the motorist is more likely to see the fog than are television cameras. However, we are installing experimental fog detectors. Some have been installed on the Mole valley section of the M25 to see whether they can detect fog in all conditions to alert the police, so that they can illuminate the speed restriction signs.
    Mr. Roger King: Is my right hon. Friend prepared to look further at the installation of closed circuit television and advance warning signs, not just to combat fog but to control the increasingly dense traffic flows on the southern part of the M1, where the present signalling system is wholly inadequate?
    Mr. Ridley: When high traffic flows result in regular congestion or queues, and where we have complex motorway interchanges, we instal closed circuit televison. That is the right use of it, not for fog.
    Mr. Stott: In the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell), who tabled a question about speed limits, is the Secretary of State aware that one of the great problems on our motorways is people who drive at excessive speeds in fog? Is he aware, further, that on Saturday I was on the M1 between Leeds and Sheffield and that some drivers passed me exceeding 70 mph, without lights? Would it have been in order for me to take their numbers and report them to the police?
    Mr. Ridley: I have never before been asked a technical and legal question as a Front Bench supplementary question to a question which has not been asked because the hon. Member who tabled it was not present. I agree strongly with the hon. Gentleman that the real problem on our motorways, and our roads in general, is that people drive too fast for the prevailing conditions. There is no subsitute for impressing on people the need for a higher standard of driving, which includes controlling their speed, not just to the limit, but to the conditions. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman would be able to substantiate as evidence numbers which he took down while driving at 70 mph down a motorway last Saturday afternoon.
    Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I could help my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that the answer to the problem lies not in new technology but in cracking down hard on the murderous maniacs who drive too fast in fog without proper warning lights? Will he encourage the police to prosecute on all occasions when they come across such dangerous lunacy on the motorways?
    Mr. Ridley: I am sure my hon. Friend is aware that enforcement by the police of the speed limit and driving laws is entirely a matter for them. However, I agree strongly that we would have a better safety record and fewer crashes on our motorways and roads if people drove more carefully and considerately.

    Severn Crossing
    Mr. Roy Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will give details of the progress made in the feasibility study about the proposal to construct a second Severn crossing.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The consultants are continuing their examination of the details of the various options for a second crossing in two corridors south of the existing crossing. They are determining optimum locations for a bridge, a driven tunnel and an immersed tube tunnel, and their links with the motorway network. They are also carrying out engineering, environmental, traffic and economic assessments. They have made good progress, and expect to complete their studies by the target date of August 1986.
    Mr. Hughes: Will the Minister say whether he has any plans to authorise the building of a second Severn crossing with private capital? If so, by how much would the tolls be likely to increase, and for how long would they be operated?
    Mr. Mitchell: No decision has yet been taken to build a second crossing, so the second point does not arise. However, if we proceed with a second crossing, we shall certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Mr. Grist: Does my hon. Friend accept that that answer will cause some alarm in south Wales? There should be an undertaking to build a second crossing before the turn of the century. Why are the consultants not considering the Wimpey proposal for a barrage, with associated power generation?
    Mr. Mitchell: The barrage is a separate matter. Any decision about when and whether to build an additional crossing of the Severn will be taken in the light of studies which are being made of traffic forecasts, and of the necessity to strengthen the existing crossing.
    Mr. Anderson: Is the Minister aware that if what independent forecasters tell us about likely congestion is correct, the decision will have to be made shortly after the date of publication of the report in the autumn? May I take it that the report will be made available to the House when it is published?
    Mr. Mitchell: That is a different question. Perhaps I may write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
    Mrs. Clwyd: In view of the continuing tailbacks on the Severn bridge— sometimes of several miles—and the fact that industrialists in Wales have said that this is affecting the Welsh economy, will the Minister consider abolishing the tolls?
    Mr. Mitchell: There are no plans at present to abolish the tolls on that estuarial crossing.

    Motorways (Lighting)
    Mr. Peter Bruinvelsasked the Secretary of State for Transport, out of the allocation for the national road programme in the autumn statement, how much will be spent on lighting on motorways in 1986–87 and 1987–88, respectively.
    Mr. Ridley: For 1986–87 the allocation of resources between the various elements of the national road programme has yet to be finalised. Details will be

    9
    published in the Supply Estimates. Future years' expenditure on lighting will be determined taking account of the available resources and competing priorities.
    My Department's policy on the provision of lighting is currently under review. We are consulting on proposals which would require cost-benefit analysis and environmental assessment of each lighting scheme.
    Mr Bruinvels: As joint chairman of the British parliamentary lighting group, I recognise that there is to be a review of motorway lighting, but does my right hon. Friend agree that having only 376 miles of motorway lit is not exactly good news, given that 1,300 miles are still unlit? Will he take note of the views of the Select Committee on Transport which said that lighting unlit stretches of our motorways would reduce night time accidents by 60 per cent.? Is that not the way forward?
    Mr. Ridley: No one doubts my hon. Friend's credentials and his commitment to or extreme concern about motorway lighting. However, I am sure he will agree that we must have some form of cost benefit analysis to decide which stretches of road should be lit and which should not. There cannot just be a policy to light the whole of the motorway network. It must be done on a value for money basis, as is done in respect of other improvements to the road network in order to achieve road safety or to avoid congestion.
    Mr. Bagier: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that from a road safety aspect alone the lighting of the complete motorway system is highly desirable and ought to be provided for?
    Mr. Ridley: No, I do not agree, because there are many other ways in which we can spend money to improve road safety, including the straightening of dangerous bends and junctions. One must make a value for money judgment about the best way to spend the available money, and that does not always mean the provision of lighting.

    Small Businesses
    Mr. Powleyasked the Secretary of State for Transport what new opportunities his Department has created for the development of new small businesses.
    Mr. David Mitchell: The Transport Act 1985 has opened up the market for local bus services. British Rail has opened its supply and support services to competition from the private sector, and new business opportunities will be available to taxi operators.
    Mr. Powley: I thank my hon. Friend for his informative reply. Will his Department publish the opportunities for bus and taxi companies and where those opportunities will be available? On behalf of small businesses and myself, I thank the Department for the steps that have been taken to improve access on the All up to Norwich.
    Mr. Mitchell: I assure my hon. Friend that a series of leaflets will be issued to explain the new Act and the opportunities that it provides. The Department's traffic area officers will advise on how to apply for an operator's licence and how to register a local service. There will be an opportunity up to February for anyone to register a new bus service, and from about April onwards there will be opportunities for tendering for revenue supported operations from county and district councils.

    Local Authority Airports
    Mr. Patrick Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received for local authorities concerning his proposal that local authority airports should become Companies Act companies.
    Mr. Michael Spicer: I have had discussions with representatives of a number of local authority airports and with the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities and Aerodrome Owners Association. Both these bodies have also been invited to submit written comments.
    Mr. Thompson: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he accept that when approving future airport companies—for example, in Norwich—it is vital that they should be responsive to small businesses and business generally in the area and that they should be free from any undue political interference?
    Mr. Spicer: I confirm that under our present proposals Norwich airport will become a public limited company. I also confirm what my hon. Friend said. Our objective in turning airports, such as Norwich, into public limited companies is that they should be insulated from political interference and, as far as possible, operate as commercial undertakings.
    Mr. McCrindle: Is it correct that Manchester international airport would be prepared to change to a public limited company subject to the board of directors' continuing to consist entirely of Manchester city councillors? If so, will my hon. Friend confirm that that does not conform with the idea laid down by the Government?
    Mr. Spicer: I confirm that Manchester city has suggested how it might turn the airport into a public limited company. I also confirm that we are dissatisfied with a number of aspects of those proposals; in particular, those which try further to link the city with the airport.
    Mr. Anderson: That matter must be seen in the general context of the Government's ideological views on privatisation. Can the Minister tell us of other comparable countries where the major airports are in private hands?
    Mr. Spicer: There is no question but that this is a pace-setting venture, which is one reason why so many other countries are full of admiration for what the Government are doing.
    Mr. Favell: Has my hon. Friend read the comments made by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster this weekend about Manchester city council? Can we rely upon my hon. Friend to ensure that the management of Manchester international airport, the region's most important asset, never falls into the hands of Manchester city council?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government have no proposals to compel the privatisation of Manchester airport, but they are determined to set up a public limited company which will operate commercially and not be subject to political interference by the city.
    Mr. Snape: Does the Minister accept that the proposal currently being considered by his Department is to set up a public limited company owned jointly by the Manchester city council and the passenger transport executive, not one

    11
    owned wholly by the city council? What representations have been received from airlines, airport users or passengers in Manchester complaining about the present position or the city council's proposals? Why is it necessary to deprive locally elected councillors, of any party, of a say in the future running of an airport into which public money has been ploughed over the years and which has been a credit to municipal enterprise?
    Mr. Spicer: The Government's intention has been clearly set out. The local authorities have a choice as to whether they set up joint boards comprised of the districts or a passenger transport authority-based system. It is for the local authorities to decide. The Government say that that decision— which, in the case of Manchester, has been delayed—must be made quickly. If the decision is not made within the foreseeable future—that must mean by the end of this year—the Government will have to insist on a passenger transport authority-based system.
    On the hon. Gentleman's general point, we are not convinced, and we suspect that some Labour-controlled authorities may not be convinced, that using taxpayers' and ratepayers' money to support and develop airports is the best way to spend that money. It is much better to allow private enterprise to do so, and a number of Socialist-controlled authorities believe that.

    Local Transport (Grants)
    Mr. Tony Lloydasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met representatives of the passenger transport executives to discuss the current and prospective level of Government grant for local transport.
    Mr. David Mitchell: Rate support grant for the metropolitan counties and for the passenger transport authorities that will succeed them will depend on their grant-related expenditure assessments and on their actual expenditure. For the first three years, the new PTAs will be constrained by precept control under the Rates Act 1984, and I am currently considering the authorities' applications for redetermination of their expenditure levels. Other grants are available for public transport capital projects under section 56 of the Transport Act 1968.
    Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister aware that there is considerable concern in Greater Manchester that both the quality and the quantity of bus services will deteriorate as a result of cuts in the grants available to passenger transport executives and the effect of the Transport Act 1985? What specific guarantees can he give that that will not happen? What guarantees can he also give that the light rapid transport system will be allowed to go into operation?
    Mr. Mitchell: We are waiting to see and consider all aspects of the light rapid transport system to ascertain whether it represents an economical and sensible use of resources.
    With regard to fears about the deterioration of bus services in Manchester, I should have thought that, after the substantial arguments during the passage of the Transport Bill, the people of Manchester would by now have realised that the fears constantly peddled by public representatives in the area have no validity whatever. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has provided the full amounts necessary to allow existing concessionary
    12
    fares to continue. Advice on revenue support is based on expenditure falling into line with the Public Expenditure Survey Committee provision.

  ATTORNEY-GENERAL

    PCW Syndicate
    Mr. Stephen Rossasked the Attorney-General, in the light of the findings of the disciplinary committee at Lloyd's in the Peter Cameron Webb syndicate case, what steps are being taken to prosecute those involved.
    The Solicitor-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): A strong fraud investigation group is vigorously engaged in seeking the required evidence, but any criminal prosecution must be founded on evidence that is both available and admissible in criminal proceedings in this country. Serious delay has been imposed by the location of certain evidence in a foreign jurisdiction. I hope that that difficulty can be overcome.
    Mr. Ross: Is the Solicitor-General aware that at least two of my constituents have lost, or are likely to lose, as much as £200,000 due to the activities of Mr. Peter Cameron Webb and his associates? If it is possible for Lloyd's disciplinary committee to adjudicate on those people and to impose substantial fines and penalties, why is it not possible for the hon. and learned Gentleman's Department and the Director of Public Prosecutions to bring the guilty people before the courts?
    The Solicitor-General: I naturally sympathise with all who have lost as a result of the transactions with which the investigations are concerned, but in order to bring proceedings to a successful conclusion in the criminal jurisdiction of this country evidence must be available not only in a form that is admissible in those proceedings but from witnesses who are prepared to attend. That is the distinction.
    Mr. Stanbrook: In view of its success in this and other cases, is my hon. and learned Friend satisfied that the fraud investigation group has sufficient funds to continue its good work in these respects?
    The Solicitor-General: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his concern. When the group was set up, it was resourced on a basis sufficient for its expected work load. Those resources are now seriously stretched and are under review.
    Mr. Merlyn Rees: Whether the fraud investigation squad is big enough and has the right resources is an important question, but can the Solicitor-General assure the House that Lloyd's is co-operating with the investigation group?
    The Solicitor-General: Lloyd's is governed by its own legislation in the form of byelaws. The Director of Public Prosecutions is in renewed discussion with Lloyd's as to ways in which Lloyd's can make available transcripts of its disciplinary proceedings without infringing its obligations under its own legislation. The fact that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act comes into force in its material particulars on 1 January next year may well be helpful.
    Mr. Dykes: In view of the significant answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr.

    13
    Stanbrook), will my hon. and learned Friend now reassure the House, as is logical in the light of what he has said, that the staff of this vital department will be increased to deal adequately with the growing number of fraud cases?
    The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will know that the issue of resources does not rest exclusively with me. With his long experience in the House, he will appreciate where my hopes lie from the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
    Mr. Gould: Was the Solicitor-General implying in his answer to the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) that the Lloyd's byelaws somehow impinge upon the obligation of Lloyd's to disclose information that might be relevant to the commission of a criminal offence? If so, does he accept that that is a powerful reinforcement of the argument that Lloyd's cannot be allowed to remain in that position for much longer?
    The Solicitor-General: I do not think that the conclusion to the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question is justified by the premise. As I understand it, there are difficulties about the power of Lloyd's to make available a transcript in circumstances in which criminal proceedings are not on foot. The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Director of Public Prosecutions may wish to see transcripts as an aid to his investigation, but he cannot as yet say that proceedings are on foot.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has my hon. and learned Friend heard the proposition that even if there is a marginal risk that a prosecution might not succeed, it is sometimes considered to be of sufficient importance to justify some risk being taken?
    The Solicitor-General: The DPP's critics are extremely versatile. The Director is criticised when a prosecution ends in an acquittal, on the basis that the evidence could never have been sufficient. He is also criticised for not venturing prosecutions, even though there is a less than 50 per cent. chance of conviction. The guidelines laid down by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, a copy of which is deposited in the Library, make it clear that there should be a better than 50 per cent. chance. I believe that that is in the interests of justice.
    Mr. Nicholas Brown: The Solicitor-General must be aware that 324 serious frauds were reported in the United Kingdom in 1983 and that only 37 led to prosecutions. Does he accept that the allocation of only 16 senior legal assistants to the new fraud investigation group in the Crown Prosecution Service to cover the entire United Kingdom is totally inadequate and will give the general public the impression that the only Act under which fraud will be prosecuted is the old pals' act?
    The Solicitor-General: I think that the hon. Gentleman's joke deserved a better laugh than it received. There were 26 persons awaiting trial on indictment in November 1984 and there are 77 now. The principal assistant director drew attention to that in The Times last Saturday. That shows sufficiently the Director's determination to prosecute fraud whenever sufficient admissible evidence is available. It shows also that, with the resources presently available to him, he has been getting on with the job. As to whether he needs more resources, I have said to the House what I want to say.

    Anglo-Irish Agreement
    Mr. Adleyasked the Attorney-General whether he has yet had any discussions with his counterpart in the Eire Government since the signing of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.
    The Solicitor-General: No, Sir.
    Mr. Adley: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that the two Governments have expressed the intention to intensify action against terrorism, which will be, and is, widely welcomed by sane, normal people, certainly in England, Scotland and Wales? Will he take a message from the House, and from most of our constituents, that he and his counterpart in the Government of the Irish Republic have our warm good wishes for success in their stated objectives?
    The Solicitor-General: I am deeply grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. I believe that reassurance on the agreement between the two Governments will grow as its terms become more widely understood.
    Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Is the Solicitor-General aware that his opposite number has publicly stated that the implications of the agreement go far beyond consultation? Does he agree with that?
    The Solicitor-General: My answer is no to both parts of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. The agreement is perfectly explicit. I believe that all concerned—I am certain that this applies to the Attorney-General for the Republic of Ireland—are capable of interpreting and construing both its meaning and effect.

    Crown Prosecution Service
    Mr. Nicholas Brownasked the Attorney-General if he will make a statement regarding the establishment of the new Crown Prosecution Service.
    The Solicitor-General: Good progress has been made towards the establishment of the service in all areas, but especially in the six metropolitan counties and in the counties of Durham and Northumberland, where it will become operational on 1 April 1986. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made the necessary commencement order in respect of those areas last week, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General has made the regulations under which the transfer of staff to the new service will be effected. Elsewhere, chief Crown prosecutors have been designated for 24 out of 25 areas, and they are actively planning the structure of the service in those areas.
    Mr. Brown: The Solicitor-General will recall that at Question Time on 1 July 1985, the Attorney-General assured me that it was the Government's intention that it should be a
    "properly remunerated service which will attract talented people and offer a good career structure."—[Official Report, 1 July 1985; Vol. 82, c. 13.]
    How can that assurance be reconciled with the staff transfer regulations tabled last Friday, which reduce the wage rate in the new service from what is currently paid? How can such Dickensian meanness be reconciled with the Prime Minister's statement that no resources will be spared in the fight against crime?
    The Solicitor-General: I have always said to the House—and it has been the consistent view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General—that we must offer such terms and conditions as will attract, retain and motivate people of the necessary high quality. Equally, we must ensure that the taxpayer is not presented with a tax bill that is higher than necessary. We had some experience of that with previous reorganisations. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I was recently able to offer improved terms. We have reached the point at which those two objectives can be achieved.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware of the threat to the integrity of the dual profession system that is posed by the Crown Prosecution Service, which will inevitably try to press the frontiers of rights of audience further than has hitherto been acceptable? Will my hon. and learned Friend give an undertaking that the Government will resist these pressures?
    The Solicitor-General: The Government's position has been expressed by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in accepting the advice of the Benson Royal Commission that the professions should continue to have divided functions. That remains the position of the Government, and I see no danger of the sort to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. It is in the public interest, which is the only criterion that counts, that matters should remain as they are.

  OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

    South Africa
    Mr. Stuart Hollandasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the South African Development Corporation conference in the light of the political situation in South Africa.
    The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): We give our support to this organisation, especially to its work in improving regional economic links. We have already pledged £12 million towards such projects. I plan to attend the next SADCC meeting wih donors, which takes place in Zimbabwe in January.
    Mr. Holland: We are delighted to hear that the Minister will be at the Zimbabwe meeting. Presumably he is aware that SADCC estimates costs of at least £1,000 million from the destabilisation in the front-line states caused by South Africa. Can he assure the House that there will be a significant net increase in the United Kingdom's contribution to SADCC over and above what he has said? Does he dissociate himself from the Prime Minister's remarks, before she went to Nassau, that the front-line states could not expect any increased aid in the event of biting sanctions taking effect?
    Mr. Raison: I am considering the possibility of further assistance and whether I can announce anything of that sort at the SADCC meeting. However, there is no doubt that sanctions would bite heavily on many SADCC member countries, and one would have to think hard before coming to the view that that was a good thing.
    Mr. Anderson: Does the Department or the Commonwealth have any contingency plans to deal with such an occurrence?
    Mr. Raison: No, Sir.

    Ethiopia (RAF Aid)
    Mr. Chapmanasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what has been the cost of the Royal Air Force's contribution in distributing emergency aid in Ethiopia; and if he will make a statement about its future role in such situations.
    Mr. Raison: As I announced last week, the British airlift, which has made such a magnificent contribution to relief operations in Ethiopia since November 1984, will be discontinued in the latter part of December. I expect the cost to have been about £21 million by the time the operation ends. The services have also made a valuable contribution to the recent relief operations in Mexico and Columbia. I am sure that the Ministry of Defence will continue to do all it can in the future.
    Mr. Chapman: I applaud the initiative taken by the Government. Has my right hon. Friend estimated the number of lives that the airlift has saved? Will he confirm that the airlift is being withdrawn because there are sufficient lorries available for the distribution of food, and that roads that were impassable are again capable of use?
    Mr. Raison: My hon. Friend has stated the reasons for withdrawing the airlift. I cannot give a realistic figure for the number of lives that have been saved, but about 31,000 tonnes of food aid have been airlifted over the past year, and the Royal Air Force has flown on average 10 hours every day since November 1984—a remarkable performance.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: I add my congratulations to the RAF on its magnificent achievement. In view of the terrible happenings in Colombia and Mexico, is there not a case for this relief work to be put on a more permanent basis, if only in reserve?
    Mr. Raison: If the hon. Gentleman reflects, he might feel that that is wrong. The valuable part of our contribution in Latin America has been the fact that we have been able to draw on the forces in Belize to operate rapidly. We could not possibly have forces dotted across the world for such a purpose.
    Mr. Bowen Wells: I add my congratulations to the RAF, which has set such a fine example to all people in assisting those in dire need and famine conditions. In future, does my right hon. Friend intend to use more charter aircraft, in particular, to help Sudanese famine victims, where we also contributed Hercules transport planes for use as a bridge from east to west Sudan?
    Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his tribute to the RAF, which the House shares. Army air dispatchers have also played a valuable part in the airdrop operations in Ethiopia. It is true that we have used charter aircraft in the Sudan. It is our job to judge what is best and most suited to any emergency that may arise.
    Mr. Fisher: Before the Minister made his decision to withdraw this excellent assistance, did he manage to have any discussions with the Ethiopian Government to assure himself that the most remote areas, which have received assistance by this route, will continue to get grain? Contrary to what the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Chapman) said, some areas on the higher plateaux cannot be reached by road.
    Mr. Raison: I saw the head of the Ethiopian relief and rehabilitation commission, Major Dawit, and he told me that he had no complaint about our decision. There are and always will be remote areas, but I am satisfied that our decision is right and humane.

    International Fund for Agricultural Development
    Mr. Nicholas Bakerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government plan to make a further contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Deakinsasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the present United Kingdom contribution to the International Fund for Agricultural Development; and if he intends to increase this.
    Mr. Raison: We have so far contributed £30.9 million to IFAD. Negotiations in respect of the next replenishment, to cover the years 1985 to 1987, are still not completed. If and when that replenishment is agreed, the Government plan to contribute to it the same percentage of the OECD share as we contributed to the first replenishment.
    Mr. Baker: That answer is welcome to many of us. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Third world countries want help in developing agriculture? Will he try to ensure that, as a proportion of our total aid, our contribution to this fund is increased in future years?
    Mr. Raison: I agree that the development of agriculture is a high priority throughout the Third world. IFAD does a good job, but I remind my hon. Friend that the more we put into multilateral agencies such as this, the less is available for our own bilateral programme, which also does a good job, and which, unlike IFAD, is overwhelmingly targeted on poor countries and on giving grants rather than loans.
    Mr. Deakins: In view of the rapid population growth in many parts of Africa, should we not both multilaterally and bilaterally give much greater priority to resources for raising domestic food production? Should that not be a top priority in all our programmes?
    Mr. Raison: Yes, I agree that the raising of domestic food production in these African countries is one of the principal targets of my Department and also of the European Community.

    Famine (Prevention)
    Mr. Spearingasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has any
    18
    plans for the expansion of those scientific units of his Department whose work concerns the prevention of famine.
    Mr. Raison: I have no present plans for their expansion.
    Mr. Spearing: If, as the Minister has just said to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), increasing food production is one of the principal targets of Her Majesty's Government, why have they cut research services at the Tropical Development and Research Institute and the Land Resources Development Centre? Is he aware that the latter has had to turn down applications for work on preventing famine? Would not one tenth, or even one twentieth, of the sum properly spent on the RAF work in Ethiopia transform the work of these departments and restore the Government's cuts?
    Mr. Raison: There have been cuts in our scientific units, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, but they are still capable of doing an extremely valuable job. They have never been able to take on all the work that they have been asked to do. Obviously there are limitations on their resources. However, I assure the House that we value them highly, and their work is a valuable complement to the emergency relief work that we do.

    Disasters (Relief Aid)
    Mr. Knowlesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he is satisfied that his Department is able to respond rapidly with relief aid to disasters.
    Mr. Raison: Experience in Africa, Mexico, Colombia and elsewhere has shown that my Department, and in particular our disaster unit, is well able to respond rapidly and effectively.
    Mr. Knowles: May we have an assurance that that also applies to the EC, because liaison is often necessary?
    Mr. Raison: The EC does not have a disaster unit as such. On the other hand it has, with a good deal of prodding from ourselves, very much strengthened its ability to provide emergency relief over the past year.
    Mr. Holt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) was not present when his question was called and we went on to the next question. The Opposition spokesman was then allowed to refer to that question—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I know, and I should not have allowed it.

Liverpool City Council
3.31 pm
Mr. David Alton(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Environment what discussions he has had with Liverpool city council or its advisers about the financial arrangements made by the city council for the remainder of the current financial year.
The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I have consistently refused to have any discussions with Liverpool city council. My officials have informed the city council and the commercial organisations concerned that deferred purchase arrangements undertaken by local authorities do not require Government approval and that such arrangements carry no Government guarantee.
Mr. Alton: Can the Secretary of State confirm that the payment of nearly £30 million in interest on the loan will, when added to Liverpool's existing debt of £700 million, not only mortgage Liverpool up to the hilt but give it the dubious distinction of becoming the district council with the biggest council debt in Britain? What assurances are being given by the council to Phillips and Drew about balancing the city council's books next year, especially in view of the comments of Mr. Tony Mulhearn, the president of the unlamented and late district Labour party, that the Militants in Liverpool intend to plunge the city into chaos again next year?
Will the right hon. Gentleman also confirm that that interest is at a higher rate than that offered by the Public Works Loan Board? What questions has he asked about the source of that funding, which comes via Swiss clearing banks, which are notoriously the providers of some of the dirtiest money in the world? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that as serious questions remain unanswered about rate support grant and housing investment programmes, he should now meet a delegation of leaders from all the parties in Liverpool?
Mr. Baker: I have no standing in the relationship between Liverpool city council and its financial advisers. The council agreed this year's budget only last Friday, let alone settling next year's budget, but again that is a matter for Liverpool city council. The people of Liverpool have been bought a breathing space at great future cost, which will start coming through in 1987–88. It is the old Socialist solution—borrow, borrow, borrow now; pay, pay, pay later.
Mr. Malcolm Thornton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people, not just in Liverpool, but throughout Merseyside, view with considerable suspicion the fudged agreement that Liverpool city council has been able to come up with and see it merely as a postponement of the inevitability of the bankruptcy of Liverpool?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is right to be concerned. This is a postponement. The city council refused to treat seriously most of the Stonefrost report's recommendations. As I have already made clear, this is only postponing the day of reckoning for Liverpool.
Mr. Eric S. Helfer: Is it not clear that the money that Liverpool city council has been forced to borrow from Swiss banks should have come from Government sources, and that the reason for the crisis in
20
Liverpool is the Government's policy? Over a period of time the Government have deliberately refused to meet the city council to discuss the matter and have tried to bankrupt the city for political gain. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the Liberal party's proposals had been accepted last Friday Liverpool would have been back to square one and would have run out of money?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Hon. Members may say "Nonsense", but if they and the creeps in the Liberal party—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will rephrase that remark.
Mr. Hafer: If the hon. Gentleman and the honourable creeps in the Liberal party—
Mr. Speaker: Order. That is better, but not good enough.
Mr. Hafer: If I am allowed to say "crawlers", Mr. Speaker, I shall say so. They are responsible for what has happened.
May I also draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to an interesting article in today's edition of The Guardian, by Geoff Andrews? It illustrates how Liverpool is at last beginning to deal with its housing problems. Would it not be better for the Government and other right hon. and hon. Members to concentrate on supporting Liverpool city council, instead of attacking it?
Mr. Baker: The hon. Gentleman seeks to lay blame other than where it should truly lie. He seeks to blame the Liberals, whether they are creeping or crawling. He seeks to blame the Government, although they were the subject of a campaign of direct blackmail. The councillors of the city of Liverpool must be responsible for putting their own house in order. They have conducted a sustained campaign of blackmail against the Government. No effort has been spared in this campaign to hit the employees, to crush the voluntary sector and to endanger the welfare of the people of Liverpool. Everything has to be sacrificed to promote the ambition and to flatter the vanity of a few councillors.
Mr. Fred Silvester: Is not one of the outstanding features of this settlement the fact that the people of Liverpool will have to carry a future burden for present advantage? Will my right hon. Friend draw attention to other councils which are stacking up future difficulties for exactly the same reason?
Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend is prescient, and he is correct to be worried about what I believe is implied in his question—the tactics that might be used by the city of Manchester. If councils get up to dubious financial tricks, they will solve nothing. They are not facing the responsibility of running their cities efficiently, fairly and properly. They cannot shuffle off that responsibility.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that Liverpool faces massively serious problems over and above the grotesque activities of the Militant Tendency? Is he aware that job losses in the area since his party came to power have been double the national average? As a budget settlement has now been reached, what new action do the Government intend to take to help Liverpool andthe surrounding area?
Mr. Baker: The rate support grant system recognises the inner city deprivation that faces Liverpool. Of all metropolitan districts, the city of Liverpool has the second

21
highest grant-related expenditure assessment. The Government recognise that problem. They have provided the city of Liverpool with £30 million over and above its grant entitlement for the Merseyside task force and for city projects, some of which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, have been undertaken in his constituency. In addition, I provide an extra £20 million a year for the docklands development corporation. For the area of Merseyside, which is broader than the city of Liverpool, Government agencies and Departments provide about £1 billion a year, of which £400 million is spent in the city of Liverpool.
Mr. John Heddle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his steadfastness in not becoming involved in the internal Labour party political squabble is much welcomed? Will he confirm that the only way— [Interruption.] in which the city of Liverpool will attract real wealth and jobs is by—
Mr. David Winnick: Rachmanite.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not say that.
Mr. Winnick: It is true, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the only way in which the city of Liverpool will attract real jobs, wealth and prosperity is if the city council runs its affairs on truly democratic and accountable lines?
Mr. Baker: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. If I had not stood fast in this matter but had shown that I was prepared to negotiate or give way, it would have been a very bad day for local government in our country. Every council would have known that it could use such revolutionary tactics, the purpose of which was to create chaos in Liverpool and suffering for its people.
Mr. Ken Eastham: As the Minister referred to Manchester, may I remind him that Manchester runs a very successful municipal airport—probably the most successful in the country—which contributes to the rates of the city? How, therefore, can the Minister justify taking that airport away from the city of Manchester?
Mr. Baker: I think that that question goes a little wide, and it was dealt with in the abolition debate.
Mr. Richard Ryder: Is my right hon. Friend aware that thousands of my constituents, who have seen billions of pounds of public money poured into Liverpool, will be relieved at the Government's robust approach to the issue?
Mr. Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend. If the Government had decided in any way to give in to Liverpool, there would have been repercussive effects upon the whole of local government finance. Many councils made it clear that they did not want me in any way to accommodate Liverpool's demands, and many of those councils are under Labour control.
Mr. John Cartwright: Is the Minister aware that it is not only Manchester that seems intent on following the Liverpool example? Are not a number of London boroughs now well down the Liverpool road? When they run out of money, will they, too, conclude one of these curious deals with the gnomes of Zurich? If so,
22
will that not drive a coach and horses through the Government's much professed claim about controlling local government spending?
Mr. Baker: In the past, such deals have usually been entered into by local authorities for relatively small sums for bridging finance. As has been made clear today by several hon. Members, that is a very imperfect—and I think fundamentally wrong—approach to local government finance, because it postpones the day of reckoning and means that the costs will be very much higher when they begin to come through—which I believe will be within two years for Liverpool.
Mr. John Watts: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, even at the supposed height of the financial crisis, Liverpool city council was able to scratch together sufficient money to pay the bailiffs who were about to repossess Councillor Hatton's official car? Does my right hon. Friend not find that a strange priority for the city council?
Mr. Baker: I now find little strange in the decisions of Councillor Hatton, but I agree that that was one of the more bizarre events of the past few days.
I understand that Councillor Hatton was, at one time, intending to appear in a Christmas pantomime. He does not have to wait until Christmas—he has been running a pantomime for the past year, but has had to withdraw because even the front end of the horse objected.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Secretary of State aware that since 1979 this Government have given to the better-off almost £12,000 million through capital transfer tax, capital gains tax and other concessions? Is he further aware that the argument in Liverpool is about £25 million—a small sum compared with £12,000 million? Had the Government forked out that money earlier this year, rather than giving massive tax concessions to the better off in society, there would have been no problems in Liverpool and no deficit budget strategy. Indeed, the problems of the city would be en route for solution.
Mr. Baker: The question is not just one of £25 million. It was a deliberate and sustained attempt to undermine the whole of the local government finance system— [Interruption.] —and that system was approved by the House of Commons. It is not unreasonable to expect local authorities to implement and approve arrangements agreed by this House.
Mr. Campbell-Savours: The right hon. Gentleman should get his priorities right.
Mr. Baker: I would have said that that was getting my priorities right.
Mr. Derek Spencer: If there are maggots in the body politic of Liverpool, there is warble fly in the body politic of Leicester. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that those two groups of pests do not get together and sting the long-suffering ratepayer in Leicester?
Mr. Baker: My hon. and learned Friend's knowledge of the insect world is greater than mine, but I have no doubt that, not in all but in several councils in our towns and cities, very Hard Left Left-wing councillors are being adopted. I only hope that people will have seen what

23
happens when the militants get in control, as in Liverpool, and that they will not seek to drive their cities and towns down that road.
Dr. John Cunningham: Now that the city council in Liverpool has balanced its budget, will the Secretary of State agree to meet the leader of the city council so that the future problems of the city, which are far from resolved, may be discussed? Will he, in particular, agree to review the historically low target for expenditure, which is the root cause of the city's financial problems, as was highlighted by the Stonefrost report?
Does the Secretary of State recall his announcement of 20 November on housing investment cuts—cuts for the sixth successive year—and does he recognise that such cuts can only make a very serious situation in the city of Liverpool even worse? Will he refrain from misleading the House and the country by suggesting that the Government are concentrating their resources on the inner cities, when, for example, since 1979 Liverpool has lost almost £400 million in rate support grant and gained just under £80 million in urban programme, which is a net loss to the city's income of £320 million? It is untrue to suggest, as the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting, that somehow the Government have been bringing resources to the inner cities, when consistently they have been taking them away.
In view of the report of the Archbishop of Canterbury—[Interruption.] We understand why Conservative Members do not like even the Church condemning what the Government are doing in the inner cities. In view of the archbishop's report—which is just the latest in a long line of damning indictments of the Government's
24
inner city policy—will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the impact of the cuts on Britain's inner cities, and change policy?
Mr. Baker: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's point on housing is that one of the most distressing aspects of the whole Liverpool saga of the last year has been the way in which Liverpool city council has conducted a vendetta against the housing co-operative movement in Liverpool, a movement which we have strongly supported—[Interruption]—with resources. We shall be providing resources for the development in Eldon street.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether I would meet the leader of Liverpool city council—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which leader?"] They have an elected leader, who, I believe, is rather busy on Mr. Hatton's closed circuit television. I have always said that I should be willing to meet a delegation of members from Liverpool city council when they behave reasonably and legally, which is the position that I have with all other councils in the land.
The hon. Member went on to ask about providing resources for Liverpool. Some of the grant has been lost as a result of Liverpool city council refusing to run its services efficiently. Indeed, its services are about 30 per cent. more inefficiently run than those of the average metropolitan district.
The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Bishop of Liverpool and the Archbishop of Liverpool wrote an article in The Times in which they deplored the confrontation, which has to a great extent been manufactured by the Militant leadership of the city council. The bishops pointed to Militant's intransigence and unwillingness to engage in serious dialogue. I am glad to say that that is a matter on which I find myself at one with the Church.

Housing (Church of England Report)
3.50 pm
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, to discuss a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the report of the Church of England commission on urban priority areas".
The report deals with the comprehensive and catastrophic failure of Government policies in our cities in housing, in matters of poverty, taxation and employment, and in other fields.
The whole nation should thank the established Church of England for its objective investigation into the problems of our inner cities, and not least for its condemnation of the divisive and manifestly unfair housing policies pursued in the past six years. This highly objective report was undermined—
Mr. Tony Marlow rose
Mr. Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman should learn that he cannot intervene on a motion of this kind.
I was about to say that the report underlines and supports two opinions expressed by royal princes, Prince Philip and Prince Charles, on the very matters that I have raised.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that we do not bring members of the Royal Family into our arguments in this place.
Mr. Hamilton: I understand that, Mr. Speaker. I think the House is well aware of the point to which I am referring.
No one can doubt that the problems referred to are specific and manifold. They are laid out in detail in The Times today, and effectively reply to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), who attempted to intervene. The Government were given advance copies of the report as a matter of courtesy, and with typical arrogance, brutality and intolerance they decided to jump the gun and to savage and rubbish the report before its official appearance tomorrow. The Government's response to the report is as damaging and as offensive as their reponse to the Duke of Edinburgh's report on the same matter. The Government's response is to savage the messenger rather than the policies on which the commission commented.
26
That all the matters referred to in the report are urgent cannot be in dispute. On every day that passes the decay in our inner cities goes on remorselessly, and it is there for everybody to see, except those who refuse to see it—the Ministers concerned. The decline and decay are worrying to everyone in the country, excpet Ministers. The Government are flying in the face of reality and of all the evidence that is available to every hon. Member, whatever his or her constituency.
It is rather significant that The Times reports today that "Government reaction"—
that is, to the report—
"now appears to be in marked contrast to the high level of co-operation the commission received from Government Departments, five of which submitted evidence."
That is sufficient condemnation of the Government in round terms.
I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that you will refuse my request, on the ground that the criticism of the Government is so comprehensive as to be encompassed in a future debate—an inquest into the failure of the Government in the past six years in all the matters to which I have referred. Nevertheless I ask you to enable us to debate the report as a matter of urgency, because it will not go away. There are bound to be some debates on it in the course of the next few months.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he believes should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the report from the Church of England concerning the failure of the Government's inner city and housing policies."
In his concluding statement the hon. Gentleman said that he thought there would be many debates on the matter in the future. I have listened to what he has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter that he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &c.
Ordered,
That the draft Restrictive Trade Practices (Services) (Amendment) Order 1985 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments &c.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Orders of the Day

  Dockyard Services Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.56 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During business questions on Thursday I raised with the Leader of the House the question of the provision of a report that is available to members of the Select Committee on Defence if they choose to go to a room upstairs and read it. It is a restricted report, but it is also available to the contractors.
  I shall quote from phase I of the Touche Ross report to ut my point of order into context. It
  "constitutes an interim stage in a process which will eventually result in a significantly"—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Is the report being given as evidence to a Select Committee? The hon. Gentleman should not quote from a report that is before a Select Committee.
  Mr. Douglas: I understand that the phase I report is available in the Library of the House. It is generally available and is not restricted.
  Mr. Speaker: What then is the point of order?
  Mr. Douglas: I am trying to put my request into context. I shall begin the quotation again. The report "constitutes an interim stage in a process which will eventually result in a significantly longer and more detailed report. This full report, referred to herein as phase II, will attempt to provide prospective contractors with comprehensive background information to assist the preparation of bids for the operation of Rosyth/Devonport dockyards."
  The phase H report, which is classified and is available to Members of the Select Committee, is also available to those who are making bids for the dockyard, on the basis that they need to know the nature of the assets for which they will be bidding. The House requires equivalent information before it can adequately ascertain the nature and purpose of the Bill the Second Reading of which the Minister is anxious to begin.
  I appreciate that some of the information is likely to be classified, because I have read the document and know that it contains some biographical detail. The Minister is furrowing his forehead, but I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to examine the report before the Committee stage or, more appropriately, before we go any further with the Bill. I ask that the full content of the phase II report be made available to the House so that we can have the same information as is available to those in private sector industry, who may or who may not be friends of the Minister, and who are bidding for those vital public assets.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the point raised by the hon. Gentleman is a matter for me. If the report is before a Select Committee—
  Mr. Douglas: It is not.
  Mr. Speaker: If it is not, and if, as the hon. Gentleman said, other hon. Members can refer to it, I cannot see that there is any point of order for me. The report is available. I do not understand what the point of order is about.
  Mr. Ian Mikardo: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is true that a small number
  28
  of hon. Members can go and see the report, but the overwhelming mojority of hon. Members are not allowed to see it. One understands that there are circumstances in which that must be so, because some reports must be restricted, but what conceivable justification is there for denying to any hon. Member of the House information that will be circulated round the offices of some companies? If it is freely available in the offices of a company, it cannot be all that sensitive, and thus it should be available to hon. Members. Is it suggested that hon. Members are less trustworthy than clerks in the offices of a company?
  Mr. Speaker: I am sympathetic to the point of arder, but I have to repeat that it is not a matter for me. It is up to the Government to make reports available.
  4.2 pm
  The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Norman Lamont): I am not sure whether this is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, but it is common for certain information to be available to defence contractors, or potential defence contractors, which is not widely available to the House of Commons. Sometimes classified information is available to Select Committees, particularly the Select Committee on Defence, which is not available to the House as a whole. That is the explanation. I shall look at the point that has been raised and see what information can be made available to the House. I do not make a commitment, but I shall see what can be done.
  Mr. Speaker: I call the Minister to move the Second Reading of the Bill.
  Mr. Lamont: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  I apologise to the House for the absence of the Secretary of State, who has to be abroad today at an important and long-standing NATO meeting. He has given his apologies to the Opposition Front Bench spokesmen.
  Mr. Michael Foot: I am sorry to interrupt at such an early stage, but the apology should be not only to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench but to the House. It is an extraordinary state of affairs. If it was known for a long time that there was an important engagement for the Secretary of State to attend, the debate could have been held on another day. Did the Minister's Department make a request to the Leader of the House for the date to be changed so that the Secretary of State could be here to present his Bill? Some of us remember the controversy over the Bill. For the right hon. Gentleman not to be here is a gross act of discourtesy to the House of Commons. We should like to hear the explanation.
  Mr. Lamont: My right hon. Friend has to be at a NATO defence planning meeting, which is an unavoidable commitment. There have been discussions through the usual channels about the timing of the debate. There were also discussions about extending the debate from the original half day to a whole day. That has contributed to the problem.
  Hon. Members will recall that my right hon. Friend made his statement on 23 July on the future of the royal dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth. He explained why the Government were convinced that the right way to proceed was for the Government to introduce private management into the royal dockyards, while the Government retained ownership of the fixed assets. The Government, in effect,

  29
  would be leasing the assets to commercial managers. Since that announcement, and despite further discussion, it remains the Government's view that, of the various options, private management under fixed-term contracts provides the greatest incentive to improving efficiency and reducing operating costs. The purpose of the Bill is to enable the Government to proceed with those plans.
  Ever since the Government came to office in 1979 we have attached the highest importance to improving and making more adequate the defences of the United Kingdom. For that reason, defence spending is over 20 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1979, of which the Government and their supporters are justifiably proud, but adequate defences are not ensured simply by increasing spending. That is not the only way in which to increase the security of the country. The Government, through their procurement policies, introducing new competition, and through their policies for improving the management of defence establishments, have been determined that within our large defence budget there should be increasing value for money. That means looking at the ways in which we have customarily conducted defence business, and also that in certain areas we must face the need for change.
  Over the past 15 years there have been many studies of the organisation of the dockyards, for example. the Mallabar report and the Speed report. The Public Accounts Committee has produced several reports, the Select Committee on Defence has produced reports, and there have been others. There have been many different recommendations, but all have agreed on the nature of the problems facing the dockyards. Everyone has agreed that there is room for improvement and that changes are necessary. Even the trade unions have said that they consider that there is a need for improvement. Even the Plymouth chamber of commerce, which, I freely admit, has been opposed to the Government's proposals, has said that at worst Her Majesty's dockyard is wasteful and non-competitive. On both sides there has been recognition of the need for improvement.
  Mr. Donald Stewart: Is the Minister aware that that is not the case at all? Many people who agree with the Minister's philosophy about privatisation, and many who share the Government's views on defence, are opposed to the change in the status of the dockyards. They do not agree that it is worth while.
  Mr. Lamont: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was listening to what I was saying. I did not say that all the reports agreed with the Government's conclusions. I said that they had all analysed the problem and said that improvements were necessary in the operation of the dockyards. That is incontestable.
  The Government believe that changes in three areas must be the basis of any new arrangements that are designed to bring about an improvement. First, the dockyards, as suppliers, must be separated from the fleet, as customers. Secondly, accounting procedures need to be introduced that will reflect normal commercial practice so that we know precisely the performance of the yards and the exact costs of meeting the fleet's requirements. Thirdly, local managers should be given more authority to manage. It is against those criteria that we have judged the different options.
  We set out those options for change in an open government defence document in April this year. The
  30
  options in that document range from full privatisation to a trading fund. We made it clear that our preferred option was the introduction of private commercial management. We made it clear that we were prepared to consider alternatives, but that those alternatives would have to he measured against the three criteria that I have described.
  The publication of that open government document marked the beginning of a period of consultation, which lasted just under three months. Before that there had been reactions to Mr. Levene's report, which had been leaked, and discussions for many years on the basis of the reports to which I referred. All interested parties were able to express their views. The Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee published reports in time for us to be able to take them into account.
  Although there was considerable criticism of the Government's proposals, the Government—as the Government are entitled to do—did not consider that any of the other options or any of the arguments put forward gave the same benefits in terms of the probability of improving efficiency, improving work practices and giving value for money. Once the Government had made it clear that they were determined to change the dockyards, many people and bodies then favoured change, although I doubt whether that willingness to change would have existed if the Government had not been determined to face the problem, which had been acknowledged in the past but which previous Governments had never faced.
  I shall now refer to the provisions of the Bill and to the areas of anxiety to the House and the work force. The Bill is limited. The concept of introducing private management is that contractors will tender to complete work in progress and for a programme of refit work for a period of seven years. The Government intend to set up two companies to operate each of the two dockyards, on or before vesting day, which is intended to be in April 1987. The management and work force associated with the dockyards would be transferred to those two companies. On vesting date, the commercial managers, selected by competition, would take over the companies and transfer their top and supporting management to them. The Ministry of Defence would then place contracts for the repair and refitting of ships with those companies.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: As this is an enabling Bill, will the Minister tell the House what percentage of the total amount of dockyards' work will be subjected to tender? Will it be more, or less, than 50 per cent.?
  Mr. Lamont: I shall deal with that in a moment. Perhaps I could develop my argument, but if the right hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt me, I shall give way again.
  Clause 1 governs the transfer of persons employed in the dockyards from Crown employers to a company formed under the Companies Acts, which would then become the employer.
  Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I should like to proceed a little further.
  Under clause 1, that company could be an employing or a management company. Those who have followed the matter in detail will know that we considered having two companies for each dockyard—an employing company and an operating company. That is consistent with the wording of the Bill, but the Government intend that there should be one company—an operating company—for

  31
  each dockyard. Trade unions and potential contractors made representations to us about that, and the Government responded by changing their view.
  Mr. Douglas: The Minister presents the case that the Government are opting for an operating company for each dockyard as if it were almost crystallised. For the benefit of the House, will he state the Government's thinking that led them to choose operating companies rather than employing companies with some corporate management structure?
  Mr. Lamont: The structure is simpler. Potential contractors and some trade unions felt that it was simpler and would give them a greater sense of security. That is why the Government changed their mind.
  Dr. David Owen: The Minister spoke of one operating company per dockyard, which means that the Government have excluded any possibility of splitting a dockyard into more than two or three separate parts with separate companies. Will he confirm that important point?
  Mr. Lamont: It is certainly our intention that there should be one company for each dockyard. I have not considered the option of splitting the dockyards, and, as far as I am aware, that is not under consideration.
  Before I develop in more detail precisely how the Government intend to proceed, I shall deal briefly with the other clauses.
  Mr. Merlyn Rees: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Lamont: I have given way many times.
  Mr. Rees: I only want to ask a short question. Clause 1(1) refers to
  "the qualified dockyard service employees,"
  who, in my day, were subject to both sections 1 and 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. They receive information about vessels, which is of importance to the Soviets and others, as the Americans are showing us. There is nothing in the Bill about the transference of those employees and whether they will remain subject to and have to sign a bit of paper under the Official Secrets Act, section 1—the spying clause—and section 2. If the matter is dealt with later in the Bill, I have asked my question at the wrong time, but does the Act apply?
  Mr. Lamont: That is not specified in the legislation, but obviously it is an important point. The same procedures as would normally apply to private defence contractors will apply. I do not foresee any great difficulties about that.
  Clause 2 provides that all land at present in the dockyards will, even after vesting day, and regardless of any rights which the contractor might otherwise have, be treated as Crown land for the purposes of the continued rights and powers of the Ministry of Defence police to operate in the dockyard. Clause 2 also ensures that a contractor does not acquire security of tenure if intentionally or otherwise he obtains the tenancy of dockyard land.
  Clause 3 provides for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to incur expenses in setting up and operating Companies Act companies to provide dockyard
  32
  services, and, for example, at the end of a fixed-term contract, or in time of tension or war, to assume the liabilities of the company.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: As my hon. Friend moved rapidly from clause 2 to clause 3, he told us of the powers that the Ministry of Defence police would have. Will the Devon and Cornwall constabulary have duties in respect to Devonport, for which it must make financial provision, but which it does not at present have in respect of the royal dockyard?
  Mr. Lamont: I do not think that that will be the case, because the military police will carry on in the same way. I shall certainly investigate my hon. Friend's point, and if I can give him any further information, I shall certainly do SO.
  Clause 1 allows the Secretary of State to transfer the ownership of each of the companies that he sets up to a third party, the contractor, who then operates the dockyards on his account. Clearly the selection of the third party concerns the House, and I shall describe the approach that the Government will adopt.
  No commitment will be entered into until the Bill has received Royal Assent. [Interruption.] This is big of me, is it not? There have been accusations that the Government were about to do that. Subject to satisfactory progress on the legislation, we shall in the spring issue an invitation to tender for the operation of each of the two dockyards. The tender will cover a period of seven years and will identify a core programme of work for each dockyard. That programme will be sufficient to make each dockyard viable, and, at the beginning, will certainly be equal to the present load of the two dockyards. It will be equivalent to some 70 per cent. of the refit programme.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will my hon. Friend make it clear that the Government have an open mind about the period of time involved? Is he aware that many of his hon. Friends feel that seven years is too short, and that 10 years would be more realistic, with a review after five years? Seven years is a tight period, considering the huge challenge that the management will face.
  Mr. Lamont: The Government originally thought of a five-year period, which we have already extended to seven years. I should have thought that a seven-year period was sufficient to judge the performance of a contractor. We want the contractor to be subject to competition pressure, to have an incentive, and to wonder whether his contract will be renewed. That is one of the main purposes of the Bill. I shall consider my hon. Friend's point, but seven years is a fairly long period.
  For the early years of the contract the core will be defined fairly precisely. For the later years it will inevitably be indicative of the work that we expect to be offered to each dockyard. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that a ship refitting programme of the scope and complexity of that of the Royal Navy inevitably changes and that there is no way in which we can guarantee, in 1986, that a particular amount of work will be needed on a particular ship in 1993. However, the broad shape and volume of the core programme can be laid down in the tender documents. The remainder of the naval programme will also be defined in the tender, but only for information at this stage, as it will be available for consultation between whichever United Kingdom companies wish to bid.

  33
  In responding, companies will be expected to put forward detailed proposals in two areas. First, there will be management proposals. The companies will have to submit in detail what their management proposals are, what the qualifications will be of those they intend to appoint to run the dockyards, and what their precise proposals are for reducing costs and increasing efficiency. We shall look at the financial standing of the companies, and we shall need to be satisfied that they are capable of doing the job.
  Secondly, part of the tender exercise will be to examine the extent to which the bidder is prepared to put himself at risk. We shall therefore be looking at the pricing proposals. Our intention is that work entering the dockyards should increasingly be negotiated on a fixed price basis rather than on a cost plus basis. We expect that after 18 months or two years about 75 per cent. of the work in the dockyards will be done on that basis. Obviously it will take time to achieve that, and we shall want to look at the pricing proposals for the early period as well. Therefore, bidders' proposals will be evaluated for their commitment and management and price competitiveness.
  We intend that the successful bidders should be identified in the autumn of 1986, and at the end of the year there would then be a short period of parallel running with the current management to ensure a smooth transition in April 1987 to full commercial management. At that time, my right hon. Friend would transfer to the contractor the ownership of the company in which the dockyard work force and management had been placed.
  Initial contracts for a period of seven years will allow the new management plenty of time to build the two dockyards into a fully commercial pattern of operation and a further substantial period of full commercial activity. After the contract has run for the seven years, we shall look at the achievements of the two commercial companies that have been running the dockyards to see whether we wish to hold a further competition to find new managers for a subsequent contract. In this way, we shall maximise the level of competition.
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Is the Minister suggesting that there will be a period of 18 months at the beginning, followed by a period of seven years, or is he saying that after 18 months there will be a period of five and a half years, when a decision will be taken?
  Mr. Lamont: The contract will run for seven years. I was saying that it will be some time before there can be a fixed price basis for 75 per cent. of the work that we expect. The whole thing, from beginning to end, will run for seven years. The 18 months to two years is merely the transitional period during which we build up to the proportion of fixed price contracts that we want to achieve.
  We believe that this approach will provide competition in three different ways. There will be competition between the commercial managers for the initial contract; there will be the continuing competition between the two dockyards and the other ship repair companies for the unallocated programme; and there will be continuous competitive pressure for the next contract—the pressure on existing operators to show that their performance is good enough so that they can win the contract in the future.
  We believe that this approach can produce worthwhile savings. Indeed, we owe it to the taxpayer to ensure that the dockyards are operated in the most efficient way
  34
  possible. There is no conflict between efficiency and military requirements. Indeed, it is very much in the interests of the Royal Navy that our dockyards should be operated in the most efficient way.
  None of the proposals that have been put forward as alternatives in our view offer either this level of competition or the prospect of savings and improved efficiency. A trading fund, which some Opposition Members recommended, would not meet the criteria of competition, and would be able to price itself into profit in a way in which the private sector cannot. At the other extreme, full privatisation would simply mean moving from a state monopoly power to a different set of owners and a private sector monopoly.
  As my right hon. Friend made clear when he announced his decision in July, he would be prepared to consider the possibility of running the dockyards as a Government-owned public limited company if the discussions with established companies do not produce an attractive basis for operating our own commercial management proposals. The Bill provides for the Government to operate the dockyards in that way if that proves necessary. However, I am glad to report that there is considerable industrial interest in tendering for the management contract.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Given that the Minister is not ruling out the possibility of a publicly owned company running the dockyards, why does the Bill say that it is designed to transfer persons engaged in dockyard services to the private sector? In Committee, does the Minister intend to rule out the possibility of, for example, debating a public corporation and a trading fund as part of the improvement of dockyard services?
  Mr. Lamont: I shall be happy to debate anything that the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise, provided it is in order. As I have made clear, the Bill provides for a Government-owned plc as an interim stage. I was merely saying that if, for any reason, a sufficient number of companies did not want to tender for the contract, or if we did not think that those who tendered were suitable, a Government-owned plc was something on which we could fall back. However, it is the Government's intention to proceed to full contractualisation.
  When my right hon. Friend announced the Government's decision, he stated his intention to seek competitive tenders from British companies to manage the dockyards, and he referred to those that had already show an interest. Since then there has been considerable contact between the Department and companies with an interest. Hon. Members may be aware of announcements by the Balfour Beatty/Weir Group and by Babcock International/ Thorn EMI to form groups to prepare bids for the operation of Rosyth. Trafalgar House/Plessey/A and P Appledo:re formed a similar grouping last year to consider a bid for Devenport. Other companies, whose interest has been made public, include British Aerospace, Northern Engineering Industries, GEC, Taylor Woodrow, Tyne Ship Repair and Press Offshore. Representatives from the interested companies have made visits to both dockyards and have been supplied with information so that they can provide responses to an invitation to tender.
  Clauses 1(4) to (6) deal with the consequences for personnel who are transferred from the Crown to a company. We understand how unsettling any change, particularly one as significant as this, is for the work force.

  35
  We are prepared to have further discussions with representatives of the work force so that at the very least they can hear, understand and inform their members of the correct implications for the work force. Misinformation, intentional or otherwise, is in no one's long-term interests, and we have tried extremely hard to explain to the work force precisely what is involved in these proposals.
  I come now to the terms and conditions of employment. They are obviously of considerable interest, but I feel that people have nothing to fear from them. Civil servants employed in the royal dockyards on vesting day who transfer to the company set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will cease to be civil servants, but will transfer on broadly the same terms and conditions of employment as they enjoy at present. That is secured by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, to which clause 1(4) refers. These regulations will ensure that most terms and conditions transfer unchanged to the new employer. There will, therefore, be no change, for example, in take-home pay, leave entitlement or retirement policy as a result of the transfer.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: What about pensions?
  Mr. Lamont: I am coming to pensions. Trade unions' current rights to negotiate on behalf of their members will transfer unchanged. In future they will be able to negotiate a better deal and, if there is improved performance, wages and rewards to mirror that improved performance. Under clause 1(6), staff transferring to the new company will not, of course, be entitled to redundancy compensation, because they are not being made redundant; they are transferring to a new employer. I emphasise that Civil Service levels of compensation will transfer in the same way as any other term or condition of service.
  I shall deal now with the important subject of pensions, which I mentioned earlier. These are specifically excluded from the 1981 legislation to which I referred. Employees in the dockyards are at present members of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. After vesting day, when they cease to be civil servants and cannot remain in the scheme, a new pension scheme will be established. We propose to set up such a scheme with benefits similar to those for the Civil Service. We took similar steps for staff who transferred from the Civil Service into the Royal Ordnance plc. We intend that there should be no worsening of pension provisions as a result of the transfer of employment. The benefits to be provided by the new scheme will mirror as closely as possible those of the principal Civil Service pension scheme. I hope that that will meet many of the unnecessary anxieties that have been expressed.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the years that someone has accrued in the Civil Service will count towards his pension entitlement or redundancy pay when he reaches pensionable age or is made redundant?
  Mr. Lamont: Yes, I confirm that. They will count in the same way. Proposals on future pension arrangements will be subject to full consultation with the employees and the trade unions. Separate pension arrangements will be made for those recruited into the dockyard operating
  36
  companies after vesting day. That will be a matter for the management of the operating companies, in consultation with the trade unions.
  During the consultation period, and since, many of the most vociferous of the Government's critics on this matter have, in a wholly alarmist and deliberate fashion, emphasised the potential job losses that they forecast as the result of the introduction of commercial management. My right hon. Friend made it clear that in April 1987 there would be a requirement to reduce the numbers employed in both dockyards—at Devonport from just over 13,000 to just over 11,000, and at Rosyth from 6,300 to about 5,900, over two years. Those savings are essential if we are to improve efficiency at both dockyards to allow them to compete effectively and, if possible, win extra work. The Government hope that the introduction of private management will make it possible for the dockyards to compete also for non-military work. Savings of the order that I have described will in any case be essential. They are necessary whatever future management system is chosen for the dockyards. They have nothing to do with the introduction of private management. Such measures are necessary anyway.
  From commercial management, we expect to see further improvements in efficiency through changes in working practices, more flexible management and reductions in overheads. The consequences of those improvements will be that fewer men will be needed to carry out the core programme of work, but, as I have said, that relates only to the core. An efficient dockyard will be competitive. A competitive dockyard should be able to gain additional work, and additional work should generate employment. Commercial management is not a risk. It offers a considerable opportunity for the dockyards.
  Mr. James Wallace: The Minister has said that the principal reason for the measure is savings, although he has not quantified those savings. He will be aware that the Bill's financial effects claim that although the changes
  "in the financial relationship between the Ministry of Defence and the dockyards"
  —are significant, they—
  "are unlikely to have a major effect on central Government expenditure."
  Why are we going through all these significant changes if the effect is to be so minimal?
  Mr. Lamont: The figures have been well debated by the Select Committee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee. I say this by way of illustration. The Government have always said that the savings after recovery of initial costs could be about £29 million to £33 million, which is about 7.5 per cent. of dockyard turnover. Inevitably, those figures are merely estimates. They are dependent upon whatever assumptions are made. The real test is whether the House and hon. Members believe that private sector management will be more efficient and better at obtaining new work and will be able to alter working practices. We cannot quantify those matters, but we remain convinced that private management can bring about the improvements which report after report have said are necessary. I cannot believe that savings of £33 million, or 7.5 per cent. of turnover, are insignificant in terms of Government expenditure. One document stated that the amount was insignificant in terms of the totality of Government expenditure, but I think that it is worth while

  37
  in terms of dockyard expenditure. Surely the Government must operate the dockyards and see that their structure is such that they operate in the most efficient way.
  Mr. Gordon Brown: Does the Minister accept that his figures of £29 million to £33 million must be set against £60 million of transitional costs necessary to set up the dockyard franchise scheme, and up to £200 million to set up the private pension scheme? If, as those figures show, the Minister is unlikely to save money in the 1980s and well into the 1990s, why is he proceeding with the scheme?
  Mr. Lamont: I said that that figure was after the recovery of the initial costs.
  Mr. Brown: Give me an answer.
  Mr. Lamont: That is the answer. It is the figure after recovery of the initial costs. We cannot say precisely what the savings will be. They depend upon the productivity that the new management obtains. Any figures given are an illustration. We believe strongly that private management is much more likely to generate efficiency and savings than is the case where the customer and the contractor are within the machinery of government.
  I shall deal with employment at Devonport, where anxiety is plainly felt about the immediate consequences of the job reductions anounced last April. The Ministry of Defence is working closely with the local authorities to encourage local enterprise. We have joined Plymouth council in setting up the Devonport development unit. One of its first activities has been to promote opportunities for defence subcontract work at an exhibition attended by firms from the south-west. More than 150 firms contacted the Ministry of Defence, with the result that a number of firms have been invited to tender for local purchase orders, and some have been successful. In addition, we are reviewing holdings of land in the area to see what land can be made available for industrial development.
  The consequences for local employment are much less severe at Rosyth, as the work load of the dockyard is increasing. The Government's commitment to Rosyth is clear from the massive investment that they are making in the dockyard to carry out Trident refits. I would take the Opposition's concern about unemployment at Rosyth far more seriously if they were not firmly committed to abandoning our only independent deterrent. If I were a worker at Rosyth dockyard, contemplating the future, I would be much more worried—[Interruption.] The Opposition clearly do not like the point that I am about to make. I should be more worried about the Labour party's defence policy being implemented than about the possibility of commercial management being introduced. The Opposition know that that is true and that it is the view of many of the workers at Rosyth.
  Throughout the Government's consideration of the future of the dockyards we have been guided by the need to do nothing which would endanger national security. That concern has been uppermost in the Government's mind in both the nuclear and conventional spheres. The decision to introduce commercial management into the dockyards was endorsed by the Navy Board. Ministers do not sit on the Navy Board. The decision that was taken was the preferred option not just of Ministers but of the Royal Navy. The Navy Board believes that national security will not be put at risk by the proposals.
  38
  Successive Administrations have proposed changes in the dockyards, but attempts to introduce change have come to nothing. Suddenly the Opposition are again endorsing proposals which they did not carry out when they were in government—proposals which have not worked in the past. Now is the time to make decisions about the matter. Devonport and Rosyth have served the Royal Navy and the country loyally for many generations and their long-term future is assured under the Government's proposals. The Government remain convinced that the introduction of commercial management, with the assets of the dockyards remaining firmly in Government hands, will provide a real spur to efficiency and savings which competition and renewable contracts will bring. The dockyards badly need those things. They will ensure that the operational requirements of the fleet are met, and will continue to be met, and that the strategic interests of the country are safeguarded. I commend the Bill to the House.
  4.43 pm
  Mr. Denzil Davies: The Minister and his colleagues have not argued the case for commercial or agency management of the dockyards. They have made various assertions about how much better such management would be, but no case has been put forward to prove that the dockyards would be more efficient in terms of the service that they give and will continue to give to the Royal Navy. The Minister's figures for savings are not illustrative but illusory and have no meaning whatsoever.
  I echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I accept that Ministers have to go abroad and attend important NATO) meetings, but—and I intend no disrespect to the Minister of State—the Secretary of State should have opened the debate. It may not have been necessary to have the debate today. It could have been put on at a different time. The Bill has only four clauses, and I do not suppose that it will last more than six months in Committee at this rate. Matters could have been arranged to enable the Secretary of State to be here to argue the case in respect of a substantial change that will affect the Royal Navy and thousands of dockyard workers in Devonport and Rosyth.
  The Minister made it clear that tonight we shall be voting on an enabling Bill for commercial and agency management of the dockyards. We shall not be voting for some kind of Government-owned company. That is the fall-back position in case the Secretary of State cannot find any contractors. We shall be voting for commercial management. I hope that Conservative Members who have anxieties about the matter will realise that that is what they will be voting for and that that is what they will have to debate in Committee.
  The Bill, especially the proposals behind it, is one of the most ill-prepared, poorly researched and irresponsible Bills which even the present Government have introduced over the last six years. The franchise or agency system —call it what one will—may be all right for fast food or other private establishments, but it is not suitable for complex organisations such as the royal dockyards.
  The main duty of the dockyards is to maintain the ships of the Royal Navy to the highest state of efficiency and readiness. The Opposition believe that the proposals will do harm to the Navy and damage the livelihood of the thousands of dockyard employees who have served the

  39
  Navy and the nation with skill and dedication in war and peace. They will be shabbily treated if the Bill becomes law. The Bill will also damage the communities of Plymouth and Rosyth which are so dependent on the royal dockyards for their existence and economic future.
  The main motivation behind the Bill is the Government's ideological belief and commitment. The motivation is not first and foremost the well-being of the Royal Navy. In one respect the Government's belief and commitment will be fulfilled if the Bill is passed, because the Secretary of State will be able to show the Prime Minister what a good boy he has been by removing by monthly reductions almost 20,000 civil servants off the books of the Ministry of Defence. That, of course, will have no effect in the real world as they will still have to be paid out of resources provided by the taxpayer.
  The Secretary of State wanted to go much further—to remove the dockyards lock, stock and barrel. He wanted to remove the labour, capital, assets, land and everything else. He asked Mr. Peter Levene to look into the matter, but even Mr. Levene in his report, which I can only describe as cavalier and hasty, balked at the enormous problems which would have been caused by selling off the whole of the royal dockyards. As a result, the Secretary of State has produced a botched-up scheme in which the capital and assets are apparently to remain in Crown ownership, but their use is to be provided for and given to some private contractor and, as usual, the workers will be sold out. Most of the work in the first few years—the Minister has not answered this point—will be within the monopoly of a private contractor. There will be a tender for some of the core work, but I challenge the Minister to say what percentage of all the dockyard work in the first few years will be subject to tender and what percentage will be determined by negotiation between the Navy and the private monopoly contractor. The Navy would be in an extremely difficult position to negotiate contracts with a contractor holding a pistol to its head.
  A remarkable feature of the Bill is that hardly anyone outside the Ministry of Defence has a good word to say about it. The Minister mentioned the Navy Board, but I get the impression that much of the support within the Ministry of Defence, and certainly much of it in the higher ranks of the Navy, has a touch of the press gang about it.
  Agency management is not a new idea concocted by Peter Levene. As the Minister well knows, it was considered and rejected in 1970 by a committee chaired by Sir John Mallabar. In paragraph 103 of part II of Cmnd. 4713, reference is made to two possibilities for agency management. I shall refer only to the first, that
  "the Government could retain ownership and turn the enterprise over to commercial management".
  That is exactly what is now proposed. Paragraph 104 states:
  "We feel we must dismiss the first of these two almost out of hand. The agency factory arrangement has, we know, been used fairly extensively in times of war emergency but those of us who have had direct experience of its working are satisfied that this is the way to get the worst of both the commercial and the Government Department worlds. We would certainly not recommend it for the dockyards."
  That is a clear statement by people who had experience of operating agency management, although that experience was confined to factories.
  40
  A dockyard is much more difficult to run than a factory. It is far more complex than almost any armaments factory which could be run by agency management. Members of the Mallabar committee who had direct experience of the system clearly stated that it was not the best system either for dockyards or for factories. Mr. Levene, who doubtless has much experience of arms bazaars and arms selling, has very little experience of dockyard management. No one in the Ministry of Defence has the experience of the Mallabar committee in relation to agency arrangements, yet the Government apparently intend to go ahead with their scheme in the face of all the direct evidence provided for the Mallabar committee.
  In July 1985, the Select Committee on Defence, in its fourth report, had little good to say about the Government's plan. Without being patronising, I believe that the House owes a debt of gratitude to the members of that Committee for the clarity of analysis and the non-partisan way in which they approached this very difficult subject. It is clear that they were not convinced by the evidence provided by the Government. The report concludes that the Ministry of Defence has not begun to tackle the potential difficulties and that the Government have failed to show that commercial management outweighs the advantages of a trading fund.
  The Ministry of Defence was given a further opportunity to provide more evidence, but again it failed to do so and the Select Committee, in its further observations published on 27 November, pointed out that, despite all the objective evidence and all the evidence provided to the Mallabar committee and to the Select Committee, the Government were apparently determined to go ahead with an ill-considered scheme which will damage the vital interests of the nation and of national security.
  The Select Committee was absolutely right to say that the Government had not considered the consequences of the scheme that they had outlined. There was evidence of that fairly recently when the Government produced a document to the trade unions—it was not a secret or confidential document—stating that 19 working groups were to be set up to look into the consequences of a decision which had been taken mainly on commercial grounds. The subjects involved show the extent of the problems and complications that will arise but which the Government did not consider before deciding on their proposed course of action. Working group No. 3 will consider
  "the manner in which Naval Base estate and facilities will be made available to the commercial operators"
  and also nuclear safety. Working group No. 4 will be concerned with
  "the overall organisation of the Naval Bases".
  Working group No. 7 will deal with occupational health and safety. Working group No. 10 will be concerned with naval manpower. Working group No. 16 will deal with security. I should have thought that the Government would consider the consequences of those matters before deciding whether this was the best way to run the royal dockyards.
  Not only has there been no support for the Government scheme from any of the impartial evidence at home, but there is no evidence from abroad to support it. On 17 April the Secretary of State tried to give a misleading impression to the House—I do not say that it was deliberate, but it was certainly misleading—when he said that his

  41
  proposals were based on American experience. That is wholly wrong. The United States dockyards, which are far more complex even than ours because the United States navy is so much larger, are not operated on an agency or commercial basis. They are operated according to a commercial trading fund of the kind that we should like in the future for the dockyards of this country. We can find no evidence that any other navy in the Western Alliance and certainly in Western Europe would consider taking the course that the Government now propose. The French certainly would not dream of it. Nevertheless, despite the internal and external evidence, the Government apparently still intend to go ahead.
  The Government recently published a booklet entitled "The Future of the Dockyards". No doubt the people of Rosyth and Devonport will find that an ironic title. In that document the Government set out the two main objectives of the scheme as
  "enhancing the fighting effectiveness of the Fleet and preserving vital strategic interests"
  and
  "securing maximum value for money".
  None of us objects to any of those aims, but we do not believe—the Minister has not argued the case at all—that the changes will enhance the capability, fighting effectiveness or readiness of the fleet or that they will save any money whatever.
  With regard to the enhancement of the effectiveness of the fleet, no one has said in evidence to the Select Committee or in the House that the changes will make the fleet more effective or more ready to meet difficulties and problems in times of emergency. Is the Minister suggesting that the way in which the dockyards operated in the past was to the detriment of the fleet and that the effectiveness of the fleet was impaired as a result? Only a few years ago, management and employees proved themselves in the ultimate test in time of war. Is the Minister really saying that if Balfour Beatty or Trafalgar House had been operating the dockyards they would have performed better in the Falklands war? Three years later, there is to be an enormous upheaval when there is no evidence whatever that the dockyards have ever failed in their primary duty of ensuring the readiness and effectiveness of the fleet.
  The question of foreign ownership is very important in terms of the need to safeguard strategic interests. The Minister may have answered some of the questions, but I hope that he will make three points absolutely clear. First —he may already have hinted at this—will he state categorically that only British-controlled companies will be allowed to tender? I accept that it is not always easy to define control in this area, but will he assure the House that only companies controlled by British residents will be allowed to tender? That is a fairly easy question to answer, and I expect the Minister to say yes.
  The Minister has said that, first, an operating company will be formed. Presumably the shares of that company will be owned by Trafalgar House or some other parent company that is not solely engaged in dockyard activities. What plans do the Government have to ensure that the operating company and, subsequently, the parent company do not fall within the control of foreign ownership? We know what happened to the golden share; we know what happened to British Telecom; and we think we know what will happen to the royal ordnance factories. Will the same proposals apply to Trafalgar House? If 15
  42
  per cent. of the shares of Trafalgar House are bought by foreign shareholders, will the contracts between the Ministry of Defence and the subsidiary of Trafalgar House be terminated? The Minister has not mentioned that. It is not in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will make it clear that foreign ownership of the operating company will not be allowed.
  We have been told that 30 per cent. of the dockyard work will be put out to tender. Will the Minister make it clear that the tender will not be allowed to go to any foreign yards—that only British yards will be allowed to tender for that 30 per cent.?
  We do not believe that the proposals will enhance the effectiveness of the Navy or save money. The evidence to the Select Committee shows that it was the hope of saving money that led the Navy Board reluctantly to acquiesce in the proposals. In paragraph 408, Rear Admiral George makes that point quite clearly:
  "I think we are in an area of speculation."
  That is absolutely clear. He continued:
  "It is largely the pressure on the defence budget which has led the Admiralty Board to consider matters of saving money in that area of support."
  The acquiescence of the Navy was obtained because it believed that money could be saved, not because the plans would enhance the effectiveness of the support services or the effectiveness and readiness of the fleet.
  It has been said that between £24 million and £26 million will be saved. The figures have been put out with a precision that makes us suspicious. The Minister has said that, whatever illustrative figures are used, he does not know how much money will be saved or, indeed, whether any money will be saved. The 24th report of the Public Accounts Committee made this point clearly when it stated:
  "On the basis of information supplied to us, we have misgivings about the thoroughness and accuracy of the Ministry's costings."
  Later, it was said, in effect, that the calculations provided no valid basis to judge whether any materially increased efficiency attached to the Government's preferred option. The Select Committee made exactly the same point. Even if these figures are correct—and I do not think they are—why go through this upheaval to save about £24 million when the turnover of the dockyards is between £400 million and £500 million a year? It does not seem worth it in terms of morale and the effect it will have on the Navy and employees. We do not believe that the plans will save money or that they will enhance the operation of the fleet.
  The Minister has said that the tender— an area of considerable difficulty and obfuscation—will be for the core work. I challenge him to say that the tender will be based upon figures for over 50 per cent. of the work carried out in the dockyards. Some people have said that the tender will relate to 5 per cent., 7 per cent. or perhaps 10 per cent. of the work for only the first few years and that once the tenderer has the contract on the basis of 10 per cent., he will be given extra work—up to 70 per cent. of the total core work. The Minister should tell us how he defines core work. He did not define the work to which he alluded when he spoke about the percentage of work that would be tendered for by private contractors.
  We are concerned about more than the core work that is carried out in the dockyards. Dockyards also carry out what is called emergent or unprogrammed work—in other words, work that is found when a frigate is opened

  43
  repairs or refitting. An example is the work that ensued when builders came to my house to carry out a conversion and discovered dry rot. How are the prices to be arranged? How can the tender apply to work that nobody knows is needed? Will a frigate be left standing while negotiations continue between the Navy and a private monopoly supplier?
  These considerations are especially important when nuclear submarines are involved. I am told that there are great difficulties when nuclear submarines are refitted or repaired. Apparently it can take months to get all the authorities to deal with the problems that arise with nuclear reactors and nuclear submarines. Will this work be determined by negotiation between a private supplier, who has a complete monopoly, and the Navy, which, in effect, will have a pistol held to its head to accept the price quoted by the supplier without any recourse because it needs the frigate or submarine to be refitted or repaired?
  Does the Minister say that it is possible to arrive at a price for emergency work before the work is done? The Levene report made this issue quite clear. Paragraph 3 of this famous leaked report states:
  "I also found that the lack of the normal market forces meant that the dockyard undertook a wide range of what in commercial terms are almost certainly uneconomic activities."
  That is right, for the dockyards do, in commercial terms, undertake uneconomic activities. The object of the Bill is to ensure that these activities are carried out on a commercial basis by private contractors. It will cost the Navy more if those activities are carried out on a commercial basis. What percentage of the dockyard work will be subject to competition and what percentage will be determined by negotiation between the monopoly supplier and the Navy, which will be a capital consumer?
  The Mallabar report recommended that a trading fund should be set up for the dockyards. We know that the United States navy operates through a trading fund. The old Expenditure Committee of 1975 also recommended a trading fund for the dockyards. The report prepared by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed), when he was the Navy Minister, recommended a trading fund for the dockyards. The Select Committee on Defence, although it has not exactly said so, favours the concept. The right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Sir H. Atkins) shakes his head. The evidence available favours a trading fund over what the Government have suggested.
  Sir Humphrey Atkins: The Select Committee was careful not to make any recommendations. If the right hon. Gentleman reads the report again, he will find that that is so. With respect, he is not entitled to say that the report favours a certain course.
  Mr. Davies: I did not say "recommendation". I accept entirely what the Chairman of the Select Committee, the right hon. Gentleman, has said, but I am entitled to submit my interpretation of the two reports. It seems that, in the light of the evidence, the Select Committee favours a trading fund, not commercial management. The trade unions favour a trading fund, as do most external reports.
  Mr. Sayeed: The right hon. Gentleman has prayed in aid the Mallabar report. Perhaps he will tell us why the then Labour Government did not implement its proposals.
  Mr. Davies: I have no idea; and I have no idea why the Conservative Government of 1974 did not either. The
  44
  hon. Gentleman will recall that a Conservative Government were elected in 1974. That Administration could have put into operation the recommendations of the Mallabar report. The hon. Gentleman has not made a very sensible point.
  The Minister was scathing about trading funds and suggested that they are terrible things, but it is possible to obtain commercial accounting and management by means of a trading fund. The Minister will recall the debates that took place last year in Committee on the privatisation of the royal ordnance factories. The ROFs have operated for some time on the principle of a trading fund and have made large profits. The profits were so large that the Secretary of State decided that he could sell off large chunks of them on the stock market and obtain a great deal of money for them. I shall be interested to see whether they are as successful when they come under private ownership as they were when they operated as a trading fund.
  The Royal Mint has been operated as a trading fund for a number of years. In 1971 the Government introduced the Atomic Energy Authority Bill, which now enshrines in statute the concept of a trading fund to run the authority. There is no reason why commercial management and the freeing of constraints on management should not be undertaken by means of a trading fund Bill or by setting up a trading fund. If some changes are needed to the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, let us make them.
  As I have said, it is possible to run the dockyards in a manner that frees them of commercial constraints and in the interests of the Royal Navy, not those of private shareholders. It is possible to achieve all the changes that we want to see by means of a Government trading fund.
  The Opposition believe that the Minister of State should take away the Bill. He knows in his heart that it makes no sense. Indeed, he knows that the Bill is nuts. He knows that it is wrong and that it will not work. He knows also that it is not in the best interests of the Royal Navy or of the people who, at the end of the day, the Government will need to operate the dockyards in times of war and peace. That is why the Minister should take away the Bill. Instead, he should establish a trading fund. We could then introduce the necessary changes.
  5.14 pm
  Miss Janet Fookes: I hope that I shall not be considered parochial if I do not direct my immediate attention to Rosyth. I am sure that there are hon. Members on both sides of the House who will be glad to take a more detailed interest in that yard. I suspect that what I say about the dockyard nearest to my constituency will apply also to Rosyth.
  As one of the three hon. Members representing Plymouth, I have a deep and local interest in the Bill. I do not pretend that the worries of my constituents and of the other citizens of Plymouth are not foremost in my thinking. It is right and proper that a constituency Member should have those worries closest to the heart.
  I appreciate that we are considering a major defence establishment which has the vital task of servicing Royal Navy ships and carrying out repairs and refits. There is, of course, a major national interest in that activity. Therefore, I have to take into account both a local and a national interest. I hope and believe that there need be no conflict between the two. However, I must tell the

  45
  Minister that I have serious reservations about the course on which the Government are embarked, which has been confirmed this afternoon.
  I accept, along with other individuals, organisations and Select Committees, the need for some change in the organisation of the dockyards. In saying that, I am paying no disrespect to the work force, which can only be as good as those who lead it and the system under which it has to operate. Given those circumstances, the work force has done a good job in the past and will, I am sure, continue so to perform in future.
  I accept also that the present system leaves much to be desired. Some of the shortcomings go back even further, perhaps, than the Mallabar report. It is instructive that the Mallabar committee was set in motion by a Labour Government. When the right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) inquires why the Conservatives did not implement the changes that it recommended in 1974, I must remind him that that Conservative Government were in no position to do any such thing. He will recall that the Conservatives lost both elections in 1974. I for one have good reason to recall the October 1974 general election with the utmost vividness. However, that is water under the bridge. I believe that there is a case for change and that what really matters is the format of the change.
  I have been disturbed by the short period of consultation to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred briefly. It seems that virtually a year was wasted—in any event, it was not spent profitably—between the leaking of the Levene report and the announcement which was made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in April of this year. That could have been a year spent usefully at greater leisure, whereas in the event we had exceedingly rushed consultation and great difficulties for all concerned. I am not in the least surprised that many of my constituents, dockyard workers and others, were led to the conclusion that the consultation was a mere pretence, a mere mockery, and that a firm decision had already been made. I share that view somewhat, even though my own Government were thus engaged.
  Now that the Bill is before us, we shall have a further opportunity to consider in detail what is on offer. However, there is a difficulty in the format of the Bill as it is enabling legislation and has been drafted with a broad brush. Accordingly, it allows for several different possibilities. It is not too much to say that many of the key decisions will be taken independent of the course of the measure. These decisions will have a major bearing on what finally happens about the organisation of the royal dockyards.
  I am glad that the Minister has put it on the record that conditions of service, especially pension rights and redundancy payments, will not be affected adversely by any change. When people are worried and disturbed about their future, as many are in Plymouth, it is easy for them to be worried unnecessarily. I hope that my hon. Friend's remarks will be widely disseminated and, if necessary, repeated again and again so that at least those involved will have no worries about the basics of their employment.
  Perhaps it is not sufficiently understood outside the west country how large a place the dockyard occupies within the economy of Plymouth. The dockyard is by far the largest employer in the area, as well as the oldest. It has a history that spans several hundred years. Any changes in the organisation of the dockyard will send ripples through the 12,000 or 13,000 members of the work
  46
  force and have repercussions beyond that will affect all those who work in the yard, or who hope to work there. The same can be said for their families. It should be understood that Plymouth is undergoing a traumatic experience, which is not limited to the immediate confines of the city. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) smiling his acceptance of that. This matter is of the utmost importance for Plymouth and the surrounding area. Nothing else has caused so much anguish and excitement during the past month since the changes were announced, leaked or otherwise brought to public attention.
  I pay tribute to the changes already in hand. at the dockyard under the leadership of the managing director. I have the highest regard for Mr. David Johnson, the present managing director, who is giving an excellent lead to the work force at a time of the greatest difficulty and worry. Progress is being made in dealing with the worries that have been expressed about absenteeism, the excessive overtime worked and slippage in refit and repair work. There have been notable improvements. It is right that tribute should be paid to Mr. Johnson and to the work force for their co-operation during these difficult times.
  I wish to discuss the formula of the Bill. I am somewhat dismayed that the Government are so set upon the commercial option—the preferred option as it is called in the consultation document. I have stated publicly, and I state now, that, although changes outside the Civil Service are necessary, I dislike the commercial option. I infinitely prefer the more proven method of forming a public limited company. We could then be more certain that those running the company had at heart the interests not only of the dockyard but of the local work force and local economy.
  One drawback of the option favoured by the Government is that which the Minister puts forward as an advantage—the possible change in contractors because of the limited period, originally of five years but now extended to seven years. My hon. Friend must understand that for those who live and work there, that is only a short time. So there is always an element of uncertainty. Most human beings, and I include myself among that majority, dislike uncertainty. It is unsettling, nerve-wracking and worrying. There is bound to be uncertainty because of the competitive edge syndrome with which the Government are flirting.
  If the Government cannot change to the plc fallback position, which is my preferred option, I hope that they will take up the option mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) and go for the 10-year period rather than seven years. At the outset, that would provide employees with a little more sense of permanence and set their minds at rest more than the seven-year period would. That is a second-best option, but I am realistic enough to appreciate that, in all probability, the Bill will go through. It allows the Government to take either option. If the Government go ahead with the commercial option, I ask that a longer period be seriously considered.
  I pray in aid the fact that the plc is a far better method of achieving what the Government and I want: a dockyard operating at maximum efficiency with proper safeguards for those who work and do a good job there. I do not understand why we must choose an unproven formula when a more obvious option is available to us. I accept the need to go beyond the trading fund, which the right hon.

  47
  Member for Llanelli does not wish to do, but I fail to understand why we cannot have a proven formula rather than an untried one.
  Mr. Douglas: I am intrigued by the hon. Lady's argument. Where in the world does the proven formula of a Government wholly-owned plc operate for the refit and maintenance of naval vessels?
  Miss Fookes: I did not suggest applying the formula to the repair of vessels. I meant it as a legal entity which was well known and understood. I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman misunderstood me.
  When the consultation period was announced, the city of Plymouth. which has an obvious interest in employment prospects and the prosperity of the local economy, was moved to employ the famous firm of accountants Peat Marwick Mitchell and Company, which operates internationally, to undertake a rapid inquiry into the options available. It had to be rapid because of the time scale of the consultation. The report, which was made in record time, is a worthwhile document. I am sorry that the Government have not given it the serious consideration that it deserves. Page 66 of the report sets out briefly the firm's views on each of the main options. On the trading option, the report states:
  "Easy option to implement with prospects of some early efficiency gains, but longer term benefits and contribution to local economy could be severely limited by constraints on management freedom."
  On the public corporation or Government-owned company it states:
  "Option providing the best prospects for progressive improvement in efficiency with diversification and contribution to the local economy, providing adequate management freedom can be arranged."
  On the commercial or agency management approach—the Government's preferred option—the report states:
  "An experimental approach which would be difficult and costly to implement and administer, and which offers uncertain prospects for the local economy."
  I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's opening remarks and I shall listen attentively to his concluding remarks, but nothing in his statements so far comforts me when I read the conclusion of Peat Marwick, which is a commercial firm of the utmost repute and standing. I ask that the Government reconsider their chosen option. Nothing in the Bill prevents them from doing so because the Bill provides that they can choose either option. That makes it more difficult for me as I prefer one option. But both are in the Bill, and I can be guided only by the Government's declaration of intent.
  I hope that during the remaining stages of our consideration of the Bill we shall have additional information about precisely the contract that the Government have in mind and more details about those firms that are, or may be, seriously interested. There is a belief in Plymouth that the number of serious contenders is decreasing rapidly. If that is the case, considerable doubt is thrown on the commercial option chosen by the Government. I await that with interest, but in the meantime I must decide how to vote tonight. I am not satisfied with the case made by the Government for their preferred option, although I accept the need for change. In those circumstances, unless the Minister gives the House some new information tonight, I cannot consider supporting the Bill.
  5.30 pm
  Dr. David Owen: Many of those who voted for the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) will hope that her views on the Bill will lead her into the Division Lobby to vote against it. That would be a more accurate reflection of the feeling in Plymouth of let-down and, indeed, of anger over this legislation.
  It is extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Defence is not here today. We understand that he has commitments with NATO, but since the business of the House is the responsibility of the Leader of the House, it should have been perfectly possible for him to arrange the debate for a day when the Secretary of State did not need to attend a NATO meeting. Since the legislation owes its inception and design almost solely to the Secretary of State, it is even more insulting that he is not here to justify it.
  The Bill has attracted an extraordinary amount of hostility from hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have been in the House for nearly 20 years, and I cannot remember a Bill that was so extensively mauled and savaged by two all-party Select Committees. The all-party Select Committee on Defence has twice raised grave doubts about whether the legislation will safeguard the fighting efficiency of the Royal Navy. The Public Accounts Committee, which is commonly regarded as the most authoritative and independent of the Select Committees, has not only called in question the scheme, but has mentioned the probability that its implementation will cost the naval budget substantially more during the next four to five years than would one of the other options.
  The SDP believes that the best option—the one that should have been implemented a long time ago—is the trading fund run by the Civil Service. Many workers and trade unionists in the dockyards have long wanted the separation of their accountancy and financial operations, because they have been all too conscious of the difficulty of comparing their work, which they believe to be efficient and cost-effective, with outside industry. They have always had to carry the vast overheads of the naval bases. Therefore. there is no sizeable opposition to the idea that we should have a separate trading fund and then judge the dockyards' efficiency on its merits.
  The Bill is not privatisation; it is piratisation. The Government have decided to privatise a national asset that has served the country well for centuries. That is the Government's philosophy. Have they used such a scheme in any previous privatisations? The answer is emphatically no. Did British Telecom, will British Gas, or did any of the privatisations involve the control of assets by the Government, but the separation of those assets from the work forces and managements?
  Does any hon. Member who operates a commercial company genuinely believe that he could separate the investment and assets from the management and work force of his company? No industrialist, apart from Mr. Levene, has publicly advocated that course.
  The independent firm of accountants, Peat Marwick Mitchell and Company, castigated the scheme and demonstrated that it was not an effective way of running a commercial organisation. Since the idea was floated, I have talked to a vast number of industrialists. They have all reached the conclusions that were reached in the Mallabar report. They dismissed the scheme, because they have run companies and know that it cannot be done.

  49
  The fatal flaw of the legislation is the belief that we can separate the assets from the management and the work force. What is so tragic about the Government's decision is that one of the problems in the dockyards in the 1960s was the neglect of their assets. When I was a Minister dealing with the dockyards, the then Labour Government made certain from 1969 onwards—it continued under successive Governments through the 1970s and 1980s—that there was a massive injection of resources into the dockyards to give them the capital assets that they needed. Of course, the Secretary of State cannot privatise the entire dockyards, because no one could find enough money to buy their vast capital assets.
  The managers of the new company that will be set up under the Government's preferred option will be given seven-year contracts which must, by their nature, be from time to time broken. If contracts are continued in perpetuity, the purpose of the Bill as set out by the Minister will be thwarted. If there must be competition, it must be shown to be effective competition. That means that the company which employs those men as well as manages the dockyards will, at least after the fifth year, operate under the question mark of whether its contract will be renewed. If it is not renewed, a new company will be asked to take on the existing work force. However, there can he no guarantee that it will take on that work force, unless the Ministry of Defence tells us that such a guarantee will be part of the contract. One reason why the Government cannot give a guarantee that the work force will be re-employed is that the tenders will be based on a work load to be allocated.
  That is where this privatisation is uniquely different from previous privatisations. When someone was transferred from British Telecom into the new privatised company, he had a reasonable expectation that if he worked well and efficiently he would spend the rest of his days until retirement in that company. That is not the case now. No such continuity of employment can be offered. The contracts of employees can be terminated at the end of the management contract. That is an extraordinary method of rewarding people who have served the country for many decades. During the Falklands war, Ministers and all hon. Members paid tribute to the work of those employees.
  The Bill will mean that the Government can strip off the dockyards' assets and control them, but there will be no integrated operation. The workers will be given no guarantee of continuity of employment and hanging over them at all times will be the question of the future work load. That will affect not only those employed in the dockyard, but the city or town in whose economy the dockyard is a crucial element. Problems will radiate into the travel-to-work areas surrounding Plymouth in Cornwall and Devon. The problems at Rosyth will be similar, although on a slightly smaller scale.
  The Government must ask themselves for how much longer they can justify introducing such legislation simply because they have an in-built majority. At what stage in a democracy is it possible to restrain people from taking industrial action? At what stage can hon. Members demonstrate to people who are anxious and depressed about their future employment that they can trust the democratic process?
  The consultation period was laughably short. We argued with our constituents and told them to trust the
  50
  process. We held a mass meeting in Plymouth—on an all-party basis—we rallied both Plymouth city council and the Devon county council who commissioned the Peat Marwick Mitchell report, we tried to keep the campaign on an all-party basis as far as possible and then we put in evidence to the Select Committees. Those Select Committees, on an all-party basis, criticised the Government. At what stage is it, in a genuine and true democracy, that a Secretary of State listens? I hope that the Secretary of State will read Hansard—it should not be asking too much of him. If he does, perhaps he will ponder the possibility that there has been an error.
  The Secretary of State might then ask himself why anybody should take on this management contract. The people who may tender for the contract will tender for one reason only—they have substantial defence interests and for other reasons and other contracts wish to keep in with the procurement executive, and in particular with Mr. Levene. I have talked to some of the people involved, and they show no enthusiasm for the contract, for one major reason. They say that it will be hard enough to manage the dockyard, but to do it against a work force that feels that it has been bludgeoned into this and is resentful at the process, and which has already absorbed 2,000 redundancies, will be impossible. We should remember that this arrangement takes place only after Devonport has lost those 2,000 jobs by fiat from the Secretary of State. This is a pretty unsatisfactory management contract for anybody to take on.
  In addition, as a reserve position, the Secretary of State has said that if nobody turns up to bid for a contract, because the terms on offer are so bad, he will consider running the dockyards, for an interim period, as a Government-owned plc, which is the preferred option of the hon. Member for Drake. On what basis does she prefer it—as a standby to tide over the Government until the election is over and a new contract comes in? That is not an option.
  There is one different option for the Secretary of State, which is to say to the unions and the labour force in Rosyth and Devonport, "You do not like what I have introduced. This is the legislation that I want, but I am prepared to talk to see whether we can come to some new arrangement." The Secretary of State has ample reason for doing this, because it is recommended in the second report of the Select Committee on Defence. The reports ends:
  "We urge the Government to approach the debates on the Dockyards Services Bill with an open mind and a readiness to draw fully upon the opinions expressed from all quarters, in the best interests of the fighting efficiency of the Fleet and of the defence and security of the nation."
  If the Navy Board, which was once the Admiralty Board, with which some of us were proud to be associated, cannot realise that it is embarking on a serious course in terms of endangering the efficiency of the Navy, it is time that at least the Minister did.
  The Minister of State has been saddled with a thankless task. The Secretary of State drags him back from a foreign trip to deal with the matter and then walks away. In his previous incarnation the Minister showed himself to be not without any understanding about trade unions, unemployment and the fears of the work force. I challenge him: Why does he not talk to the trade unions and ask what they can agree together? I point out to the hon. Member for Drake that agreement on an interim measure with the trade unions could not be achieved. They will want to ensure, and have

  51
  a right to ask, that whatever comes out is permanent. There must be new permanent arrangements, even if they are not what I want—a trading fund within the Civil Service.
  There are grounds for arguing for a Government-owned commercial company. The Government are obsessed with cutting Civil Service numbers, and will undoubtedly be able to take the dockyards out of the Civil Service through this method. However, the dockyards must be an integrated unit, a single unified company, which owns assets, manages the company and employs the work force, and in which the Ministry of Defence is the predominant and sole owner. If the Government wish to introduce worker shares, I should not be against that, but the Ministry of Defence must be the controlling interest in a company that operates commercially.
  There would be some advantage for the unions in such a scheme. I have been involved in some of the negotiations in the industrial Civil Service, and I know of the difficulty in getting the Civil Service machine to recognise the dockyards as being an industry and to grant them a proper productivity deal. I know that the work force would be apprehensive about leaving the Civil Service, particularly white-collar civil servants who have previously been able to transfer to other parts of the Civil Service. They might be able to negotiate some transfer arrangement, It is not impossible for there to be far greater agreement than even the Minister of State might envisage, provided that the arrangement is permanent, honoured by both sides of the House, with no yo-yoing around from private to public ownership, a company owned by the Ministry of Defence, outside the Civil Service, run as an integrated operation, and permanent.
  Miss Fookes: I do not wish to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman in the middle of his discourse, but I wish to make it clear that I am not interested in an interim arrangement either. When I suggested a plc as a possible formula, it was on a permanent, not an interim, basis.
  Dr. Owen: That only goes to show that the hon. Lady should join us in voting against the Bill. On any interpretation of the Bill, as the Minister said, it will implement commercial management. Nothing has been said to give any sign that the Government are prepared to change the Bill so that it deals not with commercial management, but with the Government retaining control over a critical strategic asset of great importance to the Navy and the country. That is all that we ask.
  I would regret it if the dockyard work force moved out of the Civil Service. This is a sad way to pay back the honourable record of service that we have all had from the dockyards' labour force. However, it is indefensible to continue with this mish-mash of commercial management, during which no guarantee can be given of a successful enterprise.
  The history of this episode is important, so I shall remind the Minister of it because he may not have been briefed on it by his civil servants. After the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Speed) had been kicked out, the Government tried to ditch his report. If any of this had been promised in the 1983 election, the make-up of Parliament would have been different and the hon. Member for Drake might not have been here. Throughout
  52
  the 1983 general election campaign there was no glimmer of this plan. The election was fought on the basis of the Speed report.
  After that report, the people in the dockyards were told that they must be prepared to see their work and efficiency checked against that of private industry. The unions did not like it, but they accepted it. They accepted a plan whereby a submarine and a frigate would go out to private contract, and a similar frigate and submarine would be refitted in Devonport, which was chosen because the ships were comparable. The exercise was set up as a fair and reasonable way to compare costs.
  No sooner had the exercise been started than there was a leak from the Levene report. What integrity was involved in that arrangement? The trade unions were asked, in fair competition, to see whether they could compete with private yards. They accepted the challenge and were prepared to carry out the exercise, but suddenly the rug was pulled from underneath them and they were then faced with the Levene proposals. The exercise has still gone ahead. and I think that the Minister will find out what has happened in the past.
  It is incredibly difficult to make a fair comparison between even two submarines that have been chosen for fair comparison. One submarine may be opened up to find that there is rust and that the electrics have gone, while the other may be perfectly all right, even though they are about the same age. Exactly the same may apply to a frigate. When its insides are opened up and problems are revealed, the private contractor will have to go back to the Ministry of Defence and say that its tender will have to be completely changed.
  The dockyards are to the Navy what a garage is to those of us who have cars. We expect a garage to be ready when our car breaks down and to have the capacity to deal instantly with our problems. It is not possible to programme the cars all the way through, nor is it possible to programme all the naval ships. We tie up vast capital assets in the naval ships and it is in our, the Navy's and NATO's interests that those ships are turned around quickly when something goes wrong. In order to operate such a refitting dockyard, there must be the capacity to respond in emergencies. a certain degree of spare capacity and, above all, the good will of the work force. The work force must understand that it is in a high security business, dealing with classified documentation, serving the nation and the Navy, and it must be proud of doing so.
  To smash all that for want of a readiness to get round a table is a tragedy. That is what the Bill will do. There will be no attempt to reach a solid agreement with some of the most reasonable men and women trade unionists in Britain. They are not mindless militants, but are some of the best people in Britain, and it is a tragedy that they should be treated in this way. Has the matter ever been discussed with them? No. Those hon. Members who are wondering which way to vote should remember that the proposals have never been discussed in any serious way with trade unionists. They have been presented to them as a fait accompli at each stage. The trade unionists have their preferred option. Some may not agree with me about a trading fund and would prefer other things, but they are in the business of negotiating. They are predominantly trade unionists. If the employer—the Secretary of State—asked them to see whether some agreement could be reached, he might well be surprised.

  53
  The Government have a massive majority. We all know that the Bill can be pushed through without a single amendment. There is no doubt about that, because in order for an amendment to succeed a Conservative Member must be ready to vote with the Labour and Social Democratic Members of the Committee. We are in the business of trying to sort something out of this frightful mess. Believe me, that is what it is. One has only to listen to the right hon. Gentleman speaking of the 19 working parties to know that, and many of those 19 working parties have already formed sub-committees. The whole thing is a complete farce. Has anyone considered the way in which the naval dockyards intermesh with the naval base and Government Departments?
  I urge the Minister to do what the all-party Select Committee on Defence has urged him to do—to think objectively about this again. There is no better form of doing that than to discuss it around the table with some of the men and women who will have to implement the mess. He would be surprised how much good will would come from such consultation. Out of it we might be able to produce a structure for the dockyard that would last.
  Most of us are terrified that we shall have doctrinal, ideological semi-privatisation for the two dockyards, both of which are immensley important. I have talked mainly about Plymouth, but the Rosyth dockyard, with the refitting of Polaris, could hardly be more important to Britain's security and future. We are terrified that the Government will give up the opportunity of getting something that could he endorsed, even with grudging acceptance here and there, by most people who work in the dockyards, and by most political parties, and that we would have a structure that would last into the next century. All that is in prospect at the moment is a bitterly contested political argument about the dockyards which will go on right up to and through the general election and will almost certainly be changed after the general election, all for the lack of a readiness to do what people in Britain ought to do—to try to reach an agreement, and, in particular, to involve people who work within the dockyard.
  It is in that spirit that I urge the Minister to think again. It is in the spirit that this is a thoroughly bad piece of legislation which will do grave damage to the Royal Navy, to the fighting efficiency of the fleet and the long-standing commitment of people in the dockyards and to the Navy that we in the Social Democratic and Liberal parties will vote against the Bill tonight.
  5.54 pm
  Mr. Robert Hicks: It is essential in any debate dealing with proposals to alter fundamentally the management of the royal dockyards to keep constantly in our minds two inter-related considerations which factually are not in dispute. They are simply that we are talking about Britain's defence obligations and our national security in particular, and, within that context, how best the dockyards can service the Royal Navy. That, after all, is the principal function and purpose of the dockyards.
  There would be a general consensus that the performance of the royal dockyards has not been as good as one would have wished. However, that is not entirely due to the failings of the management or work force. The constraints placed on our existing system have contributed to the unsatisfactory situation. Consequently, in recent
  54
  years, as many hon. Members have said, there have been a series of investigations and reports, the most recent of which are the Mallabar, Speed and Levene reports.
  As someone who has lived all his life within the Plymouth area and who has therefore been related to many of the work force in the dockyard, what interests me is that if, during the course of the past 15 years, two reports have recommended the introduction of a trading fund concept and rejected the concept of commercial or agency management, why, within the course of the past two years, has there been a fundamental change of outlook?
  There is general acceptance that there are three specific areas in which changes are essential if the dockyards are to operate with greater efficiency. First, as has already been mentioned, the dockyards as suppliers should be clearly separated from the Royal Navy as the customer. We are all aware of the inherent problems that arise from that unsatisfactory position. Secondly, most hon. Members would agree that local managers should have greater authority and freedom to manage. Thirdly, most people would take the view that accounting procedures reflecting normal commercial practice should be introduced so that performance within the royal dockyards can be properly assessed.
  Let me recall the sequence of events in order to put my observations into context. In April my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence published his consultative document. In it were the three options. They were, first, full-scale privatisation; secondly, the introduction of the trading fund concept; and, thirdly—the preferred option—the imposition of some system of commercial management. I argued at the time for the establishment of a trading fund with the work force either inside or outside the Civil Service. In practice, the latter structure would have been possible.
  It is relevant to emphasise, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), that immediately after the publication of the consultative document a local steering group was formed. It consisted of local authority members, both at county and district level, representatives of the trade unions and a number of other interested parties and organisations, including the four local Members of Parliament who are most involved. A report was commissioned by the accountants, Peat Marwick Mitchell and Company. In his summary Mr. Roger Harris of Peat Marwick said that he felt that the Government had not given due justice to the potential merit of adopting a public sector, non-Civil Service option. He was also critical in his report of the Government's preferred option.
  I have always hoped, and have expressed his view locally in public, that some solution might emerge that would unite the existing management and the local work force. I have expressed the hope that, based on these twin props, a consensus would be evolved which would go some way towards satisfying the three criteria that were laid down by the Secretary of State in his consultative document but which would retain the dockyard work force entity of management and employees as we know it.
  I make no apology for mentioning specifically Devonport. I have already referred to the fact that I have lived in the vicinity all my life. It is worth spelling out, as this is fundamental to the Government's proposals, that Plymouth, south-east Cornwall, south-west Devon and the Royal Navy dockyard are closely integrated and

  55
  interdependent. Performance at Devonport under its present management improved significantly during the past two years. The efforts of all concerned during the Falklands dispute have, rightly, been universally acknowledged. In addition, comparisons with the private sector relating to the refitting of ships and submarines are favourable to the dockyard in terms of quality and timing. However, the Government have ignored all the advice and criticism. They have also ignored the majority of the recommendations that they received in response to their consultative document, including those from the Select Committeee on Defence and the Public Accounts Committee. Both of those Select Committees questioned the projected financial savings, on the basis of insufficient evidence. The Select Committee on Defence also outlined the various difficulties inherent in any commercial management option.
  These criticisms—the problems that will be created through the introduction of this form of commercial management and doubt about the savings that it is claimed will be made—have not yet been satisfactorily answered during the debate, in exchanges in this House on previous occasions, or in the response of the Ministry of Defence to the Select Committee's initial report. I understand that the Select Committee on Defence is now worried about the enhanced uncertainty factor. This point is relevant, bearing in mind what I said at the beginning of my speech—that this debate is about the future system that should be adopted for servicing the Royal Navy which plays such an important part in the defence of this country.
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State outlined the changes to the Government's proposals after the publication of the consultative document. Operating companies are to be established which will enter into contracts with contractors for a period of seven years. At the end of the seven-year period there will again be uncertainty. I want to put to my hon. Friend the Minister of State a question that increasingly is being asked. He was not over-optimistic when he referred to the number of potential contractors who may be in the pipeline for the Devonport contract. One of the bases upon which he presents his argument for a fundamental change in the administration of the royal dockyards is that a more competitive edge will be introduced which will result in the dockyards being more cost-effective and providing a better quality of service. If, however, no contractor comes forward, or if the terms are unacceptable to either side because of the uncertainty, we are entitled to ask what will happen.
  The Bill contains what I interpret as a fall-back clause if unforeseen circumstances should arise. I do not regard the reference to a Government-owned company as a permanent option. It is an interim measure. If we were obliged to introduce it, it would lead to greater uncertainty over an extended period. All of those who are concerned about the defence of this country, the future of Devonport dockyard and the impact of these measures upon the local economy are entitled to a response from the Government.
  The separation of the management and work force will destroy the entity of the dockyards. I have already referred to the fact that there has been an increase in uncertainty. Those who are employed in the dockyards will feel less
  56
  certain about their future. This in turn will lead to a reduction in the ability of the work force. In other words, their worries will be manifested in the work that they do.
  Almost 13,500 people are employed at Devonport dockyard. We know that during the next 18 months to two years that number will be reduced by about 2,000. Devonport is one of the five largest single-site operations in the United Kingdom. It should not be forgotten that, in addition to the 13,500 employees in the dockyard, at an adjacent site almost 5,000 additional people are always employed by the Royal Navy base. Therefore, the total Devonport presence is almost 19,000.
  I am worried about the economic and social implications of the Bill for Plymouth and south-east Cornwall. I have deliberately refrained from concentrating on local aspects, important though they undoubtedly are. However, I wish briefly to remind the House that the area of south-east Cornwall that I represent already has 18 per cent. unemployment, it already has assisted area status and average earnings are 18 per cent. below the national average. Therefore, the House will understand why I and the great majority of my constituents could do without any further traumatic experiences in the near future.
  Mr. Stuart Randall: Which way will the hon. Gentleman vote?
  Mr. Hicks: When the hon. Gentleman has been here a little longer, he will not make such inane comments.
  I return to my central theme, which is the defence and security of this country. In particular, we are considering the servicing of the Royal Navy, and that is an important ingredient. We are being asked to agree to what I have previously described in the House as a speculative, non-proven system. There is no comparable economic model anywhere in the world. The arguments deployed by the Secretary of State and his Ministers in support of the proposal are unsubstantiated. There is a total absence of clear, tangible evidence—
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: And the total absence of the Secretary of State.
  Mr. Hicks: My hon. Friend is right.
  In the absence of any known arrangements that could win the confidence of the work force and provide the required managerial expertise, I am not prepared, at this stage, to risk the defence of our nation for dubious financial savings. I shall vote accordingly.
  6.13 pm
  Mr. Dick Douglas: I and my colleagues serving on the Select Committee on Defence have laboured long, but not too wearily, with the contents of the Bill. I do not want to weary the House with the chronology of the background to the Bill. Those points have been made well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen). Suffice it to say—and in the absence of the Chairman of the Select Committee at this point—that there was a brief interchange between the Chairman and my right hon. Friend about the Committee's conclusions.
  There is often some dispute about the conclusions that a Select Committee may reach, especially when it has a preponderance of Government Members. However, I challenge anyone who heard the evidence given to the

  57
  Select Committee on Defence—as I did—to do other than conclude that the evidence was overwhelmingly against the Government's preferred option.
  On the first occasion that it considered the matter, the Select Committee made it abundantly clear that the Government had failed to prove their case. On the second occasion, perhaps wrongly, I exchanged views with Vice Admiral Tippet, who, quite rightly, corrected me. I wrongly suggested—sometimes I get it wrong:
  "The evidence that you gave not only to this Committee but to the Public Accounts Committee, Admiral Tippet, enabled the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee to say on the Floor of the House that it was the worst evidence he had ever received."
  I was corrected by Vice Admiral Sir Anthony Tippet, who said, "The weakest, I think." It was the weakest evidence the PAC had ever received on statistics, finance and the cost-effectiveness of the Government's proposals.
  I cannot do other than reach the conclusion that the Government are proposing this measure for reasons other than a saving to the public purse. I believe that the Secretary of State—and I regret his absence—thinks that he is a manager, that he can embark upon a Tory-sponsored managerial revolution, that he is a good boy and is gaining Brownie points with the Prime Minister. One way to gain his points was, of course, by his proposals for the ROFs, and another is this proposal for the dockyards.
  The right hon. Gentleman looked around and found an adviser, Mr. Peter Levene. We know something about Mr. Levene's background. He went into the dockyards for a few days and produced a tardy, four or five-page document. He told the Secretary of State that, having examined the position, he thought it would be a great idea to have some form of commercial management, splitting the assets of the dockyards from the labour force.
  I come now to the kernel of my argument. This is almost the first time in contemporary industrial history that we have made wage slaves of a labour force. I ask the Minister, who has some experience of shipyard working, whether this is not the first time that we are transferring, not capital assets, but a labour force into a contracting company, whose only asset will be that labour force—the employees and the project management group.
  I know that the Minister is relatively new to this area, but he has civil servants ready to assist him. I ask him to name another occasion in contemporary industrial history where that has happened. We are returning to what, in Scottish terms, I call the tinned miners. In the 18th century, miners in Scotland had to wear a chain around their necks, which went along with a job in the pit. If they are subservient enough—I do not believe that they will be—the workers will wear checks round their necks to enable them to be transferred from one company to another. It is a ridiculous state of affairs in modern industry to treat the work force, the most vital asset—an asset that does not appear in any company's balance sheet—in this way.
  When describing the background, the Minister said that the Secretary of State had embarked on a consultative process. The Select Committee described the way in which that was done as inept. Indeed, it was not a consultative process at all. Almost in the middle of the process documents streamed out of the Ministry of Defence explaining the position. There were 25 documents, and by now there may be more. In the middle of that so-called consultative process, the Government told the workers in the dockyards, in effect, "Make up your minds, but in the
  58
  meantime we are issuing a number of reports to explain the position." The Government made a farce of the consultative process. It was not consultation at all, because the Secretary of State had a closed mind on his preferred option and intended to take the step, come hell or high water.
  Let us not forget that a Select Committee of the House was in the process of deliberating. It was obliged to rush—I use the word loosely—its report to try to forestall the closing date for the consultative period. Little time remained, following the issue of the report, before the commencement of the summer recess and then the proroguing of the House, in which to examine the recommendations. Little time was available for hon. Members to examine the position before the Second Reading. Even so, having examined the matter again, we reached the view—I accept that it was not conclusive—that the Government had still not proved their case.
  These are early days in the process of Select Committees. Committees of this House do not have the powers that are possessed by their counterparts in Congress. If we are to build up the reputation of our Select Committees, we must accept that they have the important function of examining evidence and presenting views to the House so that hon. Members can decide issues for themselves. We shall be doing our Select Committee system a great disservice if the Government, who have a majority on them, treat the views of Select Committees in a cavalier fashion.
  What kind of Navy are we likely to have in the late 1980s and 1990s? Clearly it will be a mixed Navy of surface and sub-surface vessels. Though I may hold different views from others about the degree of mix that should exist, it is clear that, despite the difficulties of financing Trident, we shall have a Navy with a substantial surface component, along with a sub-surface component.
  A prime area of the sub-surface component will be the Polaris fleet and the SSNs. We had a hint from the Minister today about how the new contracting companies would come in and learn, in operational terms, how to refit and maintain the fleet. Such expertise on the part of the contracting companies will gradually have to develop.
  Perhaps I should earlier have declared my interest, in that I am a long way from direct contact with the shipbuilding industry. As a member of what was the AUE, now the AUEW, I am a long way from being a Clydeside fitter. That is why I ask the Minister, who has considerable industrial experience, if he can point to a better project management set-up anywhere in industry than prevails in the present refit and maintenance organisation of the Polaris fleet. It is the finest project management that I know.
  I have examined the list of companies that are touting for Rosyth and Devonport, and there are many more touting for the former than for the latter, though I shall deal with that later. Where in the contracting companies is there commensurate expertise as exists in the dockyards today? The Minister gave the game away, because he said that to enable the contracting firms to overcome the learning curve they would have to come into the dockyards and operate in parallel with the existing managements for 18 months. What a cheek—
  Mr. Norman Lamont indicated dissent.
  Mr. Douglas: I shall willingly give way to the Minister if I have misrepresented him.
  Mr. Norman Lamont: I did not say that they would operate in parallel for 18 months. I shall go over this point when I reply to the debate. The 18-month period was the time, I said, before we would work up to the proportion of fixed price work that we intend should be the ultimate. That is greatly different from what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
  Mr. Douglas: Perhaps I put an unfair gloss on the Minister's remarks. The Minister is saying that the contract will be on a fixed price basis, but that initially it will not be for all of the 70 per cent. of the refit and maintenance of the fleet that now goes to the dockyards. There will, therefore, be a learning curve, however loosely one might describe it as such, and in that period the contracting companies will have to rely on the weight of expertise that now exists in the dockyards.
  I repeat my question: where in any of the 11 contracting companies, which I shall not embarrass by naming, is there a corporate management equivalent to, let alone in excess of, that which exists in the dockyards now, particularly in the refit and maintenance of the Polaris fleet? I am sure of my ground, because that is the most prized corporate management in refit and maintenance work in ship repairing in the United Kingdom, and probably in the world.
  What markets are we considering? About 80 per cent. of the ship repairing market in the United Kingdom is in the dockyards, and that work is now being touted for by the contracting companies. I agree with the right hon. Member for Devonport that some companies will probably tout for the yards so as to curry favour with the Ministery of Defence, and particularly with the new chief of defence procurement. The real prize will be that loading of Rosyth and Devonport in relation to nuclear refits. Those are extremely complicated refits, the expertise for which now resides in the dockyards.
  The Secretary of State has a strategy that bemuses the House and relates to his view as a manager. I apologise for using the name of the Secretary of State when he is not here, but let us suppose that, as a good manager, he put his views with regard to the contracting arrangement to the labour force or to a Select Committee and was told that his case was not proven and was extremely dubious on managerial grounds. Surely a good manager would want to cry "Halt", to think again and to reach some other accommodation, but the Secretary of State has not done that.
  The Secretary of State has not proved his case. Only Mr. John Garnett of the Industrial Society supported the Secretary of State's case before the Select Committee, and it was pretty poor evidence. Does the Secretary of State justify his case in terms of servicing the fleet? Perhaps in the past the arrangements have been too cosy, but no one can point to that arrangement as being to the detriment of the fighting efficiency of the fleet. If the end is not profitability but the fighting efficiency of the fleet, there is no justification whatever for the Government's case.
  What will contracting companies do in bidding for fixed price contracts? Will they bid for them at the lower end of the fixed price? Certainly not. They will bid at prices that will reflect the difficulties of the refit process and their view of profitability. There is the concept of fixed price contacts plus the problem of emergent work. It has been suggested that there will be a considerable gain in expertise and in the accurate pricing and costing of
  60
  refits, particularly in emergent work. At present, the Navy is good at pricing 60 per cent. of a particular refit, because 40 per cent. of the price may be related to emergent work, but we have not grappled with the fact that contracting companies, in dealing with fixed price contracts, will price at the higher end of the scale. Even if they did the opposite, one can imagine what the situation would be after they got the work in the yard.
  There might be a frigate at Rosyth or Devonport. Two thirds of the way through the refit the contractor might say that there was much more emergent work than had been anticipated in the budget. Would the Navy have to wait until the matter had been argued across the table? Would the Secretary of State come to the House and say, "I am sorry, but we cannot have the strategic nuclear deterrent now because we are negotiating with Taylor Woodrow"? Is that what is suggested? Alternatively, are we capable of devising contractual arrangements that are so firm and so fixed that no such situation can emerge?
  The proposal in the Bill is a leap in the dark, not only in relation to the labour force—I have stressed the importance of that—but in relation to the reliability of the fleet as a whole. I repeat that perhaps in the past there has been too cosy a relationship—that is debatable—but it has never been to the detriment of the fighting efficiency of the fleet.
  Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is saying that perhaps there has been too cosy a relationship. I deduced from that that he feels that the operations may not have been as efficient as they might have been. If so, what has been done has been too expensive and too extravagant. There is a limit to the amount of money that can be spent in any area of the Government provision, including defence. If there has been too much expenditure in the area that we are debating, could not that money have been spent in other areas, to improve the efficiency of the Navy and the services in other ways?
  Mr. Douglas: When there is an excess of £400 million, there is bound to be room for improvement in efficiency. Nowhere in their evidence to the Select Committee did the trade unions deny the possibility of achieving greater efficiency. Indeed, the trade unions were only too anxious to achieve greater efficiency, and argued the case for a trading fund, which would give the Government the accountancy constraints and innovations that perhaps are desirable to achieve some of the aims that the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) might desire.
  I do not wholly support the idea of a trading fund. As the Select Committee pointed out, the savings as between the Government preferred option and the trading fund option are minuscule, and we have had no detailed estimates of those savings from accountants. The right hon. Member for Devonport and the trade unions suggested that there was a case for a detailed analysis of the trading fund option, as did the Select Committee on Defence.
  The Government's view is that it is essential to transfer 19,000 people from Civil Service employment into some sort of contracting or operating company. There we have a distinction without a difference. When the right hon. Member for Devonport was speaking, the Minister of State, in an intervention, said that there would be no

  61
  possibility of having two or more companies within the one dockyard. I hope that I have not paraphrased him wrongly.
  The Bill enables the Government to do almost anything with the dockyards. Let no one in any part of the House be under any illusion. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) is not here. Is an operating company, as a sort of halfway house, suggested to persuade some reluctant Conservative Back Benchers to support the Bill, so that everything in the garden will be lovely?
  The Secretary of State, as the sole shareholder, will hold that share in the public interest. The only difference is that the employees will cease to be civil servants. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State will be at arm's length from his Ministry and will be able, at will, to bring contractors into the yards to do his bidding. I suggest to my trade union colleagues that it will be very difficult for the lads in the yard to oppose it. It will be highly destructive and will put their future in jeopardy, as the Select Committee suggested. Therefore, it is not a convenient halfway house, although it might persuade some reluctant Conservative Back Benchers.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), other Fife Members and myself respect the contribution that Rosyth dockyard has made to local employment, particularly the employment of apprentices. There is no indication whatever that any of the contractors would give to apprentices the training and background that the dockyards have given them. Other dockyards might have done something in social terms, such as more training than was needed, but that is a vital and important contribution to the labour force, not only in the east of Scotland, but in Scotland as a whole.
  The Secretary of State, for doctrinaire reasons, has become unpatriotic. The Conservative party is usually depicted as the party safeguarding the defence of the nation. We have had some strictures from the Minister over the Trident force, and I shall be happy to deal with them on another occasion. (Interruption.] The Minister should not tempt me. I shall deal with them on another occasion. The Secretary of State has placed the fighting efficiency of the fleet in jeopardy. He has undermined the morale of the most vital asset—the labour force. I understand why the Secretary of State is not here—he should be ashamed of himself for introducing the Bill. I ask my hon. Friends, and anybody with sense on the Government Benches, to vote against the proposals.
  6.41 pm
  Mr. Bill Walker: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) because Rosyth is a vital part of the Scottish economy. The people who work there have shown loyalty to the country and to the Royal Navy for a long time.
  Against that background, one may wonder why we are debating the subject. If loyalty were the only ingredient that mattered, we should not be having the debate. There is more to it than that. As the decades have passed, certainly since the second world war, the costs of maintaining modern equipment, particularly modern submarines, have escalated to the point where the defence budget in that area, and in others, is now under considerable stress. If we had unlimited resources and were able to keep voting extra funds, there would be no problem.
  62
  I find the argument for the protection of jobs in the defence industry rather interesting coming from the Opposition Benches. Every time we have a debate on defence, the Opposition want to cut expenditure. It makes one wonder how they will achieve those marvellous cuts and still maintain the work force and the efficiency that has been sustained at an acceptably cost-effective level for some time.
  It is equally true that in the past 15 to 20 years there have been enormous pressures. There have been many different inquiries and reviews into the cost of maintaining our royal dockyards. They came about not simply because people felt that we should conduct reviews but because it was glaringly obvious that more changes were required in the way in which we manage our dockyards.
  Mr. O'Neill: Had the hon. Gentleman been present at the beginning of the Minister's speech, he would have heard him say, with the greatest diffidence, that there was no guarantee of any substantial impact on the defence budget from the proposals in the Bill. Somewhere around 5 per cent. was as much as he could offer, and that was with a £400 million turnover in the dockyards.
  Mr. Walker: That was an interesting intervention. It is typical of what one would expect from that source. We are indulging in the exercise—
  Mr. Gordon Brown: "Indulging" is the right word.
  Mr. Walker: It is an appropriate word.
  We are indulging in the exercise because the forward projections show—the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West put his finger on it—that if the costs of emerging technology and in other areas continue to escalate as they have in the past, the defence budget will be unable to sustain the servicing that is essential if we are to maintain a viable fleet. The defence budget is the budget that the Opposition are always proposing to trim and cut. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that it is important—in fact, vital—that we maintain a fleet that is capable of conducting the exercises that we demand of it.
  In the past, the Navy has had to face this problem on more than one occasion. The defence policies of Governments, particularly Labour Governments, have imposed on it a task that it could not adequately undertake because it was inadequately equipped.
  Listening to the Opposition, I find it fascinating that the Labour party's defence policy is non-nuclear. Anyone who has been to Rosyth knows that the special expertise that has been built up and developed there over a long period is in nuclear-powered submarines and submarines equipped to fire nuclear missiles—Polaris submarines. I do not know how the Opposition can guarantee jobs at Rosyth, where the workers have a great skill. I believe that it is a great skill, and like other skills it is of use only if it is adequately and effectively managed. How can those people continue to look forward to job security when the Opposition's defence policy will phase out the jobs?
  The major difference between the Opposition's defence policy and the Government's is that the Government's is based on guaranteeing the jobs at Rosyth. Trident guarantees many jobs, and no one should underestimate the value of re-equipping the Polaris fleet and the length of time that that will guarantee jobs at Rosyth. As long as the Trident submarine is in service, there will be a demand

  63
  for it to be serviced at Rosyth. Linked to that are the jobs at Coulport. They also depend on the continuance of our independent nuclear deterrent.
  The Labour party wants to get rid of nuclear weapons in the United Kingdom. Labour Members are happy to discuss the details of jobs, emerging technology and what they describe as top secret work and equipment, but they will not argue about the specifics. What will the people of Rosyth do in the future if a non-nuclear defence policy is introduced? There is no question but that the savings that the Opposition claim will be made embrace the people at Rosyth who work on the Polaris refitting programme. The SSNs are also serviced at Rosyth. What will happen to them under a non-nuclear programme? Obviously, they will not be carrying nuclear warheads. They will not be equipped with depth charges that are nuclear detonated. They will have conventional equipment. The Royal Navy will be trying to sink deep-running submarines without the equipment to do it. That is what we are hearing from the Opposition. It is up to them to tell us how they can guarantee the jobs. No one can guarantee the jobs if we phase out the equipment that has to be serviced.
  I now come to the SDP's defence policy.
  Mr. Douglas: Deal with the Bill.
  Mr. Walker: I am dealing with the Bill.
  Mr. Douglas: Tell us about it.
  Mr. Walker: We are dealing with the reasons for the management structure under the expected expenses and anticipating the expenses only because we have the equipment at Rosyth, which has to be serviced. Unless we have the equipment, we shall not need Rosyth dockyard, and no changes in the management structure will be required.
  I have never been able to work out how the Social Democractic and Liberal parties manage to live together. The SDP's policy is for keeping Polaris until it becomes ancient and decrepit. Under the SDP's programme, Polaris submarines will continue to be serviced at Rosyth. According to that party's calculations, it seems that the submarines will require more frequent servicing. Perhaps that is one of the short-term advantages of that policy. SDP Members want to sustain and maintain an aging fleet of submarines. Anyone who knows anything about the aging submarine will know that it requires more frequent attention to its hull and structure. Under the SDP's policy, therefore, there might be a need to make some changes in the management in the short term at least, but in the long term, if the Polaris fleet is to be phased out when it is impossible to sustain and operate it, the jobs will disappear at Rosyth.
  The Liberals' policy is akin to that of the Labour party, and makes this debate on how to manage the dockyards academic. If their policy were introduced, the dockyard force would not be required on such a scale, and the management changes would not be required.
  We maintain the work force at a certain level so that we can sustain our fleet at sea, and that level is based on calculations of the number of submarines, whether Polaris, Trident or SSNs, projected for present operations and future purchase. It is against that background that we must examine Rosyth. Much of the waffle from Opposition
  64
  Members both inside and outside the Chamber has been brought about by the fact that they find themselves under threat because the work force at Rosyth, like those in many other places, has trade unions that support the Labour party. It is an interesting thought that the people who support the Labour party may be putting their own jobs at risk because, unless there are submarines to service in future, there will be no jobs.
  We have to consider the management of the dockyards because the management controls the way in which work is done and is usually responsible for its cost. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West said that perhaps it was too cosy an arrangement. That was a lovely way of saying that they were all old boys working together, who did not control or manage as they could or should have done. If I am wrong about what the hon. Gentleman said, perhaps he will tell me. I should like to know what "too cosy an arrangement" is.
  Mr. Douglas: The hon. Gentleman should make his own speech.
  Mr. Walker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was suggesting that, because of the way in which the dockyards were managed, the Navy, the customer, was unable to get out of the dockyards what it required.
  That being so, one has to ask why the Government have gone for the option that they have chosen. I had some doubts about whether it was the best of the options. The proposals put forward by the trade unions in the trading fund option were interesting. In other circumstances, we might have considered it preferable. We are concerned about the costs over the next 10 to 15 years.
  In the House we often hear from Opposition Members about the cost of Trident and what it will do to the defence budget. There is no question that, while Trident is being introduced and while we are maintaining our Polaris fleet and SSNs, we must have the most effective, cost-effective system. It could be said that the trading fund would have given that to a great extent. but the question that we have to ask ourselves is whether that would have removed the "too cosy an arrangement" that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West talked about. We should be leaving the control and management in the hands of the present people. The trading fund gave more clearly defined areas of responsibility and costs, which must be of tremendous value.
  No one can deny that the Government's proposals are different. I have no doubt that it will be argued that they are novel and untried. That cannot be disputed, but the same can be said about entering into any new area of management or technology. When we first had nuclear-powered submarines, they were novel and untried. There was a learning curve when those submarines were first brought into service, both in their operation and servicing.
  Mr. Marlow: The Government have embarked on a large programme of privatisation. My hon. Friend will be aware that recently British Telecom was privatised, or given back to the people, and in that way a new structure was established. That was a new and untried structure, and it included the Office of Telecommunications. Despite what the Opposition said all along, it has been very successful, and the new and untried structure that the Government put forward is now massively liked by the people and much appreciated. This is another such example.
  Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend is right. He is moving into an area to which I was about to refer. With novel and untried things, there is bound to be criticism. We must expect a feeling of uncertainty and insecurity, particularly in the work force. It would be remarkable if the workers did not now feel insecure. Of course, they do, and not unnaturally so because they believe much of the current scaremongering.
  Let us consider the evidence in industries which have been privatised. The nearest example is British Aerospace, which was privatised by the Government despite all the fears, qualms and stories from Opposition Members about the ghastly things that would occur. They kept talking about top secret work and wondered how secrecy would be maintained if British Aerospace was privatised. They asked how that could be done in a privatised company. Anyone who has made any attempt to study those matters knows that private British companies have always been involved in defence procurement for top security work. Some of them have developed new equipment, often ahead of the demands of the services. The prime example was the Spitfire, which was developed privately and became the front-line service fighter of the Royal Air Force.
  Even today British Aerospace is not showing any of the dreadful signs and symptoms of trouble which Opposition Members predicted during our debates on its privatisation. Experience shows that the trade unions at British Aerospace are some of the most effective and efficient in the country. Indeed, they are an example to many of us. They come to the House and lobby on behalf of their company for orders and greater efficiency. They demand that their company is the most efficient and profitable. They are quite different from people who lobby simply to maintain numbers of jobs. They are both different and progressive.
  I welcome the many visits from the trade unions of British Aerospace. They tell us what the Government should be doing. The European fighter aircraft is a good example of how the trade unions developed an attitude early on. They decided that the project should be not French based but based on the experimental aircraft which British Aerospace was constructing. Privatisation, at least in the form introduced into British Aerospace, has undoubtedly been successful. It works, and the work force responds to it.
  I now turn to the complaints about top secret work. Opposition spokesmen often say, "The Government propose to put Britain's ultimate deterrent"—the nuclear deterrent force, including the Polaris submarine force, which is later to be replaced by Trident—"into the hands of private contractors." Indeed, that would be foolish if it were to put the nation's security at risk, but what evidence is there of greater risks if one privatises areas of top security, instead of retaining them all in the public sector?
  Most high technology areas are already in the private sector, and certainly all avionics are. Who can deny that British avionics are the best in the world? It is a great tragedy that we do not tell people more often how we have maintained top security and kept out both enemy agents and agents of industrial espionage interested to find out how our top security avionics work, are manufactured, constructed, maintained and serviced. Most of our avionics companies—for example, Ferranti, GEC, and Marconi—are world leaders. The British head-up display and the laser gun sight are way ahead of the
  66
  equipment of anyone else. No one has yet suggested that, because they are in private hands or they are returned to the manufacturing factories for servicing, they are a security risk.
  In the days when the Vulcan bomber was our deterrent force, the Vulcans were serviced partly by the Royal Air Force at maintenance units, and partly by the manufacturer. There was no risk. Where, then, do Opposition Members find evidence that placing the servicing of our nuclear submarines in the hands of private contractors will put the nation's security at risk?
  Mr. Gordon Brown: If the hon. Gentleman is so sure that there is no problem with top secret and classified information, and with the policing of the Official Secrets Act 1911, why is a Ministry of Defence committee sitting on the issue at present, as part of the 19 working parties which are considering how to manage the scheme? Is it not a tribute to the sad state of the Scottish Conservative party that the first Back-Bench Member to speak in favour of the proposal is the newly elected—incidentally, by English votes—Scottish chairman of the Conservative party? When will he fight for jobs in Scotland, particularly as Rosyth, with 8,000 jobs, is the largest industrial establishment at risk under the Government's policies?
  Mr. Walker: I might have expected some such nonsense from that source. If the hon. Gentleman had made any attempt to study the facts, he would know that I am the second Conservative chairman to be elected under the system of which he complains. I objected when I was the losing candidate, but nothing was done about it. Within 30 minutes of my election, I went to see the chairman of the 1922 Committee and asked to have the rules changed.
  I am not worried about the background. Indeed, I care as deeply about the jobs at Rosyth as the hon. Gentleman does. If he had bothered to do any homework, he would know that there is a naval workshop in my constituency. I am anxious that we maintain these operations in Scotland, and the best way to do it is to ensure that the customer—the Royal Navy—has the funds to purchase the equipment of the future. That is why I support Trident. It does more for job security at Rosyth than almost any other single project. For the hon. Gentleman to shake his head and to tell the Rosyth work force that the cancellation of the Trident programme will not put their jobs at risk is to live in a world of make believe.
  All the experience shows that when programmes are cancelled, servicing jobs are put at risk. That always happens. The hon. Gentleman suggests that he cares about jobs, but I want to protect jobs and ensure that high technology remains in Scotland. I do not want the jobs and experience to disappear, which will happen if a future Labour Government cancel programmes. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What about Gartcosh?"] Gartcosh is not about emerging technology or the future, but about the present. I am talking about the future. We should consider carefully how to maximise our opportunities.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West that the Rosyth work force has skills and talents that we should not put in jeopardy, and if I believed that any provision in the Bill would put at risk the future of the dockyards, there is no way that I would support it. The finest way to secure jobs at Rosyth is to ensure that we have a programme for the future that supplies the work

  67
  force with the sort of equipment that it is good at servicing—nuclear-powered submarines which carry nuclear missiles.
  I cannot follow the logic in the argument that somehow one can cancel programmes but still provide work, and that is where I differ from the Opposition. We must reassure the work force that it is not being misled. As a Government, we have a responsibility to carry the work force with us when we introduce measures such as this. It is not enough simply to deliver grand speeches in the House of Commons or make statements on television. It is essential to go into the dockyards and explain clearly what the proposals mean and how they will be operated once they come into force.
  If we are to take workers along with us, particularly in periods of great uncertainty, it is essential that any areas of doubt are examined together. It is also important, when introducing a programme of franchising out the management, to ensure that those who take over operate under conditions that preserve the skills, talents and morale to which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West referred. I apologise if the hon. Gentleman thinks that I am damaging his case, but as we are both concerned about jobs it is inevitable that we should touch on the same topics, including morale, and one of the surest ways of destroying morale is not to explain clearly what one is proposing.
  Mr. Randall: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) felt that the consultations were not satisfactory and that the dockyard workers felt that the consultations were a mere pretence?
  Mr. Walker: I cannot accept that. I cannot accept a situation in which consultations are a farce. We must go through a process of consultation on all the areas of uncertainty, and they must not be a farce. I accept that for whatever reason some individuals will want to object, but if evidence is available of the need to improve the consultative process, it should be produced. Now is the time for that to be done. After all, this is only the Second Reading stage. Now and in Committee are the best times to press any Government to consider changes if we think that their legislation contains areas of uncertainty.
  It has been said that the 2,000 job losses at Devonport and 400 at Rosyth are incorrect. Fife regional council has suggested that there will be greater redundancies, but the onus is on it to present us with the facts that substantiate that claim.
  I have a high regard for the work done at Rosyth, although it is true that in some instances the servicing of submarines has been late and that the Royal Navy has been unhappy. On occasions, naval officers in my constituency have complained that they have had to put right problems that should not have arisen.
  If the same number of frigates and submarines are available for servicing, does that mean that Fife regional council envisages the same work load being done by 2,000 fewer people? That is not sensible. If that is not what the council means, it can only be suggesting that somehow Rosyth will have a diminishing work load.
  If that is so, we must be clear about what it means. I understand that in future the royal dockyards will be required to satisfy the Navy that it is getting good value
  68
  for money in terms of the work that is done. There is to be no change in the number of ships, and certainly not in the number of submarines, that will require servicing. Indeed, an increased number of submarines will require servicing, because there will be more hunter-killer submarines, not fewer. Given Rosyth's special expertise, I would have thought that it could look forward to more work.
  If the Navy has more ships for servicing and Rosyth is the obvious place at which to carry it out, from where will the redundancies come? Will they be achieved by increased efficiency? I doubt that very much, because no one will convince me that the present Rosyth work force is overmanned to the tune of 2,000. That is nonsense, and anyone making such a statement will be laughed all around Fife, because it is just not true.
  We are talking about improvements in management that will produce better and more cost-effective work. That is not the same as reducing numbers. If the ships are serviced more speedily, if the job is done more effectively and if there are more submarines to service, a far better cost ratio per unit will be achieved.
  Frankly, I think that Fife regional council picked the figure of 2,000 out of the sky. I am still waiting for the council to substantiate how those 2,000 redundancies will occur. If it is saying that in future a Labour Government will run Rosyth, I can certainly envisage 2,000 redundancies because, without a Polaris or Trident programme, there will be fewer important ships to service.
  To my mind, the council's claim is not about the way the dockyards are managed but about how the Royal Navy will in future be able to give the dockyards the same number of ships for servicing as it has done in the past.
  I am concerned about the jobs at Rosyth and the effect that they have on the Scottish economy. Given the situation that will prevail in the next 10 to 15 years, it is vital that we have in place the new training that will be required and the new practices that will be necessary to service future equipment. If we are to have the willingness and attitudes that are vital for the dockyards to be cost-effective, the new management must be monitored at each stage so that we know that it is producing what the Bill envisages.
  I know that some of my hon. Friends are not too happy about this measure. If we are not satisfied that the proposed way of managing the Royal dockyards is the best way, my hon. Friends have a duty to spell out their doubts clearly in Committee on each clause and each amendment, and each argument must be answered in detail. I assume that the Bill will go through unamended. Unless my hon. Friends' reservations about the proposals have been satisfied, there is a danger that we shall put into operation a package of proposals that will not carry the convictions of hon. Members in whose constituencies the dockyard workers live. My hon. Friends have a special responsibility. We must think seriously about trying to win the hearts and minds of those who are deeply worried about what will happen as a result of the Bill.
  7.21pm
  Mr. Michael Foot: I thought for one moment during the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that the Government had been able to disinter a supporter, but in his last few remarks that support became frayed. He finished by

  69
  delivering as menacing a threat to the Government as he is ever likely to deliver. I can see the Government trembling.
  I should like to return to the point that I made at the beginning of the debate about the Secretary of State's absence. I say that with no disrespect to the Minister who introduced the Bill. The Secretary of State's absence is not a small matter. It would have been open to the Minister to insist that he should have been here and to insist to the Leader of the House that arrangements should have been made for the Bill to be introduced when the Secretary of State was not absent from the country on other duties. The doctrine in these matters is that a Minister's first responsibility is to the House of Commons. It does not appear that that responsibility has been discharged by the Secretary of State. I have had no answer to the question whether the Government attempted to change the timing of this debate so that the Secretary of State could be here.
  This is a controversial Bill. If it were a trivial, tuppenny-ha'penny Bill, the Ministry of Defence might be able to say that it could be left to Ministers other than the Secretary of State. It is plain from what has been said that hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware that the Bill involves a major principle. It involves the future, the status, the work and the prospects of many of our citizens—people who have given great service to the nation. Their livelihoods are at stake, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) underlined. In such circumstances, for the Secretary of State for Defence to say that he will not trouble to come here or make arrangements to be here is an insult to the dockyard workers, the industry and the House of Commons. It also injures the way in which we seek to do our business.
  No hon. Member who has listened to the debate could doubt how powerful are the objections from both sides of the House to what the Government propose. The hon. Member for Drake made that clear, but it was not just her speech. Many other speeches have been made which have mentioned the same point. Every speech, except that of the hon. Member for Tayside, North, has been extremely damaging. Every speech has had to finish with a plea to the Government. Even the hon. Gentleman, their one supporter, ended with a plea. He said that we should look at the matter afresh and have real consultations with the people who do the work.
  If the Secretary of State had been here, we should have been able to press such matters upon him. The Minister has a disability. He cannot change the Bill at this stage. He has no power to respond to the debate. He cannot say that he will consider the case that has been put by hon. Members on both sides of the House. In view of what was said when the earlier statement was made, the Secretary of State's absence is an insult to the House of Commons. He will do himself a grave disservice. It is arrogant of the Secretary of State to say, "Let the House of Commons get on with its business. I shall not worry about it."
  Every parliamentary opportunity has been taken to try to impress upon the Government the fears and anxieties felt by different sections of the House. That is what Select Committees are for. That is what the Public Accounts Committee is for. The Chamber has the power, the right, the authority and the duty to survey what those Committees say, but they are set up to advise us—and all the advice that has come from those Committees is opposed to what the Government propose. Never before,
  70
  I suppose, in parliamentary history have there been so many Committees recommending that a Government should not do what this Government propose.
  The Bill is a kind of constitutional outrage. If we were not discussing something even more serious—what the Government are doing to workers throughout the country and in the dockyards—there would be many reasons for objecting to the Bill because of the form in which it is presented. Even the excellent Library, which produces reference sheets, was dumb-founded by the Bill. In its introduction, the Library said:
  "The interpretation of this Bill … presents one important problem. It is basically enabling legislation, not just in the sense that it enables orders to be made at a later date but also because it enables companies to be established and a particular scheme to be operated."
  The Library describes its difficulties in suggesting to Members how they should consider the Bill. The Library's note finishes:
  "In the case of the Dockyards one has to remember that all assurances about conditions of staff service need to be in the Bill itself for them to have any legal validity at this stage."
  In other words, the Government have produced one of the vaguest enabling Bills ever presented to the House.
  They could do almost any thing under the Bill and claim that they were acting within the proper confines of the Bill. All they have to do is to introduce orders late at night. They are giving themselves the power in the future, late at night, to do any of the things to which all the Committees have objected whenever they have been able to examine the matter in detail.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) has said, the Committees have spent many hours examining the proposals. By this enabling Bill, the Government are giving themselves the power to ram through at the last moment any solution that they want. They have merely to call upon their majority in the House to do that. For them to proceed with such a matter in such a way can only cause grave damage to the House of Commons.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) asked what we were to do when every kind of parliamentary resort had been used to bring pressure on the Government and the Government would not listen. The Government would be doing a great injury to the House if they used their majority in that way. They cannot complain about the representations made to them by the dockyard workers and the various Committees, but there has been no real consultation between the Government and these people, as the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake has said. The hon. Lady knows the situation better than the Minister, for she has been interested in this matter from the very beginning. The hon. Member for Tayside, North, almost on bended knee, pleaded for consultation in future. The Government knew that they were doing something that was bound to cause deep offence in many quarters, but they did not bother to have any decent consultation, just as they have not bothered to listen carefully to any representations from the various Committees.
  When the Secretary of State deigned to come to the House and make the original announcement about the Bill, one of his chief methods of proceeding was to sneer at hon. Members on both sides of the House who raised matters that affected their constituents. The Secretary of State turned on them, saying that they were just talking about constituency interests, as though that was in some way demeaning. He then went on to try to blame the Labour

  71
  party for the situation. He said that because the Labour Government had not introduced reforms and changes at an earlier stage, this Government were now forced to make those changes. Time and again the Secretary of State has said that the Labour party ran away from such propositions. I should be happy to discuss the Labour party's record in relation to the dockyards, because it is a fine one. It is hopeless for the Government or anybody else to blame the Labour party for the state of the royal dockyards.
  The royal dockyards played a pre-eminent part in the Falklands war. No Minister would dare to criticise what the dockyard workers did during the Falklands war. I vividly remember going to Devonport dockyard at that time of crisis and seeing how efficiently, indeed super-efficiently, the people there were conducting their affairs. Everyone paid the greatest tributes to the royal dockyards and the part that they played during the Falklands war. The Secretary of State, when he last deigned to speak to us on the matter, implied that the royal dockyards were being mismanaged because of the Labour party's neglect. The royal dockyards, which performed so brilliantly at the time of the Falklands war, were operating under a system of neglect for which the Secretary of State says the previous Labour Government were responsible.
  It is not true that there has been shameful inefficiency in the dockyards. Nobody has said that no changes are needed. Of course, there are things that could be changed. The unions in the dockyards have always been prepared to accept that. The test of the royal dockyards is what they do at moments of great crisis, such as the Falklands war. At that moment the royal dockyards proved themselves to be super-efficient. For a dockyard to be super-efficient, it must have resources available which it may not need to use all the time. That is one of the problems.
  Mr. Sayeed: No one disputes the innate patriotism of the dockyard workers, and they worked super-hard because of that patriotism. At the time of the Falklands war they did jobs in 18 weeks which were scheduled for two years, but that very scheduling shows that in peace time they were not working as efficiently as they could, so a different form of management is required to increase peace-time efficiency.
  Mr. Foot: I shall answer that point by giving the hon. Member for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and the Government a history lesson. This matter has been considered before by people who have spent their whole lives in the dockyards. The trade unions and management have had to deal with the problem of pressure on the yards at special times. In war time or at times of near war and special moments of crisis, the resources must be available to do things that cannot be done on a common form basis. If that special responsibility were removed and the dockyards were run on a normal commercial basis, another Falklands crisis might occur and no royal dockyard would be able to meet the special responsibility.
  The Labour party found the correct solution to that problem, and the same solution would work today. After the first world war, the numbers working in the dockyards were not maintained. People were sacked and made redundant. They were sacked quicker then than now. In 1919 almost 1,000 workers were sacked on one day, and they had to be out within a week. That is how dockyard
  72
  workers were repaid for what they had done in the 1914–18 war. The workers were extremely bitter about that. That was one of the main reasons for the foundation of the Labour party in Devonport, and I am sure that the same is true of Portsmouth and Chatham. After 1918 Governments were reckless in human terms. They did not care about sustaining on a long-term basis the service that the dockyards could provide for the nation.
  In 1945, after the second world war, a Labour Government had the responsibility of caring for the dockyards. The Labour party learnt from previous mistakes and would not sack dockyard workers. The Labour Government would not return to those former barbarous methods, partly because they recognised what the dockyard workers and the Navy had done in the war, but also because they did not believe that that was a sane and sensible way to run anything.
  After 1945 the Labour Government managed the dockyards differently. All the clever ideas that the Minister talked about—for example, that the dockyards should find other kinds of work, which he claimed were his brilliant schemes—were merely what the Labour Government did after 1945. The Labour Government introduced repayment work. Some of the admirals at the time were not passionately fond of that, but we went ahead and managed to maintain the dockyard labour force at a good level throughout that period. We enabled the dockyards to refit other types of ship and merchant vessels and so maintain the strength of the labour force. We did not say that it was necessary to maintain the labour force at that level for all time, but if the royal dockyards have to perform the essential task of maintaining the British Navy the labour force must be maintained over a long period. It must have security, and the workers must see a future for their children, their families and their communities.
  There may have been a need for further changes in the past decade. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that huge sums were invested in the dockyards to enable them to do their job properly. The Opposition do not believe that that solution is perfect or that no further changes are needed but nothing could be so crass as the Government's present proposals. The Government are wrecking all that has been built up in the dockyards over this period by turning on the dockyard workers after praising them for their hard work during the Falklands campaign. The Government have forgotten how quickly the dockyard workers dealt with all their problems. I believe that Devonport royal dockyard is the most efficient naval dockyard in the world due to the way in which it has been managed and the spirit of its workers. In saying that, I do not mean to denigrate Rosyth. Rosyth, Chatham and Portsmouth also have fine records.
  Under the proposed new scheme there will be great competition between Devonport and Rosyth. I am not sure how that competition will be resolved. I do not know what will happen if the new Devonport dockyard company goes, or seems likely to go, bankrupt. Will the Government let that happen or will they step in? Will it be a fake type of competition? The whole idea is monstrous. The Government should never have embarked upon it. Even after embarking on it, they should have listened to what was said in so many quarters.
  The Government say that this has nothing to do with the Royal Navy—that it is just a question of commercial management. That, too, shows how little they understand.

  73
  If they had gone to Devonport and Rosyth, or even to Portsmouth before they started closing it, and talked to people who had spent their lives there—dockyard workers, admiral superintendents or whatever—they would have heard a very different story.
  The roots of this matter lie deep in British history. I know that it is an insult to mention history to the Government. Both history and consultation are dirty words in their dictionary. The great naval triumphs of Britain were first the triumphs of the dockyards—nationalized dockyards, although I do not wish to rub that in too much. If the Minister ever takes time to read some history, or if any member of the Government has the first beginnings of any knowledge of our history, he will discover the truth of the matter. As Trevelyan puts it,
  "Henry VIII had founded the Royal Navy. Under Edward VI and Mary it had been permitted to decay. Under Elizabeth it was revived … Then, in a fortunate hour"—
  1578, 10 years before the Armada—
  "Elizabeth put John Hawkins in charge of the building and upkeep of her ships. During the decade before the coming of open war, which the Queen had so long and so wisely postponed, Hawkins did as great a work in the dockyards as Drake on the Pacific and Atlantic coasts."
  The same has happened twice in our own century. The Falklands could be regarded as a third example. On none of those occasions has anyone dared to say that the people in the royal dockyards have not served this country properly, yet the present Government care so little about all that that they will not even consult those people properly about their own future.
  All this is just part of the Government's doctrine that nothing counts but the balance sheet. Governments who proceed on that basis eventually find that they cannot even run the balance sheet properly. Having begun by saying that everything must be subordinate to the balance sheet, the Government have landed us in bigger deficits than we have ever known in a whole range of areas.
  An article by Raphael Samuel in The Guardian today,
  albeit on a different subject, touches on the Government's attitude to these matters. He says:
  "If there is one thing which may yet sink this government … it is the way it has personally devalued us and poisoned the very idea of public service. Under the harsh glare of cost-benefit analysis, and in the shadow of micro-chip technology, it appears that the entire working population of this country—teachers, miners, engineers, even Health Service workers"—
  we must now add dockyard workers—
  "are all, in some final sense, actually or potentially redundant, a drag on the nation rather than its precious human capital, as 'uneconomic' as the villages which Mr. MacGregor is consigning to oblivion."
  With this Bill the Government are poisoning a public service which has brought nothing but help and honour to this country. Whatever the Minister says, the best thing that he can do is to report to the absent Secretary of State for Defence, who did not have the nerve or the courtesy to come here today, that the whole House is outraged by his proposals and will fight them every inch of the way. Moreover, it will be no use carrying them through because, when Labour returns to government, we shall restore the royal dockyards to their proper place of esteem and operation.
  7.44 pm
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: In considering the future operations of the royal dockyards, five options are available. The first option is to do nothing. That is the option that the Labour Government took after the Mallabar
  74
  report in 1970. No doubt they found it politically expedient to refuse to do their duty and address a problem that had existed for 300 years. The present Government do not duck their responsibilities. It is the duty of the Government to deal with difficult situations, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right to bring in a Bill which seeks to deal with the deep-seated problems of the royal dockyards.
  The second option is to do next to nothing. This is the option adopted by the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) in suggesting that we set up a trading fund. Such a proposal would mean considerable upheaval, but very little gain. The work force would remain in the Civil Service, the consequent rigidities would continue and there would not be sound commercial management, because that would be impossible within such a system. The barriers to investment and the other financial constraints would not diminish and the inherent delays of the Civil Service would mean a lack of flexibility in pay, in the size and mix of the work force and in the terms and conditions under which it works. There would be no chance of profit sharing, which the Government's proposal offers, and nearly all the current problems of the dockyards would be perpetuated. The trading fund option would thus be no more than a cosmetic change.
  The third option is full-scale privatisation. Personally, I am strongly against that. To allow control of a prime strategic defence asset to pass into private hands would be utterly wrong. It would confer on those private individuals considerable bargaining powers and there would be no certainty that those powers could not be exercised to the detriment of the nation. I believe that the whole House would reject that option.
  Of the two remaining options, one is the private limited company option supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes). The Government would be the sole shareholder in the company. We have some experience of Government-owned companies of this kind—Austin Rover, British Airways and Rolls-Royce—but in the case of the dockyards, unlike what happened in those cases, the Government could not sell the shares, because that would lead to full-scale privatisation, which we all reject.
  There are demerits in the plc suggestion. The first relates to capital expenditure. I believe that initially, at any rate, the enterprise would have to be Government funded, because finances could not be sufficiently self-generated. We would have to determine the basis of the borrowing powers of the plc. Would they be guaranteed by the Government? If the moneys came from outside, what interest rate would be charged? The plc does not offer the same inducement to make the necessary efficiencies in the dockyards. Nevertheless, it is a possibility and there may be a chance of having a hybrid arrangement, with Rosyth under commercial management, and Devonpon as a plc. Hybridity is permitted within the terms of the Bill and the plc option would always be available as a fall-back.
  If the dockyards were commercialised, the majority of the fixed assets would remain in the Government's hands, but the operation of the yards would be undertaken by private contractors. The right hon. Member for Devonport decried this idea, as though it had never happened anywhere. Although I accept that there are no parallels between hotels and dockyards, it should be said that there are many systems of franchise, and not all for fast foods. Many major hotels are run on that basis. It is possible to

  75
  have the fixed assets owned by one company and for another company to operate those assets. That is commercially effective. There may be no exact parallels to the franchising of dockyard management, but the right hon. Member for Devonport showed a considerable lack of understanding of how franchising works by rubbishing the concept.
  The majority of the fixed assets would remain in the state's hands if there were commercial management. That is the Government's preferred option, and it is the only option in the short term that will encourage the considerable shake-up that is necessary in the dockyards, in both attitudes and demarcation. For that reason, it is my preferred option.
  To make this option, or indeed the plc option, work effectively, there are certain provisions which need to be set out in the Bill, or at least in the commercial contracts. The initial—and I stress the word initial—contract period should be increased from seven to 10 years. This will include two to three years to reorganise and rationalise the operation of the dockyards and it would be fair to give the management company thereafter a seven-year run to prove how effective it is. There should be a five-year or seven-year review of operation in the initial period and the company would be put on warning if it was inefficient. After the initial 10-year period, subsequent contracts should be for seven years. It is important that the contract should be in excess of the life of a Government, of whatever party.
  The second point is that the Government must take powers to act unilaterally to take back to themselves the operation of the dockyard if at any time they believe that the strategic interests of the country are being imperilled by the managing company. That right should be set out in the Bill. This should occur without a long review process. At a later date, compensation for the removal of the franchise could be agreed mutually or through an independent assessor. It is important that the Government should be able to act unilaterally if they feel that the defence of the nation is in peril.
  Mr. Clive Soley: This is an interesting thesis. Does it not imply that, as strategic interests can be so important at times, the management which the hon. Gentleman is suggesting should take over the dockyards may not be up to the standards required? If that is so, why is the hon. Gentleman suggesting such an option?
  Mr. Sayeed: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands me. I am not suggesting that it will happen. I am suggesting that, in a belt-and-braces and string-round-the-waist Bill, we should ensure that, in such an event, we have an effective and immediate remedy.
  Mr. Soley: Is the hon. Gentleman accepting the Government's thesis that the present management is not good enough?
  Mr. Sayeed: I am suggesting that the whole make-up of the dockyards—I agree with what my hon. Friend the Minister said—ensures that they cannot be as efficient as we would like, or as the Navy would like. I am not saying that the chosen management companies will be inefficient. I expect them to be chosen on the basis of their efficiency. However, we still need to ensure that, if the
  76
  worst came to the worst, the Government could take back into their hands the -management of the dockyards, and that the Bill, or at the very least the management contract, permits this.
  I hope that the Government will encourage companies to write into their bids a scheme for encouraging profit sharing. This would encourage workers in the dockyards to play a much fuller and more involved part than mere salaried employees.
  The refitting of SSNs is carried out at Devonport, though in future this will take place at Rosyth as well. The refitting of Trident SSBNs will be undertaken only at Rosyth. I accept, with certain reservations, that the Government are keeping their finger on the pulse of defence procurement and expenditure and are increasingly effective, but I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that competition is the best tool for controlling costs.
  There is no inherent merit in transferring a public monopoly into a private monopoly, and I urge my hon. Friend to consider the suggestion that the parties which own the shipbuilding yards should not be the same as those who own the commercial companies that manage the royal dockyards. In that way, those who build the ships could, if equipped, compete with the royal dockyards for refitting contracts. Therefore, Vickers may well equip itself to compete with Rosyth in bidding for refitting work on SSBN Trident submarines.
  Again to encourage competition I would expect my hon. Friend to ensure that the commercial management company that runs Rosyth is not the same as the commercial management company that runs Devonport because Devonport and Rosyth should be able to compete with each other. In this manner the two royal dockyards and the yards that build the ships will not only be able to compete for contracts to refit the simpler types of vessels—Royal Fleet Auxiliaries, offshore patrol vessels and the like—but will be able to compete for the refitting of complex type 22 and type 23 frigates, SSNs and even possibly SSBNs.
  I regret that there has been only a short time for consultation, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not always been assisted by the trade union leaders in the dockyards. For example, they have not been prepared to distribute the booklets which have been made available. I have read some of the pamphlets which have been issued, which have suggested that pension and redundancy arrangements will be other than what they are actually to be, but the Government should have allowed a longer period for consultation. On the other hand, the Government have had the courage to address a real problem. It is a problem which everyone has acknowledged, but which only the Government have been prepared to face.
  The Government have suggested that their proposed option is the one that is preferred by the Navy Board professionals who need the ships, and who operate them. The Bill is at least short enough and flexible enough to permit a variety of options to be considered. It is an important step in the right direction, and I commend it to the House.
  8.3 pm
  Mr. Stuart Randall: I have no direct constituency interest in this enabling Bill, but I beg the indulgence of the House for a few minutes. I am probably unique in the House at this moment because

  77
  I am an ex-dockyard apprentice. I served my apprenticeship for five years at Her Majesty's dockyard, Devonport, and joined the electricians' union at that time, which was in 1953. I am extremely proud of the training which I received. The apprenticeships that used to exist were of an extremely high quality. That can still be said of some apprenticeship schemes. The skill level of many of those who work in the dockyards is extremely high.
  I am worried about this enabling Bill. We seem to be embarking on a course that will take the dockyards into some commercial management. Presumably, the motive behind that is to cut costs. It is important to remember that we are dealing with the Royal Navy. We are talking about a force which has to be in top-line condition all the time. I am fearful of some of the analogies which have been drawn today. For example, it is not possible to compare the dockyards with areas in which I have worked such as the motor industry, the steel industry, information technology or banking. Direct comparisons of that sort cannot be made.
  Modern ships—whether they be surface vessels, submarines or carriers—are extremely complicated and immensely complex. It is necessary to have a skilled work force to ensure that refits, for example, are carried out expeditiously and efficiently when required. It is important to recognise also that in the event of conflict, such as the Falklands war, our work force can respond expeditiously. I fear that the Government's proposal is one that could cause a depletion of the work force. The skills that now exist in the dockyards could be lost because of the uncertainty about the terms and conditions of employment.
  Under the proposed arrangements highlighted in the Bill, an employee will join one of the private companies that receive contracts. When a company has completed its contract, the individual employed on a dockyard project will be finished. That is not the way to keep together a work force which must be of an appropriately skilled level to ensure that our Navy is in tip-top fighting condition. We are talking about ensuring that one of our key services is kept in that condition.
  I am worried about some of the remarks during the debate about management reorganisation in the event of a conflict. We all know only too clearly from the Falklands that the time scale is short when we are faced with a conflict. I am sure that we all remember the short time that we had to get the task force steaming south. I have no doubt that there was early intelligence, but by the time decisions had been made, we were left with only a short interval before the task force had to leave for the south. It would not be possible to reorganise management in such a short time.
  One of the great strengths of dockyard employees and the management structure is that they are pretty good at sorting out complex problems quickly. When I served at Devonport, we used to hear stories and tell stories about how we could lick the Americans. When the American fleet was tied against the sea wall, our fleet was out exercising and performing various tasks that the other NATO navies were unable to do. That is of great credit to dockyard employees and the management. We must remember that wars are won by those behind the scenes as well as by those at the front line. Of paramount importance are those who ensure that our Navy is properly
  78
  equipped and that our vessels are serviced to the highest possible level. Without that support, our front-line troops are seriously impaired.
  I know that the people of Devonport have been loyal. I cannot speak for Rosyth because I have not had experience of it. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) will be speaking about Rosyth. The loyalty of those at Devonport has been genuine, and I do not say that in a debating sense. They have the ability to respond.
  We must be careful about the readiness of the Royal Navy. It seems that we are engaged in a cost-cutting exercise, and we must not compare the Navy directly with, for example, ordinary manufacturing industry. It is clear that the Navy is a different kettle of fish.
  We can test the Government's proposed reorganisation only in the event of a war. I, like many others, would be dismayed to find that in the event of a war the Royal Navy was unable to get to sea to perform in the way in which it should because of the reorganisation of the dockyards following the passing of the Bill.
  This is an unfortunate measure. It is an enabling Bill and we do not really understand what it means. I share the opinion of many hon. Members that it has serious shortcomings. It seems that it will not save us very much expenditure and that any savings will be accompanied by many uncertainties. I hope that we are not penny-pinching at the expense of the efficiency and effectiveness of the Royal Navy.
  8.10 pm
  Mr. Neil Thorne: My colleagues who have followed the proceedings of the Select Committee on Defence will know that I believe wholeheartedly in privatisation. I place it second only to the defence of the realm.
  The Select Committee on Defence went to considerable trouble and considered the Bill in great detail. After examination of the various proposals, the Committee concluded that it was not a good idea for the Bill to proceed in its present form. The Select Committee was chaired by a Conservative Member and, of course, had a Government majority. The loyalty of the members of the Select Committee was with the Government in general outlook, but they believed that matters were not being considered from the right angle. They believed that the attitude of the trade unions had changed considerably during the past Few years and that the Government's premise for promoting the Bill seemed to be based on what happened many years ago. The Government are determined to make the trade unions understand the facts of life about what works and what does not work. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) mentioned that he joined the electricians' union, which I am glad to see is in the forefront of realism in commercial affairs because it takes a realistic line on what does and does not pay.
  We must carefully consider the proposals. The Public Accounts Committee estimated that the savings likely to result would be restricted to 1 per cent. If that was the estimate before the trade unions saw the light, the margin must now be smaller. If so, are the Government considering the matter properly and effectively? I am not sure that they are.
  We must consider the matter in further detail. The Select Committee concluded:

  79
  "We agree that the objective of infusing the Royal dockyards with entrepreneurial dynamism and a spirit of competition is a laudable one. The question is how best to achieve this end. The main benefit arising from the 'preferred option' would appear to be the transfer of 19,000 employees from the Civil Service establishment and from the constraints of Civil Service management."
  If that is the main objective—I understand the Government's wish to pursue their manpower targets—it is not a sufficient reason to put at risk the defence of this country.
  There are many good reasons why some aspects of the defence industry should be privatised, wherever possible, but it does not follow that this is such a case. If the Government are convinced that an experiment in privatisation would work—I am one of those who doubt that—they should pursue the possibility of privatising some yards. There is no earthly reason why all the yards should be privatised at the same time. Geographically, the yards are far apart and there is a good reason for dealing with them separately. That would not achieve the 19,000 transfer objective, but the defence of the country is more important than reaching a manpower target. The Committee concluded:
  "We urge the Government to approach the debates on the Dockyard Services Bill with an open mind and a readiness to draw fully upon the opinions expressed from all quarters, in the best interests of the fighting efficiency of the Fleet and of the defence and security of the nation."
  That is precisely what every hon. Member should be working for. I urge the Minister to justify how the Bill will meet those criteria.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Gordon Brown: We are debating a proposal that destroys three centuries of dockyard service to the nation, threatens the readiness of our Navy for the task of peace and war and puts at risk the seagoing efficiency and the fighting effectiveness of 50 surface vessels and a score of submarines. The proposal has grave consequences for the future of jobs and conditions of service of a loyal work force of about 20,000 civil servants so recently and universally praised for their dedication in the Falklands campaign. When we debate these matters, the least that the House has a right to expect is not only the attendance of the Secretary of State for Defence and less filibustering from hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), but proper information, adequate consultation and a detailed justification, which was missing from the Minister's speech.
  At best, we have had not a defence of the future arrangements for the royal dockyards but an attack on the present arrangements in the dockyards. There has been no argument in favour of the proposed management change. Instead, we have had the assertion that there should be a change in the management. The assumption that underlies every policy of this Government is that the public sector is wrong by definition and that the private sector is right because it is the private sector.
  I remind the hon. Members for Bristol, East (Mr. Sayeed) and for Tayside, North, who are no longer present, that we are discussing a privatisation proposal that has been rejected by every Committee, including the Mallabar, Speed and Hudson committees, that has reviewed the future of dockyard arrangements since the
  80
  war. The proposal has found no favour in any country that is faced with the responsibility of refitting, repairing and maintaining the most sophisticated naval vessels and submarines. Since its disclosure 18 months ago, the proposal has been opposed by every organisation and individual, almost without exception, that has examined it. As the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) reminded the House, since its publication, the proposal has evoked the unparalleled and unprecedented rejection of two senior Committees of the House and the outright universal opposition of the highly skilled work forces at Rosyth and Devonport. But this privatisation proposal is presented to the House almost unchanged since the original sketchy six-page prospectus was produced by Mr. Peter Levene.
  The House must ask, and Conservative Members would also question if they were here, whether Britain will be better defended, more secure, safer and more efficiently defended if some of the most lethal weapons known to man are refitted by an untried operator working under untested arrangements with a work force of uncertain size over which there is as yet an unspecified amount of public control.
  There is no clause or subsection in the Bill to prevent the work forces of Rosyth and Devonport from being run down to a core without any capability or capacity in an emergency. Nor is there anything in the Bill to prevent the franchises for Rosyth and Devonport from falling into the hands of a foreign cartel. There is nothing in the Bill to protect the Navy against the hazards of City and stock exchange finance, or even the coincidence of inernational crises and emergencies with awkward periods of contract changeover or inexperienced operators beginning their contracts. That is why one of the Minister's civil servants said to the Select Committee that the preferred option is the high-risk option for the Navy.
  What conceivable benefits could justify the uncertainties and disruption of this privatisation measure? For six years, we have been told by the Government that the merit of privatisation is that it offers us a people's capitalism through individual share ownership and economy through competition. Yet if nothing in the Bill will achieve those objectives, if nothing in the Bill will permit mass capitalism by share ownership because no shares will be sold and only the franchise for the dockyards is on offer, if nothing in the Bill will extend real competition because with one Navy, only two dockyards and two companies in control the Ministry of Defence will inevitably be a captive buyer from private monopoly suppliers, and if nothing in the Bill will reduce the public sector borrowing requirement because all new investment in the dockyards will be the responsibility of the Government and not the private operator who takes over, we must conclude that the Bill represents privatisation for privatisation's sake, based on an unsupported assertion that the private sector is right only because it is the private sector.
  The main purpose of the exercise—the only conceivable justification that the Minister could put forward for this colossal gamble with our Navy and our defences—is to cut costs and save cash. The original Levene report said that the purpose of the scheme was to save money. In the open government document issued a few months ago, entitled "The Future of the Royal Dockyard", the stated aim was the cutting of costs. In the Gracious Speech, the privatisation experiment was described clearly as being designed to secure

  81
  "value for money in spending on defence."
  Vice Admiral Tippet told the Select Committee on Defence that there would be "substantial savings" as a result of the changes.
  What does "value for money" mean? What are "financial economies"? What are "substantial savings" in practice when, according to the financial statement in the Bill, the changes,
  "are unlikely to have a major effect on central Government expenditure"?
  I remind Conservative Members of the point that I put to the Minister this afternoon. Even under the Government's most dubious reckonings, the minimum saving will be only £18 million, and the expected saving is only between £29 million and £33 million a year. When set against the alternative of a trading fund, which has been costed by the Government, those savings are reduced further to a minimum of only £10 million or, at best, between £21 million and £23 million. When set against the implementation costs of the scheme in redundancy payments, transitional costs and consultancy fees—we are told that implementation will cost about £60 million —the savings will be reduced by at least another £6 million a year, taken on a 10-year basis, and the savings then decrease to a minimum of £4 million, or £15 million at best. Since, in addition, up to £200 million will be paid to set up a private pension scheme, the conclusion that we must reach is that there will be no savings in 1987, no savings in 1988, no savings for the rest of the decade and that there are unlikely to be savings in the 1990s, if the scheme is properly costed, given all the additional initial expenses that are involved. There will probably be no savings even as we move into the first years of the 21st century.
  It is hardly surprising that the Public Accounts Committee, concerned more with financial reality than with economic theory, was neither impressed nor convinced by the financial information produced by the Government. The PAC concluded that the evidence from the Ministry of Defence was
  "among the worst we have received during this Parliament. The calculations given provided us with no valid bases on which to judge whether any increase in efficiency would result from the Government's preferred option."
  The Minister gave us new figures and new percentages on the core programme, including the costs that would be met by competition, the costs that would be met by fixed-price contracts and those that would be met by cost-plus arrangements. He appeared to say that fixed-price contracts would operate, but not for the first two years, not for 25 per cent. of the work in the next five years, not presumably for emergent work which could not easily be covered under the arrangements, and certainly not for unprogrammed work, which could not be covered under the present arrangements, and certainly not for unprogrammed work, which could not be covered under the present arrangements. Is it any wonder that when Touche Ross, the consultant to the Ministry of Defence, examined the proper financing of dockyards put into the private sector, it concluded that if it estimated what the dockyards would cost to run on a market basis, it had better include a 10 per cent. mark-up on existing prices for the profit margins that would be required by a commercial contractor? I presume that the document produced by Touche Ross is supported by the Ministry of Defence dockyard planning team, in whose name it it published.
  82
  The Government's argument is that throughout the exercise there will be substantial savings and no risk. The truth is that there will be no savings and substantial risks.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) mentioned the Admiralty Board, which seems to be the only respectable supporter that the Minister can claim for his scheme. My right hon. Friend cited Rear Admiral George's evidence to the Select Committee on Defence, when he said:
  "It is largely the pressures on the defence budget which have led the Admiralty Board to consider matters of saving money."
  The Board went even further in its evidence and said that it could see the benefit to the Navy in terms of the release of resources which should be capable of being used for front-line activities within the Navy. The board supported the proposals because the Minister told it that the scheme would produce savings. I understand that the Admiralty Board is not composed of simple sailors who might be expected to succumb to the wiles of a City operator, even one dressed for the occasion in a combat jacket. But the board has been taken in by the glossy financial prospectus passed round by the more dubious variety of secondary banks and, having been thoroughly misled by the Minister, now discovers that its puzzled assent to the scheme is about the only evidence that the Minister can cite in his favour.
  If the Government cannot tell us where the scheme will produce savings, should they not tell us about the risks that it involves? In a matter so grave as national security, the House has a right to demand and to expect proper safeguards. But where are those safeguards in the Bill? Where are the safeguards to ensure the maintenance of a strategic minimum capacity? Where are the safeguards that we shall maintain an emergency capability in the dockyards at times of international crises? There is nothing in the Bill about that. Where in the Bill are the safeguards on nuclear safety, when the responsibility for radiological protection will be with the contractor who takes over the dockyard and the responsibility for the removal and transportation of nuclear waste and radioactive substances will be with the Ministry of Defence?
  Where are the safeguards in the Bill to prevent our submarines from being refitted fender to fender with Russian trawlers? That is unknown in the public sector, but is clearly known in the private sector, because only a few months ago the submarine HMS Otter was photographed undergoing a refit on the Humber side by side with a Russian trawler. If there is a bar on countries that are unacceptable for strategic reasons for giving their naval refit work to the newly privatised dockyards, the dockyard planning team and Touche Ross seem to be unaware of it. Why did Touche Ross, presumably on the information given by the dockyard planning team, say in the report simply that the Communist world was "virtually certain" never to wish to negotiate the use of the dockyards? It says not that they will be banned from using the dockyards, but that they are almost certain never to wish to use them. In other words, the reason that there will not be Russian trawlers in the dockyards is not the Government's unwillingness for ideological reasons, but the unwillingness of the Soviet or Communist bloc to use the dockyards.
  Why are countries that are wholly unacceptable to us, such as Chile, South Africa and Argentina, cited in the document as only "unlikely" to be wanting work done within the dockyards? Why is it said that, even though

  83
  they are unlikely to want major refits in the dockyards, they may require specialist refit work to be done? Is it not amazing that the dockyards planning team has put its name to a document that says that it is possible that specialist refit work will be done on behalf of Argentina, a country with which we have no diplomatic relations, or South Africa, which has been condemned in the House and elsewhere?
  Will Britain be better defended if the other countries listed require naval refit work to be done in the newly privatised dockyards, or if Chilean, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Indonesian or Algerian frigates or sub-marines are refitted side by side with our independent nuclear deterrent at Rosyth? The Minister may say that this is not possible and that the Government will not allow it to happen, but there is nothing in the Bill to prevent such an extraordinary situation emerging and nothing in the advice that Ministers have given to the dockyards planning team to prevent it happening.
  There is another even more important point that Ministers seem to have overlooked. Where are the safeguards about continued British ownership of companies awarded the franchise, which may even be trusted with the responsibility of refitting the Polaris nuclear deterrent? There are no safeguards in the legislation about foreign control of the companies that will allegedly run the royal dockyards. We cannot anticipate safeguards even in the contracts or the articles of association, for even with the proposed golden share there can be no safeguards that are finally binding on the operating company.
  While a golden share may prevent Rosyth plc or Devonport plc falling into the hands of foreign shareholders, it can do nothing to prevent the company which holds the franchise—the major operating company awarded the franchise by the Government, the Balfour Beatties, the Weir groups, or the Thorn EMIs—from falling into foreign hands. Assurances from Ministers about what may happen are not enough if they are not prepared to stipulate in the legislation that the contract will be removed from any dockyard company at either Rosyth or Devonport if a certain number of shares in that company fall into foreign hands.
  This is what Tory patriotism now means. In their effort, because of their enthusiasm for privatisation, to transfer the dockyards from public control to private control, Ministers are prepared to contemplate the final transfer of the dockyards from British control to foreign control. That is the end effect of the Bill's proposals, if they are not changed.
  Let us consider some of the other assurances missing both from the Bill and what the Minister said today. Where are the assurances sought by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) about the continuation of apprentice training for the dockyards? What possible initiative will there be for a private company working on a seven-year contract to maintain the levels of apprentice training at the dockyards that have been vital for the maintenance and development of the local economies? Where are the assurances of proper public audits of what happens in the dockyards under private control? Where are the assurances about the proper line of separation between a dockyard under private control and the naval bases under public control? As long
  84
  ago as 1971, the Mallabar committee identified this as a major problem in examining any agency management scheme.
  Where are the assurances about the role of dockyards under private control in the serious matters of nuclear safety and war planning? Some 18 months after Mr. Levene produced his original document, a year after the Minister said that he would be prepared to go ahead, nine months after the Admiralty Board was duped into saying that no risk was involved because it thought that there would be savings, and six months after the Government approved the privatisation and said that they would introduce legislation, none of the problems has been solved. Some 18 months after Mr. Levene reported, there are now 19 committees in the Ministry of Defence examing the fundamental issues about which we warned 18 months ago, the resolution of which is at the heart of the viability of the scheme and at the heart of whether the nation can, for security reasons, afford to go ahead.
  When the Ministry of Defence committees report, the only answer that they can give is that we must simply hope and pray that international crises and emergencies such as the Falklands do not coincide with awkward periods when one contractor is being replaced by another. We must hope and pray that the crises that may arise do not coincide with an untried and inexperienced operator starting on a new contract. We must hope that the crises do not coincide with there being a competitor at the end of the term of his contract, just waiting to get out and with no reason to put his resources into doing the job.
  We must also hope that the dockyards will not be held to ransom by a private monopoly supplier refitting the nuclear deterrent or any other frigates or submarines. We must hope and pray that the dockyards can quickly adjust if the City sneezes, a company goes under, a dockyard consortium collapses and at short notice we must regain public control.
  Let us remind ourselves what might have happened if the enthusiasm of the Secretary of State had excited the Cabinet as early as 1979 and if the Cabinet had convinced itself of the merits of a dockyard franchise. What would have been the consequences for the Navy's unpredictable requirements in 1982 if we had been engulfed in the first changeover and if a new operator was learning by his mistakes, at our expense? What would have happened if the operator was incapable of rising to the occasion, if hundreds of men had been sacked and there was no capability to deal with emergency refits that had to be done to get the Falklands fleet to sea, or if the Navy was simply held to ransom by prices being demanded by the private supplier for unprogrammed work? What would have happened if, because of the new commercial disciplines applied to the dockyards, managers and men refused to work night and day as they did during the Falklands crisis to get the fleet to sea? Might the Navy, just because of the vagaries of the Stock Exchange, have found itself conducting the Falklands war over the debris of the bankruptcy of Rosyth plc or Devonport plc?
  There are no watertight safeguards written into the Bill about the protection of our strategic defence or about our ability to respond in a crisis. There are no safeguards and guarantees because there can be none when the purpose of the exercise is to subject the dockyards, our last line of naval repair and maintenance, to the risks, uncertainties and vagaries of the market economy.

  85
  I accept that the Navy recognises that this is a problem. When it was asked in the Select Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West what guarantees there were about the refitting of our strategic nuclear deterrent in the case of emergency, the whole argument about commercial management was exploded. The Navy spokesman told us at that Committee that we were not to worry. We were told:
  "There is no reason why the existing management at that level should change."
  Having decided that the existing management should be revolutionised by privatisation, the Navy now seeks to reassure us that the principal safeguard for the Navy is that the management will not change. That is a guarantee that the Navy spokesman could not give, because they are in no position to give any guarantee about the management that would be involved in the nuclear deterrent or any other project under a privatised operation. If the real safeguard for getting our frigates, submarines, destroyers and Polaris out to sea is that management will not change, what is the argument for a change in management?
  During this debate, the dockyards have been subjected to some criticism, especially that levelled at them by the hon. Member for Tayside, North. When Conservative Members criticise the dockyards for their productivity they should remember that the productivity of the Devonport dockyard has, according to Navy spokesmen, increased by 17 per cent. over recent months, and that productivity at Rosyth dockyard has increased by 15 per cent. over recent months, and done so while the dockyards have remained in the public sector.
  When Conservative Members seek to criticise the dockyards for their inefficiency, they would do better to look at the comparisons between the public and private sector. The hon. Member for Tayside, North seemed to forget that only a few weeks ago, in one small minor refit, Rosyth dockyard had to pick up the pieces after 28 defects were identified following the refitting of a frigate in the private sector.
  When Conservative Members consider the comparison between the public and private sectors they should remember that every report since the war, while critical and asking for improvements in dockyard management, has asserted clearly that the dockyards have no rival in the private sector for cost, efficiency and ability to deliver on time.
  The Government are putting forward the proposals only because they believe that the private sector is better as an act of dogma. They should remember that Rear Admiral Leach, formerly head of the fleet, not only praised the dockyard work force for what they did in the Falklands campaign but asked Ministers, in a letter in the Financial Times a few months ago, how, after all the effort that had been put into the dockyards, they could justify their being kicked in the teeth.
  What has changed in the dockyards since the Speed report, the Hudson report and the Mallabar report concluded that agency management was unacceptable? What has changed since the Mallabar report concluded that agency management was the way to get the worst of both the commercial and Government Department worlds?
  What has changed since the Speed report concluded that the disadvantages of agency management were that the management would have little incentive to make itself more efficient, while the usual justification for an agent was that he had the resources and skills of the parent firm
  86
  to fall back on, something which would not exist when the dockyards were privatised? What has changed since that report said specifically that the contracts put out for agency management could
  "not lead to competition and genuine incentive"
  but would lead to
  confusion over who was responsible for what"?
  What has changed since that report said that there would be no guarantee that
  "An agent would provide the capacity to meet urgent and unprogrammed work to maintain the operational capability of the fleet,"
  or that the Secretary of State would retain his flexibility to move work between the royal dockyards?
  What has changed since the Mallabar report, the Speed report and the various other reports? Is it the role of the dockyards that has changed? Is it the Navy's demands that have changed? Is it the sophistication of the refitting exercises that has changed? Or is it simply that the Government Front Bench has changed, given the obsessive desire of its members to pursue privatisation at any cost and to prove that anything can be privatised, including the royal dockyards?
  The Secretary of State has put forward a scheme whose very basis criticises a loyal, efficient and dedicated work force. It is a work force that was not only praised for what happened in the Falklands campaign and which has not only increased productivity over the past 18 months by the figures that I have mentioned. It is a work force that has said clearly that it is prepared to consider proposals for change as long as the Minister removes the threat hanging over the dockyards under the Levene proposals. That is not a work force that is inflexible and resistant to any change, but one that is rightly resistant to the unilateral imposition of change by a Minister who is unprepared to consult, unwilling to listen and has not even bothered to have meetings with the unions in any detail over the proposals that he puts forward.
  On the other side we have a Secretary of State for Defence who is not really a Secretary of State for Defence but simply a Secretary of State for the defence of the private sector. He prides himself on his patriotism but he is ready at any time to subordinate the interests of national defence to those of commercial gain. Dogma rather than evidence tells him that the dockyards have only one outstanding feature which is their principal shortcoming and that is that they are not run by the private sector. He has convinced himself that the dockyards can be put right only by applying the dogma of privatisation. Somehow he believes that what is good for Plessey, Babcock and Thorn EMI is automatically good for the British Navy, when he knows perfectly well that the first loyalty of the cartels and consortia who will take charge will be not to the fleet but to their companies' balance sheets.
  There are more than 8,000 public servants at Rosyth and more than 12,000 at Devonport who have been forced by the Government's misguided policies to the front line of a privatisation war that they did not seek. They understand that the national interest is more than the sum of the private parts of the economy. Their loyalty, dedication, years of service and sense of the public interest is well known and well understood here and in Britain. Throughout the past 18 months the Minister has sought to justify the privatisation scheme by promising the Navy Board and the country that he would achieve savings. Now that that argument clearly cannot hold up after the

  87
  evidence to the Select Committee on Defence and the Committee of Public Accounts, what possible justification can the Minister give us for proceeding?
  Labour Members will continue to oppose what is a reckless gamble with the nation's defences and the country's jobs. We shall have the unanimous support of the work forces at Rosyth and Devonport. We believe that during the period of consultation we have gained the support of people who have hitherto been adherents of the Conservative party. We can see tonight that those Conservative Members who have bothered to study the implications of the scheme will vote against the proposals when they are put to the vote.
  We believe that in Committee, when the Government are forced to face the arguments about cost and the lack of proper safeguards inherent in the Bill, they will have to change tack. At the very least, we expect the Minister to answer the questions being put to him by Labour and Conservative Members. He should tell us what capability will remain in Rosyth and Devonport dockyards to deal with an emergency. He should tell us what he proposes to do to prevent foreign control of the companies which run the dockyards and what arrangements he will make to prevent foreign naval refits being carried out side by side with refits of our frigates, submarines and nuclear deterrents. He should tell us what he means about the likelihood of jobs and apprenticeships remaining in the dockyards under the contracts that are brought into being. Above all, he should tell us the truth about the real cost of this scheme to the defence budget and to the public expenditure budget.
  If the Minister of State told us the truth about his proposals for the defence of the nation and for jobs at Rosyth and Devonport, there would be not one or two but a large number of Conservative Members joining us in the No Lobby tonight. That would make it impossible for him to proceed with the Bill.
  The Bill is bad for the Navy, for the work forces at Rosyth and Devonport and for the country as a whole. The Minister of State would be doing a service to the country if he withdrew his proposals.
  8.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Hancock: May I draw the attention of hon. Members to what has happened in Portsmouth. At the 1979 general election a Conservative party leaflet was headed "Defence of the Realm" and contained the simple slogan
  "Your jobs and our dockyards are safe in our hands".
  There were 6,500 employees in the Portsmouth dockyard in 1979; today, there are just over 2,000. So much for the jobs in Portsmouth that were safe in the hands of a Conservative Government.
  Despite the Secretary of State's answer to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Griffiths) that there would be no job losses at Portsmouth, this measure to privatise the dockyards at Devonport and Rosyth will have a knock-on effect at Portsmouth. The industrial pay records will not come to Portsmouth. Consequently, the jobs that were promised have been lost and future jobs will also be lost. As 15 per cent. of the capacity of naval stores will be lost at Portsmouth, there will have to be cuts.
  The Secretary of State for Defence, by his absence today, is treating the House with contempt. He is also
  88
  treating the people of Rosyth and Devonport with contempt, and, to a lesser extent, the people whom I represent. He may be exploring the bolt-hole that is contained in the Bill. It is strange that the only measure before the House this Session that relates to defence contains a bolt-hole that enables the Secretary of State for Defence to get off the hook if this piece of garbage—that is the only word that can be used—is passed.
  The Bill has not been thoroughly prepared. The House should have been provided with the answers to the questions that the Secretary of State has posed to his departmental heads. If there were answers to those questions, there would be no need for 19 working groups to be set up. The questions that the working groups are to explore are fundamental to this legislation. Is the Minister of State suggesting that we do not have the right to question him and get answers about the effect upon the fleet maintenance bases and upon naval manpower? Is he suggesting that the House has no right to expect answers from him on the vexed question of war planning? The Bill should not have been introduced until the Minister of State was able to answer those questions.
  It is interesting that the Minister's Department put some very interesting questions to the work force. The dockyard planning team's quarterly review suggests that several questions remain unanswered. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to give us answers to those questions. The Minister's opening speech and the speeches of his right hon. and hon. Friends lead me to believe that the answers are only in the minds of the mandarins in his Department. They are certainly not in his mind.
  Is the Minister able to tell the House how material will be supplied to the dockyard companies and how the refitting and repair of ships other than warships will be handled? Will the land, buildings, machinery and facilities of the naval bases be made available to commercial operators? How will naval base organisation be affected? How will the CED's current responsibilities outside the dockyard be undertaken? How will nuclear safety be assured? This point was raised by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown). How will environmental safety be assured? How will the fleet maintenance bases be affected? How will the changes affect the conditions of service of civilian employees? What will be the effect on Royal Navy personnel? What will be the effect on war and emergency planning? How will quality assurance be maintained? How will the Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service and harbour services be provided? How will transport services be provided? What new financial and accounting systems are needed? What measures are required to maintain security? What are the future computer needs? How will design and support information be supplied? What needs to be done to maintain the protection of Government and commercial information?
  Sir Antony Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hancock: No, I have waited too long to make this speech to be interrupted at this stage, particularly by hon. Members who have not participated in the debate.
  Those questions should be made the subject of close and rigid examination. However, all that we get from the Minister of State is a smile or a smirk. That does not offer to me the kind of satisfaction—
  Sir Antony Buck: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hancock: No, I am not prepared to give way.
  We need answers to those questions from the Minister of State. We should not have to wait until the Bill reaches its Committee stage. The mere fabric of the Bill demonstrates that the exploration of the possibilities will be very limited in Committee. Who will the Minister of State listen to if he does not listen to hon. Members? Will he assure us that the reports of the working groups will be made public to those hon. Members who deal with the Bill in Committee?
  Mr. Norman Lamont indicated dissent.
  Mr. Hancock: The Minister of State shakes his head. We are not to be provided, even then, with the answers.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has made quite clear where the alliance stands on this proposition. He has the support of the whole of the alliance. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel), the leader of the Liberal party, has been to Rosyth and spoken to the unions. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) has also spoken to the unions at Rosyth. He has pledged the wholehearted support of the alliance in the battle to prevent this bit of nonsense becoming law.
  The Public Accounts Committee's report made six valid points, to which I hope the Minister of State will be able to give answers. The Committee found that all the options discussed by defence open government document 85/01, including both commercial management and the trading fund, have not been accurately costed by the Government. Secondly, there is no clear-cut evidence to suggest that the Government's option is more efficient. The Committee could not be certain that the Government's calculations were valid. Those are real doubts on two points of finance.
  The third point is whether the commercial refit comparison exercise is a prudent step—two ships being refitted in the commercial sector and two in the dockyards. I have tried repeatedly during the past couple of months, through questions to the Department, to obtain comparisons, but it appears that we will not be told how much it will cost to have ships refitted in commercial yards. We are not to be told whether that compares favourably with the costs of refitting at either Rosyth or Devonport. Yet again we are not to be given the information that we need if we are fairly to judge whether the Government's policy—
  Mr. Norman Lamont: Surely the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to disclose the prices actually being charged by different companies tendering for work.
  Mr. Hancock: In a recent reply to me the Minister suggested that, eventually, we might obtain the figures. Surely the appropriate time for that is when the Bill is being considered by the House so that a fair and accurate comparison can be made. Unfortunately, Conservative Members—
  Sir Antony Buck: Wait for the Committee.
  Mr. Hancock: The hon. and learned Gentleman might say that, but when I mentioned the possibility of obtaining those answers in Committee the Minister shook his head. There are grave doubts whether we will obtain the answers before the House debates the final stages of the Bill.
  90
  Many other points have been raised in various Committees about the fundamental mistakes being made by the Secretary of State and his colleagues, and the route down which they are leading the House and the country. Hon. Member after hon. Member has condemned the proposal. The defence of the work force has been explicit in speeches from both sides of the House. We hope that the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) will not just abstain tonight, but will support the Opposition parties, which are trying to expose her colleagues in the Government to the test of public opinion in her constituency. I hope that she will support those who sent her to this place by rejecting the Bill.
  The arguments against the Bill are legion. The strategic fighting effectiveness of the fleet will be affected. Indeed, even the Government's handout questions whether an effective, efficient Royal Navy will emerge in the same form as it is in today. Parliamentary control and accountability will be diminished by the very act of privatisation. The dockyards will not be accountable to this place. The Government's proposal will severely test the morale of the work force and diminish what prospects it has of a future within the Civil Service.
  If Conservative Members do not believe that, I urge them to draw on the experience of Portsmouth dockyard, which has been through a traumatic time. Its work force was completely sapped of morale. Some of its best craftsmen—those whom the Ministry of Defence could least afford to lose—were the first to go through the door because they were sick to death of the Government playing about with their futures. Surely the Government must learn from their mistakes at Portsmouth.
  It is no good the Government adopting an ostrich-like attitude, believing that that experience cannot be repeated. I should be foolish if I were to believe that that same experience will not occur at Rosyth and Devonport. Those who care most will look for other jobs, because they do not want their jobs to be hung on a thread at the whim of a commercial contractor, or on whether that contractor has the gall or the substance to deliver the goods to the Government.
  As surely as tomorrow will come, there will be doubts about the contractors. The substance of the job is so large and so complex that many of the contractors will not have the expertise required to maintain the efficient and effective work force that is so necessary if we are to maintain the defence of the realm at the level that we have come to expect.
  As other hon. Members have said, the contractors can hold the Navy to ransom. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport said that it was not privatisation, but piratisation. Indeed, there will be land-based pirates holding the Navy to ransom. The ships will be tied at the quayside when we want them at sea.
  I urge the Minister to take back to the Secretary of State the true voice of the House. It is not the response in the Lobbies of the unseen Members who have not been present today, but who will suddenly appear out of the woodwork at 10 o'clock. It is the feelings and opinions of Members who have attended the debate and who care enough about the issue to voice an opinion. The Minister must tell his right hon. Friend that when the chips are down, those who work in the dockyards at Rosyth and Devonport will respond to the country's needs—if that is put to them properly and if they are given the trust and the dignity that they deserve.

  91
  When the House met to discuss sending a task force to the Falklands, redundancy notices had been issued to the work force in Portsmouth and then withdrawn. Had those Nott cuts been introduced six months earlier, Britain could not have got that task force to the Falklands. The Hermes would not have been in a suitable condition to lead that force. Although the workers of Portsmouth had been issued with redundancy notices and had the prospect of being without jobs later, they responded magnificently, because they put the national interest first. The same can be said of the workers of Rosyth and Devonport.
  It is wrong for the Government to take the action that they are contemplating in the face of such loyalty and commitment. By attempting to rub out, as it were, hundreds of years of committed work by the people of those areas, they are doing a disservice to themselves and the nation.
  Apart from many hon. Members feeling that the Bill will not achieve what the Government say is their purpose, the Government must have great reservations about the measure. After all, 19 working parties would not have been established if the Government had answers to the many questions that have been posed. Those questions should have been answered long before this stage. Indeed, if the Government did not have doubts on the issue, the Secretary of State would have been here to present the Bill on Second Reading. Because of his doubts, the right hon. Gentleman did not change the date of the debate to suit his arrangements.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Devonport pointed out, the Select Committee on Defence said:
  "We urge the Government to approach the debate on the Dockyard Services Bill with an open mind and a readiness to draw fully upon the opinions expressed in all quarters in the best interests of the fighting efficiency of the fleet and the defence and security of the nation."
  In that connection, I refer again to the Conservative election leaflet in Portsmouth. It was headed:
  "The Conservative party and its caring defence of the Realm."
  The Conservatives have failed the people of Portsmouth from 1979 right up to the present. Indeed, I am living proof of that, for I would not have been elected had the Conservatives lived up to their promise to save the jobs of the people in the dockyards.
  I urge the Minister to express the voice of Parliament to his right hon. Friend, and by that I mean the views of hon. Members, and not simply the voting figures in Divisions in the House. We do not want pirates in our dockyards. We want dignity, loyalty and efficiency. Those qualities exist now. I fear that they will be lost if the Government's proposals go ahead.
  9.8 pm
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: I regret that the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) refused to permit my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) to intervene while he was speaking, because my hon. and learned Friend would have raised points of considerable importance to hon. Members on both sides of the House who will be taking part in the Committee proceedings.
  It is nonsense to suggest that once the dockyards are commercialised the good workmanship and management
  92
  expertise that now exist in them will be lost. I speak from experience of having taken a considerable interest in a naval dockyard which has already been commercialised.
  I draw the attention of the House to the situation in the naval dockyard in Gibraltar. That was a royal naval dockyard which was closed by the Government and became a commercial dockyard. When the Government decision was made to commercialise the dockyards, it was said that the operators would be chosen for their experience in running well-managed companies.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown), who has left the Chamber, complained about the small number of Conservative Members present. I do not see many Labour or Liberal Members present and there is only one Member representing the SDP. The concern expressed by one or two Opposition Members is not reflected by the number of Opposition Members present. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, in his sensational outburst, endeavoured to create the sort of emotionalism that can be generated when such matters are discussed. Therefore, it is important to look at the precedent set by the Gibraltar dockyard.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East asked what would happen to the Admiralty work. The Admiralty work continues in the Gibraltar dockyard, and 14 RFAs are scheduled to be built there in the next three years, at £14 million each. Therefore, there is considerable work to be done in the dockyard.
  The hon. Gentleman asked whether foreign vessels would come into the dockyard. Foreign vessels went into the Gibraltar commercial dockyard and the base is still maintained. Labour Members should not let their fears run away with them in regard to running a dockyard on a commercial basis. There is a shortage of skilled people at Gibraltar as a result of the large amount of work generated by the commercial operator. There is a rig from Brazil in the dockyard. Foreign vessels have come in from Germany, and even Russian vessels have been seen in the dockyard in Gibraltar. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) failed Gibraltar when he was Foreign Secretary, before defecting from the Labour party to the SDP.
  Dr. David Owen: Speak to Sir Joshua Hassan.
  Mr. McQuarrie: I speak to other people than Sir Joshua.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East expressed his serious concern about total control leaving the dockyard. It must not be forgotten that the commercial dockyard, once established, will be an entity. The Secretary of State will set up the companies to employ the work force at the dockyard. The ownership of the companies will be assumed by the first contractors and then by any subsequent contractors.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill implied criticism of the work force. I have read every line of it and I challenge any Opposition Member to show me in the Bill one criticism of the work force. The work force should be given the opportunity to study the value of commercialisation in the shipyards and the dockyards. It will then see for itself the way to achieve continuity of employment.
  If there were less scaremongering and a little more effort to ensure continuity of employment, it would be much better for the people concerned. It would be better than trying to raise the tempers of people who want a safe job and future for themselves and their families.
  9.14 pm
  Mr. Martin J. O'Neill: Second Reading of the Bill marks a major debate on the dockyards. My right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) took us back to 1578 and the role of John Hawkins. As always, he enlightened many of us on the background. I do not propose to go back that far, but since 1970 there has been a succession of reports and investigations. It is perhaps not surprising that the last—and in some ways most important or significant—report is the smallest, the least respected and the most universally condemned.
  As with so many matters relating to our national security and the Navy, national pride and the feeling that our fleet should get the best possible deal are always our prime concerns. Anyone who comes into contact with any of those involved, certainly in the dockyards, is left in no doubt that the loyalty, commitment and ingenuity of the dockyard work force and managers are beyond question. We have heard many tributes from both sides of the House not just to the contributions that they made to the Falklands war, but to their repeated ingenuity in dealing with difficult and often unexpected tasks.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East
  (Mr. Brown) said that there have been recorded increases in productivity of around 17 per cent. in Devonport and 15 per cent. in Rosyth, at a time when Vice Admiral Tippet is saying that
  "there is very considerable apprehension in the work force as to the future."
  A measure of the commitment of the men and women in the work force is the fact that, at a time when they have been treated so shabbily by the Government, when the consultative processes have attracted the opprobrium of both sides of the House, they have been prepared to work on in the national interest to prove to the country the quality of the work that they can produce and the industry of their effort.
  A four-clause Bill with an almost neutral financial effect will be, as one official said,
  "a trivial element of the total of Government expenditure."
  It will be only a "trivial element", but, at the same time, the turnover of the dockyards and the work involved is about £500 million.
  The privatisation will not be subject to a flotation, as with British Telecom, or put into the queue, as with British Gas or British Airways, to fund the next election campaign, although some of the firms that have shown an interest contribute considerable sums to the Tory party as distinct from the public exchequer. The Bill is not intended to widen share ownership or to turn draughtsmen, fitters, pattern makers or boiler makers into a new generation of petty capitalists. We are told that the Bill will free the dockyards from the constraints of Civil Service control and remove the work force from the Civil Service altogether. The workers will not cease to exist, but their status, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) said, will be little better than chattel slaves moving between one contractor and another.
  We have heard much about the prospect of unemployment, but we have heard precious little mention from the Government of the fact that 2,000 jobs will be lost in Devonport in the near future and 400 will be lost at Rosyth. While it is assumed that the other jobs will remain, the gratitude displayed by the Government to those people means that nobody's job can be regarded as
  94
  safe. The only consolation that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East found was in the Touche Ross report, which said that there would be a possibility of obtaining contracts for the refitting of ships from the South African or Argentine navies.
  As yet we do not know a great deal about agency management. When the Secretary of State introduced the open government document and started the so-called consultation period, he claimed that there were examples of agency management in the United States. There are, but they are concerned with military vehicles, arms and munitions. The Secretary of State was not to know this, but it is easy to see why his golden boy, Mr. Levene, knew about the suppliers of golden screwdrivers, and so on, because it was in that area of production that Mr. Levene made his reputation in Britain.
  While there is no experience of a similar undertaking to Rosyth and Devonport in the United States, Peat Marwick's researches on behalf of Plymouth council show that there is a dockyard in Australia where 2,500 people are employed refitting six navy Oberon class submarines on a cost plus agreed profit basis. The common feature of the American and Australian experience is that in both countries the tender has not been transferred to any other firm since the scheme started. So much for the prospect of competition between firms and the prospect of change.
  It is true that profitability has been high. However, there does not seem to be much likelihood of there being substantial savings to the taxpayer, as is hoped by the Minister of State. One of the most famous cases is the American firm, General Dynamics, the activities and contracts of which are still under suspension pending investigation by the American Government.
  It is against that background that we are sceptical and incredulous at the Government's proposals. Horror has been expressed by virtually everyone who made representations. The Select Committee on Defence received only one piece of evidence in support of the proposals, which amounted to a nine-line letter, the first line of which reads:
  "Privatisation could put the Navy at risk in some circumstances."
  Perhaps in the interests of brevity, Mr. Garnett decided not to go further, but starting off a letter of support like that speaks volumes for the extent of confidence in the proposals that those in the know have.
  The Select Committee on Defence expressed disapproval of virtually every aspect of the Ministry's handling of the proposals. We had an interim report condemning them and calling for responses. We then had a statement from the Committee saying:
  "Our misgivings about the Government's intentions have not been allayed by the evidence we have been given orally and in writing since our last Report."
  As has been said many times, the Committee is not made up of a majority of Labour supporters. The members of it are respected for their independent approach. While we might not agree with all of them, it is strange that on such a controversial issue, which is endowed with an ideological content, a majority of Conservatives should come out against the proposals in the frank way that they have. Members of the Committee raised substantial objections. They spelt out those objections in the first report, but the Minister's responses in no way modified their position in the second report. They identified as a major difficulty the discontinuity of management.

  95 The Committee made it clear that a seven-year cycle could impede planning and affect morale. It has already been admitted that the work force is apprehensive about and has rejected the interim measures that the Ministry is endeavouring to pass. Anxieties have been repeatedly expressed about the problems of retaining British ownership of the companies that are granted franchises, and about the possibility that the parent companies of franchisers could be taken over by foreign enterprise. The Minister must satisfy the House and say why he is confident that that cannot take place.
  By what mechanism can a British Government ensure that the parent company of one of the organisations responsible for carrying out the franchise work will not be subject to a foreign takeover, thus allowing the contracting company to become foreign owned? We will worry, and can only speculate, about the uncertainty during the period before a contract is renewed. Will the Minister tell us about the status of the contract during the year in which reselection will occur? Can he say something about management indifference following deselection, if that happens? We can imagine the Government's frustration if there were a short list of one which did not accord with the Government's wishes. In those circumstances, are the Government prepared to put in their own nominee, as the Conservative party usually does on such occasions, or, as the Government sometimes do in extremis, to nominate themselves? Officials have recognised that in their discussions with the Committee. They admit that there may be a short-term problem of managing transition. It may be short term, but it will be serious if nuclear work must be done.
  Many people are greatly worried that the work group, which is responsible for nuclear maintenance work, is skilled and tightknit, and that we could not afford to have it broken up. In the long term, the interest which is shown in Rosyth may be a testimony to that sort of work, compared with the apparent indifference and almost reluctance of many of the contractors to grasp the nettle that is Devonport.
  Will the Minister confirm that in an exchange with the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) he said that there was no likelihood of Devonport being broken up and sold off in sections? Will he explain the status of clause 1(2)(b), which states that that is possible. It refers to
  "the transfer of the whole or any part of the dockyard undertaking to that or another company with a view to that company providing any of the designated dockyard services at the dockyard under contract."
  That clause gives a wholly different view from the impression that the Minister sought to convey to the hon. Lady. Our anxiety is not simply that Devonport could be sold off, but that it could be split into smithereens—a variety of companies and groupings—which could compound all the problems of security, transition and investment. That is a critical point on which the Minister will have to satisfy the House. He is taking powers in the Bill, but as is often the case with Government legislation that is ill-thought out and ill prepared, it may well be amended on the hoof in Committee. Will this be amendment No. 1? We are entitled to an answer, because, given the existence of that clause, the Minister has failed to allay the fears of hon. Members.
  96
  The Minister has even had difficulties convincing those who have constituency interests or some knowledge, understanding and respect for the work done in those yards. There has been extreme reluctance to support the Government. In many respects, we have seen displays of Conservative Back-Bench loyalty above and beyond the call of duty.
  We are also worried about the guarantees that can be given in respect of the work in the dockyards. We have heard a great deal about the 70–30 split which the Minister hopes to introduce after about 18 months. But what is the 100 per cent. about which we are talking? Does it cover the 22 per cent. of naval refitting, including the Royal Fleet Auxilaries? If so, we are talking about a 70–30 split not of all the work available, but of about 78 per cent. of that work.
  We must also take account of further slippage if we subtract the work done at Portsmouth. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) would, if he were present, be concerned about the prospects for Portsmouth. Is Portsmouth to be set aside?
  The potential figure of 54.5 per cent. of work being made available to the dockyards is the source of anxiety among dockyard workers about the prospects for further unemployment. They see the work being contracted out almost before their eyes, and the figures and quotations they have been given are not the ones that the Minister has at the back of his mind. We know that there are many problems associated with unprogrammed work. The Ministry has said that there will be alternative provision for emergency work in the future and that this would be made as and when required. Frankly, the very nature of unprogrammed work suggests national emergencies and raises questions of defence and security. This kind of ad hockery is just not good enough when the nation's security is at stake.
  As well as finding a place for the work to be done, problems could also arise about who is to do it. Some of the British suppliers do not give cause for a great deal of confidence. Indeed, the Select Committee considered the record of organisations such as Plessey, which has been somewhat less than dependable in respect of the torpedo programme.
  Mr. Sayeed: If there is an emergency, be it short or longer term, people can be pulled off mid-life ship refits and put on to emergency work, such as fitting a new weapon. Secondly, as the personnel will be privately organised, the opportunities for undertaking extra work and overtime will be enhanced. That would not be the case if they remained in the Civil Service.
  Mr. O'Neill: As the potential enemy sails up the Channel, there will be the unedifying prospect of trade unions, contractors and the Government sitting round a table trying to work out the price for the job and transfers from one yard to another—the kind of thing that did not happen during the Falklands war because the morale and the commitment were there. I assure the House that in the future the morale and commitment will be there from the work force, but there is no guarantee that they will be there from the new contractual owners who could well see their prospects of profit slipping through their fingers. The flexibility that the hon. Gentleman mentioned becomes even more difficult when there are separate contracts for two yards.
  Sir Antony Buck rose—
  Mr. O'Neill: I shall not give way, because I am just coming to the end. I am sorry, because I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman has been stopped before from intervening.
  Separate contracts are a major problem. They are causing a great deal of anxiety. They will require far more than additional arrangements. They could create barriers between Rosyth and Devonport, the like of which have never existed before.
  The prospects for the savings and changes in resources from tail to teeth and the like are far outweighed by the problems that we have identified. There are doubts about investment. As a country, we shall continue to own the assets, but the question of who will pay for the rental of new assets is vague. What will be the management's reward for its own investment? Will it be added to the profits? Will management be compensated? Such matters must be resolved. The Minister has not so far answered those points.
  I suspect that if the Government, in their indecent haste to get the Bill on the statute book, tell us that the 19 committees will report within the next 10 days—by which time I imagine that the Bill will be in Committee—that might satisfy the House, but our experience of Civil Service committees suggests that it will take rather longer than 10 days to cover the points of anxiety which have been expressed by everyone here.
  The Opposition are worried about national security and the working conditions and the rights of the work force. The Minister has to some extent given some guarantees about those matters, but we are not yet satisfied of one essential element of workers' rights—security of employment—because everything draws us to the conclusion that we shall see a deterioration in the working conditions and job security of people in areas of already high unemployment. That might be accepted in Harrow and the south-east, but in the south-west and the north such problems are far too apparent and real for us to accept the blandishments of a Minister of State in a hurry.
  This enabling Bill is an unsatisfactory answer to what everyone regards as a problem. Everyone is now talking about solutions. There is a willingness on the part of trade unions and management and some sections of the Conservative party—certainly within the Select Committee on Defence—to participate in a consultative process, because everyone knows that the status quo is not an option. However, we are not prepared to accept the type of option offered by the Bill—an option which is a slap in the face for the work force and an insult to the management and which will endanger the country's security.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Norman Lamont: With the leave of the House, I should like to reply to the debate.
  The rapture of some of my hon. Friends has been modified in their speeches on the Bill, but the most passionate speech against the Bill came from the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). I nearly referred to him as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and at times I even thought that he was still the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport campaigning against Randolph Churchill 40 years ago. He made practically the same speech as he might have made against any steel, colliery or hospital closure.
  98
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent took us back in history to the time of Henry VIII and John Hawkins, and said that Conservative Members were not interested in history. I should report for his benefit that Samuel Pepys, when Secretary of the Admiralty, had a rather different view of the royal dockyards from that of the right hon. Gentleman. In his diary, Samuel Pepys recorded sticking his fingers through new paint and finding rotten planks which had not been properly repaired. The right hon. Gentleman's recollection of history is selective and he does not address himself to the problems that exist in the dockyards today. He talked about the ideas incorporated in the Bill as though they were ideas from Mars—but anything to do with economics seems to strike the right hon. Gentleman as something from another planet.
  The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was certainly wrong when he quoted the Library reference sheet and disputed the fact, which I had made very clear in opening the debate, that on conditions of employment, redundancy, pay and leave, the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 will apply, so employees can be satisfied on that point.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) asked two questions about foreign ownership. He asked me about foreign ownership generally and I replied that tenders would be sought from British companies. He then asked what would happen if a company which had been awarded the contract came under foreign control or became subject to substantial foreign influence. In such conditions it would be written into the contract that the company would lose the contract to manage the yards.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli also asked for an assurance that the unallocated programme would be placed only with British companies. Provided that the work arises in the United Kingdom, that will happen. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, however, that sometimes the Navy needs emergency work almost anywhere in the world.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Minister define "substantial" in relation to substantial holdings of shares in the parent company? Does that mean that the contract will be terminated and the Ministry of Defence will go through the whole tender process once more?
  Mr. Lamont: The precise proportion of shareholding would have to be written into the contract. That has not been defined as such, but a company that entered into the undertaking would know exactly what it was embarking on, as would any company likely to develop a connection with that company.
  The right hon. Member for Llanelli also asked about the core programme, and questioned whether it would be more or less than half the existing programme of the dockyards. I made it clear in my opening speech that the initial programme would be roughly the current level of Rosyth and Devonport combined. That would be the position at the beginning of the period of the contract.
  The right hon. Gentleman then asked what proportion of the programme would be priced competitively. I could make the point that none of the work at present is priced competitively in the sense in which he asked the question. When we award a tender we shall certainly be looking for a commitment to risk pricing, quotations covering hourly rates and overhead recovery. From the very beginning there will be a strong element of competitive pricing.
  Mr. Denzil Davies: It is a very simple question: What percentage of the total work carried on in the dockyard will be subject to the tender programme and subject to tender?
  Mr. Lamont: The companies will tender for the contract and for the individual contracts within that contract. In assessing which company wins, we shall obviously look at the proportion. No proportion is laid down in advance. We shall look at the companies and decide which one gives the biggest element of price competition.
  The hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Mr. Douglas) referred to the quality of the work done at Rosyth on the deterrent and asked where we could find such work done better. We have no complaint about the quality of that work. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the quality is extremely high, but that is not the only work carried out at Rosyth. The fact that work on the deterrent is done well does not mean that there is no argument for introducing commercial management for the other elements in the work of that yard and the opportunity for Rosyth to tender for other unallocated work. The threat to the deterrent from the Bill is certainly far less than the threat from Labour party policy.
  As I have said, there is also the opportunity for extra work. With active commercial management and good corporate marketing, these companies will have the skill to build on the many centres of excellence in the two yards. There is the possibility of ship refitting and work on oil rig modules which the yards cannot go for at the moment. Both enterprises have the capacity and unrivalled skills to attract engineering work, including specialist skills and facilities for casting and machining, but they will obtain that extra work only if they are competitive. Several potential bidders have already begun to identify work of that nature which they believe could be secured for the two yards. In addition, the two yards will have the opportunity to bid for the unallocated defence programme; and, if they are competitive, they will secure a significant proportion of that work.
  The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) said that it was absurd to separate capital investment decisions from the responsibility for running a facility, but what is proposed in the Bill is by no means unprecedented in the world. In quite a large number of defence facilities in the United States capital investment has been made by the Government.
  Mr. Foot: Not in dockyards.
  Mr. Lamont: Not in dockyards, but there are about 60 Government-owned contractor-operated plants covering the manufacture of aircraft, missiles, tanks, naval weapons, and so on, so the argument that capital investment and responsibility for running cannot be separated does not stand up. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has said, this may be the development of an idea, it may even be a new idea, but it is not necessarily to be condemned for that.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport is sometimes so outspoken about privatisation that he is accused by his Liberal colleagues of being a closet Thatcherite. This measure brings the disciplines of the private sector and competition into the dockyards. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman does not apply to his own
  100
  constituency the philosophy that he so boldly expounds on other occasions. This measure will increase efficiency and competition.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport was less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he said that the redundancies at Devonport and Rosyth had been created at the fiat of the Secretary of State. Those redundancies were necessary if the dockyards are to become efficient. The Public Accounts Committee, which has been critical of the Government's actions, has criticised the efficiency measures that have been taken at Devonport and Rosyth. It claims that they are not what is required. The right hon. Member for Devonport, for all his alleged toughness and tenderness combined, is not facing the issue. Many people have criticised these yards. There is a need for them to become efficient.
  The main criticism which has been made in the debate is that, in some sense, the Government's proposition is not proven and does not guarantee results. That was the view put forward by the right hon. Member for Devonport, and that was why he advanced the idea of a trading fund. The trading fund concept does not address the problem in its totality. It does not bring about a sufficient separation of the customer and the supplier, it does not provide the spur of competition, and it does not create conditions in which the contractor is anxious to get his contract renewed.
  I was interested that the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) should describe the scheme as a form of reselection. That is a word that looms large in the minds of Opposition Members. The hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) said that there had been far too cosy a relationship between the yards and the Ministry of Defence. That is precisely right. That is why a trading fund is not the right solution. We need to separate the customer and the supplier.
  If the right hon. Member for Devonport thought that the trading fund solution was the answer to the problem of the dockyards, he could have introduced a trading fund when he was the Minister with responsibility for the Navy. He could have introduced such a fund in 1978 when he was a member of the Labour Government that examined the proposition and decided to do nothing.
  Dr. Owen: The Minister comes fairly new to the Department. When I was Minister with responsibility for the Navy, I introduced Leslie Norfolk from ICI and set up the Mallabar committee, which recommended a trading fund. I have fought three elections at Devonport on the basis of supporting a trading fund.
  Mr. Lamont: The right hon. Member for Devonport may have done some good things, but he did not go far enough earlier and he does not go far enough now.
  It has been accepted for many years that a change in the yards is necessary. The PAC in its report pointed out that between 1971 and 1982 there were five major reports, all of which were critical of the performance of the dockyards. In its latest report the PAC referred to changes having
  "little resulting real progress or effective action; we also considered the effect of current weaknesses in Dockyard performance and management."
  The fourth report of the Select Committee, which has been critical of what the Government are doing, acknowledged that there was no support for an unreformed status quo. Everyone agrees that change is necessary. The only reason why Labour Members have become overnight converts to

  101
  change of some kind is that they want any change other than change by a Government who recognise the problem and are determined to tackle it.
  The reason for putting forward these proposals is to increase efficiency and effectiveness, not to reduce the number of civil servants. The motive is to get value for money. The Opposition seem to think that there is something wrong in trying to get value for money within the defence budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said, it is all very well to talk about the effectiveness of our fighting force, but that force does not exist in a world where there are no limits on the defence budget.
  If we manage by these proposals to save £30 million a year, over four years that will mean another frigate for the Royal Navy or another six or seven Tornadoes. If the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent does not like the thought of military equipment, he should consider that that saving could mean six 300-bed hospitals. Is anyone saying that that sort of saving is not worth working for and achieving?
  The right hon. Member for Devonport and my hon. Friends the Members for Drake and for Cornwall, South-East (Mr. Hicks) referred to the insecurity that the labour force will feel if its members are put into a management company which might in turn change in another seven years. I understand those fears, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends will not exaggerate or lend unjustified credence to them. As I said when opening the debate, pay, conditions of service and pensions will be unaffected by the transfer. The core programme of work will remain, and that will be equal to the existing work programme at both Devonport and Rosyth. In addition, there will be the opportunity to tender for the unallocated proportion of the work.
  The right hon. Member for Devonport advanced a curious argument when he said that if the ownership of the operating company changed in seven years, the employees of that company would have no guarantee of employment. As I have said, the core programme will continue. There will continue to be a need for naval refits and naval dockyards. If the ownership of the management company changes while the assets remain in the Government's hands, that will not alter the need for continuing refits and a continuing programme for the Royal Navy.
  There has been criticism by the Pubic Accounts Committee and the Select Committee on Defence of the figures that the Government have produced for the savings that might result from introducing the dockyards to private management. When the Government last gave evidence to the Committee, they made it clear that the savings might be over £30 million, or 7.5 per cent. of turnover. Surely that would be a worthwhile saving. However, these are merely illustrative figures. No one would ever claim that such figures are anything but illustrations. Much depends on productivity improvements and the enterprise that is brought to the dockyards by outside management.
  We are confident that private management of the dockyards will result in greater efficiency and productivity increases. Such developments are bound to result in more savings than if the dockyards continue to be operated by civil servants within a Government Department.
  We have heard much talk from Labour Members about the effectiveness of our forces. I find that a bit rich from a party which is dedicated and committed to cutting defence spending. I find it a bit rich from a party which, when in office, cut defence spending to the lowest level
  102
  in real terms since the end of the Korean war. Above all, it is utterly hypocritical that there should be so much said, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North observed, about unemployment at Rosyth. Work on the independent deterrent accounts for more than 50 per cent. of turnover at Rosyth. If the Labour party's policy is implemented, it will result in hardly anything being left there. Labour Members weep crocodile tears over non-existent dole queues at Rosyth while adhering to the policy of abandoning our independent deterrent, which would have a catastrophic effect on Rosyth.
  The proposals in the Bill are designed to achieve better value for money. They will increase the effectiveness of our forces and improve our defences. Those ideas are not of interest to the Labour party, but they have been backed by the Navy as well as by Ministers. For that reason, the Bill deserves the support of the House.
  Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 171.

  Division No. 14]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Adley, Robert

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Alexander, Richard

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Cockeram, Eric

  Amess, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Arnold, Tom

  Conway, Derek

  Ashby, David

  Coombs, Simon

  Aspinwall, Jack

  Cope, John

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Cormack, Patrick

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Couchman, James

  Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Critchley, Julian

  Batiste, Spencer

  Crouch, David

  Beaumont-Dark, Anthony

  Currie, Mrs Edwina

  Bellingham, Henry

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Bendall, Vivian

  Dicks, Terry

  Benyon, William

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Dover, Den

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Blackburn, John

  Dunn, Robert

  Body, Richard

  Dykes, Hugh

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  Bottomley, Peter

  Eggar, Tim

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Evennett, David

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Fallon, Michael

  Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard

  Farr, Sir John

  Brandon-Bravo, Martin

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Bright, Graham

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Brinton, Tim

  Forman, Nigel

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Franks, Cecil

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Browne, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Grant, Sir Anthony

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Gregory, Conal

  Budgen, Nick

  Griffiths, Sir Eldon

  Bulmer, Esmond

  Grist, Ian

  Burt, Alistair

  Grylls, Michael

  Butcher, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John S

  Butler, Rt Hon Adam

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Carttiss, Michael

  Hawksley, Warren

  Cash, William

  Hayward, Robert

  Chapman, Sydney

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Churchill, W. S.

  Heddle, John

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Henderson, Barry

  103

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Holt, Richard

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Hordern, Sir Peter

  Rifkind, Malcolm

  Howard, Michael

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Irving, Charles

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Knowles, Michael

  Rowe, Andrew

  Lamont, Norman

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Lang, Ian

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Lester, Jim

  Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Lightbown, David

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Lilley, Peter

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Silvester, Fred

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Sims, Roger

  McCrindle, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

  Spence, John

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Spencer, Derek

  Maclean, David John

  Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)

  McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)

  Squire, Robin

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Madel, David

  Stanley, John

  Major, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Malone, Gerald

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Maples, John

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Marland, Paul

  Stokes, John

  Marlow, Antony

  Stradling Thomas, Sir John

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Sumberg, David

  Mates, Michael

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Mather, Carol

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mellor, David

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Merchant, Piers

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Mills, Iain (Meriden)

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Miscampbell, Norman

  Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

  Moate, Roger

  Tracey, Richard

  Montgomery, Sir Fergus

  Trippier, David

  Morris, M. (N'hampton, S)

  Trotter, Neville

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

  Moynihan, Hon C.

  Viggers, Peter

  Mudd, David

  Waddington, David

  Neale, Gerrard

  Walden, George

  Newton, Tony

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Norris, Steven

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Onslow, Cranley

  Waller, Gary

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Warren, Kenneth

  Ottaway, Richard

  Watson, John

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Watts, John

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  Parris, Matthew

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Wheeler, John

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Whitfield, John

  Pawsey, James

  Whitney, Raymond

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Pollock, Alexander

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Portillo, Michael

  Wolfson, Mark

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Wood, Timothy

  Powley, John

  Woodcock, Michael

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Price, Sir David

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Raffan, Keith

  Rathbone, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Renton, Tim

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Mr. Tony Durant.

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  104

  NOES

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Home Robertson, John

  Alton, David

  Howells, Geraint

  Anderson, Donald

  Hoyle, Douglas

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Ashton, Joe

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Janner, Hon Greville

  Barnett, Guy

  John, Brynmor

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Kennedy, Charles

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil

  Boyes, Roland

  Lambie, David

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Lamond, James

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Leighton, Ronald

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Lewis, Terence (Worsley)

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Litherland, Robert

  Buchan, Norman

  Livsey, Richard

  Caborn, Richard

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J.

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd & M)

  Loyden, Edward

  Campbell, Ian

  McCartney, Hugh

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Canavan, Dennis

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  McKelvey, William

  Cartwright, John

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Clarke, Thomas

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clay, Robert

  McTaggart, Robert

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  McWilliam, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Madden, Max

  Cohen, Harry

  Marek, Dr John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Martin, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Maxton, John

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Cunningham, Dr John

  Meacher, Michael

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'lli)

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Michie, William

  Deakins, Eric

  Mikardo, Ian

  Dewar, Donald

  Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)

  Dormand, Jack

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Douglas, Dick

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Nellist, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Eastham, Ken

  O'Brien, William

  Ewing, Harry

  O'Neill, Martin

  Fatchett, Derek

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Park, George

  Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)

  Patchett, Terry

  Flannery, Martin

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Penhaligon, David

  Forrester, John

  Pike, Peter

  Foster, Derek

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Foulkes, George

  Radice, Giles

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  Randall, Stuart

  Freud, Clement

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  George, Bruce

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Godman, Dr Norman

  Robertson, George

  Golding, John

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Gould, Bryan

  Rogers, Allan

  Gourlay, Harry

  Rooker, J. W.

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Sheerman, Barry

  Harman, Ms Harriet

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Short, Mrs ft.(W'hampt'n NE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Haynes, Frank

  Smith, C.(Isl'ton S & F'bury)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Snape, Peter

  Hicks, Robert

  Soley, Clive

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  105

  Stott, Roger

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  Wilson, Gordon

  Tinn, James

  Winnick, David

  Torney, Tom

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Wainwright, R.

  Wallace, James

  Tellers for the NOES

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  Mr. Mark Fisher and

  Weetch, Ken

  Mr. Ron Davies.

  White, James

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 42 (Committal of Bills).

  DOCKYARD SERVICES BILL [MONEY]:
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Dockyards Services Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State—

  (a) incurred in connection with the formation or operation of any company formed with a view to, or for any purpose of, the provision of dockyard services at Her Majesty's dockyards; or

  (b) incurred in assuming responsibility for any liabilities of any company which is or has been concerned in or in connection with the provision of such services. [Mr. Peter Lloyd.]

Sugar and Starch
Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the names of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) and his hon. Friends.
I understand that no fewer than 14 right hon. and hon. Members wish to take part in this one and a half hour debate, so I hope that speeches will be brief.
10.14 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Gummer): I shall seek immediately to obey your request, Mr. Speaker. I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8687/85, 9178/85 and 8781/85, relating to the sugar sector and 11172/84 and 8688/85, relating to the reform of the starch regime, and supports the Government's objectives to secure satisfactory agreements on them which take account of the interests of both producers and users of the products concerned.
The core of the motion is the responsibility which Britain felt that it had, and which the House insisted we had, towards the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, and the continuation of cane sugar refining in Britain. It is important, and hon. Members on both sides of the House should remark upon it, to underline the generous way in which the Community, at Britain's behest, has sought to accommodate, at a price well above the world price, sugar coming from countries for which this product and this particular crop is of such great importance.
Of course, it is always possible to insist that we could have done more and better, but there are occasions when it is worth while saying how well we have done, and it is right and proper that we should, for those countries need the markets which we can give them, and it is a market and a responsibility which we shall continue to support.
The proposition is that we should continue the system which was perhaps best expressed in 1981 in the letter which was written on behalf of the Community to say that we should try to get a parallelism—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but that is the only word that I know which covers the matter—between, on the one hand, the price paid for raw sugar in the ACP countries, and on the other for the raw sugar produced by beet producers in the Community.
The second parallelism is between the margins which are provided for the sugar manufacturers in Britain and the rest of the Community and the margins provided for the sugar cane refiners.
There are those who suggested that we should have agreed with those who wanted us to narrow the margins which are provided for the cane refiners in order to increase the money that was going direct to the producers of cane sugar. That would have been a great mistake. We opposed that, and we did so for two reasons. First, if we are to defend the generosity of the Community in allowing the sugar into Britain and elsewhere—
Sir William Clark: My right hon. Friend is talking about the generosity of the Community. One of the cardinal points at issue when we joined the Common Market was that there should be a guarantee for the ACP countries of some 1.2 million tonnes of sugar.
Mr. Gummer: It was 1.4 million tonnes, of which 1.3 million tonnes was taken up by those to whom it was offered.
108
I used the word "generosity" in the proper sense, which is that that in no way detracts from the assurance. It is generosity by the whole Community, including ourselves, to continue to pay a price to people outside the Community which is well above the price on the world market. I happen to think that that is generosity. It is an absolute commitment, and I would not in any sense derogate from that commitment. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept that. No other part of the world does that, and in that sense it is generosity.
Mr. Teddy Taylor rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): Order. Will the Minister address the House and not turn his back on the Chair. Let me remind those hon. Members who are trying to intervene and catch my eye that a great number of hon. Members wish to speak.
Mr. Gummer: I repeat that I believe it to be generous. It is both a responsibility and a generous commitment, of which we should be proud, and which we should continue. It is important to defend that generosity. The only way to do so is to provide a reasonable basis. That basis is provided by the 1981 letter. It ensures that we should provide, for those who come from the ACP countries, a parallelism which is defensible and which ought to be defended. That is why we did not support the Commission's suggestion that we should narrow the margins that were provided for the cane refiners.
I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to say that it is important that the margins provided for the cane refiners should be kept at a reasonable level, otherwise the ACP countries will be unable to export their sugar to the Community. There will be insufficient refining capacity. The defence of that refining capacity is an essential part of any sensible policy that allows ACP sugar into the Community. We are pledged to defend that policy.
Secondly, the documents deal with the problem of the reduced price quota sugar for the chemical industry. This is a matter of considerable concern, both to this country and to the Community as a whole. There is no earthly point in using this as a means to encourage the production of yet more sugar. We need to use it as a means to sell the sugar that we already produce. That is why we were so strongly opposed last year to the Commission's proposals. They would have had the effect of increasing the amount of C, or non-quota, sugar, and it was thought that they would provide the basis for selling cheaper sugar to the chemical industry.
Mr. Chris Smith rose—
Mr. Gummer: It would be much better if I allowed as many right hon. and hon. Members as possible to speak, rather than allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. That is not the real reason. The real reason is that I am more frightened of Mr. Deputy Speaker than I am of the hon. Gentleman.
For the reason that I have given, we shall resist the Commission's original proposals. We are seeking to improve the position. We welcome in principle this proposal by the Commission. It will provide an opportunity to encourage new markets for the sugar that we produce both in this country and in the rest of the Community. It will not provide, as the previous proposals did, a means of expanding non-quota sugar.

109
There is a problem about starch. The industries which use starch are helped in two ways. Protection is given to Community-produced products which use starch. Support is also given to the starch manufacturers. The Commission's aim is to ensure that both means of support are not provided. There is no proper answer yet to this problem. We are not happy about the proposals that have been placed before us. We are determined to protect the British food industry from what would otherwise be far too sharp an attack on the pricing structure and on the cost of the industry's products.
It is unacceptable to help people twice—by protection and by direct support. It is also unacceptable to change the system and thereby upset the market position as to make it impossible for those who rely upon it to put their house in order. For that reason, we have sought to change the Commission's proposals. Both we and the other member states have already secured important improvements. They were incorporated in the Commission's revised proposals, which were published in the summer of this year.
We are discussing a number of matters that are of great importance. The kernel of the issue is the question of quotas for each country. Many people have made a strong case that the current position is unsatisfactory. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, have put that case, especially those who, like myself, represent constituencies that produce beet sugar.
The discussions in Brussels are aimed at finding a way to meet two points: first, the continuing over-production of sugar; and, secondly, the sense of dissatisfaction felt in this and other countries about the way in which the quotas have been parcelled. I cannot believe that, in advance of those discussions, the House would expect me to predict which way they will go. Whichever way, it is necessary that the United Kingdom provides a continuing secure market for ACP cane sugar—provided that the price remains competitive with Community beet sugar. That must be basic to any decisions.
I do not believe that those who seek an improved quota for British beet sugar would want it to be at the cost of the ACP support that we have given—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because we have a clear commitment, both moral and historical, to support that. I repeat that commitment tonight. However, at the same time it is right that the Government should put clearly the strong belief of the beet industry that the B quota, which was set up at the time of the arrangements in 1981, is not a fair reflection of our historic production. Indeed, it does not meet the problem that will arise if we expect an expansion in demand for sugar in the chemical industry—nor the circumstances that have already arisen, where the margin between what we produce and what we need as a nation is so narrow.
I hope that those who have been heartened by my clear promise on the ACP will also agree that it is reasonable for the Government to seek ways to improve the position for our beet producers, who feel that they have not been fairly treated—
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gummer: It would be wrong of me to give way to my hon. Friends, having refused to give way to Opposition Members. I must adhere to what you requested, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and speak briefly now and
110
then reply to the points raised in the debate. When the amendment is moved the House will no doubt wish to comment upon it. When I have listened to the case for the amendment, I can make my recommendations on what the House should do. It would be original and unusual if I were not prepared to listen to the speeches in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] Indeed, if I said that I would not listen to them, the laughter of hon. Members would be even greater than it is now.
Sir John Wells: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not intolerable that my right hon. Friend should waffle on with this sort of badinage, when we all want to contribute—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order.
10.29 pm
Mr. Brynmor John: I want first to deal with the document on the starch regime, which removes its subsidies for starch in food use and transfers them to starch in industrial use, and at prevailing world prices.
Those who advocate the use in Industry of beet sugar will know that the chemical industry sees a future for the increased use of sugar, as it sees an increase in the use of starch, only at world prices. I welcome that development because it will help not only the existing industry but the new biotechnological industries, and there is evidence that the availablility of world prices in countries outside the EEC has helped to site the new industries in places such as Austria.
I accept the Minister's remarks about Britain having a special problem in the sense that we have a dependence greater than the rest of the EEC on starch in foodstuffs and that there are commodities such as soups and sauces which do not have the benefit of an import levy. I urge the Minister in any negotiations to bear in mind that some commodities do not have that double protection, so that the rationale for the removal of the subsidy from foodstuffs is not borne out.
The main problem that interests the House tonight surrounds the three documents that deal with the sugar regime, which is in surplus and, as intended, is not self-supporting. It is extremely disappointing to note that the EEC has again ducked its responsibilities by proposing that quotas should remain the same in total. As introduced, those quotas were, as I think the Minister recognised, inequitable and almost capricious in the sense, to give one example, that they gave Belgium and Luxembourg production quotas which were two and a half times their comsumption.
But, if it has been bad in its internal effect in the EEC, the regime's external effect has been devastating. The outcome of the quotas means that in 1984–85 the EEC produced 3 million tonnes above the amount consumed, and that is the reality of the quotas now recommended for continuance.
We dump sugar from the EEC on the world market. The most efficient world producer can produce at only 12 cents a pound, but the spot price in New York for most of this year has hovered between 3 and 4 cents a pound. For many primary producers of which we speak tonight, that spells poverty.
Mr. Alfred Morris: His Excellency the High Commissioner for Guyana, who is

111
chairman of the ACP High Commissioners' Sugar Committee, has spoken of grave concern if there should be any increase in the United Kingdom sugar beet quota. There is no doubt that such an increase would conflict with the guarantees. We are talking about extremely poor countries. Does my hon. Friend agree that Her Majesty's Government should give a plain and definite commitment tonight to the ACP suppliers on this important subject?
Mr. John: Later in my remarks I shall be asking for such a guarantee. I have been speaking of total production, and the over-supply is, I gather to be continued for two reasons.
The first is that the Commission asserts that enlargement of the EEC will
"cause the surpluses to fall heavily."
Its own assessment of the situation shows how much those words are exaggerated, for the fall will apparently be about 250,000 tonnes out of a surplus of 3 million tonnes, so that 91.5 per cent. of the existing surplus will remain in surplus even after enlargement of the Community.
Secondly, the plea is made that there will be further consumption of sugar in the chemical and biotechnological industries. I hope that that occurs and that the United Kingdom gets its fair share of development and innovation. But how much additional production and consumption will that mean? The estimates vary from 80,000 tonnes in the EEC today to about 500,000 tonnes in 1992; and by then, it is estimated by the Chemical Industries Association, Britain might be using 150,000 tonnes. But those estimates depend upon one factor, which I have double-checked with the association: that sugar is available at the world price. That means, on all the figures that we have, that it is charged at a quarter of the present price, with a 75 per cent. subsidy—double what is now being offered. The gap must force a downward revision of those forecasts of consumption. Indeed, the Chemical Industries Association says that, if the price remains as it is, there will be no extra consumption of sugar in those industries. At the moment, the United Kingdom is already producing a surplus of 200,000 tonnes, so that in 1985 we grow more than we estimate that the chemical industries could possibly need as a maximum in 1992.
Like many other hon. Members, I have been lobbied, fairly but firmly, by the British Sugar Corporation about an increase in the beet sugar quota to meet the expanded demand. If I were satisfied about the justification of it by statistics and assured that it would not go indirectly into the food industry, thereby destroying hundreds of jobs in the Westburn refinery of Tate and Lyle in Scotland, I might find the argument persuasive. But on the arguments I have given, I cannot see—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen talk about British sugar. We once talked about British steel, on which they were nothing like as protective.
Mr. Michael Brown rose—
Mr. John: No, I am talking about
Mr. Brown rose
—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is not giving way.
Mr. John: I care deeply about sugar. I care about it deeply enough not to tell people and producers in this country fairy tales by pretending that there will be a lot of
112
consumption which I do not believe to be merited on the facts. I believe that the existing production will cover any reasonably sane estimate of the extra consumption in the chemical industries and the various other technological industries.
All efforts should be geared to bringing sugar production in the EEC under control. As the Commission has evaded the problem, it can only add to its unenviable reputation for procrastination. The regime is not self-financing. In 1985 it cost us £385 million on the CAP budget, and as consumers it cost us a great deal more.
Document 8687/85 tries to cure the problem by proposing a levy. Is that in fact so? In last Friday's Financial Times and this week's Agra Europe, one reads that a much more timid and therefore much more popular—in Europe—set of levy proposals now exists. If that is true, how can we be expected to take note of the document, except possibly as a historical curiosity? I believe that the weakening of the proposal will lead to a further charge on the CAP. Have the Government estimated how much that will be?
I did not seek to amend the motion, because I regard our pledges to the ACP countries of 1.3 million tonnes of cane sugar as absolutely and firmly binding. I hope that the Government have the same feeling about it. I notice that the Minister assents. If that is so, it is a shame that it was not put in the motion. But a ministerial assurance will suit me, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will repeat it.
In this case, as with so many agricultural matters, the problem is that many people see the parts without the whole. Although we note the documents tonight, we must regret that an overall view is as far removed from the Commission as it ever was.
10.39 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I welcome the Minister's comment about the firm commitment to the Commonwealth sugar producers. Many of us are deeply concerned that the commitment should be honoured. It may be wrong to talk of us continuing to behave generously, but that is true, at least in the sense that there is no doubt that the Commonwealth sugar producers have benefited considerably, as the Minister said, in a difficult world market, from the undertaking that we and the Community gave when Britain became a full member.
We gave the clearest possible assurances at the Lancaster house conference of a secure and continuing market of comparable quantities to that which the United Kingdom and the Community had entered under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. We also said that we would give fair prices. At the conference we were asked for and gave what were described as "bankable assurances"—that we would accept the Commonwealth sugar in comparable quantities at remunerative prices. That is the justification for paying the Commonwealth sugar producers the appropriate price.
There is much discussion in the House about the need to aid the developing world and how we must help it through its debt crisis. The best way for us to help is by paying developing countries a fair price for what they produce. That is a specific and moral commitment, and I am sure that no hon. Member would want to withdraw from that.
Furthermore, at the Lancaster house conference I said:

113
"If quotas for beet sugar production were increased in such a way that imports from Commonwealth countries were threatened, it would be a breach of the undertaking by the Community."
What we wanted tonight, and what I think my right hon.
Friend has given, is an unequivocal assurance that the undertakings given in 1971, and subsequently, are being honoured by the British Government.
The Commission found that the world market was in a serious state and that future prospects were bleak. For that reason it said that it was right that the existing quotas should not be increased. The Commonwealth sugar producers are concerned about what is happening in the United Kingdom because our consumption of their cane sugar has fallen rapidly: at one time it was two thirds, but it is now clown to 50 per cent. Against that background, it is difficult to argue for an increase in sugar beet quotas, especially when we have overproduction, not only in the Community but in the United Kingdom. Even if an additional demand from the chemical industries is expected, that does not justify any increase in sugar beet quotas at present.
People have talked about the loss of jobs, and there is a real fear that the closure of Tate and Lyle's refinery in Liverpool might be followed by a closure in Greenock, Scotland. That might result in a loss of some 400 jobs. There are job losses to be faced in any circumstances, but the House must bear it in mind that we have an honourable record of keeping our treaty commitments, and there was a clear treaty commitment. I remind the House that it was demanded from the British Government by both sides of the House when we entered the Community.
I understand that there is a dispute about the level of the ACP guaranteed prices. The initial offer was for a 1·15 per cent. increase for raw sugar compared with 1·3 per cent. for white sugar. The Commission document, issued on 11 September, said:
"the Commission proposes that the Council should alter the intervention price for raw sugar so that it is increased by the same percentage as that for white sugar, that is, by 1·3 per cent., and that it should be set at 44·92 ecu per 100 kg with effect from 1 July 1985."
I hope that the Government now accept that. I have had a look at the explanatory memorandum submitted by my right hon. Friend the Minister to the House on 4 October
1985, which says:
"The proposal retrospectively to increase the raw sugar intervention price would mean that the refining margin would increase by only 1·.8 per cent. while that for beet processors would remain at 3·.5 per cent. The Government therefore opposes this proposal which would discriminate against cane refiners."
I should like it to be made clear that the Government are opposed to any discrimination against cane refiners in respect of those prices. It may be a small amount money, but it is a principle to which the Commonwealth sugar producers rightly attach importance. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will clear that up.
10.45 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: I beg to move at the end of the Question, to add:
"and fulfil the objectives set out in the Resolution of the House relating to sugar supplies of 11th November 1974."
The amendment is in my name and those of my hon.
Friends the Members for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton).
I remind the House of what the resolution referred to in the amendment said 11 years ago:
114
"That this House takes note of Commission Document No. R/1900/73, but declines to approve Commission Document R1957/74 as it makes no provision either for continuing imports, at fair and stable prices, of at least 1·.4 million tons of cane sugar from Commonwealth countries, or for the continued existence of and employment in the port sugar refining industry in the United Kingdom, or for securing long term supplies of domestically refined cane sugar at a fair price to consumer and producer."—[Official Report, 11 November 1974; Vol. 881, c. 202.]
The calling of this Back-Bench amendment is very important. Take-note motions are of major importance, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South said to the House in the debate on sugar supplies on 11 November
1974. Therefore, I am most grateful to Mr. Speaker for his recognition of the need to debate the amendment. I remind the House that it refers specifically to a resolution of the House of Commons. The Government's objectives must surely accord with those contained in the resolution. To accept the amendment would be to continue with the resolution.
The motion proposed by the Minister, despite what he said, is a little ambiguous. If hon. Members will allow the lack of modesty, the amendment removes that ambiguity. At the same time, it diminishes the fears felt by many people employed in the United Kingdom cane sugar refining industry, by their families, and by all those who obtain a living from the production of that crop in the African Caribbean and Pacific countries.
At one level, my deep concern is shaped by the important fact that the one remaining cane sugar refinery in Scotland is in my constituency. It is owned by Tate and Lyle, which owns another and bigger cane sugar refinery in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. In Greenock, 400 people are employed in the refinery. As I have said before in the House, the refinery in Greenock is an integral element in the Scottish food and drinks industry, which employs between 16,000 and 20,000 people. Their fear, which is felt by many people in the ACP countries, is that Her Majesty's Government may agree to an increase in the United Kingdom's total sugar beet quota.
That deep anxiety is shared by my constituents' employers. On Friday I received a letter from Mr. Tomlinson, a director of Tate and Lyle, who said:
"There is a surplus of sugar throughout the EEC and in the UK. Thus the Commission is not proposing to change existing production quotas. In contrast, however, the UK beet industry is arguing for an increase in its quota. If this were to he granted it would have substantial repercussions for cane sugar refining. Over 400 jobs would be lost as a result of the closure of Scotland's only sugar refinery and many more jobs in Scotland's food and drinks industry would be at risk."
Recently, I have had cause on more than one occasion to mention in the House the scandalously high levels of unemployment in my constituency.
An increase in the United Kingdom beet quota would swell an existing sugar surplus. The European Commission would surely refuse to allow increased surplus production being dumped on the world market, which is already suffering from a severe depression. It has been argued that in the near future sugar could become an important feedstock in the chemical industry. That argument is buttressed by the threat that if there is not an adequate supply, the United Kingdom chemical companies will build plants in France and other Community countries. Others argue that there is no case for an increase in the United Kingdom sugar beet quota.
A document from Tate and Lyle states

115
"Existing UK sugar supplies are more than adequate to fulfil the anticipated additional UK demand for sugar for industrial uses.
There is already a large EEC beet surplus which is having to be dumped on depressed world markets at prices well below cost in competition with developing countries, thereby ruining their economies."
I am being asked about the people in the beet sugar industry. I am concerned for them, but their position is not affected by what is happening to the cane sugar industry.
In addition, I have mentioned the threat to the people involved in the food and drinks industry in Scotland. For those reasons, my hon. Friends and I tabled the amendment, which refers to a resolution of the House. I sincerely hope that it meets with the approval of the House.
10.52 pm
Sir William Clark: I hope that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) will excuse me for not speaking to his amendment. I should like to follow the theme of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon), and thank my hon. Friend the Minister for giving an undertaking that the ACP sugar quotas would remain intact.
I remind the House that the ACP quotas came about because of the cessation of the old Commonwealth sugar agreements. Invariably, all the ACP countries from which we take cane sugar are Third world countries. That is an important factor. Until recently I was a director of Belize Sugar Industries, and I am now a consultant to Tate and Lyle. When we joined the European Community, two thirds of our sugar consumption was cane sugar, but now it is 50 per cent. The ACP countries are unquestionably worried about the continual pressure on cane sugar. They do not want to see any more erosion of their quotas, and my hon. Friend has assured them of that.
The ACP countries have met their quotas, but, nevertheless, they look at the European market and see that even in the United Kingdom we have a sugar surplus of 200,000 tonnes a year. As the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said, the excess in the Common Market is 3 million tonnes. That must be frightening for a country whose staple crop is cane sugar.
When we talk about the alternative uses of sugar, for example chemical ones, even MAFF has predicted that the maximum increase in consumption for the chemical industry would be about 50,000 tonnes. The British Sugar Corporation is asking for an increase of 350,000 tonnes, even though we have a surplus of 200,000 tonnes. If in 1991—let there be no mistake that we shall have to wait six years for this—there is an increase in consumption of 50,000 tonnes, that will still mean a surplus of 150,000 tonnes.
The price of sugar is depressed throughout the world simply because of the glut, and in no circumstances should we increase the quotas for the EEC. My right hon. Friend said that the quotas that we gave to the ACP countries were generous. That is a point of view to which I do not necessarily subscribe. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham said, we have a moral obligation to the old Commonwealth Sugar Agreement countries, and we should remember that they are Third world countries.
116
In many cases a Third world country has two quotas—an EEC quota and an American quota—and the balance of its production is sold on the world market. The EEC quota is sacrosanct, and in many cases the American quota has just been reduced under the Carribean initiative precisely to protect the sugar industry in the United States. Therefore, these ACP countries have already suffered a blow.
Some Opposition Members criticise the Government's aid programme and say that it is not sufficient. Personally, I do not believe that we should be ashamed of our aid programme, but we are wrong in not helping the ACP countries. If the chemical industry wants more production, let us increase the quotas for the ACP countries, because economically that would be far better.
From a political point of view, we should remember that the staple crop of an ACP country is cane sugar. It is all very well for people in the United Kingdom to say, "Let them diversify," but in many instances such countries cannot grow something else because the agronomy is not good enough. Beet sugar is grown in a temperate climate, where there is far more opportunity for diversification—[HON. MEMBERS: "Into what?"] Cereals, barley and so on. Temperate climate countries have a better opportunity of diversifying than have Third world countries.
If cane sugar comes under attack and there is an erosion in production, there is the possibility of the closure of the Greenock refinery[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) says that the Lincolnshire farmers are impoverished, but I doubt whether anyone else would agree.
As for employment, we are not arguing that the beet industry should be cut. It wants to increase its production. Leaving aside the economics of the argument, we must realise that cane sugar is extremely labour intensive. If there is a world reduction because of our quota system, a political vacuum will be created and the West will have to pick up the bill and give more and more aid. I am convinced that it is much better to give Third world countries trade rather than aid.
10.59 pm
Mr. Gordon Oakes: I wish to confine my remarks to what the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John) said—the importance of starch and sugar to the chemical industry. There is a market for starch and a growing market for sugar provided as my hon. Friend correctly said, the chemical industry can buy at world prices. He said that the chemical industry's sugar consumption might remain the same, unless that were to happen. I am more doubtful than my hon. Friend because this country's chemical industry must compete with the world chemical industry which buys at world prices.
The starch agreement is relatively good. It is welcomed by the chemical industry and the Chemical Industries Association. The sugar agreement, in particular sugar agreement No. 9178/85, does not go far enough. The only answer for this country's chemical industry, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd said, is to amend it or to introduce a new regulation which will allow the chemical industry to buy at world prices. We are not talking, as are the regulations and the common agricultural policy, of sugar as a food. We are talking of it as a feedstock which can provide an exciting new industry. I shall tell the House about some of the new developments

117
that can take place within the chemical industry, provided that the price of feedstock meets world prices and the rebate brings the cost down to world prices and not to a percentage of them. In that event, instead of having two hands tied behind its back, it would merely tie one of the industry's hands behind its back.
This country is in the lead in the development of various new chemicals. They can provide considerable employment and attract capital investment. One of the developments is a type of plastic called PHB. We are ahead of the world in its development. We are being restrained in the development of that bioplastic because of the price of sugar as a feedstock to the chemical industry. Xanthan gum is another of our developments. I have as little knowledge as most other hon. Members of these matters, but xanthan gums are used for oil tertiary recovery. It will be important when our oil starts to run out in years to come that we have a home-based chemical developed by our chemical industry to assist in the tertiary recovery of oil. There are many exciting developments—for example, single cell oils, enzymes and microbial cultures—taking place in our chemical industry.
I have intervened because I have a chemical industry constituency and I am deputy chairman of the House all-party chemical industries group. The Chemical Industries Association asks Ministers and the House to cease regarding sugar as a food only and regard it as it truly is—an important feedstock for the British chemical industry which can provide jobs for many thousands of people.
11.4 pm
Mr. Edward Leigh: I represent one of the prime sugar beet growing areas of this country. The Bardney factory is in my constituency and the Brigg factory is just over the border in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown), who is in his place for this debate.
Farmers in my constituency are in a quandary. They are possibly the most efficient in the world and they farm some of the most intensively cultivated land in the world. They are told that they are over-producing cereals. Where can they turn? They cannot turn to milk or potatoes, because those products are already subject to quotas, and there is little possibility of turning to sugar under the present quota arrangements.
That is an intolerable situation. We consume more sugar per head than any nation in Europe, but our sugar beet quota covers only 49·7 per cent. of consumption at 1·144 million tonnes. Our consumers have a right to the best sugar at the lowest price on offer. The farmers of Lincolnshire are ready to offer them that sugar but are denied that opportunity by our EEC partners.
Mr. Jim Lester: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Leigh: No, we have had enough spokesmen in this debate for the sugar cane industry. I intend to stand up for the sugar beet farmers of this country. We all know the historical reasons for the discrimination against them. It is King Cane. The Government must decide what is their first priority, Barbados or Bardney, Brazil or Brigg. The cane producers have had it too good for too long. We can no more allow old loyalties to maintain artificially high quantities of cane to the disadvantage of our sugar beet
118
producers than we should maintain artificially high imports of New Zealand butter to the disadvantage of our dairy producers.
It is intolerable that our sugar beet quota covers only 49·7 per cent. of consumption while in other EEC member states the proportion ranges from 102·5 per cent. to 232·7 per cent. in Luxembourg. Current United Kingdom consumption is 2·3 million tonnes, and by 1990 it will have increased by more than 250,000 tonnes.
As the right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) has said, we look especially for new opportunities in the biotech industries. The possibilities exist to use our sugar beet for the manufacture of pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, paints, bakelite, wood stabilisers, polymers, washing-up liquids and even citric acids. Those new industries should be set up near the large sugar producing areas of this country, not in Brazil. Without an increase in our quota there will be no secure source of supply for those new industries.
The Government must press for an increase in our sugar beet quota, first, by reallocating quotas from other member states. If that is not possible, as the United Kingdom is the only EEC state disadvantaged and discriminated against, a special case should be made out for this country. At the very least, we should restore the 1981 cut, leaving all the other quotas unchanged.
Since joining the EEC we have pursued a responsible sugar beet quota policy. Is our good behaviour to be rewarded by a stagnant industry? I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to hold true to his words of 20 November when he said that the Government would insist that Community measures did not discriminate unfairly against the United Kingdom. The insisting must start here in this House today.
11.7 pm
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) is right to say that there should not be discrimination against the United Kingdom, but I thought that in the balance that he mentioned beet quotas had been substantially increased as a proportion of domestic sugar production and consumption over the past 10 to 20 years. Assuming that that balance has been reached, the question is whether we need an overbalance.
I speak with two hats in this debate—as Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, which produced a number of reports on the documents before us, and as a constituency Member, having put my name to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman).
There ar three groups of problems. Documents COM(84)620 and COM(85)504 deal with possible new outlets for our sugar surplus. My right hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) pleaded the case of the chemical industry. The Select Committee on European Legislation said in its report HC 5-xxx, 1984–85:
"The Commission points out that the European Council of Chemical Manufacturers' Federations has said that if sugar were available at less than Community prices up to an additional 450,000 tonnes pa could be used by 1990."
I presume that that is in the chemical industry. Whether taking crops from the ground and putting them through chemicals is a good way of dealing with natural resources is another matter.
Document COM(85)498 deals with the current marketing year. I did not detect a specific report from the

119
Minister to explain what is happening within the Council of Ministers about the current sugar year. I hope that he will tell us about that when he replies, and also about the problems in COM(85)433 with the new five-year regime.
We are discussing three issues that have been rolled into one multi-purpose motion. It was the all-purpose and non-specific nature of the motion which caused my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow to table a specific amendment to something that had already been decided by the House.
The attendance in the Chamber and the interest shown in the debate show how important the topic is. I think that I counted 18 Members rising in their places and seeking to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, a few minutes ago. When the Minister opened the debate, he did not spell out the three issues that are before us. I do not think that he mentioned one of the documents numerically, which I found rather disappointing after the reports of my Committee and the memoranda which the right hon. Gentleman has submitted. I am aware of the pressure of time, but I wonder whether that is the right approach to these matters.
I shall conclude by taking off my Chairman's hat and putting on a constituency hat. I know that the House will not deny that right to every Chairman of a Select Committee when the time comes.
When the Minister began his speech, he made some conciliatory and helpful remarks about the Third world and the moral duty which the House has in continuing the arrangements of the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement and in upholding undertakings that the Community made to our Commonwealth partners. A great moral issue is facing the First and the Third worlds, and I am glad that the Minister referred to it. However, I do not understand his reluctance to declare his attitude to the amendment, which merely refers to a resolution of the House about 10 years ago.
The Minister said that he would listen to the debate, and here is my contribution. If the Minister has to listen to the debate to decide whether he will reiterate an undertaking, objective or view expressed by the House about 10 years ago, that is a pity. I see that the Minister shakes his head, which relieves me. I shall take it that he agrees with the objectives outlined by the House 10 years ago, and as quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John). If, as I apprehend, the Minister agrees with those objectives, he must accept the amendment. If he does not, and if the House shows some disagreement over the matter, the only inference to be drawn is that there has been some slippage between what the House decided 10 years ago and what the Government want today. I do not believe, from his opening remarks, that the Minister meant that, but that would be a possible interpretation if he says that he cannot accept the amendment, which only reiterates the status quo. I do not believe that the Government would wish to indicate that the status quo has changed.
11·14 pm
Mr. Colin Moynihan: Until my election to represent the people of Lewisham, I was employed throughout my working life by Tate and Lyle. The contractual relationship lasts to this day, and therefore I shall declare an interest.
120
I support the motion, but there are problems within the operation of the sugar quota system which, even with the terms of the motion, can be tackled effectively by the Minister in the forthcoming round of negotiations in Brussels, which can in turn secure the future of the Westburn refinery.
In support of the proposals that we are considering, it is argued that there are many reasons why there may be an increase in United Kingdom sugar demand between 1986 and 1991. Where will the increases come from?
I agree with the Minister that the Commission believes that there could be some substitution of glucose by sugar in fermentation uses. However, the total change is not expected to be more than 50,000 tonnes. The beet lobby argues that sugar will become an important feedstock in the chemical industry. However, even the most wildly optimistic estimate of sugar for such use is only 100,000 tonnes, and most industrial experts consider that the increased demand is likely to be no more than 10,000 tonnes a year during the next five years.
The right hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Oakes) spoke about the pharmaceutical use of sucrose as a base. First, ICI has made the plastic substitute PHB, which is an important development that could become a competitor functionally for polyesters. But it could become a competitor only if the feedstock was priced at between £80 and £110 per tonne, based on the world price during the past two to three years, not—as the proposals before us suggest—at £250 or £260, which is the B quota net of levy. Even the Chemical Industries Association says that there is no chance of that happening or of the pharmaceutical industry taking that amount of sucrose coming on to the market at £250 or £260 per tonne.
The second important factor to remember about ICI is that production technology is at an early stage and that the applications technology is even further away. The problem with the RHM microprotein—hon. Members will be aware of that product, which has been widely publicised—is that glucose is a much-preferred substrate, anyway. One disadvantage of sugar as a substrate is that it causes effluent problems, so it would be much more preferable to use glucose. Indeed, there is at present no competition with starch.
For these, and or antibiotics and blood plasma extenders, there is very little expected demand from the chemical industry. Much research has been carried out on polymers oil recovery and on xanthan gum, not least in Knowsley by Tate and Lyle. It is expected that production will require no more than 1,000 or 2,000 tonnes of sugar between now and 1991. Finally, citric acid is made from molasses, which is an uncontrolled commodity and cheaper than world price sugar. Unless EC sugar is offered at the world price of the past two to three years, none of those will be tenable commercial objectives for production during the next five to six years.
Mr. Lester: We listened to my hon. Friend's enthusiastic support of British sugar beet farmers. Would they be prepared to produce sugar at those world prices rather than at the heavily subsidised EC prices?
Mr. Moynihan: The answer is certainly not. They would not even be prepared to produce sugar at the proper B quota price at a levy of 39·5 per cent., rather than a composite levy.
But even if the figures of 50,000 tonnes and 100,000 tonnes were correct—the House should beware

121
accepting them readily—the increased demand would be only 150,000 tonnes, which is already less than the surplus in the British sugar market of 200,000 tonnes. Therefore, even if we accept those figures—I do not—we are already in surplus to the tune of 200,000 tonnes. On that basis, there can be no argument for an increase in beet quotas.
The British market is divided approximately 50–50 between cane and beet sugar, and hon. Members will be aware that 100,000 tonnes of cane sugar is refined in an area of high unemployment on Clydeside, at the Westburn refinery in Greenock. The difficulty with the proposal before the House and the discussions that may have preceded tonight is that they may allow the British Sugar Corporation to increase its production by up to 200,000 tonnes of additional quota. That figure represents 9 per cent. of United Kingdom demand, and the proposal is to add it to a market which is already oversupplied by 10 per cent.
Sugar for the domestic market is produced under an A and B quota system carrying a differential levy. After payment of the levy, sugar is produced under the two quotas, it is in free circulation and is almost indistinguishable. In 1985, the United Kingdom's A quota was 1·04 million tonnes, carrying a levy of 2 per cent. As hon. Members will know, the B quota of about 104,000 tonnes—just 10 per cent. of the A quota—carries a total composite levy of 39–5 per cent. The levy is paid by the producer.
The whole point of the original proposals was that quota A was intended to equate to an approximate Community consumption and quota B was originally designed for specialisation, to encourage producers of high efficiency to produce the marginal additional sugar required. In effect, the idea was that only a producer with a 40 per cent. cost advantage equivalent to the quota B level would be encouraged to produce marginal sugar under quota B, but that has not happened, not merely in the United Kingdom, but in all European countries.
Growers and producers have worked together on an average pricing system, which effectively eliminates the disincentive effect of the much higher tariff under the quota B system. The result is that all sugar allocated under any form of increased quotas will be produced, and at an average of the marginal levy of approximately 5·4 per cent., whereas the marginal levy under quota B would, if the system were working properly, as it was set out and intended, be a 38·5 per cent. levy.
Because of this abuse of the two-tier system, it is certain that the whole of any additional quota being produced would be supplied into the market by BSC, and because of the nature of the BSC operation, the substantially increased volume of throughput would lead to average unit costs falling. At the same time, because of the increased average levy implied by the change of the ratio of B quota to A quota, the intervention receipt that is the basic intervention price—the average levy payable—will fall.
BSC, having much more of the margin with which to manoeuvre in the market, will compete against Tate and Lyle, and will be in a position to do so, but, because of the protective market in which it operates, caused by the process that I have described, the BSC will force 100,000 tonnes of sugar out of the United Kingdom market, and
122
that will mean the closure of a fundamentally important job provider in Scotland. That is what is critical in this debate.
It is not palatable to hear B producers argue that if we do not go ahead with the proposals there will he a loss of jobs in beet because the debate is about an increase in quota, not a status quo. If the status quo remained, BSC would not be losing jobs. It has not publicly said so, but we know that if there is an increase in the quotas, because of the system working as I have explained there will definitely be job losses at Greenock for cane refineries. That is the critical point.
The international consequences of this would be serious. The importance of them is that the ACP countries will lose out. If there are 100,000 tonnes less of supply coming into the British market, even if it is shifted to Portugal—which has 50,000 tonnes given to it under the accession arrangements for its entrance into the Community—Portugal could still need 250,000 tonnes which it gains from either ACP supplies or the world market, and 100,000 tonnes will need to be shifted cross to Portugal, leaving 100,000 less coming from the world market. Yet again, there will be a depressed price for world sugar in countries that cannot even now supply at the world market price because it is so heavily depressed by flooded, over-subsidised European beet that is below the production costs of even the most efficient cane producers world wide, who have a competitive advantage in the production of sugar.
It surprises me that hon. Members who regularly argue for the workings of a free market, and argue to ensure that we have effective free competition, based on good quality competitive price and delivery terms—all the arguments of the free marketeers—suddenly pop up one evening, throw all that out of the window, go for massive protectionism, the like of which is even subtly suggested at being at a different level from that which quota A and quota B intended, and then happily appear tomorrow arguing in favour of free competition. If that point does not go home to everybody inside and outside the House, no other point will.
11.24 pm
Mr. Guy Barnett: I agree with the speeches of the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). My views on the subject are well known and they accord with what has been said by both hon. Members.
I do not want to get involved in the cane-beet debate, not because I am not interested in it but because I have yet another constituency interest, and there are many in this debate. A firm called Tunnel Refineries is in the forefront of converting from traditional maize wet milling capacity to the utilisation of United Kingdom wheat. By the spring of next year it expects to have achieved between 40 and 50 per cent. replacement of its raw material capacity by United Kingdom wheat. Therefore, in that respect the firm—no doubt this applies to others which make use of United Kingdom wheat as a raw material for starch and glucose production—can and does make a significant contribution to reducing the scandal of mounting United Kingdom intervention stocks of wheat.
Some hon. Members may have noticed The Sunday Times article on 17 November showing that some 330 secret grain stores exist in Britain, in which some 6 million

123
tonnes of surplus wheat and barley are stored. The total value of the surplus supplies is estimated to amount to a staggering £700 million. surely equally worrying is the fact that maintaining that piece of expensive nonsense costs the taxpayer £72 million a year.
At present, the United Kingdom consumer consumes in excess of 750,000 tonnes of starch and glucose based upon the conversion of cereals. Indeed, United Kingdom companies have a capacity in excess of 1 million tonnes. However, in spite of its intention to maintain internal cereal prices well above world price levels, the Commission also proposes to increase the cost to the consumer even further by removing the production refund for starch required by the food industry. It appears to think that all food products are protected from world price competition by the common agricultural policy.
I understand that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has identified a number of important products, including soft drinks, beers and baby foods, which are not so protected. The Commission proposes to retain the production refund for only a limited number of products for industrial application. The effect of that will be increased food costs for the consumer and reduced willingness of United Kingdom manufacturers, such as Tunnel Refineries, to invest in the plant required to convert grain surpluses. If the Government were to encourage the conversion of grain surpluses, the United Kingdom starch and glucose industry could consume over 1 million tonnes per annum.
If that wheat is to be stored in intervention the cost is 35 ecu a tonne. If exported out of the EC, the cost of export refunds is 77 ecu a tonne. So the total cost of storage and export is 112 ecu a tonne, while the starch and glucose manufacturers receive only 27·79 ecu a tonne under the current starch regime. That is a potential saving of 84 ecu a tonne; a saving which I am told can be estimated at some £52 million a year.
In view of that, I ask the Minister to oppose the loss of the production refund on starch on food and other purposes which is proposed under the new starch regime. I am told that the Dutch are insisting on special treatment for their potato starch industry, so why are the Government not insisting on special treatment for our industry? I would expect them to be more robust than they appear to have been so far in defence of our national interest as well as the interests of my constituents.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may help the House if I say that the Minister would like to begin his reply at 11·35 pm.
11.29 pm
Sir Eldon Griffiths: I am a sugar beet man. I live among sugar beet. The main view from my window is of the largest sugar beet factory in Europe. I agree with the Minister of State that we have an obligation to the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and that we must stick to it.
I regret that this debate has turned into an argument between Liverpool and Greenock on the one hand and Bury St. Edmunds and Gainsborough and Horncastle on the other. It is not an argument between Tate and Lyle and the British Sugar Corporation. It is an argument about how this country is to obtain a larger share of what the European Community is producing for this country.
124
My proposal is simple. There is a case for justice to be done to efficient British agriculture. This must not be done at the expense of ACP production. It must be done at the expense of some European countries that have higher quotas than they need. Our quota is lower than it ought to be. When the quotas were fixed, British agriculture was unfortunate enough to have had a bad year, and our production fell. Consequently our quota was set at the wrong level. I hope that my right hon. Friend will seek to obtain from the European Community an improved quota for the efficient British sugar beet industry, at the expense of those in Europe who can afford to give it to us.
11.30 pm
Mr. Ron Leighton: Not so very long ago I went to Belize on behalf of Mr. Speaker to present to the Parliament of that country its Speaker's chair. The importance of sugar to that country's struggling economy was impressed upon me while I was there. There has been a slump in the world sugar market, caused by the heavily subsidised dumping of surplus beet sugar by the European Community. It is causing deepening poverty in the already poor tropical and Third-world countries. As a result of dumping, prices on world markets have been below the cost of production anywhere in the world. That is immoral. It is blighting and destroying the hopes of those countries.
I thought that the Conservative party believed in free markets and in removing market rigidities, but that does not appear to apply to sugar. Rigid protectionism is being applied. Therefore, stocks are at an all-time high. They are equivalent to half the world's annual consumption of sugar. However, the production of beet sugar in the Community, bolstered by protection, is defying all the economic laws of gravity. The European Community price is six times higher than the world price.
The talks on the international sugar agreement have collapsed. There is now a free for all, which means that those countries with the biggest subsidies are winning. Therefore the richer farmers in the richer countries are enjoying the largest subsidies.
The European Community is one of the main culprits. Western Europe used to be a net importer of sugar. It is now one of the biggest exporters. It unloads millions of tonnes of subsidised sugar. Its exports have escalated dramatically. They trebled between 1978 and 1984. Western Europe's world market share is now 25 per cent. This is obtained by subsidies of up to 85 per cent. of the European Community's internal price. How can that be justified? Nor should we be deluded by the myth that this is self-financing. It is nonsense to think that the levies mean that the producers are financially responsible for the disposal of sugar surpluses. Producers get such a high price for quota sugar that they can easily afford to export surpluses at marginal prices.
Price discipline is the only sensible course. It is our duty to call for a change. The quotas result in an unseemly scramble for shares. Britain comes off worst, as usual, in the European Community, but that is another story. The cost of the sugar regime is 2 billion ecus. That is the cost not to the budget but to consumers because of artificially high prices. This is bad for the consumer. It is also bad for sensible farming in this country and for the Third world. It should be opposed by Parliament and by the Government. I hope that the Minister's constructive and conciliatory words in his opening speech will be carried

125
through to his closing speech. I hope that he will assure the House that there has been no slippage and that he will accept the amendment.
11.33 pm
Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) said that it is sad that this should have developed into an argument between the cane sugar and the sugar beet interests. The argument is more complex than that. I take seriously his point about the continuing concern in this country that the original arrangements for the quota were based upon a year that was atypical. That must mean that the British sugar beet industry feels that it has been done down by the rest of the European Community. That is why I said that it was not unreasonable to look for a redressing of that balance. However, when a system is in place, that is rather difficult.
I must tell the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) that the problems that he adumbrated about those in favour of the free market can be turned on their heads. He is not noted for his battling in support of the free market in other areas. We are trying to find an answer to two very different interests, both of which are concerned with jobs, both of which are important and neither of which can be ignored.
I listened with considerable care when the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) spoke to his amendment. I am not especially happy about the wording of the amendment, not least because it refers to 1·4 million tons, which he knows became 1·3 million tons through no fault of this country, but because the countries concerned did not wish to take that extra amount. He will understand that my hesitance is not because I wish to slide or to slip. I am sure that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) would acquit me of being of the temperament to do so without a good deal of previous announcement.
I do not like the wording of the amendment because it may be read as suggesting that we are not already doing the things that it suggests when in fact the achievement of the Government and the Community is to carry out precisely what is contained in the resolution of the House. Therefore, I should be sad if the amendment were read as an indictment of what we have done since 1974.
If the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow will accept that those aspects are not central to what he is proposing, I believe that it would be even more misleading if I recommend to the House that it should oppose the amendment. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has put the House in this position. If I oppose the amendment, it might be thought that the Government were in some way resiling from the position that they and previous Governments have taken. Therefore, I shall recommend that the House accepts the amendment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take that in the spirit in which it is said.
As I said in my opening remarks, I am confident that the United Kingdom will continue to provide a secure market for ACP sugar, provided that the price remains competitive with Community beet sugar.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) will, in retrospect, agree that to suggest that ACP countries have had it too good for too long is not entirely true. With a country such as Barbados, it is difficult not to accept that the standard of living, the dependence on a single crop and
126
the problems that it faces really cannot make it comparable even with farmers in Suffolk—and I say that representing a Suffolk constituency.
Mr. Clement Freud rose—
Mr. Gummer: Social Democratic and Liberal Members have been present throughout the debate. Because it is difficult to formulate a reply, they have not said anything about the issue. I do not intend to give way.
We must consider the issue carefully. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) fairly put his finger on our moral responsibility to the ACP countries. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Sir W. Clark) and others who pressed the issue will accept that in the circumstances of some increase in likely demand—not only because of the new accessions of Spain and Portugal, which we welcome, but because of the likely changes in the demand from the chemical industry—it would not be unreasonable to try to obtain some redressing of the balance for beet sugar. I do not think that such a redressing would have the dire consequences—it would not go far enough for that to happen—that my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) suggested.
My hon. Friend pointed to some of the technological changes and warned against being over-enthusiastic about the new markets and opportunities. I hope that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has at no time been over-enthusiastic, but it would be wrong to ignore some of those opportunities, and it certainly would be wrong not to organise ourselves so that we can take advantage of those opportunities. I agree with my hon. Friend that we must fight for the interests of this country within the Community, however communautaire we may be.
Mr. Bowen Wells rose—
Mr. Gummer: I hope hat my hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not give way. Only four minutes remain and I have some important points to raise, particularly in reply to the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Mr. John).
We are fully alive to the problems to which the hon. Member for Pontypridd referred in relation to the coming five years. He was right to say that the proposals now before the Council are not the same as were originally proposed. In the end we must arrive at an agreement between all the countries. I have looked at the issues carefully, and we are continuing to consider the way in which those matters will fall country by country.
There is no reason at present to suppose that we cannot produce an answer which may mean it being a self-supporting regime. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the argument becomes much less reasonable if it is not self-supporting; it must be that, and we are determined to achieve it. It may have to be achieved in a different way from that originally proposed by the Commission. I am alive to the points that he raised, and we will do what we can to ensure that they are met.
I assure the hon. Member for Greenwich (Mr. Barnett) that I remember the Tunnel Company well from the time when I failed to win that seat from his predecessor. I appreciate the problems with which it is faced.
In the long run, it must be reasonable not no protect people twice, once by subsidy and again by exterior protection. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that some

127
products were not protected by an exterior tariff and that they would not be protected even once if we removed the subsidy. We have gone a long way in changing the Commission's proposal, and I assure him that we have been extremely robust on this issue.
We have moved a long way already and we shall continue to press the matter because we want to continue to help those areas where starch would not otherwise be protected, while removing the double protection at a speed which will not undermine the stability of the starch-producing industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh)—I question the words he used about the ACP countries—was right to remind us that we cannot ignore the fact that sugar beet is an important crop for large areas of Britain and that the continued viability of the sugar beet industry is vital for jobs and agriculture here. However, he must accept that a balance must be kept and that our commitment to the ACP countries must continue. It is a moral commitment from which I hope no hon. Member would wish us to resile.
Amendment agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Community Documents Nos. 8687/85, 9178/85 and 8781/85, relating to the sugar sector and 11172/84 and 8688/85, relating to the reform of the starch regime, and supports the Government's objectives to secure satisfactory agreements on them which take account of the interests of both producers and users of the products concerned, and fulfil the objectives set out in the Resolution of the House relating to sugar supplies of 11th November 1974.

Forestry
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
11.45 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The borders and south-east Scotland as a whole represent a perfect geographical and topographical area within which to consider the wider national and international aspects of forestry as well as the important part that it has to play in the local borders rural economy.
I remind the House of the inordinately high level of imports of timber and related products that is countenanced at present. We spend about £4,000 million per annum on importing raw material—92 per cent. of total United Kingdom requirements. Home-grown timber could secure a high level of import substitution, which would benefit local economies such as south-east Scotland and the country as a whole. As only 9 per cent. of the United Kingdom is presently planted as commercial forest—although the figure in the borders is nearer 12 per cent.—there is clearly capacity available to achieve that high level of import substitution.
The production potential of our present forestry is maturing fast, and I understand that it is expected to double in the next 10 years. Therefore, we are on the brink of a significant potential expansion of the whole forestry enterprise and its related harvesting and processing industries.
In my last Adjournment debate on the borders two years ago, I expressed my fear that the Government were proposing to dismantle the Forestry Commission by stealth, by allowing wholesale and indiscriminate disposal of large expanses of forest in areas such as the borders. While still being critical of aspects of that policy—principally its continued insistence on keeping the purchase prices and the identities of purchasers secret—I am less worried now than I then was. It is true that two large forests in the borders have been sold. but the policy announced in 1984, which put the emphasis on rationalisation, has had an important and welcoming effect on the forestry enterprise and the morale of the local work force.
I pay tribute to those who work for the Forestry Commission in the borders. They are a dedicated band of professionals who carry out physically demanding and often dangerous jobs with a great deal of skill. They have played their part in achieving the results announced recently in the Forestry Commission's annual report. Those results show that they are ahead of financial targets set for them by Ministers.
If the amalgamation of the conservancies and the slimmed-down organisation is delivering the goods in the way that it seems to be, why not allow the commission to develop and refine its rationalisation policy to include purchasing forests and planting land where it can be shown that it would make economic sense to do so? At present the savings made go back to the Exchequer, and there is very little local incentive in south-east Scotland or elsewhere to do better simply to line the pockets of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I welcome the statement that was made some months ago by the Minister of State who sits in the other place, when he publicly embraced the concept of a mixed economy in forestry. I support that view, but the Minister

129
will be aware that the private forestry interests in the borders and elsewhere have recently been expressing some concern at the way in which the Department continues to administer the forestry grant scheme, and the consultation process involved in that scheme, when it comes to releasing land for forestry.
The view is that the Department is still adhering to the principles adumbrated first in 1939, when grazing land and lower pastures were completely sacrosanct from afforestation. Will the Minister accept that times have now significantly changed? Will he accept that, against the background of agricultural surpluses and the current debate about agricultural land use, forestry should be considered as a part of the solution to the surplus problem?
Private industry, as well as individual farmers, can play a part in future, to everyone's benefit. Of course, there must be safeguards in terms of the integration with the livestock sector, which is very important. There must be safeguards in terms of access for the public and the preservation of rural jobs. Both private industry and farming interests would measure up, if they were given a lead by the Government, to achieving most of the aims and objects. As an example of the sensitivity of private industry to some of those aspects, I cite the publication of the "Forestry and Woodland Code", produced recently by Timber Growers UK. It is a voluntary code, but I believe that it is a welcome contribution to the debate on conservation.
Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has been generous to the private sector. He has been talking about safeguards to protect aspects of land use. He must be aware that in his constituency and in part of mine, which is on the border of the hon. Gentleman's, large areas of marginal farm land have recently been planted without the consent of the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. Is the hon. Gentleman not concerned about the uncontrolled blanket of afforestation of some areas of south-east Scotland?
Mr. Kirkwood: That is a useful intervention, because it substantially contributes to my next point. There are potentially serious problems in the issue raised by the hon. Member. The Department cannot sit back and wash its hands of the problem, which may, if the industry does not face its responsibilities, lead us towards the introduction of planning regulations for forestry and agriculture. I am loth to pursue that line, but it is up to the industry, and I think that it should be given a chance with the voluntary code that I mentioned. I agree with the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian, that if the industry does not adhere to the code, it will have to pay the price and face statutory regulations, which will not be in anybody's interests, but which may be inevitable.
In the statement last week announcing the relief for the bad summer weather, I noticed that the Minister said that he was prepared to implement article 15 of the European Community's agricultural structures programme. Surely that announcement, which if introduced will allow farmers to claim HLCAs for up to 15 years if they take stock off the land and plant trees, points to one of the ways forward. We could introduce a sensible scheme of farm forestry. I recognise that there are difficulties in planting a standing crop that lasts for 40 years before it matures and can be harvested. That produces legal problems for the traditional
130
farm tenancy arrangements in Scotland, but I believe that, with application, and if the Government took a positive lead, we could resolve some of the problems to the satisfaction of farmers, who want to turn some of the their surplus agricultural land over to afforestation.
Last week's announcement by the Minister to deal with the problem south of the border points the way forward for farm forestry. If that is the way that the Ministry in England has chosen, a more flexible approach is required from the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland to releasing land of better quality than class 4B, if it is suitable for sensitive exploitation by the private sector for agricultural interests. In evidence I quote the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council, who said:
"forestry should be encouraged on lower land and grants should be paid to support sheep farming on higher land."
That quotation is from The Guardian of 26 November 1985.
I was also interested to read a written answer that the Minister gave to his hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth), who
"asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of local jobs per hectare supported by the principal land based activities in Scotland."
The Minister replied:
"The numbers of local jobs provided per 1,000 hectares by the principal land based activities in Scotland are as follows:

Number

Dairy farming

31

Lowland crop and stock farming

22

Upland mixed farming

8

Forestry

7

Hill sheep farming

1"

—[Official Report, 4 December 1984; Vol. 69, c. 150.]
I am sceptical about those figures, as I was brought up to believe that in a contest between sheep and trees, one is always safer with sheep. I am interested in the figures, and it is right that we should look at them carefully. If the figures are right, we should look at forestry in terms of employment as well as in terms of taking surplus agricultural land out of use.
If all that is to happen, the Government will need to consider adopting a more radical and open policy , not just for land use, but for providing infrastructure support. I shall give an example in the south-east of Scotland. The Borders regional council no longer has access to European Community infrastructure grants because its development status has been removed. It cannot repair roads, much-needed and used by the industry, whether public or private, from the needs element of the rate support grant. I shall not go into that further. It is a subject for another debate on another day, probably tomorrow, if the press announcements are right.
The Government will need to sponsor research and to develop the downstream industries, and not just confine their interests, as they have in the past, to securing the planting of trees. They will also need to turn their attention to training young people to become not just foresters and harvesters, but forestry processors. As the Minister may know, the Scottish Development Agency, in association with Borders regional council, is looking at two areas in my constituency to see what rural development can be promoted there. Will the Minister ensure that any forestry related developments that might be identified as future projects will get ministerial support?

131
My purpose in raising this subject is to alleviate the consequences of what I perceive as the potential rural depopulation, which, if we are not careful, will flow from inevitable changes in the agricultural sector in the coming years in south-east Scotland and other parts of rural Scotland. Forestry is a unique and commercially viable alternative source of stable employment, and with consistent husbandry and proper control it is infinitely renewable. That makes it different from just about every other industry, whether coal, oil or any other of the important industries in Scotland. Forestry is infinitely renewable if looked after properly.
Forestry has an important part to play in a local context in south-east Scotland and in the broader national economic strategy for the United Kingdom. If properly developed, it offers tremendous potential for rural betterment and prosperity, but the Government have a vital part to play by drawing together the diverse strands, consulting all the interested parties and setting out the right framework to enable the industry to realise its potential to the full.
11.57 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): I listened with great interest to what the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said about forestry in south-east Scotland, and in general. Some two years ago he raised a debate on the Adjournment of the House on the problems confronting forestry. It is significant that today's debate is taking place against a different background.
If forestry is to flourish, it has to be geared to the markets for its timber, and much of the wood processing industry now operates on a scale that transcends regional boundaries. There is a tendency to think of forestry as a rural and therefore local activity, but that is true only up to a point. The forests are there to produce timber, and to serve the needs of industry, and the scale and pattern of market demand mean that it is difficult, if not impossible, to look comprehensively at forestry in any part of the country in isolation. We have to take account of the situation at least on a Scottish, if not a Great Britain, basis. More particularly, in the south-east of Scotland, we have to look at the Great Britain picture.
Let us look, therefore, at forestry in this country. We need go back only some five years, which is a short period in forestry terms, to find an industry in some trouble. When we came to power in 1979, there was more doom and gloom about than optimism. New planting by the private sector, which is always a reflection of the confidence of the industry, was at a low ebb. The wood-processing industry was faced with the impact of a worldwide recession, and as a result many closures occurred with the loss of jobs and capacity for processing home wood supplies. The future of the whole industry was, to say the least, uncertain.
The Government then embarked on a major review of forestry policy, the outcome of which was announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in December 1980. The policy was designed to help get forestry back on its feet and in a position to take full advantage of the increasing output of timber from the nation's forests. But equally important, it was a clear
132
message that the Government backed forestry. The hon. Gentleman mentioned our forestry product imports, which are a good reason for an increased forestry policy.
Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. MacKay: I should like to make progress, in view of the time.
Contrast the position today with that of five years ago. Confidence has returned in full measure and forestry in Britain is now going from strength to strength. The Government's forestry policy has played its part in that renaissance, aided by our determination that industry in general should find its competitive edge once more. The transformation has been far from easy. Tough decisions have had to be taken, but they have paid off, and the industry is now geared up for the future.
Regarding new planting, I am pleased to say that the private sector has responded well to the challenge that we set it. A new forestry grant scheme was introduced in 1981. While in Great Britain the amount of new planting carried out by the private sector in the year to March 1980 was some 8,300 hectares, the figure had nearly doubled to more than 16,000 hectares in the year to March 1985. Scotland had by far the major slice of that, with more than 14,000 hectares of private planting, in marked contrast to the 6,900 hectares in 1980. That is all apart from a continuing planting programme by the Forestry Commission of 5,000 hectares throughout the country, again with the bulk of the planting, some 4,500 hectares, in Scotland.
Now we have a further impetus to new planting by the private sector through the launch in October this year of the broadleaved woodland grant scheme. This is part of the Government's policy on broadleaves announced by the Secretary of State on 24 July 1985. Although these are early days, I gather from the Forestry Commission that the scheme has attracted a massive amount of interest, and it seems that we shall see many more broadleaves planted. The new scheme has particular relevance and interest to farmers, in that well managed woods can not only be productive in timber terms, but can bring shelter and sporting benefits, as well as being of value in conservation and amenity terms.
The way in which the wood-processing industry has turned round in the past five years is remarkable. This year alone has seen the coming on stream of two major plants—United Paper Mills newsprint mill at Shotton in north Wales, and Highland Forest Products structural composition board plant near Inverness. Those two developments alone will require a total of 600,000 cubic metres of home grown timber a year, and will make up for the capacity lost as a result of the three pulp mill closures in the recession in 1980. The other major development in the pulp and paper sector, dependent on home wood supplies, was the major expansion by Thames Board Mills at Workington to increase its capacity for the production of cartonboard. Other developments have taken place in the particleboard industry—with future expansion intended at plants at Hexham and Chirk—and in sawmilling, where significant expansion has taken place in Scotland with investment and modern technology to meet the growing volumes of material coming on to the market. Those developments have not only provided new jobs in the processing industry but have been instrumental in establishing and maintaining jobs in the timber and

133
haulage industries. They are proof of the vigour and enterprise of the domestic forestry products industry and tangible evidence of the Government's efforts during the past five years to stimulate and encourage new industrial investment.
How does all this good news relate to south-east Scotland? Clearly, what is good for forestry in general is good for forestry there. We now have the crucial element of secure markets for the timber from the area, which is the best possible guarantee of job security for many of those who work in the industry.
The hon. Gentleman discussed the jobs in downstream activities in south-east Scotland. It must be appreciated that in the pulp and paper sector, as well as in the wood-based panel sector, large-scale wood-processing developments are essential to provide a sound basis for the industry in Great Britain. Investments must be on the large scale necessary to compete effectively with imports. One of the crucial factors attracting industry to Great Britain is our ability to guarantee an adequate and continuous supply of timber now and in the foreseeable future. Here the Forestry Commission has a key role to play, with the result that over large parts of the country the planned output of timber from commission forests over the next few years is substantially committed to secure markets.
Bearing in mind the enormous quantities involved, timber supplies to major developments in this country have to come from far and wide. They are of direct benefit to a great many rural areas in providing a stable and continuing demand and thus a guarantee of continuing employment in harvesting and haulage. When it comes to location, a great many factors have to be taken into account, and the final decision is a commercial one which only the investor can make.
This does not mean to say that there is no scope for expanding or establishing smaller locally based wood-processing plants and mills. Far from it. Indeed, there are many examples of such developments in sawmilling in Scotland. But this is not so much a matter of broad strategy as of local initiative. I particularly welcome the fact that the Borders regional council, backed by the SDA, is proposing to carry out a feasibility study which will cover the opportunities for local timber processing likely to present themselves in coming years. Like the hon. Gentleman, we welcome that. It rests with local people to seize on any opportunities identified in that study.
South-east Scotland contains about 70,000 hectares of managed forests. At present the Forestry Commission is producing just under 100,000 cubic metres of timber from local forests, and private forests are producing about half this amount. Supplies of small roundwood go to various outlets. Some are sent to the Shotton newsprint mill, some to Thames board mill at Workington, some to Caberboard at Stirling, and to the particleboard mill at Hexham recently acquired by Egger Ltd.
Sawlogs form just under half the total output and are supplied to a number of sawmills some of which are located within south-east Scotland. The area—in common with the rest of Scotland—is expected to have a significant growth in wood production over the next 10 years—of the order of 80 per cent.—which is bound to have a beneficial effect on employment. It is not possible to say how much of the extra production is likely to be processed locally, but at least the raw material will be there, and as I have already said there is scope for local initiative.
134
As for future planting, we are looking to the private sector to continue to expand. In south-east Scotland over the past two and a half years, some 2,500 hectares of new planting have been carried out under the Forestry Commission's forestry grant scheme. In the same period, 9,500 hectares have been cleared for planting, and this shows that interest continues at a high level and augurs well for a steady expansion of the forest estate. This coupled with an increasing restocking programme in both commission and private forests, should help to secure employment.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) and the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire referred to planting without grants and to the two cases that had occurred in south-east Scotland. Both hon. Members have raised this matter before, and I have responded in the past, not only to them but also to other hon. Members. At the risk of repeating what I have already said, these two cases are the first significant ones of their type since the introduction of the consultation process in 1974.
The Government do not wish to overreact, and I make no secret of the fact that on the basis of these two cases we do not contemplate any action, although we have made our displeasure well known in the private forestry industry. If other cases were to materialise, we should reassess the position as a matter of priority and take the appropriate action. I hope that answers the point.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire made the point that planting and the expansion of forestry depend upon land becoming available for planting. I am conscious of the anxiety being expressed that not enough land is being cleared for forestry. That is a complex subject, but the Department of Agriculture and Fisheries for Scotland and the Forestry Commission are together looking at the criteria for the clearance of agricultual land for forestry to see whether changes are now called for. I shall not attempt to anticipate the outcome of those discussions, but I can assure the House that we are very much aware of the need to strike the right balance between those two important rural industries.
The hon. Gentleman drew my attention to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) that I answered. I remember the figures well. I spent a wet day in the Glenorchy forest in my constituency in September discussing matters with the Forestry Commission. I discussed employment and environmental matters with the two members of staff who accompanied me. They were convinced and were able to give me figures that showed that forestry employed more people than hill sheep farming, although I suspect that they were not prepared to go to the extent that I did in my answer to my hon. Friend—showing seven jobs in forestry to one in hill sheep farming.
One of the problems that we discussed was that in forestry there are many jobs in the haulage industry—as I know, because my constituency is one of the most heavily afforested in the United Kingdom—which are difficult to quantify because the firms conduct other haulage business at the same time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the sale of woodlands in his area. He reminded the House that he had expressed anxiety about that. I am glad that some of his fears have been proved to be groundless. I know that there have been some redundancies in the Lammermuir forest where the commission is steadily selling its interest. Those job losses

135
are obviously to be regretted. That said, it is to the advantage of the commission and the public purse that it can dispose of the woodlands that it finds difficult and expensive to manage. The woodland at Lammermuir certainly falls into that category.
Again using Argyle and Bute as a base, I view forests as large operations. A forest seems to me to consist of many trees and at least a few hundred hectares. The Lammermuir forest consists of 2,600 hectares in 74 scattered blocks. They are obviously more awkward and difficult to look after than 2,600 hectares in my constituency, all planted fairly closely.
In forestry we have an important industry. As the hon. Gentleman hinted, the commission has made an important review of the way that it operates and has amalgamated the two-tier system of local management at district and forest
136
level to form one level of management—the forest district. That has had an impact on local management posts, and some local offices have been closed. That is, of course, to be regretted, but if the commission is to compete and provide the wood processors with competitively priced timber, it is important that it should match its local management structure with present and future needs and with the need to produce the timber as efficiently and effectively as possible. The commission has done that. I believe that, given the agricultural surpluses, forestry provides us with a means of using the land and creating jobs. I hope that it will marry the needs of agriculture with those of the environment. All those factors are important and make up the patchwork quilt that represents the rural scene.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes past Twelve o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Palace of Westminster (Statistics)
  Palace of Westminster (Statistics)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  AIDS
  AIDS
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Bolton Magisterial Panel
  Bolton Magisterial Panel
PRIME MINISTER
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate
  Industrial Air Pollution Inspectorate
  Asset Sales
  Asset Sales
  Rating Reform
  Rating Reform
  The right hon. Harry West
  The right hon. Harry West
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Hillsborough Summit
  Hillsborough Summit
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Pahoomal Family
  Pahoomal Family
  PCW Syndicate
  PCW Syndicate
  Fraud Investigation Group
  Fraud Investigation Group
  Johnson Matthey Bank
  Johnson Matthey Bank
  Societée Générale Surveillance Certificates
  Societée Générale Surveillance Certificates
ENERGY
  Global Warming
  Global Warming
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Redundant Mineworkers
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil-Teacher Ratios
  Pupil Statistics
  Pupil Statistics
  Teachers (Pay)
  Teachers (Pay)
  Polytechnics (Grants)
  Polytechnics (Grants)
  Lunchtime Supervision
  Lunchtime Supervision
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Open University
  Open University
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  National Weights and Measures Laboratory
  Citizens Band Radio
  Citizens Band Radio
  Bankruptcies and Company Liquidations
  Bankruptcies and Company Liquidations
  South Africa
  South Africa
  Channel Fixed Link
  Channel Fixed Link
  Johnson Matthey Bank
  Johnson Matthey Bank
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Textile and Clothing
  Textile and Clothing
  Manufacturing Industry (Exports)
  Manufacturing Industry (Exports)
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Esal (Commodities) Ltd.
  Esal (Commodities) Ltd.
  Grants (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Grants (Yorkshire and Humberside)
  Grants (Job Creation)
  Grants (Job Creation)
  Grants and Loans (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
  Grants and Loans (Cumbernauld and Kilsyth)
  Grants (Northern Region)
  Grants (Northern Region)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Overseas Students
  Overseas Students
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  United Nations Relief and Works Agency
  World Bank Loans (Environmental Damage)
  World Bank Loans (Environmental Damage)
  Falkland Islands (Hospital)
  Falkland Islands (Hospital)
  Bilateral Aid
  Bilateral Aid
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Colombia
  Colombia
  Crown Agents
  Crown Agents
  Homeless Persons
  Homeless Persons
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Tottenham (Disturbances)
  Tottenham (Disturbances)
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Police Practice)
  Police and Criminal Evidence Act (Police Practice)
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Drug-related Offences
  Drug-related Offences
  Category A Prisoners
  Category A Prisoners
  Fraud
  Fraud
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Satellite Broadcasting
  Rape (Anonymity of Defendants)
  Rape (Anonymity of Defendants)
  Public Houses (Flexible Licensing)
  Public Houses (Flexible Licensing)
  Stansted Hijacking
  Stansted Hijacking
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Sexual Offences Act 1985
  Sexual Offences Act 1985
  Rape Crisis Centres
  Rape Crisis Centres
  Rape Victims (Compensation)
  Rape Victims (Compensation)
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Member's Correspondence
  Member's Correspondence
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Monetary System
  European Monetary System
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  International Institutions (Government Expenditure)
  International Institutions (Government Expenditure)
  International Peace Year
  International Peace Year
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Test Ban Treaty
  Test Ban Treaty
  Achille Lauro
  Achille Lauro
WALES
  Drug Addiction
  Drug Addiction
  Literacy Service
  Literacy Service
  Refuse Disposal (Water Pollution)
  Refuse Disposal (Water Pollution)
  Ambulance Workers (Pay Increases)
  Ambulance Workers (Pay Increases)
  NHS Expenditure
  NHS Expenditure
  Welsh Language Development Body
  Welsh Language Development Body
  Felinheli bypass
  Felinheli bypass
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
  Goat Farmers
  Goat Farmers
  National Health Service Statistics
  National Health Service Statistics
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  Hospital Development
  Hospital Development
NORTHERN IRELAND
  National Health Service Statistics
  National Health Service Statistics
  National Health Service Hospitals
  National Health Service Hospitals
  Anglo-Irish Summit (Security)
  Anglo-Irish Summit (Security)
  Planning Procedures
  Planning Procedures
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  Hospital Development
  Hospital Development
SCOTLAND
  Rail Services (Strathclyde)
  Rail Services (Strathclyde)
  National Health Service Hospitals
  National Health Service Hospitals
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Cemeteries
  Cemeteries
  Maternity Beds
  Maternity Beds
  Birth Statistics
  Birth Statistics
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Health Boards (Consultation)
  Health Boards (Consultation)
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Greater Glasgow Health Board
  Students (Module Fees)
  Students (Module Fees)
  Certificate of Education
  Certificate of Education
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  Hospital Development
  Hospital Development
ENVIRONMENT
  Planning Decisions
  Planning Decisions
  Brixton (Job Creation)
  Brixton (Job Creation)
  Local Authority Housing
  Local Authority Housing
  Use Classes Order (Review)
  Use Classes Order (Review)
  Water Rates
  Water Rates
  New Houses
  New Houses
  Rented Properties
  Rented Properties
  Rent Acts
  Rent Acts
  Development Proposals
  Development Proposals
  Inner City Aid
  Inner City Aid
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Yorkshire Water Authority
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
  Glanford and Scunthorpe
  Glanford and Scunthorpe
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Content)
  Water Supplies (Nitrate Content)
  Council Houses (Rent Arrears)
  Council Houses (Rent Arrears)
  John W. McKay
  John W. McKay
  Housing Land Price Inflation
  Housing Land Price Inflation
  Empty Dwellings
  Empty Dwellings
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Housing Statistics
  Housing Statistics
EMPLOYMENT
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Disabled People
  Disabled People
  Employment Protection
  Employment Protection
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Parental Leave
  Parental Leave
  Departmental Appointments
  Departmental Appointments
  National Communications Union
  National Communications Union
  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Textile and Clothing Industry
  Clothing and Footwear
  Clothing and Footwear
  Glanford and Scunthorpe
  Glanford and Scunthorpe
  "The Sex Discrimination Act and European Community Legislation"
  "The Sex Discrimination Act and European Community Legislation"
  Childcare Services
  Childcare Services
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  Racial Discrimination
  Racial Discrimination
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Coal Industry
  Coal Industry
  Local Enterprise Agency Funding Scheme
  Local Enterprise Agency Funding Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
  Enterprise Allowance Scheme
DEFENCE
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Nuclear Tests (Cancer)
  Nuclear Tests (Cancer)
  Defence Contracts
  Defence Contracts
  Ashford Training Centre
  Ashford Training Centre
  Interrogation Resistance (Training Centres)
  Interrogation Resistance (Training Centres)
  Service Police (Training)
  Service Police (Training)
  Trident
  Trident
  Strategic Defence Initiative
  Strategic Defence Initiative
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Deputy Secretaries
  Deputy Secretaries
  Badger Control
  Badger Control
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Brucellosis
  Brucellosis
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Agricultural Development and Advisory Service
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Waste Disposal
  Waste Disposal
  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme
  Suckler Cow Premium Scheme
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Greece (Economic Measures)
  Greece (Economic Measures)
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Public Sector Borrowing Requirement
  Asset Sales
  Asset Sales
  Esal Commodities Ltd.
  Esal Commodities Ltd.
THE ARTS
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
TRANSPORT
  Speed Limits
  Speed Limits
  Channel Link
  Channel Link
  Buses and Lorries (Speed Limits)
  Buses and Lorries (Speed Limits)
  Dartford Crossing
  Dartford Crossing
  Rail Electrification
  Rail Electrification
  British Rail (Corporate Plan)
  British Rail (Corporate Plan)
  Metropolitan Areas
  Metropolitan Areas
  Air Transport
  Air Transport
  Cyclists
  Cyclists
  Docklands Light Railway
  Docklands Light Railway
  Metropolitan Areas
  Metropolitan Areas
  Public Transport (Grants)
  Public Transport (Grants)
  Midlands Links Motorway
  Midlands Links Motorway
  Bus Lanes (London)
  Bus Lanes (London)
  British Rail (Manning Levels)
  British Rail (Manning Levels)
  Locomotive Maintenance and Construction
  Locomotive Maintenance and Construction
  Rail Services (Standards)
  Rail Services (Standards)
  Motor Cycles
  Motor Cycles
  EC Shipping Policy
  EC Shipping Policy
  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  Settle-Carlisle Railway
  London Regional Transport
  London Regional Transport
  Air Fares (Europe)
  Air Fares (Europe)
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  St. Pancras-Sheffield Line
  Local Transport (Grants)
  Local Transport (Grants)
  Coaches (Safety)
  Coaches (Safety)
  Infrastructure (Private Finance)
  Infrastructure (Private Finance)
  British Airways
  British Airways
  Tyre Tread Depths
  Tyre Tread Depths
  Dartford Tunnels
  Dartford Tunnels
  Road Spray
  Road Spray
  Motorway Fatalities
  Motorway Fatalities
  Derby Road, Bootle
  Derby Road, Bootle
  Kingsway Roundabout Flyover
  Kingsway Roundabout Flyover
  Motorway Hazards
  Motorway Hazards
  Drink-Driving Campaign
  Drink-Driving Campaign
  Highway Expenditure
  Highway Expenditure
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Fuel Consumption
  Fuel Consumption
  Traffic Statistics
  Traffic Statistics
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Smoking
  Smoking
  Regional Secure Units
  Regional Secure Units
  NHS (Overseas Visitors)
  NHS (Overseas Visitors)
  Blood and Blood Products
  Blood and Blood Products
  HTLV III Virus
  HTLV III Virus
  TBWA
  TBWA
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  Nurses (Recruitment)
  AIDS
  AIDS
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  Exceptional Needs Payments
  One-parent Families
  One-parent Families
  Furniture Grants
  Furniture Grants
  National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  National Health Service (Industrial Relations)
  Sick Leave
  Sick Leave
  Hypercholesterolaemia
  Hypercholesterolaemia
  Hospital Closures
  Hospital Closures
  Board and Lodging
  Board and Lodging
  Infant Mortality (Leeds)
  Infant Mortality (Leeds)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  School Leavers (Benefits)
  School Leavers (Benefits)
  Supplementary Benefits
  Supplementary Benefits
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  National Health Service (Vacant Posts)
  National Health Service (Vacant Posts)
  Benefits (Dietary Guidelines)
  Benefits (Dietary Guidelines)
  Dental Fillings (Amalgam)
  Dental Fillings (Amalgam)
  Departmental Grants
  Departmental Grants
  National Health Service Hospitals
  National Health Service Hospitals
  Supplementary Benefit (Camden)
  Supplementary Benefit (Camden)
  Road Accidents (Hampshire)
  Road Accidents (Hampshire)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Kidney Transplants (Hampshire)
  Kidney Transplants (Hampshire)
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Pharmaceutical Services
  Severe Weather Payments
  Severe Weather Payments
  Tuberculosis (Hampshire)
  Tuberculosis (Hampshire)
  Speech Therapists
  Speech Therapists
  Family Practitioners
  Family Practitioners
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Occupational Therapists
  Occupational Therapists
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Overseas Visitors (Social Security Payments)
  Overseas Visitors (Social Security Payments)
  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Hospital Services (Privatisation)
  Hospital Development
  Hospital Development
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  National Health Service (Revenue and Expenditure)
  Private Homes (Fees)
  Private Homes (Fees)
  National Health Service (Annual Report)
  National Health Service (Annual Report)
  National Health Service (Surplus Property)
  National Health Service (Surplus Property)
  Mentally-ill Persons
  Mentally-ill Persons
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent
  Personal Social Services Research Unit, Kent
  Hospital Pharmacy Service
  Hospital Pharmacy Service
  Advancement of Women
  Advancement of Women
  Geriatric Beds (Hampshire)
  Geriatric Beds (Hampshire)

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

Krugerrands: Importation
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they have taken to conform with paragraph 6(3)(b) of the Commonwealth Conference communique of 21st October relating to the precluding of the importation of krugerrands into the United Kingdom; and from what date was the sale of krugerrands by importers to the public prohibited.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Lucas of Chilworth): My Lords, the Commonwealth Conference communique referred to a readiness to take unilaterally what action may be possible to preclude the imports of krugerrands. We are considering what action may be possible consistent with the United Kingdom's wider international obligations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the public at large were given to understand that there would be a prohibition on the importation of krugerrands? Can the noble Lord give some indication as to how many krugerrands—or the total value of them—have been imported into this country since 21st October, which was the date of the communique?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: No, my Lords, I cannot because we do not monitor to that fineness of date.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree, in those circumstances, that the effort made by his right honourable friend the Prime Minister to impose even a featherweight restriction on the state of South Africa in disapproval of apartheid—even that faint irritation—has apparently now been removed and the Government have no intention of carrying out their originally expressed intention?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite will recognise that we have of course other international obligations to which we have to give consideration before we can reach a decision with regard to the banning or otherwise of krugerrands.
Lord Bottomley: My Lords, can the Minister say that the action of the Government will be consistent with that taken by other Commonwealth governments?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that the actions of other Commonwealth countries will have a bearing upon our consideration of the matters to which the Question refers.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, how long will it be before the noble Lord can give a direct answer? We were certainly under the impression—and I think the country as a whole was under the impression—that the banning of the purchase of krugerrands would come about very quickly.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I cannot answer for the impressions that may have been accepted by other people. The communique is quite clear. Paragraph 6(3)(b) states:
"A readiness to take unilaterally what action may be possible to preclude the import of krugerrands."
There is in that paragraph of the communique no undertaking to preclude the import of krugerrands.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord at least do the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, the courtesy of answering her question? How long will the Government be considering this matter before they arrive at a decision? Is the noble Lord aware that the answer of the Government as purveyed by himself represents another way of wriggling out of the whole issue?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord opposite appreciates that I cannot put a timescale on the consideration of this matter since we are in touch with our Commonwealth colleagues. We also have to consider, as I suggested earlier, our international obligations. One cannot transcend the other. As regards the noble Lord's last point, there is no question of Her Majesty's Government wriggling out of any obligation which they have entered into.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, does not the noble Lord's repetition of the part in the communique which said that the Government will do whatever is possible to preclude the import of krugerrands, coupled with the fact that the Government have not precluded the import of krugerrands, point to the conclusion that the Government hold it impossible to preclude the import of krugerrands?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, we do not know at this moment whether it is impossible consistent with our international obligations.

Universities and Freedom of Speech
2.42 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what sanctions they propose to take against universities which fail to guarantee freedom of speech to Ministers of the Crown and other duly invited visitors.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, universities are aware of, and are known to share, the Government's concern to ensure freedom of speech, and the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals is expected to issue advice shortly in the form of a code of practice. The Government are in contact with the University of Manchester, in particular, about the deplorable incident last month involving a Minister of the Crown. The university decided last week to set up a committee to establish the facts fully and to consider disciplinary action.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, while I thank the noble Baroness for that Answer, can she reassure the House that when the code comes from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors it will not be a code to limit access to universities in order to give the vice-chancellors an easier time, but on the contrary will make certain that universities accept their responsibilities for teaching their students that free speech is the highest of all university attainments?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I believe I can give my noble friend that assurance. To quote from the Government's Green Paper on higher education issued earlier this year, the aim being set by the Government is:
"The protection of the right of free speech and the preservation of institutions of higher education as a natural home of free speech",
which are
"duties which students and institutions owe to society and to the future".
I may also add that the Government would greatly regret any move in the direction of actually banning controversial speakers from university platforms.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, did the noble Baroness notice a report in the papers that an institution described as the Guildford College of Law cancelled an invitation to the learned Solicitor-General to come and address them, apparently on the grounds that the demonstrations which would result would damage its reputation? If this report is true—which I can hardly believe—would the noble Baroness consider whether this is a suitable institution to teach law?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for pointing out this specific case, of which I was not fully aware. If the facts which he describes are true, then I thoroughly deplore the action. It is not in line with the Government's intention, which is to ensure that the facilities and circumstances at educational establishments are such as to ensure full freedom of speech. I shall perhaps be in a position to refer his comments about the Guildford school of law to a suitable institution for further consideration.
Lord Annan: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that there is a long tradition of such unfortunate behaviour? Is she further aware that, I think in 1897, Mr. Keir Hardie was kidnapped at Cambridge railway station? Is she also aware that in 1907 a meeting of that peaceable body the Fabian Society was disrupted in a most deplorable manner and that possibly, universities having long memories, reprisals are now taking place? Would the noble Baroness accept—and
1058
I am sure that the vice-chancellors take this matter very seriously—that there are some considerable procedural difficulties, and while every effort ought to be made in universities to cope with this problem there are difficulties in getting the police to come onto the campus?
Baroness Hooper: Yes, my Lords, I think that university students have always been renowned for high spirits, but a course of conduct seems to have come into common practice recently of simply not allowing particular speakers to enter an establishment or to be heard. To meet the noble Lord's points of concern I can only say that it is hoped that, once issued, the code of conduct will provide a variety of procedures designed to ensure the most effective protection.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the fact that my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Plaistow, namely Keir Hardie, had his right of speech interfered with was as obnoxious as any other university interference with freedom of speech?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I may not have been aware of it before, but I am now. I thank the noble and learned Lord.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government pay attention to what may be the appearance of a new trend, namely, the impossibility of holding an international academic conference in this country without the host organisation being browbeaten into withdrawing the invitations which it has already issued to perfectly innocent academics who have come from a country with an unpleasant government? I refer, of course, to the International Archaeological Conference in Southampton University next year.
Baroness Hooper: Again, my Lords, I was not aware of that particular case, and again I thoroughly deplore the need to take any preventive action by way of disallowing visiting speakers. I shall pass the question on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, does the noble Baroness feel that the Government, quite rightly—and other people, too—have taken a very strong interest in soccer hooligans and have taken all the necessary action? It is hard for some of us to know the difference between soccer hooligans and the type of scruffs who get a subsidy from government to go to universities, and who call themselves students. Though there may be procedural difficulties, it is really about time that thugs of this kind were told that they will be treated in the same way as soccer hooligans and such.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, again I think we must await the issue of the code of practice before we take any definite stance on what arrangements are likely to be made. I agree that it tends very much to be a minority group, and sometimes it may well be that these are outsiders, as certain incidents have proved. But I think it is important that in this matter the Government advise that the action, and the preventive

1059
action, should be taken by the institutions themselves, including the students.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred earlier to high spirits. Are we to understand that if one shouts down Keir Hardie or a member of the Fabian Society that is high spirits, but if one shouts down a Tory Minister that is hooliganism?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it must always be difficult to judge. That is why, again, the enforcement practices must be suggested and carried out by the universities themselves, to ensure that each case is judged on its merits.
Lord Quinton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that it is not always outside forces that introduce scenes of disorder when unpopular speakers come on university ground, but that in my university recently the university students' union, which is financed by a ministry of a parliamentary system of government, blanketed the university with little orange notices inciting the general university population to take part in a demonstration? I shall not say that they invited acts of violence, but they definitely incited people to demonstrate—not to attend a meeting and engage in dispute or debate but to operate in such a way as to prevent the communication of ideas.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is always difficult to know the motivation of a group which starts such a disturbance. I can only repeat that it is hoped that the code of practice will be designed to provide a variety of procedures to cope with the problems.
Lord Annan: My Lords, can the noble Baroness inform the House whether the code of practice will include recommendations to universities as to the penalties which ought to be inflicted on students if they are guilty of that kind of misbehaviour? Is she aware that in 1974 the University of Oxford had no hesitation in sending down some dozen students and terminating their career in the university because of grave disciplinary offences, whereas in another university students who had committed far worse offences were fined £5? Does she agree that the code of practice should include recommendations as to penalties?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, it is not open to me to comment on the code of practice before it is announced, which is expected to be later this month, but it is anticipated that it will include provisions relating to the expulsion and prosecution of, and the withholding of grants from, students, and possibly also from the students' union.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, will the noble Baroness seek to ensure that the code of practice will not interfere with the right of lawful demonstration?
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I feel sure that that point will be met.

Anti-Competitive Practices: Regulatory Machinery
2.52 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the complex structure of administration concerned with various aspects of anti-competitive practice—namely the Secretary of State, the Director-General of Fair Trading, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, the Restrictive Practices Court, the High Court, the Commission and Court of Justice of the European Communities, and privatisation "watchdogs"—is considered to be requisite, and cost-effective and to afford sufficient protection.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the machinery for regulating anti-competitive practices has generally worked well. Because it operates on a discretionary basis, it is flexible enough to take account of developments in the market place and of the special circumstances of particular cases. Nevertheless, the Government keep the effectiveness of all their policies under regular review; and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to give attention to this important area in the near future.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that half-encouraging reply. However, may I ask him whether he is aware that the cumbrous and costly statutory regime that evolved piecemeal since the end of the war until the advent of the oil crisis fails to serve the interests of the consumer, of manufacturing and of wealth creation either to balance our books or to afford relief for unemployment?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, my noble friend asks a number of questions. If he is suggesting that the number of bodies responsible for competitive policy is too great, all I can say is that in many instances it is rather better to have an overlap at the margins than to have loopholes. The legislation gives specific functions to each authority. Broadly speaking, the Director-General of Fair Trading has powers of investigation and referral to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and the commission reports where the public interest lies. The Secretary of State has powers of remedial action where appropriate. In that way we feel that the interests of all the bodies to which my noble friend refers are well served.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the organisations named in the Question are not merely anti-competitive but were primarily designed to prevent cheating, accidental or otherwise, and they also have the responsibility to curb what has been described by an eminent ex-Prime Minister as the other ugly side of the face of capitalism? As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, said, it would appear that they rarely defend individuals, and so do we not require something like the consumer councils of the publicly

1061
owned industries which do a good job, and a much better job than the bodies listed in the Question, and at least defend the individual, which many of the organisations claim that they have no right to do?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, three Acts essentially take care of nearly all that the noble Lord speaks of—the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, the Fair Trading Act 1973 and the Competition Act 1980. The introduction of a right of private action would involve the fundamental innovation of the statutory prohibition of certain kinds of behaviour, which I think would sit uneasily with the discretionary nature of the rest of United Kingdom competition legislation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that part of his Answer in which he stated that it is the practice of his colleagues to review the effectiveness of their policies is wholly to be welcomed? But would it not be slightly difficult to avoid reaching the conclusion that many of our organisations and procedures are so complex and slow-moving as to be wholly ineffective? While he is pondering on those issues, I wonder whether he will go on to reflect that in a world where neither greed nor folly have entirely disappeared it is possible that self-regulation would prove wholly inadequate to protect the less well-informed against the very clever.
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his earlier remarks. The Government look at the effectiveness of their policies and in this regard I have already said that my right honourable friend is to do so. Legislation in this field particularly is complex. With regard to the time procedures, most references to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission have a statutory time limit which is typically nine months. If my noble friend will forgive me, I feel that self-regulation is a little wide of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm that the last review of institutions in the competition sector was in 1978 by the so-called Liesner Committee which was published in the form of a Green Paper, and that there has been no review since then of those institutions? In view of his noble friend's Question, is it not about time that we had a formal review to see whether we can rationalise the procedure further?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I feel sure that the noble Lord will have taken account of my main Answer in which I said that my right honourable friend is to pay attention to that matter shortly.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, in spite of the unkind things said about the various organs in the supplementary questions, will my noble friend confirm, without prejudice to the review, that in its nearly 30 years of existence the Restrictive Practices Court has functioned well and has wholly justified the intitiative of those who put the legislation on the statute book in the 1956 Act?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He will recall that measure because he had an important part to play in it. The division between the Restrictive Practices Court and the Monopolies and Mergers Commission has proved extremely effective in dealing with a number of the problems that arise.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his Answer to the original Question seems very much at variance with answers he has given to many of the supplementaires? In answer to the original Question, he indicated that a review will take place because there is a feeling that something should be done. His answers to supplementaires seem to say that things as they are are all right and that there is not a great deal to worry about. Is he aware that this sort of variance is rather puzzling.?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls reads Hansard tomorrow he will see, I believe, that I did not imply either one of those two things. I said that the Government keep the effectiveness of all their policies under regular review and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry intends to give attention to this important area in the near future.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord give the House an assurance, in view of the conduct of British Telecom since privatisation, that a formal case may be submitted to the Monopolies Commision for it to investigate? Will he also give the House an assurance that, before inflicting the privatisation of British Gas on a long-suffering public, again he will make prior submission for clearance to the Monopolies Commision?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, the latter position does not arise. As to the first question that the noble Lord asks, Parliament has given the director-general of Oftel the necessary powers to look into matters concerning British Telecommunications.
Lord Renton: My Lords, when the Government are keeping these matters under further review will it be borne in mind that, in addition to our laws and procedures, which are, as has been stated, fairly complex, the people of this country are also subject to the far more complex procedures of the competition laws of the European Community? Will my noble friend further bear in mind the possible desirability, for the enforcement of domestic anti-competition procedures, of having a single agency and a single court for enforcement?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, of course I accept what my noble friend Lord Renton says with regard to the Commision and the Court of Justice of the European Communities in so far as competition law is concerned as between one member state and another. So far as there being one single body is concerned, this is a point to which I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend. I have indicated, however, that we feel that the three arms that we have are a better way of attending to all the

1063
various and flexible issues to do with competition policy rather than having one single authority.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, will the Minister, when the review takes place, look at the rights of individuals as well as associations to lodge complaints?
Lord Lucas of Chilworth: My Lords, I have replied to the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, in an earlier answer. I did say that the introduction of a right of private action would involve fundamental innovation of the statutory prohibition of certain kinds of behaviour. This would sit somewhat unhappily alongside the present discretionary nature of our procedures. Nevertheless, I take the point that the noble Lord makes.

Business
3.4 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend Lord Elton will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the financial arrangements made by Liverpool City Council for the remainder of the current financial year.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
It is only three years since your Lordships approved a very similar Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lady Trumpington. I am more than grateful, therefore, that my noble friend has been persuaded—without much difficulty, I must add, despite the large number of speakers—to wind up today's debate. She brings considerable knowledge and understanding as well as commitment to the subject. I hope that between us, and with the support of others, we shall persuade your Lordships to welcome this Bill as a liberalising but steady reforming measure to rescue the law from the disrepute into which it has fallen. The aim of the Bill is to bring the law on this matter into line with the realities of life, tastes and behaviour in the late twentieth century and to extend individual choice.
Of course, there are strong and conflicting views on the Bill's provisions, particularly about the removal of restrictions on Sunday trading. We respect the sincerity with which they are held. It would, in the face of such reservations, be all too attractive to do nothing and leave well alone, but I must tell your Lordships that that would be irresponsible. The law has decayed. It must be replaced, and in replacing it we must not create new anomalies which would lead us back before long to the present unsatisfactory state of affairs.
In presenting the case for change, I must briefly outline the background to the present restrictions on shop opening. The 1950 Shops Act, to which this Bill relates, was in fact only a consolidation of eight earlier
1064
Acts, covering such matters as weekday closing hours, the early closing day and Sunday trading. The regulation of weekday opening hours and conditions of work dates back to the end of the nineteenth century and arose from the excessively long hours worked in shops.
The first restrictions on Sunday trading date from 1448 but, in more recent times until 1936, the relevant statute was the Puritan influenced Sunday Observance Act 1677. But this had become a dead letter long before 1936 because the penalty for breach of the law had remained at five shillings. The Victorian Sunday was not a dead day and Charles Dickens was scathing when he wrote of the the attempts by Sabbatarianists to promote new legislation,
"You cannot make people religious by Act of Parliament or force them to church by constables".
He did not accept that, after church, the Lord's Day should become a grim and gloomy day. Denying people recreation was, he considered, not a Christian tenet nor an English tradition. His advice to us is timely:
"Let Sunday legislators take for their motto the words which fell from the lips of that Master whose precepts they misconstrue, and whose lessons they pervert—'The Sabbath was made for man, and not man to serve the Sabbath' ".
The Sunday Trading Act 1936 was promoted not by Sabbatarians but by the Early Closing Association to restrict widespread Sunday opening. The Act was soon criticised as being arbitrary and unworkable. In 1947 a committee of inquiry headed by Sir Edward Gowers found the various Shops Acts to be obscure and anomalous and to have formidable problems of enforcement. Nonetheless, the difficult issues were ducked and the 1950 Act merely consolidated the existing legislation and there was no attempt to correct the problems identified in the Gowers report.
Since that time there have been no fewer than 19 attempts to reform the law, including seven attempts by Members of your Lordships' House. The pressures for reform have mounted steadily both as the structure of retailing has evolved and as the structure and habits of our society have changed.
Changes in retailing have seen the emergence of many more mixed retail outlets—making the task of enforcing any law based on lists of products which can and cannot be sold on Sunday immensely difficult—an increase in self-service shops, the growth of out of town shopping centres, and the development of garden centres and DIY stores. Attitudes to retailing have changed too, and shopping has increasingly become both a family and a leisure activity. Important purchases in the lives of individuals, couples or families either have to be rushed in crowded shops on Saturday or undertaken from an illegal trader on a Sunday.
The proportion of married women below pensionable age in employment has doubled. Sadly, there has been a large growth in single parent families and also of single people living alone. These have naturally led to a demand for more opportunities to shop outside normal office and factory hours. As one retailer told the Auld Committee:
"The present position when we open the shops just when the customers go into the factories and offices and close them before they come out, is almost unbelievable".

1065
It is these factors which have led to a rise in consumer demand for the opportunity to shop at least occasionally on Sundays and a willingness on the part of many retailers to flout the law. Because of its unpopularity local authorities have proved reluctant to take proceedings against offending shopkeepers. The Association of District Councils have reached the conclusion that the removal of restrictions on Sunday opening is the only rational way forward. Nevertheless, 720 defendants were successfully prosecuted for illegal Sunday trading last year—an increase of about 330 per cent. since 1980. This is clearly only the tip of an iceberg. Things cannot be allowed to continue as they are. The choice is clear: there must either be substantial deregulation or much harder enforcement of the law. The latter would be highly unpopular, extremely difficult to do effectively and likely to cost a significant number of jobs.
Dunng the debate on the last such attempt at reform, introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Wycombe, it was clear that there was hardly anyone who considered the present state of the law satisfactory. In response, my right honourable friend the then Home Secretary, in July 1983, appointed a committee of inquiry independent of government under the chairmanship of Mr. Robin Auld, QC, with the following terms of reference:
"To consider what changes are needed in the Shops Acts, having regard to the interests of consumers, employers and employees, and to the traditional character of Sunday, and to make recommendations as to how these should be achieved".
The membership of the committee was small, but six assessors represented employees, consumers, the Churches, the local authorities and the employers, both large and small. Additionally, the Institute for Fiscal Studies was commissioned to conduct an independent economic assessment of the effects of the increased trading hours.
The Auld Committee started from the unchallengeable premise that,
"the law should not interfere in the conduct of human affairs unless it serves a justifiable purpose in doing so".
The committee examined very carefully the various interests that could be claimed to be protected by, or to draw benefit from, the provisions in the 1950 Act. They took into account the evidence received from all quarters, including the comprehensive report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which recognised that the outcome of any change must be uncertain but was satisfied that the impact of change would not be great. The Auld Report came firmly to the conclusion that there was no interest or combination of interests that justified the continuation of statutory restriction of trading hours, and recommended that they be deregulated. That is the heart of the matter. We accept that basic recommendation, and Clause 1 of this Bill gives it effect by abolishing all restrictions on weekday and Sunday opening in England, Wales and Scotland.
Before I return to the central arguments I should like to say a little about shop workers. Conditions for them have changed enormously for the better over recent years. But there is a case for maintaining some updated statutory protection. Until we have had a chance to complete a review of the hours of work of young people across the board, we propose that the
1066
existing protection for young persons working in shops should be retained. Clause 2 achieves this, and with Schedule 2 amends the Shops Act so that provisions relating to weekly half-holidays, meal tunes, restrictions on hours of work and Sunday employment apply only to young shopworkers.
The committee recommended the retention of the wages councils system for shopworkers. Your Lordships will know that the Government have taken the general view that wages councils should be retained but reformed. My noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment will shortly publish details of the Government's proposals on this matter. This Bill will remove young people under 21 years from regulation and restrict the councils' powers to setting a basic minimum and overtime rate. In reaching its conclusion careful consideration was given to the Auld Committee's views and to the pattern of working in shops, and in particular to the effect of the wages councils on employment in the retail sector.
Clause 3 and Schedule 1 establish and qualify for shop workers who are in employment immediately before the commencement date a general right not to be dismissed for refusing shop work on a Sunday: and a right not to have other action, short of dismissal, taken against them by their employer because they have refused to work on a Sunday. We propose to offer this protection to all employees concerned with the operation of a shop, not just shop assistants; but not to those who already have a contract to work on a Sunday.
Many existing shopworkers may have entered retailing because they knew they would not have to work on a Sunday, so it is only reasonable to protect them from having to work on a Sunday. But similar considerations will not apply to new recruits. They will be in no way different from workers who have entered other industries and occupations where Sunday working is expected. Many employees expect and accept Sunday working as the norm, and new shopworkers will be fully aware of the possibilities of Sunday working before they enter the industry. A recent study indicates that four million people work regularly on a Sunday and another five million work occasionally on a Sunday. Sunday working is no longer to be found in a narrow range of industries: it has spread to nearly all sectors of the economy.
Established shop workers who are dismissed for refusing to work on Sundays will be able to claim unfair dismissal according to the provisions and procedures of the 1978 Employment Protection Act. The Act will come into force on Royal Assent.
There are, I think, three issues central to the debate on this measure: the threat, or otherwise, which it poses to the traditional Sunday; the position of small shopkeepers; and whether alternative controls should be applied in preference to substantial deregulation.
The character of our traditional Sunday was a matter which the committee of inquiry was specifically required to consider. The committee reported its view that,
"for most people Sunday has a different character from any other day of the week",
but that
"its traditional character as a day on which very little outside activity takes place has long since gone. The special character of

1067
Sunday varies according to the family circumstances and lifestyle of each person. This is its strength and its value as 'a marker in the rhythm of everyday life'."
The committee noted that for many, particularly those living alone, Sunday was not a day for traditional relaxation but a grey, lonely and rather miserable day. Equally it is relevent to note that many people already work on Sundays. The Government accept the committee's view that,
"it is wrong to legislate for uniformity in this one area of activity to reflect the views of some members of the community as to how Sunday should be spent, while disregarding the wishes and needs of others".
We are convinced that all should have freedom of choice and that the views of some, however well-intentioned, should not lead to statutory restrictions on others.
We do not expect that Sunday trading will become anything like universal. Many shops in sectors like do-it-yourself and gardening are already open, legally or illegally, and we do not expect a very great increase in Sunday trading. A survey by the Polytechnic of London has suggested that 20 per cent. of shops might open regularly on Sundays, with more widescale opening near Christmas and on other special occasions. In Scotland, where there has been no operative prohibition of Sunday trading for many years, a survey of shopkeepers in April this year showed that only 16 per cent. currently open or intended to open on a Sunday. Indeed, I know from living there that in Scotland for the majority of people the traditional Sunday is alive and flourishing. And I find nothing inconsistent in going to church most Sundays, doing some necessary shopping on the way home, and observing all the traditional elements of Sunday—nothing inconsistent at all.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, the noble Lord must be a Catholic.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I am not a Catholic—having heard that intervention. Our Sunday is changing. It will continue to change—at least for some of us—whether or not we pass legislation. But the legislation before your Lordships is for a change of degree, not for a change of principle.
The Government have every respect for those who wish to worship on Sundays. Indeed, there are a few people who believe it to be wrong to undertake any other activities. Their position is clear, and it is consistent. What we do not support is the concept that their views should be imposed on others. In a recent pamphlet the Jubilee Centre spoke of the need for Christians to persuade others of the correctness of their views—a position which I endorse—but they then went on to advocate not persuasion but the intervention of the criminal law to coerce others. What is by no means clear is the principle underlying the proposals of those who oppose the deregulation of shop opening hours on Sundays, but only for some shops or some shoppers or who believe, for example, that shops should be regulated while amusement arcades and restaurants are not. If icecream can be sold, what principle suggests that the criminal law should prevent bibles or postcards in a church from being sold? If plants can be sold, what principle suggests that plant pots or spades should not be? Many
1068
opponents of the Bill will concede that they are not concerned with moral principles, but it is difficult to see any logic or consistency attached to the alternatives which they offer.
Concern has also been expressed on behalf of the small shopkeeper. That is understandable. Since the war the number of small retailers has declined dramatically in this country, as in most western countries. But this trend is occurring regardless of legislation. Furthermore, the Institute for Fiscal Studies concluded that the changes produced by deregulation would be too small to be distinguished from changes already taking place in the structure of retailing. Indeed, there may be hope that, through encouraging a freer market, smaller, and sometimes specialist, shops will be able to use their greater flexibility and ply their strengths against their larger competitors. That would seem to be the experience in Sweden, where deregulation of retail hours in 1972 has benefited most the small retailers and halted their decline in numbers.
I know that there are some people who seek a middle way; who concede that the present law is indefensible but who shrink from deregulation. There are, for example, those who advocate the production of new lists of items permitted to be sold on Sundays. But on what principle should such lists be based? Adopting this view is certain to replace the present muddle with a new, and equally indefensible, shambles.
Then there are those who propose that local authorities should be given responsibility for determining opening hours. This is of course a perfect way for the Government to "pass the buck". But would it solve the problem? Of course not. It would just create new ones. There is something of the nature of being in favour of virtue and against sin in the notion of leaving the decision to "local people". But would they find it any easier to identify correct and consistent principles to govern their interventions? Would they be able to give appropriate weight to the views of local shopkeepers and chain stores and to the interests of consumers, or would one prevail? Is it reasonable for shopkeepers in one area to be forced to close while their competitors open in the next town? Would the local authorities concerned welcome the substantial new burden of administration and enforcement which would be placed upon them?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has tabled an amendment, and I should like briefly to refer to it. We have considered very carefully indeed whether there is any halfway house to meet the difficulties engendered by the Shops Act 1950, to meet the demands of society and to provide a fair system for retailers. Prior to that, the Auld Committee had given their detailed attention to the same question. Neither the Auld Committee nor the Government could find an acceptable compromise. Indeed, any compromise seems likely to fall into the trap of so many compromises—that of attracting the worst of both worlds.
I do not think your Lordships would expect the Government to agree on Second Reading that a Bill be amended in a way intended to weaken it but in a way which is not spelt out. The effect of the amendment would be to take us back to the time before the Auld

1069
Committee, when everyone agreed that the law required amendment; but, because no one could agree on how this should be done, the Government were urged to set up an independent committee. We have done so and have accepted their findings. But in addition to these technical arguments we come back to the issue of principle—and the Government's proposal is well founded in principle. The Government have introduced this Bill to remove the statutory restrictions on the hours shops may open because, like the Auld Committee, they are sceptical in the extreme about invoking the criminal law to control activities which are not inherently harmful. There is no consensus today that it is wrong to open a shop on Sunday. People want to be free to shop at times which fit in with the other demands in their lives, and many shopkeepers want to be free to provide the service their customers want and need. Is that really wrong?
Demand for longer opening hours is widespread. It is demonstrated in opinion polls; it is demonstrated in people's behaviour. Many retailers are breaking the law. They are doing so in the certain knowledge that they will meet with no disapproval from their customers, whose demand has led them to be open. Freedom to shop or open a shop does not mean compulsion to shop or open a shop. People may choose either on principle.
The present restrictions bring no obvious benefit to anyone. This Bill will sweep away these outdated and anomalous restrictions on ordinary freedom, and on those grounds I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Glenarthur.)
3.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham The Lord Bishop of Birmingham rose to move as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time at end to insert ("but that this House considers that the law should be amended so as to rationalise restrictions on trading hours without such extensive deregulation as the Bill proposes").
The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the clarity and the force of conviction with which he has put the case for the total deregulation of Sunday trading. At least, that is what is in the Bill, although I notice that his actual words were "substantial deregulation". I am sure that we are all in his debt for this excellent exposition of the Bill, even if many of us—perhaps most of us—would wish that it had been drawn up differently.
It is of course common ground that there are many outdated and inappropriate anomalies in the Shops Act 1950. However, some of the objections to the more absurd prohibitions of the Act seem to me to be more rhetorical than realistic. Bibles may not be purchased on Sundays, but I doubt whether any noble Lord has heard of long queues of frustrated would-be purchasers. Nonetheless, there is an evident case, which we on this Bench recognise, for the reform of the Act. I hope that, with amendment, this Bill will meet that need.
It seems to me that the real question at issue is simple: should the present Shops Act be reformed or should the law be altered in such a way that we have total deregulation of Sunday trading hours? If we have that, with respect to what the noble Lord the Minister has said, it seems to me that we have a change of principle.
It gives me no pleasure to speak to the amendment standing in my name, but I am sure that your Lordships will agree that it is proper for me to explain the reasons for the amendment on both conscientious and other grounds. I would hope that everywhere—in this House and in another place—voting could be on grounds of conscience. In fact, the Churches in Britain are almost totally united in their opposition to complete deregulation of Sunday trading. It takes a very great deal to unite the Churches of England in this way, but this Bill has achieved it.
When a debate was held over the road in the General Synod earlier this year we were all but unanimous in opposition—only one person in the entire General Synod dissented. The Episcopal Conference of Roman Catholic Bishops in this country was of the same opinion as was the Free Church Federal Council; and earlier this month the British Council of Churches sent a delegation to see the Home Secretary to inform him of their views.
Opposition to total deregulation is not generally held on Sabbatarian grounds. For example, I am not a member of the Lord's Day Observance Society. Sunday is a different day of the week from Saturday, and it is not to be identified with the Jewish Sabbath of the Old Testament. It is not sinful to work on Sundays. Some people choose to work, and essential services have to be kept going. I am told that, as a result, between 1 and 2 million people rather than 4 million people have to be in permanent full-time Sunday employment. In any case the dreary Sunday is dreadful. I must say I find it odd to think that a Sunday is dreary unless you can go shopping; but I agree with the noble Lord the Minister that a dreary Sunday is dreadful. For Christians Sunday is the day of the Resurrection, and so it should be happy and enjoyable. One of the main reasons for my amendment is precisely because we fear that with total deregulation Sunday will become far more dreary for many people.
Let me venture to suggest at the outset why we need Sunday to be kept generally as a day apart so that as few people as possible have to work on it. Human beings cannot go on for ever working and working. They need a rhythm by which to live; a pattern which provides a day of recreation and rest every week, and a day with their families that is different. These rhythms of life are not optional extras, they are necessary for healthy living.
The pattern of one day in seven could be called, rightly, a divine ordinance. As I said in my evidence to the Auld Committee, which the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to quote in part:
"It gives space in the midst of a busy week, and it acts as a marker in the rhythm of everyday life."
Interestingly enough, the Auld Report quoted this remark with approval, and then took no account of it in its conclusions; one instance, among many, that its

1071
conclusions are not well supported by its arguments. The committee was asked to pay due regard to the traditional character of Sunday, which it failed to do. Unless Sunday is for most people a special day, life is a plateau: it goes on endlessly, like days without sleep, or even perhaps life without death. If we are to keep our humanity, society must have reference points for living—which is another way of saying that to disregard a divine ordinance is to court disaster.
It will not do to say that each individual can keep his, or her, rest day. No man is an island. We are members of society, and we need public symbols for society as a whole and not just simply time off for individuals. If this were a predominantly Jewish country, the special day would be Saturday; if we were predominantly Moslem it would be Friday; but we are not. We are Christian by tradition, and so Sunday is the day, and Sunday is under threat for society as a whole. There are of course those who deny this. They point to Scotland for proof, where they say that Sunday trading hours have been deregulated for years. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord the Minister said that for many years Sunday trading had been deregulated in Scotland. In fact I am told that there never has been any law in Scotland against Sunday trading because it was never conceived possible that any shop in Scotland would open.
The Auld Committee agreed that other countries are no guide for England. There are special reasons why there has in the past been little Sunday opening in Scotland. The Calvinist tradition of Sabbatarianism dies hard so that there is a built-in Scottish tradition. A higher proportion of the people in Scotland belong to churches. The population is more scattered and rural and there is less car ownership.
The chairman of the Church and Nation Committee of the Scottish Kirk, which is presently investigating Sunday trading, writes to me as follows:
"Look at Scotland and beware!"
He is referring of course to Sunday trading. He says:
"Look at Scotland and beware! In the last 10 years there has been accelerating change. In the great centres of population, supermarkets are opening more and more on Sundays, and High Street shops in November and December also are attracting custom."
I do not know where in Scotland the noble Lord the Minister lives. I know that provincial towns may still be quiet, but I am told that a shopping centre in Edinburgh is crammed with shoppers on Sunday.
What are the chances of shops opening in a big way in England? I find the evidence rather contradictory here. There are some people who say that there will not be any change in Sunday trading, and there are others who say that there is such a demand that we must meet it. Most small shops in fact, and many big chains, do not want to open. But shops will open if this is considered profitable, or they will open in reaction to competitive pressure or out of fear of a loss of market share. What will happen? The John Lewis Partnership believes that Sunday opening would be "progressive and irresistible". They write,
"In time Sunday would become in many places the second busiest shopping day of the week."
We should not suppose that only shops would be affected by this. There would obviously be a great demand for public transport to get to the shops.
1072
Lorries would have to bring in fresh supplies. More police would be required, and perhaps some Members of your Lordships' House heard the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London quoting the commissioner in London about the demands that would be made on his police force for Sundays. Streets would have to be cleaned; banks would open. I am told that the Trustee Savings Bank in Scotland already opens. It would be like the bustle of an ordinary working day.
I leave to other speakers—I know they will—to describe what I think would be the unfortunate economic effect of unrestricted opening, and I turn to look at the social effects. First, there will be, for those who live near shopping centres, a lot of noise and bedlam. Surveys show that people regard noise as one of today's major problems. I was visiting a large housing estate on the outskirts of Birmingham in June this year. The manager of the shopping centre there, which is privately owned, told me that if Sunday deregulation came in it would be a requirement of shop rental that there should be Sunday opening. This is what a housewife from Chertsey has written to me about small shopping precincts in residential housing estates. She writes:
"These may become focal points of traffic and industry, making life a misery on a day when there has been some respite from one's working life and a little peace. This peace will disappear."
Then there are the pensioners, and there is going to be a growing number of pensioners. Pensioners make use of local shops and they will find that many of these will not exist. The noble Lord the Minister said that this was a trend which was happening anyway, and that of course is undeniable. But this, my Lords, will hasten the trend. Many such small shops have not the resources for Sunday, seven-day opening. They have not the staff. They will tend to close, and old people will have to walk further for their essential supplies.
Then there are the shop workers. I am glad—I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will be glad—that the position of established workers is guaranteed under the Bill, and we took note of what the noble Lord the Minister said about the future wage councils and their authority over minimum wages.
Of course even today there are great difficulties for many people working on Sundays. This is what someone writes to me from Croydon:
"Since May 1985 no member of staff has been taken on by my company unless they agree to work on Sundays. No members of staff have been given promotion unless they agree to work on Sundays".
This of course is against the law, but not against the law for future staff if the Bill is unamended. Future staff will have to work whether they like it or not.
It is not just a matter of people being prevented by Sunday work from attending church, although earlier this summer I attended a church meeting on an estate where a lady told me in tears that she had worshipped at that church on Sunday mornings ever since it had been built, but that as she works in the retail trade this would end with deregulation. She said that even if her position were safeguarded, as I see it will be, she could hardly allow others to work so that she could worship.
The question is much broader than just attendance at worship. As USDAW, the union of retail workers, puts it:
"Anyone who needs, or is required, to work on Sundays is bound to suffer socially".

1073
That, I fear, is what will happen if the Bill goes through unamended for all shop workers. They are bound to suffer socially.
Let us next consider the family. We find that over two million people are employed in the retail trade. If there is unrestricted Sunday opening, the Institute of Fiscal Studies reckons that 350,000 people would be working in shops every Sunday. I think that is a minimum figure. I would estimate it at half a million. When one thinks of the extra police, people driving buses, people driving transport lorries with perishable goods and so on, the figure will be greater. This means that people will be taken away from their families on Sunday. It is bad enough that one to two million have to work already on a Sunday. It seems to me to be intolerable to "coerce"—I use the word of the Minister—half a million more.
Many Sunday jobs will be part-time. Already young boys and young girls are often employed on Saturdays. Is it really good for them or for the country if they are removed from their family circle to be employed in the retail trade on Sundays as well? Worse still, nearly half the people employed in the retail trade are women, mostly married women. These women will be away from their families on Sundays for Sunday family life.
The Auld Report, which the Government have accepted, somewhat romantically speaks of happy Sunday family shopping expeditions. I suspect that its members were somewhat removed from the harsh reality of Sunday family life, where children, with reluctance, go family shopping and are often bored stiff. In fact, most families would be sundered and, at a time when divorce is hitting one in three marriages and when children are badly in need of the affection and discipline of their parents, I should have thought it desirable to strengthen family life not to bring in a Bill to weaken it. In any case, who really wants Sunday shopping? It is commonly said that this is what the majority want. I can find no clear evidence of this. Even the Auld Committee said there was no clamour for it. Weekend workers, in well-authenticated surveys, show how work interferes with their family life. Even the Russians today, like the French revolutionaries before them, have been compelled to reintroduce the Sunday rest day. Do we want it to go?
Polls are simplistic and misleading. Their evidence has been self-contradictory. More to the point, in 1981 only one person in 10 (according to the National Consumer Council) found the present shopping hours inconvenient. It would be ridiculous to alter the present law for that small minority. We in Birmingham found that longer opening on weekdays last Christmas helped to ease things a great deal. The public in general do not find the present shopping hours inconvenient. DIY centres and garden centres want Sunday opening and they have spent large sums propagating their case. Most large retail chains do not; small shopkeepers certainly do not want it; the unions do not. Who wants it? As the Institute of Fiscal Studies reports:
"The goods which people suggest they are likely to buy on Sunday are, in the main, those which are already available on Sundays."—
legally available, that is—
"This may be taken to indicate that the existing restrictions are not particularly irksome."
Many more people, if they realised what Sunday opening really meant, would then be clear that they do not want it, but by then it would be too late. If we take the action in this Bill unamended it would be irrevocable.
One particularly strange reason for the Bill is concern about the present flouting of the law, although I noticed that the noble Lord the Minister did not quote any really hard statistics about the percentage of shops that are said to break the law. The only statistic that I have seen is that 1·3 per cent. of shops surveyed were in flagrant breach of the law. I fear that in default of hard evidence the size of that problem is greatly exaggerated. I do not understand why the choice must be for the law either to be totally enforced or totally withdrawn without amendment. Perhaps I may take the case of the 30 mph speed limit in built up areas. No one in their senses would wish that to be withdrawn, but equally no one would claim that it is totally enforced. Indeed, my experience is that this particular law is broken by a far higher percentage than the 1·3 per cent. connected with Sunday trading. I regret that I must confess that I was fined for speeding this year and that I have now reformed myself. I now do not drive at more than 30 miles an hour in the city and I find that I am the slowest driver in Birmingham.
However, the analogy between Sunday trading and speeding is inexact, for it is impossible to prevent people from speeding, but it is possible to amend the law of Sunday trading so that it would be breached far less. If it were breached, then surely it should be enforced under the criminal law. It could hardly be enforced under the civil law: after all, if I park my car in a prohibited area, that is an offence under the criminal law. I cannot see how else an offence breaking the laws of the realm in this matter could be treated.
As for the argument that it is impracticable to reform Part IV of the Shops Act, I cannot believe it. Every other country in Europe except Sweden and Scotland has some restrictions. It is extraordinary that we cannot, as they have, devise a law which is fan and satisfactory. I will leave it to a later speaker from this Bench to expound the best options in amending the present law. None of us wants to leave it as it is. If there is a will, there can be a way. I am particularly struck by the Auld Report's objection that any alteration of the present law would be unfair to someone. Surely most law must be arbitrary to a certain extent. I am surprised at the extraordinary scrupulosity that is shown by those who want on other grounds to do away with Sunday trading.
What other grounds could there be? I can think of two theoretical grounds. One of these is the belief in the free market. That is the belief that things go best economically when the market is free. But in this case I do not think the principle holds. We should tend towards a monopolistic, less competitive situation, with the small shops gobbled up by the large. We should actually lose jobs, not gain them, at the present level of shopping demand. We have no evidence that there would be a greater volume of trade.
The free market theory is not so much an ideology as an economic theory which does not, I beg to suggest, apply to Sunday trading. But there certainly is an ideology—the belief that, on grounds of principle, there should be as much freedom for the individual as

1075
possible. Frances Cairncross, one of the three members of the Auld Committee—the committee had only three members—wrote in The Times this year:
"Why should not people shop on Sunday if they want to?"
The principle is that everyone should be free to do what he or she wants to do. That seems splendid, but one person's gain is another person's loss. Freedom to shop on Sunday would mean that people in shops had to work and would lose their freedom of recreation. It would be a form of coercion. Unrestricted freedom to buy and sell would become more important than other people's freedom to share a day's recreation with their families.
I have tried to give a modest and sober assessment of this Bill in terms of the needs of society for a special day each week. We have looked briefly at the various social factors involved and from the point of view of the law. I find little enthusiasm for it generally. May I remind your Lordships of the words of the Crathorne Committee in 1964:
"The special character of Sunday ought to be preserved as far as practicable as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he chooses."
But under total deregulation he would be required to pursue his weekday work. The noble Lord the Minister quoted from the Auld Report the statement that the law should not interfere with what people want to do unless there are justifiable reasons for so doing. However, I hold that there are indeed very justifiable reasons.
The manifesto of the governing party said nothing about Sunday trading and there is no clear evidence that the majority of the English people want total deregulation. There is therefore no mandate from the people of this country. I am a comparative newcomer to this House, but I have always thought that one of its functions is to curb the excesses of those who wish to curtail the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects; and among those freedoms must be the enjoyment of Sunday peace at home with the family. I had always thought that it was in accordance with the Conservative ethos to conserve all that is best in our national life, to retain our "traditional values". Whatever good intentions people have—and, of course, I recognise that there are good intentions behind this Bill—I should have thought that it was undesirable, without a clear mandate from the people, to introduce far-ranging, fundamental and irrevocable changes into our national life.
As the noble Lord the Minister said, there have been Sunday restrictions on the statute book since 1448. Now it is proposed, according to the Bill, to sweep them away irrevocably, as though we had become a totally secular society. I venture to put to your Lordships that it would be a very sad day for our nation if that actually happened. That is why I look forward to moving the amendment standing in my name: I move it now.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, at end to insert ("but that this House considers that the law should be amended so as to rationalise restrictions on trading hours without such extensive deregulation as the Bill proposes").—(The Lord Bishop of Birmingham.)
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, perhaps I may say that I understood from my noble friends on the Front Bench that they wish to insert the Statement at this time.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I do not know whether I am in order, but before the right reverend Prelate permanently resumes his seat, may I ask him a Question? Is he aware——
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, I think I am interpreting the wish of the House as voiced that we should now proceed to the Statement, and then on with the debate, with a great many speakers.

Liverpool City Council: Financial Arrangements
3.52 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Elton): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer which is being given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to a Private Notice Question in another place on the current discussion on the financial situation of Liverpool City Council. The Statement is as follows:
"I have had no discussions with Liverpool City Council. My officials have informed the city council and the commercial organisations concerned that deferred purchase arrangements undertaken by local authorities do not require Government approval and that such arrangements carry no Government guarantee".
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer to the Private Notice Question. I take it that the Secretary of State is satisfied with affairs as far as they go. May I ask whether, owing to Liverpool's very difficult situation as an inner city, he will now have some discussions. Liverpool has suffered very much indeed from loss of rate support grant—to the extent of £393 million since 1979? May I ask whether discussions will go on within the next few months to discover whether anything can be done to help that city?
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for repeating the Answer made by his right honourable friend, perhaps I may say that I will not put a number of questions to him now, given the fact that we shall be debating this matter next week. However, perhaps I may ask him two questions. First, is he aware that the situation mentioned in the Statement he has made is caused by the grossly irresponsible behaviour of the present majority on Liverpool City Council? Is he aware that in the last few days the deputy leader of Her Majesty's Opposition has indicated that he has evidence of corruption as far as Liverpool City Council is concerned? In the light of that statement, may I ask him whether arrangements are being made by the Merseyside police to ensure that they obtain such evidence as soon as possible?

1077
Secondly, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the grave situation affecting many voluntary organisations in the City of Liverpool because of the present problems facing that city? Is he aware that many of them, working among the most deprived sections of the community, are having to lay off staff and run down the level of their activities? In the light of that situation, will he ensure that his department does what it can to assist those organisations over the next few months until the whole situation in Liverpool is clarified?
Lord Mellish: My Lords——
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think the custom of the House is that I reply to the first two Front Bench interventions first. In reply to the noble Baroness, Lady David, I cannot say that my right honourable friend is satisfied with the state of affairs, but he is less dissatisfied than he was. If I were to say that he was satisfied, it would imply satisfaction with general conditions of the way in which the City of Liverpool is being run, which fall outside the question I am being asked. As to whether my right honourable friend will now discuss matters with the leadership of Liverpool City Council, I have to say that since they have now set a legal rate they are free to come and see him in the normal course of business, just like any other local authority.
As to the question of help which the central Government can give, throughout we have made it clear that we believe that all local authorities should be run within the law on recognised lines. It is not the Government's policy to give assistance to those who wish to go outside those recognised lines. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will readily recognise that this would be to assist the irresponsibility of the city council majority in Liverpool in a way which would be unacceptable, I think, to all parties represented in this House. As to whether there are matters of corruption to pursue, that will be a matter for the chief officer of police in Liverpool Metropolitan County District, and possibly for the Director of Public Prosecutions, but I can make no comment.
As to the difficulties of voluntary organisations, I greatly regret that this turmoil should have come at the difficult time of transition from the metropolitan to the district council system. I can only point to the funds which we have already made available to all voluntary organisations during that difficult period.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, my noble friend has made it clear that this Government would not, either now or in the future, step in to deal with the financial arrangements that have been entered into by those in Liverpool. However, is my noble friend aware that one of those who entered into these financial arrangements has very clearly implied that, if there were a change of Government, a new Government would step in and relieve them of the problems which will arise from their settlement? In order that the nation may know that we as a nation are going to keep rigidly to what is a sensible course, whoever are the Government, is there any way by which the "Opposition" (which obviously is the party indicated
1078
by the speaker who said that a future Government would deal with it) can state that they, too, would not be prepared to enter into an arrangement which would justify the kind of intransigence that has been taking place over the last 12 months?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend has devised an elegant way of inviting the Opposition to make an official statement from the Dispatch Box, as a kind of government in exile. That would be to anticipate a return in the near future which personally I do not anticipate.
Lord Mellish: My Lords, are we not living in an absolute Alice in Wonderland situation? Here is a council in Liverpool that is (I think the term is) Left-wing and militant. In fact, they are only now able to produce what is called a legal rate because they have borrowed from the "gnomes of Zurich". I understood, in that jargon, that the "gnomes of Zurich" were the enemies of society and had to be destroyed at all costs. Can the Minister explain to me how it is possible to go to enemies of that kind and to borrow money to get out of debt?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the way it is done is to get some financial institution to pay your way for the next year or two and to start charging you only the year after that. The current interlude of sunshine on the beach on which Liverpool Council is asking its ratepayers to bask is, of couse, threatened by a tidal wave about two-and-a-half years off.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is the Minister right when he says that the only security that the "gnomes" have is Mr. Hatton? If they have parted with some scores of millions on the credit of Mr. Hatton, is that not admirable news for all of us?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I presume it depends upon what they do with their security.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that, as an ex-leader of a major city council, I, along with all my colleagues, deplore the tactics that have been pursued in Liverpool by militants? But will the Minister answer in more detail the question put to him by my noble friend on the Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady David? The Minister talks about the amount of assistance being given by the Government, but is it not a hard fact that, through Government grants, all the major cities and the major conurbations have lost £1½ million for every week that this Government have been in office? Will he stop shedding crocodile tears and give them some funds to get on with the job?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not going to be drawn into a general debate on the funding of metropolitan or other authorities, because that would be outwith the terms of the Order Paper. I reject absolutely that the funding to Liverpool City has been inadequate or that it has been used properly. The limitation on the amount of money available to Liverpool to spend on its citizens' behalf has been principally determined by their manipulation of their financing to a point where their employees were led to suppose that they would

1079
all be on the dole within a matter of weeks. I am very glad that they have withdrawn from that position. I merely wish to point out that they have bought a temporary security against future heavy repayments.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, in relation to that last remark by the noble Lord the Minister, is it not the case that there have been discussions between Messrs. Phillips and Drew and the Department of the Environment? May I ask the Minister whether, arising out of those discussions they have been able to ascertain what assurances have been given by Liverpool Council that they will not repeat the same performance next year, particularly in the light of what Mr. Mulhearn has recently said in a statement in which he made it quite clear that they were going to go through the same cycle next year? While on that subject, can the Government give the House any assurance that the same sort of thing is not going to happen in Lambeth, Hackney and, indeed, in the City of Manchester in the coming year?
Lord Elton: My Lords, it is obvious that a Government spokesman can give no undertaking about the tactics of local authorities, particularly when they are controlled by opposition parties. That said, it remains to be seen whether either the market or the electorate will take being put through the same proceedings twice.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is very difficult to debate this sort of subject by question and answer? As there is to be a full debate next week, would it not be best if it were left there so that all aspects of the case may be properly dealt with and the many speakers in the other debate today can proceed?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that, not for the first time, I find myself greatly in agreement with the noble Lord opposite. There will be an opportunity to debate this matter at length later on. I think that your Lordships are a good deal more interested—I am sure that those in lawn sleeves are more interested—in another matter.

Shops Bill [H.L.]
4.4 p.m.
Second reading debate resumed.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, if I may commence my, I hope appropriate, remarks following upon, as is my privilege, the notable speech of the right reverend Prelate, loving they neighbour as thyself dictates that with 42 speakers on the list we should keep to brief and concise speeches. I shall endeavour to do so. And may I make it clear immediately that I speak for myself from this Dispatch Box, and for myself alone.
On the religious issue, being a proud member of the faith that first gave the world the idea and the ideal of the sabbath, I propose to be respectfully silent; but I merely wish to point out to the noble Lord the Minister that really Moses did precede the Puritans and that he did in fact have his Sunday (or sabbath)
1080
Observance Act enshrined in the Ten Commandments and dictated, in fact, by the "Upper House".
This is a Bill with no politics in it. As I understand it, we in this House have to decide what is good for the nation—and the important element in that is what is good for our national life. I said that there were no politics in it, and I am proud to be a member of a party which has decided that there shall be a completely free vote on this amendment and, indeed, on this Bill, to say when it affects, as we understand it, the vital interests of employees in the shopping industry.
I wonder whether I may ask a question which is rhetorical. Is it a fact that the Government (who cannot have a great respect for their adherents if this is what they have done) have imposed a Whip on this debate? If I am wrong—and I ask immediately to be corrected if I am—I shall sit down and I shall purchase sackcloth and ashes, which I understand are procurable from Monday until Saturday. I observe that I have not got to sit down, nor have I to put myself in mourning.
I must say at once that I am not impressed by the argument advanced by the Government that because the Auld Committee came to certain conclusions about total deregularisation we ought necessarily (although we obviously would have respect for their recommendations) to follow them. My reasoning is two-fold. First of all, the Auld Committee, consisting (as has been pointed out) of three members, was assisted on purpose by six assessors. My information is that four out of the six assessors were against total deregularisation; so that I am not impressed by the argument that we have to follow necessarily the findings of the Auld Committee.
My second reason is that I have been taught by the Government that one need not necessarily follow the recommendations of committees, however eminent their members may be and however detailed their consideration of the matters before them. I was taught that lesson on the Insolvency Bill, where the major recommendations of the Cork Committee were not accepted by the Government. And I suppose I am going to be taught another lesson on Thursday of this week, when, in spite of the fact that a joint committee of your Lordships' House and another place, a Select Committee, recommended something after very specific inquiries and after hearing a lot of evidence, we are going to hear that their recommendations are not necessarily to be followed. Indeed, we are going to be told not to follow them.
My Lords, is there an overwhelming demand for deregularisation? The retailers by and large do not want it. Large ones do not want it; small ones do not want it. The small shopkeepers, as I have said, certainly do not want it; the shopworkers undoubtedly do not want it; and churchgoers do not want it. We are left with what we are told is to be the commanding factor: that is, that the customers—the public—want it.
I read my copy of the Sunday Times yesterday with the greatest care because it quotes the poll right up to date, taken in November. It is to be published by the National Consumer Council, who are in favour of this Bill. Let us look to see what this overwhelming demand is. The poll shows that 60 per cent. of people

1081
in England and Wales are in favour of Sunday shopping. It goes on to say:
"This is 9 per cent. fewer than were in favour last year"—
so it is not an overwhelming tide with which we are greeted, and I want to go on quoting accurately even when it is against my own argument—
"but it is still viewed by the pro-trading lobby as a firm endorsement of change."
I would have thought it was an endorsement of change the other way because,
"Of the 1,800 people questioned during November, 69 per cent. of men and 51 per cent. of women were in favour of lifting restrictions."
I would have thought that if anybody would be overwhelmingly in favour of the Government's case it would be the women and not the men. The article goes on:
"Of full-time workers questioned, 71 per cent. were in favour, but only 57 per cent. of working married women supported the change."
So your Lordships are not troubled when thinking about this amendment, as I personally see it, by an overwhelming demand from the public, certainly not from the women of our nation; and we know perfectly well that retailers do not want it and shopworkers do not want it. So what are we left with?
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, I am very reluctant to interrupt the speaker, but I should like to correct a fact. The Retail Consortium, which is the biggest association of all types of retailers in the country, could not come to a unanimous decision and has no representative view on changes in the Shops Act.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, as always, I am most indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who speaks with such authority on these matters. I alter my sentence; and in fact I make it stronger, if I may say so. We certainly are not faced by any overwhelming demand from the retailers. We are not even faced by a demand at all because they have decided that they cannot make up their minds on the issue.
Certainly we are not going to be bemused by the argument about Scotland. I thought that was dealt with so effectively by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham that I shall say no more than to repeat the fact that Scotland is known to have many more churchgoers than exist south of the Border. I remember my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock saying to the House on a previous occasion—and I quote this in his presence—that it would have been an insult to Scotland to have put the restriction there in view of the way in which they behave in that country, and still keep their Sunday as the old traditional Sunday.
Lord Ross of Marnock: My Lords, can I explain to my noble friend that, having looked at this after church yesterday, I did not see many Scottish firms open: they were all firms based in this pagan land.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I do not follow my noble friend in the last remarks that he made; but to return to this point—and I shall conclude very shortly—what is the matter then that the House has to decide? This is a better House than any, I would submit, for a
1082
consideration of this kind. I say this quite respectfully, not worried by marginal constituencies or by reports in the press but looking objectively at the interests of the nation. If ever there was something at this moment in time in our history that we ought to be regarding as of the utmost importance, it is family life. This House has debated time and time again, has asked questions and received replies on the subject of what do we do about mounting juvenile deliquency? What do we do about the break-up of family life?
Are we consciously going to vote for a Bill—and this is my individual opinion—which can only have the effect of stopping that Sunday lunch being what it has been: the grouping round a table of members of the family, father working during the week and mother most likely working during the week? It is the only time when the family gets together. If there is doubt in our minds, ought we to hesitate before doing anything in the world which even might, directly or indirectly, interfere with that family life?
I do not know whether I should, having regard as I have said to the faith to which I proudly belong, follow necessarily in the path of the Bishop; but I will be following him in a path this evening in the Division Lobby.
4.17 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury: My Lords, I, too, should like to make it clear that I am speaking in an individual capacity and not on behalf either of the SDP or the Alliance. We too, have a free vote. I should also like to make it clear, as I have done on previous occasions, that I am speaking in a personal capacity. My views do not necessarily reflect those of the firm with which my name is associated.
As has already been said, there have been a great many attempts over the years to change the Shops Act by Private Members' Bills debated both in this House and in the other place. They all, for one reason or another, failed to reach the statute book.
There is widespread agreement that the Shops Act is full of anomalies. The present level of compliance and the differences of enforcement in various parts of the country have brought the law into disrepute. The difficulty so far is that there has been no consensus on how the law should be reformed. When this House last debated this subject I, with others, called on the Government to set up a committee of inquiry where evidence could be taken from all the many interested and affected parties. After the report of the Auld Committee had been published, I felt that the Government should cease their benevolent neutrality and introduce the necessary Bill to carry the recommendations into effect.
The Auld Committee considered in depth the great many ways in which the law might be changed. Among the rejected suggestions were: revision of the schedules setting out those goods which it is lawful to sell on a Sunday; exemption by type or size of shop; exemption for self-employed retailers; exemption by area or by periods of the year; restrictions on the maximum number of hours or days per week; local restrictions based on local authority decisions; and extension of the present trading hours.

1083
Whatever the superficial attractions for one sector of the public or of the trade, each of these proposals had weaknesses of practicality or logic which the Auld Committee felt unable to support. I have to say, with some reluctance and regret, that I find it hard to disagree with the committee's conclusions. In saying this, I am particularly influenced by the belief that the law in this matter should be both practical and easily enforceable.
Retailing is a service industry which must take account of social changes. Since the Shops Act was introduced there have been a great many changes. To quote only a few examples, there has been a general rise in the standard of living of those in employment; the advent of shorter working hours and the five-day working week; and an increase in mobility through car ownership. Most importantly, there has been a change in emphasis from full-time to part-time employment in the retail trade. When I first started in business 64 years ago, nearly all Sainsbury's shop staff were male full-time employees. Today, in a very different environment, a great proportion of staff are part-time employees, mainly women, working flexible hours which suit both them and their employers.
The longer opening hours which may result if this measure is enacted will not, and should not, necessarily mean longer working hours for those employed. Nevertheless, I welcome the fact that the protection in Part II of the Act will be retained for young people. I also welcome, most emphatically, the provision that no present shop workers may be dismissed for refusing to do uncontractual work on a Sunday or have any other action, short of dismissal, taken against them for the same reason.
Much of the discussion is about trading on a Sunday, but we must not lose sight of the fact that the restrictions on weekday opening are also anomalous. Their removal will be greatly welcomed, especially by the food trade and many of its customers. There are a large number of wives who work, for whom shopping on a weekday is difficult or impossible. They would take advantage of opportunities offered by extended trading during the evening.
The demand for food shopping on a Sunday would, I feel, be much less. There is a distinction between food shopping and what I call leisure shopping. I have little doubt that there is a strong demand from customers to be able to shop on Sundays with their families in do-it-yourself shops, garden centres and carpet and furniture stores. One of the main questions where there are differences of opinion is: how many shops will avail themselves of the right to open on Sundays? In my view, nobody knows, because it will depend on so many factors. It will undoubtedly vary in different parts of the country and in town and rural areas. What is certain is that shops will open only to meet the needs of their customers.
In my written evidence to the committee, I said that the subject is particularly controversial, not only because of the number of parties concerned and affected by the Shops Act, but also because of the difficulties in substantiating so many of the arguments with convincing evidence. As in so many matters, there is no perfect solution. But, if there is a Division
1084
on the amendment, I could not support it, because it is more appropriate, in my opinion, for any changes in the Bill to be considered at the Committee stage.
4.27 p.m.
Viscount Tonypandy: My Lords, it is a very great privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who speaks with great authority on the retail industry. I noticed that in his concern for the employment protection of people he passed by the fact that, immediately the Act becomes law, anyone employed afterwards has no protection. People have to agree to work on Sunday or the chances are that they will not be employed.
On the day when I was introduced into your Lordships' House no one had cause to wonder where I would physically sit in this House. Tradition had decided that for me. By long tradition, those who have served as Speakers in another place avoid party controversy for the sake of their successor, the current Speaker of that place, so that he is seen as completely objective. When Speakers have come to this House they have always stayed outside the party battle. But I feel that I am entitled to speak today, because I do not regard Sunday as a party matter.
I am appalled that Her Majesty's Government should have thought fit to seek to change our Sunday and to issue a Whip upon their Members in another place for the White Paper, as well as to issue a Whip in order to change fundamentally an institution which has played an enormous part in the shaping of our national character. The protection of Sunday was certainly not mentioned at the last election; and, with respect, I say to those who sit on the Government Front Bench that if they had campaigned on the promise that they would make Sunday like Saturday, they would not be on that Bench at all. I believe that Her Majesty's Government, far from having a mandate, are indifferent to the reaction and feeling of their own natural supporters in the country as well as of those on the opposite side. They are indifferent to millions of people to whom Sunday is something very precious indeed. It is a reminder that our heritage in this land is a Christian heritage. That is its main symbolism. It is a reminder that we are a people who owe our heritage to our Christian fathers.
I was deeply moved by the sparkling speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because I believe humanity is in debt to the Jewish people. I believe, as it happens, that God spoke to the world through the Jewish people. I believe it, and I would be a coward if I did not say it here. But, my Lords, the proposal to end all trading restrictions removes any distinction between Saturday and Sunday. Who would have believed that this Government would put as their top priority for legislation in this parliamentary Session in this House their idea to end all the distinctions that separate Sunday, which I grew up to call the Lord's Day, from Saturday, as though it does not matter any longer? Those who are seeking to maintain the old values that guided our fathers in these islands are facing great difficulties. The removal of Sunday, the end of a special day which is a reminder of our heritage, is bound to undermine those who are seeking, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, to maintain the best values in this land.

1085
Why is Sunday so important to us? Why should we feel so deeply, as I certainly do, about finding a Government bringing a Whip, a Government from whom I never expected it? I know it will not come from the opposite side—there are too many chapel people over there. Dare I say that this is much more than a legalistic matter. I do not want to spend any time discussing how we catch people who break the law on Sunday: I am talking of that day being different from every other day—Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. Is Sunday to be the same? Is this the generation that will bring it to an end?
In introducing the Bill this afternoon, the Minister, for whom I have a very high regard, reminded us that for 500 years Sunday has survived in this land. Is this to be the generation that will end Sunday, that will take all restrictions away and let it be like any other day of the week? Sunday has been and still is an overriding reminder that we are a people with a Christian heritage. It has a symbolism which cannot easily be defined. Even people who have no link with the Church value Sunday as a day of rest. It is a day for the family. People can laugh as much as they like, but it is the day when the family can get together. A million married women are engaged in the retail industry. I do not know how many of them are mothers because I do not have the statistics, but two out of every three of the shop assistants in the retail industry are married women. Are they to be told, '"Never mind the family, work on Sunday"?
A noble Lord: No, they are not.
Viscount Tonypandy: No: of course, there is protection. I am glad I am touching a nerve. Because once this Bill is through they will be told that. Once this Bill is through the protection has gone. It applies only to those who are in the industry now.
No formula can measure the intangible, unseen but very real blessings that our quiet Sunday has brought for us. In every town and village of this land today Sunday is different. This Bill will change everything. It will open the floodgates and will sweep away that to which we are accustomed. The right reverend Prelate reminded us that we are not alone in legislating in a special way as far as Sunday is concerned: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, West Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland all prohibit or carefully regulate Sunday trading. We are invited, with no substantial reason given, to throw away this priceless heritage.
During this past decade, as the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, reminded us, we have experienced a serious weakening in family ties. There are many diverse reasons and pressures that have caused this, but this Bill will accelerate the pace of breakdown. Many important signposts which guided us and those who went before us in this land have been demolished in recent years. In my judgment, to remove this symbol from our national life will still further deteriorate family life. We cannot afford to do that. This seems to be the age of the iconoclast, of the tearer down, of the destroyer of what other people build and what has endured for 500 years, according to the Minister. The time has come for us to call a halt to the wanton
1086
destruction of the things that are best in our heritage. This House can begin that process today, I believe, by giving a substantial vote, an overwhelming vote, to the amendment of the right reverend Prelate. To destroy our traditional Sunday merely because there are anomalies would be a criminal betrayal of the heritage we received from our fathers.
There is no public clamour for it. The first indication of a great movement of public opinion in this land is in the postbag of Members of the House of Commons. They have not been receiving letters. I have been making inquiries. The letters only started when the Government's proposals were known. There was no public demand. People were not saying, "Whatever happens, we must change our Sunday."
In recent years your Lordships' House has assumed a new significance in the estimation of the people of these islands. Time and again this House has voted to guard liberties and traditions. Regardless of the pressures put on by the party Whips on this occasion, I hope and I believe that we shall give a message to the people of these islands: Sunday is not for sale; Sunday is too precious a part of our way of life. I trust that this House will prove so today.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, as is usual when we are debating the sort of issues behind this Bill, this topic brings out the best in either House. However, I should like to warn many of my noble friends and others not to be easily led astray by what I call the great persuaders. We have had four anti-Government speeches at this stage and the speakers certainly are great persuaders. The right reverend Prelate looks surprised. I can think of no one who has more natural ability to persuade by his manner, his looks and the way he presents his arguments than the right reverend Prelate. But I want to look beyond their powers to persuade and their natural charm to the facts of the case.
Similarly, I am rather surprised—and I must get this out of the way before I produce my own arguments—that the Front Bench opposite, from the Dispatch Box, and an ex-Speaker of the House of Commons should, I know inadvertently, have misled the House on one issue. I refer to this business of issuing a Whip. We are part of Parliament and I ask either the noble Lord on the Front Bench or my noble friend on the Cross-Benches, an ex-Speaker, whether he can point to a Government Bill, presented seriously and intended as a Government measure, when the Government did not use, as it is their duty to use. the procedures of Parliament in the form of a Whip to let their supporters and adherents know exactly where they stand. To suggest that there is something ominous and anti-social about that is to pretend that parliamentary procedures and manners are not what they truly are and ought to go on being.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord is very gracious to give way, but he issued a challenge. It is no fundamental part of the constitution of your Lordships' House, or of another place, that Whips are issued. They are issued usually as matter of tradition, as I undersand it, when matters which are political

1087
arise. When it came to a matter of this kind I should have hoped that it was the tradition of all the great parties to have enough faith in their adherents to come to their own judgments on a national issue of this nature.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, the noble Lord intervened on a suggestion that he would put me right on a matter of fact, but he has merely expressed a hope that certain things would not happen. The noble Lord is aware of parliamentary procedures and he is aware of the duties of all Governments. If they produce a Bill which they want to make a statute to which the whole of the nation will have to adhere, the issue of a Whip is almost automatically part of the duties of Government. The noble Lord knows that and the noble Viscount, the ex-Speaker, knows that. To produce that particular argument on the basis that there is something ominous and that the Government are doing things outside their mandate is not fair. That is why I picked out that particular point.
I come back to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I am fairly certain that Moses would have been on my side. Moses was essentially a practical man who had a job to do and he did it with all the qualities of leadership that——
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, having a nearer family relationship with Moses, I must tell the noble Lord that his forecast, in my view, is quite inaccurate.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I think it was the right reverend Prelate who said that we did not want rhetorical contributions and that we need to be realistic. I am afraid that the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, has been almost 100 per cent. rhetorical, but excellent for all that. I merely do not want his rhetoric to lead people astray on the practicalities, and that is all.
Indeed, I accept nine-tenths of the speech from the right reverend Prelate, as do the majority who I hope will go into the Lobby where I shall go tonight. That also applies to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. There is no difference of view at all about the essential need to preserve the true meaning of the Sabbath. There is no difference on that. That is accepted. That is what we want. We recognise the great part it has played in the past in building up the British Christian character. Those of us who think differently to the noble Lords who have spoken so far do not differ on this question of wanting to preserve all that is good. The rhetorical part of their speeches I accept and would be prepared to repeat them as part of my own argument.
But I am impressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. There was nothing rhetorical about the noble Lord. The noble Lord is a practical expert on the matter that we are now discussing. As he said, he has lived in the middle of it since he went into business 64 years ago. Nobody in this House who has known the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, as a great public figure in this country would deny his feelings towards the Sabbath, the character of our people and the desirability of maintaining our Churches with all their essential influence in the way we behave in this
1088
country, or would say that he is anything other than one of the leaders in that particular form of thinking. However, his practical contact with this problem caused him to tell your Lordships' House today that, taking everything into account, the Bill is sensible and, under all the circumstances, the right thing to do.
So the first thing we must do is to take into account the most impressive rhetorical persuaders and set that alongside the one practical contribution that we have had—that from the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury. We want to preserve the Sabbath. We want to preserve all the good things that flow from it. I believe that we are more likely to do that if we remove a restriction on people which the people themselves think is unnecessary and, in many cases, stupid.
I believe it was the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, who said that this is not a legalistic matter. He went on with his speech and the message he tried to give, which I accepted. But your Lordships must not be led astray. The whole purpose behind this debate, and what flows from it, is a purely legalistic matter. It has nothing whatever to do with the emotional appeals that have been made by noble Lords, appeals with which I agree and which I accept. This is a matter of whether the Government should alter the law. It is a question of whether we are to put upon people legal restraints which have proved not to work, or are to remove those legal restraints.
With respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, I have to tell him that this is very much a legalistic matter. When we go into the Lobby at the end of this debate the issue before us will have nothing to do with preserving Sunday or preserving all those great attributes which have helped to build up our Christian culture. The only question that should be in our minds is: shall we follow the amendment? And all that the amendment can mean is: "Shall we try to patch this up again? Shall we try to add to the legalistic base that is already there? Shall we try to revamp the basic legislation as it now stands in a way that means we can totter on for a few more years being a bit stupid but not so completely stupid that the edifice collapses?" That is what the one issue is. Shall we do that? Or, on the other hand, shall we face up to the fact that revamping and patching up and making marginal alterations based on this long-serving piece of legislation has not worked and that we ought to try to do something different?
I believe that we ought to face up to the fact that all the evidence—and I shall try to produce some of it—points to the argument that we should wipe the slate clean of the restrictions that have built up since 1448, 1677 and the consolidation in 1950, all of which were tied to the inconsistencies and outmoded practices which constituted the first base. Are we to wipe that away and start again or ought we to go on trying to patch up?
We have tried to patch up on 23 occasions since 1950, and even before 1950. People have used the argument of the right reverend Prelate; they have followed the emotions so ably revealed, as they always are, by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon; and they have felt the emotions that the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy has portrayed with such great effect today. The 23 occasions since 1950 have produced

1089
alterations and patches, but as one hole has been closed a bigger one has been disclosed and at the end the situation has been left in a bigger mess than before. Are we to continue to do that or are we to wipe the slate clean and start again?
At this point, if the right reverend Prelate will give me his attention, I should like to deal with a statement which he repeated today, and which I also heard him make on television, to the effect that if we pass this Bill as now drafted it will be irrevocable as regards any future statutory control over the use of the Sabbath day. That is not the case. The fact is that if we pass this Bill today, as I hope we shall, in no way will it preclude future Parliaments from using their parliamentary rights to reintroduce anything which is thought desirable to preserve the Sabbath and the great standards which we have built up and wish to preserve. Indeed, I forecast that this will happen. The only difference is that instead of now trying to patch up the legislation from the outmoded bases which, as I have said, were laid down 500 years ago, we should—if we felt that was right from up to date evidence that we would then have in front of us from the modern world, in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries—act upon the basis that people are better educated. It is a different world from the one in which the base was first settled. I strongly recommend to my noble friends and to noble Lords who sit in other parts of the House that if we truly want to get this matter on a basis where it will be good for the country and good for the general Christian standards of our people, we should wipe the slate clean of misconceptions and outmoded situations. If in future we find that things have gone terribly awry in certain aspects, we can and should do something about it. I hope that the right reverend Prelate will allow me to tell him that there is nothing which is irrevocable in this. Parliament can bring back whatever it likes. To try to frighten people by suggesting that what is done now is so fixed that nothing else can ever be done about it is not, I think, quite right. In that sense I hope that noble Lords will bear this in mind when they come to vote.
Has the legislation on the statute book so far brought the law into contempt and ridicule? The Auld Report says that it has. The Auld Report says that the law is neither observed nor enforceable and has been brought into contempt. Do we want to use our parliamentary powers to continue bringing the law into contempt? That is what the Auld Report says will happen.
Again, that very able persuader the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, tried to suggest that we ought not to pay attention to the Auld Report to the extent of letting it weigh with us. I hope that my noble friends will pay a lot of attention to the Auld Report, because at the end of the day the speeches that we are making are based on a couple of hours of preparation and our concern as well as our natural feelings, but the Auld Committee sat for a year and received more than 7,000 representations from both individuals and organisations. There was the committee itself and, as the noble Lord has said, the assessors were all there to share their thoughts on this. The Auld Report left us in no doubt that the situation as it stands will bring the law into contempt.
1090
While there are a lot of other arguments that I should have liked to pursue, I look at the clock and find that I ought not to speak any longer except just to say that the Auld Report—and I hope that noble Lords who intend to vote will take the trouble to read it—has gone into all the arguments that have so far been produced, and many more. It has taken into account all the detailed evidence and the knowledge of people like the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, and at the end of the day has said that the situation as it stands at the moment is a disgrace to the law and we ought to wipe it out and start again. The advice that the committee has given to us after all their research and investigation is clear and should not really be misrepresented.
The only thing which divides us is a legalistic matter. We all share the same emotions as regards preserving our sabbath. The noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, is the son of a miner from Wales. I am the son of a miner from Staffordshire. My environment, my chance of education—indeed, my whole life—has been similar to his. The conclusions on how we ought to try and preserve all the good that is in Sunday I share with him, to exactly the same extent. If that were the only issue about which we had to bother, we should be in the same Lobby. But it is a legalistic matter. It is a matter of preserving our law and order on a basis that does not bring it into contempt. It is a matter of facing up to the fact that what was right in 1950 may not be right in the new world of 1985. It is because I think that there have been great changes which have justified this Bill that I hope that the Lobby which will be supporting the Government will be the one that carries the majority when we come to a vote at the end.
5 p.m.
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment so ably moved by the right reverend Prelate; and I would remind the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that I speak as a practical man who has served retail management for practically the whole of this working life. I support the amendment, first, because I think that it is more in keeping with the evidence received by the Auld Committee than its report. No one can say that its findings correspond with the evidence that it received.
I also support the amendment because I do not wish to see Sunday trading inflicted upon retailers and their employees against the overwhelming wish of the majority. The people in retailing who want Sunday trading are a tiny minority, and no one can claim otherwise. My thoughts are along the lines of those of the Crathorne Committee. I believe that that committee, which reported in 1964 after studying the question for three years, was right in its conclusions. As the right reverend Prelate said, it concluded that Sunday was a special day, and regarded by all as special. It was a day on which we were not required to go out and carry out our normal employment; it was a day on which we had freedom to do what we wanted. The committee said that so far as practicable that should continue. It added that, if the majority of shops were open on a Sunday, Sunday would cease to have that special character. I believe that that is as right now as it was in 1964.

1091
The public debate in the past few years has centred mainly on three questions. The first is the question of freedom. It has been asserted that in a free country people should be able to buy and sell on any day they want and that there is a lack of freedom if they cannot. That depends on how one interprets freedom. Freedom may be given to some that inflicts the opposite on others. For example, where is the freedom for the retailer who does not want to trade on a Sunday but finds that his share of the market is being absorbed by those who do and feels compelled by fear to open rather than let his business slip away? What about the employee in the retail trade who does not want to work on a Sunday but in these days is afraid not merely of losing his job but of not getting promotion and all the other things associated with the job? Where is his freedom? Where is the freedom of the people who live in the shopping area who get one day of respite? It is a peculiar kind of freedom to allow a minor section of the public to change things in such a way that a loss of freedom is inflicted on many sections of the community.
It is pleaded that with Sunday trading we shall have a reduction of costs. That is nonsense. It is certain that there will be an increase. To open on an additional day will require more lighting and heating and there will be premium payments for Sunday working. It is certain that there will be additional costs, but it is not certain that there will be additional trade to compensate, for the simple reason that the public purse is limited. What people spend on Sunday they cannot spend on some other day. There is a great possibility that we shall eventually reach the position when shops are open on Sunday and closed on Monday because of the difficulty of operating rota systems in shops. That would be a sad thing for the shopkeeper, his staff and the customer.
It is also pleaded that there are anomalies. Of course there are. A schedule of that kind which has been in being for 35 years is bound to have anomalies. We made one simple mistake. In 1950 we should have had the modern method of changing legislation. There should have been a provision that Schedule 5 could be changed by order; it would then have been kept up to date. For example, we are told that it is an anomaly that we can buy a Chinese take-away but not fish and chips.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, does the noble Lord claim that there are no anomalies in the schedule to the pamphlet put out by the Jubilee Trust?
Lord Jacques: My Lords, I am not speaking for anybody other than myself and certainly not for whoever wrote the pamphlet. And I cannot see the justification for that interruption.
It is claimed that there is an anomaly because we can buy a Chinese take-away but not fish and chips; but in 1950 the fish and chip traders' federation requested that they should not be allowed to sell fish and chips on a Sunday. They did not want to, and they wanted to be consistent. They asked for the provision to be put in the legislation; and at that time there were no Chinese take-aways. They came afterwards. Had we been able to change the schedule by order, such matters would have been dealt with long ago.
1092
We are also told that we can buy gin but not baby food. But gin is not governed by that Act; it is governed by the licensing laws—a different matter altogether. It has nothing to do with the question that we are discussing. In any case, apart from wishing to buy fresh milk, which is a perishable, if a mother nowadays wishes to buy tinned milk, which is not a perishable, had we been able to do so by order we could easily have made a change in the schedule to allow that.
A great deal of unnecessary fuss has been made about the anomalies. They can easily be put right in a sensible way. Let nobody tell us that it is not practical to have a decent schedule. Good heavens, all the countries of Europe except Sweden have such schedules that they can abide by! Are they more inventive than we are? If we legislate properly and allow for amendment by order we can not only have a satisfactory schedule but we can have one which can be kept up to date.
In conclusion I say this. I am in favour of a compromise. I am prepared to compromise because I do not want to lose our Sunday. I believe that it is possible to have a compromise that does not conflict with Sunday being a special day. For example, if the regulations came into force at 1 p.m. on a Sunday, that would allow the small trader to sell anything that he wanted. If we went to the newsagent to buy a paper, we could buy anything else that the shop was selling. That would be of greatest assistance to the majority of consumers and would help the small retailer, unlike the Bill. The large shops would not be interested in opening only until 1 p.m. That is out; it does not allow them enough time.
The real damage to Sunday is done by trading on a Sunday afternoon. A short while ago I spent some time in California and for four weekends I watched Sunday trading. Until about 1 p.m. only the small corner shops selling perishables were open. After one o'clock the main shopping centres were busier than on any other day of the week. The department stores commenced their sales at one o'clock on a Sunday. I support the amendment because I do not wish that kind of thing to happen in this country. I believe that our Sundays are worth preserving and I hope that your Lordships will attempt to preserve them by supporting the amendment.
5.10 p.m.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: My Lords, I should very much like to say a few words about Sunday trading in Scotland because I, too, live there. I am not quite sure that the right reverend Prelate's informant is altogether correct about what happens. As we have been told, the Shops Act 1950 never applied to Scotland. The opponents of this Bill say that at the time it was not thought necessary for the Act to do so because, to quote one of them, the Scots had a greater built-in resistance to Sunday trading on religious and cultural grounds than the English. I cannot imagine what the cultural grounds can have been. As regards religious grounds, that may have been the case in 1950. I do not believe that it is true any longer, except possibly in one or two very isolated places.
I should like to describe the pattern as it is now, 35 years on. You find certain, but by no means all,

1093
newsagents open until one'clock. In the bigger towns, you find the odd neighbourhood shop selling a bit of everything. A chemist is usually open on Sunday morning for a limited time. In the most popular tourist centres during the season you will find souvenir shops open on Sunday afternoons and also provision shops, and, of course, restaurants. Certain multiples, like MFI, Queensway, and Asda, situated on the outskirts of cities, are also open, as, of course, are garden centres. In general, the high street shops do not open at all on Sundays except, very possibly, on one or two Sundays before Christmas, when it pays them to do so. That is why they do it. For the rest of the year, it does not pay them to do so. This has nothing to do with Sabbatarianism; it is purely and simply self-interest and common sense. You are not going to open if you are not going to cover your extra overheads. The shops know they are not going to do so, and that is why they do not open.
If this is the case in Scotland, I cannot see why it should be any different in England. Or are we to believe that English shopkeepers have no sense? It is unlikely, I believe, that if this Bill becomes law every shop in England will be open on Sunday, any more than they are in Scotland. I do not believe that the character of Sunday will change as much as some people fear.
I cannot see that the experience of other countries is irrelevant when one is considering a change in the law. The closer and more similar the country, the more relevant it is. I might mention to the right reverend Prelate that his fears over the effects on churchgoing of Sunday opening are belied by experience, as anyone will know who has been to Paris for the weekend. There, people are no less good churchgoers because the shops are open on Sundays. The shops shut on Mondays. Much the same is the case in Spain, but, then, the Roman Catholic Church co-operates by having services frequently throughout the day.
I have grave doubts about the historic basis of the Christian Sunday being a sabbath on which no work should be done. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has said, is a Puritan concept given added impetus in 1831 by the Lord's Day Observance Society and founded upon the Jewish sabbath, which was devised for a primitive agricultural community depending on slave labour so as to ensure one day of rest a week for the slaves. According to the Gospels, Christ tried to liberalise the sabbath. He himself certainly worked on the sabbath, as, I may say, does practically every mother and housewife in the country. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has already quoted from Saint Mark's Gospel. Not much later Saint Ignatius, in a letter to the Magnesians (whoever they may have been) referred to good Christians as
"in no wise living for the Sabbath".
At last the sabbath was freed to be enjoyed.
But the enjoyment of some involves the hard work of others, as various noble Lords have said, in providing services. If it is all right for people in service industries to work on Sundays, why is it not all right for people in shops to work on Sundays? For some people (although not for me: I loathe shopping any day of the week) shopping is as great a pleasure as any other activity. For some, Sunday shopping is a necessity nowadays.
1094
Have your Lordships ever wondered, as I have done, when, if the present law were thoroughly enforced, full-time shop assistants would do their shopping? The right reverend Prelate said, if I am not mistaken, that he thought this House existed to restrain the excesses of those who wished to curb the liberties of Her Majesty's subjects. I hope that the House will support the liberty of Her Majesty's subjects to open their shops on Sunday if they wish to do so. For this reason, I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.
5.15 p.m.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, I welcome the Government's initiative in bringing forward the Bill. I am sure that the law on this issue needs to be tidied up. The only way to do it—whatever system is being introduced—is by a Government Bill and not any longer by a Private Member's Bill. I find the Government's solution very attractive; I might also say, very seductive. It is tidy and it is easy. I personally love things to be tidy and to be easy. Unfortunately, as your Lordships know as well as I do, the easy course is very often not the right one.
I have been privileged to be asked to be chairman of a coalition of retailers, churchmen and enforcement officers who have considered the Auld report at great length and have found themselves unable to support complete deregulation as a result. We have produced a scheme to tidy up the law which is considered acceptable, enforceable and preferable, certainly to the existing law and certainly to complete deregulation. I feel that the law in this situation needs to be a balance. It should be a balance between those who want to buy and sell anything on a Sunday and those who want the day to be different, a special day, a day for rest and recreation as a family. The proposals that we produced seem to me to be reasonable and along these lines.
There are anomalies. I believe that there are anomalies in many branches of the law where we aim to strike a balance between conflicting interests. This is certainly the case in the VAT legislation which strikes a balance between the Inland Revenue and the rest of us. Whether you buy a hot cup of coffee or a cold cup of coffee, the anomalies go on and on. If the anomalies are reasonable, they are not in my view a big stumbling block. There must be anomalies if one gets the balance right. But they must be reasonable, and they must be acceptable.
A great deal has been said about whether few or many shops will open on Sundays in England. Let us be clear what the Institute of Fiscal Studies, to which my noble friend the Minister referred several times, has said in estimating the number of shops that would open on Sundays. If wages of only 50 per cent, more than normal were paid, the IFS estimated that 86 per cent. of retail food capacity would open and 94 per cent. of clothing capacity.
A recent Scottish case held that in view of the lack of restriction in Scotland it was perfectly acceptable to pay only 30 per cent. above the normal wage for working on a Sunday. The IFS is therefore saying that if 50 per cent. more is paid (whereas Sunday trading now demands double wages) then something over 80 per cent. of all shopping space is likely to be opened. This is not a question of degree. It is, as I see it. a question of principle. It is a major question.

1095
I am very attracted to the idea that my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls suggested, that we wipe the slates clean. The noble Lord goes on to suggest that we should then add to it, and that may be what should be done at Committee stage. But let us make sure that we have the additions before this Bill leaves this place to go to another place.
I certainly have no gifts of great oratory but I should like to put some facts before your Lordships. First, with regard to the question of shopkeepers, it has been said that only very few extra people, less than a million, will have to work on Sundays, therefore why does it matter? I believe that the answer is, because so many of them are mothers and wives in a family situation. If Mum has to work on a Sunday when Dad and the children are around, the family is being broken up; and I believe that that is very serious.
I am also very concerned about the protection of shopworkers who start jobs after the commencement day. Nowadays there are many people who move around the country, and they have had a life experience of retailers and do not want to work on Sundays. Very often they would not be able to get the job they want.
Another question which has been mentioned is that of enforcement. May I remind your Lordships of what those who are responsible for enforcement said to the Auld Committee? The Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration said that, when given full support and adequate resources by their local authorities, their members have found no real difficulty in enforcing the Acts. There is no problem with enforcement. The problem is perhaps that very little money has been spent by local authorities on that; it has been a ludicrously small amount. Local authorities will have to spend much more money in providing the additional support services if, as I and many others of us fear, over the coming years, a great many shops open on Sundays.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, has referred to Scotland. I do not have her experience there but I should like to make three points about Scotland. First, it was the Auld Committee, not your Lordships, who said that what was proposed was not a reliable guide as to what would happen in Scotland. Secondly, our coalition was informed by some of the multiples that if through competitive pressures they opened in England then they would also open in Scotland, so there may be more Sunday trading coming to Scotland as well. Thirdly, one young lady who is a Scot but has emigrated south of the border said to me after a weekend in Edinburgh that she found walking down Princes Street on Sunday a thoroughly depressing experience.
I have a few comments to make on Europe. It has already been said that all Common Market countries have some form of restriction. West Germany has its Shop Closing Hours Act. Other countries, such as France, restrict Sunday opening through labour legislation. I believe that the next sentence in my notes conflicts with what the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, but I have been told that Paris on a Sunday is almost as quiet as London and that no big stores or shops of any kind open in the central districts. That is how I personally would like to keep London.
1096
I am not at all sure why the Auld Committee appeared never to have investigated Common Market countries. They referred to Sweden certainly, which has no restrictions. But your Lordships may be aware that some five years after Sweden abolished restrictions a Government commission met to consider the matter and the majority recommended that Sunday restrictions should be reintroduced. This was never done but that was the view of a majority on a Government commission. I think that that probably supports what the right reverend Prelate said: if this decision is made now in practice it is irrevocable.
In conclusion, because other countries have restrictions, and I believe that there can be a reasonable and acceptable, moderate system of restriction, I personally support this amendment; and I hope that many others of your Lordships will do so as well.
5.26 p.m.
Lord Harris of High Cross: My Lords, I should like to begin with perhaps the only amiable words I shall utter in this debate by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for his weighty support for the Government's Bill and against the amendment. If I may say so, I thought that his was a particularly courageous and objective contribution because it came from great, unrivalled experience and the noble Lord spoke personally against the view which I believe has been, at any rate until recently, the corporate view of the company that bears his name.
Since my chief target in my brief contribution will be the amendment in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, I thought it appropriate to start with a confession. As what I might call a dissenting Anglican and a professional economist, I have become accustomed to disagreeing with pretty well all episcopal doctrines and panaceas on political economy. Yet I am still capable of being shocked; and a month ago in my local church, St. Paul's, in Hadley Wood, we had the family service interrupted by a partisan tirade delivered by two sweet ladies from the congregation against the evils of Sunday trading, concluding with an earnest injunction that we should all write to our Members of Parliament and add to the post-bag about which the right reverend Prelate has spoken as a spontaneous manifestation of support for his position.
Among other stories, on this occasion we were told that Sunday would become the biggest shopping day of the week; that all shops would be compelled to open; that there would be no economic advantages because a fixed retail expenditure would be spread more thinly over longer opening; that prices would therefore rise; and that there would be no more employment—indeed there would be more unemployment because it was said small shops would be forced out of business. As an economist, I believe all these claims to be very approximately the opposite of what is most likely to happen. I have applied myself to studying the evidence from Scotland, Sweden and the United States. I have weighed the arguments of the Auld Committee and of its critics. Like the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, I do not dare to claim that I can foretell the future, as many speakers on the amendment side have said. My best, conscientious

1097
judgment is that there will be significant benefits in both efficiency and employment from allowing shops the freedom to open, or not to open, at such times as suits a sufficient number of their customers. All the evidence confutes the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that costs and prices will be increased by Sunday opening.
I must say that my support for this Bill goes rather deeper than my judgment as an economist that competition generally enables suppliers to serve their customers better than under arbitrary control or collusion. My fundamental belief is in the moral imperative of individual freedom and personal responsibility save when the coercive power of government is unavoidable to prevent a proven, major, public evil. If we turn to the Jubilee Centre's pamphlet "Why keep Sunday Special" we find nothing there to overthrow that principle. At the outset, as has been said, the authors agree that there is no sin involved in working or shopping on a Sunday. On page 6, they say:
"Freedom of choice is good for man, but it is better for him to love God and to love his neighbour".
I want to say emphatically that with that simple statement I find myself in unqualified agreement. Indeed, I believe that a free economy would work even less imperfectly than it does if more of us could get perhaps a little closer to that blessed state and act more consistently upon it.
However, I deeply disagree with the right reverend Prelate's position, and I find myself wholly in agreement with the noble Lord the Minister that any advance in that direction must depend upon persuasion and choice and not on criminal law and punishment. My simple, ordinary, understandable reason is that I believe there is no moral virtue in what I may regard as good behaviour if it is brought about by compulsion.
The innocent reader of the Jubilee tract would remain wholly unaware that, when the admitted absurdities of the present Shops Act are swept away, no shop will be compelled to open on Sunday, no customer will be required to shop on Sunday, and no worker will be made to work. Indeed, many shops that now open on Sunday are entirely staffed by willing volunteers who work only on that day, and many shops which hope to open already have extensive lists of people asking to be considered for employment when the time comes.
The authors of this tract confuse counsels by saying on page 34:
"Sundays help us preserve family, community and Church life as they ensure everybody is off work at the same time".
Throughout the whole of this one-sided text there is what I can only say is a naïve assumption that Sunday is the only day for cultivating family life and friends. The latest research suggests that 4 million men and women work regularly on Sundays—that does not mean that they work every Sunday, but that throughout the year they regularly work on some Sundays—and almost 5 million more work occasionally on Sundays. I cannot understand the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who seems to think that we should all wish to live our lives and if I may say so, eat our meals along with him. It is the very fact of
1098
the wide diversity in working patterns, no less than in family structures and circumstances, which has now put an increasing premium on variety rather than conformity in shopping, travelling, entertainment, sports, eating out and other harmless family amenities.
With the same tendency for selective sociology, the Jubilee vigilantes fuss about the quality of life for people living near shops; yet they acknowledge that more of those living alone now find Sundays boring and lonely. They do not refer to an opinion poll which shows that when people were asked whether they would be inconvenienced by Sunday shopping, only 3 per cent. said, "Yes", and no more than 2 per cent. said so in Scotland, where they were able to judge from their own experience. It is no wonder that the Jubilee pundits are somewhat equivocal on opinion polls. They cheerfully quote a poll showing 83 per cent. of small retailers against the Bill. However, faced with consumer surveys showing up to 73 per cent. in favour of Sunday opening, they pontificate:
"It is often inappropriate to attach too much weight to the results of opinion polls".
Instead, our nimble authors say that there is no "widespread clamour" for change, and they imply that it is all got up by the retailers who are duly denounced as "highly motivated interest groups"—apparently quite different from the Luddites of USDAW (the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers), who are quoted in the text with a reverence normally reserved for the scriptures.
However, if there is no "clamour" to shop on Sundays, why all this wild Welsh rhetoric from my noble friend Lord Tonypandy about Sunday becoming another Saturday? All the evidence from Scotland, Sweden, America, Spain and Italy is that freedom to open will not prevent people going to church. In many areas it will make no difference. However, in some areas, at some times of the year, some shops will open to serve some customers with some goods and services.
The case for this Bill rests on three legs. The first is the commanding moral presumption in favour of freedom of choice for consenting adults. Secondly, there are large gains in convenience for at least some shoppers and good prospects of employment opportunities, especially for young people, in expanding retail services. Finally, I urge the right reverend Prelate to ponder the lesson from Martin Wiener's wellknown study, English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, 1850 to 1980. He argues, in brief, that it is aristocratic and ecclesiastical contempt for trade that has helped to shape our anti-enterprise culture and contributed to Britains' relative decline. This Government are painfully struggling against our innate conservatism and nostalgia to stimulate the economic and social processes of wealth creation, distribution and exchange. This Bill merits our support as a useful step in the right direction.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I want to support the amendment and, in the first instance, I am concerned to say a few words about the representative nature of the amendment as proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. He spoke

1099
eloquently and movingly of his own personal conviction, but he spoke on behalf of the Church. I hope to speak with conviction, but I can speak with equal authority about the Church to which I belong.
It is not insignificant that there is unanimity in all the, if I may use the phrase, main line Churches that this Bill as it now stands should not be passed. The Roman Catholic Council of Bishops has made it quite clear that this is an unacceptable Bill, as have the Salvation Army, the Society of Friends, the Council of Churches, and of course the Free Church Council, to say nothing of the burgeoning number of Caribbean Churches which have a particular interest in the preservation of the kind of fellowship that they enjoy on Sunday.
I profess a difficulty in understanding the position of a government which, if I may say so without impudence, presume to think that they are a better defender of the faith than the organised phalanx of spiritual unity as presented by the Christian Church on this particular measure. I do not know upon what basis they would think themselves better able to defend the faith in the face of the kind of opposition which has not in the first place been counselled and connived, but is a spontaneous recognition of certain values that belong to Sunday which are in peril.
As there are many speakers in this debate, I shall not continue the arguments with regard to some of the more obvious problems, such as Sunday being a time when people who want to do other things will be prevented from so doing because of the increase of trade or the distribution of labour. I believe that there is a religious basis to this which is independent of the precise Christology which I accept. In that regard, how much I appreciated the eloquence of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. He and I share the principle that there is a peculiar value in one day which is separated from every other day and becomes rhythmic in the sense that it encourages people to the appreciation that life cannot be a continuum without its being degraded thereby, and that the opportunity, let alone the practice, of a retirement from, so to speak, the ordinary avocations of the week is a necessary part of the civilising process in which man at least would attempt to equip himself. I believe that this is unanswerable as a case.
This afternoon I have heard a good deal about the preservation of family life and I give my hearty support to that principle. However, I am afraid that in many cases family life is nostalgic in the kind of civilisation, so-called, in which we live. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to recollect something which my noble friend Lord Tonypandy will know as well as I do: the kind of Sunday I had after many occasions of going to church, with the rather dubious assertion that we ought to go to bed early on Sunday because by that time we had sung hymns all the time or had gone to church and were about played out. I remember the value of the Sunday afternoon gathered around the piano. There was no wireless in those days. There was no television. It was a family occasion. You may think it sentimental, and sometimes my grandchildren think it a bit naive, but that is the kind of family life which I cherish and which so largely seems to me to have disappeared. If I speak with melancholy it is out of a long, if not profound, experience of social work.
1100
For many people home is the place where you hang around when somebody else has the car. That is a cynicism, but my word it is true of much of the urban areas with which I have had to do, and a great deal of the society in which I try to live. I am quite sure that this Bill will help to preserve and continue a process in which family life will be a third-rate option, if indeed an option at all. I speak in that concern for family life, which I do not so much regard as something to be preserved as something which we shall have the opportunity of recovering if we refuse to accept this kind of permissive society in which so many people who claim freedom will be the objective of operations by their fellows which will deny that very freedom to them.
This Bill is an attempt, to use the classical expression, to burn down the house in order to cook a pork chop. Let me say that in other words, because there are ways in which Lamb would object to that. I believe that this Bill proposes a process of action which in many respects is against a backcloth of abuses and stupidities. I agree with the need for a reconsideration of the proper use of Sunday, not in objective ways of preventing people from doing what they want to do, but in one respect for remembering that it was organised games which, first of all, were the appropriation of Sunday rather than the occupation on Saturday. The cultivation of the maypole has more to do with the Christian faith than it has to do with secular observations which now are regarded as having a secular basis anyhow.
However, I shall not delay your Lordships. Here is a measure in which the cure, as I see it in this Bill, will be infinitely worse than the disease. I ask your Lordships to believe that the combined conviction of the Christian churches is a serious matter. It does not become infallibility, but it is not far short of it. In that regard I hope that this amendment will be carried, recognising that there is much to do in improving the opportunities for people to think and to make a difference on Sunday; not equating Sunday with the sabbatical principals so long ago recorded in the Ten Commandments, but recognising that one day in the week will only be of value to those who live if it is dedicated to higher intentions and becomes the opportunity, if not the occasion, of a deeper religious faith.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, it is a great privilege for me to follow the noble Lord, Lord Soper, whom I have heard many a time in my lunch hour at Tower Hill. Obviously I shall not follow his example; however, perhaps when I have finished speaking he may follow me into the Division Lobby, but we shall see.
My Lords, it strikes me that Sunday trading is another of those issues where not entirely, but by and large, the forces of passion are ranged against those of reason. This is no doubt why, although a clear majority of people in the country are reasonably in favour of Sunday shopping, it is the minority which is passionately against it which makes the louder noise.
I would not, however, make the assertion that reason is automatically more worthy than passion.

1101
Indeed, I have taken care to approach this issue myself with a determination to remain, at all times, both passionately reasonable and reasonably passionate! In doing so, I have studied a mountain of statistics and a sea of claims and counter-claims from both camps. Before these studies I freely admit that I simply had no idea that allowing Mrs. Smith to pop round the corner to buy a tin of paint from B & Q on a Sunday afternoon could be quite such a complex, weighty and controversial issue. If we allow her to do so there are those who foretell continuing moral and social decline towards the doom of Armageddon! But if we do not allow her to do so there are those who foretell that continuing and remorseless decline of the economy. It is the kind of heavy responsibility that voting on this issue appears to place on our shoulders.
So how do I come to a decision in which I am sufficiently confident that it will allow me to sleep at nights? Well, my Lords, after long, agonising and ultimately unsatisfactory analysis of the data, a beautifully clear solution emerged: let Mrs. Smith decide. If she doesn't make it a crime for me to go to church on a Sunday, why should I make it a crime for her to buy a pot of paint? After all, Mr. Smith can already legally buy a pot of paint to do up the car. It is just a crime for Mrs. Smith to buy a pot of paint to do up the kitchen. Mr. Smith can already legally buy a girlie magazine. It is just a crime for Mrs. Smith to buy a Bible.
But can I really trust Mrs. Smith with such sweeping freedom? Can she really handle the responsibility that must always go hand-in-hand with liberty? Will her moral fibre and that of her family be eroded away? Will her children be left behind the latch as Mr. and Mrs. Smith leave home for an orgy of shopping amid streets crammed with other bustling noisy shoppers, placing intolerable pressure on civic services and encouraging ever more crime and vandalism on our streets? My Lords, of course I could handle the responsibility. Of course, all of you could handle it. And indeed it seems that Mrs. McPherson in Scotland can handle it—and has done so very nicely since 1947. Even Mrs. Ullman in Sweden has handled it for ten years, not to mention Mrs. Groppelli in Massachusetts.
But oh dear! What about Mrs. Smith in Wapping, Workington, Wallasey, Worthing and Wimbledon. Can she handle it, without ruining her family life and that of those around her? Well there is of course fortunately an issue which really should override my judgment, our judgment, about whether or not she can. That issue is her right to the simple freedom to choose for herself. No one is disputing her right to choose not to go shopping on a Sunday. No one is disputing the right of the shopkeeper not to open on a Sunday, any more than we would dispute, in this day and age, the right of anyone not to go to church.
Around 10 per cent. of people in fact attend church regularly. And if we ever attempted to legislate against their right to do so then of course general outrage would ensue. But what of the 60 per cent. or so people who say they would like the right to go shopping on a Sunday, many of them no doubt churchgoers too? I am not suggesting for a moment that it is a right that we should if necessary be prepared to die for. But neither is it one that we should legislate against.
1102
I can understand and respect the Christian who believes, in faith, that he has a mission to protect the sabbath. and thus to preach in an attempt to instil that faith in others. But should that faith have the backing of the criminal law? Is the conscript really a convert? I can understand and respect the leaders of the trade union who believe they will lose membership as a result of an increase in part-time working that may accompany Sunday shopping. But should that union have the backing of the criminal law when many others welcome the work, and 71 per cent. of trade unionists as a whole favour abolition?
I can understand also the motivation of those shopkeepers who believe that they will suffer at the hands of competitors if Sunday shopping is allowed. But should those shopkeepers have the backing of the criminal law too to protect them from their competitors? I think not, and I cannot for the life of me see why simple freedom of choice, which is so responsibly and successfully enjoyed in Scotland, should be denied to the people of England and Wales.
In a mature democracy such as this it is absurd for us to sit here and regulate the lives of people on matters so basic as when they can and cannot go out and buy the everyday things that they need for ordinary living. Has not the age long since passed when shopping can be a criminal activity? It has been said that freedom is indivisible and if we wish to enjoy it we must always be prepared to extend it. It has also been said that freedom is indeed so precious that it must be rationed. But the latter quotation is from no less a practical and proven democrat than Lenin!
I know which view I prefer to hang my hat on. The greatest danger to freedom often seems to lurk in its encroachment by men of zeal, however well-meaning. No, my Lords! I am happy to place the question of Mrs. Smith's shopping in the safe custody of the good common sense of Mrs. Smith. I am happy to place the question of the shopkeeper's opening hours with the shopkeeper; after all who will ultimately decide when he will, or will not, have any customers? You have it, my Lords, it is—Mrs. Smith again! Quite simply, it is none of my business—and it is certainly not the business of the criminal law. So let us abolish this silly outdated, unenforceable, unpopular and indefensible legislation once and for all. Let us for once subtract from the great weight of the statute book rather than add to it. The trading laws have centuries of dust on them. Let us blow the lot away with the good strong breath of freedom!
5.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester: My Lords, I want to support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. As he indicated in his speech, it is common ground that there are outdated and inappropriate anomalies in the Shops Act 1950. There are real problems to be tackled. I am sure the Government were right to commission a committee of inquiry, and in the Auld Report there was a long and careful study of the points at issue. Yet my misgivings about the report and the Bill we now have before us, which stems from that report, lie in the basic premise of its argument. The noble Lord the Minister said earlier that it was an unchallengeable premise, but I found it a doubtful one.

1103
We start from the premise that the law should not interfere in the conduct of human affairs unless it serves a justifiable purpose in doing do. Surely that premise is too narrow. It is an inadequate base on which to consider major social issues such as the traditional character of Sunday and the need for families to have shared rest and relaxation. We are dealing here with subtle, sensitive, intangible issues bound up with our particular history and culture and our religious tradition, where changes could have far-reaching implications for the character of our community life, for those who work in the retail trade and for the future pattern of the retail trade itself.
Yet by working from this narrow premise that the law should not normally interfere, it is hardly surprising that the report comes to the simplistic conclusion which the Bill enshrines: that all legal restrictions on the hours for which shops may be open should now be abolished. This conclusion is virtually predetermined by that narrow premise. The trouble with total deregulation is that it isolates the freedom of the consumer; it isolates the freedom of big business as being the supreme good, as being the determining factor of what should happen in society and how the law should be reformed. I should want to hold these freedoms of the consumer and the freedoms of the retailer in a wider and more generous framework of what makes for the good of the family and the common good of the community. As has been said often this afternoon, many of us see Sunday as a corporate rest day; one of the elements that helps to give our society its particular identity and character. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has observed, the rhythm of one day in seven that is qualitatively different from the other six days is a divine ordinance. It is one of the blessings of our community life, and I think it helps to bind the family together in sharing rest and recreation.
I believe the key question is how far one allows exceptions for work and trading to go on before one begins to destroy or fatally undermine the central core. The Government are saying that because the restraints in the Shops Act 1950 are no longer satisfactory, in future there shall be no restraints at all. They are saying "Let Sunday float". But those who support this amendment are saying, "Not so fast". We acknowledge that already many people work on Sundays. We have been given examples this afternoon, not least in the public utilities, in transport and so on. But because some have to work on that day it does not necessarily follow that more should be compelled to do so. We therefore think that total deregulation is a too-drastic solution because it could well lead to the erosion of something we greatly value—a corporate rest day which gives identity to our community. We need these opportunities of rest and recreation for families, and recreation includes (indeed, it describes for Christians) the experience of Sunday worship not simply as individuals who like to go to church but as the people of God experiencing a corporate renewal. We do not want the cohesive character of our institutions or the cohesive character of society to be sacrificed for the sake of greater commercial gain on Sundays.
Fears about Sunday trading are fairly widespread. In my own diocese in Hampshire I have had many
1104
representations directly, and I know through the clergy that there are many more instances where there is considerable unease about deregulation. Already we are experiencing pressures—some subtle, some much less so—on employees who do not want to work on Sunday. Take, for example, a young woman in a multiple store in Southampton. Asked to come in one Sunday morning before Christmas last year she declined. She was then told by her superior that she was jeopardising her career, that there were plenty of others who could do her job, and that her refusal would be remembered. There was another instance of a manager of a chain store who said, "My firm makes it quite clear to me that if the shop is open I am responsible for what happens. But Sunday is my own only real time off. On my weekday off I am worrying about what may be going on here". There is another example. One multiple retailer has an application for employment form which includes, in the declaration that the applicant has to sign, these words:
"I agree to work on bank holidays, Sunday and overtime as required".
The freedom of the consumer and the freedom of the retailer are not the only freedoms which the law should recognise. There is the good of society, the good of the family and the good of the employee to be recognised as well. We need to balance the needs of those who wish to shop with the needs of those who desire a weekly respite on a corporate day of rest. I believe there is an alternative to total deregulation, and many of us would like to help the Government in seeking to find it. That really is the purpose underlying the amendment which the right reverend Prelate has moved.
We seek a wider and more generous solution to what is admittedly a difficult problem for, as the Auld Report indicates, there are those who wish to press for wider and more extensive opportunities for shopping—though there is not a great clamour; in fact, only 10 per cent. have asked for it. Yet, granted that there is more scope for shopping in the evenings (which is something I should welcome), and granted that the majority of retailers are not seeking deregulation and that the shopworkers are among the most vulnerable parts of our workforce, and granted that Sunday trading, the Auld Report says, seems likely to result in the loss of up to 20,000 full-time jobs and that the effect of Sunday trading may well be to the detriment of independent shopkeepers, can we not find a more generally acceptable way forward?
Starting from the premise of the general good of society, we can surely look first at the European experience. As has been pointed out, in all the countries in Europe save Sweden there are some restrictions on Sunday trading. The Auld Report does not mention them, but let us see what alternative models there are available to us in Europe.
As has often been mentioned this afternoon, I think most people want to see retained the small independent traders, so that they can stay in business. The village shop, the shop on the corner, the little establishment in the precinct, are all social amenities. They are already far fewer in number than they were a generation ago but they are valued, especially by the elderly and the less mobile. It seems likely that it will be to their detriment if Sunday general trading takes

1105
place. Can we not do something to help them by easing the restrictions on Sundays, perhaps for a stated number of hours?
I recognise that there are difficulties. I have read and re-read Chapter 5 of the Auld Report. However, I believe that the Auld Report maximises the difficulties because it has predetermined the conclusion to which it is going to come. However, we could see how our European partners overcome them and we could use our native wits to seek a way forward.
There is a real fear that if the high street opens on Sundays this will mean more disturbance, noise and disquiet for those who live in the neighbourhood. Let there be either a refusal to let that happen or, failing that, a very strict limitation of the number of hours. An argument is being made for the out-of-town shopping centres to be opened on Sundays. Providing there is a limitation of hours, so that those who are employed there do not lose the whole of their corporate day of rest, and providing the amenities for those who live nearby are not adversely affected, then let that case be examined.
I believe we need to strike a balance between the needs of society for a corporate day of rest, the needs of individuals to shop, the needs of shopworkers and the needs of those who live near shopping centres. Total deregulation does not allow for that balance: it distorts it, it damages it. By passing the amendment which the right reverend Prelate has moved we can surely try to create a framework which will be for the general good of society and which does not isolate or absolutise the particular goods of freedom at the expense of many other, more vulnerable people in our community.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, this has been a fascinating debate, though at times I thought we were debating a Bill called the "Abolition of Sunday Bill", rather than the Shops Bill. Since this seems to be an afternoon for declaring one's family ties, one's conscience and one's religion, I should like to say at once that I am a Catholic, that I go to church, but that I call in shops, mainly Jewish or Asian ones, on the way home. I am not sure whether the Almighty will declare this against me when I come to the final reckoning, but I think there is a certain element of hypocrisy in some of the arguments that have been advanced.
Already a number of people have to work on Sunday. I am the grandmother of an ambulance driver: he has to work on Sunday. I am the grandmother of a doctor: he has to work on Sunday. Would the right reverend Prelate and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, really not want to have electricity, gas, transport or health services on Sundays? Why is it that we segregate certain sections of the population and say that they must work because it is for our convenience but tell other sections of the community that they must not work? I have always found this a peculiar argument. I say quite seriously that if one intends to go to church, one will go to church, whether or not the shops are open on Sunday. What is being contended is a totally false argument.
I enjoyed the quotation of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I shall give another quotation to the noble
1106
Lady, to the right reverend Prelates and to my noble friend. Our Lord said:
"By their deeds ye shall know them"—
not by what they do on Sunday but what they do on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday and Saturday. That is how one determines whether one is really living one's life as a Christian and, if I may say so, as a socialist.
I did not find it very easy to intervene in this debate because I am employed by the retailers; I am the vice-president of the National Chamber of Trade, and I am the president of the shops inspectorate institute. It is one of those occasions when one wears too many hats because they all want something different. I could have had a diplomatic illness and not taken part in the debate at all. However, I reject that. I must speak according to my conscience. This is what having the privilege of sitting in the Upper Chamber of Parliament is all about. If we are legislating, we do not legislate on the considerations of other people and other lobbies that may weigh upon us.
I have in the past introduced two Bills to try to clear up these anomalies which everybody is now saying should have been cleared up. I ask, certainly, the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops' Bench why they did not come and support me when I tried to put through those two Bills. One was to enable the shops that were open on Sundays, of which there are already a number permitted under the Act, to sell anything they had in their shops. That was a very simple Bill, but it was rejected. The second Bill was also a very simple one. It was to allow the number of places that were designated as holiday resorts to be widened; in other words, not only Eastbourne and Bournemouth but Broadway and somewhere in the Pennines. That also was rejected.
So I would say in all seriousness to those who say that now we should start doing this quietly and carefully, that they have already had the opportunity of doing it carefully, quietly and cautiously and it has been rejected. Thus, there is no question of this being something that has suddenly been sprung on an unsuspecting Parliament.
The present position is absolutely unfair and brings the law into disrepute. If one lives in an area such as mine, which is a typical London borough, one can buy anything one likes on a Sunday because the Asian shopkeepers open their shops and hang out little painted signs saying that they are open seven days a week, from nine in the morning until eleven at night. They are patently breaking the law but there are not enough enforcement officers to enforce the law. On the other hand, certain large stores, notably Whiteley's, have been very heavily fined for opening on Sundays. Thus, the law is unfair in that it depends heavily on where one lives. It is determined by geography and it depends on whether one has many enforcement officers or not very many and whether or not they are prepared to turn a blind eye to it.
I would only say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that I worked in the East End before the war when the Jewish traders had an exemption. However, they kept the law in that they closed from sunset on Fridays until sunset on Saturdays. That was why they were permitted to open on Sundays. I do not know what is the religion of some of the traders who are now

1107
operating but they do not appear to have a day of rest. Thus, the law is unfair and it is brought into disrepute.
It is not true to say that all the retailers want a change. They do not. Like most people, they are ambivalent, so they say they are neutral. One group want a change in the law, another do not, and a third are waiting to see what happens. Again, I cite the Bible: some wash their hands of the affair and some say they have never seen Him before. Thus we have the same situation; we have the law of threes: some do not want it, some want it, and some are sitting back waiting to see what happens.
The small chain shops which trade, for which I have a great admiration and affection, are worried because they say that if all these shops open, they will have to open. I do not think that that is entirely true because many small shops already open. Do not let anybody tell me that they are operated by familes because that just is not true. There is a chain, there are several chains, manned by people from overseas; but they are not all of the same family—unless it is a particularly large family—since the branches run into several hundreds. So I think that we have to decide that there is a lot of hypocrisy and nonsense about this law already.
I had the extraordinary experience, as many of your Lordships will have had, of visiting a lovely little town one day in the summer, Broadway. Every shop was shut. It was full of people walking around and of visitors. Remember, after all, the tourist boards want this. Make no mistake about that. I say to the traders who tell me that there is not any more trade that I think there is more trade. If shops are open and visitors are here, they will get more trade.
I think that many fallacious arguments are raised against this, and they have been raised time and time again. If you have been here long enough you will have heard them all. I would only say that I feel that none of them stands up to the real argument. This is not a question of affronting the Almighty; this is not a question of making Sunday the day when the Devil will have full rein. I loved the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy. I think that in the pulpit he would be tremendous. I always remember him telling me that he did not mind going to heaven now that he knew they had harps. He did not want to go if they had bagpipes.
However, there is no doubt that we are talking about one small group and about the people who live near shops. I live near a football ground, I might just as well object to the people coming there on a Saturday. I do not do so; they come and they go. I do not know which shopping centres your Lordships visit. I went to my local one on Saturday. It was a lovely scene. There were the children lining up to go to see Santa Claus and there were the older people sitting around in the seats having a chat. It certainly was not a scene of mayhem, destruction and vandalism. So our communities do change; and I can only say to those who are concerned just to reassure them, that the family is alive and well and living in Fulham. I see my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren every Sunday on their way back from church when they have nipped in first to a shop, perhaps an Asian shop or a Jewish shop, to buy something.
1108
Let us cease to be hypocritical; let us tidy up this nonsensical law. There are some points that we can deal with during the passage of the Bill. There are one or two anomalies in relation to employment and to the wages councils. These can be dealt with. Let us not parade our consciences but say that this is merely a question of dealing with legislation long overdue.
6.13 p.m.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I can be very brief for I have little new to say. If I may say so, I much enjoyed the sense of humour and of proportion that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has brought to this debate. Like others of your Lordships, I view this Bill in the light of my own background and experience. It is true that in the 30 years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I think that this is perhaps the first time that I have spoken on a matter having what might be called an ethical dimension to the extent that this subject has in my view. That is because I am well aware of my own very poor qualifications for speaking in that particular area.
But now and again a situation arises where one feels impelled, first, to make up one's mind to take a decision, even if it is only as to how one would vote in the Division Lobby at the end of the day, and in my case to say, however briefly, why it is that one has reached the decision that one has. I agree with other noble Lords who feel that the law as it is at present is in a mess. I do not think that it should remain as it is but I cannot bring myself to accept the degree of deregulation which is inherent in this Bill.
We hear much about the convenience of customers but I am not at all clear where, from that quarter, the pressure is actually coming for the introduction of a Bill such as this. Of course, I can only speak first hand for the area in which I live—and that is in the middle of the Cheshire plain. There, to judge from the local paper, the pressure is coming from a few local traders some of whom have already been prosecuted and fined for flouting the existing law. It may be significant that, following one such case, the chamber of trade in Northwich (for that is the particular town in which I live) reached the conclusion that there was no justification for making a change in the law of a kind like this.
My concern is primarily with those who will be employed in shops if this Bill is passed and with the effect on their families and their children. In the first place I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that there will be many stores which, left to themselves, would prefer not to trade but which will feel obliged to do so in order to retain their market share. As to the employees themselves, as has been said many are married women with families. I realise that as existing employees they will have a right under this Bill not to be dismissed. But their remedy, as I see it, under the 1978 Act is disproportionately small compared with the loss that they will suffer if they lose their jobs.
I fear too that in practice they will come under pressure from employers to work on a Sunday in a way which may conflict with their personal principles or their perception of their family responsibilities. More than that, in so far as they decide not to work I think

1109
they may be unhappy at the prospect of other people having to assume additional burdens in their place. In the case of employees in future, as we know, they will have no protection at all of this kind and that seems to me to be a serious defect in this Bill. If the Bill is passed, it seems to me that shopworkers will need more protection, not less, than they now have. Their main protection at the moment lies in the wages council scheme.
In your Lordships' House on 17th July there was repeated a Government Satement to which the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, has referred, accurately I know, this afternoon. It was made plain that in general the Government's intention was to reform rather than to abolish wages councils. There would be a single minimum hourly rate and a single overtime rate; but the Secretary of State was to reserve to himself very considerable powers to modify—and in some cases it might be to abolish altogether—wages councils. It seems to me that legislation in that field is very closely linked with the Bill we are now discussing and I think it is a pity that we are obliged to discuss the present Bill without knowledge of precisely what will appear in the Bill which is to come before us concerning wages councils. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness, when she replies to the debate, would give us such reassurance as she can in that field. May we take it that under a reformed system shopworkers in particular will continue to have protection?
The matter does not end with shopworkers of course, because, as has already been said, if they go to work on Sundays more people will have to be employed in public and other services. I also have some concern as to the effect of the Bill on costs and on employment generally; but perhaps those are matters rather more for a Committee stage than now.
In sum, I cannot find it within myself to be party to eroding—to the extent that it seems to me this Bill, if it is passed, will erode—the special nature of the traditional English Sunday. I do not speak for other parts of the United Kingdom. I shall therefore vote for the amendment which has been moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, and in Committee I shall be inclined to support with my vote (and possibly even on occasion with my voice) amendments that are aimed in practicable ways—and I so agree with those who see the necessity for practicability in this—at rendering the law in this field more credible and therefore more operable. Then, with adequate facilities for inspection, it seems to me the law can be enforced in a more generally acceptable way.
Finally, it seems to me that this is a subject which calls for as much consensus as possible. I had always understood until now that that was the Government's view also and it was for that reason that legislation had not been brought before us. I think it regrettable that it is not possible for people to vote upon this issue altogether without party pressure. Perhaps that has even more importance in the other place than in this House for it seems to me, if I may say so, that it would be shameful if a matter of this kind were to be decided in any way other than according to the directions of the consciences of individual people.
6.24 p.m.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, your Lordships have been favoured with notable speeches by senior churchmen of great eloquence, by representatives who have had experience of the retail trade on every side and, in addition, have had as usual a stringent dose of common sense and factual information from the two noble Baronesses who addressed your Lordships.
I can claim only this in a humble way, in intruding upon your Lordships' deliberations; that it fell to me as my first ministerial task to take over, when it went to the other place, the Shops Bill of 1956. That had been handled in your Lordships' House by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. With his parliamentary skill, he managed to steer it through—it is true with some amendment and amid universal derision—and it did go to the other place, where it was subject to such criticism that it did not even obtain a second reading.
My Lords, I venture on that experience because what that Bill tried to, with all the resources of the Home Office and with a notable Secretary of State in Mr. R. A. Butler, was precisely what the right reverend Prelate is urging on your Lordships: in other words, to rationalise restriction without such extensive deregulation as this Bill proposes.
As I say, that objective, backed by all the expertise of a powerful department of state, with the guidance of a Secretary of State who had managed to reconcile Church and lay opinion in the Education Act of 1944—even with his skill, what the right reverend Prelate proposes was found to be quite impossible of achievement. It is only fair to say that we had no support at all from the interests who have addressed your Lordships today in support of this amendment: nor indeed on the numerous occasions which have been open since then has any measure been put forward which would carry into effect what the right reverend Prelate has been urging.
There was a notable Member of the old Irish Parliament, many of whose phrases have come down the years. One of the most extraordinary was:
"I can't be in two places at once: I am not a bird.".
It seems to me, with respect, that the proponents of this amendment have managed to be better than any bird: they have managed to be in three places at once. The first is to keep Sunday special. That needs no expiation, because it was so notably propounded in so many of the speeches your Lordships have heard. The second is more difficult, because so long as generalities are accepted what is proposed in the amendment is no doubt unexceptionable, but it was evidently felt that at least something had to be said, however much it was muffled. Indeed it was said in this pamphlet, How to Tidy up the Law, issued by the Jubilee Trust, which had the backing of the main organisations listed on the outside, including the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England. They proposed three measures of which the first was a revised list—
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to interrupt. It is true that the Jubilee Trust has the backing of the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England, but not that pamphlet; and I think

1111
that noble Lords will nowhere find that stated in that pamphlet.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, if I have done the right reverend Prelate an injustice I need hardly say that I regret it. But it is the only spelling out, however uncertainly, of what is proposed in this amendment. When we look at the revised list of exempt goods, we find that they are in two parts. One is general and the other is exemption at certain times and places. Among the general list—and it should be remembered that these are exempt from a general prohibition against retail trade—what does one find under paragraph 4, but cigarettes,
"Tobacco and smokers' requisites."
Your Lordships have recently been reading some horrifying information put out by the medical profession and health education authorities. Are we really to say that while, generally, things cannot be sold, cigarettes shall be sold?
Then in paragraph 5 there are magazines. Those include, of course, pornographic magazines, girlie magazines. They can be freely sold. Under paragraph 7 there is a very curiously worded list:
"Fuels, lubricants and other supplies and accessories for aircrafts, motor cycles, agricultural machinery, vessels, mechanically propelled vehicles, trailers or tents."
In the middle of that you find the mechanically propelled vehicles—the motor car—and the motor car can be sold petrol on a Sunday. What is more, among other things that can be sold on a Sunday, in addition to cigarettes and girlie magazines, is alcoholic drink, together with petrol for motor vehicles.
I find the reference to aircraft very curious indeed. I can understand that anybody who has had experience of having to have a helicopter or an aircraft filled up with petrol at a petrol filling station can well think that the rowdiness, noise and hubbub of which we have been warned is justified. But the important thing is the mechanically propelled vehicle getting petrol from a filling station, over 100 of which have special licences for selling alcohol off-licence. Indeed, you do not need to go to a petrol filling station for that. There will probably be an off-licence within a stone's throw.
But perhaps the most curious lacuna that has not been mentioned at all, except by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is the ethnic minorities. There is a very curious difference in the wording. On page 7, I read that one of the main proposals is an extension of the provisions for ethnic minorities. But when one looks at page 13, one finds that that is only for consideration and I think your Lordships are bound to demand: is it really the proposal that every Asian, every Moslem, shopkeeper who closes on a Friday can open on a Sunday, at any rate until one or two o'clock? Is that really the way to keep Sunday special? One is bound to ask further: is it until only one or two o'clock and why is that not discrimination, when the Moslem shopkeeper has to close for the whole of a Friday to make that good?
So, as I said, your Lordships are entitled, in my respectful submission, to know where the proponents of this amendment stand on such a vital matter. By anomalies, by exemptions of that sort, which immediately raise new anomalies and which
1112
immediately raise questions, are you really honouring the Sunday; are you really honouring that as the day for the family, as a day of rest, as a special day? That is the second position.
The third position that is taken up is, of course, an attempt to reconcile what are at first sight two quite irreconcilable positions. That can only be done by omitting any mention of the last group I mentioned, the ethnic minorities, and by dealing in terms of the utmost generality with the new list of exempt terms. We heard nothing of that in the noble and eloquent speeches in support of the amendment.
So those are the three positions, and your Lordships will be waiting to hear how far the proposal in the propaganda with which your Lordships have been favoured is really the answer for which all your Lordships have been looking. So far as I am concerned, quite apart from the history, now long past, which I mentioned, it seems to me a very serious matter that the law is brought into derision and into contempt. You cannot do that to one bit of the law without affecting the rest of the law.
The answer given in this pamphlet is not only a list of exempt goods, which, as I have submitted, do not stand up to examination, but rigid enforcement, with more money being spent on enforcement officers. Your Lordships will be bound to ask: are the police better employed on that or on general duties of preventing what the community regards as real crime? Why is it wrong to employ a shop worker to fulfil the requirements of a consumer, but right to employ a police officer to prevent those requirements being satisfied?
The last matter that I venture to mention is a purely parliamentary one. When your Lordships give the Second Reading to a Bill, it is, I have always understood, an approval of the principles of the Bill. That does not prevent amendment in Committee. On the contrary, it lays the way open to it. But what is impossible is to have an amendment to a Second Reading which says in effect, "We approve the principle of the Bill but we think it ought to be some quite different Bill"; and that is what the amendment does.
In the end, those who hold the view that the task of your Lordships' Chamber is only as a revising Chamber—a view which I myself do not share—cannot possibly vote for this amendment; on the contrary, anybody who votes for this amendment is declaring at once that the task of your Lordships' Chamber goes far beyond revision and goes to declaration of principle, if indeed this is not intended as a vote of censure. So, my Lords, even if I myself presumed to think that your Lordships are limited to a revising function I could not possibly vote for this amendment, lying, as it does, in complete contradiction and incompatability with the vote at Second Reading.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, as a large number of your Lordships are speaking today I shall be as brief as possible, but I am deeply concerned by the likely social consequences of this Bill. The widespread opening of shops on Sundays will affect the overall character of

1113
the day. The pace of life, the level of activity and the general noise and bustle at what are now relatively quiet times will all increase, and along with them the stress associated with so many aspects of modern life. Furthermore, some two-thirds of retail workers are women, many of them married, and if asked to work on Sundays will they not be under considerable pressure to work on the one day when their husbands are likely to be at home and their children off school?
In a climate of high unemployment this pressure will often amount to a choice between their families and their jobs. But in many cases household financial commitments will have been made on the assumption of two incomes, and so many women will be all but forced to choose, not their families but their jobs. Is this not bound to have an adverse effect on both marital relationships and children's welfare? It is true that the Bill gives limited protection to established shopworkers for refusing to work on Sunday, but this apparently applies only to persons employed as shopworkers at the commencement of this Act. No protection is offered thereafter.
In the end, the real thrust of the family argument is this. I was glad to hear that both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, one noble Lord on the Benches opposite and one on the Cross-Benches, were concerned about the effects on the family, and so your Lordships will see that there is a great deal of concern in your Lordships' House about the effects of this Bill upon the family. We live in a society where the pressures on family life are greater than they have ever been before. One statistic after another documents the results of those pressures. In the 20 years from 1961 to 1980, the divorce rate rose by 500 per cent., so that one in three marriages now ends in divorce. Divorce produces one-parent families. Nearly 900,000 one-parent families existed in 1980, and 1½ million children lived in such families. As for children born today, as many as one in five will have parents who divorce before they are 16 years old. The psychological harm on children affected by lack of parental attention and the emotional pain imposed on rejected spouses is often deep and enduring. Whatever else we do with our law, the last thing we should do is to allow it to impose yet another pressure on family life.
For many people, the most important feature of Sunday is that it is different. This difference is widely appreciated. With or without religious convictions, many people are grateful for a decisive break each week in the routine of life. It affords relief from the pressure of the other six days, and it also provides opportunities for recreation and family life. Seven-day trading would put this special character of Sunday in jeopardy. As the Auld Report says,
"widespread opening of shops on Sunday would affect the traditional character of the day very much more profoundly than the opening of cinemas, concert halls and theatres, or the holding of sporting events. The change … would have a significant effect on the feel of the day".
What at present is a different, more leisurely, day would steadily become much the same as all the others. The rhythm of life, the built-in balance of work and rest, will give way to a random lack of pattern in the week. One person will have Tuesday and Wednesday off, another will have Monday and Friday
1114
off, and so on. There will be no single day in the week without work, without commerce, without hectic activity. The decision to allow unrestricted Sunday trading will not be an experiment. Once Sunday is lost, It will be almost impossible to recover.
There are viable alternatives to complete deregulation. In Europe alone, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, West Germany, Greece, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Switzerland all prohibit or regulate Sunday trading by law. Is this not ample demonstration that it is perfectly possible to enact and enforce a law against Sunday trading? The issue is not of legal feasibility but one of political will, and I therefore hope very much that your Lordships will see fit to support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
Before I sit down I should like to say that if I have to leave before the end of the debate, which I certainly hope will not be the case, I must ask your Lordships to excuse me, I have to take off from Southampton airport very early tomorrow morning and I have to get home tonight by public transport or I shall certainly miss that flight. I hope your Lordships will not treat it as any discourtesy.
6.48 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, we have reached that point in the debate where I think it becomes more difficult not to keep repeating things that other people have said. On the other hand, it is a debate and there is a way in which one wants to pick up points that have been made, respond to them and perhaps make certain key points, which are important to oneself, in a way which may be heard differently.
Let me begin then by returning to this question of principle which has been mentioned by many of your Lordships, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, where it seemed in a way to be contrasted with practice. The noble Lord emphasised the extent to which this legislation must be seen as entirely a practical matter, a matter of changing the law, as if of course practice could be separated entirely from principle. There has been a slight tendency to contrast passion, which has been associated not perhaps very much with this Bench but with some other parts of the House, with reason, which is not a distinction with which I would want to agree. I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Harmer-Nicholls, may have been arguing that the principle is there to be assumed, that the principle is not in dispute and that there is really no need to discuss it. But I must say that that is not the case. It was a somewhat provocative observation to address to a Christian pastor. We want to look at the principles because we see the practice as stemming from the principle. It is clear to us that here today we are dealing with an inevitable clash of principles. This is the key point to which inevitably we shall return and which is always in danger of being overlooked. There is a principle of freedom—freedom for the individual to be free of unnecessary control, whether from the Government or other people. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester laid considerable stress on precisely this point.
But if there is a clash with that principle and the principle with which we are concerned—that of

1115
preserving the special character of Sunday as a day when most people do not have to work and they are free to relax or worship in countless different ways—then one must seek a compromise. The Auld Report describes some of the present restrictions as arbitrary. That word is used a number of times. So they are, and some of them are now increasingly out of date. But one cannot then, as it were, move on from that to imply that any kind of compromise is arbitrary. "Arbitrary" is a pejorative word. It implies that it is something which ought to be done away with. But, in the end, my Lords, if it is my freedom and your freedom which to some extent are in opposition, we have to try to find a middle ground, and in some respects the decisions we make about that middle ground will inevitably seem in some measure arbitrary to one or other of us, depending on our viewpoint. I ask your Lordships to please forgive me if I am being a little obvious but it is a matter that comes near the heart of this debate.
I stress that we on these Benches are not opposed to reform; not even to substantial deregulation—the phrase used by the noble Lord the Minister in his opening speech. The Bill is about deregulation as it affects weekdays as well as Sunday. It is not simply a debate about Sunday and there is a great deal to be done in that area, too. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, complained that she had not had much support some years ago. I dare say that what happened is that her arguments, together with those of many others, changed attitudes more than she perhaps realised at the time. Certainly we are not standing in a position of trying to defend either the more old-fashioned Sabbatarianism and nor is it a question of standing on some vague opposition to too much pleasure on Sundays; but I shall return to that point in a moment.
May I say a few words, secondly, about the long-term effects? There is a very real danger—is there not?—of making a sweeping change which cannot easily be reversed. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, poured scorn on my colleague for suggesting that there was any difficulty about this. Look, for instance, at what happened over abortion. Can anyone deny that since that piece of legislation was passed it has proved extremely difficult to reverse? Perhaps that is because many people do not wish to reverse it; but certainly it is not now, in practice, what it was intended to be when it was passed.
I find encouragement in the remark of Dr. Johnson. He said:
"Sir, I have found you an argument; I am not obliged to find you an understanding".
I think the Auld Report is certainly full of argument but it is also, on its own admission, full of uncertainties. If that is the case, we do well not to proceed too fast.
The amendments which will be suggested in Committee will certainly take us significantly along the road of substantial deregulation. Why not be content with taking those considerable steps of dealing with many of the anomalies which presently face us and seeing how it goes? We have a principle to defend alongside the principle of trying to give people more freedom and releasing them from restrictive and anomalous laws.
1116
I now say a few words about the Churches and the kind of evidence which we have been receiving from the Christian Churches. As I said earlier, this is not an argument about church going. I must make that clear. We on these Benches are clear that we are not in the business of forcing people to worship. There has been a hint of this here and there in the debate and I should like to refute it once and for all. I suppose we are still paying a price for some of the laws of the past in this respect. We know that we churchgoers are in a minority. But it is not a tiny minority, nor a trifling one. It is a minority which is deeply concerned about the kind of society we have and we are conscious of our debt to the past, of the force of tradition in the life of any community and any nation, and of the need to reform in a truly radical way, which means attending to our roots.
Nor of course is it an issue simply about recreation. Dickens was quoted, and I believe that until recently the Russians were fond of quoting Dickens as an example of contemporary life in this country. Dickens indeed had an enemy to attack—Sabbatarianism—and you can read it in all the Victorian novels. That is not the enemy that is under attack today.
In the Southwark diocese many church councils from over the diocese, representing very different kinds of community and culture, responded to my request last summer simply to know what view they took. Not one came out in favour of total deregulation on Sundays. Some have clearly struggled very hard with this issue, being sympathetic to the current determination to reduce central control in Government. But after reflection they have rejected this extreme solution. As one vicar put it in the accompanying letter sent to his Member of Parliament, a Minister: "You are sending out the wrong signal".
Where I live, which is a typical London suburb, there is no question that if that high street becomes open to shopping on the same scale as on Saturdays, we shall be subjected to an enormous amount of traffic, fumes, interference with movement and we shall be faced with difficulty, even in worshipping, on a scale which I do not think most of us actually want, and we shall be alarmed when it comes.
In conclusion, on this Bench we are not in favour either of the sort of detailed changes in exempt goods mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon; but we are in favour of some kind of amendment in relation to small shops. Possibly my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham will say more of this later. If the Government are in favour of substantial deregulation—not total dergulation—I should like to ask why they feel it necessary to resist this amendment because I do not believe that it is a wrecking amendment. Nor is it a negative amendment. We are in agreement with much of the Bill. We are simply trying to deal with one small but very important part of it.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down may I ask him this question? In his diocese there are large ethnic minorities. Would he care to give us his view on the passages from the pamphlet that was put out by the Jubilee Trust on that subject?
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I do not think I should answer that immediately because I do not have the passage in front of me and I ought to read it first before responding. I believe my colleague may say something about it later.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, may I ask a question, too? The right reverend Prelate was good enough to say that he agreed with certain parts of the Bill. Would he be so kind as to give your Lordships an indication of which parts he agrees with?
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: In short, my Lords, the deregulation on weekdays and substantial tidying up on Sundays.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I rise to find myself in an awkward and unusual situation. I am an inferior clergyman of the Church of England, but certainly I shall not be able to follow my right reverend leaders into the Division Lobby in support of their amendment. Ever since I became President of the Association of District Councils I have been a persistent critic of almost all the legislation affecting local government which the Government have introduced, but in this case I want to give them my wholehearted support. That is a situation which perhaps calls for a word or two of explanation, which I shall endeavour to give the House as briefly as I can.
I cast my mind back to the length of time that I have been in this House—the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, cast her mind back 20 years, and I cast mine back 26 years—and I should like to suggest to other Members of the House who are of that sort of vintage that it feels to us (does it not?) as though the attempt to amend the Sunday trading laws has been an annual event throughout those years. In fact, that is an exaggeration. But in those 25 years there have been no less than 18 attempts to amend this legislation and in every case we were trying to do what the right reverend Prelates are in this amendment suggesting that we should try to do yet again.
Every time we were looking for a compromise—a measure of rationalisation, a measure of change. We were looking for a consensus, and were trying to do it without having the Whips on. Every time it failed. It failed on the couple of occasions on which I took part, on the fourth and fifth of those 18 occasions; it failed after we received the benefit of the Crathorne Report; and it failed on the last occasion, when the issue was, shall we say, taken into the firm embrace of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington. If an issue cannot be tackled by those means, then indeed something drastic has to be done. Something more drastic is being done now, and we ought to support it.
The acid test of these proposals, whether or not they will work, is in my view—and your Lordships would expect me to say this as President of the Association of District Councils—whether or not they can be enforced. I have to say that there is no indication so far in this debate that anything has been or will be put before us which differs in any material degree from any of those previous 18 failed efforts that were made and all the various forms of compromise which were so carefully studied by the Auld Report. I give your
1118
Lordships an example of the sort of problem that we have. In today's Law Report there is the report of a case brought by the City of York, which is one of the small minority of district councils which are still conscientiously trying to enforce this legislation. They took a case to the High Court where the judge gave a ruling which hinges on the definition of "a souvenir". On one side there are jerseys, cut glass and pendants, and on the other side of the margin a box of pomanders. That is the sort of mess that occurs when trying to enforce legislation based on a compromise. In the case in point the judge made it clear that this was not case law but his ruling in this particular case—in this shop, in one situation and in this particular place. The acid test is clear enforceability.
I beg your Lordships that if, between now and the Committee stage, you have a thought about some measure of compromise and less than radical adjustment which suddenly comes to you in your bath, you test it on your local authority, in discussion with the chairman of the local authority and its chief executive, and see how it stands up to their experienced judgment and scrutiny. Then, if in your view it does, we shall have a debate in Committee stage based on the realities of the situation.
I wish to make one final point. My eldest son is a Canadian, and I spent some time in Canada this year. In the course of visiting him I went to a number of towns in Canada, where they have reached a stage of deregulation which is a great deal more extensive than ours. They are much more liberal about this. At this stage I do not want to go into the elaborate legislative processes which have led them to the position in which they are now, though I shall do so at Committee if it is relevant. I only want to say that the Sunday opening of shops in Canada is a good deal more liberal than it is here. Lots of shops are open—at least one supermarket in every neighbourhood, bakers, chemists, and so on.
I shall say only one thing about the opening of supermarkets. There is no semblance on Sunday of the kind of shopping that usually takes place in a supermarket on Saturday. In a supermarket which has, say, 20 tills, only two or three are operating. Where, on Saturday, you see busy housewives trundling round with fully-laden trolleys, on Sunday in Canada you see the occasional shopper going in and buying one or two items which he needs for a picnic or for a party for which his wife is preparing in the evening, or something which he or she forgot to buy during the week. It is quite a different sort of retailing, and it does not require anything like the same sort of staff. No deliveries are made to the supermarket. There are no huge, great lorries driving about such as you see on weekdays; and the car parks are largely unoccupied, with about one-tenth of their capacity being used.
The point I want to make is that such a degree of relaxation could certainly be extended three or four times and probably indefinitely without it having the slightest effect on the character of Sunday. I was in Canada for several Sundays and in several different places. That degree of shopping (and probably much more than that) does not have the slightest effect on the character of the day. The character of the day is quite obvious from the moment that it gets light. There is no

1119
rush-hour; nobody is dashing off to work, or hardly anybody—certainly it is not noticeable—the children are off school; when people do get up they put on casual clothes and they start to wash and service their cars or busy themselves in their gardens or with DIY. Quite definitely and clearly the day is entirely different from Saturday, Monday, Tuesday or any other day of the week. When activity begins to develop in the middle of the morning, it is in the nature of families going off to visit other families, people coming in to see their friends, people getting ready to go off and play tennis, preparing picnics, et cetera. There is no question of the character of Sunday being at risk as a result of the extra retail activity.
I beg your Lordships to take to heart what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, was saying. It is not at all a question of preserving the character of Sunday but of coming to a sensible decision about Sunday trading.
7.8 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lord, most of your Lordships have enlightened this House with their own expertise and knowledge. I think I am the first to speak who has had actual experience of deciding cases under the Shops Act 1950. That Act has been held up in your Lordships' House to scorn and abuse. Let me tell your Lordships that on the times that I have had to consider it I have found it to be exceedingly well drafted for the conditions as they were at that time, in 1950. There was a departmental committee presided over by Sir Ernest Gowers, who is one of the wisest and ablest men I have ever met—he wrote that excellent pamphlet Plain Words. As a result of his report this very important statute was passed by both Houses of Parliament, everyone having a chance to amend or improve the exemptions if they so wanted, and they did as much as they could. That Act passed through your Lordships' House and to my mind it is a shame that some of your Lordships should now pour scorn and derision upon it.
I know of course that times have changed; I know of course that the list of exemptions is out of date; I know that the legislation ought to be revised. But that is no reason for pouring scorn and derision on those men of 1950. Furthermore, in 1964 the principles which underlie that legislation were reinforced by another committee under Lord Crathorne—and how good those principles are! The right reverend Prelate quoted the first one:
"The special character of Sunday ought to be preserved so far as practicable as a day of leisure in which a person is not required to pursue his weekday work and is free to do as he pleases.".
That feature of Sunday has run through the custom and practice of England as a Christian country for a thousand years.
Everything closes. The courts of law close, reinforced by law the banks close, as do the financial houses of the City of London. Building work stops, or there is double pay for Sunday overtime. Sunday is recognised by the law and habits of the English people as a special day to be kept special. It is not a working day but a day of leisure for the people. That was subject, of course, to exceptions. In the old days people had to feed their animals. In modern days people travel to and fro to see their families, or whatever it may be. But that is the special character of Sunday.
1120
This is the other important statement of principle in Lord Crathorne's report of 1964:
"This special character of Sunday would be seriously impaired if the majority of shops were open as on weekdays and most shop assistants were required to work on that day".
There it is. That special character would be seriously impaired if there was free-for-all opening and Sunday trading. That is the principle. I do not care about all these exemptions and to-ing and fro-ing. Those are the principles that underlay that legislation.
I come to the cases which we have had in the courts. In 1970 and 1972 we had a spate of what were called Sunday markets being opened. In the city of Warwick there was the cattle market which was used on a weekday for the sale of cattle, and some enterprising people thought that it was a splendid place for a Sunday market. They brought in their poles and so forth. Any trader could come and sell whatever he liked in that market in the centre of Warwick, if you please. Of course, the corporation of Warwick wanted to preserve its Sunday and brought a case against those Sunday marketeers. What was their defence? It was, "We aren't a shop. In the old days we should have been prevented by the Sunday marketing laws but now we are not a shop or other place within the shops legislation". The courts of course had no truck with that. The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Widgery, so ruled.
In the Court of Appeal we had later the little matter of Sunday markets. One was opened in Derbyshire and another in Staffordshire. These people would take a delightful piece of countryside and fill it with a market. They would say that they were members of a club. The traders would swarm out in their hundreds, put up their stalls and sell anything every Sunday. They did well. The report tells us that people from Manchester and so forth swarmed out—25,000 of them—to these Sunday markets. Naturally enough, the county councils took steps to preserve those predominantly rural areas. How could the people in those areas welcome Sunday markets on their doorstep, ruining the peace of their Sunday?
When I was presiding over the court such people said, "Oh, we don't mind about these little fines. That's merely the fee that we have to pay", because the fines were only small. I said, "We won't have that. We shall grant an injunction against you to stop you doing it"; and we did. Those were the Sunday marketeers, and we stopped them. I should not mind if under a new system, after a proper planning inquiry and proper objections being heard, there were weekday or Sunday markets. I should not mind if that was regulated as our planning control is. That is perfectly good. But we were dealing with Sunday marketeers operating without any planning control.
That was the 1970s. I come to 1983 and 1984. I had retired by that time, but the courts were following the same principles. When cases came to the House of Lords what we had been doing was affirmed for once. These were not the Sunday marketeers but the do-it-yourself people; DIY as I think they are called. I have a list of the towns. One of these great chain stores, which was a huge concern, had three or four shops in Wolverhampton, shops in Stoke-on-Trent, Barking, Dagenham, my own Basingstoke and York. These do-it-yourself stores were doing exceedingly well. The

1121
other traders complained to the local council and said, "If they do that, we must do it as well".
Naturally the council took up the case for the local traders. If it was not the local traders who complained, it was the local residents. They said, "We don't want these people coming in with all their cars piling up outside the do-it-yourself centre". A lot of these shops were in the town itself. When the cases came to court, they said, "We admit that we are breaking the law but you can fine us only a few pounds and we shall pay that all right". This House in its judicial capacity upheld the granting of injunctions against those people who broke the law. I should like. to stress that this is to help local residents. The Auld Report said that the local residents ought to be protected but added that, with reluctance, it did not think that anything could be done to help them. As long as the principles of the Act remain, the courts will. The local residents ought to be considered.
I mentioned York. I expect your Lordships read in The Times that the chairman of the civic trust said how good it was on a Sunday to walk through that lovely city and enjoy the buildings in quiet. May I say the same about the high street and the corn market in Oxford? Sunday is the only day that one can pass in peace, without disturbance, and enjoy the beauty not only of Oxford but of my own Winchester. In our City of London we are all right, I hope. I think that the shops there will always stay closed.
One point that has not been dealt with is concern for local residents. Our shopping centre in Basingstoke does not open on Sunday now, but it does a marvellous trade on Saturday. If this legislation goes through, Sunday will be like Saturday, and what about the old residents? They were in Basingstoke long before all the newcomers—the new shop traders. Will their Sunday be disturbed by the great shopping centres on their doorstep? The Auld Committee recommended that there should be protection for the local residents but did not see any way of ensuring that.
In addition, that committee also expressed concern for the shopworkers. That matter concerned it more than anything else, and so it does all of us, especially in regard to the family. It may be the case that existing workers are protected in regard to having to work. But what about all those coming newly into the trade? If shops are kept open, you will see all the pressures exerted so that those shopworkers will have to work. Many of them will be married women who may like to do it for the extra money. But is this right, at the expense of our family life? As the most important feature of our society today, we should support our family life as much as possible. It would, however, be imperilled if we altered the whole of our law as it has existed in the past by allowing Sunday trading without any restriction whatever on all the people who want to make money out of it. I would not mind the little shop opening. I rather like the small man, the one-man little shop, as exists in our village. Let him go ahead with it.
I believe that the one o'clock suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was jolly good. There could perhaps be a schedule amended by order. But the simplest solution would be an application, similar to that in planning inquiry procedure, for permission to change the use of a shop. Why should one not apply
1122
for permission to keep open on Sundays? The local authority would look into the matter and consider interests from both sides. That would be a simple method of regulation without abolishing our Sunday altogether. However, these are matters to be considered later if necessary. All that I am saying now—I support the right reverend Prelate's amendment—is, "Please don't abolish altogether our Sunday trading laws". These have existed for 500 years. It is now proposed to abolish them altogether. The real test is whether they should be abolished or amended. That is the question that your Lordships have to consider. I would support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
7.23 p.m.
Lord Norrie: My Lords, rather than speaking in general terms, it would be more informative, I believe, to draw on my experience of Sunday trading. When not in your Lordships' House, I work as a full-time director of a nursery and garden centre. In this context, I am among the 29 per cent. of the working population in England and Wales who, according to the recent MORI poll, work frequently on Sundays. I must therefore declare a personal interest in the new Bill, introduced by my noble friend Lord Glenarthur. Should it be approved, garden centres would be able to sell their complete range of goods on Sundays without fear of breaking the law. The 1950 Shops Act could never be expected to keep up with the continually changing shopping habits of the general public. As a specific example, yacht marinas may sell a complete range of goods which may be interpreted as lawfully saleable on Sundays while nurseries and garden centres, which cater for a much larger cross-section of the general public, may not do so.
Sixty-one per cent. of households have the use of a car. Is it not important that, for a traditional Sunday outing, filling-stations should open to receive their custom? Sixty-one per cent. in terms of people is a massive number. But even this pales into insignificance when compared with the number of households in Britain with private gardens lovingly tended by their owners. As a demonstration of commitment, in 1984 they spent no less than £989 million on their hobby. Enthusiasts can only pursue their gardening at week-ends. That is when their immediate requirements become apparent. Consequently, a visit to a garden centre often becomes a family outing where the gardening and leisure requirements may be satisfied on that day. This fact was proved when a survey of 386 garden centres, conducted as evidence for the Auld Report, showed almost without exception that Sunday sales accounted for not less than 25 per cent. of the weekly turnover, with many centres registering sales even in excess of this.
For my trade, the Shops Act, as I understand it, allows only perishable goods such as cut flowers to be sold on Sundays. The Sunday sale of plants has always been a grey area and, even if these are given the benefit of the doubt, as I believe they are by the enforcing authorities, then bedding plants may be sold but not the seeds from which you grow your own; tomato plants may be sold but not the liquid fertiliser; roses may be sold but not pesticides or insecticides; and

1123
flowering shrubs may be sold but not the spade with which to plant them.
I stand before you as a self-confessed criminal. But my plea of mitigation is that I keep good company with those right reverend Prelates whose cathedral shops retail on Sundays and contravene the Shops Act. If Guildford Cathedral can sell books on flower-arranging on a Sunday, which it does, then surely it is reasonable that at my garden centre I should be able to sell candles to clerics. I well remember an occasion when such a cleric having consumed his supply of candles was totally frustrated in his search for a local supplier open on a Sunday. I am happy to report that my establishment was soundly blessed when he discovered that I could supply that for which he was searching.
These totally innocent activities, lawful in themselves from Monday to Saturday, demonstrate the absurdity of the situation. That is why shopping on a Sunday should be removed from the scope of the criminal law. The general public cannot wish garden centres, or cathedral shops for that matter, to be prevented from selling any goods which they, the public, wish to purchase on Sunday. We need a clean sweep in the form of this new Shops Bill to allow the individual to be free, but not forced, to trade on Sundays without restriction. After all, if a buyer is prohibited from getting what he wants at one garden centre he will proceed a short distance to the next, where the Shops Act may be disregarded.
Happily, most local authorities and magistrates have held back from a strict application of the law. But if, resulting from a new Bill, there should emerge new regulations forcing garden centres throughout England and Wales to close, or partly close, for the first time ever, the public will become very concerned indeed. And we can be sure that they will be on the side of the retailer and against the legislators. We must also consider the effect on growers, wholesalers, manufacturers and other suppliers to the nursery trade. Experience over many years has shown that business lost on Sunday is not recouped on other days and the consequent reduction of business must eventually result in loss of jobs. Can we countenance such destructive action?
Let me assure your Lordships that the weekend service offered to the family is fully appreciated by the staff working in this type of business. They recognise that maintenance and daily care in horticulture, as with the care of livestock by farmers, must continue at weekends. Therefore, in their contract of work, they accept the regular staggered five day week with an option to earn overtime according to their circumstances. Nowadays, employment in a garden centre is much more than just another job. The career prospects are bright. Substantial numbers are taken on each year and full use is made of the excellent block and day release courses at colleges throughout the country. There is no lack of applicants, including school-leavers, wanting to work for garden centres. The need to work some Sundays has been no bar to recruiting good staff.
Running a garden centre is retailing. Retailing is an activity lawful, and even encouraged, from Monday to Saturday. But on Sundays the situation south of
1124
Scotland, in England and Wales, is a compost heap of decomposing law. The problem will never be solved by tinkering with the schedules to the present Act. We shall merely end up with another set of anomalies in a very short time. I would therefore urge your Lordships not to support the amendment proposed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. Partial deregulation could never produce a satisfactory result.
In whatever way this Bill progresses, I seek your Lordships' support in ensuring that the horticultural industry and nurseries and garden centres can trade without restriction. Without that, I fear that the disappointment of 30 million gardeners might inflict a plague of greenfly and blackspot upon your Lordships' gardens. In some cases, I doubt whether even divine providence will be enough to protect them.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I should begin by declaring an interest. I acted as an assessor to the Shops Inquiry Committee and as such I read carefully the main volume of evidence submitted to the committee. I read a summary of all the evidence; I made an assessment of it for the benefit of the committee, of which the chairman expressed appreciation; and I read the oral transcripts in respect of those witnesses who were invited by the inquiry committee to give oral evidence. At the end of that labour of love the only thing I found out about the Shops Act 1950 which I did not know when I started was that if a funeral undertaker takes an order on the afternoon of early closing day then he is very probably breaking the law.
I pay tribute to the assiduity with which the committee tackled the enormous task within the timescale they set themselves in reviewing the 1950 Act. Having said that, I also say unequivocally that I believe their findings were completely contrary to the evidence they took. It is my opinion that, on fine balance, there is a majority in this country in favour of Sunday opening. There is no majority, in my opinion, in favour of opening shops 24 hours a day seven days a week, which is what the Auld Committee are recommending and what the Government are proposing in the Bill before us tonight. Even those who spoke in favour of the Bill have not faced up to the fact that that is the reality of the Shops Bill to which your Lordships are being asked to give a Second Reading this evening.
Furthermore, the opening of shops 24 hours a day seven days a week was never tested on the witnesses who gave oral evidence. In the case of the Association of District Councils, a major body concerned with the enforcement of the Act—and I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has left us for the moment—their conclusion was that they wanted Sunday opening, not as a matter of principle but largely because of the impossibility of enforcing the law as it stands. Furthermore, they made it clear that the most they wanted to see as regards Sunday opening was opening until 7 p.m. That is the fact.
Furthermore, although the evidence given by other individuals was fully and adequately summarised in The Times in an article of April last, nothing appeared about the evidence given by government departments. I can tell your Lordships that the conflict of view which

1125
reared its head again and again in the evidence to the Auld Committee was fully expressed and maintained in the evidence given by government departments. It ranged from the gay abandon of the Treasury, to the measured warnings of those who saw the effect on small food shops, to the concern of those who were already looking at the increased possibility of the employment of schoolchildren out of hours and on Sunday, and, finally, to the Home Office itself—and I quote, because although they were in favour of deregulation, their evidence said that they wished to see,
"a tempering of the effect of total repeal by encouraging or facilitating voluntary agreement on opening hours between traders".
I advised the Auld Committee to refer that to the Director-General of Fair Trading. He responded, as I expected he would, by saying that if statutory limits were removed he would ensure that they were not replaced by collusive arrangements between retailers. Therefore, there is no possibility of any approach between retailers among themselves if 24 hours a day trading is permitted whereby they will in particular towns or shopping areas agree not to open, because if they do so the Director-General of Fair Trading will quite properly raise this matter under the powers and the duty he has.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, before the noble Lord continues, is he aware that under the present law shops are legally permitted to reopen at midnight?
Lord Gallacher: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that observation. It is a fact and it has not been brought out in the debate so far; I am glad that the noble Baroness has done so. Shops are already entitled to open at a minute past midnight. There is no opening time for shops so that much of what we have heard tonight about the difficulties of extending shopping hours applies to only one end of the day. Quite properly the law allows newsagents and people like that to open at five o'clock in the morning if they so wish because the public convenience is well served by it. Therefore, in any consideration of this proposition it is true that the Bill before us recommends opening 168 hours a week, 52 weeks in the year.
Much has been made of the position in Scotland. As a Scot I am very familiar with the situation there as it has developed. I can remember that I never hit a golf ball on a Sunday until I became an Anglo Scot, such was the severity of the restrictions which applied prior to World War II. The significant thing about the silence of the 1950 Act about the Scottish position—and it is entirely due to the previous legislation, which was consolidated in 1950, assuming quite properly that Presbyterianism would stand the test in Scotland—and the reason why it broke down, was that in 1976 the licensing law of Scotland was changed and for the first time public houses in Scotland were open on Sunday. It was the impetus which that gave to the Scottish Sabbath—or the destruction of it, if you wish—which encouraged major retailers, particularly English retailers, to begin opening their shops on Sunday, as my noble friend Lord Ross of Marnock has already observed. But the Sabbath still holds in Scotland and it would be utterly
1126
wrong to draw any conclusions about the likey effect of what is now before us in England and Wales on the basis of Scottish experience.
Your Lordships may ask yourselves why a committee composed of such wise and intelligent people as the Shops Inquiry Committee came out in favour of the 24 hours a day proposition. I think it was for two reasons. First, they were obsessed with the notion that it was wrong in principle to use the criminal law to prosecute someone for doing something as innocuous as opening a shop. Secondly, they were terribly concerned about the problem of enforcing any law which required a statutory closing time.
Society restrains on a very wide front in the interests of the people as a whole. The Home Office department will not need reminding by me that the Erroll Committee reported as far back as 1972 recommending a major easement of the licensing laws of this country and no Home Secretary then or since, of any Government, has dared to tackle this problem because it is considered that the social question is so complex and involved that any major granting of freedom to public houses to open considerably greater hours than they currently do would not be socially acceptable and indeed might be considered socially injurious. However, I would submit that if this Bill is enacted in its present form there is very little difference between a shop and a public house and indeed many public houses are now quite significant retailers, quite apart from their normal business of offering alcoholic beverages to customers.
Road transport is another case where the law is extensively used. Indeed, only a few days ago the Government announced that following the easement of the restrictions on coach operators and a consequential slight problem with coaches exceeding 70 miles an hour on the motorway—I believe the figure quoted in the House by the Minister when she made the announcement was that some 3 per cent of coaches were exceeding the speed limit—they have decided to introduce legislation to oblige all coaches to fit governors to the engines so that none of them can in any circumstances exceed 70 miles per hour. There is therefore ample evidence of society taking steps to protect itself even from minor infringements of the law in the interests of the many.
So far as the committee's concern about enforcement goes, I was quite astonished because it has already been pointed out that the Institute of Shops Inspectors have said that there were no problems in enforcement; there were problems of staffing—which is a common complaint by all local government departments these days. But if we are concerned about enforcement, I hope that those who are to speak later and wish to raise the consumer interest in all this will address themselves to the considerable corpus of law which will have to be in force to protect consumers in many ways which are quite important to the consumer over an extended trading period.
Noble Lords may already have received a communication from the Association of County Councils questioning very strongly the proposition in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum on the face of the Bill that the other problems on enforcement can be contained as an offset against savings made as

1127
a result of not having to enforce closing hours. That is a nonsense and in my opinion anyone who is seriously concerned about the consumer will certainly want to see that he or she is protected, particularly in the late evening, from practices from which previous governments have found it necessary to give protection by placing legislation on the statute book.
I acted as an assessor in respect of large stores and multiples, and therefore I paid particular attention to the "fors" and "againsts" among multiple traders. The British Retailers' Association, to which multiple traders and departmental stores in this country belong, speaks for over 60 per cent. of the food and non-food trade in this country. On looking at the "fors" and "againsts", I found that as an organisation it was evenly divided. For this reason the British Retailers' Association did not give evidence on Sunday trading to the committee; it gave valuable evidence on other aspects, but not on Sunday trading.
When I looked in detail at who were "for" and who were "against", I found that food and non-food retailers were evenly divided; high street traders and edge-of-town traders were equally evenly divided; supermarket traders were also divided. I have taken into account changes in the ownership of retail companies which have taken place since the Auld Committee reported, including those which were pending. There is no doubt in my mind that more than half of the large retailers in this country are not merely ready and willing but anxious to take full advantage of any easements which may result in a change of law at this particular time.
Much has been made of the defence of market share, and any retailer will tell you that to defend market share is important, but that even more important is the need to recover market share which may be lost to other traders, because the process of recovery involves risks with your gross profit which I doubt very many multiple retailers would wish to take in the first place. In spite of what the Institute of Fiscal Studies or anyone else may say, I think we can assume that in point of fact more than half the retail trade of this country will be immediately available on Sundays if the law allows that to happen. Would the advocates of Sunday trading wish to see otherwise? Have we been labouring all these years on this issue simply in order to enact a dead letter? If I were an advocate of Sunday trading, I would say, "No", and I would welcome the fact that we are about to see the total demolition of the English Sunday as we know it. Therefore, that aspect of the Bill has to be faced, and I think it is a major consequence in any consideration of this matter.
I take the view that exemptions are difficult to come by. My noble friend Lord Jacques has already cleared the way in one sense by saying that schedules can be decided by statutory instrument. He has already suggested that 1 p.m. on Sundays might be a reasonable compromise. I would further suggest that 9 p.m. on week nights might be a reasonable compromise. At the present time retailers can open until 8 p.m. on five nights and 9 p.m. on the sixth night, the so-called late night. The trouble about that is that most retailers who wish to open to 9 p.m. six nights a week will say, when the shops' inspector calls, that that is the late night. Therefore, in the interests of
1128
uniformity of enforcement there might be some merit in making 9 p.m. the universal late night so far as the six week days are concerned. On Sundays 1 p.m. is reasonable.
Nevertheless, it is only fair to point out to the right reverend Prelate that one of the major difficulties which the Auld Committee found in looking sympathetically at those who are against total abolition was the diversity of solutions which they proffered to the committee. I think that if you wish to do anything about this you must clear your mind at the outset and come forward to this House with one specific recommendation. I personally favour that offered by my noble friend Lord Jacques. However, if there is to be Sunday trading and if the Government are determined to have it, I would implore them not to enforce trading on this country 24 hours a day and until midnight on Sunday, and to accept something along the lines suggested to them by the Association of District Councils.
I believe that 6 p.m. on Sundays would be fair and reasonable. It would take care of the holiday resorts because, as I understand it, coaches and visitors to holiday resorts used to have to be out by 6 p.m. I think that if you lay down a later time than that, you would be imposing something which is totally unwanted, unasked for and untested, and I sincerely hope that on that basis your Lordships will find it in your hearts this evening to support the amendment, as I certainly shall support it.
7.45 p.m.
The Earl of Arran: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Norrie has stolen some of my thunder this evening. Nevertheless, I hope to have a few claps left in my quiver. In the eyes of the law I too have transgressed and in the eyes of the Church I have sinned, for I have done that which I ought not to have done: I have traded on a Sunday. Although I may be a miserable offender and although there may be no health in me, I fear that I must ask fellow miserable offenders to link arms and accompany me along the paths of the unrighteous.
I am most deeply obliged that there may be many such offenders close at hand. Yes, and, although I quake to say it, Members of your Lordships' House: for example, those who own large garden centres selling garden equipment and liquid fertilisers; those who own great stately homes, selling pots of jam and biscuits; and that humble part-owner of a chain of bookshops selling books—thereby must I declare an interest—and, may I be struck by lightning for stooping so low, the very leaders of the Church itself, who on Sundays not only impart ecclesiastical wisdom to their flock, but up and down the country in the shops alongside the great cathedrals impart, for a price, such worldly goods as gift boxes, wrapping paper, soap and tea towels—all on sale on Sunday, albeit to help maintain these magnificent houses of worship, but all nevertheless illegal. Last but not least among the list of the wicked are the great leaders of the secular world, the very Government themselves in their sales of certain harmless trinkets at the Tower of London.
I have named but a few of the items which some of us are guilty of selling on Sundays in our different types

1129
of trading outlets, for it has been my wish to show very simply and clearly with a few brief strokes of the brush just how sadly farcical, just how blatantly asinine is this law as it stands at the moment. Such a clearly unworkable law does no service to the value and reputation of good law and order. The law is not optional.
By now, through declaring an interest in busy bookshops, there must be a hint in the air that I have more than just a passing interest in this affair. That is indeed the case as, for the last three years, most of our shops have been open on Sunday afternoons, during which time even the odd Bible has been known to pass over the counter—illegal, unlawful. During these years, rather than employees preferring not to work on Sundays, in many cases precisely the opposite has happened and the chance to work on a Sunday has been eagerly grasped. The reason is, I think, quite simple, besides which we have gleaned these facts from potential employees when being interviewed. Many of us in this House are probably fortunate enough to have a fair few friends in our lives, but for many people in this country their only friends and acquaintances are those with whom they work. For many people in this country, Sunday is a dull and drab day, particularly so in the large towns and cities where loneliness for single people is a constant shadow forever stalking their non-working hours. Their home, their sanctuary, is their office or the shop in which they work.
One ought never to underestimate the loneliness and friendlessness that exist in urban life. I do not cite this as a major argument for legislating shop opening on Sunday, but anything to improve upon that sorry state must surely be good and Christian.
Another point, which is not entirely irrelevant, is that through trading on a Sunday we in fact employ some 10 per cent. more people. Is that not good for employment? Also, as a result of trading on a Sunday, we sell more books. It would be nonsense to say that, if we closed on Sundays, our existing volumes of sales would be condensed into six days. Other types of outlet also have found that Sunday opening produces an undoubted increase in sales. Is that not a good thing for manufacturing output?
Yet a further point of interest is the very noticeable number of families who come into our shops on Sundays: this is the family unit which some here say would be in danger of disintegrating altogether if people were allowed to shop on a Sunday, and as a result the quality of life impaired. Do we regard the lives of those who live in Scotland as impaired or in any way suffering? I am half Scottish, and I apologise if you find me half impaired. Really, my Lords, why should this so tenderly cherished Sunday of ours—and rightly so—be harmed or spoilt when the freedom to trade on Sunday is one of the few remaining activities in England and Wales still so tightly shackled?
Shopping is fast becoming a recreation, not just a chore, and as such ought to be allowed to take its place among the other multitudinous sporting and recreational activities on offer on Sundays. There is no evidence to suggest that repealing the Shops Act will make Sunday the same as every other day. Sunday will still have its own character, its own flavour.
1130
To return to that apparently endangered species, the family unit, it is not surprising that we have found that groups consisting of father and mother, son and daughter, shop on Sundays as a unit more than on any other day of the week, for the man of the house is at home; the decision-maker and breadwinner is in. command. Consider also the relief of the wife, in the event of Sunday trading, if she did not have to queue at the cash tills in those appalling human chains that inevitably build up in grocery multiples on Friday and Saturday purely because most shops are shut on Sundays.
In such a debate as this, in which strong feelings and passionate convictions are aroused, part of the case for legalising Sunday trading or otherwise will be argued and counter-argued by statisticians with their persuasive figures. I must confess that I find statistics a dull and somewhat cheap argument at times: nevertheless, the argument does, I believe, become compelling when you consider that some 9 million people, 42 per cent. of the working population, already work on Sunday; that, if you believe in opinion polls, some 68 per cent. of the nation are in favour of Sunday trading, while 31 per cent. are not, that 72 per cent. of all Members from another place are in favour of such legislation. Evidence from Scotland, where Sunday shopping has been going on for the last 40 years, shows that the Scots have not become a nation of seven-day shopkeepers.
All these are powerful arguments and cannot be ignored. In the last 35 years since the passing of the Shops Act innumerable attempts have been made to reform the law. All have failed. To try to compromise along the lines that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham suggests is, I believe, neither sensible nor practicable. Whether it be compromise of exemption by type of shop, by size of shop, by area, by periods of the year, by a maximum number of hours or days per week, by local decisions or by the extension of the present trading hours, all these can only be regarded as tinkering with the problem and would be unworkable and altogether confusing to shopkeeper and customer alike. And is there not enough confusion already?
Furthermore, by legislating in favour of Sunday trading without restriction it seems to be automatically assumed, and quite wrongly so, that the country will go crazy and that every street in every town will be like Regent Street before Christmas. It is perhaps understandable to think that, having passed this Bill, shops will be compelled to open, and shoppers compelled to shop. That is because we all know that the very nature of the present law is to prohibit and to restrict. Why should it be assumed that the intention will be to compel, or to force, people to shop? The point of this Bill is to give the option, the choice of whether to open your shop or not.
Inevitably, there comes a stage in the history of any law when the time is ripe to amend that law, to change that law; for new ideas, new trends, begin to emerge which will make the law out of date and hence unworkable. In this instance, I believe that a new dawn arose some years ago, and that it is now our overwhelming duty to see that legislation is introduced to meet the new climate of thinking in this country.

1131
Moreover, my Lords, I regard it as very appropriate indeed that this Bill has come to your Lordships' House before passing to another place, for is it not in keeping with the great tradition and renown of this House that the cause of good sense, of tolerance and of liberation forwarded by such a Bill should receive the initial seal of approval, the first blessing, in your Lordships' Chamber? It is thus with these strong beliefs and in this spirit that I urge this House to vote against the amendment and instead to set Sunday free and let the people shop.
7.56 p.m.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I am happy to join the Members of this House who have supported this Bill this afternoon and this evening. I am especially glad to join my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, on this Bench because his word on this should carry more weight than mine. That is because he has changed his mind after considering the evidence and considering the changes in the situation in the country, whereas I have not changed my mind I think at any point in the past 20 years on the principle behind this Bill.
It was just over 10 years ago in 1974 that the Consumers' Association, of which I have the honour to be the president, published its first report on this question. It then appealed for the scrapping of what was called outdated legislation, even then, which controlled shop hours. The main grounds were that the traditional family, as it had been understood, had already changed to a considerable extent even since 1950 when the Shops Act was first passed. Shopping habits had changed as a consequence. More married women, and women from single-parent families, were at work, and they could not shop at the ordinary hours so they needed to be able to shop on Sundays.
The grounds are stronger now, as the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said, and there has certainly been a big shift in public opinion. I do not think anyone who has spoken has denied that. It seems from a whole run of surveys that something like two-thirds of shoppers are now in favour of late night and Sunday opening.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, in his opening speech, made great play with the traditional Sunday, and other speakers have followed him in this. But I wonder, if he was here, whether he would accept that traditions are made up of social habits, and that habits have changed, and are changing. The right reverend Prelate mentioned Edinburgh and I thought spoke with distaste of the bustle in the middle of Edinburgh on Sundays, presumably because there are no restrictions in Scotland on shops opening on that day.
But what is wrong with a little bustle, even in Edinburgh or anywhere else, on a Sunday? What should be done to people who create that bustle and who shop? The answer we have had all the time is stop them. Is the traditional Sunday really in such great disrepair that it has to be enforced by the police, if they can? Surely, to vary Dickens—and we have heard this phrase several times today—you should not force shops to close by constable.
Much has also been said about the rhythm of the week, and I guess that we would all support that. But
1132
why should the rhythm be destroyed if people do their shopping on Sunday? That is the mysterious thing. That may be partly what gives rhythm to the week, if people are at work on other days of the week. Morever, how is family life to be preserved by mothers who are at work, unless they can shop outside the hours when they are in paid jobs?
However, I now come to my main point. The amendment that we are asked to consider and vote on tonight begins by saying that the law should be amended. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said in his opening speech this afternoon that some of the supporters of the amendment would be saying later on in the debate more about the detail of the amendments that were being proposed; but we have heard practically nothing. The amendment asks for amendments in the law then does not specify what those amendments should be.
The noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, said that he was associated with the Keep Sunday Special Coalition which has sent me, and I expect other noble Lords, an orange pamphlet. He was not reassuring when he said that there must be anomalies. He was not reassuring because it is the anomalies of the kind that we have had to live with so far and the kind we have to go on living with if this Bill is not passed that are just what has brought the law into disrepute at the very time when it is most vital to uphold the respect for the law.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said, if I understood him correctly, that small shops would be entitled to open for part of Sunday. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that he was in favour of shops opening until 1 p.m. But if that is the extent of the amendment proposed, what can be the high principle which is put forward about the traditional Sunday; the traditional Sunday which is only in the afternoon or perhaps the evening!
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said that he was in favour of substantial deregulation on Sundays; but what sort, my Lords? We have not been told. As we have not been told, I think it is right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, said, to look at the orange pamphlet which comes with the backing of the Board for Social Responsibility of the Church of England. It contains a revised list of exempt goods which it would be permitted to sell on a Sunday. But if one looks closely at them one can see straight away that there would be the same old anomalies that there have always been, perhaps not quite as bad but bad enough. We have already heard about some of them; the exempt list would include flowers, plants, shrubs, bulbs and seeds, but not garden equipment, fertilisers or pets. There is no mention of DIY shops which are the fastest expanding sector of retail trade and are especially noticeable on Sunday.
There is one proposal in this list which strikes a discord. In the past it has been permitted to sell books at railway stations and airports. What this Keep Sunday Special Coalition is proposing is that to railway stations and airports should now be added church bookstalls.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester made an appeal for the little establishment in the

1133
precinct. I am not sure whether he was thinking of church bookstalls when he said that, but it seems extraordinary that a report which comes with the backing of the Board for Social Responsibility in the Church of England should suggest that church bookstalls——
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I should like to repeat what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said earlier; I do not know whether the noble Lord was in the House then. Although the Board of Social Responsibility gave its general support to the work of the Jubilee Trust, it is not personally backing these proposals. This pamphlet is a product of the trust. It is not fair to make us responsible for these proposals and this is not the road down which we particularly want to go.
Lord Young of Dartington: My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for that. I accept fully what he says; but even so for this coalition to suggest that church bookstalls should now be included in its list of exemptions strikes me as extraordinary. Why should church bookstalls be preferred in this way when, if this proposal were followed, small shopkeepers round the corner would be subject to the full weight of the law?
The fact is that the Auld Report has changed the situation. It has been over all the halfway houses, and in detail, and found them all wanting. I do not see how any supporter of this amendment can stand up and say he is in favour without being much more specific about what amendments have been and are being proposed. If it is a question of detailed amendment it would have been far better to have put down the amendments at the Committee stage and not at this stage. I hope that when the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham has heard all the arguments and heard the spokesman for the Government at the end of the debate, he will decide not to press the amendment because I do not think it would be in the best interests of this House and the country to do so.
8.6 p.m.
Lord Vestey: My Lords, I start by apologising that I have not been able to listen to as many of the speakers in this debate as I should have wished, but only two days ago I came out of hospital where I had a lump cut out of a certain part of my anatomy which makes it particularly difficult for me to sit down for any length of time. I shall not bore your Lordships with the medical reasons for this, but I am afraid I shall not be able to stay for the entire length of the debate, for which I apologise.
I must also declare an interest in that my family business, of which I am the joint managing director, has as one of its companies Dewhurst's with over 1,400 butchers' shops throughout the United Kingdom in every sort of location, from villages and high streets to out-of-town modern shopping complexes. Although we are next in number to the Post Office in retail outlets in the United Kingdom, they are relatively small. Although we are a specialist meat retailer and are ourselves big enough to meet whatever situation may arise as the outcome of this Bill, we share and understand the problems of small and
1134
specialist retailers. We know the problems of distribution, power of purchase, enforcement, refuse clearing and policing, et cetera.
There are some facts which I believe should be universally accepted, but I am afraid that outside this House exaggerated claims from many sides have been made about the likely effects of this Bill. First, I believe that the volume of sales of essentials will be unchanged, although I agree that market shares and product mix will most likely be changed. There may be extra spending on consumer durables and luxury items. If your Lordships wish to go further into these details, page 139 of the Auld Report shows in fable 3.11 the break-even points for Sunday trading. It shows an estimate that an increase of at least 10 per cent. is needed for break-even trading, and this supports my contention. Therefore, I believe credit spending will be further increased, and with interest at 26 per cent. annual percentage rate this must reduce disposable income in the shops. This may benefit banks, but it will increase the burden on social security and could worsen the situation of the less well-off in the community.
The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, mentioned the report from the Institute of Fiscal Studies which estimates—I know many of your Lordships have read this—that Sunday trading will cost 5,000 full-lime jobs, not create 200,000, as some claim, or cost £200,000, as some also claim. Already, as has been mentioned, many employees of large stores are part-timers. I have a figure of 68 per cent. This means that for every claim of a new store providing 200 jobs on an edge of town site, only 64 full-time jobs are created, but double that number are lost in the existing high street. Sunday trading will increase this trend, with retailing becoming increasingly a part-time occupation, lowering standards and providing fewer long-term career opportunities.
As with retailing, so with services. Costs will have to be spread over longer hours. At least retailers do not have to open, but if some of them do local authorities will have to provide refuse clearance, trading standards and environmental health officers at overtime rates, plus the fact that there will be the need for traffic wardens and policing.
Here I must be careful. I am glad to see that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is not here in her place, she being the president of the Institute of Shop Inspectors. However, one of the main attractions of trading on a Sunday at the moment is that virtually no local authorities send out enforcement officers, so that in effect the public is at a greater risk on Sundays than it is on weekdays.
When the statutory half-day legislation ended, the general public were confused for years. Some shops stayed open and others did not. It was a very long time before the pattern became established. Apart from the financial effects, letting economics dictate the pattern will result in uneven service and uncertainty for the customer, with, I believe, only the edge-of-town superstore really benefiting.
My noble friend Lord Glenarthur has mentioned trading in Scotland, which obviously he knows well, and I have also heard mention of other countries, particularly Sweden. However, I wonder whether too much use of overseas parallel has been made. For

1135
example, take Scotland. So few stores open on Sundays in Scotland that to suggest the same will happen in England and Wales is, I believe, a false premise. I am fortified in this view by the Auld Report. Paragraph 248 on page 56 of that report states:
"Our over-riding conclusion from our review of the experience of other countries is that their economic, social and historical traditions vary so much that none could provide a reliable guide for us. Comparisons with practice elsewhere are of only limited value in assessing what is likely to happen here".
No doubt, if your Lordships are free marketeers you may consider that it is fair enough to allow commercial strength to win through and that there will be a shift in the balance of trade from specialists to multi-commodity traders, who have more items over which to spread overheads, and no need for others than shelf-fillers and checkout operators during extended hours; in other words, less need for skilled people. However, have the long-term effects on the customer, the manufacturer and the economy been thought through?
All this is fine for the mobile and the affluent, but what about the old, the poor, those with small children, no car or even no family car, who see their local shops permanently closing and the few which remain carrying fewer and fewer stock lines at higher and higher prices in order to survive? On balance, I believe that total deregulation is the easy route, but it is not the responsible route.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham wishes by his amendment to rationalise, as I understand it, deregulation, and with this I would agree. I feel that we should deregulate but put the onus on local authorities to specify the earliest and latest opening times over the seven days in a week in relation to the profile of the neighbourhood. This would create a framework of days and hours permitted within which the shopkeeper could then choose when to trade, and employees would not be in a position of embarrassment or blackmail over their hours of work.
Seaside and holiday resorts, entertainment centres, ethnic requirements, etc., would all lead to different but acceptable patterns in various neighbourhoods. This attitude would preserve the atmosphere suitable to each locality. Within a local authority area there may well be some localities trading on a Sunday and some not. There would be a conventional quiet Sunday in the majority of towns and villages, but busy shopping in entertainment centres, resorts and locations where there is a genuine need and desire. The local authority framework rules would be required to be displayed in every retail shop, so enforcement would be quite simple. I feel that this would give maximum framework with minimum enforcement, as well as preserving the atmosphere favoured by the majority in each locality.
A new Shops Act on these lines could pick up those aspects of the old Act which we all agree should be retained, as well as providing the flexibility required by current social and economic circumstances. It would prevent a counter-productive exploitation of employees and shop employers, but also allow the general public to enjoy the benefits of a retail service at times appropriate to the neighbourhood.
1136
I quite understand the objection to this idea which is receiving support from many quarters. It is that some local authorities would immediately pass total deregulation, which would have a spill-over effect because vocal minorities would press other local authorities to do the same. This appeared to make the Auld Committee have second thoughts, but I would not share them. I prefer their view in paragraph 219 of their report. I quote from the last two sentences:
"In fact, shopping seems to us to be the one area where a reasonable case might be made for local discretion. Shopping is primarily a local activity, employing local people, and it would be local residents who would be disturbed by any untoward noise or traffic congestion".
A solution on these lines would serve everyone. DIY stores and edge-of-town stores would get what they want, but town centres and high streets would be closed in most places but free to open where appropriate. Customers and trade unions would get what they want and retailers would be able to trade in those areas where it was justified without going through years of painful and costly trial and error, which would not only create uncertainty and price confusion but in some cases bankruptcy. Above all, the pressures on the family, which are so great today, would not be increased by the numbers of mothers and teenagers, tempted by pin money, who would give up that one day each week to do part-time work when there is a chance for the whole family to be together.
My proposal may appeal as being a sensible and practical compromise between the present Act, which I hope your Lordships will agree is outdated, and complete change. And I hope that totally free traders will realise there is more to this than resistance to change. It will bring local authorities back into the act ("act" with a small "a"), where Parliament has always thought the power should lie. I shall not vote for the amendment, but I very much hope that my noble friend Lady Trumpington will give consideration to this compromise that I am offering at this stage.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, what a pleasure it is to be able to welcome Government legislation wholeheartedly for a change; and how fitting that it should be the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, who is to wind up for the Government tonight and who is to help pilot this Bill through the House! After all, it is to a considerable extent her brainchild—which is not to detract for a moment from the excellent opening speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur.
It is not for us who seek to remove an anomaly to prove our case: it is for those who wish to retain oppressive restrictions to prove theirs. Trading, initially in the form of barter, was one of the first acts of civilised man. Indeed, it could be said that man did not become civilised until the voluntary exchange of goods and services superseded the theft and plunder that had prevailed previous to that time. How inappropriate that such an innocent and, indeed, beneficial activity should be classified as a crime, unless carried on within certain tightly defined and restricted hours! It is particularly inappropriate at a time when the enormous increase in such genuine and serious crime as murder, wounding, rape, burglary, the causing of death by dangerous driving and white-collar

1137
fraud on a massive scale, should, above all, be concerning the law enforcement agencies and the courts.
The welcome measure we are examining today is likely to have many beneficial spin-offs: a widening of the area of consumer choice, a widening of employment opportunities for young people and for ethnic minorities, and a life-line for many small shopkeepers. Contrary to what some noble Lords have alleged, the Director General of the Swedish Food Retailers' Association tells us that without the freedom of night and Sunday opening many of the shopkeepers in Sweden would be out of business. But the Bill's overriding merit is that it starts to get the state off people's backs.
Some have argued that, contrary to what the Government claim, de-restriction will not benefit traders economically. There is no overwhelming demand, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. That is for traders themselves to ascertain. The law of supply and demand will sort things out, as it invariably does. Probably no more than 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of shops will eventually decide to open on Sundays, as in Scotland and in Sweden, so that our Sundays are most unlikely to be radically altered in character.
Some opponents of the Bill have claimed that Scottish experience is no guide because Scotland is culturally totally different from England. Like most Englishmen, I am not averse to gently knocking the Scots on occasion when they become above themselves, as sometimes happens; but to imply that the Scots are a bunch of wild tribesmen with no cultural affinity to ourselves is frankly ridiculous. I do not believe that the habits of the people of Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen and Dundee are so very different from those of the people of Newcastle, York, Liverpool and Bristol, to select four English cities at random.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham remarked that one person's freedom is another person's loss of freedom. He also seemed to suggest that only those engaged in essential services should be required to work on Sunday—people such as doctors, nurses, ambulancemen, policemen, firemen, power-station workers, and so on. If taken literally, this would seem to imply that all restaurants, cafes, pubs, cinemas, parks, museums, zoos, aquariums, amusement parks and garages should close on Sundays; that all bus, railway and air services should be suspended, as has happened in Israel; and that Sunday radio and television and Monday newspapers should disappear. None of these is strictly essential after all.
The right reverend Prelate also deplored the passing of what he called the quiet Sunday. We should all love a quiet Sunday, but I suspect that the noise of a motorist setting out with his family on a Sunday to choose a new carpet will be as nothing compared to the noises of lawn-mowers, power-drills and chain-saws which already assault our ear-drums on most Sundays throughout the greater part of the year. The right reverend Prelate also claimed, correctly, that this Bill was introduced without an electoral mandate, and,
1138
incorrectly, that it was not supported by the majority of the public. It has to be said that there is a precedent for this. The legislation which made the wearing of seat-belts compulsory and the recent fluoridation legislation were both introduced and enacted without any electoral mandate and without any evidence of majority public support. At least this Bill appears to have the support of a majority, even if not perhaps an overwhelming majority.
There are more than two million criminal prosecutions every year in England and Wales. Of these two million prosecutions, no more than a quarter relate to what the average person would consider to be a crime and no more than 4 per cent. relate to serious crimes. As my noble and learned friend Lord Simon of Glaisdale has declared, it is these serious crimes that worry the public and it is these upon which the police and the courts should be concentrating. It should be no business of the criminal law to embark upon social engineering by trying artificially to preserve almost unaltered that which is naturally in the process of change, or to enforce the well-meaning but paternalistic attitudes of a few. For that reason, I hope that your Lordships will support the Government and reject the amendment.
8.25 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Vestey on his most eloquent and very interesting speech. Would that I could support him in one way, but I am afraid that I shall not be able to do so. There can be very few people who at some time have not been thankful to find a shop open on a Sunday. Indeed, whether or not it is open can make or mar the whole day. And the pressures of life for mothers who have families and careers are relentless and they have the minimum time for shopping. And if they have someone ill, old or disabled, in the household who cannot be left, their chance of skipping out to a shop is even less. I have spoken with nurses, home helps, office workers—all with families—who tell me that they resent having to plunge out on dark, cold evenings to shop. When you feel tired and frail at the end of the day, shopping is, to put it mildly, no fun. Where a shop is open in daylight on a Sunday some go straight to it; others go first to church and then to shop.
These friends of mine whose reactions I quote tell me they like to have their husbands and children with them for much of the shopping, especially when there are household purchases to make, even just pots and pans and kitchenware, the belief being that if it is a family choice the purchases are better looked after once they get into the home. The week-end is the only time when they can all be together and Saturdays, as we know, are taken up by football, cricket, tennis and the rest.
They tell me that it would be such a help if proper shops were open in the way they find when they go on holidays to Scotland. They have stories of admirable husbands who get involved with do-it-yourself ploys about the house and then run short of vital materials on a Sunday morning. To be left for a whole day unable to finish a stint of decorating, carpentry or building work is hardly the way to develop a cooperative attitude of mind. Single people too, careerist

1139
men and women, and especially single parents, have all these shopping problems and perhaps still more. Some perhaps just want more time to search carefully before they purchase, especially the buyers in book shops.
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, spoke so movingly and realistically with his first-hand knowledge based on experience. Whether we like it or not, recent years have brought big changes in the mainstream pattern of life, particularly in regard to women. For instance, in 1971–72 the number of women at universities, full-time graduates and under-graduates, was 65,000, 29 per cent. of the total university population. By 1982–83 those figures had risen to 110,900 and to 40·7 per cent. of the total university population, excluding foreign students. Growing numbers of women are going for advanced education through educational programmes beyond A-levels and there is clear evidence from schools of a firm trend among girls towards advanced education.
The result of this surging tide emerges in the increase in the civilian labour force between 1971 and 1983 which is accounted for entirely by the 1.3 million extra women who entered in that period. Working women between the ages of 25 and 44, potential parents, in 1971 constituted just 52.4 per cent. of all British women; whereas in 1983 the figure had risen to 62.5 per cent. To look at the number of married couples where both husbands and wives are working, the 1983 figure shows the number to be no less than 53 per cent. of all married couples. If these statistics do anything—and I am indebted to my noble friend Lord Cowley for researching them—they point strongly to the relentless shift towards extremely busy, demanding lives deserving of any practical help to make more time for day-to-day living.
Those of your Lordships who are of my era may have nostalgic memories of peaceful Sundays when we went to church in the morning and perhaps to Sunday school in the afternoon, dividing them by eating the roast beef and Yorkshire pudding which automatically appeared on the table. We then took a good sharp walk to work it off. But life really has changed so dramatically since the war, especially in recent years. Today my family are regular church attenders but after that it is time to finish off the weekday jobs.
Opposition to this measure today in the new circumstances will be unwelcome to busy mothers trying to do a job and to run the home. With their higher educational attainments, women not only earn at the very least much-needed funds to keep up with higher family expectations—for example, family holidays—but also are substantial taxpayers, and we who want social improvement in our inner cities and elsewhere are hardly consistent if we forget about the convenience of those customers. Rules about what you can and cannot buy are flouted by vendors who are either ignorant of the complex rules or have very strong nerves. Even if the law was amended to include more goods for sale it would still be flouted. It would still be a bad law. For these reasons, and because I believe it to be the realistic and positive way forward, I support this Bill and I cannot support the amendment.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Oram: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment which was moved by the right reverend Prelate, and indeed to congratulate him on the wise and moderate formulation of his amendment. As we have seen in this debate, this issue of shopping hours produces a vast complexity of opinions and interests; and it seemed to me when I saw the right reverend Prelate's amendment on the Order Paper that he had produced a wording which can unite the maximum of your Lordships who, perhaps for quite different reasons, can all agree that this Bill goes too far.
In my view, the Bill does indeed go much too far when it accepts the Auld Committee's recommendations in respect of the deregulation of shopping hours but at the same time almost completely ignores what that committee said about the position of shopworkers, and especially its strong recommendation about the need for the retention of the wages councils orders and their proper enforcement by an adequate inspectorate. There is nothing that I have seen so far in the Government's case which adequately meets that recommendation of the Auld Committee.
Like the amendment, I accept a great deal of the case for more freedom for shoppers. There have been many bizarre examples of the oddities of the 1950 Act, and very few I think would attempt to support the continuation of that schedule. However, I do think we can dismiss those speeches which have based their argument to a large extent on the anomalies in that schedule. I agree also, as the Auld Committee report clearly establishes, that there have been significant changes since the 1950 Act was passed—changes in the nature of the retail trade. I, in some capacity or another, have been engaged in a voluntary capacity in a co-operative movement in retail trade for that whole period and I appreciated the description in the Auld Committee's report of those changes.
Of course there have also been changes in the attitude towards Sunday. There has been an increased demand, though how much of an increase it is difficult to assess, for more liberal shopping hours. I accept all that; but what puzzles me is why the Auld Committee, having analysed those changes and having set them out very clearly, jumped to the conclusion that those changes justified the complete deregulation of shopping hours. And of course that recommendation is being followed by the Government in the present Bill.
However, like my noble friend Lord Jacques, I am by no means convinced that the committee, in reaching that conclusion, was responding fairly to the evidence that was submitted to it. If I had had any doubts about that before coming into the Chamber this afternoon, those doubts were completely removed when I heard the speech of my noble friend Lord Gallacher, who, as he told the House, was speaking as one of the six assessors of the Auld Committee. He was obviously speaking with the greatest of authority on this question of what the evidence was and what relationship there was between the committee's conclusion and the evidence that they received. On the basis of what my noble friend said, I find it indeed difficult to understand why the committee reached its conclusion about shopping hours in the face of a great deal of the evidence that was received.

1141
However, it is even more difficult for me to understand why the Government, in producing their Bill, as I have said, see fit to accept one of the main recommendations of the committee but not the other. They accept the recommendation about the complete deregulation of shopping hours—the Government eagerly seized on the Auld Committee's report in that respect—but the second recommendation from the committee was of equal importance:
"The retention for retail workers of the machinery of the wages councils for the fixing and proper enforcement of satisfactory wages and premium rates".
I may have misheard him; but, if I heard aright, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Birmingham seemed to me to be expressing some acceptance of the Government's proposals about wages councils. I urge him not to be hoodwinked in this matter because I believe that the position created by the Bill, combined with the Government's announced intentions with regard to wages councils, to be completely intolerable so far as shopworkers are concerned.
The Bill itself maintains protection against sweated labour in respect of 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds only. As I have said, this Bill needs to be judged not only in respect of that provision but in conjunction with the Government's intentions about wages councils. In July Mr. Tom King, who was then Secretary of State for Employment in another place, announced what the Government's attitude to wages councils was to be. He announced that the Government were proposing drastically to curtail the powers of wages councils. They will not be able to protect young people under 21, and even for those over 21 the wages councils' powers will be confined to fixing a single minimum hourly rate and a single overtime rate. At present, they are able to fix special rates for Sunday working and to determine other conditions of employment, and that power will go.
It seems to me therefore that the effect on shopworkers of this Bill, which stops its protection at the 18th birthday, combined with what I have just described as the Government's intention with respect to wages councils, gives us a particularly ominous situation for the 18 to 21 age group. There is a gap there. If you are 16 or 17, you will continue to have the protection as laid down in the 1950 Act, and if you are over 21 you will, at least, have some miserly protection of a wages council with diminished powers. But if you are 18, 19 or 20 years old, then your wages and conditions will have no protection at all either under this Bill or under a wages council. Therefore, I believe that this Bill is opening up a high road of exploitation of thousands of young retail workers, who after all are among the most vulnerable sections of our society.
It is for this reason, among others, that I support the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate. If we carry it, as I certainly hope we shall, we shall be warning the Government that their Bill goes too far and that it ought to reach the statute book only in an amended form. No doubt some of the amendments that will be moved at later stages will seek to put some limitation on opening hours, perhaps along the lines that my noble friend Lord Jacques suggested. I personally shall wait to see them before committing
1142
myself, but I anticipate that some formula will be forthcoming with which I agree.
But whatever the position may be about opening hours, I certainly hope that amendments will be proposed and accepted of such a character that shop workers will be protected from the dangers of exploitation. As I see it, those dangers are very real and will face the shop workers, unless this Bill is radically changed before it reaches the statute book.
8.43 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I rise to support the Bill and to oppose the amendment. This is not the first time that I have spoken on this matter of shop opening, as we had a great deal of debate in this House in 1981. I remember speaking at that time and, in particular, mentioning Queensway, which is London W.2., just north of the park. Most people in this Chamber will know it well. At that time, I mentioned how Whiteley's had applied for permission to open on Sundays, but had been refused and forced to close and, therefore, all those jobs and that business was lost. Since then, Woolworth's, the only other large store in that street, have also applied for permission to open on Sundays, have been refused and have gone the same way. That end of the street is now totally dead and has been so for the last two or more years.
The rest of the street is open all Sundays. Every shop, every restaurant, everything is open on Sundays. So the situation is that those large enterprises, which attempted to abide by the law, lost out and have had to close up. Many people here have mentioned the smaller businesses and have said that they have no objection to smaller ones being open. The smaller ones carry on, but I do not believe that they are guaranteed to be operating under ideal conditions for the staff. Very frequently, they are family businesses. Some are people selling carpets out in the street, with a little wooden pole, on a Sunday. So it seems to me that any old law applies in Queensway, except for the large, reputable and legal traders who are trying to abide by the law.
People who think that these rules about shopping on a Sunday make life difficult fail to appreciate that in London you can now buy pretty well everything on a Sunday. It would be a challenge for anybody to tell me of something that I could not buy on a Sunday. Everywhere, in various parts of London, different shops are open and pretty well all goods are available, and I believe that in most cases they are available illegally. I think that this Bill will mean that, instead of the present illegal situation, the good and large traders will have the same opportunities as those who are just playing with the law at the present time.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, mentioned the market outside town and he went on to say how undesirable it was that 25,000 people flocked there every Sunday. If 25,000 people rushed there every Sunday, they certainly wanted to have those additional facilities. It was attractive and it appealed to people. In places like London, supermarkets are open late at night and I find it a great convenience to be able to go shopping at nine o'clock at night in a reputable supermarket. But compare that, my Lords, to somewhere in the country. For many years I had a home in Cornwall. If you had not bought your food by

1143
five o'clock, your family could just stay hungry until the next day, because there was no hope of getting anything after that. I think that many people want these more flexible hours and it is in their interest to have them.
The argument that the same money will be spent in seven days as is presently spent in six days is a very interesting one and I think that there is a lot in it. But it will be up to the shops to decide whether or not it pays them to open on Sundays. As I see it, the only additional money that would come in is from people who are in England only on a Sunday, such as tourists, who frequently come at weekends. This is usual and I am sure that many of us have been to other countries in the same way for a two- or three-day weekend. Thousands of tourists come to this country for the weekend and they produce extra spending power on Sundays when they are here.
When I have been in New York, I have found it very pleasant to be able to go into a shop on a Sunday, but it does not stop me from going to church. I am a regular churchgoer and I first go to church and then afterwards to a shop when I am abroad like that. I was also impressed with some of the very fine larger stores, which had special little concerts and entertainments for the family. One saw family groups there. This is an attractive proposition and I hope that it happens here.
But, in studying the Auld Report, I was very interested in paragaraphs 269 and 271 on the social effects. There are points to be made there. The report states that the change in ways of life could be substantial and that the effects would vary from place to place. I was sorry that in paragraph 273, the committee stated that they could see how residents might be adversely affected but had no satisfactory answers to that. I think that there are answers and that residents should be borne in mind, particularly in terms of parking and traffic control within residential areas.
At the present time many residential areas in London have full parking control throughout Saturday. That would have to happen on Sunday if people were to have any hope of getting near their own homes. Areas that operate residents' parking schemes would need the same controls on Sundays. I speak now as someone who has for the last year lived very near one of the major stores in London, and there would be no way of my getting within parking distance on any day of the week. Not only would I not be able to get near my own home: I would not be able to get within blocks of it, unless I had that resident's parking permit and the use of a resident's parking space. So I believe that to protect local residents in areas very near to shops it will be necessary to provide that type of control. Areas such as the West End, Oxford Street and so on, have no parking controls on Saturday afternoons, unlike Kensington and other places. In Oxford Street, traders find that it is an advantage for people to be able to drive in on a Saturday afternoon, but there is a smaller residential population around Oxford Street. The other areas have obviously found it necessary to have restrictions throughout Saturday and should consider them again on a Sunday.
Mention has been made by other speakers of the need for public transport on Sunday, and I am sure that this is true. All local authority services would have
1144
to be provided. These are the details which I hope we shall go into in Committee because I think there are many points to be ironed out and protections to be written in. But I do not for a moment support the view that local authorities should be the people to decide where shops should and should not be. My own experience of that Queensway experiment about which I told the House, where local authorities had it within their right to offer those working hours, particularly for the limited number of Sundays a year, and failed to do so, has shown me that local authorities are not really equipped to do this job. There are too many conflicting pressures on local authorities from people who want and people who do not want these alterations made. The Chamber today makes it quite clear how strongly views are held on both sides of the argument. For local authorities to find themselves in the position of having to make decisions on that would not be satisfactory. I hope that the Government will not consider going away from the Bill as it is—which I support absolutely—for the complete deregulation of Sunday trading. I shall not support the amendment.
8.51 p.m.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, you are in for a bonus. I have allowed myself two minutes. In this debate, on the one hand, there are the acknowledged imperfections of the present law, which I understand nevertheless is obeyed by some 98 per cent. of shopkeepers. On the other hand, there is the traditional character of Sunday which provides for a day of rest with their families for the great majority of people. The Government say that there is no practical way to overcome these imperfections and that therefore all restrictions on Sunday trading must go.
My Lords, is this not a case of throwing out the baby with the bathwater? There must be a way to make sensible changes in the law while maintaining the traditional character of Sundays. I shall vote for the amendment and very much hope that a majority of noble Lords also will do so.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I have enjoyed this debate. It has been good humoured and serious. If this Bill, unamended, reaches the statute book it will be a charter for nothing less than a social revolution. The Government have chosen to put it before us at this time, without a mandate, without a manifesto commitment, using a flawed document—the Auld Report—to propose the complete deregulation of the framework of protections and controls over shopping hours, especially on Sundays. I am against this simplistic, easy, freebooting solution to the present unsatisfactory situation, and I shall tell the House why.
But first I declare, as is proper, an interest, which I have declared before, regarding the passage of this Bill: that of an association with the co-operative movement and the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers. I also serve as a director of the Enfield and St. Albans Co-operative Society.
The Financial Memorandum tells us that any increased demand for local authority services following increased trading hours should be offset in whole or in part by savings on the enforcement of the

1145
Shops Act 1950. When the Association of District Councils asked its member councils to specify expenditure incurred on the enforcement of the Shops Act, the reply from 122 councils was £27 a week. If that is saved, where is the calculation of the costs to be borne for enforcing existing laws on seven days—not as at present on five or six but seven?
The noble Lord, Lord Vestey, made a powerful, practical and pertinent observation on the laws that will need to be observed not on five days or six days but on seven days if shops are to be open. There is the weights and measures legislation; the health and hygiene legislation; the Sale of Goods Act; the Fair Trading Act; the Trade Descriptions Act; the Prices Act; provisions on bargain offers; wages councils orders; the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act. It is nonsense to pretend that there will be savings for councils if this Bill proceeds. It will cost more—or are the Government relying on the lethargy of councils in enforcement yet again, or on denying them the resources?
The Association of County Councils has told your Lordships that this talk of savings is a nonsense. Ministers just do not know if there were any savings—and there will not be—that they would accrue to district councils, but county councils will pick up an extra bill of at least £3½ million for trading standards enforcement in providing merely a skeleton service on a Sunday. The professional enforcement officers are the members of the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration. The noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, is the highly respected president of the institute. I happen to be a vice-president. This is what the association has told me. It gave evidence at the Auld Committee and said:
"The Institute welcomed the review of the Shops Acts, but our members, when given full support and adequate resources by their local authorities, have found no real difficulty in enforcing the Acts".
What this amounts to is a sad reflection on the law keeping intentions of many councils. The professionals impress upon us the two missing ingredients in many areas—"full support and adequate resources". Surely those are essential prerequisites for any law to be enforced. Yet what did the inspectorate have to say when the Auld Report was published? It said:
"In our opinion the Report ignores the advice of the field experts and gave prominence to points that did not warrant such attention".
It reached the following conclusion:
"We fully support a reform of the Shops Acts but cannot honourably support total abolition unless specific, irrefutable evidence is forthcoming that this is in the interest of all parties concerned. The Auld Report, in our submission, does not remotely substantiate this interest and is full of inconsistencies and subjection".
The authority and standing of the Auld Report is flawed. Its conclusions rest, as more than one Member of your Lordships' House has said, on contrary premises and evidence. They are at variance with the advice of at least four of their six assessors. We have the extraordinary decision of the Government to accept one recommendation but to ignore the other. That independent committee recommended that in a deregulated environment wages councils should be strengthened. Yet far from strengthening them, the Government are intent on abolishing them. Workers'
1146
rights will be savagely eroded. That is why Francis Cairncross, a member of the Auld Committee, told an audience last week that the Government are acting contrary to the recommendations of their own committee. She said to the conference organised by the Institute of Fiscal Studies that there was no logic in the selectivity of the Government. My Lords, she can say that again.
Let me reinforce the powerful arguments that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, when he spoke earlier, and the very serious implications for the entire raison d'être of our traditional Sunday if the Government proceed to deregulate not only shopping hours but licensing hours as well. If such as supermarkets are given the legal right to open for a full trading day on Sundays, where stand the recommendations of the Erroll Report? I remind the House that its two main recommendations are, first, that intoxicating liquor could be retailed at any time between 10 a.m. and midnight; and secondly, that off-sales be allowed between 8.30 a.m. and midnight. What has the Minister to say on the implications of the Erroll Report in respect of the present legislation?
What does the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers think of this Bill in relation to its professing to protect shopworkers, especially young shopworkers? I will tell your Lordships. It says:
"It is a political whitewash designed to paper over the injustices which will be inflicted on a labour force of 2.2 million workers as a result of deregulation."
USDAW requests that I ask the Minister this simple question: how can Ministers justify claims that they are desirous of protecting young people working in shops after deregulation while other Ministers propose removing the basic legislative protection afforded those same young workers by wages councils covering holidays, overtime, premium payments, customary holidays, unsocial hours payments, job grading structures and others? All these will go, as far as young people are concerned, once wages councils are reformed. I have the authority of USDAW to ask the Minister to address herself to that question when winding up.
The noble Lords, Lord Jacques and Lord Oram, and particularly a very powerful and cogent argument from the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, all demonstrated the unease in this House, as well as outside, as to the effects of this Bill on workers who will be left unprotected. Longer hours and Sunday trading will stimulate competition. The fight to retain market share will intensify. What does the Institute of Fiscal Studies have to say about this? I will tell the House. It says:
"We find that longer opening hours would be likely to lead to some acceleration of the trend towards the disappearance of the independent trader."
The right to say "No" to working on Sundays sounds fine, but what will happen in practice? In time, there will emerge two classes of employee—the protected and the unprotected; those who will work on Sundays and those who will not. There will also be two lists in every manager's office when he considers contenders for promotion—those who will work on Sundays and those who will not. Do your Lordships not think that that is an unwarranted pressure on

1147
decent, hard-working men and women, brought about by this obnoxious and unwanted legislation?
It is plain that unless traders open their stores on Sundays they will go to the wall. Of course, noble Lords will say that they will be free to remain closed and watch their trade walk into a competitor's shop. What kind of a shopping nightmare is this Government foisting on our nation? Shops like the co-operatives who do not wish to open will be forced to do so, and shopworkers who do not wish to work on Sundays will be forced to do so if they want to keep their jobs. It is a fraud to talk of freedoms in this deliberately and artificially inspired abandonment of shopping laws and order.
Where stands the caring, listening Government when the voice is that of the small shopkeeper—the independent grocer? This is what their trade journal said last week:
"Thousands of readers of this journal helped to put Margaret Thatcher into power. She is now cynically turning her back on them with her seven-day free for all. Thatcherism, and its obsession with free market forces, defies logic on the Sunday trading issue."
Not only the independents (many of whom will be driven out of business) but larger traders will be forced to examine the viability of their small shops currently operating on the edge of viability. The co-operative movement keeps open hundreds of small shops in rural, remote or decaying inner city areas. As they lose their trade to the seven-day traders they will inevitably become casualties in the new, deregulated, control-free shopping bonanza which nobody wants.
Our case, the case of we who oppose complete deregulation—allowing 24-hour trading on Sundays—was eloquently put by a Member of your Lordships' House when he acted in a ministerial capacity and replied to a debate on Sunday trading at his party's conference not many years ago. He said:
"The public has not yet made up its mind. Very many people think, as indeed I do, that Sunday should be different. It should be kept aside for rest, for worship and the family."
Those are the words of the noble Lord, Lord Elton. They are as sound and sincere an expression of view on this issue now as they were when they were made in 1982.
In conclusion, there will be those who will join together at the Committee stage who will seek to convince your Lordships that the present law can be reformed to make it a better law—one that will retain the framework of our Sunday as a day which is special. That is why there is but one choice for those in your Lordships' House tonight. The reasoned amendment so convincingly moved by the right reverend Prelate gives us the legislative opportunity to do what this House is for—not to opt out of our responsibilities but to do our duty to improve and not destroy. I will have no hesitation in supporting the amendment in the Lobby tonight.
9.5 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, this is the most important debate I have spoken in, having been in both Houses now for 30 years. It is a great responsibility to discuss it.
I have had a tremendous amount of documents, as have other noble Lords, which I was very pleased to
1148
receive giving the various ideas of different people. Unfortunately, some were dated 28th November which gave me a very busy Sunday trying to work out what to say. The Consumers' Association which was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, gave a complete view of my opinion. I congratulate the noble Baroness, if I may do so in her absence, on her speech. It was interesting and very well put over.
In all my 30 years there have been, I believe, 19 Bills dealing with this subject and I hope that this Bill will now come to some conclusion so that we can get going in whatever direction is decided. The Association of District Councils also contacted me. I gather it has 333 members who were asked for their views. There were 201 replies of which 177 said, "yes" and 24 said, "no".
There were suggestions about the local boroughs or councils taking over some of these regulations and dealing with them separately. I suggest that that would not be at all advantageous. For instance, if one lives near Marble Arch one can go to a public house on one side of the street and must leave at 10 p.m. It is possible then to cross over to the other side of the street and continue until 10.30 p.m. That would happen between different boroughs and I think it would not be at all advantageous.
We have been discussing mostly the town areas. I should like to speak about the rural areas. Rural areas have very little transport and one must remember that there are very few families who have two cars. Therefore, on a Sunday the family like to go out together to the shops in the neighbouring towns. Whatever may be said, Sunday is always a busy day for a woman. She has to do the catering and the cooking. She does not have a day of rest wherever she is. I suggest that although there are some very excellent village shops, they do not have all the goods needed, especially household goods. Therefore I think that there is a need for these people to go to these other shops. Where I live the nearest towns are 10 miles distant one way and 10 miles the other, and the nearest big town, Salisbury, is 20 miles away, and people like to go as a family to these different shops.
I gather that the right reverend Prelates are undertaking a lot of commercial re-building, and that they are doubling their investment for building shops from £ 117 million to £240 million. There will be three large shopping centres under construction—the Metro Centre at Gateshead, the Town Ramparts at Ipswich and St. Enoch's at Glasgow. They are also opening shops in 10 other towns. In London I live near Marble Arch where the Prelates are my landlords and the landlords of most of the shops in the vicinity. What will their policy be in regard to Sunday opening with these new buildings? Perhaps they can let me have some information. When the right reverend Prelate comes to wind up, perhaps he can let me know this information.
There is also the question of the shopworkers. I hope that I am correct in saying that shopworkers enjoy more statutory protection than any other British worker. No shopworker is permitted to work more than 5½ days a week. Any shopworker who works on Sunday must be given a day off in lieu, and no shopworker is permitted to work more than three Sundays in one month. I hope that that information also will be confirmed.

1149
I regret to have to mention to the noble Prelates that they are not obeying the law at the present time because they have shops near some cathedrals which sell all sorts of goods including soap, teacloths, and so on, which under the regulations are not allowed to be sold. I should like them to give me an answer as to what they will do in the future about that.
I am delighted that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, raised the question of mobile traders and Sunday markets. At the present time I quite agree with him that it constitutes unfair competition to distinguish between the permanent shop and the mobile trader. I hope that licences will be given to these mobile traders in Sunday markets and the local authority will then stipulate the location at which the trader may still sell his wares. This could also be done in holiday resorts which have shops. I gather that they require a two-thirds majority of local traders under Section 52 of the 1950 Act in order to run these shops.
I have lived much overseas and I should like to tell you about Malaysia where I worked in three different states. One was a Crown colony, one was a federal state and the third was a Moslem state. I therefore often had to work seven days a week—I am not complaining about that. I managed, and so did the people who were working with me, to attend a local Christian church with other local people. One could also do one's shopping in the Moslem shops on Sundays—they were shut Fridays in the Federated State. All the workers were allowed off for the requisite time. I had an hour off to go to church and Moslems were allowed two hours for their religious ceremonies.
So why, in this country, do we have trouble in regard to ethnic minorities? As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, if a member of the Jewish faith has a shop which is closed on Saturday, he may open on Sunday until 2 p.m. Why should they be relegated to 2 p.m. when they have already had "their" Sunday? Why should they have to shut at 2 p.m.? It is the same situation with Moslems. They must have time off at noon and they have to close their shops for the rest of the time. I should like to see these points straightened out. My final point is that I should like to see the saying "Set the people free" implemented in the near future.
9.13 p.m.
Lord Hampton: My Lords, I must apologise for the fact that I was not able to be present at the beginning of this debate. I have already apologised to the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, and I do so now in particular to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham.
Several years ago I was in an aeroplane with the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, who was the co-pilot. He was very skilful. I fear that I have less confidence in him as co-pilot of this Bill. Quite frankly, I shall not be sorry if it never gets off the ground, at least in its present form.
I seek to be brief not because I do not feel strongly but because there have been many speakers. I live in
1150
the diocese of Worcester and should like to draw the attention of the House to a resolution that was recently passed by the synod there with which I wholeheartedly agree. I think that your Lordships will find the subsequent voting figures highly significant. The noble Lord, Lord Soper, referred to the general reaction of the Churches, and I am sorry that the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Sandford, seems to be the one exception. The resolution ran as follows:
"That this Synod, believing that every society needs a publicly expressed day of rest and recreation, such as the Christian Sunday has provided, and that society also needs symbols which point beyond market forces as a determining aspect of our life in community:
[1] notes with concern the recommendation by the Auld Committee of Inquiry into the 1950 Shops Act that shop hours should be deregulated;
[2] whilst recognising that there are anomalies in the present Act that require reform would strongly deprecate any move to increase the commercialisation of Sunday by legislation;
[3] calls upon Christian individuals, Parochial Church Councils and Synods of our Church to resist deregulation on both social and spiritual grounds".
I now give the voting figures. There were present 42 clergy and 57 laity, making a total of 99. Three members voted against the resolution and four abstained; that left 92 who voted for the resolution. It may be argued that these were all Church people, but I think that the Government should note that I am sure that in Worcestershire the majority of those present would have been Conservatives and, normally, Government supporters. I can only say that at least away from Westminster, of those to whom I have talked about the Bill and primarily about Sunday trading, almost all have been critical of the Bill.
That leads me to ask the noble Baroness—at least I should if she were here—whether she can reply to three questions. First, what mandate do the Government have for the legislation? I submit that they have none. Secondly, would it not be better to take the Bill away and redraft it? Practically everyone, I believe, will admit that some adjustment to the law is necessary, as is stated in the amendment. Lastly—and colleagues tell me that I am crying for the moon!—if the Government are determined willy-nilly to press on with the Bill, will they not at least allow it on a free vote? I know several Members in another place who will be much relieved by that procedure.
I apologise to the House; I came in late, but I heard the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, berating the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, because he suggested that. My noble friend Lord Rochester also raised the point. I cannot see that it is such an outrageous suggestion. The Government may turn it down, but there we are.
I am not a strict Sabbatarian, but I think that Sunday is a day to be enjoyed as something different. As the noble Lord, Lord Soper, and other noble Lords have said—and the noble Lord, Lord Soper, said this movingly in an earlier debate on the Queen's Speech—Sunday should be different. I am convinced that total deregulation of trading would be a mistake and I shall support the amendment.
9.17 p.m.
Lord Manton: My Lords, I welcome the Government's initiative to change the laws on Sunday trading for I believe that they are out of date with our way of life in 1985. It is undoubtedly a subject about which your Lordships feel strongly, and I have this evening listened to many arguments from both points of view, setting out both cases.
Here I would refer to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham, who particularly mentioned and recommended the word "leisure", and also my noble friend Lord Brentford, who highlighted the word "recreation". It is about leisure and recreation that I particularly want to talk. However, in my opinion the Bill does not go far enough as it deals solely with shop trading hours and leaves out other important aspects of Sunday activities. I am referring in particular to sporting activities which are to do with recreation and leisure, as has already been mentioned. Many of those sporting activities are commercially run.
I do not know how many of your Lordships, a couple of Sundays ago, watched the finals at Wembley of the four-hour tennis match between Ivan Lendl and Boris Becker, but Wembley Stadium was packed. The match took four hours, and BBC2 extended its coverage to the whole match. Some noble Lords may ask what that has to do with Sunday trading. Under the Sunday Observance Act 1780, sporting events held on a Sunday with spectators who pay to watch may well be, in strict terms, illegal.
I am not seeking to single out the recent tennis match at Wembley: many other sporting events are held on a Sunday. For instance, the Wimbledon finals are now held on a Sunday, as are the final round of the British Open golf and the final round of the Ryder Cup. The Football League Milk Cup final, the one-day Sunday Cricket League, Rugby League matches, snooker championships and, in motor racing, the British Grand Prix and the European Grand Prix are held on Sundays. Some of these sports circumvent the Act by selling tickets in advance. Others allow admission by programme or by making spectators benefactory members of the clubs staging the tournaments. Several, however, no longer bother to get round the Act. They simply ignore it and just charge on the gate in the normal way.
Some of these events are being held in open defiance of the spirit of the law, if not in breach of it. What is more, the BBC and ITV are regularly televising events that may well, in themselves, be illegal. The Bill before your Lordships' House today was introduced because in the case of shops the Home Secretary argued that
"there was deep anxiety about the continued existence on the statute book of a law that was being increasingly flouted".
In case any of your Lordships should be under a misapprehension, I am not against sporting events being held on a Sunday; I am thoroughly in favour of it. Apart from anything else, sporting events on Sundays have become part of the British way of life. However, I must now declare an interest. Up until July this year I spent three years as a senior steward of the Jockey Club. It seems to me quite unfair that horse
1152
racing should find itself at a disadvantage with these other spectator sports. Not only is racing constrained by the Sunday Observance Act but also by the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, which prevents cash betting on Sundays. It may surprise your Lordships to know that although you cannot have a bet on a racecourse or in a betting shop on a Sunday, you can go to a casino or an amusement arcade, or have a telephone bet on credit.
A race meeting without betting is, frankly, not a starter. Here is one of this country's traditional spectator sports, which in common with many other sports is finding it difficult to make ends meet, unable to stage racing on the afternoon (I use the word "afternoon" advisedly) when it might expect to attract its biggest crowds. Our European competitors—France, Germany, Italy, and now Ireland—all stage their most important race meetings on a Sunday and attract their best crowds.
I wish the Shops Bill unamended well in its passage through the House and the other place, and hope that in view of these other Sunday anomalies the Government will then take the logical and consistent step of legalising sporting events on Sundays.
9.23 p.m.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, I wish to support the amendment. It would be inappropriate for me, being something of an agnostic, to advance the argument on religious grounds for opposing the deregulation of Sunday trading. I am very conscious, however, of the fact that much of our heritage, including the traditional Sunday, was established in days when religion had a much stronger following than it has today and that we are the beneficiaries. I myself find that the peace and tranquillity of our traditional Sunday is part of a refreshing and renewing experience which I appreciate more and more as time goes by. It should be available to as many as possible of the people who would like to enjoy it. But this Bill will deprive many of that opportunity.
I find it odd that those who talk about returning to Victorian values—I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, that this means recreation as well—should find this measure an important priority, so important as to carry it on a three-line Whip in another place. The Government say that the Bill will not change Sunday very much. If this is so, why do they not merely tidy up the law and allow it to be enforced? "Ah", the Government says, "that is not possible; the Auld Committee says that it is not possible".
I do not believe that we should be looking for a perfect solution. Indeed, when was there a perfect law? I believe that the right reverend Prelate had a point when he said that we do not refuse to operate 30-mile an hour restrictions because they cannot always be enforced. However, in its evidence to the Auld Committee the Institute of Shops, Health and Safety Acts Administration, whose members are responsible for enforcing the Shops Acts 1950–1955, said,
"Our members, when given full support and adequate resources by their local authorities have found no real difficulty in enforcing these Acts".

1153
We were told that consumers deserve a choice. This is indeed what the free market philosophy is about. However, my answer to that, apart from the inappropriateness, even the immorality, of abandoning ourselves totally to the vagaries of a free market, is that there is no great demand for a dramatic change, let alone for the removal of all restrictions on Sunday trading. Certainly, although it might be said that the organisations giving evidence to the Auld Committee wanted a change, there was little or no evidence that there was a demand for all restrictions to be removed and particularly those on Sunday evenings. The committee noted that the great majority, even of those in full-time work, are able to buy what they need in the shop hours available at the moment. Nine out of ten have even stated that they do not find existing hours inconvenient and under the existing law there is scope for considerably more evening shopping than actually takes place. Only a minority of retailers wanted deregulation. For the majority this will mean more costs but no more revenue.
The Government have said that the number of shops opening will be small, and anyway the deregulation has made little difference in Scotland. I do not want to go over the arguments which the right reverend Prelate adduced about Scotland, but I think the fact about Scotland is that many of the multiples do not want at this point in time to open up and have a different system between Scotland and the rest of England and Wales. I think the case might be different when England has a deregulated system.
Thirty years in Parliament have shown me how difficult it is to predict the consequences of any piece of legislation in the field of human behaviour. I supported all the major reforms of the 1960s and I have no regrets. However, those who supported the reform of our divorce laws to put an end to the misery of many marriages could hardly have predicted the enormous increase in divorce or the tendency of some not to work as hard at keeping a marriage going as they might do. Those who supported homosexual law reform—and that was to get rid of the vicious blackmail that was being experienced by many homosexuals—could not have foreseen the development of separate communities which border on advocating homosexuality as a way of life. Those who supported the relaxation of the abortion laws could not have envisaged that there would be clinics that are bordering on abortion factories.
I am not saying that if these facts had been known there would have been a difference in the decisions taken. What I am saying is that it is very difficult indeed to predict the future consequences of any piece of legislation. I believe that that is true of the piece of legislation which we are discussing tonight.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that, if the present pay rate of double time on Sunday was retained over a period of 15 years, shops representing something like 50 per cent. of turnover would open. But we all know the wages councils are to be weakened, and the protection for that double pay will disappear. The institute said that, if that happened, then it could be as many as 80 per cent. of the shops in the country which would want to remain open.
1154
Many workers will have little choice, as their promotion prospects and the possibility of a much-needed rise will be at stake. I believe that the Bill would have a major and damaging effect on the conditions for many shopworkers. For that reason, and that reason alone, I would think it was worth having it properly looked at and deregulation opposed.
The Auld Committee accepted that this would be bound to affect the pace of life, the level of activity, and the general noise and bustle in what are now relatively quiet times. The consequence of this would affect family life, already under strain, as it would be impossible for all the family to meet together. I have said that there is no great demand from retailers for Sunday opening. However, one thing can be said for certain: with deregulation and unrestricted shop opening there would be no more money available in seven days than there would be in six, but there would be the additional cost of the seventh day, which could mean an increase in prices.
If shop opening reached the proportions predicted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the small corner shop would suffer, probably going out of business, with hardship for the elderly or disabled who rely on it. Even those shops which have said that they do not want to open on Sunday would be bound to do so in the long run if their market share fell because their competitors were trading on Sundays.
It is said that there are plenty of volunteers available at the moment. Perhaps that is not surprising with 4 million people unemployed. However, the real objection to deregulation is that a Government, which pledged in its 1983 manifesto,
"to defend Britain's traditional liberty and distinctive way of life",
are introducing a measure which in the name of market forces is about to destroy a part of our most precious heritage. Sunday is a special day and I hope that all noble Lords will resist this infringement of our liberties by voting for the amendment. After all, many European countries maintain regulated Sunday shopping. Why not us?
9.32 p.m.
Lord Bruce-Gardyne: My Lords, I shall aim to be brief because I suspect that your Lordships have already had a rich diet of most effective oratory on both sides of the argument and presumably almost everything has been said, except possibly one point. I am perhaps the first layman to address your Lordships this evening who regularly works on a Sunday. Right reverend Prelates obviously work on a Sunday: the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, told us of her grandchildren who work on a Sunday; and I regularly work on a Sunday.
I was a little pained to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that if one worked on a Sunday, one was denied the sacred feast of the Sunday lunch. I find that I am denied the sacred feast of a Sunday lunch for a different reason, which is that these days my appetite simply does not run to it. Occasionally, although not as often as I should, I even contrive to attend church on a Sunday. Therefore, I do not think that there is necessarily a contradiction there.

1155
I want to say a few brief words about the Scottish evidence because, like some other noble Lords who have addressed your Lordships, this seems to be remarkably impressive. I was brought up in Scotland and for 10 years I represented a Scottish constituency in another place. I remember being told by my parents that in our local village on the east coast of Scotland in the 1920s and early 1930s every blind was drawn on the sabbath. I am bound to say that I do not recall that every blind was drawn on the sabbath when I was growing up; in fact, I do not recall any blinds being drawn on the sabbath.
Undoubtedly the Scottish sabbath has changed, but I do not believe that you can demonstrate in any way that the change which has occurred is attributable to the absence of legislation controlling Sunday trading north of the Border. All I can say is that in the 10 years that I represented a constituency in Scotland I never remember hearing or receiving one single complaint or objection from anyone who felt that they were constrained to neglect their duties to family or religion in order to participate in one of the local shops on the sabbath.
As several of your Lordships have already pointed out, the experience north of the Border does not bear out the supposition that the passage of legislation, such as we have before us tonight, would lead to a dramatic change in our Sunday conditions. Briefly, I should like to read out the much more recent experience north of the Border of a visit to Stirling by the directors of the Scottish Consumer Council on a Sunday morning this November to observe the conditions of shop-opening at that time. They found, for instance, a family-run grocer's shop which was open from 10 a.m. until 1 p.m. every Sunday next door to a hairdresser's shop which was closed, as required by the law. They found a small DIY shop which was open next door to a local cycle shop which was closed. They visited the Stirling Arcade, which is a large shopping precinct, which was closed, although they were told by the caretaker that it would be open for business during the three weeks before Christmas.
When they came to the major shopping centre adjacent to the town centre, the Thistle Centre, they found that all the multiples there were closed, but beyond the Thistle Centre Halfords and Pound Stretcher were both open diagonally opposite each other with closed shops all around them. On the edge of the town centre Tesco was active, and B & Q DIY store and Comet very much more active. In other words, there was a pattern of some activity and some closure.
I suspect that on balance both the protagonists and the opponents of this measure probably overestimate the likely effect that it would have. However, I must say that I can see no evidence whatsoever from the experience north of the Border to suggest that the sort of dramatic consequences which opponents of this legislation tell us would flow from it are threatened, or have even happened, in Scotland. I fail to see why our experience in England should be notably different.
I would conclude on one point which, rather surprisingly, has not been mentioned very much this evening. It is the estimate of those sections of the retail trade who support this legislation that it could lead to
1156
up to an additional 100,000 jobs south of the Border; admittedly part-time jobs, but 100,000 additional jobs. That may well be an exaggeration—I think it probably is—but even if it was half that number—and bearing in mind that many of those part-time jobs would arise in the city centres precisely where, as I understand it, the right reverend Prelates are most concerned about the problems of unemployment and urban deprivation—it seems to me extraordinary that we should seek to resist what is, after all, a modest measure which could in the future have some modest impact on employment on those areas.
9.37 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, having regard to the fact that a large number of views have been expressed and time is getting late, I shall be very brief. Before I start I should like to disclose a minor interest. I am a small shareholder, and a member of the controlling family, in the Littlewoods organisation, which has a large number of chain stores and operates mail order and other matters within England, Wales, and Scotland.
By virtue of those connections I have been able to visit a town in Scotland in which all the retailers were opening this summer as an experiment to see what Sunday opening entailed, and I have had the benefit of various comments made on Sunday opening by employees, by supervisors, by managers and by directors of the concerns. Though I am going to state briefly some of their comments, the end result is that the views which I come to at the end of the day are entirely my own and not to be attributed to them.
By way of comment they listed four main advantages of the present Bill. First of all, they point out that it is one way of ending the present anomalies and unsatisfactory position. That aspect has been alluded to this afternoon on a number of occasions. Secondly, they say that it will provide additional opportunities for working housewives and their families to shop together, thereby, they say, improving consumer choice. Thirdly, they comment that it will create more employment, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce-Gardyne, suggested, but the end result may well be that there will be less full-time workers in the retail industry and many more part-time workers.
Fourthly, they say that the proposed deregulation of Sunday trading will especially benefit certain types of retailers. They give the following examples: first, those in summer holiday areas, such as Blackpool, who will wish to open during the holiday season; secondly—and this is nearer home—those in tourist areas, and they quote Oxford Street, Bond Street, Regent Street and Piccadilly, where shops will wish to open every Sunday for the benefit of foreign visitors. On the deregulation proposed we can envisage those shops being open seven days a week.
The third example of those who will benefit is big busy shopping areas on the edge of towns such as, for example, the Brent Cross complex where those who run the complex and large numbers of shops will tend sooner or later to put on entertainments in the form of band concerts and others nearby to draw the family into the complex to get the benefit of their attendance for shopping as well. Thus there will be that sort of

1157
combined entertainment and shopping complex on the edges of the big cities. Fourthly, they say it will benefit special trades such as garden centres, do-it-yourself suppliers and other leisure-related industries. Those items summarise the comments which are given in support of the present measure.
But there are four other comments given on the disadvantages. First, they say that in their view it is quite certain that they will suffer higher staff costs. The members of the staff who work on Sundays will expect a higher rate of pay and recompense. One suggestion they make is that if they go over to Sunday shopping those shops which are open on Sundays will tend to shut on another day in the week such as Monday. But opening seven days a week will increase not only direct labour costs but indirect costs such as staff canteen subsidies and other staff benefits. Sunday opening will also increase distribution costs to take account of sales on Sundays.
Secondly, they say it will involve higher operating costs if shops open seven days a week. There is additional heating, lighting, waste disposal, security work and matters of that kind. Additional burdens will then fall on the local authorities who will have to provide transport, parking, policing and cleansing. Rents and rates and operating costs will therefore all rise.
Thirdly, they say that they consider the proposals of Sunday opening, if shops open seven days a week, will necessarily entail higher prices as the end result. Most retailers in this country today work on slender margins and those who make large profits do so, not on the extent of their mark-up but by reason of large volumes of sales. Thus, one is looking at the big shops working on slender margins over large volumes of sales. If staff costs and distribution costs are increased, the rises will probably have to be met by raising prices. If they are not, then those with small volumes of sale, the small retailers, will go out of business. It is here that the local shops will suffer, as will the consumer, in the end.
Fourthly, they mention that disruption of the lives of many will be entailed. Sunday opening disrupts the lives of those employed in the retail industry. Managers and supervisors at the top will be most affected as they will wish to be present whenever their stores are open, imposing on them a hard task. Mothers who work in the industry will feel obliged to attend, leaving their families on the one day when the father is probably at home and the children are not at school. Then, USDAW regards Sunday trading as a threat to the livelihood and way of life of its members.
Finally, Sunday opening will disrupt the lives of many who will become involved, such as the additional police, transport workers, and ancillary services. Also, of course, I must mention that Sunday opening will antagonise the churches, the members of which appreciate Sunday as a day for reflection and renewal, whether or not they attend the local services.
There are advantages and disadvantages involved in permitting Sunday retail trading. What test do I suggest should be applied in considering whether or not we vote for this Bill or the amendment? I suggest that one should look at the basic philosophy behind the Bill; that is to say, the deregulation of Sunday trading wherever possible. If one is not satisfied that
1158
such basic philosophy will improve the quality of life in this country today, one should vote for the amendment. To my mind, the disadvantages outweigh the advantages and I intend to vote for the amendment.
9.48 p.m.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, every year at the Anglo-Swiss parliamentary ski meeting I have the pleasure of following the noble Lord. Lord Grantchester, down the ski slopes. He always wins. However, I must say to him this evening that I cannot follow him, do not agree with his argument and hope that he does not win.
As the last speaker from these Back-Benches this evening, it obviously behoves me to be very brief. In fact, there is not much more that can be said or possibly has been left out of this debate. However, listening to it, one might reasonably think that it has appeared to have been an attack on Sunday. Surely, the Bill is not about that. I listened with particular interest to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who in a very robust speech I thought put that argument very clearly. However, it would be understandable if people in this debate and elsewhere were under some misunderstanding, since the volume of paper from special interest groups has been very considerable and it has had a lot to do with the Church viewpoint.
I have no connection with any special interest group. I speak as a regular, practising Anglican, and in fact as part of the flock of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester. I liked his speech very much indeed and I thought it was more balanced than that of his colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. However, I have to say that I still disagree with him and I hope that I may receive his forgiveness in due course through the usual channels.
There has been in this debate reference to overseas, where Sunday shop opening is I think much more widely practised than has been mentioned. In this debate there has been reference to France, and in fact the evidence has been somewhat contradictory. I am not clear for what reasons the stores in central Paris are not open; but I can assure your Lordships that in South-West France where I spend quite a lot of time shops are open on Sundays in a very wide variety of fields. I have the impression from that country, which is certainly not an irreligious or heathen country, that the Church, family life, sport and shopping all live in harmony together without any problems. Surely, the same should be the case here in England.
Surely, this Bill, above all else, is about the creation of employment and freedom of choice; freedom of choice for shops to choose when they open and for how long and on what days. The noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, from the Front Bench put this case brilliantly. The Bill is short and to the point. The Bill repeals unnecessary legislation; it is, in fact, largely a repeal measure. For that reason, I hope that it receives an overwhelming majority.
9.51 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, as the 40th speaker in this debate your Lordships will not wish me to be lengthy and I have not the slightest desire myself to be

1159
lengthy. May I say, first, that I am speaking this evening entirely in a personal capacity. We on these Benches, as your Lordships would expect, are having a completely free vote and I have no doubt that my colleagues on these Benches will find their way into different Lobbies. However, if noble Lords look at the record they will find that both parts of the Alliance have been extremely consistent in voting in the same Lobby for a very great many months; but that is a matter for another debate.
I support the amendment. At the same time, like the right reverend Prelate who moved the amendment, I am of the opinion that the present legislation is completely indefensible and that it is high time that it was revised, and drastically revised. I should like to see a very considerable extension of opening on Sundays but I do not think that this means that we need go the whole way that the Government are proposing. I support the amendment for the reasons that have been given over and over again during this debate, partly on religious grounds and very much on psychological grounds, as I believe very strongly that there is a rhythm and that if that rhythm is interrupted and cannot be maintained it is very bad for the country and very bad for the mental health of individuals. The one day that is different is an important part of that rhythm.
But I also support the amendment on social grounds—and this has been touched on—and particularly on the grounds of the opportunity for the family to get together and to have at least one meal in the week together. I think that eating together is very important for people who want to feel themselves to be a group. After all, a company is a people who eat bread together; and that is a very old profound tradition in a great many societies. As I understand it, a great many families nowadays very rarely eat together; and, if the mother is out working on Sunday, what sort of a Sunday dinner are they going to have? That may seem a rather trivial matter, but I do not think that it is. I think it symbolises something which is of very considerable importance.
The objections the Government have raised to some deregulation but not total deregulation seem to turn almost entirely on the argument that nothing short of total deregulation will do because no modified deregulation can be adequately enforced. But if the Government are really going to pursue that argument they will have to get rid of a very great deal of the legislation which is on the statute book at the present time. As the right reverend Prelate said, it is on the statute book that you must not exceed 70 miles an hour on the motorway. I would guess that if that were rigorously enforced a great many Members of your Lordships' House would be "inside". Then, again, we have on the statute book very useful antidiscrimination legislation. Nobody really believes that the law has been fully enforced with regard to antidiscrimination, but at the same time it is very useful and valuable as a mark of what society thinks to be proper behaviour that that legislation is there.
I would also remind your Lordships that for over a hundred years we have had factory legislation which, as anybody who has had anything to do with it knows, is by no means entirely enforced. But that does not
1160
mean it is not very valuable. And there is provision by which individuals who feel themselves offended or damaged by a breach of that legislation can get in touch with enforcers and bring the law to bear sufficiently to make it very worthwhile. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, will say in reply that I am suggesting it does not matter whether or not the law is enforced, and that having a law which is not enforced brings the law into contempt but I can only say that the Government must then go through the legislation and get rid of a very great deal of it if they are going to be consistent.
Nor do I find it at all easy to believe that it is so impossible to devise some kind of modified deregulation. The noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, spoke of what goes on in France, and in the south-west of France, to which I also retreat as often as I possibly can. I find that they have there a very convenient arrangement whereby an extremely good super-store opens as people come out from mass. I suspect that it attracts people to mass because, if it is not irreverent to say so, they can kill two birds with one stone—acquiring nourishment for the body and nourishment for the spirit on one journey to one place at the same time. But for the rest of the day a great many of the shops are shut. In fact, local shops open to meet local needs and it suits everybody extremely well. You do not have the whole of the shopping available that is available during the week, but you do get shops opening as and where required. I am sure legislation could be devised which would do just that.
However, a major reason why I want some modification of the Bill as it stands is the way in which it is treating employees. As noble Lords have pointed out, a very high percentage of the employees in the retail trade are women, and married women. The Bill only allows people to refuse to work on Sunday if they are already in employment. It makes it quite clear that all future employees will not have the right to refuse. The retail trade is notoriously difficult to organise from a trade union point of view, especially in the smaller shops, and there is no doubt that there will be very considerable abuse of employees if total deregulation comes. I ask the Government to think again about this. It is a major reason why I myself will be supporting the amendment of the right reverend Prelate.
Also, I think, too—this is a point which has not been made very much, if at all, during the debate—that if the Government wish they have here a great opportunity for providing jobs for people who are unemployed, as other noble Lords have said. The retail trade lends itself very well to part-time employment, and I should have thought it highly desirable to build into legislation encouragements for employers not to employ at weekends people who are in full-time employment, but to use more part-time employees. For example, instead of double time on Sundays, which is traditional, it might be useful to suggest that people who worked on Sundays had two days and not one day off in lieu. I think we would then find that a very considerable number of full-time employees would not be employed on Sundays, and that more part-time people would be employed.
I very much hope that more part-time people, both men and women, will be employed, because the

1161
people who could be used in this way are unskilled and semi-skilled but they could, in a very short time, be trained into many jobs in the retail trade. Furthermore, these are the people for whom it will be extraordinarily difficult to find employment in the future. So an extension of part-time employment with an extension of shopping hours, together with a discouragement of the employment of people who are working full-time to work at weekends, would add considerably to the opportunities of people to get part-time jobs.
There might be positive inducements given, such as national insurance concessions, which would encourage them and, in this way, the Government could do something with the extension of hours—without abusing the time of people who are working full-time—to increase job opportunities. But all this requires a further look at the legislation and the possibility of amendments which could turn the proposals, which at present have many disadvantages, into an Act which could bring with it considerable advantages.
10.2 p.m.
Baroness Ewart-Biggs: My Lords, I think I can say one thing with complete safety; that is, that every relevant point, both supporting and opposing the Bill and supporting and opposing the amendment, has been well and truly made. I think I can also say with complete certitude that the noble Lords who have spoken have spoken with authority, in many cases with very many years of experience, and all of them with a sincere belief. They have shown that this is a question which in good faith can be viewed in entirely different ways. It is for that reason that it is of very great importance that we on this side of the House have stressed that we have a free vote, as have the Alliance parties. That is because, as I say, it is with good faith that one takes one view or the opposite one.
I have found it also true that members of the public have very great and very definite feelings on this subject. From letters that I have received, and indeed from the many people for whose views I have asked, about Sunday trading I have found that all have a definite view and that in many ways they found it a very emotive question. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that there is no emotion involved in this question of Sunday trading, but I have found from my experience of talking with other people about it that it is an emotive question, and that people take both their Sundays and their shopping rights very seriously indeed.
I know that the polls have shown a breakdown of how different sections of the community are divided in their feelings about Sunday trading, but I have found that in many cases views are really not determined by party political affiliations, by social classes or indeed by age. Your Lordships may well have thought that young people would like to see a total change and all restrictions swept away, but I have found that in many cases they show a very great concern for maintaining Sunday as a different day. As I say, that is even among the young age group.
Because people feel so strongly about the whole issue it is important to try to assess rationally just how wide-ranging the effect unlimited Sunday trading
1162
would have on life for the community. There is no doubt that with deregulation, on the one hand, a greater number of people would be required to work on Sundays. On the other hand, there would be the loss of one day's peace for people living in commercial centres.
I should like briefly to draw to the attention of your Lordships some of the points which have been made repeatedly by various noble Lords. Then I should like to stress only two areas of concern in the Bill about which I personally feel most alarmed. Many noble Lords have spoken of the need for changing the law. The noble Lord the Minister spoke about rescuing the law, and he spoke of it as a decaying law. AH noble Lords who spoke today agreed that there are anomalies in the present law and that the present law is frequently broken. My noble friend Lord Jacques gave a very impressive account of the origins of the present schedule and showed reasons why it has now become quite out of date. The noble Lord. Lord Manton, made an interesting and indeed different suggestion about changing the present law. The noble Lord pointed out that if the Government want to improve Sundays for families the Bill does not go far enough and should be extended to cover sport and other activities on Sunday. I must confess that I saw a kind of logic in his argument.
Of course, there was a great deal of talk about compromise as this is what the amendment of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham is all about. My noble friend Lord Jacques made an interesting suggestion that shops could stay open in the mornings on a Sunday and that this would both provide the consumer with an opportunity to shop and would protect those small retail shops which most speakers have made a point of wishing to protect. It would protect them against the chain stores which would not open only for a Sunday morning. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, in a remarkable speech based on all those years of experience, made a very good point. He said that the change in working patterns of the general public requires a change in shopping facilities. Surely the answer is for shops to stay open longer in the evening, which would accommodate that need. My noble friend Lord Gallacher supported this in his speech. There was general agreement on some change among many other noble Lords.
My noble friend Lady Phillips completely supported deregulation—she has now gone; she told me she was going to conduct choir practice this evening, perhaps to get herself into the good books of the right reverend Prelates again; I do not know. What I found perhaps wrong in the approach of my noble friend is that she treated those of us who support the amendment of the right reverend Prelate as though we did not want any change at all, as though we were a bunch of old reactionaries and as though we were against any movement from the present situation. I thought it was very clear from the amendment of the right reverend Prelate that he, too, wanted a change, but a change that was rationalised and on a very much more limited and protected basis.
The noble Earl, Lord Arran, spoke of Sunday being at present shackled. The noble Earl implied that the amendment would do little to prevent Sunday being shackled. I feel that what the noble Earl said is

1163
opposite to the case. The noble Lord, Lord Young of Dartington, was a little unfair when he said that no suggestions had been made to improve on the Bill before us. Many suggestions were made about a change in the principle of the Bill, but any specific changes would presumably come during the Committee stage.
There was much talk about the Auld Committee and its findings. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham made the point that the committee's conclusions were not very well supported by its arguments. This was confirmed by other speakers. My noble friend Lord Mishcon pointed out that, out of the six assessors working with the three-person committee, as many as four of the assessors were entirely against complete deregulation. As my noble friend said, the findings of that committee certainly were in no way unanimous.
As the right reverend Prelate pointed out, the report referred in a rather romantic way to happy families shopping. It must have discovered children rather different from the kind I know, who would rather do anything than trail round with their mother or father buying boring things that are not of interest to themselves; although if it were to buy sweets or ice creams they would do so willingly. Otherwise, shopping in supermarkets is not what children consider a Sunday treat.
Finally, it was pointed out that, although the Auld Committee availed itself of examples of how Sunday trading operated in countries in the rest of Western Europe, where they have some restrictions, its conclusions were in contradiction to its findings.
There was a great deal of comment on the question of freedom, but one must remember that one man's freedom creates another man's lack of it. In today's employment situation there is a deficiency in logic where, on one hand, some people would be forced to work less while, under this Bill, others would be forced to work longer.
The point has been made, and reiterated, that, if shops take advantage of deregulation, many other businesses and workers will be drawn in. The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, made the point that other industries supplying the shops—transport workers, local authority workers, police, refuse collectors—would all be brought in as a support mechanism for shops that were open: he could not see any way in which the rates would not be increased in this way.
I completely agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester, who spoke about needing a wider framework in which to judge the freedom of the consumer and also that of the retailer. He felt that we had too narrow a context in which to judge these freedoms and that that framework should be a large one and, therefore, a view of how our nationalised and other institutions are, as a whole, affected by deregulation.
The noble Lord, Lord Vestey, made an interesting speech and I think he was the only one who focused on how the small shops would be affected and how in his view it would be a great deal better for it to be a local matter. He said that the opening of local shops should be decided by local authorities and by the local people
1164
affected or who would suffer from the nuisance of them being open. As I said, his speech, coming from someone with all the authority and experience that he has, was of great interest indeed.
The example of Scotland was discarded by many speakers as being irrelevant to this issue.
The points I wish to make concern the interests of the family and of shopworkers and the social effects of such a Bill. First, I refer to the working mother, because, after all, in one way or another I have such experience. I have worked in a shop and I have worked in other ways for the past nine years. I should like to put the working mother's point of view of having complete relief and the sure knowledge that nothing will come, at least on Sundays, between her and her children and that there will be no fear of failing to be what I remember my own younger daughter used to call "a proper mother". By this she meant a mother for whom she or the children generally were the major focus. Sunday was a day which brought a feeling of security to the children, in that there was nothing else around but their mother and themselves. The point has been made that for single parents wider shopping opportunities would be useful, but I would say that for the single mother it is extremely important that she should stay at home with her children on Sundays in order to fulfil that vital role of parent.
Finally, a great deal has been said regarding the character of Sunday. While, of course, respecting the arguments put forwad by Church leaders and churchgoers, I think I would rather focus on how important it is that one day a week should remain different. This point has been made by many noble Lords from all sides of the House. At present, Sunday provides a lull and a relief from the growing noise and bustle of activity which modern life entails. It is a day which some people might find boring or empty but which nevertheless provides a moment for them to pull back, rest and draw breath. There is no doubt that the activity engendered not only by shop-trading but also by everything that goes with it would cause considerable annoyance to all people who live close by. As someone who lives just off the King's Road, I—and no doubt all noble Lords—know what happens in the King's Road on Saturday. If that situation were to be repeated on Sunday, it would mean, I think, that all residents would suffer severely from mental distress. This was a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, brought up with very great effect.
I should like to end by saying that there is no doubt that the Government would like to roll back yet another bit of the state, which this represents, but will it really be worth it? What is the point of antagonising and upsetting a large section of society in the name of liberty when a compromise position such as that proposed by the right reverend Prelate is probably more or less what most people want? It is for that reason that I urge your Lordships to vote this evening for the right reverend Prelate's reasoned amendment.
10.17 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington): My Lords, after a debate of this length it will not be surprising if I do not answer all the points raised by your Lordships. If any noble Lord wishes me

1165
to write to him, I shall of course do so. However, I cannot resist saying that the next time I meet the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, mother of the free vote, at Vinegar Joe's at 9.45 p.m., I shall remind her of her speech tonight.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Glenarthur for allowing me to take part in this debate because it takes me back full circle to 1982, when I introduced my Shops Bill to abolish restrictions on shop opening hours. In this House I had some pretty distinguished predecessors in the form of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lord Maude, each of whom had tried to introduce Bills to modify parts of the existing legislation, while my noble friend Lord Derwent had persevered with it on three separate occasions. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, I remember well, was most helpful to me on my debut, and was helpful again to me today, as was my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes.
In 1982, despite these previous attempts and several others in another place, not everyone was conversant with the more farcical aspects of the present legislation. I remember being amazed—I put it more succinctly, perhaps, than the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—to discover that it was actually a criminal offence to sell fish and chips on a Sunday but that prawn balls were okay.
I think we are making a fearful mountain out of a molehill with all this. I too speak—and perhaps my noble friend Lord Bruce-Gardyne may care to take note—as one who works every Sunday making beds, cooking, washing up and so on, and even dealing with Ministerial boxes. I have also worked in a shop, so I have been on both sides of the fence. Listening to the dire predictions darkly threatened by opponents of reform, anyone would think that this Government were about to unleash the floodgates to a latterday Sodom and Gomorrah! One would think that we were talking about some terrible, sinful activity, when all that we are talking about is the innocent pursuit of shopping; and we all know that every Sunday thousands of shops are generally open, often illegally, and thousands of shoppers are glad that they are. They vote with their feet in support of the reform that we are discussing.
As the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, said, anyone who lives in Scotland must view with amazement the hullabaloo and hysteria in the rest of the United Kingdom, especially as the dreadful so-called consequences of change have absolutely no basis in reality, despite what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham said. Let us think of all the things that we can do on a Sunday now. We can go to a theatre, a cinema, a restaurant, a pub, an ice rink and a swimming pool. We can, if they choose to open, go to a bank, a post office, an estate agent or the Stock Exchange. If there is any force in the argument that shops should be statutorily closed, why not pubs and cinemas; indeed, why not Sunday football, I heard somebody say, which has happened?
I have to say too that I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that there has been a tremendous amount of humbug and hypocrisy over this Bill. We have heard outside this House many retailers, keen to protect their commercial vested
1166
interests, calling for the criminal law to be applied to protect them against their competitors, and large retailers waging a campaign of fear aimed at small shopkeepers, while dressing all that up with rather unconvincing claims about having their customers' interests at heart. That is why I was particularly delighted to hear the speech of the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury. And we have heard too many arguments about the need to protect shopworkers, arguments which actively oppose the possible opportunity for new part-time jobs.
Then I come to the Church, whose representatives, even on "Thought for Today", twice have tried to make us feel morally guilty about wanting to ha\e the choice of shopping on a Sunday. One might rather meanly remind the right reverend Prelates that people in glass houses should not throw stones. My noble friend Lord Norrie has enlightened us concerning the situation of Guildford Cathedral. I think that I could outnumber the list of my noble friend Lord Arran of Sunday goodies to be purchased at cathedral shops. I do not know about Winchester Cathedral, but if any of your Lordships should happen to visit Birmingham Cathedral on a Sunday you would find its excellent church shop open from 11 a.m. to 3 p.m. selling church literature and various souvenirs, including key rings, pens, cards, books, diaries, and so on.
We come to Canterbury Cathedral where goods presently on offer include the Bible, two other books, colour slides, ties, gramophone records, and strangest of all a book entitled Pubs in Kent, a comprehensive guide compiled by the Kent branch of the Campaign for Real Ale. Perhaps here lies the clue to the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, about reforming the licensing laws. Canterbury takes the lead!
How many of those items fall within the exemptions listed in the Fifth Schedule to the Shops Act 1950? Apart from Southwark Cathedral, which has no Sunday shop, it appears that the majority of the large, well-known cathedrals in the United Kingdom are open on a Sunday and have no hesitation in selling all types of goods. I hope that I shall not be struck by a fiery bolt if I say that as the law stands the deans and chapters of those cathedrals are guilty of criminal offences in being open for the sale of those objects, and it is at least arguable that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury himself is guilty of at least aiding and abetting in the commission of those offences. The most reverend Primate would of course be joined in the dock by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, responsible for illegal trading on Sunday by the Tower of London—mentioned by my noble friend Lord Arran—all of which goes to show how crazy the present situation is.
It must be very obvious that if we were starting now from scratch, there could be no question of our attempting to enact a law as confused, as contradictory and as unworkable as that which we now have. We would most emphatically not criminalise that most basic and legitimate human activity—that of engaging in the ordinary process of buying and selling. One of the consequences of including within the ambit of the criminal law behaviour, which most people regard as non-criminal is that the law falls into complete

1167
disrepute. Another indirect consequence may be that it is not enforced. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur said that in 1984 there were 720 findings of guilt recorded for trading illegally on a Sunday. It would seem more probable that this represented a fraction of the openings for one Sunday. But it is absurd to believe that this in any way reflects the scale of illegal opening on a Sunday.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and my noble friend Lord Sandford may be interested to know that I have been told that on 24th April 1985 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the federal Lord's Day Act 1906 used by many provinces to control Sunday shopping was unconstitutional. The High Court ruled that the law violated the guarantee of freedom and conscience and religion in the charter of rights and freedoms of the new Canadian constitution. It said:
"The Lord's Day Act to the extent that it binds all to a sectarian Christian ideal, works a form of coercion inimical to the spirit of the Charter. The Act gives the appearance of discrimination against non-Christian Canadians. Religious values rooted in Christian morality are translated into a positive law binding on believers and non-believers alike. Non-Christians are prohibited for religious reasons from carrying out otherwise lawful, moral and normal activities. Any law, purely religious in purpose, which denies non-Christians the right to work on Sunday denies them the right to practise their religion and infringes their religious freedom".
The court rejected provincial arguments in the Alberta case that the Lord's Day Act really was a labour law aimed at ensuring a day of rest for workers. The Supreme Court's decision left open to challenge a variety of provincial statutes across Canada that has been used to make Sunday a uniform closing day for businesses.
The employment consequences of our Bill are somewhat speculative because nobody knows how many shops will actually open on Sundays. Concern has been expressed about the effect of deregulaton on jobs. I should like to reassure noble Lords that we do not think Sunday trading will have significant implications for employment. This was also the conclusion of the Institute of Fiscal Studies who undertook an authoritative study for the Auld Committee. I am well aware that IFS suggested that over a 15-year period up to 20,000 jobs may be lost, but I believe the IFS estimate may be too pessimistic. I suggest just that to my noble friend Lord Vestey. The IFS study compared a situation of no Sunday trading with Sunday trading. But some Sunday trading already exists, so that some of the predicted job losses will have already happened. IFS also assumed no consequential increase in sales, but I know that many retailers are more optimistic and expect an increase. Some noble Lords may be aware of a further study by IFS which indicated that a 2 per cent. increase in sales would lead to 22,000 additional jobs in retailing. The tourist industry also expects increased sales to both overseas visitors and British tourists. In 1983 the British Tourist Industry Authority found that over half of our overseas visitors favoured the removal of restrictions on Sunday trading. Tourism is one of the country's largest industries. Liberalisation of trading hours would be a small but significant improvement we offer to tourists, and because of the size of the industry a significant benefit to the places tourists visit. There will also be increased jobs in activities associated with shops such as cafes and restaurants.
1168
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester was concerned that existing shop workers who do not want to work on a Sunday for religious, family or other reasons will be forced to work. Because we share this concern the Shops Bill includes important safeguards to protect established shop workers. My noble friend Lord Glenarthur outlined the extent and scope of these safeguards in his opening speech. I think that there is general agreement that the two new rights will go a long way to meet the justified concern of existing shop workers. They mean that all shopworkers in employment on the day before the commencement date of this new Act, provided that they have not agreed to work on a Sunday, will be able to refuse to work on a Sunday. If they are subsequently sacked this will be regarded as automatically unfair and they will be able to appeal to an industrial tribunal to be reinstated and receive financial compensation.
They will also be able to appeal to an industrial tribunal if an employer attempts to pressurise them to work on Sundays through refusing promotion or training opportunities. Our proposals will cover shop assistants and other employees engaged in the operation of a shop; for example, managers, lift attendants, delivery drivers and cleaners. We are also aware that a relatively high proportion of shopworkers are part-timers, and to ensure that they have the same protection as full-time employees all existing employees, irrespective of how long they have worked for their employer, or how few hours they work in a week, will be able to claim these rights. These are important and effective safeguards for existing shopworkers, and existing employees need no longer be worried that they may be forced to work on Sundays.
During the debate the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy—and I would agree with him that Sundays in Wales are certainly different—raised the position of new recruits into the industry after commencement, and why they should not also be able to claim these rights. The reason for distinguishing between existing and future shopworkers is quite clear and straightforward. This Bill will radically alter the position of existing shopworkers, many of whom may have been attracted to shop work in the first instance because they would not have to work on a Sunday. I can well understand the concern of existing workers, and our proposal on safeguards recognises their special position.
However, I do not believe that similar considerations apply to new recruits. In what ways are they different from other employees who join industries where Sunday working is expected? On Sunday. 24th November, I watched the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham on television. If he had not driven himself to the studio he would have taken a bus or a taxi. On arrival he would have been greeted by someone from the television studio team, with electricians and cameramen standing by. After he had finished his work there he would have presumably returned home to where his wife had been cooking on either gas or electricity to provide him with a nice lunch; or may be, if he was feeling generous, he would have taken her out to lunch at a restaurant.
There are people out there providing all these services. It is a fact today that people in many walks of

1169
life have to work, at least occasionally, on a Sunday. It is not only people in public service—police, hospitals, transport—but also people in manufacturing, agriculture and leisure industries. The recent study we have seen suggests that as many as four million people have to work regularly on a Sunday; and almost another five million work occasionally on a Sunday. I have not seen a great outcry that people are working on Sundays at swimming pools or restaurants or estate agents. I think we must recognise that the pattern of working lives for many people includes an element of Sunday working. We should all remember that full-time employees who work on a Sunday will usually be entitled to a day off in lieu during the week. For these reasons I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that I do not believe it would be right, nor could we defend a decision, to give special privileges to new recruits after commencement date.
Turning to the Bill's provision on young people, I should make it clear that all the Shops Act provisions are being retained for 16 and 17 year-olds, at least for the time being. These provisions include setting their maximum hours and overtime and controlling night employment as well as the weekly halfday holiday, meal breaks and Sunday employment rules. We cannot pretend that these restrictions are anything other than outdated, but there are different considerations with young people. It can still be argued that some form of protection for young people may be needed to safeguard their interests. The Shops Act is just part of the legislation governing young people's hours of work.
The Factories Act 1961 and related legislation contain very similar rules. A detailed review of all the legislation is necessary to assess its relevance today and to decide whether it could and should be updated. The review is in hand. The Health and Safety and the Equal Opportunities Commissions have been asked for their views. They will report back next summer. It would be premature and inappropriate to tackle the Shops Act provisions in isolation from the rest and in advance of the review's findings. Until they are known, the best way forward is to keep the Shops Act provisions exactly as they are.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, made much play with the proposition of a 24-hour day. Here we are back again in the realm of speculation as to how many additional shops will open. I pointed out to the noble Lord that shops could open legally now at midnight. He agreed with me. However, how many shops actually stay open until midnight? I know of none.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham mentioned traffic. I would point out to him that with regard to that subject we just do not know how much traffic there might be, but with regard to the management of traffic and parking local authorities have flexible powers. They are, of course, in the best position to determine what is needed for particular localities. They are in the best position to judge what time of day or day of the week problems may arise. The statutory framework within which they work provides for all their proposals to be advertised locally. This enables individuals and other interested parties to make their views known.
1170
To return to the interesting remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, he was of course a distinguished assessor to the Auld Committee. I have to tell the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the Government are not sufficiently aware of the opinion of all the assessors to the Auld Committee on the subject of the Committee's report so that I can comment freely on their views. However, noble Lords should be aware of the task of the assessors. It was to assist the committee to identify and to obtain information from all relevant sources and to advise the committee on information and submissions that it received. It was the committee that the Government appointed to consider the problem and to make proposals, and not the assessors.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about the wages council and their protection of shopworkers. We took account of all points of view expressed during the extensive consultations with wages councils, including that of the Auld Committee. We decided to retain the wages councils but to reform them. As the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said, they will continue to set a minimum rate and overtime rate for those aged 21 and over. I should like to reassure the noble Lord that the proposed legislation will cover shopworkers.
These reforms are necessary because we believe that wages councils are pricing people out of work, especially young people. The reform should encourage employees to take on more workers, especially young people. Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, young people between 18 and 21 who are established when the Act comes into force will not have to work on Sundays unless they wish to do so. They will no longer be covered by wages councils' orders because, as matters now stand, the rates of pay ordered by the councils tend to reduce employment opportunities for some youngsters. Some of them may think it is better to have a job even at a slightly reduced rate of pay, and many 18 to 21 year-olds will be covered by collective agreements. That last sentence is my answer to Lord Graham's specific question
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, asked how local authorities would decide which shops should be allowed to open on Sundays on grounds of necessity. We all have different views of what is necessary. I cannot see agreement being reached on that. Noble Lords must recognise that many residents of shopping areas want the shops to open, and will tell local authorities so if they try to shut the shops. The possibility of nuisance occurring is taken into account by local planning authorities when considering planning applications. They may impose specific conditions designed to avoid nuisance when they grant planning permission. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandford for summarising so succinctly the difficulties that would arise from any system of local regulation. I endorse his view that we would be replacing one unworkable system with another, and that this would be an unfair burden on local authorities. This point was also effectively stressed by my noble friend Lady Vickers.
Some concern has been expressed about the cost of providing seven-day trading standards inspection by local authorities. The Association of County Councils made the point to the Auld Committee, however, that

1171
most retail traders deal in pre-packed goods, and that a packet of peas or a 13 amp plug is no more likely to be misdescribed, to be incorrectly weighed, or to be dangerous on Sunday than on any other day.
This amendment presupposes the need for amendments to this Bill. It is important to remember that the Auld Committee looked into every permutation and concluded that none of them was fair or workable. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Graham, that it is not fair to imply that the Auld Committee was in some way biased or that it ignored the evidence. The committee demonstrated that the present law was an ass. The committee examined carefully all the compromises suggested and concluded with reasons why they would not work. Hence the committee came to the conclusion that deregulation was the only solution.
When proposing to repeal legislation I think it is always healthy to ask oneself acid test questions. If we were proposing today to introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence for shopkeepers to open their shops at hours that best suit them and their customers, would any of your Lordships vote for it? Of course not. If we were proposing to introduce legislation that it would be illegal to work at all on Sundays, would your Lordships vote for it? Of course not.
I thought that my noble friend Lady Lane-Fox made a good point about how tiring it was to have to shop at the end of a working day. Those of us who actually have to do the shopping and fit it round a busy working day—and I imagine that this is a point particularly close to the hearts of all my fellow women Peers; I know I share the views of the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, expressed in her excellent speech—will know how irritating it is to be told that only the inefficient need to shop in the evenings or on Sundays.
The point is that people on both sides of the shop counter want to see the law changed in the way that the Bill proposes, to allow for more flexible shopping hours for both men and women, so that shops can open at times that reflect the fact that millions of women—and your Lordships have to face it—nowadays have to combine their job with running the household and doing the shopping. For millions of people, weekends are the only times available for them to cosset their special loves—cars, gardens and homes.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark made much about keeping Sunday a special day. I know that many of us—in fact I should think all of us—would agree with that. But I do not see that this Bill would prevent that being the case. All we are saying is "you may"—not "you shall". I genuinely respect the views of those who do not think it is right to go shopping on Sunday or to open their shops. They do not have to go shopping now; nor will they in the future have to go shopping or open their shops. I submit to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, that families and single people should be responsible for deciding for themselves what sort of Sunday they want, rather than have the Government forbidding them, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, has said, the privilege of making up their own minds and consciences.
1172
If the character of the English Sunday is worth preserving, it must be worth preserving not by the force of law, but by the choice of the British people. I ask your Lordships to support the Government and to reject the right reverend Prelate's amendment.
10.47 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I understand that it is my privilege to respond at the end of the debate and I should like to thank the many contributors for the excellent speeches they have made and the good points we have heard. One of the great attributes of this House is that we can listen and weigh one another's arguments coolly and calmly in an atmosphere which is conducive to such a proceeding. But at the same time I am aware, with the number of speakers that there have been—I think I have heard more words in the last nine and a half hours than ever I have before in my life——
Viscount Whitelaw: Oh, no, my Lords.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, if I am to keep the goodwill of the House I must be brief. I must begin by grasping the nettle by speaking about cathedral shops. The noble Baroness the Minister said that the right reverend Prelates were trying to make the House feel guilty. I thought she was trying to make the Prelates feel guilty.
Baroness Trumpington: Yes, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, the noble Baroness seemed to have done a remarkable amount of research into my own private life. I should like to tell her that she has not done enough, because I am in the habit of driving myself on a Sunday and my cathedral is shut at one o'clock, not at three o'clock, as I found to my cost when I once left my mackintosh there.
If cathedral shops are open they are staffed by voluntary workers and not for profit. But on the other hand——
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: Not for profit, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Oh, no?
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: Not for personal profit, my Lords.
Noble Lords: Oh!
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham: My Lords, I remind the Members of your Lordships' House that benefit of clergy ended finally in 1827, and if clergy are guilty of secular offences under the secular law, then they should be charged. I have already spoken of my own charge for speeding. They should be charged, and that is the end of the matter. It is no argument for this Bill, as I see it, that some cathedral shops might open illegally.

1173
I was asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, about the Church Commissioners. The Church Commissioners own freeholds of premises on which shops are being built. They will retain the freeholds of those premises. The commissioners will determine the conditions in which the leaseholders may trade. The commission will doubtless have in mind the views of the General Synod as expressed in its recent vote; and if it does not, I shall guarantee that it knows about them.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, spoke of the situation in Canada, as he had experienced it. I have experienced something very different in California. I think that we must accept what the Auld Committee said, that what happens in other countries is really not a guide to what should happen in this country. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, said that everything is much better in France so far as Sunday trading is concerned. But France has some regulations; it is not totally deregulated.
The noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, said that this would not be irrevocable. Well, I can concede that in principle it may not be irrevocable, but in practice it would be. Many things—for instance, the beginning of proceedings for divorce one year after marriage, which was recently passed by this House—it seems to me most improbable will ever be revoked. Also, in Sweden, attempts to rescind deregulation have failed.
I do not want to say much on the question of individual freedom because the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, has spoken about this. However, I should have thought that we in this House are really concerned with the welfare of society as a whole, the structure of society. The law is there to protect people, and shopkeepers and others need to be protected.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, spoke of what has happened in Scotland and what she has seen there. There are very different views about this, as I expressed in my earlier speech, and I have been assured that matters are changing very rapidly in the centres of population there.
It is clear that there is great disagreement among Members of your Lordships' House on the economic effects of Sunday trading. There is usually a great disagreement among people on economics and I do not really think that there is an argument there either way that we can safely use, or about whether jobs would be lost or gained.
I must say a word about the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, who mentioned the word "hypocritical". That is a difficult word to mention, even in such a robust speech as hers, because it can boomerang. Those who uphold the law of speeding but actually break the speed limit may be accused of the same thing. She asked why bishops did not support her some years ago and I fear I cannot answer her because I was not a bishop then.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, waved a red pamphlet and read a lot out of it, as though we were concerned not with a Government Bill but with a red pamphlet. It seems to me that we are not at all concerned with a red pamphlet. As I said, the board for social responsibility of the Church of England in no way sponsored the arguments in that pamphlet, especially the suggestions for the alteration of the law.
1174
I was particularly asked to speak on the subject of the ethnic minorities. I actually said something about them in my opening speech. I said that if this was a predominantly Moslem country, then presumably we should have Friday as the day of rest, rather than Sunday, and if it was a predominantly Jewish country, we should have Saturday. It does not seem to me that ethnic minorities can really have special exemptions from the law of the country in this respect, am more than they can have it in education. The law which permitted Jews who kept the Jewish sabbath to open on Sunday is another matter; but we have had no representations from ethnic minorities, because they wish to keep their own holy day, that they then can open on another. The law, we are told, is brought into contempt; but I must repeat that we have had no hard evidence about the proportion of shops that are in breach of the law, and I do not believe that there are all that number.
I have been challenged again by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, to say what kind of amendment could be put to the House. I would be foolish to say what amendments will be put to the House when we meet in Committee, but the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, mentioned that on Sundays shops could open till 9 p.m., and the noble Lord. Lord Jacques, said that shops could open on Sundays after 1 p.m. and there could be an exemption for small shops and even for large shops in non-built-up areas. I mention this to show that the suggestions which will be put forward in Committee are very practical ones, and I cannot myself see that there is any disloyalty, as has been suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, in voting for my amendment.
This is not a wrecking amendment: it is a reasoned amendment. This amendment seems to me not inconsistent with what the noble Lord the Minister said about agreeing to substantial deregulation, because substantial deregulation would go along with some of the amendments which will be before the House.
I should like to thank those who spoke in favour of my amendment, especially the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, in his rather moving speech, who pointed out in particular that there was no real evidence that people wanted this; the noble Viscount, Lord Tonypandy, with his passionate Christian convictions; and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who was the only one in the House, I think, who spoke about the local inhabitants and what they would suffer with Sunday trading.
Many speakers mentioned the situation of family life, retail workers and small shopkeepers. I think that perhaps the most interesting of all these speeches was that of the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, because he drew back the curtain around the Auld Committee—and it is the report of the Auld Committee which the Government have accepted in asking for total deregulation. He showed us—and I could only wish there had been more in the House when he spoke—that Government departments were divided in the evidence they gave. He showed us that even the Home Office said that the effects of total deregulation needed to be (to quote their word) "tempered". It seems to me very important that we should realise that the Government, in accepting the report of a committee of

1175
three persons, are in fact accepting a report of people who received very divided evidence and had divided assessments.
I have really tried to listen with an open mind to the objectors to my amendment, but I find their arguments lacking in cogency. This amendment is not about going to church on Sundays, as so many speakers seem to have thought. It is not about all shops being shut throughout Sunday. It is about a compromise between the different interests concerned: those who want to shop, those who have to be there to help them, those who work in all the infrastructure which supports them. There are many interests at stake and my amendment is to produce a compromise which I believe would be practical this time because the amendments would be different from what had been considered before.
I realise that what we do now does not affect amendments moved in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, said that he would wait to vote until amendments were put forward in Committee. I feel, and I hope the majority of this House feels, that we should put down a marker now. The noble Baroness the Minister said that we are making a mountain out of a molehill. I do not think so. We are concerned with a principle. The principle is this: do we want now irrevocable, fundamental, far-ranging changes in the structure of English society or are we prepared rather to have a rationalisation of the present laws, and to rationalise the restrictions on trading hours without such extensive deregulation as the Bill proposes? I hope that we want the latter.
The Lord Chancellor: The original Question was that the Bill be now read a second time, since when an amendment has been proposed in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Birmingham. The Question, therefore, that I have to put is that the said amendment be agreed to? As many as are of that opinion will say, "Content": to the contrary, "Not-Content".
11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 85; Not-Contents, 141.

DIVISION NO. 1

CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Dean of Beswick, L.

Banks, L.

Denning, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Derby, Bp.

Edmund-Davies, L.

Birmingham, Bp. [Teller.]

Eldon, E.

Brentford, V.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Briggs, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Buckmaster, V.

Foot, L.

Caldecote, V.

Gallacher, L.

Campbell of Eskan, L.

Galpern, L.

Canterbury, Abp.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Caradon, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Grantchester, L.

Coleraine, L.

Greenhill of Harrow, L.

Crawshaw of Aintree, L.

Hampden, V.

Croft, L.

Hampton, L.

Cross, V.

Hereford, Bp.

1176

Hooson, L.

St. Albans, Bp.

Ingleby, V.

Seear, B.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Jacques, L.

Sempill, Ly.

John Mackie, L.

Shepherd, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Soper, L.

Kirkhill. L.

Southwark, Bp.

Lauderdale, E.

Stallard, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stamp, L.

Lockwood, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

McNair, L.

Swinfen, L.

Meston, L.

Tonypandy, V.

Mishcon, L.

Tranmire, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Turner of Camden. B.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Underhill, L.

Nicol, B.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Oram, L.

Vernon, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rea, L.

Whaddon, L.

Renton, L.

White, B.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Rochester, Bp.

Winchester, Bp.

Rochester, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Rodney, L.

Ross of Mamock, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Halsbury, E.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Hanson, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Harmar Nicholls, L.

Ampthill, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Arran, E.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Beaverbrook, L.

Henley, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Holderness, L.

Beloff, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Belstead, L.

Hood, V.

Bessborough, E.

Hooper, B.

Boardman, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Bolton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Inchcape, E.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Jessel. L.

Broxbourne, L.

Kaberry of Adel, L.

Bruce-Gardyne, L.

Kimball. L.

Caithness, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Cameron of Lochbroom, L.

Lawrence, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Layton, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Carnock, L.

Liverpool, E.

Chelwood, L.

Long, V. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Lyell, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

McAlpine of Moffat. L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McAlpine of West Green, L.

Cowley, E.

McFadzean, L.

Craigavon, V.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

MacLehose of Beoch, L.

Davidson, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Dilhorne, V.

Manton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mar, C.

Dulverton, L.

Marchwood, V.

Eccles, V.

Marley, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mersey, V.

Forester, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Fortescue, E.

Monson, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gainford, L.

Mottistone, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Mountevans, L.

Glanusk, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Munster, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Norrie, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Onslow, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

1177

Pender, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tordoff, L.

Portland, D.

Trefgarne, L.

Portsmouth, E.

Trumpington, B.

Raglan. L.

Tryon, L.

Redesdale, L.

Vickers, B.

Reigate, L.

Vinson, L.

Renwick, L.

Vivian, L.

Romney, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Westbury, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Whitelaw, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Windlesham, L.

Sanderson of Bowden, L.

Winstanley, L.

Sandford, L.

Wolfson, L.

Shaughnessy, L.

Wynford, L.

Silkin of Dulwich, L.

Young, B.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Young of Darlington, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Young of Graffham, L.

Swansea, L.

Zouche of Haryngworth. L.

Swinton. E. [Teller.]

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past eleven o'clock.

  PUBLIC TRUSTEE RULES
  PUBLIC TRUSTEE RULES
  OVERSEAS TRADE: COMMAND PAPER
  OVERSEAS TRADE: COMMAND PAPER
  SUCKLER COW PREMIUM SCHEME
  SUCKLER COW PREMIUM SCHEME
  SSSIs: ACID RAIN
  SSSIs: ACID RAIN
  UNITED KINGDOM COASTAL ZONE: SOVIET INTELLIGENCE
  UNITED KINGDOM COASTAL ZONE: SOVIET INTELLIGENCE
  UN MARITIME UNIVERSITY: BRITISH PARTICIPATION
  UN MARITIME UNIVERSITY: BRITISH PARTICIPATION
  THE UNEMPLOYED: QUALIFICATIONS
  THE UNEMPLOYED: QUALIFICATIONS
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS: MOORED VESSELS
  DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES REGULATIONS: MOORED VESSELS
  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTRES: FUNDING
  INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CENTRES: FUNDING