asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, it is the responsibility of the medical profession to consider the important messages in the World Health Organisation report Drugs for Children. The Government will consider to what extent the report needs to be highlighted in publications on prescribing which are sent to doctors. Beyond that, the report does not call for a response from the Government.

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his reply. As the report states that it is children in particular who are receiving more medical drugs than are required, do the Government intend to sponsor some means of spreading information on the subject to the public, especially parents?

My Lords, anyone who has children or who has had children can appreciate the anxiety parents feel when their children are ill. I acknowledge that it may lead some of them to expect medicines from doctors. The final decision on how to treat the patient must rest with the doctor, using his clinical judgment. However, I accept that parents and the public should be educated, and the Health Education Authority publishes a leaflet called Minor Illness—How to treat at home. I further expect doctors to discuss the best form of treatment which may or may not include the provision of drugs.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that it is not only children who may suffer from taking too many drugs? There is growing medical evidence that if adults take sleeping pills, aspirin or other drugs too often, they will suffer from dizziness in old age.

My Lords, I readily bow to my noble friend's superior wisdom in this matter. The Government continue their efforts to make doctors more aware of their prescribing habits. For example, in the autumn a new computer prescription pricing authority will start providing doctors with timely, well-presented information about their prescribing for all patients. The Government expect doctors to pay greater attention to their prescribing habits once the information is available.

My Lords, does it follow from the Minister's reply that the department or the FPCs do not currently collect information about the quantity and range of medicines and drugs prescribed to children? On the other hand, if they do collect the information, is it being fed back to the general practitioners?

My Lords, the net ingredient cost of prescriptions in the under-16-years-of-age exempt category totalled about £90 million in England in 1986. So yes, we do collect this information. I should add that doctors in the department's regional medical service are increasing their visits to high cost prescribers to discuss with doctors how to improve their prescribing without detriment to patient care. In addition, an experiment is under way employing two prescribing specialist medical officers whose sole task is to encourage more effective and economic prescribing.

My Lords, how does the Minister reconcile what he has just been saying with television commercials telling people night after night that if they take a certain pill or drug they are a new man the next morning?

My Lords, it is perfectly proper for the pharmaceutical companies to advertise their wares. If the noble Lord or anyone else in the country has complaints about advertising, there is the advertising standards authority to which those complaints should be directed.

My Lords, will my noble friend and his department take into account that it was not the prescribing of drugs for a particular illness that the report emphasised but the fact that children went on taking the drug long after the treatment had ended?

My Lords, yes. We are aware of that. This is where the parent-doctor role applies, or should apply, most vigorously.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, I understand that the prospect of the Orthodox Churches making any progress towards a common date is not likely to be immediate.

My Lords, I am grateful for that Answer, which was rather what I expected. Is the Minister aware that people generally regard Easter as the first outdoor holiday of the year? Even allowing for the vagaries of the British climate, is there not a better chance of good weather in April than in March? However, with the fairly recent introduction of the May Day holiday, Easter is not suitable for the second half of April, because we want to avoid the bunching of Bank Holidays. Therefore did not our elders and betters get it about right in 1928?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has asked questions about the holidays and the weather. The actual Question he put down on the Order Paper was about Easter. Easter is a religious festival. We think that it would be undesirable that the changing of the festival of Easter should be undertaken without the agreement of the Churches.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us find his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, most reassuring? Will the Government continue to bear in mind that as Easter is the chief festival of the Christian year its date is much more a matter for the Churches than for governments?

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for that encouraging remark. Having heard noble Lords ask this same question and some poor noble Lord answer it from this Dispatch Box over the past 20 years, I never expected to find myself in this position. My noble friend is quite correct. The method of calculating when Easter should fall was established by resolution of the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. It was given statutory authority in this country by the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750.

My Lords, my noble friend said that it is up to the Orthodox Churches to make this decision. What, for example, has the Greek Orthodox Church to do with the date we celebrate our Easter?

My Lords, it is desirable that there should be agreement with all the Churches of which the Greek Orthodox is one. When my noble friend Lord Elton occupied this hazardous seat he wrote, after receiving such a Question from your Lordships, to the Orthodox Archbishop of Thyateira and Great Britain to see if he could ask the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople how matters stood on adopting a common date. My noble friend was told in the reply that the second Pan-Orthodox Preconciliar Conference of the Holy Orthodox Church was held in 1982 and considered the subject of the common celebration of Easter by all Christians.

The conference heard that,

"besides scientific akribeia, the whole problem is a problem of ecclesiological consciousness of one and indivisible Orthodoxy, the unity of which should in no way be undermined; it requires a proper assessment by the Church in her pastoral responsibility and in accordance with the needs of her flock; in the present state of Church affairs, the believing God's people have not been prepared, or in any case have not been sufficiently informed, for accepting changes in determining the date of Easter."

My Lords, only once in seven years does the Orthodox Easter coincide with the western Easter. In any case, the decision is not a matter of summer holidays for children. As has already been said, it concerns one of the greatest religious festivals of the year.

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. That occurs, I believe, because the Holy Orthodox Church is still on the Julian calendar whereas we are on the Gregorian calendar. We changed in 1752 and lost 11 days in the process. I understand that the Holy Orthodox Church has been talking for some centuries about changing but has not yet decided to do so.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that the evangelical fervour and scholarship that he has demonstrated in your Lordships' House today is extremely acceptable to many of us who would desire a greater attention to the inner meaning of Easter whether it falls on a particular date or not? We would desire to commend that spirit of anticipation because we believe the celebration of Easter as the culmination and fulfilment of the promise of God is of the utmost importance for our own welfare.

My Lords, if I may say so that is a most appropriate note, be it in the form of a question which the noble Lord, Lord Soper, has addressed on this particular occasion.

My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that when I was first Home Secretary just over 20 years ago I rashly tried to solve this problem but with no more success than he has achieved? However, there did appear to be very considerable support for a fixed Easter among the Anglican communion and also in the Roman Catholic Church. As the noble Earl has informed us, it is the Greek Church that has raised difficulties. Are there not precedents where Christian festivals are celebrated on different days in the Greek Church to the western Church?

My Lords, that may well be; the point about changing the Easter Act is that it was suggested that this should only be done after we had had regard to the opinions officially expressed by other Churches. I am delighted, if I may so put it, that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, did not succeed in changing it. I am sure that he would agree that it is not for the Government to change the date of Easter; it is a matter for the Churches. Of course it is a complicated matter to know the date on which Easter does fall. I have done a little research. I discover that it falls on the first Sunday after the first full moon on or after the 21st day of March. If the full moon occurs on a Sunday, Easter Day is the following Sunday. But the moon referred to is not the real moon of the heaven; it is a hypothetical moon whose being full determines the date of Easter.

My Lords, is not the noble Earl to be congratulated on the profound depth of his researches and for adding to our vocabulary the word "ecclesiological"?

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I was prompted to do my researches having seen the awful mill through which my predecessors had been put by your Lordships on this subject.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the £30 million has been allocated on the basis of projects put to us by regional health authorities. The allocations will fund over 350 projects aimed at treating at least 100,000 extra cases.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is the waiting time not more important to patients than the waiting list? Can he comment on the situation in Scotland?

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that what matters to the individual patient is the time he or she has to wait for treatment rather than the size of the list. Half of all admissions to hospital are immediate. For those who wait, half are admitted within seven weeks or less. It is the small but worrying proportion who have to wait for an unacceptedly long time on which we wish to concentrate the most effort. The most recent figures, for March 1987, show that we are continuing to make progress. The number of people on the waiting list waiting over a year fell by over 2,000 to 23·6 per cent. of the total list. That is the lowest proportion in the 12 years since the figure was first collected.

So far as Scotland is concerned, my honourable friend the Under-Secretary of State with special responsibility for health matters in Scotland announced on Tuesday that as part of a major campaign to reduce waiting lists and waiting times he had set aside a waiting list fund of £3 million for 1988–89.

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the waiting list initiative is not having an adverse effect on the specialties which do not benefit from that particular initiative in that they do not have to give up beds and release theatre time in favour of the initiative? Are those waiting lists building up to an unacceptable level?

No, my Lords. So far as I am aware that is not the case. The regional health authorities, which suggest projects for funding to the departments, are making sure that that does not happen.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced on 23rd March that a new woodland grant scheme offering higher rates of grant would come into operation on 5th April. Clearly the industry will have to adjust to changes. But with the transitional arrangements announced we hope to sustain planting at a reasonable level until planting under the new grant scheme gets into its stride.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will the Minister confirm that the Government are committed to the 30,000 hectare target which has long been regarded as acceptable for forestry in the United Kingdom? Can he identify the new investors that he hopes to attract to forestry, because many of the traditional investors will find other opportunities for rewarding investment in other areas?

My Lords, I can confirm that it is the Government's intention that the new planting at the rate of 33,000 hectares per annum should remain. In addition, there are the farm woodlands scheme targets which we hope to attain. As regards new investors, I am sure that the noble Lord, with his great knowledge of investment, will understand that we shall, like Mr. Asquith, have to wait and see.

My Lords, in the light of the views expressed in our recent debate on the report of the Nature Conservancy Council, can my noble friend give an assurance that future planting, particularly of conifers, will not impair the environment?

Yes, my Lords. I have seen comments in the newspapers recently about that matter. I believe that my noble friend is referring to Scotland and Wales, where most of the conifer planting takes place. Perhaps I may assure my noble friend that the uplands of Scotland and Wales will be protected against environmentally damaging afforestation. No planting scheme will be approved for grant aid which is out of sympathy with the environment. There will be special provisions in the new plans of operation for positive environmental and conservation proposals. The existing consultation arrangements provide adequate safeguards for areas of special environmental importance.

My Lords, what calculations have been made with regard to further investment in the processing sector, should there be a drop in planting levels?

My Lords, the noble Lady has made a very important point regarding downstream activities which are particularly important to the economies of Scotland and Wales. As regards the new regime—the removal of tax incentives and the move to grants—the Government will keep under review the activities that take place, particularly over the next months. As I have said to the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, 33.000 hectares is our target.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that although there are many people, including noble Lords on these Benches, who supported the closing of the tax loophole on forestry, there are a number of owners who are considering a reduction in their forestry staff as a result of the changes, because they will not be able to charge the cost of maintaining their plantations against tax? Perhaps the Minister can tell the House the Government's views on the employment aspects of the proposed changes.

My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to the maintenance situation. Planting grants under the woodlands scheme will be paid in three instalments; 70 per cent. at the start of planting; 20 per cent. five years after initial planting; and 10 per cent. after 10 years. Those grants are paid subject to satisfactory planting, establishment and maintenance. As regards management grants, those were paid under earlier dedication schemes and continue to be paid under closed schemes. However, they do not feature in the later schemes because of the lack of any persuasive evidence that such payments stimulated better management and were cost effective. We are not convinced that there is a case for introducing them. However, I hear what the noble Lord says and I am well aware of what is being said in the industry.

My Lords, in the light of the Minister's reply to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, does he agree that the further planting of conifers is especially undesirable on environmental grounds in national parks? Can he confirm that nonetheless grants have continued to be available for private forestry in Welsh national parks while that is quite rightly not the case in England?

My Lords, as regards the planting of conifers, I am well aware of the views strongly held on both sides of the argument. My noble friend Lord Renton may not like me to repeat it, but it is a question of balance.

My Lords, perhaps the Minister can tell the House the logic of withdrawing the tax relief which has created wealth and jobs in Scotland and elsewhere and giving relief in another way which means that the money will be spent elsewhere and probably abroad. What is the logic of the exercise that the Chancellor has undertaken? The Minister said that he hoped that a reasonable level of planting would be maintained. The Government must know that the target of 33,000 hectares has fallen short by an average of 10,000 acres over the past eight years. How will the Government get a reasonable level of planting when up to now they have failed?

My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord understands that the figure of 33,000 hectares is a target. I do not accept that the level has significantly fallen consistently below that. We have seen an increase in the level, although admittedly it has not reached the target level yet. The noble Lord has asked me about the logic behind the change; it is a simplification of the situation. We must look at the whole of the Budget in the context of that area and realise that a drop in the top rate of tax from 60 per cent. to 40 per cent. might well have had an effect even if the change had not been made.

My Lords, can the Minister assure us that in the farm woodland scheme and any scheme for planting—whether conifers or not—the farmer's own labour and that of his men will be taken into account as a proper expense when considering the grants?

My Lords, I think that that is a little wide of the original Question. I shall look very carefully at what the noble Lord has asked me about the farm woodland scheme. Of course the Bill has not yet gone through the House, but I should like to look at his question relating to what can be charged against the farmer's own business before giving a categorical assurance.

My Lords, I wish the Minister a very happy Easter. May I ask him whether when he returns to the Borders, where he will spend Easter, he will meet his neighbours who are active foresters and consult with them as to the devastating impact of these tax changes?

My Lords, I shall be delighted to meet my neighbours. I meet them on many occasions. It will not surprise the noble Lord to know that trees are fairly well up the agenda in my discussions with them. However, I am not persuaded that what he has said is true. In my discussions, many people—and indeed many Members on opposite Benches—have asked for changes to take place. That has now happened. I wish the noble Lord a very good Easter. As I have said to him, I think—like one of the Liberal Prime Ministers from the past—we shall have to wait and see.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the fact we have to spend our Easter and other vacations without pay, whereas the other place pays its Members for every day of the year?

My Lords, I am not sure that I am responsible for answering that sort of question.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.

My Lords, perhaps I may express my appreciation to the Offices Committee for granting both the European Communities Committee and the Science and Technology Committee an additional part-time specialist assistant for a period of two years. The amount of work that our clerks get through on our behalf is amazing. If by any chance the House thinks that we are being over-indulged let me say that I was subjected to a rigorous cross-examination by the Leader of the House on the need for those clerks. Since I see that the next item refers to the Parliament Office, I should like to put on record again how much we owe to the Clerks of the House.

My Lords, I hope that I am in order in wishing to thank Mr. Grey, who is leaving us. In my experience he has certainly been most helpful and kind to Members who have questions to table. I should like him to know how much that has been appreciated.

Hear! Hear!

My Lords, perhaps I may first of all thank the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It was his persuasive speech, together with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, which impressed us so much that we agreed the additional post of Committee Specialist Assistant available for both the committees.

I am sure that Mr. Grey will have heard with gratitude what the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, said and I am sure that it is felt throughout the House.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Duchy of Lancaster Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.

rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 9th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee.]

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for taking part in the annual Lord Chancellor's quartet in regard to the provision of legal aid. It is not announced to the sound of music or even a fanfare of trumpets—and perhaps the latter would not be abundantly justified in view of the modesty of the increases that are permitted. However, for what we are about to receive we are nevertheless grateful.

I note that this year the Scottish regulations come into force not, as was the case last year, on All Fools' Day but on a later day. I do not know whether that was a deliberate exercise of discretion on the part of the noble and learned Lord, but what is more important is the assurance—and I speak not with a Scottish voice since I am not entitled to claim one—that the regulations for Scotland are the same as for England and Wales.

As I think the noble and learned Lord said, the purpose of legal aid is to put the assisted litigant in the same position as the unassisted litigant as regards accessibility to the courts. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he thinks that that object is being and will be achieved following these modest improvements. One is speaking of the odd pound here and there, but perhaps that is not unimportant in this matter. Can the noble and learned Lord give an indication as to what percentage of the population is now covered by the legal aid and advice scheme so far as it is possible to make a shot at that estimate?

In this Session we have had substantial debates on the legal aid scheme generally and the restructuring of the whole of the legal aid machinery. I shall resist the temptation to resurrect some of the issues in that field, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not forget the expressions of concern that legal aid should not become an inadequate second-class service. This is not the occasion on which to resurrect those anxieties, but I mention them because they are still present in the minds of many who have been taking part in these matters. If it is possible for the noble and learned Lord to say how many of our fellow citizens have benefited in the past year, 1987, from the legal aid provisions, it would be of interest but it may not be easy for him to obtain that information. However, if would be good to know to what extent this notable social service, which I believe it is, is playing its part in the life of our community.

I did not recover the rules regarding criminal legal aid and I do not know whether they are available. Certainly I did not find that they were available to me. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will say whether they are separately treated by some published regulations. Perhaps he would look into that matter.

We shall have to examine what the noble and learned Lord said about the duty solicitor scheme. So far as I could understand, it seemed to be a beneficial and helpful suggestion.

Generally speaking we welcome the changes. However, we await, I hope with patience, the publication of the various, indeed multitudinous, regulations which fall for publication in the restructing of the legal aid scheme. We hope that they will be published and available fairly soon. That point does not directly arise from today's business but it is a matter of continuing concern to us all. Subject to those observations, we welcome these improvements in the scheme so far as they go.

My Lords, any adjustment in the financial eligibility for legal aid needs careful scrutiny. The upper financial limits should remind us that legal aid is a service not just for the poor but also for those of moderate means—people who pay taxes and who will expect to make an assessed contribution to the legal aid fund. We should also remember the force of the statement in the report of the Royal Commission on Legal Services under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Benson, in which it is said that an upper limit of eligibility is inevitably arbitrary and may operate unfairly on persons who fall just above the line. People in that marginal position may be forced to abandon their legal rights, and in personal injury cases in particular it can mean that instead of recovering the damages to which they would be entitled, they become a burden upon the state and upon other taxpayers.

The lesson surely must be that the limits should be regularly up-rated and up-rated properly with reliable information and consistent criteria. If that does not happen, there will be an erratic narrowing of eligibility such as has happened in past years. However, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, has said, we are in a transitional period. I am conscious of the fact that we may be rearranging the furniture of the legal aid system when the removal van is already taking the whole structure to new premises under new management by the Legal Aid Board. Indeed, I am also reminded by reading the Benson Report again that there was a recommendation that all eligibility limits should be abolished. I suspect that any government would find that hard to grasp, but perhaps it points the Legal Aid Board to a future consideration of how a measure of flexibility can be extended to those marginal cases in which hardship can be created.

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords who have spoken in connection with this matter. On the points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, I am sure that the Scots would regard his voice as sufficiently close to their own to be highly acceptable to them. In any event, I am certain that they would be glad of his eloquent support in any matter that was of concern to them.

The noble and learned Lord mentioned the criminal regulations. These are not before us today. However, I thought it right to mention them because this change that I have agreed to make to the duty solicitor scheme—which is very important—in my view is highly advantageous and highly proper. People who are assisting the police with their inquiries in relation to arrestable offences should be treated in the same way for this purpose as people who are charged with arrestable offences. I was persuaded that it was right to make that change. I believe that it is highly beneficial. I wish to emphasise it. If I did not explain the position sufficiently clearly the first time, I am sorry, but it is an important change. I wish to make it clear now.

Various estimates have been attempted of the coverage of legal aid. The noble and learned Lord will appreciate that these estimates are at the very best highly dubious. The last estimate the Government published was in the White Paper, where it was estimated that approximately 70 per cent. of households were eligible for legal aid. In the course of the proceedings on the Bill, I expressed considerable reservations about the validity of these figures. I see that others have joined me.

It is not surprising that in this area there is scope for a good deal of variety in the estimates. In order to obtain good figures a great deal more work would be required than I have seen. I should therefore not presume to give any estimate of my own. I understand that, in 1986–87, 253,328 civil legal aid certificates were granted. That gives an impression of the coverage with regard to civil legal aid. On criminal legal aid, I do not have an accurate figure available to me.

The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised the question of the upper limit. I have always considered that to be very important. If one has a limit the people immediately above it are bound to feel it is a pity that they are just above the limit—that with a few less pounds they would have been all right. However, unless one is going to make the coverage complete, that is bound to be a feature.

As the noble Lord hinted, any government would be likely to find it rather hard to make a complete coverage of all the population by legal aid. Indeed, the purpose clause which your Lordships were kind enough to affirm in the Legal Aid Bill before it passed this House speaks of people of small and moderate means and does not aim at a complete coverage of the population.

These regulations cover the position adequately in the present situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, said, the Bill which was passed here is now in the other place. I hope that a major improvement will result in the administrative efficiency of the legal aid scheme once the Legal Aid Board is in operation.

In the meantime, I am glad of the support that your Lordships have given for this up-rating.

rose to move, That the regulations laid before the House on 9th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

rose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 17th March be approved [20th Report from the Joint Committee].

moved Amendment No. 1:

My Lords, after declaring my usual interest, I strongly support this amendment from the point of view of the consumer interest and common sense. It is becoming increasingly the practice for shops to open at 8 o'clock a.m. at busy periods, for example on Saturday morning. Without the amendment customers who are in the shop to purchase groceries and perishable goods will be unable to purchase alcoholic beverages at the same time. Instead shoppers are forced to wait around the premises until the off-licence of the shop is opened or are forced to make a second visit to the store. This is an obvious inconvenience to the shopper who finds it difficult to understand.

This minor extension of licensing hours to bring them into line with what is now a growing shop practice will be welcome both by the public and the trade.

My Lords, I also rise to support the amendment. It seems to me that when shops, stores or any retail outlets are open, everything that is available inside those stores should be for sale. To have certain items available only at certain times is quite illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

I take issue with only one small point in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton. He said that the amendment would diminish the need for shops or stores to open on Sunday. Quite the contrary. We shall be moving forward in due course to Sunday opening once again, but I appreciate that that is quite another issue.

My Lords, I see that this amendment has very strong support from the three previous speakers, but I still wonder about the logic which is that in supermarkets which open at 8 a.m. the time of the sale of alcohol should coincide. The noble Lord, Lord Montgomery, just said that it seemed quite right that all products sold in a shop should be available while it is open. How would he feel about those shops which open before 8 o'clock? Would he say that the sale of alcohol should be permissible from 7 o'clock in the morning and so on? Indeed the noble Earl, Lord Arran, at Committee stage said that perhaps shops would like to be able to sell alcohol from 7 a.m. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in response to that.

I feel that from two points of view this amendment would be yet another liberalisation, though I know it is a small one, and yet another outlet for the sale of alcohol. Also, there seems to be a lack of logic that it would not apply to shops that open before 8 o'clock. I believe that there is a weakness there.

My Lords, as one who was a complete teetotaller for 40 years but who has now fallen from grace, I should like to support this amendment. I think that the whole House will support the amendment without feeling that they have done anything wrong or unsociable.

My Lords, the whole House does not support the amendment. I do not support the amendment, as I did not in the Committee stage. The argument of the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, seemed to me to diminish the arguments of my noble friend. My noble friend had the earnest worker starting work at 8 o'clock in the morning and having to go to work without his bottle of claret. Now the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, says "Oh no, it is Saturday mornings, the busy mornings when the people who nip in to be the first in line at the check-out want to get away". It will take them a quarter of an hour to choose their other goods and then they would have to wait perhaps another quarter of an hour to buy their alcohol. That is perhaps inevitable, but I think it is a very sad indication of the way we are going in this country.

My Lords, I do not think that we want to start off with difficulties. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, says that the whole House will support the amendment, and his noble friend Lord Ardwick says that the whole House will not support it. That makes life very complicated.

The noble Lord, Lord Graham, raised this matter at Committee stage. My noble friend Lord Arran said that he was not persuaded that the present restrictions on the opening hours of off-licenses were such a serious impediment to trade as to justify altering the licensing hours so that they began at 8 a.m. Since then I have had an opportunity to study more carefully the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Graham.

The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said at Committee stage that her noble friend's argument was logical, that his explanation made sense, but to be fair to her she said that she did not support it. Indeed, to be equally fair to her, today she said that she did not think it was logical. The spirit behind the Bill is one of removing unnecessary and outdated restrictions, provided that in doing so we do not put into jeopardy other citizens' legitimate rights to go about their business, indeed their lives, without undue disturbance.

On reflection the proposed amendment seems to me to be in keeping with that spirit. Changing work patterns and life-styles result in people needing to do their shopping early in the morning or after work in the evening, and the supermarkets have sought to cater for those needs with the result that many of them now open at 8 o'clock in the morning until 7 or 8 at night. The vast majority of shoppers who will purchase alcohol at this early time will simply be buying what they would normally buy, but at a time which they find more convenient.

There must be a cut-off point in any licensing restriction, and to some extent that must always be arbitrary. The fact that there is a degree of arbitrariness does not mean that we should take a rigid or inflexible view in deciding where the cut-off point should be. If we accept that an 8 a.m. start to the off-licence day is acceptable then, as the noble Baroness points out, there will still be a number of premises which open even earlier and which will not be accommodated. However, I do not believe that that means that we should be detracted from the validity of an 8 a.m. start.

This is a pretty modest amendment and I have been persuaded that it strikes the right balance between catering for changing shopping needs and presenting undue early morning disturbances. I am happy to accept the amendment.

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reflections and his acceptance of the amendment. I take the matter seriously although it is not a matter of life and death. It would not be of great importance if the amendment was moved and not carried. If the amendment is put to the House and the vote is lost there would be no great outcry. The amendment is moved in the sense that the Bill presents an opportunity to attempt to rationalise an ongoing situation. My noble friend Lord Ardwick misunderstood what I had said. I was not arguing that the extra half an hour would be used by people buying their drink earlier in order that they could consume it earlier. It is for the convenience of the ordinary shopper. I was making a case for the consumer who, having entered the store at 8 a.m., is confounded by his inability at being able to leave by 8.20 a.m. having purchased his goods. I am saying that we should look at that matter.

My noble friend Lady Ewart-Biggs pointed out the fact that certain shops open before 7 o'clock. The Retail Consortium represents 90 per cent. of the trade and it confirms that more goods are being obtained from the larger stores whose pattern is to open at 8 a.m. If the argument is put forward that that may change, then we must look at the law yet again.

I am grateful to the Minister for accepting the amendment. I hope that the House will also accept it in the spirit of reasonableness and reality.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 2, line 1, leave out ("five") and insert ("six")

My Lords, I shall be interested to hear the Minister's response to this amendment. I think that the parity with licensed premises, as described by the noble Lord, is very important. He pointed out the growing tendency to eat out at lunchtime, when people like to use their clubs. There is a more controlled environment within a club. Clubs are more used by local people who do not go there in a car and therefore the danger of increasing drinking and driving does not exist. It would be a pity if club members went to their club only to find it closed and were then compelled to move on to a public house with expanded opening hours. I should like to support the noble Lord's amendment.

My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill your Lordships chose to accept an amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. The effect of that will be to allow licensed premises to keep their bars open until 3 p.m. at Sunday lunchtime instead of closing at 2 p.m. as at present. This means that the total number of hours available to licensed premises will be 6½ hours instead of the present 5½ hours.

It is in the light of that amendment that my noble friend Lord Kaberry has tabled the present amendment. It seeks to restore parity between licensed premises and registered clubs in terms of the total number of hours permitted on Sundays. I can understand the logic of this amendment since pubs and clubs have long been permitted the same total number of hours. But we have to say that we are not persuaded that there is any force in the argument.

If I understood the mood of your Lordships' House at Committee stage correctly, I believe that the amendment of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls was accepted because it took account of a specific need relating to Sunday lunchtimes. The case for an additional hour reflected the tendency to lunch later on Sunday, that it would provide an opportunity for pubs which do not presently find it viable to do so to provide meals, and that it recognised the needs of families. We do not believe that the primary intention was to provide an opportunity for an extra hour of drinking on Sunday.

Clubs already have a measure of flexibility in deciding when to use the hours available to them on Sundays. They may already stay open until 3 p.m. if they choose to do so. Consequently the specific arguments about the need to cater for people's particular needs on Sunday lunchtimes do not apply to clubs. The provision of an additional hour for clubs will effectively amount to the provision of an additional hour for drinking with no obvious justification.

As we have repeatedly made clear, the Government do not intend to lift the restrictions on Sunday hours. We are not persuaded that a convincing special case has been made out for this amendment and we therefore cannot commend it.

My Lords, I am astonished by that answer. I cannot understand why the Government should accept the logic of the amendment and yet illogically oppose it.

My Lords, at an earlier stage the Committee agreed to an extra hour for pubs. There was no Division and the Government did not oppose that. Therefore, why do they oppose bringing clubs into line? The other place has a right to decide the matter when the Bill returns to them.

My Lords, I heard my noble friend Lord Kaberry move the amendment in terms which I thought were completely compelling. I am surprised that the Government have not felt it right to accept the logic of the matter. I have listened to my noble friend's argument from the Front Bench and I am bound to say that the conclusion which he reached caused me some surprise. I hope that the Minister will, even at this point, give an undertaking to look again at the arguments. I hold an inter-affiliation card, in the way that my noble friend Lord Kaberry indicated. I cannot claim to use it very often but the logic of having the same hours for pubs and clubs seems to me to be absolutely irrefutable.

My Lords, the experience of licensing legislation is that whenever one gives an inch, the temperance lobby wants two inches. This is the same process. If a concession is given, it creates an anomaly, it does not go far enough or there is something wrong with it until there is a further increase.

We are discussing the hours during which people may indulge their addiction in alcohol; that is what we are talking about. I understood that addiction to alcohol can be very dangerous. The contradictions about this Bill and the amendment before the House at present and the anxieties about alcoholic excess are apparent all the time. I said at Second Reading that we ought to be looking at the curtailment of opportunities for doing this and not extending them. I support the Government.

My Lords, I should like to assure the Minister that I welcomed what he said. He put into words the misgivings or hesitations which I had and I believe that those misgivings deserve to be expressed a little more fully. They concern the familiar point about the English Sunday and there is some danger that it will be trickled away and eroded. Not long ago we had the legislation concerning off-course betting on Sundays. We now have another detailed proposal. Details work cumulatively and surely the whole question of the nature of the English Sunday and its observance deserves to be looked at in its own right.

I know that important and weighty considerations can apply and I have heard persuasive arguments during the course of the debate on this amendment, however, I believe the better way to deal with this matter is to wait until the detailed matter can be subsumed under the larger subject of observance of Sunday rather than deal with it as a side issue.

My Lords, I am glad that the Government have taken this view. I spoke earlier about the reasons why this 2 o'clock limit was laid. It seemed illogical that while everywhere closed at three on weekdays, they closed at two on Sundays. In the industrial areas the object was to get the men out of the pub and back around the dinner table for the family Sunday dinner. It was also to give the licensee—the small licensee with no staff and a family—a decent afternoon of leisure so that he might, for once in the week, go out in his car. I hope that that will be preserved and that the Government will stay firm in their intention to resist the amendment.

My Lords, I rise to disagree wholly with the noble Lord, Lord Ardwick. This matter was discussed in Committee. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kaberry, is quite right and I hope that he will pursue his amendment vigorously. Perhaps I may go back to what my noble friend Lord Arran said in Committee as my name was coupled with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls which was passed by the Committee. This matter touches on the need for us to move forward. The intention of many of those in favour of liberalisation was that Sunday should be the same day as every other day, which is wholly logical. However, as only one hour could be obtained that was the best we could do for the time being. However, it is wholly illogical. My noble friend Lord Rippon put his finger right on the button as usual when he said that the Government, having accepted the argument, would be proceeding very illogically if they did not allow this amendment to proceed.

My Lords, perhaps I may help the House, and I also remind noble Lords that we are proceeding a trifle out of order. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that when this Bill was discussed in Committee, the Government accepted the amendment to increase the pub hours from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock. The Government did not accept that. In Committee I explained very clearly that the Government had always decided that this Bill should not interfere with Sundays. However, a number of noble Lords considered that it would be appropriate for family reasons to allow the Sunday closing hour to be extended from 2 o'clock to 3 o'clock to enable people to enjoy their Sunday lunches. At that time I advised that the Government could not accept that proposal but your Lordships decided to do so. My noble friend Lord Kaberry now comes along, in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said. As soon as the door is opened someone tries to push it wider. My noble friend Lord Kaberry says that he now wants another hour for clubs. Clubs can open until 3 o'clock on Sundays. Therefore, to suggest that they should be allowed another hour means that they should be allowed another hour's drinking in the evening. That is against the point of the Government's Bill.

It was in order to endeavour to accommodate points such as the noble Lord, Lord Graham, reasonably made earlier regarding weekdays that we introduced this Bill to tidy up anomalies and not to run into Sunday and get everything confused. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester was very fair, if I may say so, in suggesting that the House should not accept this amendment because it would run into the problem of Sunday and that that day should be dealt with in a much wider context.

I believe that my noble friend Lord Kaberry is not being wholly fair if he tries to persuade the Government to accept this amendment, because the analogy we should consider is whether the clubs can be open at the same time as the pubs are for Sunday lunches. The Committee accepted that amendment for pubs but I hope that the House will not accept this amendment.

My Lords, to say that I am disappointed is to understate my feelings a million-fold. I sought to speak on behalf of 1½ million to 2 million club members around the country who hold pass cards or inter-affiliation cards which enable them to visit other clubs from time to time. It is that visiting time which is now granted for licensed premises to which the public at large can go which is denied to members of private clubs. Club members are just as worthy citizens as those who visit public houses.

I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think again on this matter and that he will have second thoughts from the point of view of parity between the two sides. I hope he will agree that it is grossly unfair that clubs should be denied the facilities that are granted in the Bill as it stands. No amendment has been tabled by the Government to delete what is apparently an offending paragraph in Clause 1. In the hope that wiser counsels may prevail, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

After Clause 1, insert the following clause:

My Lords, I support this amendment. However much some may regret it, the fact is that for some time Good Friday, which in the past was treated as a special day, is now by public and trade alike no longer so treated. Therefore, it is becoming increasingly anomalous that restricted hours for off-licences should be applied to this day.

My Lords, at the risk of being in a minority of one, or perhaps two with the presence of the right reverend Prelate, I must confess that I oppose this amendment.

For some time I have regretted the increasing disappearance of any desire to look upon Christian festivals as different in any way from the ordinary day. Sunday is merely looked upon now as the day when one does not have to go to work or to school. Christmas is regarded as a day when one must give one's children a lot of rather useless toys and as an opportunity to have an extremely good meal. Apart from that, the day has no significance.

In what I sincerely hope is still a Christian country, I cannot help regretting that tendency. I admit that the noble Lord's argument is completely logical but I suggest to him that logicality is not always the only argument.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Somers as strongly as I can. To a great many Christians, Good Friday is the most sacred and special day in the whole year and it is, as he said, distressing to see it abused in the way that it is now. Therefore, I very much hope that your Lordships will resist this amendment.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, for his kind reference to me just now. He spoke very persuasively in presenting his case on this amendment. I consider the amendment to be regrettable though hard to resist. We all know that Good Friday has long been a working day in some parts of the country, and increasingly stores are open on Good Friday. Given these facts, it would be difficult or repressive to try to prevent the purchase of alcohol on that day. I regard this amendment to be regrettable because I and many others consider much in the present observance of Good Friday to be regrettable. I shall be very much interested to learn of the Minister's views on this subject in due course.

My Lords, the purpose of this new amendment, which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has tabled, is to allow Good Friday to be treated like any other weekday for the purposes of the licensing hours as applied to off-licences and not to on-licences. It will not affect the hours on Good Friday for on-licence premises at all. On Sundays, Christmas Day and Good Friday off-licence premises are permitted to sell alcoholic drinks between 12 o'clock and 2 o'clock, and between 7 p.m. and 10.30 p.m. Off-licence premises can sell alcohol at present on Good Friday; but the hours during which alcohol as opposed to other goods can be sold is restricted.

The Shops Act allows shops to trade in normal goods on Good Friday in just the same way as on any other weekday. I can understand the restrictions which are imposed by the Licensing Act on licensed premises on that day. They can seem to be anomalous and unduly restrictive. The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, said that in Scotland alcohol can be bought all day on Good Friday. He uses that as a perfectly sound argument. I realise that for many people any relaxation of Good Friday hours is really just another assault on the decorum of what is a special Christian day. The Government have said that we do not intend this Bill to affect Sundays. I thought that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Manchester, was extraordinarily generous in his remarks because he might well have taken a contrary view.

There is a dilemma. There is a distinction to be drawn between Good Friday and Sunday. For the purposes of trading, Good Friday is not the same as Sunday. Nevertheless, it is a special day. On Good Friday it is permitted to trade in alcohol. It is only the times at which this can be done which are restrictive. The Government take a neutral view on this matter. It is not Sunday; and it is a special day. I respect and understand both points of view.

My Lords, I apologise if I referred to the Bishop of Birmingham; I thought I had said the Bishop of Manchester. I meant to say the Bishop of Manchester.

No, you did not; you meant to say the Bishop of Newcastle.

My Lords, I am so sorry. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate. I am confused now not only by what I did not say, but also with what I was trying to conclude as regards the amendment.

The conclusion is that from the point of view of the Government we consider that Good Friday, though not a Sunday, is a special Christian day. It is not the purpose of this Bill to interfere with Sundays. There is an argument which the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has put forward very cogently about extending the hours. It is for your Lordships to decide whether or not you wish to accept that.

My Lords, I am grateful for the courtesy and care with which the Minister has made his remarks. I am not going to press this amendment to a vote because I am well aware that what has been said here can clearly put this matter in a wider context. All noble Lords who have spoken and commented upon my remarks have quite fairly pointed out that logic is on my side. I am very much taken by what the noble Lord, Lord Somers, said. Logicality is not the only matter that has to be considered regarding these issues. I am very much minded of the way in which not only the right reverend Prelate but others have alluded to the totality of the argument that one day will have to be joined about the whole rationale of our life on Sunday.

Many of those opposed to this amendment have said that they do not object to alcohol being sold but that they object to shops being open on Good Friday or Christmas Day. I can see the logic of that argument. However, this is the reality; namely, that the shops are open. There is an anomaly here in the shops being open; and then inside the shop there is the anomaly in what can and cannot be sold. What my amendment has sought to do is to remove at least that anomaly. I would blanch at the prospect of having to go back and change the whole pattern of consumer expenditure and demand.

With the differences between Scottish law and English law on Sunday; and between Scottish law and English law on the sale of alcohol and licensing hours, all those questions have to be tidied up at some stage in the future. I am satisfied that the case I have made has some good sense. The case will be deployed even more strongly at a later date. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

After Clause 9. insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment as I did to the similar amendment that we moved in Committee. I cannot add very much to what the noble Viscount has already said except to stress again that the previous amendment had powerful support from all sides of the House. The major argument put forward by the Minister was that there were few such premises. He said that the total in 1986 was only 150. From my personal knowledge I know that two or three have come into being since 1986. If I have such knowledge I cannot help feeling that the number may well have increased in the past two years more than one would have thought.

The Minister also argued that he did not share the view that the sale of alcohol in shops attached to garages will incite people to drink and drive. He said that in the vast majority of cases people will purchase alcohol in order to consume it when their journeys are over and not en route. That may well be the case, but why offer this handy opportunity to buy drink when it is not totally necessary?

I should like to stress again what the noble Viscount said in moving the amendment. It is the message that is important. Surely alcohol and driving is a mis-match. Everything that has been done by the Secretary of State for Transport over recent months has been geared to driving that message home. Surely the licensing of garages undermines the message, which is that if you drink do not drive, and if you drive do not drink. I hope that the House will give its support to the amendment and I hope that the Minister will as well.

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister is aware that this amendment is supported by noble Lords on all sides of the House, although, unfortunately, the noble Viscount, Lord Falkland, who spoke so eloquently in Committee is unable to be here today. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Brentford, for putting the case so ably and well.

I did not come to the House yesterday because I decided to ask what we call "the general public" for their views on this amendment. I went round my local town and apprehended 15 people of all ages and both sexes. I asked them whether they thought that garages should be given a licence to sell alcoholic drinks. Every single person said, no. They added the rider that alcohol was far too freely available now and that to add another dimension of being able to buy alcohol en route when one is driving would be very detrimental.

I tried to explain my strong views on this matter in Committee and I do not think that a long speech at Report stage is called for. I feel strongly that it is an added incitement to people to take a can off the shelf, as the noble Baroness has said, or to buy a bottle of gin. On the other hand, if they have to park their car (or their motorcycle, which is perhaps more likely) and go into a store to buy alcoholic liquid that is a different matter. Like the people I spoke to yesterday, I believe that too many places are able to sell alcoholic refreshment. To be able to add garages to that list is wrong in principle.

My Lords, in the ordinary way I have spoken consistently in past debates in favour of liberation. This amendment is a restrictive one. However, there are some rather special circumstances.

Much reference has been made in our debates, today and on previous occasions, to logic. As regards logic it is unreasonable to suppose that everybody on the road who goes into a gas station to fill up and may buy alcohol will immediately become a raving homicidal maniac. That is totally illogical. On the other hand, this country and the Government have been engaged in an enormous campaign to restrict drinking and driving and they have been doing all in their power to move that campaign forward. As many noble Lords have said, there is a total mismatch between drinking and driving. In those circumstances the most telling argument produced by my noble friend Lord Brentford was the psychological one. How can it be that we are engaged in a major campaign and at the same time selling alcohol at petrol stations? That is the telling argument. There will not be a large number of garages involved. The psychological argument has the most impact today.

My Lords, in the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Falkland, may I add my support for the amendment? I hope that the noble Viscount will take the amendment all the way.

My Lords, I am sorry to disagree with the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, on this occasion, as I usually agree with him on matters touching upon licensing. I had not seen the amendment before today, and I have not had the time to study it in depth. It seems to me to go a little too far. If the amendment confined itself to preventing garages from selling spirits or fortified wines, or even ordinary table wines, one could not have any objection. One frequently wants to buy a can of lager or cider to have with a picnic when driving for a long distance. What on earth is wrong with that? No one can seriously argue that a can of ordinary strength lager (3 per cent.) can make one more accident prone. One would have to be of a curious disposition for that to be the case.

I do not know whether it is technically possible, but if the amendment could be redrafted and brought back at the next stage, confined to limiting the sale of stronger alcoholic drinks, that would be acceptable. It is not acceptable to me as it is at present.

My Lords, it depends upon how many cans of lager or other beer one has, does it not?

My Lords, with the leave of the House, for various obvious reasons, most ordinary people do not drink several cans of lager while driving long distances.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Brentford seeks to introduce a new clause to ban the sale of alcohol by garages whose primary business is the sale of petrol or the maintenance or sale of cars. My noble friend Lady Macleod said that she was very much in favour of the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, said that we should adopt the principle, "If you drink, you do not drive; if you drive, you do not drink". That is a good policy to adopt, but I do not think it is relevant to the amendment.

I can understand noble Lords feeling that it must be wrong to allow alcohol and driving to be associated in any way. However, there is no evidence that where alcohol is sold at garages it encourages people to drink and drive. Most garages with a licence will also sell other groceries and their customers use such premises in the way other shoppers use out-of-town supermarkets; they are a convenient place to purchase alcohol which will be consumed at the end of the journey or at some other time. I find it hard to believe that your Lordships believe that people go to a garage, buy some spirits, drink them and then drive off. That is wholly unrealistic.

My noble friend Lord Arran explained in Committee that the police are able to oppose applications from garages for a licence where they feel that the sale of alcohol from such premises may give rise to customers drinking and driving. Justices would normally respect that view in such cases. It is the opinion of the Association of Chief Police Officers and of the Magistrates' Association that that system provides an effective control whilst allowing the justices discretion to take into account all the local factors, including the availability of other off-licensed outlets in the area. If any licensed garage should give rise to difficulties, it will be open to the justices, using their new powers contained in Clause II of the Bill, to revoke its licence.

My noble friend Lord Brentford said that the only premises which are currently disqualified from holding a licence are motorway service stations. He said that he could not see any difference. There is a difference. Those premises provide an opportunity for motorists to rest and to take refreshment, and there is a real risk that the provision of alcoholic drinks there could encourage some drivers to drink and drive. But one does not rest at garages. They are not normally parking places. With respect to my noble friend the two are different.

Of the 150 or so licensed garages, the majority are in rural areas. When the department sought details of the numbers of licences granted to garages in 1986, it emerged that over half were to be found in the four counties of Devon, Cornwall, Norfolk and Dyfed. That should not be interpreted as those counties having people most likely to be inebriated. It merely serves to illustrate the point that I tried to make, that in rural districts, in particular, there is a need for garages to meet customers' various needs, not simply the supply of petrol. For those reasons, I hope that my noble friend will agree that it is inappropriate to insert this clause into the Bill.

My Lords, I am disappointed by my noble friend's reply. He does not seem to have answered the point put by my noble friend Lord Montgomery about the psychological impact of the Government permitting garages to sell alcohol. As he said, I believe that that is the most important point and that it undermines the Government's whole case for discouraging drinking and driving.

If we in Parliament approve of justices licensing garages to sell alcohol, we are doing two different things with our two hands. That is unacceptable. It is not what we should approve. My noble friend the Minister said that the garages are largely in rural areas. I do not know the town of Llanelli, which featured in Monday's press, but it has three garages all of which are entitled to sell alcohol. I therefore do not believe that it can be a very rural town.

In view of your Lordships' support for the amendment, I do not propose to withdraw it. I wish to put it to the vote.

moved Amendment No. 5:

After Clause 12, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I support this amendment covering the transfer of a justices' off-licence because it would be particularly helpful for multiple companies faced with changes of personnel from one store to another. Although in law the licence is held in the name of the individual, it is run for the company and in accordance with the company's methods and instructions. The inclusion of this amendment would considerably ease the administrative burden on the courts and the police without in any sense reducing the real level of control exercised by the police and the magistrates. It does not reduce the opportunity for the police to object, and in the case of any objections a personal appearance would be necessary. This is a technical amendment which would generally help in my opinion in the administration of the law.

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, has explained very fairly his amendment and I am grateful to him for doing so. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, has supported it and has said that it would ease the position of the courts and of firms. I understand that position but I do think that the transfer of a licence is in many ways analogous to the grant of a new licence and to that extent I think it is important that licensing justices should retain the right to ask applicants to appear before them. This means that they can then retain a clear picture of who holds licences in their area which in itself is an important aspect of maintaining a proper control over all licensed premises in the district.

I realise however that larger retail companies can find that onerous and irksome. The nature of their stores does not vary greatly and they ensure that their licensees are well trained and are fit to hold a licence.

When the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, first put his proposal to us in Committee, my noble friend Lord Arran explained that we could not accept it, in part because some transfer applications give rise to serious considerations about an applicant's fitness to take on new responsibility.

I realise that the noble Lord. Lord Graham, has altered his amendment and has tried to tie it more closely to the needs of large retailers where stores will be run on similar lines with similar degrees of responsibility.

But even as now drafted the amendment will cover a person who may have a been a small, independent off-licence holder, who has a clean licence but who changes his job possibly to join a large multiple retailer. I think it is reasonable and desirable that licensing justices should be able to question this man especially if he is new to the district and unknown to the justices.

It is important to realise—the noble Lord, Lord Graham, quite rightly drew attention to this fact—that the law as it stands does not compel the attendance of a transfer applicant. Licensing justices know that licensees are very busy people, but I think that it is right that licensing justices should continue to have that right even if they need not exercise it.

The fact that many licensing committees call most transfer applicants reflects the importance which licensing justices themselves attach to the transfer proceedings. I understand the problem which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has very fairly put, but I think that it would be better to leave the licensing justices with this right.

My Lords, I am disappointed with what the Minister has said. In effect, he acknowledges that I have arguments; but with great respect to him, he chooses to ignore them. The Minister is saying that there is no difference between a new applicant and an application for a transfer: that is that a person who has not previously held a licence and about whom nothing is known presents the same situation as someone who has held a licence for five years with an unblemished record and against whom the police, having made investigations, have no objection. I believe there is a difference there.

The point that the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, made, is absolutely right. If there is any question of someone who has been a licence-holder for five years in a weak environment and who seeks to move to a larger perhaps more troublesome store having an objection raised against him that is the end of the matter. This amendment would not be applicable to such a person.

We are not anxious, and I am not anxious, to have a situation where a person who is unfit by all the measuring rods to be the manager of a large store obtains a licence and, because he is unfit to hold a licence, is unable to manage the store efficiently and effectively. That not only causes trouble in the community, but also trouble to his company. I believe that all large stores without exception are very jealous about their reputation and about the protection of their employees. They would not lightly be party to a situation that brought them into disrepute.

The noble Earl told the House that many justices do call applicants. That may very well be true. Besides what the Minister has been told, I shall repeat what I have been told, and I shall name names. Tesco has said that of 146 applications which it made to transfer a licence from one of its employees to another, in more than 100 cases the applicants were not called. That is the reality. It is obviously different from the experience of the Home Office. I respect that. However, that is what it is like in the real world. Because of that, such businesses are saying that it is reasonable to obviate that situation.

The Minister was present and listened to our Second Reading debate. When I made the same point and suggested that I would move the amendment, I said that the views of the police and magistracy would be very helpful. The Minister has given us his views and the views of those advising him. Before I decide how to proceed on the amendment, perhaps he can tell me whether the views of the police and the magistracy have been sought. Is his view reinforced by their reactions to these matters? If I am told that the police and the magistracy object to it, I shall have second thoughts about pursuing the matter. If they have been asked about the matter and have said that they are benign towards it or welcome it, that puts a different gloss on the whole question. I am very conscious that we do not wish to make a situation which needs to be watched even more difficult. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would respond.

My Lords, perhaps with the leave of the House I may make one further intervention. In considering the Bill, a large number of organisations were consulted including the police and magistrates. It would not be correct for me to give the impression to the noble Lord that they were both specifically questioned about his amendment. However, they have been concerned in all parts of the Bill.

My Lords, I well understand that as regards a clean sheet the views of the police would be sought in the consultative processes that have taken place between the Minister, his advisers and others. However, were their views sought on every amendment and on specific amendments? I think that it is still possible for the Minister to reflect on what the amendment tries to do. If he is seeking to provide justices with the opportunity to review every transferee and transferor, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. I do not ask him for a commitment. But between today and the next stage of the Bill perhaps he can seek the views of those who I have mentioned and who have a very real locus in the matter—the police and the licensing justices. In the meantime I shall beg leave to withdraw the amendment and perhaps return to it in another form at a later stage.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Before Clause 18, insert the following new clause:

My Lords, I rise to support the case that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Both at the beginning and at the end of his speech he quite rightly said that this is very largely a technical matter. I listened with great respect to the Minister when he argued on technical grounds about this amendment. As I understand what the noble Lord has said, this is an attempt to make it easier for alcohol-free or reduced alcohol content drinks to be not only produced but produced more easily.

Because of my preparation for other amendments, I happen to have a copy of the report of the Working Group on Young People and Alcohol which was chaired by our highly respected Member, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. One of the recommendations in the report says:

"We call upon the alcoholic drinks industry to build upon its existing work against alcohol abuse by providing the resources to set up a wide range of alcohol-free facilities in co-operation with local agencies and the community, and to evaluate their effectiveness".

In the summary, the report talks in terms that,

"Alternative facilities for young people are one means of attracting them away from under-age drinking and alcohol abuse".

Those are the words of a ministerial working group. I certainly subscribe 101 per cent. to what has been said by our highly respected colleagues.

I listened to what was said. If the purpose is the advancement of what we want—namely, the discouragement of the drinking of alcohol by under age and young people—and, if this measure will aid and abet that, I am all for it.

My Lords, I cannot claim to have followed the technical presentation of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but I very much enjoyed his explanation. I understand that the confusion arises from the modern process of producing non- or very low-alcohol beer from which the alcohol content has been extracted. As my noble friend Lord Graham said, I understand the purpose is to remove the confusion and restrictions concerning the availability of low-alcohol or non-alcoholic beer to the public. Surely that must be beneficial. Moreover, perhaps I may mention that the Government gave a very strong indication that they supported that objective when in the Budget they lowered the taxation on low-alcohol drinks. I think that should be borne in mind in considering the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.

As my noble friend Lord Graham said, this is supported by the committe chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, as something which will help to prevent young people from drinking alcoholic drinks. I hope that the Minister will look favourably at this amendment.

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend Lord Lucas, who has moved this amendment very comprehensively. It is a technical matter but I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, need not be unduly worried. Throughout this legislation she has been concerned about alcohol abuse and quite rightly. By and large, alcohol is measured as a percentage of net pure alcohol by volume, whereas some of the archaic methods to which my noble friend referred go back to the measurement by fermentation and gravity in which sugar is re-added in order to give some substance and body so that it is palatable.

The whole purpose of the Government's legislation, and, as the noble Baroness has mentioned, the thrust of recent tax adjustments, has been to encourage the sale of low-alcohol or nonalcoholic beverages. Those non-alcoholic beverages must be considered as soft drinks, which the alcohol abuse lobby is trying to encourage. Therefore it must stand to reason that if there are archaic pieces of legislation that still measure the alcohol strength or gravity of the product which has been created by sugar, that is not only incorrect but irrelevant.

I like to think that we should be removing that anomaly. I hope that the Government will be able to support my noble friend's amendment, because it seems to be to be in the spirit of what they are trying to achieve on the social front.

My Lords, I too should like to support this amendment. For reasons of health and safety, if not revenue, the Government would like the public to switch from high-alcohol drinks to low-alcohol drinks. People will only do so if the latter can be made more palatable. If this amendment can help to make low-alcohol and non-acoholic beers and lagers more palatable, it can only benefit the nation as a whole.

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lucas gave warning at Committee stage that he would try again to amend the definition of intoxicating liquor found in Section 201 of the Licensing Act 1964 so as to exempt from licensing controls the sale of low-alcohol and no-alcohol beers and wines. The intended effect of the present amendment is the same as the amendment that was before us at Committee stage, although it approaches the problem from a slightly different angle.

We can accept the logic of my noble friend's argument. He is seeking to make sure that the licensing regime only covers drinks which are clearly alcoholic, leaving other products to be sold without restriction. From a strictly legal or technical point of view, it makes sense to deal with products solely according to whether or not they are alcoholic.

But there are, I think, wider considerations which cannot be left out of this argument. There seems little doubt that if we removed these drinks from the control of the Licensing Act altogether, manufacturers would seek to sell them from a much wider range of outlets and as a result could exploit the youth market.

It seems to us that there is a considerable danger that, by encouraging children to drink these products, we shall be developing their taste for beer and wine at an all too early stage in their lives. The habit of drinking will be formed and the progression to the alcoholic varieties will inevitably follow. Such a move may give rise to serious long-term consequences which will outweigh the technical benefits this amendment may bring.

The amendment represents a significant change. We do not, of course, wish to discourage the drinking of low-alcohol drinks by adults; but we think that we have other ways of providing incentives for them. We do, however, think it would be wrong to encourage the young to start drinking beer of any kind. In those circumstances, we cannot accept the amendment.

My Lords, I admit that the amendment is the same one as I moved previously although I have taken a slightly different angle. I apologise for any inadequacy in my explanation at Committee stage, which has meant that I have taken a rather longer time this afternoon amplifying my intention. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Graham. I confirm that the purport of the amendment is to encourage manufacturers to invest the considerable sums of money required to produce low alcohol and alcohol-free products which taste and smell like beer, so some people tell me. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having quoted the passage from the Masham Committee report.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs, who reminded your Lordships that in his Budget proposals the Chancellor made certain changes, much welcomed by the industry, designed to encourage the further production of these products. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was extremely helpful, as was my noble friend Lord Montgomery.

I hope my noble friend Lord Arran will forgive me when I say that his reply was just about the poorest explanation for the rejection of an amendment that I have heard from the Front Bench since the beginning of this Session. It demonstrates to me—I do not know whether noble Lords feel the same—the possession of a puritanical mind absorbed by the necessity for ensuring that no under-18-year-old should get a whiff of the barmaid's apron. Dear, oh dear, the practical reality is very different!

Since the soft drinks manufacturers, such as Cadbury-Schweppes, Corona or Tizer, can produce synthetically a drink that smells and tastes like beer, why deny the legitimate industry that has very many more outlets the opportunity for doing precisely what the Government and their advisory bodies want?

My noble friend the Minister has produced a non-answer. I believe that the strength of support around the House may demonstrate to him that he ought to think again. I shall give him that opportunity. I ask him to think again about these matters between now and the next stage of the Bill when I shall return to the subject. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 21, line 24, after ("words") insert (" "half-past" and").

My Lords, before the Question is put, perhaps it might not be inappropriate, as this is the last amendment with which we are to deal in the Bill and this is our last business before we go away for Easter, for me to wish not only your Lordships but everyone associated with this building a happy Easter. Those wishes go not only to noble Lords but as much to the staff, the staff whom we see and the other staff whom we do not always see, but on whom rests with equal seriousness the responsibility of running the House.

I fear that in going away for Easter it may not be a fixed Easter, but I hope that we all enjoy the happy Easter spirit. Those modestly irresponsible attitudes that always accompany an impending Recess, have overtaken your Lordships today on one occasion and ensured that an amendment was passed against the Government's advice. Despite that, I wish your Lordships and all the staff a happy Easter.

My Lords, at this point I should like to respond and say how warmly we on these Benches endorse those remarks, particularly as regards the staff. We are very conscious of the efficient and willing support that we receive from staff in all quarters of the House. We hope that they will have a relaxed and cheerful Easter and will enjoy their rest.

Perhaps it is not inappropriate to say that we hope that the Ministers opposite will also enjoy a happy and relaxed Easter and will come back feeling generous. A happy Easter to all from these Benches.

My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the seasonal wishes which have come from the noble Earl and the noble Baroness. In this House we are protected, serviced and refreshed by a host of people, some of whom, as the noble Earl said, we never see. We are most grateful to every one of them. I hope that they as well as your Lordships will have a very enjoyable Easter.

My Lords, from the Cross-Benches we also should like to join in the good wishes for the Easter Recess, and also to express our thanks to those, seen or unseen, who look after us all so well.